4.7 Article

Regulatory T cells are strong promoters of acute ischemic stroke in mice by inducing dysfunction of the cerebral microvasculature

期刊

BLOOD
卷 121, 期 4, 页码 679-691

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2012-04-426734

关键词

-

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [SFB 688 TP A12, SFB 688 TP A13, SFB 688 TP B1, SFB 688 TP Z02, KL 2323/6-1, WI1722/13-1]
  2. Excellence Cluster Cells in Motion Munster
  3. Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung (NEURON-ERANET/NANOSTROKE)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have recently identified T cells as important mediators of ischemic brain damage, but the contribution of the different T-cell subsets is unclear. Forkhead box P3 (FoxP3)-positive regulatory T cells (Tregs) are generally regarded as prototypic anti-inflammatory cells that maintain immune tolerance and counteract tissue damage in a variety of immune-mediated disorders. In the present study, we examined the role of Tregs after experimental brain ischemia/reperfusion injury. Selective depletion of Tregs in the DEREG mouse model dramatically reduced infarct size and improved neurologic function 24 hours after stroke and this protective effect was preserved at later stages of infarct development. The specificity of this detrimental Treg effect was confirmed by adoptive transfer experiments in wild-type mice and in Rag1(-/-) mice lacking lymphocytes. Mechanistically, Tregs induced microvascular dysfunction in vivo by increased interaction with the ischemic brain endothelium via the LFA-1/ICAM-1 pathway and platelets and these findings were confirmed in vitro. Ablation of Tregs reduced microvascular thrombus formation and improved cerebral reperfusion on stroke, as revealed by ultra-high-field magnetic resonance imaging at 17.6 Tesla. In contrast, established immunoregulatory characteristics of Tregs had no functional relevance. We define herein a novel and unexpected role of Tregs in a primary nonimmunologic disease state. (Blood. 2013; 121(4): 679-691)

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