4.5 Article

Increased distribution and expression of CD64 on blood polymorphonuclear cells from patients with the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS)

期刊

CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL IMMUNOLOGY
卷 125, 期 2, 页码 258-265

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2249.2001.01596.x

关键词

CD64; polymorphonuclear cells; systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Evidence is growing to suggest that the multiple organ damage of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) arises from the untoward activity of blood polymorphonuclear cells (PMNs), which upon activation acquire the IgG high affinity receptor, CD64. In the current study, flow cytometry was used to assess the prevalence of CD64-bearing PMNs and the intensity of expression of CD64 in whole blood samples from 32 SIRS patients, 11 healthy normal subjects and from eight non-SIRS patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). The percentage of PMNs expressing CD64 was higher in SIRS patients (mean 65%) than in non-SIRS patients (mean 42%; P < 0.02) and in healthy controls (mean 19%; P < 0.001) and was particularly evident in patients with SIRS and sepsis (mean 71%; P < 0.02) as opposed to SIRS alone (mean 55%). There were more CD64 molecules expressed on PMNs from patients with SIRS (median 1331 molecules/cell) in comparison with PMNs from healthy subjects (median 678 molecules/cell; P < 0.01). The highest intensity of CD64 expression was associated with PMNs from patients with both SIRS and sepsis. Functional studies revealed that the supranormal binding of PMNs from patients with SIRS to endothelial monolayers treated with TNFalpha was impeded by anti-CD64 antibodies (mean 24% inhibition; P < 0.01). Monitoring the distribution of CD64(+) PMNs and their level of CD64 expression could be of assistance in the rapid discrimination of patients with SIRS from other ICU patients and in the identification of PMNs which are likely to participate in the pathological manifestations of the disease.

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

4.5
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