Natalie E Riddell1, Victoria E Burns2, Graham R Wallace3, Kate M Edwards4, Mark Drayson3, Laura S Redwine5, Suzi Hong5, Jack C Bui5, Johannes C Fischer6, Paul J Mills5, Jos A Bosch7. 1. Division of Infection and Immunity, University College London, London, UK. Electronic address: n.riddell@ucl.ac.uk. 2. School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, UK. 3. School of Immunity and Infection, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, UK. 4. Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, Australia. 5. Department of Psychiatry, University of California San Diego, USA. 6. Institute for Transplantation Diagnostics and Cell Therapeutics, Heinrich Heine University Dusseldorf, Germany. 7. Department of Clinical Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: j.a.bosch@bham.ac.uk.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Stimuli that activate the sympathetic nervous system, such as acute psychological stress, rapidly invoke a robust mobilization of lymphocytes into the circulation. Experimental animal studies suggest that bone marrow-derived progenitor cells (PCs) also mobilize in response to sympathetic stimulation. Here we tested the effects of acute psychological stress and brief pharmacological β-adrenergic (βAR) stimulation on peripheral PC numbers in humans. METHODS: In two studies, we investigated PC mobilization in response to an acute speech task (n=26) and βAR-agonist (isoproterenol) infusion (n=20). A subset of 8 participants also underwent the infusion protocol with concomitant administration of the βAR-antagonist propranolol. Flow cytometry was used to enumerate lymphocyte subsets, total progenitor cells, total haematopoietic stem cells (HSC), early HSC (multi-lineage potential), late HSC (lineage committed), and endothelial PCs (EPCs). RESULTS: Both psychological stress and βAR-agonist infusion caused the expected mobilization of total monocytes and lymphocytes and CD8(+) T lymphocytes. Psychological stress also induced a modest, but significant, increase in total PCs, HSCs, and EPC numbers in peripheral blood. However, infusion of a βAR-agonist did not result in a significant change in circulating PCs. CONCLUSION: PCs are rapidly mobilized by psychological stress via mechanisms independent of βAR-stimulation, although the findings do not exclude βAR-stimulation as a possible cofactor. Considering the clinical and physiological relevance, further research into the mechanisms involved in stress-induced PC mobilization seems warranted.
OBJECTIVES: Stimuli that activate the sympathetic nervous system, such as acute psychological stress, rapidly invoke a robust mobilization of lymphocytes into the circulation. Experimental animal studies suggest that bone marrow-derived progenitor cells (PCs) also mobilize in response to sympathetic stimulation. Here we tested the effects of acute psychological stress and brief pharmacological β-adrenergic (βAR) stimulation on peripheral PC numbers in humans. METHODS: In two studies, we investigated PC mobilization in response to an acute speech task (n=26) and βAR-agonist (isoproterenol) infusion (n=20). A subset of 8 participants also underwent the infusion protocol with concomitant administration of the βAR-antagonist propranolol. Flow cytometry was used to enumerate lymphocyte subsets, total progenitor cells, total haematopoietic stem cells (HSC), early HSC (multi-lineage potential), late HSC (lineage committed), and endothelial PCs (EPCs). RESULTS: Both psychological stress and βAR-agonist infusion caused the expected mobilization of total monocytes and lymphocytes and CD8(+) T lymphocytes. Psychological stress also induced a modest, but significant, increase in total PCs, HSCs, and EPC numbers in peripheral blood. However, infusion of a βAR-agonist did not result in a significant change in circulating PCs. CONCLUSION: PCs are rapidly mobilized by psychological stress via mechanisms independent of βAR-stimulation, although the findings do not exclude βAR-stimulation as a possible cofactor. Considering the clinical and physiological relevance, further research into the mechanisms involved in stress-induced PC mobilization seems warranted.
Authors: Leila H Anane; Kate M Edwards; Victoria E Burns; Mark T Drayson; Natalie E Riddell; Jet J C S Veldhuijzen van Zanten; Graham R Wallace; Paul J Mills; Jos A Bosch Journal: Brain Behav Immun Date: 2009-03-24 Impact factor: 7.217
Authors: S Shintani; T Murohara; H Ikeda; T Ueno; T Honma; A Katoh; K Sasaki; T Shimada; Y Oike; T Imaizumi Journal: Circulation Date: 2001-06-12 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Richard M Cubbon; Scott R Murgatroyd; Carrie Ferguson; T Scott Bowen; Mark Rakobowchuk; Vivek Baliga; Daniel Cannon; Adil Rajwani; Afroze Abbas; Matthew Kahn; Karen M Birch; Karen E Porter; Stephen B Wheatcroft; Harry B Rossiter; Mark T Kearney Journal: Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol Date: 2010-01-28 Impact factor: 8.311
Authors: Jos A Bosch; Gary G Berntson; John T Cacioppo; Firdaus S Dhabhar; Phillip T Marucha Journal: Brain Behav Immun Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 7.217
Authors: Jos A Bosch; Eco J C de Geus; Douglas Carroll; Annebet D Goedhart; Leila A Anane; Jet J Veldhuizen van Zanten; Eva J Helmerhorst; Kate M Edwards Journal: Psychosom Med Date: 2009-09-24 Impact factor: 4.312
Authors: Richard J Simpson; Austin B Bigley; Nadia Agha; Patrick J Hanley; Catherine M Bollard Journal: Exerc Sport Sci Rev Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 6.230
Authors: Nadia H Agha; Forrest L Baker; Hawley E Kunz; Rachel Graff; Rod Azadan; Chad Dolan; Mitzi S Laughlin; Chitra Hosing; Melissa M Markofski; Richard A Bond; Catherine M Bollard; Richard J Simpson Journal: Brain Behav Immun Date: 2017-10-07 Impact factor: 7.217
Authors: Marcin Jabłoński; Jolanta Kucharska Mazur; Maciej Tarnowski; Barbara Dołęgowska; Daniel Pędziwiatr; Ewa Kubiś; Marta Budkowska; Daria Sałata; Justyna Pełka Wysiecka; Arkadiusz Kazimierczak; Artur Reginia; Mariusz Z Ratajczak; Jerzy Samochowiec Journal: Stem Cell Rev Rep Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 5.739