4.6 Article

Duodenal intraepithelial T lymphocytes in patients with functional dyspepsia

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 13, 期 16, 页码 2333-2338

出版社

BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v13.i16.2333

关键词

functional dyspepsia; Intraepithelial T lymphocytes; gut; CD95/Fas; HLA-DR

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AIM: To quantify the intraepithelial lymphocytes (IELs) and to document the membrane expression of CD4, CD8, TCR gamma delta and adhesion and/or activation-associated molecules (CD103, CD28, CD44, CD69, HLA-DR, CD95/Fas) in the duodenal mucosa of patients with functional dyspepsia (FD) in order to provide arguments for an immunological process in FD. METHODS: Twenty-six FD patients according to Rome 11 criteria (20 were H pylori negative) were studied and compared to 12 healthy adults. IELs were isolated from five duodenal biopsy samples, then quantified by microscopy and flow cytometry while the membrane phenotypes were determined by cytofluorometry. RESULTS: Duodenal histological examination was normal. In H pylori negative patients, the number of IELs was not different from that in healthy controls. Median percentage expression of CD4, CD8, or TCR gamma delta and CD103, CD44, CD28, CD69 on CD3+ IELs, among the adhesion/activation associated molecules tested, was not different from that in healthy controls. In contrast, the median percentage expression of CD95/Fas [22 (9-65) vs 45 (19-88), P = 0.03] and HLA-DR expressing CD3+ IELs [4 (0-30) vs 13 (4-42), P = 0.04] was significantly lower in the H pylori negative FD group than in healthy controls, respectively. The number of IELs was significantly greater in H pylori positive FD patients than in healthy controls [median ratio for 100 enterocytes 27.5 (6.7-62.5) vs 10.8 (3-33.3), P = 0.02] due to a higher number of CD8+ CD3+ IELs. CONCLUSION: In H pylori negative FD patients, the phenotypic characterization of IELs suggests that we cannot exclude a role of IELs in FD. (C) 2007 The WJG Press. All rights reserved.

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