4.8 Article

Unique CD40-mediated biological program in B cell activation requires both type 1 and type 2 NF-κB activation pathways

Publisher

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0402629101

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01 CA87924, R01 CA087924] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM08042, T32 GM008042, R01 GM57559, R01 GM057559] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

B lymphocytes can be activated by many different stimuli. However, the mechanisms responsible for the signaling and functional specificities of individual stimuli remain to be elucidated. Here, we have compared the contribution of the type 1 (p50-dependent) and type 2 (p52-dependent) NF-kappaB activation pathways to cell survival, proliferation, homotypic aggregation, and specific gene regulation of murine primary B lymphocytes. Whereas lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and B cell activation factor (BAFF) mainly activate the type 1 or type 2 pathways, respectively, CD40 ligand (CD40L) strongly activates both. Rescue of spontaneous apoptosis is diminished in p52(-/-) B cells after BAFF stimulation and in p50(-/-)c-Rel(-/-) B cells after LPS stimulation. Interestingly, significant CD40-induced B cell survival is still observed even in p50(-/-)c-Rel(-/-)p65(-/+) B cells, which is correlated with the ability of CD40L to up-regulate Bcl-x(L) expression in these cells. CD40L- and LPS-induced B cell proliferation, as well as up-regulation of proliferation-related genes, however, are greatly reduced in c-Rel(-/-) and p50(-/-)c-Rel(-/-) B cells but are normal in p52(-/-) B cells. We have further demonstrated that both c-Rel and p52 are required for CD40-mediated B cell homotypic aggregation, which explains well why neither LPS nor BAFF has this function. Overall, our studies suggest that both type 1 and type 2 NF-kappaB pathways contribute to the gene expression and biological program unique for CD40 in B cell activation.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available