• We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information
Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptNIH Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
J Allergy Clin Immunol. Author manuscript; available in PMC Jul 1, 2011.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC2902581

What targeting the eosinophil has taught us about their role in diseases


Eosinophil-associated disease is a term used to encompass a range of disorders from hypereosinophilic syndrome to asthma. Despite the longstanding belief that eosinophils can be primary contributors to disease pathophysiology, it is only in recent years that direct and selective reduction or elimination of eosinophils can be achieved in animals or in humans. These developments have been made possible in mice through clever targeting of eosinophil production. Use of antibodies and other agents that target soluble eosinophil-related molecules such as interleukin-5 (IL-5) or cell surface structures such as CCR3 has also proved useful in reducing blood and tissue eosinophils. In humans, the only eosinophil-selective agents tested in clinical trials so far are neutralizing antibodies to IL-5, with promising but mixed results. At the very least, such forms of pharmacologic hypothesis testing of the role of eosinophils in certain airway, gastrointestinal and hematologic diseases has finally provided us with new insights into disease pathogenesis. At its optimistic best, these and other targeted agents may someday become available for those afflicted with eosinophil-associated disorders. This review summarizes what has been learned in vivo in both preclinical and clinical studies of eosinophil-directed therapies, with an emphasis on recent advances.

Keywords: eosinophil, granules, asthma, hypereosinophilic syndrome, interleukin-5, chemokines, airways hyperreactivity, Churg Strauss syndrome


The role of the eosinophil in disease has long been a mystery. Paul Ehrlich, who discovered the eosinophil about 130 years ago and named it, believed that the prominent granules were storage sites, but why and for what purpose was unknown.1 Nearly 100 years ago Schlecht and Schwenker observed that eosinophils infiltrated tissues of guinea pigs recovering from anaphylaxis, and they speculated that the eosinophil was recruited in response to damage.2 Samter et al. in the 1950’s transferred pieces of lung from guinea pigs having undergone severe anaphylaxis into the peritoneum of naïve guinea pigs. Such animals rapidly developed peritoneal eosinophilia, hinting at release from the transplanted lung of an eosinophil recruitment factor 3 that about 40 years later was discovered to include eotaxin.4 The concept that the eosinophil functioned in tissue repair was supported by results showing that eosinophils and their products neutralized mast cell derived mediators of anaphylaxis.5 However, a direct test of this hypothesis failed to show any difference between the severity of hypersensitivity reactions in the presence and absence of the eosinophil.6 Analyses of eosinophil granule proteins revealed that they are cationic toxins able to mediate damage to tissues, and subsequent studies supported that view.711 Neutralization of MBP1 protected guinea pigs from development of airways hyperreactivity.12 However, this and other such supportive evidence is circumstantial, and, in the eyes of many critics, unconvincing. In the case of human diseases, the problem was an inability to specifically ablate the eosinophil and thus to determine its role in disease. While glucocorticoids abolish eosinophils from blood and tissues, they possess so many pharmacological effects that one cannot ascribe any specific or unique anti-eosinophil role to them.13 The discovery of interleukin-5 (IL-5) as a specific eosinophil growth factor, the demonstration that the stimulatory effect of IL-5 on mouse B cells does not occur on human B cells 14, 15 and the selective ability of eotaxins to promote eosinophil recruitment stimulated the development of humanized monoclonal anti-IL-5 drugs and antagonists of the eotaxin receptor CCR3.16, 17 While the latter molecules are still in development, initial clinical trials of anti-IL-5 in asthma failed to show beneficial effects 1822, and reports on these results discouraged belief that the eosinophil played a significant role in this condition.23 Nonetheless, additional studies in patients with marked eosinophilia revitalized the possible role of the eosinophil in disease, and within the past two years several seminal studies have shown that administration of anti-IL-5 to patients with the hypereosinophilic syndrome and asthma benefits them.2426 Meanwhile, studies of murine eosinophils have progressed with production of transgenic animals overexpressing IL-5 and others lacking IL-5, CCR3, Siglec-F and other eosinophil-associated molecules.2736 These mice have been used to explore the contribution of eosinophils and their mediators to a wide variety of immune and inflammatory responses. The purpose of this review is to discuss recent advances in animals and humans and thereby attempt to define the role of the eosinophil in various diseases as we know it at this time.

Molecules critical to eosinophil hematopoiesis, trafficking to and accumulation within tissues, and survival (see Table 1)

Table 1
The contribution of various molecules to eosinophil biological responses. Organ-specific conclusions are based primarily on data from animal models

In the bone marrow, eosinophils differentiate from stem cells in response to a specific panel of cytokine growth factors. While the most specific is IL-5, it was initially discovered in the mouse as both an eosinophilopoietic cytokine and activator of B cell differentiation and proliferation. It is now known that IL-5 in humans does not act on B cells.37 Other related cytokines, such as granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) and IL-3, share eosinophil growth factor activity but act more broadly. Indeed, a mouse strain deficient in the common CD131 beta chain shared by IL-3/IL-5/GM-CSF receptors was profoundly impaired in its lung eosinophilia in asthma models.38 An advantage for those studying eosinophil biology is the ability to grow these cells in vitro from either human or mouse bone marrow using protocols in which IL-5 is the most critical cytokine for eosinophil maturation and terminal differentiation.39, 40 While these effects are mediated through the IL-5 heterodimeric receptor (CD125/CD131) expressed by eosinophils, basophils also express the IL-5 receptor 41 and therefore IL-5 receptor-based therapies (e.g., MEDI-563, a humanized monoclonal antibody purportedly possessing antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity capabilites, see below), have the potential to affect basophil biology too.42 The critical role of IL-5 in eosinophil differentiation is underscored in the mouse in models involving its transgenic over-expression, where animals develop profound eosinophilia and splenomegaly.27, 28 Similarly, mice genetically deficient in IL-5 develop little to no blood or tissue eosinophilia, yet they maintain low basal levels of eosinophils in the bone marrow.29, 30 In asthma or parasite infection models, these IL-5 deficient mice tend not to develop lung injury, remodeling or airways hyperreactivity, implicating IL-5 and eosinophils in these processes.29, 30

Eosinophil differentiation occurs as a result of the collective effects of various transcription factors, such as GATA-1, FOG-1 (friend of GATA-1), C/EBPα (CCAAT enhancer-binding protein α) and the ets (E-twenty six) family transcription factor PU.1.43 The role of GATA-1 is primarily in facilitating the differentiation of granulocyte-macrophage progenitors into eosinophils, whereas FOG-1 must be downregulated for eosinophil development to occur.40, 44 Indeed, GATA-1 deficient mice do not develop eosinophils and deletion of a specific GATA binding site of the mouse GATA-1 promoter (so-called ΔdblGATA mice) results in strains of mice in which terminal differentiation of eosinophils is prevented.45, 46 Similarly, mice deficient in C/EBPα are devoid of all granulocytes 47 and mice congenitally deficient in PU.1 are unable to generate terminally differentiated eosinophils.43 Not surprisingly, many of these transcription factors are required for generation of eosinophil lineage-specific granule proteins, such as major basic protein (MBP1).48 The highly eosinophil-specific expression of eosinophil peroxidase (EPO) has been exploited by developing a strain of eosinophil-deficient mice (so-called PHIL mice) in which expression of a toxin is molecularly linked to EPO expression, so as eosinophils undergo bone marrow differentiation, they die before ever leaving the bone marrow.49 These eosinophil-less mice have subsequently been employed in various models of disease, including asthma, often with striking findings as discussed below.

