Lungs allografts have worse long-term survival compared with other organ transplants. This is most likely due to their unique immunoregulation that may not respond to traditional immunosuppression. For example, local NO generation by inducible NOS (iNOS) is critical for lung allograft acceptance but associates with rejection of other solid organs. The source of NO in accepting lung allografts remains unknown. Here, we report that, unlike the case for other pulmonary processes in which myeloid cells control NO generation, recipient-derived eosinophils play a critical and nonredundant role in iNOS-mediated lung allograft acceptance. Depletion of eosinophils reduces NO levels to that of recipients with global deletion of iNOS and leads to a costimulatory blockade–resistant form of rejection. Furthermore, NO production by eosinophils depends on Th1 polarization by inflammatory mediators, such as IFN-γ and TNF-α. Neutralization of such mediators abrogates eosinophil suppressive capacity. Our data point to what we believe to be a unique and previously unrecognized role of eosinophil polarization in mediating allograft tolerance and put into perspective the use of high-dose eosinophil-ablating corticosteroids after lung transplantation.
Oscar Okwudiri Onyema, Yizhan Guo, Qing Wang, Mark H. Stoler, Christine Lau, Kang Li, Christopher Daniel Nazaroff, Xingan Wang, Wenjun Li, Daniel Kreisel, Andrew E. Gelman, James J. Lee, Elizabeth A. Jacobsen, Alexander Sasha Krupnick
This article was first published December 21, 2017. Usage data is cumulative from December 2017 through March 2018.
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.