4.3 Article

Islet lymphocyte subsets in male and female NOD mice are qualitatively similar but quantitatively distinct

期刊

AUTOIMMUNITY
卷 42, 期 8, 页码 678-691

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/08916930903213993

关键词

Autoimmunity; FoxP3; IGRP; IL-4; naive T-cell

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [AI 0524354, AI052435-03S1, AI058014, AI54843]
  2. Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation [1-2008-24]
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES [R01AI058014, R01AI054843, R01AI052435] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Islet-infiltrating lymphocytes of individual male and female non-obese diabetic (NOD) mice were examined with the purpose of determining the differences that lead to a predominance of diabetes in female versus males NOD mice. When normalized for the amount of islet lymphocytes recovered, the infiltrating lymphocytes of female NOD mice were indistinguishable from those of male NOD mice. The only observed difference was that islet inflammation progressed at an increased rate in female compared to male NOD mice. There was no difference in the composition of islet infiltrates in male and female NOD mice. Unexpectedly, the ratio of CD4(+):CD8(+) T cells was tightly controlled in the islets throughout diabetogenesis. The frequency of IL-4(+)CD4(+) T cells started high but quickly fell to 3% of the population that was maintained with increasing inflammation. A significant portion of the CD8(+) T cells were islet-specific glucose-6-phosphatase catalytic subunit-related protein specific in both male and female NOD mice and this population was antigen experienced and increased at high levels of islet inflammation. Surprisingly, a large pool of antigen inexperienced naive T cells was detected in the islets. We conclude the underlying immunological processes in both male and female NOD mice are similar while the rates differ and the presence of naive T cell in the islets may contribute to epitope spreading.

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

4.3
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