4.6 Article

Isolation of Mycobacterium avium Subspecies paratuberculosis Reactive CD4 T Cells from Intestinal Biopsies of Crohn's Disease Patients

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 4, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005641

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Crohn's disease (CD) is a chronic granulomatous inflammation of the intestine. The etiology is unknown, but an excessive immune response to bacteria in genetically susceptible individuals is probably involved. The response is characterized by a strong Th1/Th17 response, but the relative importance of the various bacteria is not known. Methodology/Principal Findings: In an attempt to address this issue, we made T-cell lines from intestinal biopsies of patients with CD (n = 11), ulcerative colitis (UC) (n = 13) and controls (n = 10). The T-cell lines were tested for responses to various bacteria. A majority of the CD patients with active disease had a dominant response to Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis (MAP). The T cells from CD patients also showed higher proliferation in response to MAP compared to UC patients (p<0.025). MAP reactive CD4 T-cell clones (n = 28) were isolated from four CD patients. The T-cell clones produced IL-17 and/or IFN-gamma, while minimal amounts of IL-4 were detected. To further characterize the specificity, the responses to antigen preparations from different mycobacterial species were tested. One T-cell clone responded only to MAP and the very closely related M. avium subspecies avium (MAA) while another responded to MAP, MAA and Mycobacterium intracellulare. A more broadly reactive T-cell clone reacted to MAP1508 which belongs to the esx protein family. Conclusions/Significance: The presence of MAP reactive T cells with a Th1 or Th1/Th17 phenotype may suggest a possible role of mycobacteria in the inflammation seen in CD. The isolation of intestinal T cells followed by characterization of their specificity is a valuable tool to study the relative importance of different bacteria in CD.

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