4.5 Article

Dendritic cells derived from peripheral monocytes express endothelial markers and in the presence of angiogenic growth factors differentiate into endothelial-like cells

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CELL BIOLOGY
卷 80, 期 1, 页码 99-110

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1078/0171-9335-00136

关键词

dendritic cells; endothelial-like cells; monocytes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

CD14-positive monocytes obtained from human peripheral blood were cultured with GM-CSF and IL-4. During the early culture phase immature dendritic cells (DCs) developed which not only expressed CD1a, HLA-DR and CD86, but also expressed the endothelial cell markers von Willebrand factor (vWF), VE-cadherin and VEGF receptors Flt-1 and Flt-4. Further maturation of DCs was achieved by prolonged cultivation with TNF alpha, These cells showed typical DC morphology and like professional antigen-presenting cells (APCs) expressed CD83 and high levels of HLA-DR and CD86, However, if immature DCs were grown with VEGF, bFGF and IGF-1 on fibronectin/vitronectin-coated culture dishes, a marked change in morphology into caudated or oval cells occurred. In the presence of these angiogenic growth factors the cultured cells developed into endothelial-like cells (ELCs), characterized by increased expression of VWF, KDR and Flt-4 and a disappearance of CD1a and CD83. Addition of IL-4 and Oncostatin M also increased VE-cadherin expression, and the loosely adherent cells formed clusters, cobblestones and network-like structures. vWF- expressing ELCs mainly originated from CD1a-positive cells, and VEGF was responsible for the decrease in the expression of the DC markers CD1a and CD83, In mixed leukocyte cultures, mature DCs were more potent APCs than ELCs. Moreover, Ac-LDL uptake, and the formation of tubular structures on a plasma matrix was restricted to ELCs. These results suggest that in the presence of specific cytokines immature DCs have the potential to differentiate along different lineages, i.e. into a cell type resembling ELCs.

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

4.5
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