Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Next in The JI
    • Archive
    • Brief Reviews
    • Pillars of Immunology
    • Translating Immunology
    • Most Read
    • Top Downloads
    • Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • COVID-19/SARS/MERS Articles
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • For Authors
    • Journal Policies
    • Influence Statement
    • For Advertisers
  • Editors
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Journal Policies
  • Subscribe
    • Journal Subscriptions
    • Email Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
    • ImmunoCasts
  • More
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • ImmunoCasts
    • AAI Disclaimer
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Other Publications
    • American Association of Immunologists
    • ImmunoHorizons

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
The Journal of Immunology
  • Other Publications
    • American Association of Immunologists
    • ImmunoHorizons
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
The Journal of Immunology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Next in The JI
    • Archive
    • Brief Reviews
    • Pillars of Immunology
    • Translating Immunology
    • Most Read
    • Top Downloads
    • Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • COVID-19/SARS/MERS Articles
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • For Authors
    • Journal Policies
    • Influence Statement
    • For Advertisers
  • Editors
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Journal Policies
  • Subscribe
    • Journal Subscriptions
    • Email Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
    • ImmunoCasts
  • More
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • ImmunoCasts
    • AAI Disclaimer
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Follow The Journal of Immunology on Twitter
  • Follow The Journal of Immunology on RSS

Selective Mobilization of Cytotoxic Leukocytes by Epinephrine

Stoyan Dimitrov, Tanja Lange and Jan Born
J Immunol January 1, 2010, 184 (1) 503-511; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.0902189
Stoyan Dimitrov
*Department of Neuroendocrinology and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tanja Lange
*Department of Neuroendocrinology and
†Department of Internal Medicine, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jan Born
*Department of Neuroendocrinology and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • FIGURE 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 1.

    Low-dose epinephrine infusion to mimic levels observed during mild stress. Mean (± SEM) (A) epinephrine and (B) norepinephrine concentrations before (baseline, 9 pm), during (15 and 30 min, horizontal gray bar) and after (60 and 90 min) injection of placebo (sodium chloride, open circles) and epinephrine (0.005 μg/kg/min, filled circles); n = 8. **p < 0.01 for pairwise comparisons between epinephrine and placebo conditions.

  • FIGURE 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 2.

    Epinephrine selectively mobilizes cytotoxic effector cells. Mean (± SEM) numbers of (A, E, naive [CCR7+CD45RA+]), (B, F, CM [CCR7+CD45RA–]), (C, G, EM [CCR7–CD45RA–]), and (D, H, EFF [CCR7–CD45RA+]) CD4+ (left) and CD8+ (right) T cells, of (I) γ/δ T cells (CD3+CD4−CD8−), (J) NKT-like cells (CD3+CD56+), (K) immunomodulatory NK cells (CD56+ NK, CD16−CD56bright), (L) cytotoxic NK cells (CD16+ NK, CD16+CD56dim), (M) conventional monocytes (CD14+ Mo, CD14+CD16−), and (N) proinflammatory monocytes (CD16+ Mo, CD14dimCD16+) after a 30-min i.v. infusion (horizontal gray bar) of placebo (sodium chloride, open circles) and epinephrine (filled circles); n = 8, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 for pairwise comparison between epinephrine and placebo conditions.

  • FIGURE 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 3.

    Adhesion molecule and chemokine receptor expression on leukocyte subsets. A, Representative dotplots of naive (CCR7+CD45RA+CD4+ [a]), CM (CCR7+CD45RA−CD4+ [b]), EM (CCR7−CD45RA−CD4+ [c]), and effector (CCR7−CD45RA+CD4+ [d]) Th cells; naive (CCR7+CD45RA+CD8+ [e]), CM (CCR7+CD45RA−CD8+ [f]), EM (CCR7−CD45RA−CD8+ [g]), and effector (CCR7−CD45RA+CD8+ [h]) cytotoxic T cells; γ/δ T cells (CD3+CD4−CD8− [i]), NKT-like cells (CD3+CD56+ [j]), immunomodulatory NK cells (CD16−CD56bright [k]), cytotoxic NK cells (CD16+CD56dim [l]), conventional monocytes (CD14+CD16− [m]), and proinflammatory monocytes (CD14dimCD16+ [n]). Lowercase letters refer to respective cell subset; subpopulations mobilized by epinephrine in vivo are in bold. B, Surface expression of chemokine receptors (CCR5, CXCR1, CXCR3, and CX3CR1), L-selectin (CD62L), and three integrins (CD11a, CD11b, and CD49d). Mean (± SEM) percentages or MFI of cells for respective subset in six to eight healthy donors. Black bars indicate subpopulations mobilized by epinephrine in vivo; y-axis for CX3CR1 MFI is log-transformed. C, Correlations between CD11a and CX3CR1 expression and increases after epinephrine in vivo across different leukocyte subsets. Filled circles indicate subpopulations mobilized by epinephrine in vivo. For calculating correlation coefficients, cytotoxic NK cells (l) were excluded because of their clearly exaggerated response (3-fold increase) to epinephrine in vivo. **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

