4.3 Article

Immunophenotypic patterns of T-cell activation in neuroinflammatory diseases

期刊

ACTA NEUROLOGICA SCANDINAVICA
卷 113, 期 4, 页码 248-255

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0404.2005.00562.x

关键词

activated T-cells; cerebrospinal fluid; aseptic meningitis; neuroborreliosis; multiple sclerosis; magnetic resonance imaging

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: We aimed to gain insights into the pathogen-specific differences in early adaptive immune responses following central nervous system infections with Borrelia burgdorferi and viral pathogens by studying the immunophenotypic patterns of T-cell activation. Moreover, we wished to determine whether the expression of T-cell activation markers reflects disease activity in multiple sclerosis (MS). Methods: Proportions of cerebrospinal fluid T-cells expressing the markers HLA-DR, CD25 and CD38 were determined in patients with MS (n = 40), acute viral meningomyeloradiculoneuritis (VID, n = 26), early neuroborreliosis (NB, n = 23) and non-inflammatory neurologic diseases (n = 51) by using flow cytometry. In relapsing-remitting MS, disease activity was assessed by clinical examination and magnetic resonance imaging. For each of the surface markers that were examined, significant differences in T cell proportions were found between patient groups. The proportion of HLA-DR+ T cells was higher and that of CD25+ T cells lower in NB compared with VID. These differences were attributable only to the early phase of the disease (<= 6 days after symptom onset). Among MS patients, there was a trend for higher proportions of T cells expressing activation markers in patients with gadolinium-enhancing lesions. The decreased CD25 expression in NB may reflect immunomodulatory effects of B. burgdorferi facilitating persistent infection. Larger prospective studies of T-cell activation markers for ascertaining the association between cellular markers and clinical surrogates of disease activity in MS are warranted.

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

4.3
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