4.7 Article

Long-term induction of immune tolerance after blockade of CD40-CD40L interaction in a mouse model of hemophilia A

期刊

BLOOD
卷 97, 期 9, 页码 2750-2757

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood.V97.9.2750

关键词

-

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL61883] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A factor VIII-deficient knockout mouse was used as a model for severe hemophilia A to characterize the immune response to recombinant human factor VIII (fVIII) and to study new approaches for induction of immune tolerance to fVIII. Mice initially received periodic injections of fVIII in doses similar to those used for the treatment of human hemophilia A. To induce immune tolerance, a hamster monoclonal antibody specific for murine CD40 ligand (CD40L or CD154) was injected with fVIII. Central mice received fVIII alone or fVIII and hamster immunoglobulin G. After treatment, humoral and cellular immune responses were evaluated. Ninety-five percent of anti-CD40L-treated mice had lower titers of anti-fVIII antibody (less than 1 mug/mL) compared with fVIII-injected control mice (mean, 18 mug/mL). To determine whether anti-CD40L treatment induces long-term immune tolerance, mice were rechallenged 3 times with fVIII alone. At 150 days after treatment, 12 of 22 anti-CD40L-treated mice remained tolerant to fVIII (anti-fVIII antibody titers less than 1 mug/mL). However, tolerant mice immunized with tetanus toroid (TT) developed high anti-TT antibody, demonstrating that tolerance is fVIII specific. T cells from tolerant mice showed impaired proliferative responses after stimulation with fVIII in vitro and lack of production of the cytokines interleukin-2 (IL-2), IL-4, interferon gamma, and IL-10. These results demonstrate that long-term immune tolerance to fVIII was effectively induced after early blockade of CD40-CD40L interaction. In addition, the lack of tolerance in this model was associated with the expression of a Th2 phenotype. (Blood.2001;97:2750-2757) (C) 2001 by The American Society of Hematology.

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

4.7
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