4.8 Article

Differences in Cellular Clearing Mechanisms of Aggregates of Two Subtypes of HLA-B27

期刊

FRONTIERS IN IMMUNOLOGY
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.795053

关键词

HLA-B27 alleles; high molecular weight (HMW); aggregates; clearance; proteomics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is a type of spondyloarthropathy strongly associated with the genetic marker HLA-B27. This study investigates the differential disease association of two HLA-B27 subtypes, B*2704 and B*2709, and finds distinct protein clearance mechanisms involved in their degradation. These findings provide insights into the different pathogenic outcomes of these HLA-B27 subtypes.
Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) belongs to a group of diseases, called spondyloarthropathies (SpA), that are strongly associated with the genetic marker HLA-B27. AS is characterized by inflammation of joints and primarily affects the spine. Over 160 subtypes of HLA-B27 are known, owing to high polymorphism. Some are strongly associated with disease (e.g., B*2704), whereas others are not (e.g., B*2709). Misfolding of HLA-B27 molecules [as dimers, or as high-molecular-weight (HMW) oligomers] is one of several hypotheses proposed to explain the link between HLA-B27 and AS. Our group has previously established the existence of HMW species of HLA-B27 in AS patients. Still, very little is known about the mechanisms underlying differences in pathogenic outcomes of different HLA-B27 subtypes. We conducted a proteomics-based evaluation of the differential disease association of HLA B*2704 and B*2709, using stable transfectants of genes encoding the two proteins. A clear difference was observed in protein clearance mechanisms: whereas unfolded protein response (UPR), autophagy, and aggresomes were involved in the degradation of B*2704, the endosome-lysosome machinery was primarily involved in B*2709 degradation. These differences offer insights into the differential disease association of B*2704 and B*2709.

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

4.8
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