4.6 Article

SAG/Rbx2-Dependent Neddylation Regulates T-Cell Responses

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY
卷 186, 期 10, 页码 2679-2691

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajpath.2016.06.014

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [HL-090775, HL-128046]
  2. National Cancer Institute [CA-173878, CA-171277]
  3. University of Michigan Cancer Center (NIH) [CA46592]
  4. University of Michigan Gut Peptide Research Center (NIH) [DK34933]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Neddylation is a crucial post-translational modification that depends on the E3 cullin ring ligase (CRL). The E2-adapter component of the CRL, sensitive to apoptosis gene (SAG), is critical for the function of CRL-mediated ubiquitination; thus, the deletion of SAG regulates neddylation. We examined the role of SAG-dependent neddylation in T-cell mediated immunity using multiple approaches: a novel T-cell specific, SAG genetic knockout (KO) and chemical inhibition with small-molecule MLN4924. The KO animals were viable and showed phenotypically normal mature T-cell development. However, in vitro stimulation of KO T cells revealed significantly decreased activation, proliferation, and T-effector cytokine release, compared with WT. Using in vivo clinically relevant models of allogeneic bone marrow transplantation also demonstrated reduced proliferation and effector cytokine secretion associated with markedly reduced graft-versus-host disease. Similar in vitro and in vivo results were observed with the small-molecule inhibitor of neddylation, MLN4924. Mechanistic studies demonstrated that SAG-mediated effects in T cells were concomitant with an increase in suppressor of cytokine signaling, but not NF-kappa B translocation. Our studies suggest that SAG is a novel molecular target that regulates T-cell responses and that inhibiting neddylation with the clinically available small-molecule MLN4924 may represent a novel strategy to mitigate I-cell mediated immunopathologies, such as graft-versus host disease.

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