4.3 Article

CD200 maintains microglial potential to migrate in adult human retinal explant model

期刊

CURRENT EYE RESEARCH
卷 28, 期 6, 页码 427-436

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/02713680490503778

关键词

CD200; fractalkine; microglia; retina

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose. Retinal microglia (MG) migrate in response to injury, degeneration and inflammation dependent upon both soluble and cognate signals they receive. Previously we found that lipopolysaccharide/interferon-gamma (LPS/IFNgamma) stimulation induces a paradoxical IL-10 mediated suppression of MG migration from retinal explants. Given the high expression of neuronal CD200, which can induce down regulation of CD200 receptor-positive MG activation and neuronal fractalkine expression potentially stimulating MG migration, we wished to further examine their respective roles in the maintenance of MG activation and migration. Methods. A human retinal explant model of MG migration was used. CD200 receptor and fractalkine receptor stimulation was achieved by addition to explants of CD200:Fc fusion protein and recombinant cytokine respectively, with or without LPS-IFNgamma stimulation that is known to suppress migration. Cell migration and cell activation (NOS expression) was counted and assessed by numbers of CD45(+) cells by immunofluorescence and standardised flow cytometric bead array analysis was performed for cytokine production. Results. Retinal explants expressed fractalkine and CX(3)CR1 immunohistochemically and by PCR. Addition of Fractalkine and not CD200:Fc induced MG migration from retinal explants. However LPS/IFNgamma-induced suppression of MG migration could only be restored in the presence of CD200:Fc, whilst MG remained NOS-negative and generated IL-10. Conclusions. Microglial responses are tightly governed within retina. Although MG do not classically activate following LPS/IFNgamma stimulation, their migration is sustained via CD200R stimulation maintaining their potential to migrate in response to injury.

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

4.3
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