4.7 Article

Fractalkine preferentially mediates arrest and migration of CD16+ monocytes

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE
卷 197, 期 12, 页码 1701-1707

出版社

ROCKEFELLER UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1084/jem.20022156

关键词

chemokines; chemokine receptors; chemotaxis; cell adhesion; inflammation

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL36028, R01 HL053993, R01 HL065090, P01 HL036028, HL53993, HL65090, P50 HL056985, HL56985] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDA NIH HHS [DA16549, R01 DA016549] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIDDK NIH HHS [KO1 DK02798] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NINDS NIH HHS [NS37277, R01 NS037277] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

CD16(+) monocytes represent 5-10% of peripheral blood monocytes in normal individuals and are dramatically expanded in several pathological conditions including sepsis, human immunodeficiency virus 1 infection, and cancer. CD16(+) monocytes produce high levels of proinflammatory cytokines and may represent dendritic cell precursors in vivo. The mechanisms that mediate the recruitment of CD16(+) monocytes into tissues remain unknown. Here we investigate molecular mechanisms of CD16(+) monocyte trafficking and show that migration of CD16(+) and CD16(-) monocytes is mediated by distinct combinations of adhesion molecules and chemokine receptors. In contrast to CD16(-) monocytes, CD16(+) monocytes expressed high CX3CR1 and CXCR4 but low CCR2 and CD62L levels and underwent efficient transendothelial migration in response to fractalkine (FKN; FKN/CX3CL1) and stromal-derived factor 1alpha (CXCL12) but not monocyte chemoattractant protein 1 (CCL2). CD16(+) monocytes arrested on cell surface-expressed FKN under flow with higher frequency compared with CD16(-) monocytes. These results demonstrate that FKN preferentially mediates arrest and migration of CD16(+) monocytes and suggest that recruitment of this proinflammatory monocyte subset to vessel walls via the CX3CR1-FKN pathway may contribute to vascular and tissue injury during pathological conditions.

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

4.7
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