Neutrophil proteases degrade autoepitopes of NET-associated proteins

Neutrophils can form neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) to capture microbes and facilitate their clearance. NETs consist of decondensed chromatin decorated with anti-microbial proteins. Here, we describe the effect of neutrophil proteases on the protein content of NETs. We show that the neutrophil serine proteases degrade several neutrophil proteins associated with NETs. Interestingly, the anti-bacterial proteins associated with NETs, such as myeloperoxidase, calgranulin B and neutrophil elastase (NE), seem to be less susceptible to proteolytic degradation than other NET proteins, such as actin and MNDA. NETs have been proposed to play a role in autoimmune reactions. Our data demonstrate that a large number of the autoepitopes of NET proteins that are recognized by autoantibodies produced by systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients are also removed by the proteases. In conclusion, neutrophil serine proteases have a major impact on the NET proteome and the proteolytic changes of NET-associated proteins may counteract autoimmune reactions to NET components.     

Trade-offs between acquired and innate immune defenses in humans

Immune defenses provide resistance against infectious disease that is critical to survival. But immune defenses are costly, and limited resources allocated to immunity are not available for other physiological or developmental processes. We propose a framework for explaining variation in patterns of investment in two important subsystems of anti-pathogen defense: innate (non-specific) and acquired (specific) immunity. The developmental costs of acquired immunity are high, but the costs of maintenance and activation are relatively low. Innate immunity imposes lower upfront developmental costs, but higher operating costs. Innate defenses are mobilized quickly and are effective against novel pathogens. Acquired responses are less effective against novel exposures, but more effective against secondary exposures due to immunological memory. Based on their distinct profiles of costs and effectiveness, we propose that the balance of investment in innate versus acquired immunity is variable, and that this balance is optimized in response to local ecological conditions early in development. Nutritional abundance, high pathogen exposure and low signals of extrinsic mortality risk during sensitive periods of immune development should all favor relatively higher levels of investment in acquired immunity. Undernutrition, low pathogen exposure, and high mortality risk should favor innate immune defenses. The hypothesis provides a framework for organizing prior empirical research on the impact of developmental environments on innate and acquired immunity, and suggests promising directions for future research in human ecological immunology.     

Pathophysiology and management of sensitive skin: position paper from the special interest group on sensitive skin of the International Forum for the Study of Itch (IFSI)

The special interest group on sensitive skin of the International Forum for the Study of Itch previously defined sensitive skin as a syndrome defined by the occurrence of unpleasant sensations (stinging, burning, pain, pruritus and tingling sensations) in response to stimuli that normally should not provoke such sensations. This additional paper focuses on the pathophysiology and the management of sensitive skin. Sensitive skin is not an immunological disorder but is related to alterations of the skin nervous system. Skin barrier abnormalities are frequently associated, but there is no cause and direct relationship. Further studies are needed to better understand the pathophysiology of sensitive skin – as well as the inducing factors. Avoidance of possible triggering factors and the use of well-tolerated cosmetics, especially those containing inhibitors of unpleasant sensations, might be suggested for patients with sensitive skin. The role of psychosocial factors, such as stress or negative expectations, might be relevant for subgroups of patients. To date, there is no clinical trial supporting the use of topical or systemic drugs in sensitive skin. The published data are not sufficient to reach a consensus on sensitive skin management. In general, patients with sensitive skin require a personalized approach, taking into account various biomedical, neural and psychosocial factors affecting sensitive skin.