Pathways regulating mature eosinophil departure from the bone marrow are not well understood, but it appears that certain surface markers associated with migration responses and terminal differentiation, such as CCR3, are involved.5052 Exit from the bone marrow also appears to be influenced by IL-5.53, 54 While eosinophil-selective expression of Siglec-F plays an important role in their accumulation and survival, mice deficient in Siglec-F have normal levels of bone marrow and circulating eosinophils at baseline.36 Exit from the circulation into tissue sites by eosinophils is mediated by the interaction of a variety of cell adhesion molecules expressed on the eosinophil and on endothelium and is further influenced by eosinophil-selective chemoattractants. Mouse studies indicate that among various adhesion molecules the following interactions are the most critical and selective: 1) between α4 integrins (CD49d paired as a heterodimer with CD29 or β7 integrin chains) with either VCAM-1 (CD106) or MAdCAM-1, 2) between LFA-1 (CD11a/CD18) and ICAM-1 (CD54), and 3) between P-selectin (CD62P) and P-selectin ligand (CD162). In comparison, interactions between E-selectin (CD62E) and its ligand, L-selectin (CD62L) and its ligand, or CD33 (platelet-endothelial cell adhesion molecule-1) contribute less if at all to processes of eosinophil recruitment.5557 Among the chemoattractants most prominently involved in selective eosinophil recruitment, those active on eosinophil CCR3, such as eotaxin-1 (CCL11) eotaxin-2 (CCL24), eotaxin-3 ((CCL26) in humans but non-existent in mice), RANTES (CCL5) and MCP-4 (CCL13), are likely to be most important and selective.17 This is based on the fact that mice deficient in each of these molecules show impaired trafficking to the skin, airway and/or gut.58 Separate studies showed that blockage of cytosolic phospholipase A2 effectively prevents eosinophil homing to the lungs 59 while another study implicated non-lymphoid myeloid cells in the lung that help to facilitate eosinophil recruitment via STAT6-inducible chemokines.60 For intestinal homing of eosinophils, β7 integrins are particularly important.61 A recent observation that mice deficient in the common γ chain that associates with receptors for IL-2, IL-4, IL-7, IL-9 and IL-15 have a unique and selective alteration in gastrointestinal but not lung eosinophils suggests that cytokines active via this receptor pathway play a specific role in eosinophil homing and survival in the gastrointestinal tract.62 Other studies have revealed that CCR3 is essential for maintaining basal levels of eosinophils in the small intestine.63, 64 Once in tissues, eosinophil survival is primarily controlled by the presence or absence of pro-survival factors generated locally, such as IL-5 and GM-CSF.43 There may also be pathways regulating apoptosis as well. For example, mice deficient in Siglec-F show exaggerated blood, bone marrow and tissue eosinophilia following allergen sensitization and airways challenge, strongly suggesting the presence of a pro-apoptotic Siglec-F ligand in the lung.36 Targeting Siglec-F with specific antibodies selectively induces eosinophil apoptosis and depletes eosinophils from the blood, gastrointestinal tract and lung and reduces fibrosis and inflammation in mouse models of asthma and food-associated eosinophilic gastroenteritis.6567 So in summary, our knowledge of the factors that control the birth, travel, activation and lifespan of eosinophils has been greatly expanded, and this sets the stage for manipulating these molecules for therapeutic benefit.

Role of eosinophils in animal models of disease

A number of mouse models have been developed in which eosinophil-active cytokines or chemokines have been selectively over-expressed within a specific tissue, for example, in the airways 68 or the skin.69 Over-expression of IL-13 at such sites results in profound airway remodeling associated with eosinophilia, although eosinophils in these models may not be necessary for airways remodeling. This conclusion differs from conclusions drawn from asthma models using IL-5-deficient mice, the eosinophil-deficient ΔdblGATA or PHIL mouse strains, or by targeting Siglec-F, where eosinophils are strongly associated with airways remodeling.30, 49, 67, 7074 Furthermore, over-expression of IL-5 in the lung 75 and even more profoundly with co-expression of eotaxin 76, leads to physiologic and histologic changes resembling that of severe asthma. Indeed, the dual transgenic IL-5 and lung eotaxin animals develop pulmonary pathologies remarkably similar to severe asthma, including epithelial desquamation and mucus hypersecretion leading to airway obstruction, subepithelial fibrosis, airway smooth muscle hyperplasia, and striking methacholine-induced airway hyperresponsiveness, and these changes are accompanied by extensive eosinophil degranulation. Data from other mouse models suggest that eosinophils play a role in local antigen presentation and subepithelial fibrosis, and may even be required for T cell activation.7784 Most of the animal models implicate the eosinophil as a source of profibrotic cytokines such as TGFβ.74 The conclusions regarding the contribution of eosinophils in tissue remodeling are not unlike the conclusions from human studies using anti-IL-5.21, 85

Although eosinophils have long been associated with anti-helminth responses, experiments have not only implicated eosinophil granules in this response but have begun to suggest that these cells may play a much broader role in immune responses. Mice deficient in eosinophils or certain eosinophil granule proteins have impaired abilities to clear a variety of helminths.35, 86, 87 More recent data, however, suggests that eosinophils also play an antibacterial role based on the ability of eosinophils to release substances with potent antibacterial and antiviral activities.8890

Mouse models of hypereosinophilic syndrome and eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders have been developed and have suggested a variety of pathobiologic mechanisms controlling these disorders. Models of hypereosinophilic syndrome include the IL-5 transgenic mouse, although in general this mouse is relatively healthy with little evidence of eosinophil degranulation, despite its profound eosinophilia.27, 28, 37 Also recently developed are mouse models of the FIP1L1/PDGFRA fusion gene driving hypereosinophilic syndrome, as this has been used to study chronic eosinophilic leukemia and its response to various therapies.65, 91 Regarding eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders, eosinophil-derived EPO was implicated in a mouse model of ulcerative colitis using a strain deficient in EPO.92 Oral sensitization and repetitive challenge models have been developed that yield eosinophilic inflammation of the esophagus and small intestine. Such models have highlighted the roles of chemokines, IL-13, IL-5, and β7 integrins in the development of eosinophilia, as well as a role for Siglec-F in its resolution.61, 6366, 9395 Other molecules implicated in tissue eosinophilia, primarily through studies of deficient mice or with the use of antagonists, include prostaglandin D2 and its receptors 9698; leukotrienes B4 and its receptors 99102, the H4 histamine receptor 103, 104 and thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) 105, although for some of these molecules, it is not clear whether their effects on eosinophils are direct or indirect. Unfortunately, while there is a long list of eosinophil-associated molecules to study, and while there are clever ways to utilize eosinophil-deficient or eosinophil-depleted mice in models of disease, none fully recapitulate the human disease and thus may not be predictive of the role played by the eosinophil in its human counterpart.

Studies in Human Disease


Prior efforts to establish eosinophils as critical mediator cells in disease using anti-IL-5 failed, and most striking was the failure of mepolizumab, a humanized mouse IgG1 monoclonal anti-IL-5 antibody, to benefit patients with asthma.18, 19 Other studies conducted on patients with mild asthma also failed, although analyses of bronchial biopsies showed that mepolizumab only reduced the numbers of eosinophils by about 50% and did not appreciably reduce the degree of eosinophil granule protein deposition (as judged by localization of granule MBP1.20, 21 These negative results cast a pall over the efforts of investigators concerned with eosinophil investigation, and for a time it appeared that the negative view of the eosinophil in disease, as expressed in the editorial accompanying the Leckie et al. article in the Lancet 18, was likely correct. However, continuing studies of anti-IL-5 employing both mepolizumab and reslizumab (the latter differing from mepolizumab by being a humanized rat IgG4 anti-IL-5 monoclonal antibody) showed that reslizumab reduced eosinophils in the blood of patients with hypereosinophilic syndromes (HES) 53 and that mepolizumab was able to abolish eosinophils from tissues of patients with eosinophil-associated diseases, including HES and especially in the presence of cutaneous manifestations.106, 107 The latter paper demonstrated that mepolizumab strikingly reduced the severity of cutaneous disease in concert with reduction of blood eosinophils, eosinophils in skin biopsies and deposition of granule eosinophil cationic protein (ECP, RNase3). These findings encouraged belief that the negative results obtained with mepolizumab treatment of asthma might not hold for other eosinophil-associated diseases.

