4.5 Article

Suppression of type 2 immunity and allergic airway inflammation by secreted products of the helminth Heligmosomoides polygyrus

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 42, 期 10, 页码 2667-2682

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/eji.201142161

关键词

Allergy; Eosinophils; IgE; Infection; Macrophages

资金

  1. Medical Research Council
  2. American Asthma Foundation
  3. Asthma UK
  4. Wellcome Trust
  5. MRC [G0501474] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Medical Research Council [G0501474] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Allergic asthma is less prevalent in countries with parasitic helminth infections, and mice infected with parasites such as Heligmosomoides polygyrus are protected from allergic airway inflammation. To establish whether suppression of allergy could be mediated by soluble products of this helminth, we tested H. polygyrus excretory-secretory (HES) material for its ability to impair allergic inflammation. When HES was added to sensitising doses of ovalbumin, the subsequent allergic airway response was suppressed, with ablated cell infiltration, a lower ratio of effector (CD4+CD25+Foxp3-) to regulatory (CD4+Foxp3+) T (Treg) cells, and reduced Th1, Th2 and Th17 cytokine production. HES exposure reduced IL-5 responses and eosinophilia, abolished IgE production and inhibited the type 2 innate molecules arginase-1 and RELM-a (resistin-like molecule-a). Although HES contains a TGF-beta-like activity, similar effects in modulating allergy were not observed when administering mammalian TGF-beta alone. HES also protected previously sensitised mice, suppressing recruitment of eosinophils to the airways when given at challenge, but no change in Th or Treg cell populations was apparent. Because heat-treatment of HES did not impair suppression at sensitisation, but compromised its ability to suppress at challenge, we propose that HES contains distinct heat-stable and heat-labile immunomodulatory molecules, which modulate pro-allergic adaptive and innate cell populations.

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