4.6 Article

Presentation of the candidate rheumatoid arthritis autoantigen aggrecan by antigen-specific B cells induces enhanced CD4+T helper type 1 subset differentiation

期刊

IMMUNOLOGY
卷 135, 期 4, 页码 344-354

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2567.2011.03548.x

关键词

aggrecan; antigen processing and presentation; B cells; CD4+T cells; rheumatoid arthritis

资金

  1. Arthritis Research UK
  2. Newcastle Healthcare Charity
  3. Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Charity
  4. Versus Arthritis [18595] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Effective immune responses require antigen uptake by antigen-presenting cells (APC), followed by controlled endocytic proteolysis resulting in the generation of antigen-derived peptide fragments that associate with intracellular MHC class II molecules. The resultant peptideMHC class II complexes then move to the APC surface where they activate CD4+ T cells. Dendritic cells (DC), macrophages and B cells act as efficient APC. In many settings, including the T helper type 1 (Th1) -dependent, proteoglycan-induced arthritis model of rheumatoid arthritis, accumulating evidence demonstrates that antigen presentation by B cells is required for optimal CD4+ T cell activation. The reasons behind this however, remain unclear. In this study we have compared the activation of CD4+ T cells specific for the proteoglycan aggrecan following antigen presentation by DC, macrophages and B cells. We show that aggrecan-specific B cells are equally efficient APC as DC and macrophages and use similar intracellular antigen-processing pathways. Importantly, we also show that antigen presentation by aggrecan-specific B cells to TCR transgenic CD4+ T cells results in enhanced CD4+ T cell interferon-? production and Th1 effector sub-set differentiation compared with that seen with DC. We conclude that preferential CD4+ Th1 differentiation may define the requirement for B cell APC function in both proteoglycan-induced arthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据