4.5 Article

Airway-specific recruitment of T cells is reduced in a CD26-deficient F344 rat substrain

期刊

CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL IMMUNOLOGY
卷 158, 期 1, 页码 133-142

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2249.2009.03991.x

关键词

asthma; bronchi; CD26; dipeptidyl peptidase 4; F344 rat substrains; T cells

资金

  1. German Research Foundation [SFB 587, b11]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

P>Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disease affecting the airways. Increased levels of T cells are found in the lungs after the induction of an allergic-like inflammation in rats, and flow cytometry studies have shown that these levels are reduced in CD26-deficient rats. However, the precise anatomical sites where these newly recruited T cells appear primarily are unknown. Therefore, we quantified the distribution of T cells in lung parenchyma as well as in large, medium and small airways using immunohistochemical stainings combined with morphometric analyses. The number of T cells increased after the induction of an allergic-like inflammation. However, the differences between CD26-deficient and wild-type rats were not attributable to different cell numbers in the lung parenchyma, but the medium- and large-sized bronchi revealed significantly fewer T cells in CD26-deficient rats. These sites of T cell recruitment were screened further using immunohistochemistry and quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction with regard to two hypotheses: (i) involvement of the nervous system or (ii) expression of chemokines with properties of a T cell attractor. No topographical association was found between nerves and T cells, but a differential transcription of chemokines was revealed in bronchi and parenchyma. Thus, the site-specific recruitment of T cells appears to be a process mediated by chemokines rather than nerve-T cell interactions. In conclusion, this is the first report showing a differential site-specific recruitment of T cells to the bronchi in a CD26-deficient rat substrain during an asthma-like 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

4.5
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