An important clinical experiment tested the hypothesis that measurement of sputum eosinophilia might be useful for asthma management.108 This study compared the results of asthma management using either measurement of sputum eosinophils or standard asthma British Thoracic Society ((BTS) treatment guidelines. Seventy-four patients were recruited with moderate to severe asthma and randomly allocated to a sputum management group or the BTS management group, and the patients were treated for 12 months. If sputum eosinophilia was greater than 3%, treatment was increased (mainly utilization of inhaled or oral glucocorticoids); if less than 1%, treatments were decreased. The most interesting outcomes at the end of the 12 month period were a reduction in severe exacerbations in the sputum management group with 109 exacerbations in the BTS group and 35 exacerbations in the sputum management group (p=0.01) and fewer rescue courses of oral glucocorticoids with 73 courses in the BTS group and 24 in the sputum management groups (0=0.008). Further, change in methacholine PC20 favored the sputum management group with an overall reduction in methacholine responsiveness at 12 months (p=0.015). In their discussion, the authors stressed the following key benefits of mepolizumab: 1) reducing severe exacerbations that require courses of oral glucocorticoids, 2) preventing asthma-related hospital admissions, morbidity and mortality, and 3) the value of using sputum eosinophils as a guide to treatment. Their results also supported a critical role for the eosinophil in the pathogenesis of asthma. In this regard it is interesting that they recruited all patients with asthma needing continued hospital follow-up and not a selected group with elevated sputum eosinophils.

The above results set the stage for two studies of asthma treatment with anti-IL-5.24, 25 While using different outcome measurements, both came to the same conclusion, namely that mepolizumab treatment benefits patients with sputum eosinophilia with reduction in prednisone doses or asthma exacerbations and improvement of asthma quality of life. Nonetheless, these studies stirred further controversy concerning the prevalence of patients with asthma and sputum eosinophilia.

The study by Nair et al. was based on the assumption that a rare subgroup of asthma patients demonstrates persistent sputum eosinophilia despite treatment with oral prednisone.25 Twenty adults were recruited from a population of 800 patients with severe asthma, and all but two had more than 3% sputum eosinophilia in spite of daily treatment with prednisone at doses from 5 to 25 mg per day for four weeks (in addition to inhaled fluticasone at 600 to 2000 μg per day). The study period lasted up to 26 weeks, and patients were treated with 750 mg mepolizumab or saline intravenous infusions at weeks 2, 6, 10, 14 and 18 in a randomized double-blind fashion. Oral prednisone was reduced using a pre-established protocol, and exacerbations defined as increased use of albuterol, nocturnal awakenings, a decrease of 15% in FEV1, or worsening of cough. The most striking outcome was a reduction in exacerbations with 12 in the placebo group and two in the mepolizumab group (p=0.008). FEV1 increased significantly, and both cough and Juniper asthma control questionnaire scores improved in the mepolizumab group but not in the placebo group. Prednisone was reduced by 83.8±33.4% in the mepolizumab group and by 47.7±40.5% in the placebo group (p=0.04). As expected, eosinophils were significantly reduced in both blood and sputum in the mepolizumab treated group, and eosinophil levels remained within normal limits after prednisone reductions. In contrast, reductions in prednisone in the placebo group were accompanied by significant increases in the numbers of eosinophils in sputum and blood. Adverse events in the groups appeared comparable. One limitation of this study was a higher sputum eosinophil count at baseline in the mepolizumab group, raising the possibility that patients in this group who responded were those with the greatest contribution of eosinophils to asthma. Another limitation was a failure to show a significant difference in final prednisone dosage between the groups. A final debatable shortcoming was the apparent conclusion that the favorable outcome achieved in the mepolizumab group only pertained to a rare subset of patients with asthma. Nonetheless, the authors interpreted their study as highlighting the importance of selecting patients with airway eosinophilia.

The study by Haldar et al. focused on asthma exacerbations 24 and is an extension of the earlier work by the same group on the use of sputum eosinophils for asthma management (summarized above).108 Patients studied had sputum eosinophil counts greater than 3% on at least one occasion in the prior two years despite high-dose glucocorticoid treatment and at least two exacerbations in the prior 12 months. All patients were treated with oral prednisolone at 0.5 mg per kilogram (maximum dose 40 mg per day) at the beginning and end of the study. Patients received 12 monthly 750 mg mepolizumab or saline infusions. At baseline patients were well matched, and there were no significant differences between the groups, including eosinophil counts in sputum (in contrast to the Nair et al. report). Over the treatment period (348 days for the mepolizumab group and 340 days for the placebo group) 57 severe exacerbations occurred in the mepolizumab group for a mean of 2.0 per patient and 109 in the placebo group for a mean number of 3.4 (p=0.02). Patients in the mepolizumab group had three hospital admissions and placebo patients had 11 (p=0.07). The total number of days in the hospital was significantly less in the mepolizumab patients than those receiving placebo (12 days vs. 48 days, p<0.001). Sputum eosinophils were significantly reduced in the mepolizumab patients, even during an exacerbation (p=0.005), although sputum eosinophils still rose in 36% of mepolizumab treated patients during exacerbations. The mean asthma quality of life questionnaire scores favored the mepolizumab treated patients (p=0.02), but FEV1 and methacholine sensitivity did not change significantly between the groups. Interestingly, computerized tomographic analyses obtained before and after treatment showed a significant difference in the airway wall area changes (p=0.02). Concerning safety, the numbers of adverse events were 29 in the mepolizumab patients and 32 in the placebo patients; one patient was withdrawn from the study because of a transient rash 24 hours after the first mepolizumab infusion. The authors suggest that there is dissociation between the mechanisms of exacerbations and those responsible for asthma symptoms and lung function. However, the rises in sputum eosinophils during exacerbations in the mepolizumab treated patients suggest that eosinophil-mediated pathogenetic stimuli were not completely suppressed.

Editorial comment on the studies by Nair et al. and Haldar et al. emphasized the rarity of eosinophil associated asthma, its occurrence in patients with adult-onset asthma, the relatively minimal benefit of mepolizumab therapy, even in these selected patients, and the possibility that alternative cells, presumably mast cells and neutrophils and their mediators, might play critical presently underappreciated roles in asthma.109 Overall, the editorial assumed that mepolizumab therapy sufficiently suppressed eosinophil-mediated inflammation so that it represented an adequate test of the role of the eosinophil in asthma. However, an alternative view is that mepolizumab only partially suppresses eosinophil mediated inflammation and therefore the effects of mepolizumab only partially show what might be expected if eosinophilic inflammation were totally abolished.110 It it the firm opinion of the authors of this present review article that the clear benefit of an eosinophil-specific therapy in reducing exacerbations in selected patients with asthma, especially in a population where about one-third also had nasal polyposis, is so striking and exciting that one cannot escape the conclusion that eosinophils are critical to the pathogenesis of disease in this cohort.

