4.8 Article

Treatment with Dexamethasone and Monophosphoryl lipid a removes Disease-associated Transcriptional signatures in Monocyte-Derived Dendritic cells from rheumatoid arthritis Patients and confers Tolerogenic Features

期刊

FRONTIERS IN IMMUNOLOGY
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2016.00458

关键词

rheumatoid arthritis; dendritic cells; tolerance; cell-based therapy; transcriptome

资金

  1. Fondecyt-Chile [1140553]
  2. Millennium Institute on Immunology and Immunotherapy [P09-016-F]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tolerogenic dendritic cells (TolDCs) are promising tools for therapy of autoimmune diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Here, we characterize monocyte-derived TolDCs from RA patients modulated with dexamethasone and activated with monophosphoryl lipid A (MPLA), referred to as MPLA-tDCs, in terms of gene expression, phenotype, cytokine profile, migratory properties, and T cell-stimulatory capacity in order to explore their suitability for cellular therapy. MPLA-tDCs derived from RA patients displayed an anti-inflammatory profile with reduced expression of co-stimulatory molecules and high IL-10/IL-12 ratio, but were capable of migrating toward the lymphoid chemokines CXCL12 and CCL19. These MPLA-tDCs induced hyporesponsiveness of autologous CD4+ T cells specific for synovial antigens in vitro. Global transcriptome analysis confirmed a unique transcriptional profile of MPLA-tDCs and revealed that RA-associated genes, which were upregulated in untreated DCs from RA patients, returned to expression levels of healthy donor-derived DCs after treatment with dexamethasone and MPLA. Thus, monocyte-derived DCs from RA patients have the capacity to develop tolerogenic features at transcriptional as well as at translational level, when modulated with dexamethasone and MPLA, overcoming disease-related effects. Furthermore, the ability of MPLA-tDCs to impair T cell responses to synovial antigens validates their potential as cellular treatment for RA.

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

4.8
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