4.6 Article

Donor IFN-γ receptors are critical for acute CD4+ T cell-mediated cardiac allograft rejection

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 167, 期 9, 页码 5457-5463

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.167.9.5457

关键词

-

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [K08HL03594] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAID NIH HHS [F32AI10362] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIDDK NIH HHS [R01 DK55333, DK33470] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent studies using mouse models demonstrate that CD4(+) T cells are sufficient to mediate acute cardiac allograft rejection in the absence of CD8(+) T cells and B cells. However, the mechanistic basis of CD4-mediated rejection is unclear. One potential mechanism of CD4-mediated rejection is via elaboration of proinflammatory cytokines such as IFN-gamma. To determine whether IFN-gamma is a critical cytokine in CD4-mediated acute cardiac allograft rejection, we studied whether the expression of IFN-gamma receptors on the donor heart was required for CD4-mediated rejection. To investigate this possibility, purified CD4(+) T cells were transferred into immune-deficient mice bearing heterotopic cardiac allografts from IFN-gamma receptor-deficient (GRKO) donors. While CD4(+) T cells triggered acute rejection of wild-type heart allografts, they failed to trigger rejection of GRKO heart allografts. The impairment in CD4-mediated rejection of GRKO hearts appeared to primarily involve the efferent phase of the immune response. This conclusion was based on the findings that GRKO stimulator cells provoked normal CD4 proliferation in vitro and that intentional in vivo challenge of CD4 cells with wild-type donor APC or the adoptive transfer of in vitro primed CD4 T cells failed to provoke acute rejection of GRKO allografts. In contrast, unseparated lymph node cells acutely rejected both GRKO and wild-type hearts with similar time courses, illustrating the existence of both IFN-gamma -dependent and IFN-gamma -independent mechanisms of acute allograft rejection.

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