The Hypereosinophilic Syndrome

Several relatively small, uncontrolled trials with anti-IL-5 antibodies in eosinophilic disorders involving the skin, esophagus and other organs have been reported.106, 107, 111114 The reader is referred to the accompanying article in this issue of the Journal by Simon et al. for additional details on these topics.115 Instead, this section will focus on the one controlled trial published to date.

The effect of mepolizumab on HES was tested in an international, randomized, multi-center, placebo-controlled, double-blind study.26 Patients entering the study required at least 20 mg of prednisone to control HES manifestations and to satisfy the Chusid criteria for HES diagnosis, including blood eosinophilia equal to or greater than 1.5 × 109, duration of disease greater than six months and absence of other eosinophil-associated diseases such as allergic or parasitic causes. A total of 85 patients were enrolled in the study and were divided into placebo and mepolizumab treatment groups. During a run-in period of up to six weeks, prednisone (or equivalent glucocorticoid) was tapered to the lowest level able to reduce blood eosinophils to <1 × 109/L, and patients requiring 20 mg per day or more were randomized. Prednisone reduction to 10 mg per day or lower was the primary endpoint, and the dose was reduced using a pre-established algorithm. Patients in whom blood eosinophilia could not be controlled were rolled over into an open mepolizumab trial. The results of the study showed that mepolizumab was an effective steroid sparing drug and that it reduced both blood eosinophilia and the level of eosinophil participation by also reducing serum levels of the eosinophil-derived neurotoxin (EDN, RNase2). Furthermore, mepolizumab was very well tolerated, and the spectrum of adverse events in the treated patients did not differ significantly from the placebo group. Another study involving several types of patients with eosinophilic disorders (e.g., HES, eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders) treated with mepolizumab found a consistent and prolonged suppressive effect on circulating eosinophil numbers and markers of eosinophil activity.116 Finally, in a retrospective study, Ogbogu et al. reported on a variety of treatments used for the treatment of HES, including anti-IL-5 antibodies mepolizumab and reslizumab.117 The majority of those treated with anti-IL-5 showed favorable responses at one month, and discontinuation due to intolerance was rare. Overall these results supported the beneficial effects of anti-IL-5 in disease and a role for the eosinophil in tissue dysfunction. Regrettably, applications for registration of mepolizumab for the treatment of HES have foundered on concerns by regulators that the HES trial was not adequately blinded (the investigators should not have been aware of the eosinophil levels) and that steroid reduction was not a proper endpoint.118 Presently, in spite of its demonstrated usefulness and safety, it is unlikely that mepolizumab will be approved for the treatment of HES. The status of reslizumab approval at the present time is also uncertain.119

Churg Strauss Syndrome (CSS)

Scant information on the role of eosinophils in CSS exists in spite of their strong association with CSS and their presence as a criterion for the diagnosis of CSS. Two studies have probed the effect of mepolizumab in CSS. One is a case report of a 28 year old female with marked peripheral blood eosinophilia, eosinophilic pneumonia, myocarditis, peripheral neuropathy who was treated with glucocorticoids, methotrexate, interferon-α, cyclophosphamide, intravenous immunoglobulins, azathioprine and etoposide.120 In spite of these treatments disease activity was not controlled, and a trial of mepolizumab begun. Improvement was noted within a month and by six months pulmonary infiltrates had cleared. By 15 months all evidence of disease activity disappeared. However, reduction of mepolizumab resulted in a recurrence of disease, suggesting that the therapeutic benefit was not due to disease remission. The second study administered mepolizumab to seven CSS patients for four months to assess its safety and to determine whether systemic glucocorticoids could be reduced.121 The results showed that mepolizumab reduced eosinophil blood counts, was well tolerated and permitted reduction of glucocorticoids in all patients. After cessation of mepolizumab treatment, CSS manifestation recurred, necessitating increased glucocorticoid treatment. These studies encourage belief that anti-IL-5 may be a beneficial treatment of CSS. Clearly, additional studies in larger numbers of patients are needed to determine the place of anti-IL-5 in CSS treatment.

Implications and future directions regarding IL-5-directed therapies

The beneficial effects of mepolizumab on asthma can be regarded as a partial test of the eosinophil’s role in disease. For example, sputum eosinophils still rose during exacerbations 24, and mepolizumab did not reduce deposition of eosinophil granule MBP1 in patients with mild asthma.20 Therefore, the Nair et al. and Haldar et al. studies may have shown the effects of partial reduction of eosinophil participation and efficacy. One presumption is that more robust eosinophil suppression would show a greater degree of therapeutic benefit. This was achieved in the double transgenic murine asthma model when these asthmatic mice were mated to eosinophil deficient animals, and the resultant triple transgenic animals became normal.76 Fortunately, a potential medication that might more strikingly reduce eosinophils is on the horizon. MEDI-563 is a humanized anti-IL-5 receptor alpha (IL-5Rα) monoclonal antibody that is presently in clinical trials.42 This antibody binds with high affinity KD=46nM and mediates the lysis of IL-5Rα positive cells, including eosinophils and basophils. A single intravenous dose of MEDI-563 was well tolerated by patients with mild asthma and decreased circulating eosinophils below detection limits within 24–48 hours for 8–12 weeks. Because this antibody mediates the lysis of eosinophils, it may be the best reagent to test the role of eosinophils in disease.


Despite the recent advancements in our understanding of the contribution of eosinophils to disease as summarized above, it remains unclear as to whether we could live without these cells. Teleologically, something has allowed this cell type to persist. Nearly all in the eosinophil field would likely agree that the primary role of these cells is in helminth infestation, yet we still do not know if they are essential to protecting the host from such organisms. It now appears that eosinophils can be selectively targeted with therapeutic agents, and this seems to provide clinical benefit in a subgroup of asthmatics with persistent airways eosinophilia. Most subjects with hypereosinophilic syndrome given anti-IL-5 reduced their daily steroid requirements, but we do not know if this provides safe and effective control of their disease long-term. A variety of other disorders associated with tissue eosinophilia have yet to be treated with selective eosinophil-lowering agents, so we can only continue to speculate on the role this cell plays in each of these conditions. Nevertheless, if such agents ever garner FDA approval, we will be one step closer to understanding the role of this beautiful, yet enigmatic, cell in human health and disease.

What do we know?

  • Eosinophils remain an enigmatic cell.
  • We have learned a great deal about how to make an eosinophil from early precursor cells.
  • Eosinophils have a unique pattern of cell surface receptors, including adhesion molecules and chemokine receptors, which impart it with distinct homing capabilites.
  • Survival and death signals, especially those involving cytokines and inhibitory receptors, appear to regulate the persistence of eosinophils at inflammatory sites.
  • Mouse strains have been developed that result in mice that are truly and specifically deficient in the eosinophil lineage, and these are yielding valuable insights into the role of the eosinophil in various mouse models of disease.
  • Only since the recent development of IL-5-directed therapies have we now been able to dissect the unique, specific role of the eosinophil in asthma, hypereosinophilic syndrome, and related disorders.
  • Studies with anti-IL-5 antibody therapies show consistent, profound and prolonged suppression of eosinophil hematopoiesis and blood eosinophilia and these treatments seem well tolerated.
  • Studies with anti-IL-5 antibody therapies show improved asthma control in a subset of difficult-to-control asthmatics with persistent airways eosinophilia.
  • Studies with anti-IL-5 antibody therapies show steroid-sparing activity in patients with hypereosinophilic syndrome.

What is still not known?

