4.3 Article

CXCR6 identifies a putative population of retained human lung T cells characterised by co-expression of activation markers

期刊

IMMUNOBIOLOGY
卷 213, 期 7, 页码 599-608

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH, URBAN & FISCHER VERLAG
DOI: 10.1016/j.imbio.2008.01.005

关键词

cell trafficking; chemokines; human; lung; T lymphocytes

资金

  1. Asthma, UK
  2. Wellcome Trust
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES [R01AI046784] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Expressions of activation markers have been described on the surface of T cells in the blood and the lung in both health and disease. We have studied the distribution of activation markers on human lung T cells and have found that only certain populations exist. Importantly, the presence or absence of some markers appears to predict those of others, in particular cells which express CD103 also express CD49a and CD69, whereas cells which do not express CD69 also do not express CD49a or CD 103. In view of the paucity of activation marker expression in the peripheral blood, we have hypothesised that these CD69+, CD49a+, and CD103+ (triple positive) cells are retained in the lung, possess effector function (IFN gamma secretion) and express particular chemokine receptors which allow thetas to be maintained in this environment. We have found that the ability of the triple negative cells to secrete IFN gamma is significantly less than the triple positive cells, suggesting that the expression of activation markers can highlight a highly specialised effector cell. We have studied the expression of 14 chemokine receptors and have found that the most striking difference between the triple negative cells and the triple positive cells is the expression of CXCR6 with 12.8+/-9.8% of triple negative cells expressing CXCR6 compared to 89.5+/-5.5% of triple positive cells. We propose therefore that CXCR6 may play an important role in the retention of T cells within the lung. (C) 2008 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

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

4.3
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