4.6 Article

T cell subsets and sIL-2R/IL-2 levels in patients with glaucoma

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 131, 期 4, 页码 421-426

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9394(00)00862-X

关键词

-

资金

  1. NEI NIH HHS [EY12314] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: We hypothesize that cellular immunity may have a previously unrecognized role in glaucomatous optic neuropathy, The purpose of this study is to analyze subsets of T cells and the levels of cytokine IL-2 and the soluble IL-2 receptor in peripheral blood from patients with normal pressure glaucoma (NPG) or primary open angle glaucoma (POAG) in comparison to age-matched control subjects. METHODS: In this study, 38 patients (20 NPG; 18 POAG) and 19 controls were included. sIL-2R and IL-2 were assayed by ELISA. T cell subsets were analyzed by flow cytometry and lymphocyte proliferation was used to measure the reactive ability of T cells to phytohemagglutinin (PHA). RESULTS: The frequency of CD8(+)HLA-DR+ lymphocytes were increased in patients with NPG (P = 0.008), and CD3(+)CD8(+) lymphocytes increased in both NPG (P = 0.03) and POAG patients (P = 0.0004), CD5(+) lymphocytes were higher only in POAG patients (P = 0.0012). In comparison to controls, the ratio of CD4(+)/ CD8(+) lymphocytes was similar in both groups. The mean concentrations of sIL-2R in NPG (P = 0.011) and POAG (P = 0.0023) patients were higher than that found in control subjects although IL-2 concentrations were similar in these groups. In addition, the reactive ability of T lymphocytes to the non-specific reagent (PHA) was reduced significantly in NPG (P = 0.02) and POAG patients (P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: The alterations of the cellular immune system in patients with glaucoma support our hypothesis that the immune system may play an important role in the initiation and/or sustainment of glaucomatous optic neuropathy in some patients, (Am J Ophthalmol 2001; 131:421-426. (C) 2001 by Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved).

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