3.8 Article

Use of murine embryonic fibroblasts to define Toll-like receptor activation and specificity

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENDOTOXIN RESEARCH
Volume 10, Issue 6, Pages 419-424

Publisher

MANEY PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1179/096805104225006516

Keywords

murine embryonic fibroblasts; TLR activation; TLR specificity

Funding

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [R01 AI051405, AI057159, R01 AI51415, R01AI39576] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES [R01AI051415, U54AI057159, R01AI039576, R01AI051405] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Toll-like receptors (TLRs) are critically involved in the innate immune response to bacterial, viral and fungal pathogens. We have studied human peripheral blood mononuclear cells, murine embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs) and a panel of human cell lines, including HEK, HeLa, AGS, ECV304 and U373 cells, for expression of TLR-specific mRNAs and for TLR-ligand dependent cytokine secretion. Peripheral blood cells expressed multiple TLRs; however, many studies have shown that blood contains multiple, heterogeneous cell populations with distinct patterns of TLR expression. Cell lines had variable expression of TLRs, and in most cases lacked TLR2 and TLR8 expression and only weakly expressed mRNAs for TLR5, TLR7 and TLR9. In contrast, MEFs expressed high levels of mRNA for TLR1, TLR2, TLR3, TLR4, TLR5, TLR6, TLR7, TLR8 and TLR9. MEFs were highly responsive to TLR-ligand activation and secreted high levels of both IL-6 and MCP-1 in response to TLR ligands. MEFs from mice with targeted deletions of TLR2, TLR4 and MyD88 demonstrated profound defects in their IL-6 response to their specific ligands, consistent with studies of macrophages and tissues from adult knockout animals. MEF cultures are homogenous and amenable to biochemical analysis and should allow rigorous studies of the contribution of individual TLRs to the innate immune response.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available