4.5 Article

The influences of age on T lymphocyte subsets in C57BL/6 mice

期刊

SAUDI JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES
卷 24, 期 1, 页码 108-113

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2016.09.002

关键词

Immunosenescence; T lymphocyte subsets; C57BL/6 mice; Aging

类别

资金

  1. National Nature Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [81371328, 81403248, 31301118]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study is to evaluate the age related changes of T lymphocyte subsets in C57BL/6 mice and immune function. Multi-color immunofluorescence techniques that were used to analyse relative numbers of T lymphocyte subsets include CD4(+), CD8(+), naive and memory CD4(+) and CD8(+), CD8(+) CD28(+) T cells in peripheral blood of C57BL/6 mice from different age groups (Group I: 2 months old; Group II: 7 months old; Group III: 21 months old); Splenocytes isolated from different group mice were stimulated with Con A to evaluate the proliferative ability. Compared with group I, group II had a significant reduction in the percentage of CD4(+), naive CD4(+) and CD8(+) T cells and an increase in the percentage of CD8(+) T cells, while group III had a significant reduction in the percentage of CD4(+), naive CD4(+) and CD8(+) T cells and increase in the percentage of CD8(+), memory CD4(+) and CD8(+) T cells in peripheral blood. Compared with group II, group III had a significant reduction in the percentage of naive CD8(+) T cells and increase in the percentage of memory CD4(+) and CD8(+), CD8(+) CD28(+) T cells in peripheral blood. The T lymphocyte proliferation in vitro showed that groups II and III had a lower proliferative capacity than group I, between groups II and III, there was not a significant difference. We provide relative values for the T lymphocyte subsets in the different age groups of C57BL/6 mice. The immune system began aging at 7 months old in C57BL/6 mice under a specific pathogen free environment. (C) 2016 The Authors. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of King Saud University.

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

4.5
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