4.7 Article

Enterogenous bacterial glycolipids are required for the generation of natural killer T cells mediated liver injury

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 6, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep36365

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program of China [2013CB531405, 2013CB532406]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81271810, 81571953, 81370906]
  3. Zhejiang medical science and technology project [2015118507, 2016139381]
  4. Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China [LY16H190002]
  5. National High Technology Research and Development Program of China [2014AA022209]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Glycolipids are potent activator of natural killer T (NKT) cells. The relationship between NKT cells and intestinal bacterial glycolipids in liver disorders remained unclear. We found that, in sharp contrast to specific pathogen-free (SPF) mice, germ-free (GF) mice are resistant to Concanavalin A (ConA)-induced liver injury. ConA treatment failed to trigger the activation of hepatic NKT cells in GF mice. These defects correlated with the sharply reduced levels of CD1d-presented glycolipid antigens in ConA-treated GF mice compared with SPF counterparts. Nevertheless, CD1d expression was similar between these two kinds of mice. The absence of intestinal bacteria did not affect the incidence of aGalCer-induced liver injury in GF mice. Importantly, we found the intestinal bacteria contain glycolipids which can be presented by CD1d and recognized by NKT cells. Furthermore, supplement of killed intestinal bacteria was able to restore ConA-mediated NKT cell activation and liver injury in GF mice. Our results suggest that glycolipid antigens derived from intestinal commensal bacteria are important hepatic NKT cell agonist and these antigens are required for the activation of NKT cells during ConA-induced liver injury. These finding provide a mechanistic explanation for the capacity of intestinal microflora to control liver inflammation.

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

4.7
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