4.6 Article

NKG2A Inhibits Invariant NKT Cell Activation in Hepatic Injury

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 182, 期 1, 页码 250-258

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.182.1.250

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture, Japan
  2. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Program
  3. Cancer Council of Victoria Project Grant
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES [R01AI035021, R37AI071922] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Activation of invariant NKT (iNKT) cells in the liver is generally regarded as the critical step for Con A-induced hepatitis, and the role of NK cell receptors for iNKT cell activation is still controversial. In this study we show that blockade of the NKG2A-mediated inhibitory signal with antagonistic anti-NKG2A/C/E mAb (20d5) aggravated Con A-induced hepatitis in wild-type, Fas ligand (FasL)-mutant gld, and IL-4-deficient mice even with NK cell and CD8 T cell depletion, but not in perforin-, IFN-gamma-, or IFN-gamma- and perforin-deficient mice. Consistently, 20d5 pretreatment augmented serum IFN-gamma levels and perforin-dependent cytotoxicity of liver mononuclear cells following Con A injection, but not their FasL/Fas-dependent cytotoxicity. However, blockade of NKG2A-mediated signals during the cytotoxicity effector phase did not augment cytotoxic activity. Activated iNKT cells promptly disappeared after Con A injection, whereas NK1(-) iNKT cells, which preferentially expressed CD94/NKG2A, predominantly remained in the liver. Pretreatment with 20d5 appeared to facilitate disappearance of iNKT cells, particularly NK1(-) iNKT cells. Moreover, Con A-induced and a-galactosylceramide-induced hepatic injury was very severe in CD94/NKG2A-deficient DBA/2J mice compared with CD94/NKG2A-intact DBA/2JJcI mice. Overall, these results indicated that a NKG2A-mediated signal negatively regulates iNKT cell activation and hepatic injury. The Journal of Immunology, 2009, 182: 250-258.

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