4.6 Article

Macrophage inflammatory protein-3α and β-defensin-2 stimulate dentin sialophosphoprotein gene expression in human pulp cells

期刊

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/S0006-291X(03)01075-1

关键词

MIP-3 alpha; beta-defensin-2; osteopontin; dentin sialophosphoprotein; pulp cells

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Macrophage inflammatory protein (MIP)-3alpha and beta-defensin (BD)-2 have antimicrobial activity and chemotactic activity for immature dendritic cells, natural killer cells, and memory T cells. However, it remains unknown if the widespread effects of these peptides also include an influence on the differentiation of mesenchymal cells. Pulp cells have the capacity to differentiate into odontoblasts and to form dentin. The aim of this study was to determine if inflammatory leukocyte products influence the capacity of pulp cells to differentiate. Dentin sialophosphoprotein (DSPP) is a tooth-specific protein being expressed mostly by odontoblast cells. In the present study, we investigated effects of MIP-3alpha and BD-2 on the DSPP and osteopontin (OPN) gene expression in cultures of human pulp-derived fibroblastic cells (HP cells). HP cells expressed mRNA for the CC chemokine receptor (CCR) 6 to which both MIP-3alpha and BD-2 can bind. Real-time PCR showed that MIP-3alpha and BD-2 significantly increased DSPP mRNA levels, although BD-2 increased DSPP mRNA levels less than MIP-3alpha. MIP-3alpha and BD-2 increased OPN mRNA levels very slightly. MIP-3alpha and BD-2 possessed antibacterial activity against Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacillus casei, which are involved in caries, although the antibacterial activity of MIP-3alpha was lower than that of BD-2. These findings suggest the MIP-3alpha and BD-2 have the ability to stimulate odontoblast differentiation in addition to their more traditional role in inflammation and have potential in the removal of bacteria in infected soft dentin and pulp tissues. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.

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