4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Impaired phagocytosis of nontypeable Haemophilus influenzae by human alveolar macrophages in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 194, 期 10, 页码 1375-1384

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1086/508428

关键词

-

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [1R01HL6654901] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Interactions of nontypeable Haemophilus influenzae (NTHI) with human alveolar macrophages are implicated in the persistence of NTHI in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, the immunologic mechanisms that mediate NTHI-induced macrophage responses are poorly understood. We hypothesized that immunologic responses of alveolar macrophages to NTHI are impaired in COPD. Methods. Blood and alveolar macrophages - obtained from ex-smokers with COPD (n=14), ex-smokers without COPD (n=15), and nonsmokers (n=9) - were incubated with 3 distinct NTHI strains obtained from patients with COPD. Phagocytosis of H-3-NTHI, expressed as a percentage of the mean total radioactivity, and of intracellular viability, assessed as a percentage of viable cell-associated NTHI, were measured. Results. Alveolar macrophages from donors with COPD, compared with those from donors without COPD, had impaired phagocytosis (median [interquartile range]) for each NTHI strain: 14P13H5, 0.26 (0.08-0.61) versus 1.36 (0.69-1.95); 6P5H1, 0.92 (0.32-1.82) versus 1.90 (1.32-2.68); and 14P14H1, 0.79 (0.23-1.32) versus 2.13 (1.13-2.40) (P <= .01 for each). However, phagocytosis of all NTHI strains by blood macrophages from donors with COPD was indistinguishable from that of blood macrophages from donors without COPD and from nonsmokers. The intracellular killing of NTHI was not impaired in alveolar macrophages from donors with COPD. Conclusions. These results support a paradigm of impaired phagocytosis by alveolar macrophages, but not blood macrophages, in COPD and provide an immunologic basis for persistence of NTHI in the airways of adults with COPD.

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

4.7
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