3.8 Article

Cell markers, cytokines, and immune parameters in cement mason apprentices

期刊

出版社

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/art.22483

关键词

autoimmunity; cytokines; quartz

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. Cement masons are known to have significant silica exposure, and silica exposure and silicosis are thought to increase risk of autuimmune disease. Because the mechanisms remain obscure, with inconclusive reports of systemic immune effects following silica exposure, our goal was to identify potential early markers of silica-related immunologic and respiratory effects. Methods. We conducted a cross-sectional study of cement mason apprentices and electrician (control) apprentices. Demographics, dust exposure history, symptoms, spirometry, exhaled nitric oxide, and blood (for immunoglobulins, cytokines, cell counts, and surface markers) were obtained from 11 cement mason apprentices and a comparison group of 21 electrician apprentices. Results. Masons had significantly higher (P < 0.05) masonry dust exposure (42 versus 9 dust-hour-years), serum interleukin-1 beta (IL-1 beta; 12 versus 9 pg/ml), IL-2 (20 versus 8 pg/ml), IL-4 (193 versus 67 pg/ml), IL-10 (44 versus 21 pg/ml), and interferon-gamma (139 versus 65 pg/ml) compared with electricians. In contrast, masons had significantly lower percentages of CD25+ (12% versus 20%) and CD69+ (4% versus 9%) lymphocytes. Conclusion. Mason apprentices had higher levels of serum proinflammatory cytokines and lower percentages of CD25+ and CD69+ lymphocytes than did electrician apprentices. These preliminary findings suggest that mason apprentices may he at greater risk of a systemic proinflammatory state that is potentially linked to immune dysregulation. Although distinct limitations of this preliminary data are recognized, this is consistent with early biologic effects leading to increased incidence of autoimmune disease among silica-exposed workers. Prospective studies are needed to validate these initial findings and clarify the temporal sequence of observed relationships.

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

3.8
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