| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Published online before print August 1, 2003
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
,1
* Departments of Microbiology & Immunology and
Pediatrics, Dalhousie Inflammation Group, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
1 Correspondence: Department of Pediatrics, Division of Immunology, Rheumatology and Infectious Diseases, IWK Health Centre, 5850 University Avenue, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, B3J 3G9. E-mail: thomas.issekutz{at}iwk.nshealth.ca
In chronic inflammatory reactions such as rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis, T cells in the inflamed tissue express the chemokine receptors CXCR3 and CCR5, and the chemokine ligands (CCL) of these receptors are present in the inflammatory lesions. However, the contribution of these chemokines to T cell recruitment to sites of inflammation is unclear. In addition, the relative roles of the chemokines that bind CXCR3 (CXCL9, CXCL10, CXCL11) and CCR5 (CCL3, CCL4, CCL5) in this process are unknown. The in vitro chemotaxis and in vivo migration of antigen-activated T lymphoblasts and unactivated spleen T cells to chemokines were examined. T lymphoblasts migrated in vitro to CXCR3 ligands with a relative potency of CXCL10 > CXCL11 > CXCL9, but these cells demonstrated much less chemotaxis to the CCR5 ligands. In vivo, T lymphocytes were recruited in large numbers with rapid kinetics to skin sites injected with CXCL10 and CCL5 and less to CCL3, CCL4, CXCL9, and CXCL11. The combination of CCL5 with CXCL10 but not the other chemokines markedly increased recruitment. Coinjection of interferon-
, tumor necrosis factor 
, and interleukin-1 to up-regulate endothelial cell adhesion molecule expression with CXCL10 or CCL5 induced an additive increase in lymphoblast migration. Thus, CXCR3 ligands are more chemotactic than CCR5 ligands in vitro; however, in vivo, CXCL10 and CCL5 have comparable T cell-recruiting activities to cutaneous sites and are more potent than the other CXCR3 and CCR5 chemokines. Therefore, in vitro chemotaxis induced by these chemokines is not necessarily predictive of their in vivo lymphocyte-recruiting activity.
Key Words: inflammation • chemokine • chemotaxis • skin
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  C. Costa, R. Rufino, S. L. Traves, J. R. Lapa e Silva, P. J. Barnes, and L. E. Donnelly CXCR3 and CCR5 Chemokines in Induced Sputum From Patients With COPD Chest, January 1, 2008; 133(1): 26 - 33. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. Tellides and J. S. Pober Interferon-{gamma} Axis in Graft Arteriosclerosis Circ. Res., March 16, 2007; 100(5): 622 - 632. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. E. Christensen, C. de Lemos, T. Moos, J. P. Christensen, and A. R. Thomsen CXCL10 Is the Key Ligand for CXCR3 on CD8+ Effector T Cells Involved in Immune Surveillance of the Lymphocytic Choriomeningitis Virus-Infected Central Nervous System J. Immunol., April 1, 2006; 176(7): 4235 - 4243. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 I. J. Crane, H. Xu, C. Wallace, A. Manivannan, M. Mack, J. Liversidge, G. Marquez, P. F. Sharp, and J. V. Forrester Involvement of CCR5 in the passage of Th1-type cells across the blood-retina barrier in experimental autoimmune uveitis J. Leukoc. Biol., March 1, 2006; 79(3): 435 - 443. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
