4.6 Article

Epigenetic Silencing of the Human NOS2 Gene: Rethinking the Role of Nitric Oxide in Human Macrophage Inflammatory Responses

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 192, 期 5, 页码 2326-2338

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.1301758

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [NIH R01 HL079901, NIH RO1 HL096625, R21HL109589]
  2. National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences (through the University of Iowa Environmental Health Sciences Research Center) [NIEHS/NIH P30 ES005605]
  3. National Center for Research Resources (part of the National Institutes of Health) [UL1RR024979]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Macrophages, including alveolar macrophages, are primary phagocytic cells of the innate immune system. Many studies of macrophages and inflammation have been done in mouse models, in which inducible NO synthase (NOS2) and NO are important components of the inflammatory response. Human macrophages, in contrast to mouse macrophages, express little detectable NOS2 and generate little NO in response to potent inflammatory stimuli. The human NOS2 gene is highly methylated around the NOS2 transcription start site. In contrast, mouse macrophages contain unmethylated cytosine-phosphate-guanine (CpG) dinucleotides proximal to the NOS2 transcription start site. Further analysis of chromatin accessibility and histone modifications demonstrated a closed conformation at the human NOS2 locus and an open conformation at the murine NOS2 locus. In examining the potential for CpG demethylation at the NOS2 locus, we found that the human NOS2 gene was resistant to the effects of demethylation agents both in vitro and in vivo. Our data demonstrate that epigenetic modifications in human macrophages are associated with CpG methylation, chromatin compaction, and histone modifications that effectively silence the NOS2 gene. Taken together, our findings suggest there are significant and underappreciated differences in how murine and human macrophages respond to inflammatory stimuli.

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