4.7 Article

CD56+ human blood dendritic cells effectively promote TH1-type γδ T-cell responses

期刊

BLOOD
卷 114, 期 20, 页码 4422-4431

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2009-06-227256

关键词

-

资金

  1. Kompetenzzentrum Medizin Tirol (KMT) [03a]
  2. COMET K1 Center Oncotyrol
  3. Federal Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology (BMVIT)
  4. Federal Ministry of Economics and Labor/Federal Ministry of Economy, Family and Youth (BMWA/BMWFJ) as well as by the Tiroler Zukunftsstiftung (TZS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

CD56(+) human dendritic cells (DCs) have recently been shown to differentiate from monocytes in response to GM-CSF and type 1 interferon in vitro. We show here that CD56(+) cells freshly isolated from human peripheral blood contain a substantial subset of CD14(+)CD86(+)HLA-DR+ cells, which have the appearance of intermediate-sized lymphocytes but spontaneously differentiate into enlarged DC-like cells with substantially increased HLA-DR and CD86 expression or into fully mature CD83(+) DCs in response to appropriate cytokines. Stimulation of CD56(+) cells containing both DCs and abundant gamma delta T cells with zoledronate and interleukin-2 (IL-2) resulted in the rapid expansion of gamma delta T cells as well as in IFN-gamma, TNF-alpha, and IL-1 beta but not in IL-4, IL-10, or IL-17 production. IFN-gamma, TNF-alpha, and IL-1 beta production were almost completely abolished by depleting CD14(+) cells from the CD56(+) subset before stimulation. Likewise, depletion of CD14(+) cells dramatically impaired gamma delta T-cell expansion. IFN-gamma production could also be blocked by neutralizing the effects of endogenous IL-1 beta and TNF-alpha. Conversely, addition of recombinant IL-1 beta, TNF-alpha, or both further enhanced IFN-gamma production and strongly up-regulated IL-6 production. Our data indicate that CD56(+) DCs from human blood are capable of stimulating CD56(+) gamma delta T cells, which may be harnessed for immunotherapy. (Blood. 2009;114:4422-4431)

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