4.6 Article

Altered frequency of Th17 and Treg cells in new-onset systemic lupus erythematosus patients

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/eci.13012

关键词

FoxP3 gene; interleukin-17 A; ROR gamma t gene; systemic lupus erythematosus; Th17 cells; Treg cells

资金

  1. Hubei province Natural Science Fund [2012FFB04412]
  2. Health & Family Planning Commission fund [WJ2015 MB098]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background T helper 17 (Th17) and regulatory T (Treg) cells play an important role in pathogenesis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Their imbalance was reported in treated SLE patients, while very little is known about the relationship between Th17 and Treg cells in new-onset untreated SLE patients. Aim Materials and methods To assess the role of Th17/Treg cells in the pathogenesis of new-onset SLE. Thirty-nine new-onset SLE patients and 33 age-matched healthy adults were enrolled. We analysed Th17 and Treg cells in different level, including their frequencies in peripheral blood mononuclear cell, the expression of interleukin-17 A (IL-17A) and forkhead box P3 (FoxP3) proteins, the expression of retinoid-related orphan nuclear receptor gamma t (ROR gamma t) and FoxP3 genes and plasma level of IL-17A. Results Conclusions The frequency of Th17 and Treg cells, the expression of IL-17A among Th17 cell, the plasma level of IL-17A, the expression of ROR gamma t and FoxP3 genes were all significantly higher in SLE patients. Th17 cells were negatively correlated with Treg cells. We also found that plasma level of IL-17A was positively correlated with SLE disease activities index (SLEDAI) scores and an equation among the level of C3, IgA, IL-17A and SLEDAI scores. Results indicate that Th17 and Treg cells take roles in the pathogenesis of SLE. Th17 cells might suppress the differentiation of Treg cells, and feedback effects might exist between them during SLE pathogenesis. The measure of plasma level of IL-17A may be useful for evaluation of disease activity in new-onset SLE patients.

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