4.8 Article

FOXP3 Expression in Hepatitis C Virus-Specific CD4+ T Cells During Acute Hepatitis C

期刊

GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 137, 期 4, 页码 1280-1288

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2009.06.059

关键词

-

资金

  1. German Federal Ministry of Research (BMBF)
  2. Deutsch Forschungsgemeinschaft [UL 367/1-1]
  3. VIRGIL European Network of Excellence on Antiviral Drug Resistance [LSHM-CT-2004-503359]
  4. European Union

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Down-regulation of hepatitis C virus (HCV)-specific CD4(+) T-cell responses is a hallmark of chronic viral persistence in acute hepatitis C. FOXP3(+)CD25(+)CD4(+) regulatory T cells can modulate HCV-specific immune responses in vitro, but the role of virus-specific regulatory T cells in the pathogenesis of chronic viral persistence is unknown. METHODS: Two novel HLA-DR15 tetramers were synthesized to study the kinetics and phenotype of FOXP3(+)-expressing HCV-specific CD4(+) T cells from 10 patients with acute hepatitis C and 15 patients with chronic hepatitis C. RESULTS: In acute hepatitis C, generally only a low percentage of HCV-specific CD4(+) T cells expressed FOXP3(+) (mean of 2.5% in patients with self-limited acute hepatitis C vs 2.4% in patients with evolving chronic hepatitis C). Although distinct but short-lived increases in virus-specific FOXP3(+)CD4(+) T cells occurred in 3 patients (30%, 26%, and 7% of tet(+) CD4(+) T cells, respectively), these did not correlate with the evolution of chronic hepatitis C. HCV-specific FOXP3(+)CD4(+) T cells displayed a distinct phenotype, with only 10% expressing CD25 and 40% being CD127low. Interestingly, this phenotype of FOXP3(+)CD4(+) T cells was already expanded in bulk CD4(+) T cells in patients with chronic hepatitis C. CONCLUSIONS: Although short-lived increases in HCV-specific FOXP3(+)CD4(+) T cells occur during the course of acute hepatitis C, we could not demonstrate an association of HCV-specific regulatory T cells and persistent viremia.

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