4.6 Review

Exploiting viral sensing mediated by Toll-like receptors to design innovative vaccines

期刊

NPJ VACCINES
卷 6, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41541-021-00391-8

关键词

-

资金

  1. Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR), Italy
  2. POC MISE - Proof of Concept - Programma di incentivo e sostegno alle attivita di Applicazione, MIglioramento e COstruzione dei trovati brevettati (programma AMICO) Progetto FACTO-FAgi Coniugati per Terapie Oncologiche
  3. PRIN 2017 NanoTechVax Tackling biological barriers to antigen delivery by nanotechnological vaccines [20173ZECCM]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Toll-like receptors (TLRs) are transmembrane proteins that serve as sensors of invading pathogens by recognizing pathogen-associated molecular patterns, and trigger signaling pathways leading to upregulation of immune defense genes. Understanding viral sensing and signaling mechanisms triggered by these receptors can aid in the development of vaccines, and exploring the TLR/virus interplay may guide the design of innovative vaccine platforms.
Toll-like receptors (TLRs) are transmembrane proteins belonging to the family of pattern-recognition receptors. They function as sensors of invading pathogens through recognition of pathogen-associated molecular patterns. After their engagement by microbial ligands, TLRs trigger downstream signaling pathways that culminate into transcriptional upregulation of genes involved in immune defense. Here we provide an updated overview on members of the TLR family and we focus on their role in antiviral response. Understanding of innate sensing and signaling of viruses triggered by these receptors would provide useful knowledge to prompt the development of vaccines able to elicit effective and long-lasting immune responses. We describe the mechanisms developed by viral pathogens to escape from immune surveillance mediated by TLRs and finally discuss how TLR/virus interplay might be exploited to guide the design of innovative vaccine platforms.

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