4.8 Article

Involvement of Toso in activation of monocytes, macrophages, and granulocytes

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1222264110

关键词

sepsis; ROS; LPS

资金

  1. Alexander von Humboldt Foundation [SKA2008, SKA2010]
  2. German research foundation (DFG) [CRC974, TTR60, LA2558/3-1, LA1419/5-1]
  3. Swiss National Science Foundation [PASMP3-127678/1]
  4. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [79434]
  5. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care
  6. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [PASMP3-127678] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rapid activation of immune responses is necessary for antibacterial defense, but excessive immune activation can result in life-threatening septic shock. Understanding how these processes are balanced may provide novel therapeutic potential in treating inflammatory disease. Fc receptors are crucial for innate immune activation. However, the role of the putative Fc receptor for IgM, known as Toso/Faim3, has to this point been unclear. In this study, we generated Toso-deficient mice and used them to uncover a critical regulatory function of Toso in innate immune activation. Development of innate immune cells was intact in the absence of Toso, but Toso-deficient neutrophils exhibited more reactive oxygen species production and reduced phagocytosis of pathogens compared with controls. Cytokine production was also decreased in Toso(-/-) mice compared with WT animals, rendering them resistant to septic shock induced by lipopolysaccharide. However, Toso(-/-) mice also displayed limited cytokine production after infection with the bacterium Listeria monocytogenes that was correlated with elevated presence of Listeria throughout the body. Accordingly, Toso(-/-) mice succumbed to infections of L. monocytogenes, whereas WT mice successfully eliminated the infection. Taken together, our data reveal Toso to be a unique regulator of innate immune responses during bacterial infection and septic shock.

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