4.7 Article

Plasma cells in muscle in inclusion body myositis and polymyositis

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 65, 期 11, 页码 1782-1787

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000187124.92826.20

关键词

-

资金

  1. NINDS NIH HHS [NS40828] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Previous immunohistochemical studies of muscle from patients with inclusion body myositis and polymyositis found many more T cells than B cells, suggesting a role for intramuscular cell-mediated immune mechanisms rather than humoral mechanisms. Methods: Microarray studies were performed on muscle biopsy specimens from 40 patients with inclusion body myositis ( IBM; n = 23), polymyositis ( PM; n = 6), and without neuromuscular disease ( n = 11). Reverse transcription PCR of selected immunoglobulin gene transcripts was performed on two patient samples. Qualitative immunohistochemical studies for B-cell lineage cell surface markers were performed on 28 muscle specimens and quantitative studies performed on a subset of 19 untreated patients with IBM or PM. CD138(+) cells were isolated from muscle using laser capture microdissection, and immunoglobulin transcripts were PCR amplified to determine the presence or absence of immunoglobulin gene rearrangements unique to the B-cell lineage. Results: Immunoglobulin gene transcripts accounted for 59% in IBM and 33% in PM of the most stringently defined highest differentially expressed muscle transcripts compared with normal. Plasma cells, terminally differentiated B cells expressing CD138 but not CD19 or CD20, are present in IBM and PM muscle in numbers several times higher than B cells. Conclusions: There are differentiated B cells in the form of CD138(+) plasma cells within the muscle of patients with inclusion body myositis and polymyositis. The principle of linked recognition of B-cell activation predicts several strategies for autoantigen discovery that could not otherwise be pursued through the study of the infiltrating T-cell population alone.

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

4.7
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