Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byDonato Valentini Modified over 5 years ago
1
Targeting Effector Memory T Cells with the Small Molecule Kv1
Targeting Effector Memory T Cells with the Small Molecule Kv1.3 Blocker PAP-1 Suppresses Allergic Contact Dermatitis Philippe Azam, Ananthakrishnan Sankaranarayanan, Daniel Homerick, Stephen Griffey, Heike Wulff Journal of Investigative Dermatology Volume 127, Issue 6, Pages (June 2007) DOI: /sj.jid Copyright © 2007 The Society for Investigative Dermatology, Inc Terms and Conditions
2
Figure 1 Ear infiltrating cells in ACD are CD8+, CD45RC−, and Kv1.3+. (a, c, and e) Consecutive slides from a vehicle-treated rat ear, whereas (b, d, and f) are pictures of consecutive slides from an oxazolone challenged ear. (a and b) Stained for CD8, (c and d) for CD45RC, and (e and f) for Kv1.3. Bar=200μm. Journal of Investigative Dermatology , DOI: ( /sj.jid ) Copyright © 2007 The Society for Investigative Dermatology, Inc Terms and Conditions
3
Figure 2 Pharmacokinetics of PAP-1. (a) Total PAP-1 plasma concentrations in Lewis rats (n=3) following intravenous injection at 6mg/kg. The data were fitted as a second-order exponential decay for a two-compartment model with Winnonlin® software (y=A × exp−αxt+B × exp−βxt where A=9.58±0.72, B=2.00±0.16, α=3.18±0.33hours−1 and β=0.23±0.01hours−1; K10=0.99±0.06hours−1, K12=1.68±0.23hours−1, and K21=0.74±0.09hours−1; steady-state volume of distribution Vss=1.6±0.06l/kg. (b) Total PAP-1 plasma concentrations following i.p. injection at 1 (•), 6 (○), or 10 (▴) mg/kg (n=3 for each concentration). All values are given as the mean±SEM of total PAP-1 concentrations. Journal of Investigative Dermatology , DOI: ( /sj.jid ) Copyright © 2007 The Society for Investigative Dermatology, Inc Terms and Conditions
4
Figure 3 PAP-1 inhibits the elicitation phase of ACD when administered i.p., orally, or topically. (a) Rats were treated i.p. with the vehicle Cremophor®EL/PBS (n=30), PAP-1 at 1mg/kg (n=9, 71.5±3.3% of control, P=0.002), 6mg/kg (n=20, 43.5±4.8% of control, P= ), 10mg/kg (n=16, 42.0±5.4% of control, P= ), or with ShK at 16μg/kg (n=3, 31.8±14.9% of control, P= vs control and P=0.45 vs 10mg/kg PAP-1). (b) Rats were gavaged with the vehicle peanut oil (n=5) PAP-1 at 5mg/kg (n=5, 77.2±5.0% of control, P=0.037), 20mg/kg (n=5, 69.5±13.3% of control, P=0.081) or 50mg/kg (n=5, 48.4±8.2% of control, P=0.002). (c) Rats were treated topically on the ears with 50μl of the vehicle acetone:DMSO (n=10), PAP-1 at 10mg/ml (n=10, 45.1±6.1% of control, P=0.0002) or AS-85 at 10mg/ml (n=9, 68.9±8.2% of control, P=0.03). (d) PAP-1 was applied as a 2% cream in DermabaseTM (n=7, 79.8±15.4% of control, P=0.15) or Eucerin® (n=8, 37.2±4.8% of control, P= ). The controls (n=14) were treated either with “empty” DermabaseTM (n=7) or Eucerin® (n=7) and the results (181μm swelling) averaged as there was no significant difference between the two vehicles. Values are given as the mean±SEM of swelling in percent. The average ear swelling in all controls from all conditions was 168.5μm. Journal of Investigative Dermatology , DOI: ( /sj.jid ) Copyright © 2007 The Society for Investigative Dermatology, Inc Terms and Conditions
5