  • Are there diseases that are purely eosinophil-mediated?
  • Is suppression of eosinophils safe long-term and would it provide sustained improvement in asthma and other eosinophilic diseases beyond our current treatment approaches?
  • Does chronic reduction in eosinophils result in any permanent improvements in asthma parameters such as lung function or airway remodeling?
  • Will anti-IL-5 directed therapies get FDA approval? If so, for what indication?
  • Would it be better, from an efficacy standpoint, to develop eosinophil-directed therapies that also target other cells?


This work was supported in part by grant AI072265 from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Bochner also received support for Human Immunology Research from the Dana Foundation and as a Cosner Scholar in Translational Research from the Johns Hopkins University.

Abbreviations used

British Thoracic Society
CCAAT enhancer-binding protein α
Churg Strauss syndrome
ΔdblGATA mice
mice deficient in eosinophils due to a deletion of a specific GATA binding site of the mouse GATA-1 promoter
eosinophil cationic protein, or RNase3
eosinophil-derived neurotoxin, or RNase2
eosinophil peroxidase
friend of GATA-1
granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor
hypereosinophilic syndromes
interleukin-5 receptor
major basic protein-1
PHIL mice
mice deficient in eosinophils due to expression of a toxin linked to EPO expression


Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.


1. Ehrlich P. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der granulierten Bindegewebszellen und der eosinophilen Leucocyten. Arch Anat Physiol. 1879;3:166–82.
2. Schlecht H, Schwenker G. Über die Beziehungen der Eosinophilie zur Anaphylaxie. Dtsch Arch Klin Med. 1912;108:405–28.
3. Samter M, Kofqed MA, Pieper W. A factor in lungs of anaphylactically shocked guinea pigs which can induce eosinophilia in normal animals. J Hematology. 1953;8:1078–90. [PubMed]
4. Jose PJ, Griffiths-Johnson DA, Collins PD, Walsh DT, Moqbel R, Totty NF, et al. Eotaxin: A potent eosinophil chemoattractant cytokine detected in a guinea pig model of allergic airways inflammation. J Exp Med. 1994;179:881–7. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
5. Goetzl E, Wasserman S, Austen K. Eosinophil polymorphonuclear leukocyte function in immediate hypersensitivity. Arch Pathol. 1975;99:1–4. [PubMed]
6. Gleich GJ, Olson GM, Loegering DA. The effect of ablation of eosinophils on immediate-type hypersensitivity reactions. Immunology. 1979;38:343–53. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
7. Frigas E, Loegering DA, Solley GO, Farrow GM, Gleich GJ. Elevated levels of the eosinophil granule major basic protein in the sputum of patients with bronchial asthma. Proc Mayo Clin. 1981;56:345–53. [PubMed]
8. Filley WV, Holley KE, Kephart GM, Gleich GJ. Identification by immunofluorescence of eosinophil granule major basic protein in lung tissues of patients with bronchial asthma. Lancet. 1982;2:11–5. [PubMed]
9. Ayars GH, Altman LC, Gleich GJ, Loegering DA, Baker CB. Eosinophil- and eosinophil granule-mediated pneumocyte injury. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1985;76:595–604. [PubMed]
10. Dor PJ, Ackerman SJ, Gleich GJ. Charcot-Leyden crystal protein and eosinophil granule major basic protein in sputum of patients with respiratory diseases. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1984;130:1072–7. [PubMed]
11. Flavahan NA, Slifman NR, Gleich GJ, Vanhoutte PM. Human eosinophil major basic protein causes hyperreactivity of respiratory smooth muscle. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1988;138:685–8. [PubMed]
12. Lefort J, Nahori MA, Ruffie C, Vargaftig BB, Pretolani M. In vivo neutralization of eosinophil-derived major basic protein inhibits antigen-induced bronchial hyperreactivity in sensitized guinea pigs. J Clin Invest. 1996;97:1117–21. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
13. Gleich GJ, Hunt LW, Bochner BS, Schleimer RP. Glucocorticoid effects on human eosinophils. In: Schleimer RP, Busse WW, O’Byrne P, editors. Inhaled glucocorticoids in asthma: mechanisms and clinical actions. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc; 1996. pp. 279–308.
14. Campbell HD, Tucker WQJ, Hort Y, Martinson ME, Mayo G, Clutterbuck EJ, et al. Molecular cloning, nucleotide sequence, and expression of the gene encoding human eosinophil differentiation factor (interleukin 5) Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1987;84:6629–33. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
15. Clutterbuck E, Shields JG, Gordon J, Smith SH, Boyd A, Callard RE, et al. Recombinant human interleukin 5 is an eosinophil differentiation factor but has no activity in standard human B cell growth factor assays. Eur J Immunol. 1987;17:1743–50. [PubMed]
16. Wise EL, Duchesnes C, da Fonseca PC, Allen RA, Williams TJ, Pease JE. Small molecule receptor agonists and antagonists of CCR3 provide insight into mechanisms of chemokine receptor activation. J Biol Chem. 2007;282:27935–43. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
17. Pease JE, Williams TJ. Chemokines and their receptors in allergic disease. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2006;118:305–18. quiz 19–20. [PubMed]
18. Leckie MJ, Brinke A, Khan J, Diamant Z, O’Connor BJ, Walls CM, et al. Effects of an interleukin-5 blocking monoclonal antibody on eosinophils, airway hyper-responsiveness, and the late asthmatic response. Lancet. 2000;356:2144–8. [PubMed]
19. Kips JC, O’Connor BJ, Langley SJ, Woodcock A, Kerstjens HA, Postma DS, et al. Effect of SCH55700, a humanized anti-human interleukin-5 antibody, in severe persistent asthma: a pilot study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2003;167:1655–9. [PubMed]
20. Flood-Page PT, Menzies-Gow AN, Kay AB, Robinson DS. Eosinophil’s role remains uncertain as anti-interleukin-5 only partially depletes numbers in asthmatic airway. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2003;167:199–204. [PubMed]
21. Flood-Page P, Menzies-Gow A, Phipps S, Ying S, Wangoo A, Ludwig MS, et al. Anti-IL-5 treatment reduces deposition of ECM proteins in the bronchial subepithelial basement membrane of mild atopic asthmatics. J Clin Invest. 2003;112:1029–36. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
22. Flood-Page P, Swenson C, Faiferman I, Matthews J, Williams M, Brannick L, et al. A study to evaluate safety and efficacy of mepolizumab in patients with moderate persistent asthma. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2007;176:1062–71. [PubMed]
23. Bochner BS. Verdict in the case of therapies versus eosinophils: the jury is still out. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2004;113:3–9. [PubMed]
24. Haldar P, Brightling CE, Hargadon B, Gupta S, Monteiro W, Sousa A, et al. Mepolizumab and exacerbations of refractory eosinophilic asthma. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:973–84. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
25. Nair P, Pizzichini MM, Kjarsgaard M, Inman MD, Efthimiadis A, Pizzichini E, et al. Mepolizumab for prednisone-dependent asthma with sputum eosinophilia. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:985–93. [PubMed]
26. Rothenberg ME, Klion AD, Roufosse FE, Kahn JE, Weller PF, Simon HU, et al. Treatment of patients with the hypereosinophilic syndrome with mepolizumab. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:1215–28. [PubMed]