  • FIGURE 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 4.

    Representative examples of cell surface expression of CX3CR1 on leukocyte subpopulations. The lowercase letters indicating subpopulations are the same as in Fig. 3.

  • FIGURE 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 5.

    Epinephrine selectively mobilizes CX3CR1+ T cells. Mean (± SEM) numbers of (A) CCR5+, (B) CXCR1+, (C) CXCR3+, and (D) CX3CR1+ T cells after a 30-min i.v. infusion (horizontal gray bar) of placebo (sodium chloride, open circles) and epinephrine (filled circles); n = 8. **p < 0.01 for pairwise comparison between epinephrine and placebo conditions.

  • FIGURE 6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 6.

    Epinephrine selectively decreases adhesion of cytotoxic effector leukocyte subpopulations to activated endothelium in vitro. Mean (± SEM) numbers of (A) subsets that were not mobilized by epinephrine in vivo: CD4+ and CD8+ naive (CCR7+CD45RA+), CM (CCR7+CD45RA–), EM (CCR7–CD45RA–), CD4+ EFF (CCR7–CD45RA+) T cells, immunomodulatory NK cells (CD56+ NK, CD16−CD56bright), conventional monocytes (CD14+ Mo, CD14+CD16−). B, Cytotoxic effector leukocyte subsets that increased after epinephrine in vivo: CD8+ EFF (CCR7–CD45RA+) T cells, γ/δ (CD3+CD4−CD8−) T cells, NKT-like cells (CD3+CD56+), cytotoxic NK cells (CD16+ NK, CD16+CD56dim), and proinflammatory monocytes (CD16+ Mo, CD14dimCD16+) attached to HUVECs after a 30-min incubation with medium only (open bars) and epinephrine (filled bars). For (B) individual values for both experimental conditions are connected by thin lines on the left. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table I. Adhesion of leukocyte subpopulation to activated HUVECs in the absence or presence of epinephrine
    SubpopulationsCells Prior to Adhesion %aAdherent Fraction %bCoefficient of Adherence %c
    MediumdEpinephrinedMediumEpinephrined
    PBMC———11.6 (1.6)10.7 (1.4)
     T cells63.3 (2.6)31.1 (2.5)‡ 31.2 (2.6)5.6 (0.7)5.1 (0.6)
      Th cells42.3 (2.8)15.0 (2.2)‡ 16.0 (2.3)3.6 (0.3)3.5 (0.4)
    a   Naive17.8 (1.3)2.1 (0.7)‡ 2.5 (0.6)0.8 (0.4)0.7 (0.2)
    b   CM13.6 (1.1)7.3 (1.1)‡ 7.6 (1.2)5.4 (0.4)5.1 (0.6)
    c   EM5.5 (0.3)4.4 (0.5)* 4.6 (0.6)8.1 (0.9)7.9 (1.3)
    d   Effector3.4 (0.4)0.5 (0.1)‡ 0.6 (0.1)1.5 (0.4)1.7 (0.3)
      Cytotoxic T cells18.1 (2.1)10.8 (1.6)† 10.7 (1.5)6.1 (0.6)5.6 (0.6)
    e   Naive11.1 (1.8)2.8 (0.4)† 3.1 (0.4)3.0 (0.5)2.8 (0.4)
    f   CM3.2 (0.4)3.2 (0.6)3.1 (0.6)9.8 (1.1)9.1 (1.3)
    g   EM1.6 (0.2)2.5 (0.4)* 2.4 (0.4)15.6 (1.8)14.0 (2.2)
    h    Effector 1.7 (0.4) 1.7 (0.4) 1.5 (0.4) † 12.2 (2.5) 9.4 (1.6) *
    i   γ/δ T cells 2.5 (0.3) 4.1 (0.5) † 3.6 (0.4) * 17.6 (2.2) 13.3 (1.4) †
    j   NKT-like cells 2.9 (0.4) 3.5 (0.6) 2.9 (0.5) * 13.6 (2.3) 10.3 (1.3) *
     NK cells12.0 (2.0)31.5 (3.1)‡ 28.4 (2.9)† 32.6 (4.4)27.1 (3.5)†
    k  Immunomodulatory0.6 (0.1)0.8 (0.1)0.7 (0.1)14.9 (1.8)12.5 (1.4)
    l   Cytotoxic 11.3 (1.9) 30.8 (3.1) ‡ 27.7 (2.9) † 33.5 (4.4) 27.9 (3.5) †
     Monocytes9.4 (1.1)24.2 (1.6)‡ 27.2 (1.9)* 30.1 (3.5)31.5 (3.8)
    m  Conventional8.2 (1.0)19.3 (1.8)‡ 21.9 (1.9)* 27.4 (3.4)29.0 (3.5)
    n   Proinflammatory 1.3 (0.2) 5.0 (0.5) ‡ 5.3 (0.4) 47.6 (3.4) 47.5 (6.4)
    • Rows show mean (± SEM) of different leukocyte subpopulations. The lowercase letters refer to respective subsets in figures.

    • ↵a Proportion of leukocyte subpopulations from total PBMCs prior to adhesion.

    • ↵b Proportion of leukocyte subpopulations from total cells in the adherent fraction after seeding of 5 × 105 PBMCs on activated HUVECs in the absence (medium) or presence of epinephrine (10−8 M, 1832 pg/ml).

    • ↵c Coefficient of adherence indicates the ratio of cell numbers in the attached fraction to the cell numbers prior to adhesion. Note that the subpopulations mobilized by epinephrine in vivo are in boldface type (n = 7).

    • ↵d For pairwise comparisons between adherent cells/cells prior to adhesion and between both experimental conditions (medium/epinephrine)

    • ↵* p < 0.05, † p < 0.01, ‡ p < 0.001.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Immunology: 184 (1)
The Journal of Immunology
Vol. 184, Issue 1
1 Jan 2010
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Advertising (PDF)
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Editorial Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about The Journal of Immunology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Selective Mobilization of Cytotoxic Leukocytes by Epinephrine
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from The Journal of Immunology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the The Journal of Immunology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Selective Mobilization of Cytotoxic Leukocytes by Epinephrine
Stoyan Dimitrov, Tanja Lange, Jan Born
The Journal of Immunology January 1, 2010, 184 (1) 503-511; DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.0902189

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Selective Mobilization of Cytotoxic Leukocytes by Epinephrine
Stoyan Dimitrov, Tanja Lange, Jan Born
The Journal of Immunology January 1, 2010, 184 (1) 503-511; DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.0902189
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Differential Susceptibility to Staphylococcal Superantigen (SsAg)-Induced Apoptosis of CD4+ T Cells from Atopic Dermatitis Patients and Healthy Subjects: The Inhibitory Effect of IL-4 on SsAg-Induced Apoptosis
  • HIV-1 Vaccination Administered Intramuscularly Can Induce Both Systemic and Mucosal T Cell Immunity in HIV-1-Uninfected Individuals
  • Osteopontin (Eta-1) and Fibroblast Growth Factor-2 Cross-Talk in Angiogenesis
Show more CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Next in The JI
  • Archive
  • Brief Reviews
  • Pillars of Immunology
  • Translating Immunology

For Authors

  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Instructions for Authors
  • About the Journal
  • Journal Policies
  • Editors

General Information

  • Advertisers
  • Subscribers
  • Rights and Permissions
  • Accessibility Statement
  • FAR 889
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer

Journal Services

  • Email Alerts
  • RSS Feeds
  • ImmunoCasts
  • Twitter

Copyright © 2022 by The American Association of Immunologists, Inc.

Print ISSN 0022-1767        Online ISSN 1550-6606