4.6 Article

Diabetes in non-obese diabetic mice is not associated with quantitative changes in CD4+ CD25+ Foxp3+ regulatory T cells

期刊

IMMUNOLOGY
卷 121, 期 1, 页码 15-28

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2567.2007.02546.x

关键词

CD25; diabetes; Foxp3; non-obese diabetic (NOD) mice; regulatory T cells

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The role of regulatory T cells (Tregs) in maintaining self tolerance has been intensively researched and there is a growing consensus that a decline in Treg function is an important step towards the development of autoimmune diseases, including diabetes. Although we show here that CD25(+) cells delay diabetes onset in non-obese diabetic (NOD) mice, we found, in contrast to previous reports, neither an age-related decline nor a decline following onset of diabetes in the frequency of CD4(+) CD25(+) Foxp3(+) regulatory T cells. Furthermore, we demonstrate that CD4(+) CD25(+) cells from both the spleen and pancreatic draining lymph nodes of diabetic and non-diabetic NOD mice are able to suppress the proliferation of CD4(+) CD25(-) cells to a similar extent in vitro. We also found that pretreatment of NOD mice with anti-CD25 antibody allowed T cells with a known reactivity to islet antigen to proliferate more in the pancreatic draining lymph nodes of NOD mice, regardless of age. In addition, we demonstrated that onset of diabetes in NOD.scid mice is faster when recipients are co-administered splenocytes from diabetic NOD donors and anti-CD25. Finally, we found that although diabetic CD4(+) CD25(+) T cells are not as suppressive in cotransfers with effectors into NOD.scid recipients, this may not indicate a decline in Treg function in diabetic mice because over 10% of CD4(+) CD25(+) T cells are non-Foxp3 and the phenotype of the CD25(-) contaminating population significantly differs in non-diabetic and diabetic mice. This work questions whether onset of diabetes in NOD mice is associated with a decline in Treg function.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据