27. Dent LA, Strath M, Mellor AL, Sanderson CJ. Eosinophilia in transgenic mice expressing Interleukin-5. J Exp Med. 1990;172:1425–31. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
28. Tominaga A, Takaki S, Koyama N, Katoh S, Matsumoto R, Migita M, et al. Transgenic mice expressing a B-cell growth and differentiation factor gene (interleukin-5) develop eosinophilia and autoantibody production. J Exp Med. 1991;173:429–37. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
29. Kopf M, Brombacher F, Hodgkin PD, Ramsay AJ, Milbourne EA, Dai WJ, et al. IL-5-deficient mice have a developmental defect in CD5+ B-1 cells and lack eosinophilia but have normal antibody and cytotoxic T cell responses. Immunity. 1996;4:15–24. [PubMed]
30. Foster PS, Hogan SP, Ramsay AJ, Matthaei KI, Young IG. Interleukin 5 deficiency abolishes eosinophilia, airways hyperreactivity, and lung damage in a mouse asthma model. J Exp Med. 1996;183:195–201. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
31. Humbles AA, Lu B, Friend DS, Okinaga S, Lora J, Al-Garawi A, et al. The murine CCR3 receptor regulates both the role of eosinophils and mast cells in allergen-induced airway inflammation and hyperresponsiveness. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002;99:1479–84. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
32. Ma W, Bryce PJ, Humbles AA, Laouini D, Yalcindag A, Alenius H, et al. CCR3 is essential for skin eosinophilia and airway hyperresponsiveness in a murine model of allergic skin inflammation. J Clin Invest. 2002;109:621–8. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
33. Fulkerson PC, Fischetti CA, McBride ML, Hassman LM, Hogan SP, Rothenberg ME. A central regulatory role for eosinophils and the eotaxin/CCR3 axis in chronic experimental allergic airway inflammation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006;103:16418–23. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
34. Fulkerson PC, Fischetti CA, Rothenberg ME. Eosinophils and CCR3 regulate interleukin-13 transgene-induced pulmonary remodeling. Am J Pathol. 2006;169:2117–26. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
35. Gurish MF, Humbles A, Tao H, Finkelstein S, Boyce JA, Gerard C, et al. CCR3 is required for tissue eosinophilia and larval cytotoxicity after infection with Trichinella spiralis. J Immunol. 2002;168:5730–6. [PubMed]
36. Zhang M, Angata T, Cho JY, Miller M, Broide DH, Varki A. Defining the in vivo function of Siglec-F, a CD33-related Siglec expressed on mouse eosinophils. Blood. 2007;109:4280–7. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
37. Takatsu K, Nakajima H. IL-5 and eosinophilia. Curr Opin Immunol. 2008;20:288–94. [PubMed]
38. Asquith KL, Ramshaw HS, Hansbro PM, Beagley KW, Lopez AF, Foster PS. The IL-3/IL-5/GM-CSF common receptor plays a pivotal role in the regulation of Th2 immunity and allergic airway inflammation. J Immunol. 2008;180:1199–206. [PubMed]
39. Dyer KD, Moser JM, Czapiga M, Siegel SJ, Percopo CM, Rosenberg HF. Functionally competent eosinophils differentiated ex vivo in high purity from normal mouse bone marrow. J Immunol. 2008;181:4004–9. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
40. Bedi R, Du J, Sharma AK, Gomes I, Ackerman SJ. Human C/EBP-epsilon activator and repressor isoforms differentially reprogram myeloid lineage commitment and differentiation. Blood. 2009;113:317–27. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
41. Yamada T, Sun QY, Zeibecoglou K, Bungre J, North J, Kay AB, et al. IL-3, IL-5, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor receptor alpha-subunit, and common beta-subunit expression by peripheral leukocytes and blood dendritic cells. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1998;101:677–82. [PubMed]
42. Reed J, Kolbeck R, Molfino N, Kozhich A, Humbles A, Erjefalt J, et al. MEDI-563, a humanized anti-IL-5Rα antibody with enhanced effector function, induces reversible blood eosinopenia in mild asthmatics. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2008;121:S47. (abstr.)
43. Ackerman SJ, Bochner BS. Mechanisms of eosinophilia in the pathogenesis of hypereosinophilic disorders. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am. 2007;27:357–75. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
44. Yamaguchi Y, Nishio H, Kishi K, Ackerman SJ, Suda T. C/EBPbeta and GATA-1 synergistically regulate activity of the eosinophil granule major basic protein promoter: implication for C/EBPbeta activity in eosinophil gene expression. Blood. 1999;94:1429–39. [PubMed]
45. Hirasawa R, Shimizu R, Takahashi S, Osawa M, Takayanagi S, Kato Y, et al. Essential and instructive roles of GATA factors in eosinophil development. J Exp Med. 2002;195:1379–86. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
46. Yu C, Cantor AB, Yang H, Browne C, Wells RA, Fujiwara Y, et al. Targeted deletion of a high-affinity GATA-binding site in the GATA-1 promoter leads to selective loss of the eosinophil lineage in vivo. J Exp Med. 2002;195:1387–95. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
47. Yamanaka R, Barlow C, Lekstrom-Himes J, Castilla LH, Liu PP, Eckhaus M, et al. Impaired granulopoiesis, myelodysplasia, and early lethality in CCAAT/enhancer binding protein epsilon-deficient mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997;94:13187–92. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
48. Du J, Stankiewicz MJ, Liu Y, Xi Q, Schmitz JE, Lekstrom-Himes JA, et al. Novel combinatorial interactions of GATA-1, PU.1, and C/EBPepsilon isoforms regulate transcription of the gene encoding eosinophil granule major basic protein. J Biol Chem. 2002;277:43481–94. [PubMed]
49. Lee JJ, Dimina D, Macias MP, Ochkur SI, McGarry MP, O’Neill KR, et al. Defining a link with asthma in mice congenitally deficient in eosinophils. Science. 2004;305:1773–6. [PubMed]
50. Palframan RT, Collins PD, Severs NJ, Rothery S, Williams TJ, Rankin SM. Mechanisms of acute eosinophil mobilization from the bone marrow stimulated by interleukin 5: The role of specific adhesion molecules and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase. J Exp Med. 1998;188:1621–32. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
51. Palframan RT, Collins PD, Williams TJ, Rankin SM. Eotaxin induces a rapid release of eosinophils and their progenitors from the bone marrow. Blood. 1998;91:2240–8. [PubMed]
52. Voehringer D, van Rooijen N, Locksley RM. Eosinophils develop in distinct stages and are recruited to peripheral sites by alternatively activated macrophages. J Leukoc Biol. 2007;81:1434–44. [PubMed]
53. Kay AB, Klion AD. Anti-interleukin-5 therapy for asthma and hypereosinophilic syndrome. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am. 2004;24:645–66. [PubMed]
54. Menzies-Gow A, Flood-Page P, Sehmi R, Burman J, Hamid Q, Robinson DS, et al. Anti-IL-5 (mepolizumab) therapy induces bone marrow eosinophil maturational arrest and decreases eosinophil progenitors in the bronchial mucosa of atopic asthmatics. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2003;111:714–9. [PubMed]
55. Bochner BS. Road signs guiding leukocytes along the inflammation superhighway. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2000;106:817–28. [PubMed]
56. Rosenberg HF, Phipps S, Foster PS. Eosinophil trafficking in allergy and asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2007;119:1303–10. [PubMed]
57. Miller M, Sung KL, Muller WA, Cho JY, Roman M, Castaneda D, et al. Eosinophil tissue recruitment to sites of allergic inflammation in the lung is platelet endothelial cell adhesion molecule independent. J Immunol. 2001;167:2292–7. [PubMed]
