↓ Skip to main content

A Reappraisal on the Potential Ability of Human Neutrophils to Express and Produce IL-17 Family Members In Vitro: Failure to Reproducibly Detect It

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in immunology, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A Reappraisal on the Potential Ability of Human Neutrophils to Express and Produce IL-17 Family Members In Vitro: Failure to Reproducibly Detect It
Published in
Frontiers in immunology, April 2018
DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2018.00795
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicola Tamassia, Fabio Arruda-Silva, Federica Calzetti, Silvia Lonardi, Sara Gasperini, Elisa Gardiman, Francisco Bianchetto-Aguilera, Luisa Benerini Gatta, Giampiero Girolomoni, Alberto Mantovani, William Vermi, Marco A. Cassatella

Abstract

Neutrophils are known to perform a series of effector functions that are crucial for the innate and adaptive responses, including the synthesis and secretion of a variety of cytokines. In light of the controversial data in the literature, the main objective of this study was to more in-depth reevaluate the capacity of human neutrophils to express and produce cytokines of the IL-17 family in vitro. By reverse transcription quantitative real-time PCR, protein measurement via commercial ELISA, immunohistochemistry (IHC) and immunofluorescence (IF), flow cytometry, immunoblotting, chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP), and ChIP-seq experiments, we found that highly pure (>99.7%) populations of human neutrophils do not express/produce IL-17A, IL-17F, IL-17AF, or IL-17B mRNA/protein upon incubation with a variety of agonists. Similar findings were observed by analyzing neutrophils isolated from active psoriatic patients. In contrast with published studies, IL-17A and IL-17F mRNA expression/production was not even found when neutrophils were incubated with extremely high concentrations of IL-6 plus IL-23, regardless of their combination with inactivated hyphae or conidia from Aspergillus fumigatus. Consistently, no deposition of histone marks for active (H3K27Ac) and poised (H3K4me1) genomic regulatory elements was detected at the IL-17A and IL-17F locus of resting and IL-6 plus IL-23-stimulated neutrophils, indicating a closed chromatin conformation. Concurrent experiments revealed that some commercial anti-IL-17A and anti-IL-17B antibodies (Abs), although staining neutrophils either spotted on cytospin slides or present in inflamed tissue samples by IHC/IF, do not recognize intracellular protein having the molecular weight corresponding to IL-17A or IL-17B, respectively, in immunoblotting experiments of whole neutrophil lysates. By contrast, the same Abs were found to more specifically recognize other intracellular proteins of neutrophils, suggesting that their ability to positively stain neutrophils in cytospin preparations and, eventually, tissue samples derives from IL-17A- or IL-17B-independent detections. In sum, our data confirm and extend, also at epigenetic level, previous findings on the inability of highly purified populations of human neutrophils to express/produce IL-17A, IL-17B, and IL-17F mRNAs/proteins in vitro, at least under the experimental conditions herein tested. Data also provide a number of justifications explaining, in part, why it is possible to false positively detect IL-17A+-neutrophils.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 62 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 21%
Researcher 10 16%
Student > Master 10 16%
Other 9 15%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 13 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Immunology and Microbiology 17 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 17 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 June 2018.
All research outputs
#17,292,294
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#20,310
of 31,537 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#219,999
of 340,618 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#510
of 679 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,537 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 340,618 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 679 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.