4.0 Article

Immunization With DNA Topoisomerase I and Freund's Complete Adjuvant Induces Skin and Lung Fibrosis and Autoimmunity via Interleukin-6 Signaling

期刊

ARTHRITIS AND RHEUMATISM
卷 63, 期 11, 页码 3575-3585

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/art.30539

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare of Japan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. The presence of anti-DNA topoisomerase I (anti-topo I) antibody correlates positively with disease severity in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc). However, the role of induction of anti-topo I antibody production and its potential contribution to the pathogenesis of SSc remain unclear. The aim of this study was to examine the role of anti-topo I antibody in the pathogenesis of SSc. Methods. To assess the contribution of anti-topo I antibody to the pathogenetic process, dermal sclerosis, pulmonary fibrosis, and cytokine production were examined in mice treated with topo I and either Freund's complete adjuvant (CFA) or Freund's incomplete adjuvant (IFA). Results. Treatment with topo I and CFA, in contrast to treatment with topo I and IFA, induced skin and lung fibrosis with increased interleukin-6 (IL-6), transforming growth factor beta 1, and IL-17 production and decreased IL-10 production. Anti-topo I antibody levels were greater in mice treated with topo I and CFA than in mice treated with topo I and IFA. Furthermore, treatment with topo I and CFA increased Th2 and Th17 cell frequencies in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, whereas treatment with topo I and IFA increased Th1 and Treg cell frequencies. Moreover, loss of IL-6 expression ameliorated skin and lung fibrosis, decreased Th2 and Th17 cell frequencies, and increased Th1 and Treg cell frequencies. Conclusion. This study is the first to show that treatment with topo I and CFA induces SSc-like skin and lung fibrosis and autoimmune abnormalities. We also suggest that IL-6 plays important roles in the development of fibrosis and autoimmune abnormalities in this novel SSc model.

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

4.0
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