58. Rothenberg ME, Hogan SP. The eosinophil. Annu Rev Immunol. 2006;24:147–74. [PubMed]
59. Myou S, Sano H, Fujimura M, Zhu X, Kurashima K, Kita T, et al. Blockade of eosinophil migration and airway hyperresponsiveness by cPLA2-inhibition. Nat Immunol. 2001;2:145–9. [PubMed]
60. Medoff BD, Seung E, Hong S, Thomas SY, Sandall BP, Duffield JS, et al. CD11b+ myeloid cells are the key mediators of Th2 cell homing into the airway in allergic inflammation. J Immunol. 2009;182:623–35. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
61. Brandt EB, Zimmermann N, Muntel EE, Yamada Y, Pope SM, Mishra A, et al. The •4β7-integrin is dynamically expressed on murine eosinophils and involved in eosinophil trafficking to the intestine. Clin Exp Allergy. 2006;36:543–53. [PubMed]
62. Carlens J, Wahl B, Ballmaier M, Bulfone-Paus S, Forster R, Pabst O. Common gamma-chain-dependent signals confer selective survival of eosinophils in the murine small intestine. J Immunol. 2009;183:5600–7. [PubMed]
63. Mishra A, Hogan SP, Lee JJ, Foster PS, Rothenberg ME. Fundamental signals that regulate eosinophil homing to the gastrointestinal tract. J Clin Invest. 1999;103:1719–27. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
64. Mishra A, Hogan SP, Brandt EB, Wagner N, Crossman MW, Foster PS, et al. Enterocyte expression of the eotaxin and interleukin-5 transgenes induces compartmentalized dysregulation of eosinophil trafficking. J Biol Chem. 2002;277:4406–12. [PubMed]
65. Zimmermann N, McBride ML, Yamada Y, Hudson SA, Jones C, Cromie KD, et al. Siglec-F antibody administration to mice selectively reduces blood and tissue eosinophils. Allergy. 2008;63:1156–63. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
66. Song DJ, Cho JY, Miller M, Strangman W, Zhang M, Varki A, et al. Anti-Siglec-F antibody inhibits oral egg allergen induced intestinal eosinophilic inflammation in a mouse model. Clin Immunol. 2009;131:157–69. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
67. Song DJ, Cho JY, Lee SY, Miller M, Rosenthal P, Soroosh P, et al. Anti-Siglec-F antibody reduces allergen-induced eosinophilic inflammation and airway remodeling. J Immunol. 2009;183:5333–41. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
68. Zhu Z, Homer RJ, Wang Z, Chen Q, Geba GP, Wang J, et al. Pulmonary expression of interleukin-13 causes inflammation, mucus hypersecretion, subepithelial fibrosis, physiologic abnormalities, and eotaxin production. J Clin Invest. 1999;103:779–88. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
69. Zheng T, Oh MH, Oh SY, Schroeder JT, Glick AB, Zhu Z. Transgenic expression of interleukin-13 in the skin induces a pruritic dermatitis and skin remodeling. J Invest Dermatol. 2009;129:742–51. [PubMed]
70. Hamelmann E, Cieslewicz G, Schwarze J, Ishizuka T, Joetham A, Heusser C, et al. Anti-interleukin 5 but not anti-IgE prevents airway inflammation and airway hyperresponsiveness. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1999;160:934–41. [PubMed]
71. Trifilieff A, Fujitani Y, Coyle AJ, Kopf M, Bertrand C. IL-5 deficiency abolishes aspects of airway remodelling in a murine model of lung inflammation. Clin Exp Allergy. 2001;31:934–42. [PubMed]
72. Cho JY, Miller M, Baek KJ, Han JW, Nayar J, Lee SY, et al. Inhibition of airway remodeling in IL-5-deficient mice. J Clin Invest. 2004;113:551–60. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
73. Humbles AA, Lloyd CM, McMillan SJ, Friend DS, Xanthou G, McKenna EE, et al. A critical role for eosinophils in allergic airways remodeling. Science. 2004;305:1776–9. [PubMed]
74. Broide DH. Immunologic and inflammatory mechanisms that drive asthma progression to remodeling. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2008;121:560–70. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
75. Lee JJ, McGarry MP, Farmer SC, Denzler KL, Larson KA, Carrigan PE, et al. Interleukin-5 expression in the lung epithelium of transgenic mice leads to pulmonary changes pathognomonic of asthma. J Exp Med. 1997;185:2143–56. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
76. Ochkur SI, Jacobsen EA, Protheroe CA, Biechele TL, Pero RS, McGarry MP, et al. Coexpression of IL-5 and eotaxin-2 in mice creates an eosinophil-dependent model of respiratory inflammation with characteristics of severe asthma. J Immunol. 2007;178:7879–89. [PubMed]
77. Shi HZ, Humbles A, Gerard C, Jin Z, Weller PF. Lymph node trafficking and antigen presentation by endobronchial eosinophils. J Clin Invest. 2000;105:945–53. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
78. Shen HH, Ochkur SI, McGarry MP, Crosby JR, Hines EM, Borchers MT, et al. A causative relationship exists between eosinophils and the development of allergic pulmonary pathologies in the mouse. J Immunol. 2003;170:3296–305. [PubMed]
79. Wang HB, Ghiran I, Matthaei K, Weller PF. Airway eosinophils: allergic inflammation recruited professional antigen-presenting cells. J Immunol. 2007;179:7585–92. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
80. Padigel UM, Hess JA, Lee JJ, Lok JB, Nolan TJ, Schad GA, et al. Eosinophils act as antigen-presenting cells to induce immunity to Strongyloides stercoralis in mice. J Infect Dis. 2007;196:1844–51. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
81. Jacobsen EA, Ochkur SI, Pero RS, Taranova AG, Protheroe CA, Colbert DC, et al. Allergic pulmonary inflammation in mice is dependent on eosinophil-induced recruitment of effector T cells. J Exp Med. 2008;205:699–710. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
82. Akuthota P, Wang HB, Spencer LA, Weller PF. Immunoregulatory roles of eosinophils: a new look at a familiar cell. Clin Exp Allergy. 2008;38:1254–63. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
83. Aceves SS, Broide DH. Airway fibrosis and angiogenesis due to eosinophil trafficking in chronic asthma. Curr Mol Med. 2008;8:350–8. [PubMed]
84. Walsh ER, August A. Eosinophils and allergic airway disease: there is more to the story. Trends Immunol. 2009 October 21; [Epub ahead of print] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
85. Phipps S, Flood-Page P, Menzies-Gow A, Ong YE, Kay AB. Intravenous anti-IL-5 monoclonal antibody reduces eosinophils and tenascin deposition in allergen-challenged human atopic skin. J Invest Dermatol. 2004;122:1406–12. [PubMed]
86. Specht S, Saeftel M, Arndt M, Endl E, Dubben B, Lee NA, et al. Lack of eosinophil peroxidase or major basic protein impairs defense against murine filarial infection. Infect Immun. 2006;74:5236–43. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
87. Knott ML, Matthaei KI, Foster PS, Dent LA. The roles of eotaxin and the STAT6 signalling pathway in eosinophil recruitment and host resistance to the nematodes Nippostrongylus brasiliensis and Heligmosomoides bakeri. Mol Immunol. 2009;46:2714–22. [PubMed]
88. Yousefi S, Gold JA, Andina N, Lee JJ, Kelly AM, Kozlowski E, et al. Catapult-like release of mitochondrial DNA by eosinophils contributes to antibacterial defense. Nat Med. 2008;14:949–53. [PubMed]
89. Linch SN, Kelly AM, Danielson ET, Pero R, Lee JJ, Gold JA. Mouse eosinophils possess potent antibacterial properties in vivo. Infect Immun. 2009;77:4976–82. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
90. Rosenberg HF, Domachowske JB. Eosinophils, eosinophil ribonucleases, and their role in host defense against respiratory virus pathogens. J Leukoc Biol. 2001;70:691–8. [PubMed]
