4.6 Article

Entecavir up-regulates dendritic cell function in patients with chronic hepatitis B

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 14, Issue 10, Pages 1617-1621

Publisher

BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.14.1617

Keywords

chronic hepatitis B; dendritic cell; entecavir

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AIM: To investigate the in vitro effect of entecavir (ETV) on the function of dendritic cells (DCs) derived from chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients. METHODS: Mononuclear cells were isolated from peripheral blood of patients with CHB. DCs were incubated with RPMI-1640 medium supplemented with fetal bovine serum, IL-4, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF). DCs were treated with or without ETV on the fourth day. Cell surface molecules, including CD1a, CD80, CD83 and HLA-DR, were assessed by flow cytometry. Concentrations of IL-6 and IL-12 in the supernatant were assayed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). The ability of the generated DCs to stimulate lymphocyte proliferation was observed. RESULTS: Compared with CHB control group, the expression levels of CD1a (29.07 +/- 3.20 vs 26.85 +/- 2.80), CD83 (25.66 +/- 3.19 vs 23.21 +/- 3.10), CD80 (28.00 +/- 2.76 vs 25.75 +/- 2.51) and HLA-DR (41.96 +/- 3.81 vs 32.20 +/- 3.04) in ETV-treated group were higher (P < 0.05). ETV-treated group secreted significantly more IL-12 (157.60 +/- 26.85 pg/mL vs 132.60 +/- 22.00 pg/mL (P < 0.05) and had a lower level of IL-6 in the culture supernatant (83.05 +/- 13.88 pg/mL vs 93.60 +/- 13.61 pg/mL, P < 0.05) than CHB control group. The ability of DCs to stimulate the proliferation of allogeneic lymphocytes was increased in ETV-treated group compared with CHB control group (1.53 +/- 0.09 vs 1.42 +/- 0.08, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Entecavir can enhance the biological activity of DCs derived from CHB patients. (C) 2008 WJG. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available