4.6 Article

Interleukin-33 Is Biologically Active Independently of Caspase-1 Cleavage

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 284, 期 29, 页码 19420-19426

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M901744200

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation Grants [320000-120319, 3200-107592]
  2. Rheumasearch Foundation
  3. Lotterie Romande

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The new interleukin (IL)-1 family cytokine IL-33 is synthesized as a 30-kDa precursor. Like pro-IL-1 beta, human pro-IL-33 was reported to be cleaved by caspase-1 to generate an 18-kDa fragment, which is sufficient to activate signaling by the IL-33 receptor T1/ST2. However, the proposed caspase-1 cleavage site is poorly conserved between species. In addition, it is not clear whether caspase-1 cleavage of pro-IL-33 occurs in vivo and whether, as for IL-1 beta, this cleavage is a prerequisite for IL-33 secretion and bioactivity. In this study, we further investigated caspase-1 cleavage of mouse and human pro-IL-33 and assessed the potential bioactivity of the IL-33 precursor. We observed the generation of a 20-kDa IL-33 fragment in cell lysates, which was enhanced by incubation with caspase-1. However, in vitro assays of mouse and human pro-IL-33 indicated that IL-33 is not a direct substrate for this enzyme. Consistently, caspase-1 activation in THP-1 cells induced cleavage of pro-IL-1 beta but not of pro-IL-33, and activated THP-1 cells released full-length pro-IL-33 into culture supernatants. Finally, addition of full-length pro-IL-33 induced T1/ST2-dependent IL-6 secretion in mast cells. However, we observed in situ processing of pro-IL-33 in mast cell cultures, and it remains to be determined whether full-length pro-IL-33 itself indeed represents the bioactive species. In conclusion, our data indicate that pro-IL-33 is not a direct substrate for caspase-1. In addition, our results clearly show that caspase-1 cleavage is not required for pro-IL-33 secretion and bioactivity, highlighting major differences between IL-1 beta and IL-33.

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