4.8 Article

Heat-shock protein 60-reactive CD4+CD28null T cells in patients with acute coronary syndromes

期刊

CIRCULATION
卷 109, 期 10, 页码 1230-1235

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000118476.29352.2A

关键词

angina; lymphocytes; antigens

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background - CD4(+)CD28(null) T cells are present in increased numbers in the peripheral blood of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) compared with patients with chronic stable angina (CSA). The triggers of activation and expansion of these cells to date remain unclear. Methods and Results - Twenty-one patients with ACS and 12 CSA patients with angiographically confirmed coronary artery disease and 9 healthy volunteers were investigated. Peripheral blood leukocytes were stimulated with human cytomegalovirus ( HCMV), Chlamydia pneumoniae, human heat-shock protein 60 (hHSP60), or oxidized LDL (ox-LDL). CD4(+)CD28(null) cells were separated by flow cytometry and assessed for antigen recognition using upregulation of interferon-gamma and perforin mRNA transcription as criteria for activation. CD4(+)CD28(null) cells from 12 of 21 patients with ACS reacted with hHSP60. No response was detected to HCMV, C pneumoniae, or ox-LDL. Incubation of the cells with anti - MHC class II and anti-CD4 antibodies but not anti - class I antibodies blocked antigen presentation, confirming recognition of the hHSP60 to be via the MHC class II pathway. Patients with CSA had low numbers of CD4(+)CD28(null) cells. These cells were nonreactive to any of the antigens used. Circulating CD4(+)CD28(null) cells were present in 5 of the 9 healthy controls. None reacted with hHSP60. Conclusions - We have shown that hHSP60 is an antigen recognized by CD4(+)CD28(null) T cells of ACS patients. Endothelial cells express hHSP60 either constitutively or under stress conditions. Circulating hHSP60-specific CD4(+)CD28(null) cells may, along other inflammatory mechanisms, contribute to vascular damage in these patients.

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

4.8
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