ArticleThe American journal of pathology2001
Chemokine-induced cutaneous inflammatory cell infiltration in a model of Hu-PBMC-SCID mice grafted with human skin.
Article in The American journal of pathology, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Anti-CCL22 increases regulatory T cells in CD4Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2020Article
- Attenuation of microglial RANTES by NEMO-binding domain peptide inhibits the infiltration of CD8(+) T cells in the nigra of hemiparkinsonian monkey.Neuroscience · 2015Article
- Proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines at the skin interface during Powassan virus transmission.The Journal of investigative dermatology · 2014Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recently, certain chemokines and chemokine receptors have been preferentially associated with the selective recruitment in vitro of type 1 T cells, such as IP-10 and its receptor CXCR3, or type 2 T cells such as monocyte-derived chemokine (MDC) and eotaxin and their receptors CCR4 and CCR3. Very few models have provided confirmation of these findings in vivo. Taking advantage of the humanized SCID mouse model grafted with autologous human skin, the ability of the chemokines IP-10, MDC, eotaxin, and RANTES to stimulate cell recruitment was investigated. Intradermal IP-10 injection resulted in an influx of CD4+ T lymphocytes but also surprisingly in the recruitment of dendritic cells. MDC recruited mainly CD8+ T lymphocytes, and had little effect on eosinophils. As predicted, eotaxin was a potent inducer of eosinophil and basophil migration, also recruiting CD4+ T cells. RANTES, a ubiquitous chemokine associated with both type 1 and type 2 profiles, was able to recruit all cell types. CXCR3-positive cells were preferentially recruited by IP-10, whereas CCR3- and CCR4-positive cells were predominantly found after injection of eotaxin and MDC. Thus, in a human environment in vivo, some chemokines have the ability to recruit cells expressing chemokine receptors preferentially expressed on type 1 or type 2 cells. Further investigations revealed that MDC and eotaxin induced the recruitment of type 2, but not type 1, cytokine-producing cells. RANTES, on the other hand, induced the migration of both type 1 and type 2 cytokine-secreting cells, whereas IP-10 did not induce the recruitment of either subtype. These studies provide detailed information on the properties of MDC, eotaxin, IP-10, and RANTES as chemotactic molecules in skin in vivo. The use of the humanized SCID mouse model grafted with human skin is validated as a useful model for the evaluation of chemokine function in the inflammatory reaction, and suggests that therapeutic targeting of certain chemokines might be of interest in diseases associated preferentially with a type 1 or type 2 profile.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.