4.6 Review

Molecular characteristics and functional differences of anti-PM/Scl autoantibodies and two other distinct and unique supramolecular structures known as EXOSOMES

期刊

AUTOIMMUNITY REVIEWS
卷 19, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.autrev.2020.102644

关键词

Exosome; Autoimmune diseases; PM/Scl complex; Systemic sclerosis; Polymyositis; Polymyositis scleroderma overlap syndrome

资金

  1. Scleroderma Foundation Research Award [R21AR071644]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The term exosome has been applied to three distinct supramolecular entities, namely the PM/Scl autoantibodies or RNA exosomes, transforming DNA fragments termed DNA exosomes, and small size extracellular vesicles knows as exosomes. Some of the molecular components of the PM/Scl exosome complex or RNA exosome are recognized by specific autoantibodies present in the serum from some Systemic Sclerosis (SSc), polymyositis (PM) and polymyositis SSc (PM/Scl) overlap syndrome patients. On the other hand, one of the most active focuses of laboratory investigation in the last decade has been the biogenesis and role of extracellular vesicles known as exosomes. The remarkable ability of these exosome vesicles to alter the cellular phenotype following fusion with target cells and the release of their macromolecular cargo has revealed a possible role in the pathogenesis of numerous diseases, including malignant, inflammatory, and autoimmune disorders and may allow them to serve as theranostic agents for personalized and precision medicine. The indiscriminate use of the term exosome to refer to these three distinct molecular entities has engendered great confusion in the scientific literature. Here, we review the molecular characteristics and functional differences between the three molecular structures identified as exosomes. Given the rapidly growing scientific interest in extravesicular exosomes, unless a solution is found the confusion in the literature resulting from the use of the term exosomes will markedly increase.

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