4.6 Article

C-C chemokine receptor 4 expression defines a major subset of circulating nonintestinal memory T cells of both Th1 and Th2 potential

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 166, 期 1, 页码 103-111

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.166.1.103

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

CCR4, a chemokine receptor for macrophage-derived chemokine (MDC) and thymus and activation-regulated chemokine (TARC), has been implicated as a preferential marker for Th2 lymphocytes. Following in vitro polarization protocols, most Th2 lymphocytes express CCR4 and respond to its ligands TARC and MDC, whereas Th1 lymphocytes express CXC chemokine receptor 3 and CCR5 (but not CCR4). We show in this study that CCR4 is a major receptor for MDC and TARC on T lymphocytes, as anti-CCR4 mAbs significantly inhibit the migration of these cells to MDC and TARC, CCR4 is also highly expressed in most single-positive CD4(+) thymocytes and on a major fraction of blood nonintestinal (alpha (4)beta (-)(7)) memory CD4 lymphocytes, including almost all skin memory CD4(+) cells expressing the cutaneous lymphocyte Ag (CLA), but weakly or not expressed in other subsets in thymus and blood. interestingly, major fractions of circulating CCR4(+) memory CD4 lymphocytes coexpress the Th1-associated receptors CXC chemokine receptor 3 and CCR5, suggesting a potential problem in using these markers for Th1 vs Th2 lymphocyte cells. Moreover, although production of Th2 cytokines in blood T cells is associated with CCR4(+) CD4 lymphocytes, significant numbers of freshly isolated circulating CCR4(+) memory CD4 lymphocytes (including both CLA(+) and CLA(-) fractions) readily express the Th1 cytokine IFN-gamma after short-term stimulation. Our results are consistent with a role for CCR4 as a major trafficking receptor for systemic memory T cells, and indicate that the patterns and regulation of chemokine receptor expression in vivo are more complex than indicated by current in vitro models of Th1 vs Th2 cell generation.

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