4.6 Article

An Innate Response to Allogeneic Nonself Mediated by Monocytes

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 183, 期 12, 页码 7810-7816

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.0902194

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [A1064343]
  2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The mammalian innate immune system has evolved diverse strategies to distinguish self from microbial nonself. How the innate immune system distinguishes self-tissues from those of other members of the same species (allogeneic nonself) is less clear. To address this question, we studied the cutaneous hypersensitivity response of lymph ocyte-deficient RAG(-/-) mice to spleen cells transplanted from either allogeneic or syngeneic RAG(-/-) donors. We found that RAG(-/-) mice mount a specific response to allogeneic cells characterized by swelling and infiltration of the skin with host monocytes/macrophages and neutrophils. The response required prior priming with allogeneic splenocytes or skin grafts and exhibited features of memory as it could be elicited at least 4 wk after immunization. Neither depletion of host NK cells nor rechallenging immunized mice with F, hybrid splenocytes inhibited the response, indicating that the response is not mediated by NK cells. Depletion of host monocytes/macrophages or neutrophils at the time of rechallenge significantly diminished the response and, importantly, the adoptive transfer of monocytes from alloimmunized RAG(-/-) mice conferred alloimmunity to naive RAG(-/-) hosts. Unlike NK- and T cell-dependent alloresponses, monocyte-mediated alloimmunity could be elicited only when donor and responder mice differed at non-MHC loci. These observations indicate that monocytes mount a response to allogeneic nonself, a function not previously attributed to them, and suggest the existence of mammalian innate allorecognition strategies distinct from detection of missing self-MHC molecules by NK cells. The Journal of Immunology, 2009, 183: 7810-7816.

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