4.8 Article

Elastase-mediated phosphatidylserine receptor cleavage impairs apoptotic cell clearance in cystic fibrosis and bronchiectasis

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL INVESTIGATION
卷 109, 期 5, 页码 661-670

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL INVESTIGATION INC
DOI: 10.1172/JCI200213572

关键词

-

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [R01GM048211] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL-60980] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIGMS NIH HHS [R01 GM048211, GM-48211] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cystic fibrosis is characterized by an early and sustained influx of inflammatory cells into the airways and by release of proteases. Resolution of inflammation is normally associated with the orderly removal of dying apoptotic inflammatory cells through cell recognition receptors, such as the phosphatidylserine receptor, CD36, and alphav integrins. Accordingly, removal of apoptotic inflammatory cells may be impaired in persistent inflammatory responses such as that seen in cystic fibrosis airways. Examination of sputa from cystic fibrosis and non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis patients demonstrated an abundance of apoptotic cells, in excess of that seen in patients with chronic bronchitis. In vitro, cystic fibrosis and bronchiectasis airway fluid directly inhibited apoptotic cell removal by alveolar macrophages in a neutrophil elastase-dependent manner, suggesting that elastase may impair apoptotic cell clearance in vivo. Flow cytometry demonstrated that neutrophil elastase cleaved the phosphatidylserine receptor, but not CD36 or CD32 (FcgammaRII). Cleavage of the phosphatidylserine receptor by neutrophil elastase specifically disrupted phagocytosis of apoptotic cells, implying a potential mechanism for delayed apoptotic cell clearance in vivo. Therefore, defective airway clearance of apoptotic cells in cystic Fibrosis and bronchiectasis maybe due to elastase-mediated cleavage of phosphatidylserine receptor on phagocytes and may contribute to ongoing airway inflammation.

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