4.8 Article

Distinct costimulation dependent and independent autoreactive T-cell clones in primary biliary cirrhosis

期刊

GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 125, 期 5, 页码 1379-1387

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.gastro.2003.07.013

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background & Aims: Previous work has suggested that CD4(+) CD28(-) or costimulation-independent T cells are increased in autoimmune diseases. In this study, we compared frequency and qualitative characteristics of autoreactive costimulation-independent or CD4(+) CD28(-) T cells in primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) by taking advantage of the well-defined immunodominant autoepitope of the E2 component of pyruvate dehydrogenase (PDC-E2). Methods: We determined the frequency of costimulation-independent autoreactive T cells that respond to PDC-E2 163-176 and the frequency-of CD4(+) CD28(-) T cells. Finally, we determined the role of biliary epithelial cells (BEC) as both an antigen-presenting cell or, alternatively, as a target cell for T-cell-mediated cytotoxicity. Results: The precursor frequency of costimulation-independent CD4(+) T cells that respond to PDC-E2 163-176 and the frequency of CD4(+) CD28(-) T cells were dramatically elevated in PBC. Furthermore, 2 types of T-cell clones that respond to PDC-E2 163-176 emerged from this study. One type was costimulation dependent and the other costimulation independent. Both types of clones lyse BEC in a similar effector target (E/T) ratio distribution. However, BEC did not help the proliferation of any T-cell clones. Furthermore, costimulation-independent T-cell clones do not become anergic by BEC. Conclusions: In PBC, costimulation-independent autoreactive T cells, which do not become anergic, increase and maintain the autoimmune response. In controls, although autoantigens are expressed on BEC and autoantigen-reactive T cells exist around BEC, autoantigen-reactive T cells are costimulation dependent and will become anergic and maintain peripheral tolerance.

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

4.8
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