4.6 Article

Variations in eosinophil chemokine responses: An investigation of CCR1 and CCR3 function, expression in atopy, and identification of a functional CCR1 promoter

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 170, 期 12, 页码 6190-6201

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.170.12.6190

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We previously showed in a small group of donors that eosinophils from a subgroup of individuals responded equipotently to CC chemokine ligand (CCL)11/eotaxin and CCL3/macrophage-inflammatory protein-la in assays of eosinophil shape change (CCL3/macrophage-inflammatory protein-la-highly responsive (MHR) donors). In this study, we investigated the functional role of CCL3 in eosinophil responses in 73 donors. MHR donors, identified by their eosinophil shape change responses, represented similar to19% of the donor pool. Eosinophils from these donors showed increased eosinophil CCR1 expression and also underwent CCL3-mediated chemotaxis and up-regulation of CD11b. All MHR donors gave a history of atopy-associated diseases. In a further study, we prospectively recruited 110 subjects, subdivided into nonatopics or atopics, and investigated expression of CCR1 and CCR3 on eosinophils, basophils, monocytes, and neutrophils. Eosinophil CCR1 expression was non-normally distributed in atopics, although higher CCR1 expression levels were not predictive of a diagnosis of atopy or atopic disease. We identified the CCR1 promoter and investigated its function. We found a minimal promoter within 177 bp of the transcription start site, and an upstream enhancer region that facilitated expression in leukocyte cell lines. Collectively, these data demonstrate that MHR individuals form an important subgroup that, when associated with a diagnosis of allergic disease, may require tailored therapy to modulate eosinophil recruitment. Identification of a functional CCR1 promoter will facilitate the study of possible genetic determinants underlying this potentially important clinical phenotype.

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