4.6 Article

The influence of uraemia and haemodialysis on neutrophil phagocytosis and antimicrobial killing

期刊

NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION
卷 18, 期 10, 页码 2067-2073

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfg330

关键词

antimicrobial killing; flowcytometry; haemodialysis; neutrophils; phagocytosis; uraemia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Neutrophil functions in haemodialysis (HD) patients are altered by uraemia and by HD procedure. We investigated details of the neutrophil dysfunction as its nature and origin is not well understood. This is reflected by conflicting results about neutrophil phagocytosis activity and by scarce data on the neutrophil killing capability in HD patients. Methods. Using a flow-cytometric test system we have measured simultaneously phagocytosis and the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) of neutrophils and in parallel antimicrobial killing of yeast by neutrophils. 117 whole-blood samples of healthy controls and 50 pre- and 50 post-dialysis samples of HD patients, half of them with diabetes mellitus (DM), have been evaluated. We have constructed a model to account for the dependence on the stimulus-to-cell ratio and obtain means for phagocytosis and killing at different incubation times. Results. (i) HD patients have significantly lower neutrophil killing (20%) than healthy controls. (ii) Dialysis improves the killing capability by 10-15%, after dialysis the killing activity remains significantly (10%) below that of the controls. (iii) The percentage of neutrophils, which exhibit phagocytosis and produce ROS. does not differ significantly between HD patients and healthy controls. (iv) Age has no significant influence on phagocytosis and killing. Conclusion. The neutrophil killing capability is reduced in HD patients while the amount of neutrophils that phagocyte and produce ROS remains unchanged. Functional impairment of uraemic neutrophils is therefore mainly a result of their reduced capability to kill microorganisms intracellularly.

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

4.6
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