4.6 Article

Preferential Use of DH Reading Frame 2 Alters B Cell Development and Antigen-Specific Antibody Production

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 181, 期 12, 页码 8409-8415

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.181.12.8409

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [AI07051, AI42732, AI48115, HD043327, TW02130]
  2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [SFB/TR22-TPA17]
  3. Alexander von Humholdi-Stiftung [FLF1071957]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

All jawed vertebrates limit use of D-H reading frames (RFs) that are enriched for hydrophobic amino acids. In BALB/c mice, DFL16.1 RF2 encodes valine and isoleucine. To test whether increased use of RF2 affects B cell function, we examined B cell development and Ab production in mice with an IgH allele (Delta D-D mu FS) limited to use of a single, frameshifted DFL61.1 gene segment. We compared the results of these studies to wild-type mice, as well as those previously obtained in mice limited to use of either a single normal D-H or a single inverted D-H that forces use of arginine in CDR-H3. All three of the mouse strains limited to a single D-H produced fewer immature B cells than wild type. However, whereas mice limited to a single normal D-H achieved normal B cell numbers in the periphery, mice forced to preferentially use RF2 had reduced numbers of mature B cells in the spleen and bone marrow, mirroring the pattern previously observed in mice enriched for charged CDR-H3s. There were two exceptions. B cells in the mice using RF2 normally populated the marginal zone and peritoneal cavity, whereas mice using inverted RF1 had increased numbers of marginal zone B cells and decreased numbers of B1a cells. When challenged with several T-dependent or T-independent Ags, Ag-specific Ab titers in the mice forced to use RF2 were altered. These findings indicate that B cell development and Ag-specific Ab production can be heavily influenced by the global amino acid content of the CDR-H3 repertoire. The Journal of Immunology, 2008, 181: 8409-8415.

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