4.6 Article

Ly49-Dependent NK Cell Licensing and Effector Inhibition Involve the Same Interaction Site on MHC Ligands

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 186, 期 7, 页码 3911-3917

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.1004168

关键词

-

资金

  1. Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  2. National Institutes of Health
  3. National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases

向作者/读者索取更多资源

NK cells become functionally competent to be triggered by their activation receptors through the interaction of NK cell inhibitory receptors with their cognate self-MHC ligands, an MHC-dependent educational process termed licensing. For example, Ly49A(+) NK cells become licensed by the interaction of the Ly49A inhibitory receptor with its MHC class I ligand, H2D(d), whereas Ly49C(+) NK cells are licensed by H2K(b). Structural studies indicate that the Ly49A inhibitory receptor may interact with two sites, termed site 1 and site 2, on its H2D(d) ligand. Site 2 encompasses the alpha 1/alpha 2/alpha 3 domains of the H2D(d) H chain and beta(2)-microglobulin (beta 2m) and is the functional binding site for Ly49A in effector inhibition. Ly49C functionally interacts with a similar site in H2K(b). However, it is currently unknown whether this same site is involved in Ly49A- or Ly49C-dependent licensing. In this study, we produced transgenic C57BL/6 mice expressing wild-type or site 2 mutant H2D(d) molecules and studied whether Ly49A(+) NK cells are licensed. We also investigated Ly49A- and Ly49C-dependent NK licensing in murine beta 2m-deficient mice that are transgenic for human beta 2m, which has species-specific amino acid substitutions in beta 2m. Our data from these transgenic mice indicate that site 2 on self-MHC is critical for Ly49A- and Ly49C-dependent NK cell licensing. Thus, NK cell licensing through Ly49 involves specific interactions with its MHC ligand that are similar to those involved in effector inhibition. The Journal of Immunology, 2011, 186: 3911-3917.

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