4.7 Article

Quantitative and qualitative differences in proatherogenic NKT cells in apolipoprotein E-deficient mice

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.ATV.0000147112.84168.87

关键词

inflammation; atherosclerosis; NKT lymphocytes; cytokines; autoimmunity

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL65709, HL68744, HL53989, HL57986, HL65405] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAID NIH HHS [AI50953, AI42284] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK59637-01] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NINDS NIH HHS [NS44044] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background - Atherosclerosis is a disease marked by lipid accumulation and inflammation. Recently, atherosclerosis has gained recognition as an autoimmune-type syndrome characterized by increased activation of the innate and acquired immune systems. Natural killer T (NKT) cells have characteristics of both conventional T cells and NK cells and recognize glycolipid antigens presented in association with CD1d molecules on antigen-presenting cells. The capacity of NKT cells to respond to lipid antigens and modulate innate and acquired immunity suggests that they may play a role in atherogenesis. Methods and Results - We examined the role of NKT cells in atherogenesis and how the atherosclerotic environment affects the NKT cell population itself. The data show that CD1d-deficiency in male apolipoprotein E-deficient (apoE(0)) mice results in reduction in atherosclerosis, and treatment of apoE(0) mice with alpha-galactosylceramide, a potent and specific NKT cell activator, results in a 2-fold increase in atherosclerosis. Interestingly, we demonstrate that alpha-galactosylceramide-induced interferon-gamma responses and numbers of NKT cells in apoE(0) mice show age-dependent qualitative and quantitative differences as compared with age-matched wild-type mice. Conclusions - Collectively, these findings reveal that hyperlipidemia and atherosclerosis have significant effects on NKT cell responses and that these cells are proatherogenic.

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