4.6 Article

IL-10 and the dangers of immune polarization: Excessive type 1 and type 2 cytokine responses induce distinct forms of lethal immunopathology in murine schistosomiasis

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 164, 期 12, 页码 6406-6416

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.164.12.6406

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To dissect the controversial roles of type 1 and type 2 cytokines to the pathogenesis of schistosomiasis, we generated IL-10m-4 and IL-10/IL-12-deficient mice that develop highly polarized type 1 and type 2 cytokine responses, respectively. Interestingly, the Th1-polarized IL-10/IL-4-deficient mice rapidly lost weight at the onset of egg-laying and displayed 100% mortality by wk 9 postinfection. This acute mortality was linked to overexpression of the proinflammatory mediators IFN-gamma, TNF-alpha, and inducible NO and the formation of nonfibrotic granulomas. Elevated serum aspartate transaminase levels confirmed that mortality was in part attributable to acute hepatotoxicity, In contrast, the Th2-polarized IL-10/IL-12-deficient mice developed a progressive wasting disease that correlated with increased hepatic fibrosis, formation of large eosinophil-rich granulomas, a l0-fold increase in IL-4 and IL-13, and significant mortality during the chronic stages of infection. Surprisingly, IL-10-deficient mice displayed pathological Features that were characteristic of both extremes, while wild-type mice developed relatively successful long term chronic infections. These data demonstrate that IL-10 significantly suppresses type 1 and type 2 cytokine development in IL-4- and IL-12-deficient mice, respectively, thereby impeding the development of severe egg-induced pathology in the single cytokine-deficient animals. Together, these findings reveal the central regulatory role of IL-10 in the pathogenesis of schistosomiasis and illustrate that excessive type 1 and type 2 cytokine responses trigger distinct, but equally detrimental, forms of pathology following infection.

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