4.6 Article

Comparative analysis of nasal and oral mucosa dendritic cells

期刊

ALLERGY
卷 61, 期 2, 页码 166-172

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2005.00965.x

关键词

dendritic cells; high affinity receptor for immunoglobulin E; immunotherapy; mucosa; nasal; oral

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Mucosal dendritic cells (DC) play a crucial role in tolerance induction as seen in mucosal immunotherapy of atopic diseases. Nevertheless little is known about the phenotypical differences of oral and nasal mucosal DC (nmDC). Recently, we could show that oral mucosal myeloid CD1a(+) DC (omDC) differ from their skin counterparts especially by the expression of high affinity receptor for immunoglobulin E (IgE; Fc epsilon RI). However, expression pattern of Fc epsilon RI and phenotypical characteristics of CD1a(+) nmDC have not been elucidated in detailed yet. Methods: We performed detailed phenotypical comparison of nmDC and omDC of atopic and nonatopic individuals. Results: As reported for omDC, Fc epsilon RI on nmDC of atopic donors was elevated and mostly occupied by IgE while Fc epsilon RI was present only in low amounts on nmDC of nonatopic donors. Nevertheless, the highest Fc epsilon RI expression has been observed on omDC. Furthermore, significant amounts of costimulatory molecules CD40, CD80 and CD86 could be detected on nmDC that expressed more CD80 compared with omDC. Moreover, nmDC displayed less major histocompatability complex (MHC) class I and II molecules than omDC. In addition, nmDC expressed more C-type lectins CD205, CD206 as well as myeloid marker CD11b while omDC displayed increased expression of CD207 and lipopolysaccharide (LPS) receptor CD14. Conclusion: Together these data imply that nmDC phenotypical differ from omDC which might result in diverse functional properties and might be of relevance for selecting routes for immunotherapy of atopic diseases. Moreover these data provide a basis for further studies investigating immunological mechanisms underlying mucosal immunotherapy.

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