4.6 Article

The functional insufficiency of human CD4(+)CD25(high) T-regulatory cells in allergic asthma is subjected to TNF-alpha modulation

期刊

ALLERGY
卷 63, 期 1, 页码 67-74

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2007.01526.x

关键词

allergen-specific immunotherapy; allergic asthma; Foxp3; natural regulatory T cells; tumor necrosis factor-alpha

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Natural CD4(+)CD25(high)Foxp3(+) regulatory T (nTreg) cells are important in maintaining immunologic tolerance, but their role in the pathogenesis of allergic asthma is unclear. We studied the function of nTreg cells in allergic asthmatic children and assessed the factors which may relate to the functional insufficiency of nTreg cells. The percentage of CD4(+)CD25(high) Treg cells, the expression of Foxp3, and the cell-induced suppressive activity of nTreg cells isolated from nonatopic controls, allergic asthmatics, and allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT)-treated asthmatic patients were studied. Although the percentage of nTreg in peripheral blood mononuclear cells was increased, the expression of Foxp3 and its cell-induced suppressive activity were significantly lower in Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus (Der p)-sensitive asthmatic children when compared to nonatopic controls. In contrast, the expression of Foxp3 and the functional activity of nTreg cells were reversed in allergic asthmatics who received AIT. The addition of recombinant tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha directly downregulated Foxp3 expression and abrogated the cell-induced suppressive function of Treg cells. The anti-TNF-alpha reagent, etanercept, restored the functional activity and Foxp3 expression of CD4(+)CD25(high) Treg derived from allergic asthmatics. The functional insufficiency of nTreg cells in patients with allergic asthma may be related to the enhanced production of TNF-alpha and its effect on the Foxp3 expression. These results may explain, in part, the effectiveness of anti-TNF-alpha therapy in the treatment of allergic asthma.

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