| Literature DB >> 30390640 |
Dean Huggard1,2,3,4,5, Fiona McGrane6,7, Niamh Lagan6,7, Edna Roche6,7, Joanne Balfe6,7, Timothy Ronan Leahy6,8, Orla Franklin6,9, Ana Moreno6,10, Ashanty M Melo6,10, Derek G Doherty6,10, Eleanor J Molloy6,10,7,11,12,13.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Down syndrome (DS) is the most common syndromic immunodeficiency with an increased risk of infection, mortality from sepsis, and autoinflammation. Innate immune function is altered in DS and therefore we examined responses in CD11b and Toll like receptor 4 (TLR-4), which are important immune cell surface markers upregulated in response to Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) endotoxin, and the immunomodulator melatonin. Neutrophil and monocyte responses to LPS and melatonin in children with Down syndrome (DS) who were clinically stable were compared to age-matched controls. Whole blood was incubated with LPS and melatonin and the relative expression of CD11b and TLR-4 evaluated by flow cytometry.Entities:
Keywords: Down syndrome; Endotoxin; Immunomodulation; Inflammation; Innate immunity
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30390640 PMCID: PMC6215672 DOI: 10.1186/s12865-018-0270-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Immunol ISSN: 1471-2172 Impact factor: 3.615
Fig. 1Gating strategy for isolation of granulocytes and monocyte sub-populations. Neutrophils were delineated based on SSC-A and CD66b + positivity. Monocytes were defined based on SSC-A, CD66b- and subsets based on relative CD14+ CD16+ populations; classical (CD14+/CD16-), intermediate (CD14+/CD16+), non-classical (CD14dim/CD16+)
Fig. 3Neutrophil and monocyte Toll-like receptor (TLR-4) expression in response to lipopolysaccharide (LPS) in children with Down syndrome (DS) and controls. Values expressed as mean channel fluorescence (MFI). *p < 0.05. a Neutrophil TLR4 (DS n = 19; Controls n = 10); b Total monocyte TLR-4 (DS n = 22; Controls n = 15); c Classical monocyte TLR4 (DS n = 16; Controls n = 15); d Intermediate monocyte TLR4 (DS n = 15; Controls n = 14); e Non-classical monocyte TLR-4 (DS n = 16; Controls n = 20)
Fig. 2Neutrophil and monocyte CD11b expression in response to lipopolysaccharide (LPS) in children with Down syndrome (DS) and controls. Values expressed as mean channel fluorescence (MFI). *p < 0.05. a Neutrophil CD11b (DS n = 23; Controls n = 16); b Total monocyte CD11b (DS n = 19; Controls n = 21); c Classical monocyte CD11b (DS n = 19; Controls n = 21; d Intermediate monocyte CD11b (DS n = 18; Controls n = 20); e Non-classical monocyte (DS n = 19; Controls n = 21)
Fig. 4Neutrophil and monocyte CD11b expression in response to LPS and melatonin in children with DS versus controls: Samples were treated with Lipopolysaccharide (LPS), Melatonin (Mel), Lipopolysaccharide and melatonin (LPS + Mel) and Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) versus Lipopolysaccharide and melatonin (LPS/ LPS + Mel) and expressed as fold changes in mean channel fluorescence (MFI). p* < 0.05. a Neutrophil CD11b (DS n = 23; Controls n = 16); b Total monocyte CD11b (DS n = 19; Controls n = 21); c Classical monocyte CD11b (DS n = 19; Controls n = 21); d Intermediate CD11b (DS n = 18; Controls n = 20); e Non-classical monocyte CD11b (DS n = 19; Controls n = 21)
Fig. 5Neutrophil and monocyte TLR-4 expression in response to LPS and melatonin in children with DS versus controls: Samples were treated with Lipopolysaccharide (LPS), Melatonin (Mel), Lipopolysaccharide and melatonin (LPS + Mel) and Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) versus Lipopolysaccharide and melatonin (LPS/ LPS + Mel) and expressed as fold changes in mean channel fluorescence (MFI). a Neutrophil TLR-4 (DS n = 19; Controls n = 10); b Total monocyte TLR-4 (DS n = 22; Controls n = 15); c Classical monocyte TLR-4 (DS n = 16; Controls n = 15); d Intermediate monocyte TLR-4 (DS n = 15; Controls n = 14); e Non-classical monocyte TLR-4 (DS n = 16; Controls n = 20)