4.6 Article

Epigallocatechin-3-Gallate Directly Suppresses T Cell Proliferation through Impaired IL-2 Utilization and Cell Cycle Progression

期刊

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 140, 期 8, 页码 1509-1515

出版社

AMER SOC NUTRITION-ASN
DOI: 10.3945/jn.110.124743

关键词

-

资金

  1. USDA, Agriculture Research Service [58-1950-7-707]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previously, we demonstrated that in vitro epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG) supplementation inhibited T cell response in mouse spleen cells. In this study, we confirmed this effect of EGCG in mice fed 0.3% EGCG for 6 wk. A coculture with all the combinations of preincubating antigen-presenting cells and T cells with or without EGCG showed that EGCG suppressed antigen-induced T cell proliferation, mainly through a direct effect on T cells. To determine the mechanisms for this effect of EGCG, we stimulated purified mouse T cells with anti-CD3/CD28 in the presence of EGCG (2.5-15 mu mol/L) and found that EGCG dose-dependently inhibited cell division and cell cycle progression and this effect of EGCG was more pronounced in CD4(+) than in CD8(+) T cells. Interleukin (IL)-2 concentrations in EGCG-treated cell cultures showed no difference up to 24 h but were higher in the cultures at 48 h compared with the untreated control cells. However, intracellular staining showed no difference between EGCG-treated and untreated control cells in IL-2 synthesis, but EGCG-treated cells expressed less IL-2 receptor (IL-2R) compared with untreated control cells. EGCG did not affect mRNA expression of IL-2 and IL-2R. These results indicate that EGCG-induced IL-2 accumulation in 48 h cultures is due to its reduced utilization. In summary, EGCG directly inhibits T cell proliferative response to both polyclonal and antigen-specific stimulation. CD4(+) cells are more responsive to EGCG than CD8(+) cells. Future studies should determine the effect of EGCG on CD4(+) cell subsets to assess its application in T cell-mediated autoimmune diseases. J. Nutr. 140: 1509-1515, 2010.

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