4.6 Article

Altered Lymph Node Composition in Diphtheria Toxin Receptor-Based Mouse Models To Ablate Dendritic Cells

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 194, 期 1, 页码 307-315

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.1401999

关键词

-

资金

  1. Cancer Research UK
  2. European Research Council [AdG-2010-268670]
  3. Boehringer Ingelheim Fonds
  4. European Molecular Biology Organization long-term fellowship
  5. Overseas Biomedical Fellowship from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia [APP1013641]
  6. Henry Wellcome Fellowship [WT089009MA]
  7. Cancer Research UK [15689] Funding Source: researchfish
  8. The Francis Crick Institute [10136, 10138] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dendritic cells (DCs) are key regulators of innate and adaptive immunity. Our understanding of immune function has benefited greatly from mouse models allowing for selective ablation of DCs. Many such models rely on transgenic diphtheria toxin receptor (DTR) expression driven by DC-restricted promoters. This renders DCs sensitive to DT but is otherwise thought to have no effect on immune physiology. In this study, we report that, unexpectedly, mice in which DTR is expressed on conventional DCs display marked lymph node (LN) hypocellularity and reduced frequency of DCs in the same organs but not in spleen or nonlymphoid tissues. Intriguingly, in mixed bone marrow chimeras the phenotype conferred by DTR-expressing DCs is dominant over control bone marrow-derived cells, leading to small LNs and an overall paucity of DCs independently of the genetic ability to express DTR. The finding of alterations in LN composition and size independently of DT challenge suggests that caution must be exercised when interpreting results of experiments obtained with mouse models to inducibly deplete DCs. It further indicates that DTR, a member of the epidermal growth factor family, is biologically active in mice. Its use in cell ablation experiments needs to be considered in light of this activity.

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