4.6 Article

Mast cell-associated TNF promotes dendritic cell migration

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 176, 期 7, 页码 4102-4112

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.176.7.4102

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA-72074, R01 CA072074] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [P01 HL067674, HL-67674] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIAID NIH HHS [R01 AI023990, AI-23990] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mast cells represent a potential source of TNF, a mediator which can enhance dendritic cell (DC) migration. Although the importance of mast cell-associated TNF in regulating DC migration in vivo is not clear, mast cells and mast cell-derived TNF can contribute to the expression of certain models of contact hypersensitivity (CHS). We found that CHS to FITC was significantly impaired in mast cell-deficient Kit(W-sh/W-sh) or TNF-/- mice. The reduced expression of CHS in Kit(W-sh/W-sh) mice was fully repaired by local transfer of wild-type bone marrow-derived cultured mast cells (BMCMCs), but was only partially repaired by transfer of TNF-/- BMCMCs. Thus, mast cells, and mast cell-derived TNF, were required for optimal expression of CHS to FITC. We found that the migration of FITC-bearing skin DCs into draining lymph nodes (LNs) 24 h after epicutaneous administration of FITC in naive mice was significantly reduced in mast cell-deficient or TNF-/- mice, but levels of DC migration in these mutant mice increased to greater than wild-type levels by 48 h after FITC sensitization. Mast cell-deficient or TNF-/- mice also exhibited significantly reduced migration of airway DCs to local LNs at 24 h after intranasal challenge with FITC-OVA. Migration of FITC-bearing DCs to LNs draining the skin or airways 24 h after sensitization was repaired in Kit(W-sh/W-sh) mice which had been engrafted with wild-type but not TNF-/- BMCMCs. Our findings indicate that mast cell-associated TNF can contribute significantly to the initial stages of FITC-induced migration of cutaneous or airway DCs.

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