Figure 4 PAP-1 suppresses oxazolone-induced inflammation by reducing CD8+ T cells infiltration and production of the inflammatory cytokines IFN-γ and IL-17 but not TNF-α. Ears were removed 24hours after the challenge from (a) vehicle or (b) PAP-1-treated rats and stained for CD8+ T cells. Bar=200μm. (c and d) mRNA quantities measured for (c) CD8-β, Kv1.3, IL-17, IL-2, and TNF-α or (d) IFN-γ from vehicle (filled black bars) or PAP-1-(10mg/kg, diagonal strips) treated rats. Six unchallenged ears were used as calibrator. Results are expressed as induction factors against the calibrator±SEM (n=10 ears). Journal of Investigative Dermatology , DOI: ( /sj.jid ) Copyright © 2007 The Society for Investigative Dermatology, Inc Terms and Conditions
6
Figure 5 PAP-1 does not prevent sensitization or TPA-induced inflammation. (a) PAP-1 does not prevent sensitization for ACD. Rats were injected i.p. with the vehicle Cremophor®EL/PBS (n=8) or with PAP-1 at 10mg/kg (n=8) twice daily starting 2 days before sensitization with 1% oxazolone and for 3 days after sensitization. Animals were challenged with 0.2% oxazolone 7 days after sensitization. (b) PAP-1 does not suppress TPA-induced irritation. Rats were treated with 5μg of TPA in 100μl of AOO (4:1) on each side of both ears and injected i.p. with the vehicle Cremophor®EL/PBS (n=4) or with PAP-1 at 10mg/kg (n=4) at 8-hour intervals starting 20hours before and for 20hours after TPA treatment. Both ears were measured. The average ear swelling in TPA controls was 110.8μm. Values are given as the mean±SEM of swelling in percent. Journal of Investigative Dermatology , DOI: ( /sj.jid ) Copyright © 2007 The Society for Investigative Dermatology, Inc Terms and Conditions
7
Figure 6 PAP-1 is not a contact sensitizer according to the LLNA IL-2 method. Vehicle (AOO), Triton®X mg/ml, oxazolone 0.2mg/ml, or PAP-1 at 10, 25, or 50mg/ml were applied to mouse ears daily for 3 consecutive days. Two days later, lymph node cells from the draining lymph nodes were collected and cultured for 15hours in the presence of 10μg/ml PHA-P and IL-2 concentrations in culture supernatant measured by ELISA. Values are given as stimulation index, which is the ratio of IL-2 released by lymph node cells from compound-treated animals to IL-2 released by lymph node cells from vehicle-treated animals. Values are given as the average of two independent experiments with four mice per group±SEM. Journal of Investigative Dermatology , DOI: ( /sj.jid ) Copyright © 2007 The Society for Investigative Dermatology, Inc Terms and Conditions
8
Figure 7 PAP-1 is not a contact sensitizer in vitro. (a) MUTZ-3 and (b) THP-1 myeloid cell lines were cultured for 24hours in the presence of vehicle (DMSO), the irritant SDS at 200μm, the sensitizer dinitrochlorobenzene at 3.75μm or PAP-1 at 10, 20, or 40μm. CD86 expression was then measured by flow cytometry. Values are given as a stimulation index (SI), which is the ratio of CD86 expression of treated cells over CD86 expression of DMSO-treated cells (SI=(% of cells expressing CD86+ × mean fluorescence intensity of CD86+ cells) of treated/(% of cells expressing CD86+ × mean fluorescence intensity of CD86+ cells) of control). The values are the average±SEM of two independent experiments. Journal of Investigative Dermatology , DOI: ( /sj.jid ) Copyright © 2007 The Society for Investigative Dermatology, Inc Terms and Conditions
Similar presentations
© 2024 SlidePlayer.com Inc.
All rights reserved.