4.8 Article

Crucial role for the Nalp3 inflammasome in the immunostimulatory properties of aluminium adjuvants

期刊

NATURE
卷 453, 期 7198, 页码 1122-U13

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nature06939

关键词

-

资金

  1. Howard Hughes Medical Institute Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [T32 HL007974] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIAID NIH HHS [K08 AI065517] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NIAMS NIH HHS [T32 AR007016] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aluminium adjuvants, typically referred to as 'alum', are the most commonly used adjuvants in human and animal vaccines worldwide, yet the mechanism underlying the stimulation of the immune system by alum remains unknown. Toll-like receptors are critical in sensing infections and are therefore common targets of various adjuvants used in immunological studies. Although alum is known to induce the production of proinflammatory cytokines in vitro, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that alum does not require intact Toll-like receptor signalling to activate the immune system(1,2). Here we show that aluminium adjuvants activate an intracellular innate immune response system called the Nalp3 (also known as cryopyrin, CIAS1 or NLRP3) inflammasome. Production of the pro-inflammatory cytokines interleukin-1 beta and interleukin-18 by macrophages in response to alum in vitro required intact inflammasome signalling. Furthermore, in vivo, mice deficient in Nalp3, ASC (apoptosis-associated speck-like protein containing a caspase recruitment domain) or caspase-1 failed to mount a significant antibody response to an antigen administered with aluminium adjuvants, whereas the response to complete Freund's adjuvant remained intact. We identify the Nalp3 inflammasome as a crucial element in the adjuvant effect of aluminium adjuvants; in addition, we show that the innate inflammasome pathway can direct a humoral adaptive immune response. This is likely to affect how we design effective, but safe, adjuvants in the future.

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

4.8
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