4.6 Article

CXCR3 and its Ligands in a murine model of obliterative bronchiolitis: Regulation and function

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 176, 期 11, 页码 7087-7095

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.176.11.7087

关键词

-

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [K08 HL072775] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAID NIH HHS [R01 AI050892] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lung transplantation remains the only effective therapy for patients with end-stage lung disease, but survival is limited by the development of obliterative bronchiolitis (OB). The chemokine receptor CXCR3 and two of its ligands, CXCL9 and CXCL10, have been identified as important mediators of OB. However, the relative contribution of CXCL9 and CXCL10 to the development of OB and the mechanism of regulation of these chemokines has not been well defined. In this study, we demonstrate that CXCL9 and CXCL10 are up-regulated in unique patterns following tracheal transplantation in mice. In these experiments, CXCL9 plant, while CXCL10 expression peaked at 1 day and then again 7 days posttransplant. expression peaked 7 days posttrans Expression of CXCL10 was also up-regulated in a novel murine model of lung ischemia, and in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid taken from human lungs 24 h after lung transplantation. In further analysis, we found that 3 h after transplantation CXCL10 is donor tissue derived and not dependent on IFN-gamma or STAT1, while 24 h after transplantation CXCL10 is from recipient tissue and regulated by IFN-gamma and STAT1. Expression of both CXCL9 and CXCL10 7 days posttransplant is regulated by IFN-gamma and STAT1. Finally, we demonstrate that deletion of CXCR3 in recipients reduces airway obliteration. However, deletion of either CXCL9 or obliteration. These data show that in this murine model of obliterative bronchiolitis, these che-mokines are differentially regulated following transplantation, and that deletion of either chemokine alone does not affect the development of airway obliteration.

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