Cytokines in periodontal disease: where to from here?

Numerous studies have attempted to elucidate the cytokine networks involved in chronic periodontitis, often with conflicting results. A variety of techniques were used to study cells in situ, cells extracted from gingival tissues, peripheral blood mononuclear cells, purified cell populations, and T cell lines and clones. Bacterial components, including sonicates, killed cells, outer membrane components, and purified antigens, have all been used to stimulate cells in vitro, making comparisons of cytokine profiles difficult. As it is likely that different cells are present at different disease stages, the inability to determine disease activity clinically is a major limitation of all these studies. In the context of tissue destruction, cytokines such as IL-1, IL-6 and IL-18 are likely to be important, as are their regulating cytokines IL-10 and IL-11. In terms of the nature of the inflammatory infiltrate, two apparently conflicting hypotheses have emerged: one based on direct observations of human lesions, the other based on animal experimentation and the inability to demonstrate IL-4 mRNA in gingival extracts. In the first of these, Th1 responses are responsible for the stable lesion, while in the second Th2 responses are considered protective. Using Porphyromonas gingivalis specific T cell lines we have shown a tendency for IFN-gamma production rather than LL-I or IL-10 when antigen is presented with peripheral blood mononuclear cells which may contain dendritic cells. It is likely that the nature of the antigen-presenting cell is fundamental in determining the nature of the cytokine profile, which may in turn open up possibilities for new therapeutic modalities.

Vertical fluxes of sediment in oscillatory sheet flow

Time series of vertical sediment fluxes are derived from concentration time series in sheet flow under waves. While the concentrations C(z,t) vary very little with time for \z\ < 10d(50), the measured vertical sediment fluxes Q(zs)(z,t) vary strongly with time in this vertical band and their time variation follows, to some extent, the variation of the grain roughness Shields parameter 02,5(t). Thus, sediment distribution models based on the pickup function boundary condition are in some qualitative agreement with the measurements. However, the pickup function models are only able to model the upward bursts of sediment during the accelerating phases of the flow. They are, so far, unable to model the following strong downward sediment fluxes, which are observed during the periods of flow deceleration. Classical pickup functions, which essentially depend on the Shields parameter, are also incapable of modelling the secondary entrainment fluxes, which sometimes occur at free stream velocity reversal. The measured vertical fluxes indicate that the effective sediment settling velocity in the high [(0.3 < C(z,t) < 0.4] concentration area is typically only a few percent of the clear water settling velocity, while the measurements of Richardson and Jeronimo [Chem. Eng. Sci. 34 (1979) 1419], from a different physical setting, lead to estimates of the order 20%. The data does not support gradient diffusion as a model for sediment entrainment from the bed. That is, detailed modelling of the observed near-bed fluxes would require diffusivities that go negative during periods of flow deceleration. An observed general trend for concentration variability to increase with elevation close to the bed is also irreconcilable with diffusion models driven by a bottom boundary condition. (C) 2002 Published by Elsevier Science B.V.