4.6 Article

Modulation of tissue-specific immune response to cardiac myosin can prolong survival of allogeneic heart transplants

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 169, 期 3, 页码 1168-1174

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.169.3.1168

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [P01-AI-41521, AI-33704, R01 AI43578-01] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK-10023] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The role of immune response to tissue-specific Ags in transplant rejection is poorly defined. We have previously reported that transplantation of cardiac allografts triggers a CD4(+) Th1 cell response to cardiac myosin (CM), a major contractile protein of the heart, and that pretransplant activation of proinflammatory CM-specific T cells accelerates rejection. In this study, we show that administration of CM together with IFA (CM/IFA) can prevent acute rejection of an allogeneic heart transplant. Prolongation of cardiac graft survival is associated with activation of CM- and allo-specific T cells secreting type 2 cytokines (IL-4, IL-5) and reduction of the frequency of proinflammatory IFN-gamma-secreting (type 1) alloreactive T cells. Blocking of IL-4 cytokine with Abs abrogates the prolongation. CM/IFA treatment prevents acute rejection of MHC class 1-mismatched, but not fully mismatched grafts. However, if donor heart is devoid of MHC class 11 expression, CM-IFA administration delays rejection of fully allogeneic cardiac transplants. This finding suggests that the effect of CM modulation depends on the type (direct vs indirect) and strength of recipient's CD4(+) T cell alloresponse. Our results underscore the important role of host immunity to tissue-specific Ags in the rejection of an allograft. This study demonstrates that modulation of the immume response to a tissue-specific Ag can significantly prolong cardiac allograft survival, an observation that may have important implications for the development or novel selective immune therapies in transplantation.

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