4.6 Article

The MHC I immunopeptidome conveys to the cell surface an integrative view of cellular regulation

期刊

MOLECULAR SYSTEMS BIOLOGY
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/msb.2011.68

关键词

biochemical network; major histocompatibility complex; mTOR; plasticity; transcriptome

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes for Health Research [MOP 42384]
  2. Canadian Cancer Society [019475]
  3. Cole Foundation
  4. Fonds de la Recherche en Sante du Quebec (FRSQ)
  5. Canada Research Chairs Program
  6. Canadian Center of Excellence in Commercialization and Research
  7. Canada Foundation for Innovation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Self/non-self discrimination is a fundamental requirement of life. Endogenous peptides presented by major histocompatibility complex class I (MHC I) molecules represent the essence of self for CD8 T lymphocytes. These MHC I peptides (MIPs) are collectively referred to as the immunopeptidome. From a systems-level perspective, very little is known about the origin, composition and plasticity of the immunopeptidome. Here, we show that the immunopeptidome, and therefore the nature of the immune self, is plastic and moulded by cellular metabolic activity. By using a quantitative high-throughputmass spectrometry-based approach, we found that altering cellular metabolism via the inhibition of the mammalian target of rapamycin results in dynamic changes in the cell surface MIPs landscape. Moreover, we provide systems-level evidence that the immunopeptidome projects at the cell surface a representation of biochemical networks and metabolic events regulated at multiple levels inside the cell. Our findings open up new perspectives in systems immunology and predictive biology. Indeed, predicting variations in the immunopeptidome in response to cell-intrinsic and -extrinsic factors could be relevant to the rational design of immunotherapeutic interventions. Molecular Systems Biology 7: 533; published online 27 September 2011; doi:10.1038/msb.2011.68

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