4.5 Article

The human macrophage mannose receptor is not a professional phagocytic receptor

Journal

JOURNAL OF LEUKOCYTE BIOLOGY
Volume 77, Issue 6, Pages 934-943

Publisher

FEDERATION AMER SOC EXP BIOL
DOI: 10.1189/jlb.1204705

Keywords

phagocytosis; endocytosis; de novo cloning

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The macrophage mannose receptor (MR) appears to play an important role in the binding and phagocytosis of several human pathogens, but its phagocytic property and signaling pathways have been poorly defined. The general strategy to explore such topics is to express the protein of interest in nonphagocytie cells, but in the case of MR, there are few reports using the full-length MR cDNA. When we searched to clone de novo the human MR (hMR) cDNA, problems were encountered, and full-length hMR cDNA was only obtained after devising a complex cloning strategy. Chinese hamster ovary cells, which have a fully functional phagocytic machinery when expressing professional phagocytic receptors, were stably transfected, and cell clones expressing hMR at quantitatively comparable levels than human macrophages or J774E cells were obtained. They exhibited a functional hMR-inediated endocytic capacity of a soluble ligand but failed to ingest classical particulate ligands of MR such as Zymosan, Mycobacterium kansasii, or trimannoside bovine serum albumin-coated latex beads. Transient expression of hMR in two human cell lines did not provide a phagocytic capacity either. In conclusion, we show that MR is not a professional phagocytic receptor, as it does not possess the ability to promote particle ingestion in nonphagocytic cells on its own. We propose that MR is a binding receptor, which requires a partner to trigger phagocytosis in some specialized cells such as macrophages. Our new expression vector could represent a useful tool to study the receptor and its partnership further.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available