4.5 Article

In situ demonstration of dendritic cell migration from rat intestine to mesenteric lymph nodes: relationships to maturation and role of chemokines

期刊

JOURNAL OF LEUKOCYTE BIOLOGY
卷 75, 期 3, 页码 434-442

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1189/jlb.0603250

关键词

intestinal lymph; spleen; adhesion molecule; CCL20; CCL21; CCR6; CCR7; CXCL12

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dendritic cells (DCs) are continuously transported from the intestine to mesenteric lymph nodes (MLNs). The objective of this study was to determine the migration kinetics of DCs via intestinal lymph and to investigate regulatory factors affecting their migration in vivo. DCs were obtained from spleen or thoracic duct lymph of mesenteric lymphadenectomized rats. The DCs were fluorescently labeled and injected into the subserosa of the small intestine near the cecum, and their migration patterns into MLNs were determined. Isolated DCs from intestinal lymph express intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1), CD11b/c, CD80/86, and major histocompatibility complex class II but maintain their ability to phagocytize latex particles, suggesting the presence of immature DCs. The isolated DCs accumulated in MLNs in a time-dependent manner with maximal accumulation at 48 h. Cytokine-induced maturation of lymph DCs did not cause a change in cell number but accelerated their transport into MLNs with a maximum at 24 h. Splenic DCs showed an intermediate level of maturation and a migration pattern similar to mature DCs. Inhibition of ICAM-1 or CD11b/c did not affect DC migration. Migration of mature DCs to MLNs was specifically blocked by desensitization of CCR7 with CCL21. In contrast, freshly isolated lymph DCs were not chemotactic for CCL21, but their migration to MLNs was mainly inhibited by desensitization of CCR6 with CCL20. The migratory ability of DCs correlates well with their degree of maturation, and different chemokine/chemokine receptor use may be the main regulator of DC migration kinetics through intestinal lymph.

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