Neutrophil subpopulations and their activation potential in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome and healthy individuals.
Adult
Antibodies
/ blood
Antigens, CD
/ metabolism
Antiphospholipid Syndrome
/ metabolism
CD11b Antigen
/ metabolism
Case-Control Studies
Cell Adhesion Molecules
/ metabolism
Cohort Studies
Extracellular Traps
/ metabolism
Female
GPI-Linked Proteins
/ metabolism
Humans
Ionomycin
/ pharmacology
Lupus Coagulation Inhibitor
/ blood
Male
Middle Aged
Neutrophil Activation
Neutrophils
/ metabolism
beta 2-Glycoprotein I
/ immunology
antiphospholipid syndrome
low density neutrophils
lupus anticoagulant
neutrophil extracellular traps
Journal
Rheumatology (Oxford, England)
ISSN: 1462-0332
Titre abrégé: Rheumatology (Oxford)
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100883501
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 04 2021
06 04 2021
Historique:
received:
06
05
2020
revised:
27
07
2020
pubmed:
8
10
2020
medline:
29
6
2021
entrez:
7
10
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Patients with APS are at increased risk of thromboembolism. Neutrophils have been shown to play a role in inducing thrombosis. We aimed to investigate differences in neutrophil subpopulations, their potential of activation and neutrophil extracellular trap (NET) formation comparing high and low-density neutrophils (HDNs/LDNs) as well as subpopulations in patients with APS and controls to gain deeper insight into their potential role in thrombotic manifestations in patients with APS. HDNs and LDNs of 20 patients with APS and 20 healthy donors were isolated by density gradient centrifugation and stimulated. Neutrophil subpopulations, their activation and NET release were assessed by flow cytometry. LDNs of both groups showed higher baseline activation, lower response to stimulation (regulation of activation markers CD11b/CD66b), but higher NET formation compared with HDNs. In patients with APS, the absolute number of LDNs was higher compared with controls. HDNs of APS patients showed higher spontaneous activation [%CD11b high: median (interquartile range): 2.78% (0.58-10.24) vs 0.56% (0.19-1.37)] and response to stimulation with ionomycin compared with HDNs of healthy donors [%CD11b high: 98.20 (61.08-99.13) vs 35.50% (13.50-93.85)], whereas no difference was found in LDNs. NET formation was increased in patients' HDNs upon stimulation. HDNs and LDNs act differently, unstimulated and upon various stimulations in both healthy controls and APS patients. Differences in HDNs and LDNs between patients with APS and healthy controls indicate that neutrophils may enhance the risk of thrombosis in these patients and could thus be a target for prevention of thrombosis in APS.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33026085
pii: 5918825
doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keaa532
pmc: PMC8024003
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antibodies
0
Antigens, CD
0
CD11b Antigen
0
CEACAM8 protein, human
0
Cell Adhesion Molecules
0
GPI-Linked Proteins
0
Lupus Coagulation Inhibitor
0
beta 2-Glycoprotein I
0
Ionomycin
56092-81-0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1687-1699Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.
Références
Immunol Rev. 2016 Sep;273(1):48-60
pubmed: 27558327
Blood. 2014 May 1;123(18):2768-76
pubmed: 24366358
J Leukoc Biol. 2010 Jul;88(1):211-20
pubmed: 20400675
Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Jul;78(7):957-966
pubmed: 31040119
Immune Netw. 2017 Oct;17(5):298-306
pubmed: 29093651
Auto Immun Highlights. 2011 Mar 24;2(2):35-52
pubmed: 26000118
Arthritis Rheum. 2002 Apr;46(4):1019-27
pubmed: 11953980
J Immunol. 2011 Jul 1;187(1):538-52
pubmed: 21613614
Biomolecules. 2019 Jan 18;9(1):
pubmed: 30669408
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Aug 7;109(32):13076-81
pubmed: 22826226
Int J Cancer. 2017 Jun 1;140(11):2557-2567
pubmed: 28247912
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2018 Jul 1;57(7):1228-1234
pubmed: 29608758
Sci Rep. 2018 Aug 23;8(1):12641
pubmed: 30140006
Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2014 Jan-Feb;32(1):66-70
pubmed: 24295292
BMC Med. 2017 Mar 10;15(1):54
pubmed: 28279213
Blood. 2015 May 28;125(22):3477-83
pubmed: 25810488
Arthritis Rheumatol. 2015 Nov;67(11):2990-3003
pubmed: 26097119
Vet Q. 1994 Dec;16(4):220-5
pubmed: 7740747
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 May 25;107(21):9813-8
pubmed: 20439745
Thromb Res. 2016 Mar;139:56-64
pubmed: 26916297
J Thromb Haemost. 2010 Feb;8(2):237-42
pubmed: 19874470
J Thromb Haemost. 2012 Jan;10(1):136-44
pubmed: 22044575
J Thromb Haemost. 2005 Sep;3(9):1993-7
pubmed: 16102105
Basic Res Cardiol. 2019 Jul 16;114(5):33
pubmed: 31312919
J Immunol. 2010 Mar 15;184(6):3284-97
pubmed: 20164424
Science. 2004 Mar 5;303(5663):1532-5
pubmed: 15001782
World J Cardiol. 2015 Dec 26;7(12):829-42
pubmed: 26730289
Nat Med. 2015 Jul;21(7):815-9
pubmed: 26076037
Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Oct;79(10):e135
pubmed: 31177097
Exp Mol Med. 2020 Jan;52(1):66-78
pubmed: 31956273
Blood. 2003 May 1;101(9):3495-500
pubmed: 12531807
Cell Rep. 2015 Feb 3;10(4):562-73
pubmed: 25620698
J Leukoc Biol. 2017 Sep;102(3):685-688
pubmed: 28360185
Arthritis Rheum. 2007 Aug;56(8):2687-97
pubmed: 17665396
J Clin Invest. 2012 Jan;122(1):327-36
pubmed: 22156198
J Thromb Haemost. 2018 Mar;16(3):508-518
pubmed: 29325226
Lupus. 2010 Apr;19(4):347-53
pubmed: 20353968
Semin Immunopathol. 2013 Jul;35(4):455-63
pubmed: 23553215