4.5 Article

Nickel, cobalt, chromium, palladium and gold induce a mixed Th1- and Th2-type cytokine response in vitro in subjects with contact allergy to the respective metals

期刊

CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL IMMUNOLOGY
卷 146, 期 3, 页码 417-426

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2249.2006.03226.x

关键词

allergic contact dermatitis; cytokines; ELISA; ELISpot

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nickel (Ni), the main cause of contact allergy to metals, induces in vitro production of both Th1- and Th2-type cytokines in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) from allergic subjects. Because the knowledge of the cellular immune response to other metals involved in contact allergy has been limited, we investigated the cytokine profile induced by Ni, cobalt (Co), chromium (Cr), palladium (Pd) and gold (Au) in PBMC from patients with patch test reactivity to the respective metals. PBMC from patients with patch test reactivity to Ni, Co, Cr, Au and/or Pd (n = 31) and non-allergic controls (n = 5) were stimulated in vitro with corresponding metal salts. Th1- [interleukin (IL)-2 and interferon (IFN)-gamma] and Th2- (IL-4 and IL-13) type cytokine responses were measured by enzyme-linked immunospot (ELISpot) and/or enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). All metals induced a mixed Th1- and Th2-type cytokine production in PBMC from individual patients with patch test reactivity to the corresponding metal, but not in control PBMC. Significantly higher responses in the patient versus controls were found for Cr (IL-2 and IL-13), Pd (IL-2 and IL-4), Au (IL-13 and IFN-gamma) (all P < 0.05) and Ni (all four cytokines; P < 0.01) but not Co. Overall, 71% (37/52) and 89% (81/91) of the positive and negative patch test reactivities to metals, respectively, were matched by the in vitro reactivity. In conclusion, our data suggest that sensitization to Co, Cr, Pd and Au results in a cellular immune response of a character similar to the mixed Th1- and Th2-type cytokine profile shown previously to be induced by Ni.

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

4.5
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