IntroductionAccumulating evidence suggests an important role for interleukin 17 (IL-17) in the pathogenesis of several inflammatory diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Accordingly, clinical trials aimed at blocking IL-17 have been initiated, but clinical results between patients and across different diseases have been highly variable. The objective was to determine the variability in expression of IL-17A, IL-17F and their receptors IL-17RA and IL-17RC in the synovia of patients with arthritis.MethodsSynovial biopsies were obtained from patients with RA (n = 11), PsA (n = 15) and inflammatory osteoarthritis (OA, n = 14). For comparison, synovia from noninflamed knee joints (n = 7) obtained from controls were included. Frozen sections were stained for IL-17A, IL-17F, IL-17RA and IL-17RC and evaluated by digital image analysis. We used confocal microscopy to determine which cells in the synovium express IL-17A and IL-17F, double-staining with CD4, CD8, CD15, CD68, CD163, CD31, von Willebrand factor, peripheral lymph node address in, lymphatic vessel endothelial hyaluronan receptor 1, mast cell tryptase and retinoic acid receptor–related orphan receptor γt (RORγt).ResultsIL-17A, IL-17F, IL-17RA and IL-17RC were abundantly expressed in synovial tissues of all patient groups. Whereas IL-17RA was present mostly in the synovial sublining, IL-17RC was abundantly expressed in the intimal lining layer. Digital image analysis showed a significant (P < 0.05) increase of only IL-17A in arthritis patients compared to noninflamed control tissues. The expression of IL-17A, IL-17F and their receptors was similar in the different patient groups, but highly variable between individual patients. CD4+ and CD8+ cells coexpressed IL-17A, and few cells coexpressed IL-17F. IL-17A and IL-17F were not expressed by CD15+ neutrophils. Mast cells were only occasionally positive for IL-17A or IL-17F. Interestingly, IL-17A and IL-17F staining was also observed in macrophages, as well as in blood vessels and lymphatics. This staining probably reflects receptor-bound cytokine staining. Many infiltrated cells were positive for the transcription factor RORγt. Colocalisation between RORγt and IL-17A and IL-17F indicates local IL-17 production.ConclusionsIncreased expression of IL-17A is not restricted to synovial tissues of RA and PsA patients; it is also observed in inflammatory OA. The heterogeneous expression levels may explain nonresponse to anti-IL-17 therapy in subsets of patients.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13075-014-0426-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Activated hepatic stellate cells (HSC) that transdifferentiate to myofibroblasts in the injured liver are responsible for scar formation that leads to fibrosis and eventually cirrhosis. To investigate the gene expression profile during different stages of this process, we performed serial analysis of gene expression, representing a quantitative and qualitative description of all expressed genes. Stellate cells were isolated from human livers and cultured. Serial analysis of gene expression was performed on RNA isolated from quiescent, activated, and transdifferentiated HSC. Comparison of the three resulting transcriptomes showed that less than 5% of all genes changed significantly in expression. Established markers of liver fibrosis showed enhanced expression in accordance with the transdifferentiation process. In addition, induction was seen for several genes not yet recognized to be involved in liver fibrosis, such as insulin-like growth factor-binding proteins (IGFBP) and antagonists of bone morphogenic proteins: follistatin and gremlin. The induction of these genes was validated in vivo in mice developing liver fibrosis. The expression of IGFBPs and gremlin was measurable in the livers of these mice, whereas it was low or undetectable in control mice without liver fibrosis. Since gremlin modulates the activity of bone morphogenic growth factors, it may represent a novel pathway and a target for therapeutic intervention and together with IGFBPs it could be a specific marker of liver fibrosis. In conclusion, the comparison of the three transcriptomes of (activated) stellate cells reveals novel genes involved in fibrogenesis and provides an appreciation of the sequence and timing of the fibrotic process in liver.

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to provide more insight into the question as to why blockade of CCR1, CCR2, and CCR5 may have failed in clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, using an in vitro monocyte migration system model.Methodology/Principal FindingsMonocytes from healthy donors (HD; n = 8) or from RA patients (for CCR2 and CCR5 antibody n = 8; for CCR1 blockade n = 13) were isolated from peripheral blood and pre-incubated with different concentrations of either anti-CCR1, anti-CCR2, or anti-CCR5 blocking antibodies (or medium or isotype controls). In addition, a small molecule CCR1 antagonist (BX471) was tested. Chemotaxis was induced by CCL2/MCP-1 (CCR2 ligand), CCL5/RANTES (CCR1 and CCR5 ligand), or by a mix of 5 RA synovial fluids (SFs), and cellular responses compared to chemotaxis in the presence of medium alone. Anti-CCR2 antibody treatment blocked CCL2/MCP-1-induced chemotaxis of both HD and RA monocytes compared to isotype control. Similarly, anti-CCR5 antibody treatment blocked CCL5/RANTES-induced chemotaxis of RA monocytes. While neither CCR2 nor CCR5 blocking antibodies were able to inhibit SF-induced monocyte chemotaxis, even when both receptors were blocked simultaneously, both anti-CCR1 antibodies and the CCR1 antagonist were able to inhibit SF-induced monocyte chemotaxis.Conclusions/SignificanceThe RA synovial compartment contains several ligands for CCR1, CCR2, and CCR5 as well as other chemokines and receptors involved in monocyte recruitment to the site of inflammation. The results suggest that CCR2 and CCR5 are not critical for the migration of monocytes towards the synovial compartment in RA. In contrast, blockade of CCR1 may be effective. Conceivably, CCR1 blockade failed in clinical trials, not because CCR1 is not a good target, but because very high levels of receptor occupancy at all times may be needed to inhibit monocyte migration in vivo.