91. Yamada Y, Rothenberg ME, Lee AW, Akei HS, Brandt EB, Williams DA, et al. The FIP1L1-PDGFRA fusion gene cooperates with IL-5 to induce murine hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES)/chronic eosinophilic leukemia (CEL)-like disease. Blood. 2006;107:4071–9. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
92. Forbes E, Murase T, Yang M, Matthaei KI, Lee JJ, Lee NA, et al. Immunopathogenesis of experimental ulcerative colitis is mediated by eosinophil peroxidase. J Immunol. 2004;172:5664–75. [PubMed]
93. Hogan SP, Mishra A, Brandt EB, Foster PS, Rothenberg ME. A critical role for eotaxin in experimental oral antigen-induced eosinophilic gastrointestinal allergy. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2000;97:6681–6. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
94. Hogan SP, Rosenberg HF, Moqbel R, Phipps S, Foster PS, Lacy P, et al. Eosinophils: biological properties and role in health and disease. Clin Exp Allergy. 2008;38:709–50. [PubMed]
95. Mishra A, Wang M, Pemmaraju VR, Collins MH, Fulkerson PC, Abonia JP, et al. Esophageal remodeling develops as a consequence of tissue specific IL-5-induced eosinophilia. Gastroenterology. 2008;134:204–14. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
96. Boehme SA, Franz-Bacon K, Chen EP, Sasik R, Sprague LJ, Ly TW, et al. A small molecule CRTH2 antagonist inhibits FITC-induced allergic cutaneous inflammation. Int Immunol. 2009;21:81–93. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
97. Matsuoka T, Hirata M, Tanaka H, Takahashi Y, Murata T, Kabashima K, et al. Prostaglandin D2 as a mediator of allergic asthma. Science. 2000;287:2013–7. [PubMed]
98. Schratl P, Royer JF, Kostenis E, Ulven T, Sturm EM, Waldhoer M, et al. The role of the prostaglandin D2 receptor, DP, in eosinophil trafficking. J Immunol. 2007;179:4792–9. [PubMed]
99. Tager AM, Dufour JH, Goodarzi K, Bercury SD, von Andrian UH, Luster AD. BLTR mediates leukotriene B(4)-induced chemotaxis and adhesion and plays a dominant role in eosinophil accumulation in a murine model of peritonitis. J Exp Med. 2000;192:439–46. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
100. Reese TA, Liang HE, Tager AM, Luster AD, Van Rooijen N, Voehringer D, et al. Chitin induces accumulation in tissue of innate immune cells associated with allergy. Nature. 2007;447:92–6. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
101. Cho KJ, Seo JM, Shin Y, Yoo MH, Park CS, Lee SH, et al. Blockade of airway inflammation and hyperresponsiveness by inhibition of BLT2, a low-affinity leukotriene B4 receptor. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol. 2009 May 15; [Epub ahead of print] [PubMed]
102. Miyahara N, Ohnishi H, Miyahara S, Takeda K, Matsubara S, Matsuda H, et al. Leukotriene B4 release from mast cells in IgE-mediated airway hyperresponsiveness and inflammation. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol. 2009;40:672–82. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
103. Cowden JM, Zhang M, Dunford PJ, Thurmond RL. The histamine H(4) receptor mediates inflammation and pruritus in Th2-dependent dermal inflammation. J Invest Dermatol. 2009 November 13; [Epub ahead of print] [PubMed]
104. Thurmond RL, Gelfand EW, Dunford PJ. The role of histamine H1 and H4 receptors in allergic inflammation: the search for new antihistamines. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2008;7:41–53. [PubMed]
105. Wong CK, Hu S, Cheung PF, Lam CW. TSLP induces chemotactic and pro-survival effects in eosinophils: implications in allergic inflammation. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol. 2009 October 22; [Epub ahead of print] [PubMed]
106. Garrett JK, Jameson SC, Thomson B, Collins MH, Wagoner LE, Freese DK, et al. Anti-interleukin-5 (mepolizumab) therapy for hypereosinophilic syndromes. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2004;113:115–9. [PubMed]
107. Plotz SG, Simon HU, Darsow U, Simon D, Vassina E, Yousefi S, et al. Use of an anti-interleukin-5 antibody in the hypereosinophilic syndrome with eosinophilic dermatitis. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:2334–9. [PubMed]
108. Green RH, Brightling CE, McKenna S, Hargadon B, Parker D, Bradding P, et al. Asthma exacerbations and sputum eosinophil counts: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2002;360:1715–21. [PubMed]
109. Wenzel SE. Eosinophils in asthma--closing the loop or opening the door? N Engl J Med. 2009;360:1026–8. [PubMed]
110. Gleich GJ. Anti-interleukin-5 therapy and severe asthma. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:2577. [PubMed]
111. Kim YJ, Prussin C, Martin B, Law MA, Haverty TP, Nutman TB, et al. Rebound eosinophilia after treatment of hypereosinophilic syndrome and eosinophilic gastroenteritis with monoclonal anti-IL-5 antibody SCH55700. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2004;114:1449–55. [PubMed]
112. Stein ML, Collins MH, Villanueva JM, Kushner JP, Putnam PE, Buckmeier BK, et al. Anti-IL-5 (mepolizumab) therapy for eosinophilic esophagitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2006;118:1312–9. [PubMed]
113. Gevaert P, Lang-Loidolt D, Lackner A, Stammberger H, Staudinger H, Van Zele T, et al. Nasal IL-5 levels determine the response to anti-IL-5 treatment in patients with nasal polyps. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2006;118:1133–41. [PubMed]
114. Straumann A, Conus S, Grzonka P, Kita H, Kephart G, Bussmann C, et al. Anti-interleukin-5 antibody treatment (mepolizumab) in active eosinophilic oesophagitis: a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial. Gut. 59:21–30. [PubMed]
115. Simon D, Wardlaw A, Rothenberg ME. Organ-specific eosinophilic disorders of the skin, lung and gastrointestinal tract. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010 (in press) [PMC free article] [PubMed]
116. Stein ML, Villanueva JM, Buckmeier BK, Yamada Y, Filipovich AH, Assa’ad AH, et al. Anti-IL-5 (mepolizumab) therapy reduces eosinophil activation ex vivo and increases IL-5 and IL-5 receptor levels. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2008;121:1473–83. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
117. Ogbogu PU, Bochner BS, Butterfield JH, Gleich GJ, Huss-Marp J, Kahn JE, et al. Hypereosinophilic syndrome: A multicenter, retrospective analysis of clinical characteristics and response to therapy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2009;124:1319–25. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
118. Boucher RM, Gilbert-McClain L, Chowdhury B. Hypereosinophilic syndrome and mepolizumab. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:2838–9. author reply 9–40. [PubMed]
119. Walsh GM. Reslizumab, a humanized anti-IL-5 mAb for the treatment of eosinophil-mediated inflammatory conditions. Curr Opin Mol Ther. 2009;11:329–36. [PubMed]
120. Kahn JE, Grandpeix-Guyodo C, Marroun I, Catherinot E, Mellot F, Roufosse F, et al. Sustained response to mepolizumab in refractory Churg-Strauss syndrome. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010 (in press) [PubMed]
121. Kim S, Israel E, Oren E, Wechsler M. Mepolizumab as a steroid-sparing treatment in the Churg Strauss syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2009;179:A5368. (abstr.)
PubReader format: click here to try


Related citations in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Cited by other articles in PMC

See all...


Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...