4.6 Article

De Novo DNA Methylation Is Required to Restrict T Helper Lineage Plasticity

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 287, 期 27, 页码 22900-22909

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M111.312785

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [AI070807, HL108346]
  2. American Cancer Society [RSG109185]
  3. Hyundai Scholar Award
  4. Joan and Jonas Cash Foundation
  5. Optimist International Research Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Naive CD4+ T cells are highly plastic and can differentiate into discrete lineages with unique functions during an immune response. Once differentiated, helper T cells maintain a stable transcriptional memory of their initial lineage choice and resist redifferentiation. During embryogenesis, de novo DNA methylation operates on the hypomethylated genome of the blastocyst to achieve tissue-specific patterns of gene expression. Similarly, the ifn gamma promoter is hypomethylated in naive T cells, but Th2, Th17, and iTreg differentiation is accompanied by substantial de novo DNA methylation at this locus. To determine whether de novo DNA methylation is required to restrict T helper lineage plasticity, we used mice with T cell-specific deletion of the methyltransferase DNMT3a. Induction of lineage-specific cytokines occurred normally in the absence of DNMT3a, however, DNMT3a-deficient Th2, Th17, and iTreg completely failed to methylate the ifn gamma promoter. This was accompanied by an increase in the transcriptionally permissive trimethyl H3K4 mark, and a reduction in inhibitory H3K27 methylation at the ifn gamma locus. Failed de novo methylation resulted in failed silencing of the ifn gamma gene, as DNMT3a-deficient Th2, Th17, and iTreg cells produced significant levels of IFN gamma following restimulation in the presence of IL-12. Therefore, DNMT3a-mediated DNA methylation restricts T helper plasticity by establishing an epigenetically silent chromatin structure at regulatory regions of the ifn gamma gene.

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