4.6 Article

Mechanism of T cell hyporesponsiveness to HBcAg is associated with regulatory T cells in chronic hepatitis B

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 12, 期 27, 页码 4310-4317

出版社

BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v12.i27.4310

关键词

hepatitis B virus; regulatory T cells; IL-10; FOXP3; TH1

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AIM: To study the mechanisms of hyporesponsiveness of HBV-specific CD4(+) T cells by testing TH1 and TH2 commitment and regulatory T cells. METHODS: Nine patients with chronic hepatitis B were enrolled. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells were stimulated with HBcAg or HBsAg to evaluate their potential to commit to TH1 and TH2 differentiation. HBcAg-specific activity of regulatory T cells was evaluated by staining with antibodies to CD4, CD25, CTLA-4 and interleukin-10. The role of regulatory T cells was further assessed by treatment with anti-interleukin-10 antibody and depletion of CD4(+)CD25(+) cells. RESULTS: Level of mRNAs for T-bet, IL-12R beta 2 and IL-4 was significantly lower in the patients than in healthy subjects with HBcAg stimulation. Although populations of CD4(+)CD25(high)CTLA-4(+) T cells were not different between the patients and healthy subjects, IL-10 secreting cells were found in CD4+ cells and CD4+CD25+ cells in the patients in response to HBcAg, and they were not found in cells which were stimulated with HBsAg. Addition of anti-IL-10 antibody recovered the amount of HBcAg-specific TH1 antibody compared with control antibody (P <0.01, 0.34% +/- 0.12% vs 0.15% +/- 0.04%). Deletion of CD4+CD25+ T cells increased the amount of HBcAg-specific TH1 antibody when compared with lymphocytes reconstituted using regulatory T cells (P < 0.01, 0.03% +/- 0.02% vs 0.18% +/- 0.05%). CONCLUSION: The results indicate that the mechanism of T cell hyporesponsiveness to HBcAg includes activation of HBcAg-induced regulatory T cells in contrast to an increase in TH2-committed cells in response to HBsAg. (C) 2006 The WIG 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