4.5 Article

Level of major histocompatibility complex class I expression on endothelium in non-obese diabetic mice influences CD8 T cell adhesion and migration

期刊

CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL IMMUNOLOGY
卷 157, 期 1, 页码 119-127

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2249.2009.03940.x

关键词

endothelial cells; CD8 T cells; migration; NOD mouse; trafficking

资金

  1. Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An important prerequisite for development of insulitis and beta-cell destruction in type 1 diabetes is successful transmigration of autoreactive T cells across the islet endothelium. Previous work suggests that antigen presentation to T cells by endothelium, which requires endothelial cell expression of major histocompatibility complex (MHC) molecules, promotes tissue-specific T cell migration. We therefore tested the hypothesis that the level of endothelial MHC class I molecule expression in diabetes-prone mice directly influences autoreactive CD8 T cell migration. We investigated the immune phenotype of endothelial cells, focusing on endothelial MHC class I molecule expression in a range of different tissues and mouse strains, including non-obese diabetic (NOD) mice. In addition, we examined whether the level of expression of MHC class I molecules influences autoantigen-driven CD8 T cell transmigration. Using endothelial cell lines that expressed 'high' (NOD mouse), medium (NOD x C3H/HeJ F(1) generation mice) and no (C3H/HeJ) H-2K(d), we demonstrated in vitro that MHC levels have a profound effect on the activation, adhesion and transmigration of pathogenic, islet autoreactive CD8 T cells. The expression level of MHC class I molecules on endothelial tissues has a direct impact upon the efficiency of migration of autoreactive T cells. The immune phenotype of microvascular endothelium in NOD mice may be an additional contributory factor in disease predisposition or development, and similar phenotypes should be sought in human type 1 diabetes.

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