Porcine myelomonocytic markers and cell populations

Ezquerra, Ángel; Revilla, Concepción; Álvarez, Belén; Pérez, Carlos; Alonso, Fernando; Domı́nguez, Javier

doi:10.1016/j.dci.2008.06.002

Cited by 76 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 170 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the pig, all monocytes express CD16, but CD163 can help to differentiate the equivalents of the monocyte subsets described above. CD163 + monocytes are CCR2 low CX3CR1 high and CD163 − monocytes are CCR2 high CX3CR1 low (Ezquerra et al, 2009;Moreno et al, 2010). The phenotype of porcine MФ has been reviewed previously (Ezquerra et al, 2009) but their clear differentiation from DC remains difficult (Summerfield and McCullough, 2009).…”

Section: Macrophagesmentioning

confidence: 98%

The immunology of the porcine skin and its value as a model for human skin

Summerfield¹,

Meurens

Ricklin³

2015

Molecular Immunology

382

262

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The porcine skin has striking similarities to the human skin in terms of general structure, thickness, hair follicle content, pigmentation, collagen and lipid composition. This has been the basis for numerous studies using the pig as a model for wound healing, transdermal delivery, dermal toxicology, radiation and UVB effects. Considering that the skin also represents an immune organ of utmost importance for health, immune cells present in the skin of the pig will be reviewed. The focus of this review is on dendritic cells, which play a central role in the skin immune system as they serve as sentinels in the skin, which offers a large surface area exposed to the environment. Based on a literature review and original data we propose a classification of porcine dendritic cell subsets in the skin corresponding to the subsets described in the human skin. The equivalent of the human CD141(+) DC subset is CD1a(-)CD4(-)CD172a(-)CADM1(high), that of the CD1c(+) subset is CD1a(+)CD4(-)CD172a(+)CADM1(+/low), and porcine plasmacytoid dendritic cells are CD1a(-)CD4(+)CD172a(+)CADM1(-). CD209 and CD14 could represent markers of inflammatory monocyte-derived cells, either dendritic cells or macrophages. Future studies for example using transriptomic analysis of sorted populations are required to confirm the identity of these cells.

show abstract

Section: Macrophagesmentioning

confidence: 98%

The immunology of the porcine skin and its value as a model for human skin

Summerfield¹,

Meurens

Ricklin³

2015

Molecular Immunology

382

262

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Surface receptors CD172a (also known as SIRP␣), CD163, CD14, sialoadhesin (or CD169), SLA I, and SLA II, which have regulatory roles or are involved in pathogen recognition and antigen presentation, were examined to assess functional competence of the macrophages recovered from the infected pigs at different times after infection (14)(15)(16)(17). Macrophages from BALF were processed for the detection of the above-listed markers with previously characterized specific monoclonal antibodies (MAb): anti-CD163 (clone 2A10/11), anti-CD172a (clone BL1H7), anti-SLA II (clone 1F12), anti-SLA I (clone 4B7/8), and anti-sialoadhesin/CD169 (clone 3B11/11) (5,6,18). MAb to SWC8 (MIL3) to discriminate granulocytes was kindly provided by K. Haverson (Bristol University, United Kingdom).…”

Section: Animal Infectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several molecules on the surfaces of macrophages are regulated during their maturation and differentiation process, including SLA II (swine histocompatibility leukocyte antigen II), CD163, sialoadhesin (or CD169), and CD14 (5). These changes might account for their heterogeneity and functional plasticity, which is associated with different capacities to process and present antigens, release cytokines and other mediators, recruit other cells to the site of infection, and coordinate their responses to clear the microbe (5,6). When stimulated, macrophages adopt context-dependent phenotypes that either promote or inhibit host antimicrobial defense, inflammatory, and immune responses (6,7).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These changes might account for their heterogeneity and functional plasticity, which is associated with different capacities to process and present antigens, release cytokines and other mediators, recruit other cells to the site of infection, and coordinate their responses to clear the microbe (5,6). When stimulated, macrophages adopt context-dependent phenotypes that either promote or inhibit host antimicrobial defense, inflammatory, and immune responses (6,7). Virulent strains of H. parasuis have been shown to be resistant to phagocytosis by alveolar macrophages by avoiding uptake (8).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Changes in Macrophage Phenotype after Infection of Pigs with Haemophilus parasuis Strains with Different Levels of Virulence

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Haemophilus parasuis is a colonizer of healthy piglets and the etiological agent of Glässer's disease. Differences in virulence among strains of H. parasuis have been widely observed. In order to explore the host-pathogen interaction, snatch-farrowed colostrum-deprived piglets were intranasally infected with 4 strains of H. parasuis: reference virulent strain Nagasaki, reference nonvirulent strain SW114, field strain IT29205 (from a systemic lesion and virulent in a previous challenge), and field strain F9 (from the nasal cavity of a healthy piglet). At different times after infection, two animals of each group were euthanized and alveolar macrophages were analyzed for the expression of CD163, CD172a, SLA I (swine histocompatibility leukocyte antigen I), SLA II, sialoadhesin (or CD169), and CD14. At 1 day postinfection (dpi), virulent strains induced reduced expression of CD163, SLA II, and CD172a on the surfaces of the macrophages, while nonvirulent strains induced increased expression of CD163, both compared to noninfected controls. At 2 dpi, the pattern switched into a strong expression of CD172a, CD163, and sialoadhesin by the virulent strains, which was followed by a steep increase in interleukin 8 (IL-8) and soluble CD163 in serum at 3 to 4 dpi. The early increase in surface expression of CD163 induced by nonvirulent strains went along with higher levels of IL-8 in serum than those induced by virulent strains in the first 2 days of infection. Alpha interferon (IFN-␣) induction was observed only in animals infected with nonvirulent strains. Overall, these results are compatible with a delay in macrophage activation by virulent strains, which may be critical for disease production.

show abstract

“…The state of our current basic knowledge of porcine immune cells, the differentiation of myeloid cells and their protein expression characteristics has been reviewed [88]. Several 2DE maps were made to investigate the proteomes of porcine immune cells, including studies of monocytes, lymphocytes and macrophages.…”

Section: Porcine Immunity and Host Defensementioning

confidence: 99%