Differentiation of a human eosinophilic leukemia cell line, EoL-1, induced by the culture supernatant of a human ATL cell line, HIL-3 (HIL-3 sup) was compared with differentiation induced by defined cytokines. HIL-3 sup induced EoL-1 cells to express eosinophilic granules and segmented nuclei after 6 to 9 days of incubation. HIL-3 sup also induced the expression of Fc epsilon receptor II (Fc epsilon RII/CD23) and an eosinophil differentiation antigen EO-1 mainly on eosinophilic granule (+) cells. Furthermore, HIL-3 sup induced EoL-1 cells to respond to an eosinophil chemotactic factor, platelet activating factor. HIL-3 cells express messenger RNA (mRNA) of interleukin-5 (IL-5), macrophage colony-stimulating factor (M-CSF), and IL-3 but not granulocyte CSF (G-CSF). Granulocyte-macrophage CSF (GM-CSF) and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) were detected in the HIL-3 sup. Recombinant IL-2 (rIL-2), rIL-3, rIL-4, rIL-5, rM-CSF, and rGM-CSF did not induce eosinophilic granules. rG-CSF induced a few eosinophilic granule (+) cells, and TNF-alpha, which did not induce eosinophilic granules by itself, enhanced the ability of G-CSF to induce them. However, G-CSF and TNF-alpha did not induce the expression of Fc epsilon RII and EO-1 antigen. Moreover, anti-G-CSF, anti-TNF-alpha, anti-GM-CSF, anti-IL-3, and anti-IL-5 antibodies did not suppress the effect of HIL-3 sup on the differentiation of EoL-1 cells. All the data suggest that HIL-3 sup contains an unidentified factor that induces differentiation of EoL-1 cells, and that EoL-1 cells and HIL-3 sup provide an important model for the examination of differentiation mechanisms and functions of eosinophils.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Morita et al. (1991) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: