4.5 Article

BALB/c mice have more CD4+CD25+ T regulatory cells and show greater susceptibility to suppression of their CD4+CD25- responder T cells than C57BL/6 mice

期刊

JOURNAL OF LEUKOCYTE BIOLOGY
卷 78, 期 1, 页码 114-121

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1189/jlb.0604341

关键词

rodent; T lymphocytes; tolerance/suppression/anergy

资金

  1. PHS HHS [N01-C0-12400] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Increasing evidence indicates that CD4(+)CD25(+) T regulatory (Treg) cells control a wide spectrum of immune responses. The initial identification of CD4(+)CD25(+) Treg cell as a professional suppressor was based on observations made in BALB/c mice. This mouse strain is well known to preferentially develop T helper cell type 2 responses, to he more susceptible to intracellular parasite infection, to have a higher tumor incidence, and to be more resistant to the induction of autoimmune diseases, as compared with C57BL/6 (116) mice. We therefore decided to compare Treg cell function of B6 and BALB/c mice. We observed that the frequency of CD4(+)CD25(+) T cells in the thymus and peripheral lymphoid organs of BALB/c mice was higher than in B6 mice. CD4(+)CD25(+) Treg cells from both mouse strains shared similar phenotypic properties, including expression of characteristic immunological markers and hyporesponsiveness to T cell receptor cross-linking and in their capacity to suppress proliferation of BAILB/c CD4(+)CD25(-) T responder (Tres) cells. However, CD4(+)CD25(-) Tres cells from B6 mice were notably less susceptible to suppression by CD4(+)CD25(+) Treg cells from either mouse strain. Our data suggest that the number and the level of suppression of CD4(+)CD25(+) Treg cells for CD4(+)CD25(-) Tres cells may be dictated by genetic background. Our data also suggest that differences in the CD4(+)CD25(+) Treg cell number and the susceptibility of CD4(+)CD25(-) Tres cells may, at least in part, account for the differences in immune response between B6 and BALB/c strains of mice.

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

4.5
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