4.7 Article

Granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor expression by both renal parenchymal and immune cells mediates murine crescentic glomerulonephritis

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NEPHROLOGY
卷 16, 期 9, 页码 2646-2656

出版社

AMER SOC NEPHROLOGY
DOI: 10.1681/ASN.2004121107

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

GM-CSF has previously been demonstrated to be important in crescentic glomerulonephritis (GN). As both renal parenchymal cells and infiltrating inflammatory cells produce GM-CSF, their separate contributions to inflammatory renal injury were investigated by creation of two different types of GM-CSF chimeric mice: (1) GM-CSF-deficient (GM-CSF-/-)-> wild-type (WT) chimeras with leukocytes that are unable to produce GM-CSF and (2) WT -> GM-CSF-/- chimeras with deficient renal cell GM-CSF expression. Crescentic anti-glomerular basement membrane GN was induced in WT, GM-CSF-/--> WT chimeras, WT -> GM-CSF-/- chimeras, and GM-CSF-/- mice by planting an antigen (sheep globulin) in their glomeruli. WT mice developed severe crescentic GN, whereas GM-CSF-/- were protected from development of disease. Glomerular T cell recruitment, CD40(+) glomerular cells, and renal IFN-gamma and TNF expression were similar in both chimeras and WT mice but significantly reduced in GM-CSF-/- mice, indicating that either leukocyte or renal sources of GM-CSF are sufficient to drive these aspects of the inflammatory response. Restricted expression of GM-CSF revealed a major role for renal cell-derived GM-CSF but a minor role for leukocyte-derived GM-CSF in the formation of cellular crescents; glomerular MHCII expression; serum creatinine; and monocyte chemoattractant protein-1, vascular cellular adhesion molecule, and IL-1 beta expression. Glomerular macrophage accumulation, proteinuria, and interstitial infiltrate were equivalent in both chimeric groups but intermediate between WT and GM-CSF-/-, indicating that both sources are required for the full development of glomerular injury in crescentic GN.

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