4.8 Article

SOCS3 drives proteasomal degradation of indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase (IDO) and antagonizes IDO-dependent tolerogenesis

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0810278105

关键词

CD28-Ig; CD80/86 signaling; IL-6; SOCS proteins; tryptophan catabolism

资金

  1. Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation
  2. Italian Association for Cancer Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite their common ability to activate intracellular signaling through CD80/CD86 molecules, cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4)-Ig and CD28-Ig bias the downstream response in opposite directions, the latter promoting immunity, and CTLA-4-Ig tolerance, in dendritic cells (DCs) with opposite but flexible programs of antigen presentation. Nevertheless, in the absence of suppressor of cytokine signaling 3 (SOCS3), CD28-Ig-and the associated, dominant IL-6 response-become immunosuppressive and mimic the effect of CTLA-4-Ig, including a high functional expression of the tolerogenic enzyme indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase (IDO). Here we show that forced SOCS3 expression antagonized CTLA-4-Ig activity in a proteasome-dependent fashion. Unrecognized by previous studies, IDO appeared to possess two tyrosine residues within two distinct putative immunoreceptor tyrosine-based inhibitory motifs, VPY115CEL and LLY(253)EGV. We found that SOCS3 known to interact with phosphotyrosine-containing peptides and be selectively induced by CD28-Ig/IL-6-would bind IDO and target the IDO/SOCS3 complex for ubiquitination and subsequent proteasomal degradation. This event accounted for the ability of CD28-Ig and IL-6 to convert otherwise tolerogenic, IDO-competent DCs into immunogenic cells. Thus onset of immunity in response to antigen within an early inflammatory context requires that IDO be degraded in tolerogenic DCs. In addition to identifying SOCS3 as a candidate signature for mouse DC subsets programmed to direct immunity, this study demonstrates that IDO undergoes regulatory proteolysis in response to immunogenic 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

4.8
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