4.6 Review

EXTRACELLULAR HEAT SHOCK PROTEINS: A NEW LOCATION, A NEW FUNCTION

期刊

SHOCK
卷 40, 期 4, 页码 239-246

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/SHK.0b013e3182a185ab

关键词

Ectosomes; exosomes; immune cell activation; nonclassic secretory pathway; stress; vesicles; cellular communication

资金

  1. National Institute of General Medical Sciences [R01 GM098455]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The expression of heat shock proteins (HSPs) is a basic and well-conserved cellular response to an array of stresses. These proteins are involved in the repair of cellular damage induced by the stress, which is necessary for the salutary resolution from the insult. Moreover, they confer protection from subsequent insults, which has been coined stress tolerance. Because these proteins are expressed in subcellular compartments, it was thought that their function during stress conditions was circumscribed to the intracellular environment. However, it is now well established that HSPs can also be present outside cells where they appear to display a function different than the well-understood chaperone role. Extracellular HSPs act as alert stress signals priming other cells, particularly of the immune system, to avoid the propagation of the insult and favor resolution. Because the majority of HSPs do not possess a secretory peptide signal, they are likely to be exported by a nonclassic secretory pathway. Different mechanisms have been proposed to explain the export of HSPs, including translocation across the plasma membrane and release associated with lipid vesicles, as well as the passive release after cell death by necrosis. Extracellular HSPs appear in various flavors, including membrane-bound and membrane-free forms. All of these variants of extracellular HSPs suggest that their interactions with cells may be quite diverse, both in target cell types and the activation signaling pathways. This review addresses some of our current knowledge about the release and relevance of extracellular HSPs.

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