4.4 Article

Expression of mucosal homing receptor α4β7 is associated with enhanced migration to the Chlamydia-infected murine genital mucosa in vivo

期刊

INFECTION AND IMMUNITY
卷 68, 期 10, 页码 5587-5594

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/IAI.68.10.5587-5594.2000

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [R01 AI026328, R21 AI026328, AI-26328] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The CD4 T helper cell type 1 (Th1) response is essential for the resolution of chlamydial genital infection in mice, However, not all Th1 clones are equally protective in eradicating the infection, Since oral immunization regimens produce protective immunity, we evaluated the role of the mucosa-associated homing receptor, alpha 4 beta 7, in trafficking to the genital mucosa, Using a panel of CD4, Th1 cell lines and clones, we compared the Lymphocyte homing patterns of a Chlamydia-specific, protective clone (P-MoPn), a nonprotective clone (N-MoPn), and a keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH)-specific cell line (KLH-1), T cells were labeled with the fluorescent dye PKH-26, adoptively transferred into Chlamydia-infected mice, and monitored at different time points throughout the course of a genital infection, We found that clones P-MoPn and N-MoPn migrated to similar extents to the genital tract and in significantly greater numbers than the KLH-specific T-cell line. Both clones and the KLH-1 line expressed similar levels of the adhesion molecules alpha 4, beta 1, CD44, and CD11a, However, clones P-MoPn and N-MoPn expressed higher levels of the mucosal homing receptor, alpha 4 beta 7, Also, clones P-MoPn and N-MoPn but not the KLH-1 line migrated to the mesenteric lymph node, suggesting a mucosal recirculation pattern, Moreover, blocking alpha 4 beta 7 adhesion interaction in vivo significantly reduced the recruitment of P-MoPn but not KLH-1 to the genital tract, These findings show that the mucosal homing receptor or4P7 is utilized by a subset of CD4 cells during migration to the Chlamydia-infected genital tract.

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

4.4
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