4.6 Review

Regulatory activity of polyunsaturated fatty acids in T-cell signaling

期刊

PROGRESS IN LIPID RESEARCH
卷 49, 期 3, 页码 250-261

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.plipres.2010.01.002

关键词

Docosahexaeonic acid; Eicosapentaenoic acid; Lipid rafts; Protein kinase C; Lymphocyte; Membrane biology

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [DK071707, CA59034, P30ES09106]
  2. US Department of Agriculture [2008-34402-19195]
  3. NIFA [583525, 2008-34402-19195] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

n-3 Polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) are considered to be authentic immunosuppressors and appear to exert beneficial effects with respect to certain immune-mediated diseases. In addition to promoting T-helper 1 (Th1) cell to T-helper 2 (Th2) cell effector T-cell differentiation, n-3 PUFA may also exert anti-inflammatory actions by inducing apoptosis in Th1 cells. With respect to mechanisms of action, effects range from the modulation of membrane receptors to gene transcription via perturbation of a number of second messenger cascades. In this review, the putative targets of anti-inflammatory n-3 PUFA, activated during early and late events of T-cell activation will be discussed. Studies have demonstrated that these fatty acids alter plasma membrane micro-organization (lipid rafts) at the immunological synapse, the site where T-cells and antigen-presenting cells (APC) form a physical contact for antigen initiated T-cell signaling. In addition, the production of diacylglycerol and the activation of different isoforms of protein kinase C (PKC), mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK), calcium signaling, and nuclear translocation/activation of transcriptional factors, can be modulated by n-3 PUFA. Advantages and limitations of diverse methodologies to study the membrane lipid raft hypothesis, as well as apparent contradictions regarding the effect of n-3 PUFA on lipid rafts will be critically presented. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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