4.5 Review

Natural killer cell memory in context

期刊

SEMINARS IN IMMUNOLOGY
卷 28, 期 4, 页码 368-376

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.smim.2016.05.008

关键词

Immunological memory; NK cell; Mechanisms; CMV; Adaptive; Epigenetic

资金

  1. European Research Council under the European Union [311335]
  2. Norwegian Research Council
  3. Swedish Research Council
  4. Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research
  5. Swedish Cancer Foundation
  6. Swedish Children's Cancer Foundation
  7. Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation
  8. Karolinska Institute Research Foundation
  9. European Research Council (ERC) [311335] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Immune memory has traditionally been considered a hallmark of vertebrate T and B lymphocytes. However, given the advantage in mounting quicker and more robust responses to recurrent infection, it is unsurprising that alternative strategies of memory are found in various immune cells throughout the evolutionary tree. In this context, a variety of NK cell memory subsets have recently been identified. Mouse models of cytomegalovirus infection have been instrumental in revealing the kinetics and molecular mechanisms of long-lived NK cell memory. Moreover, murine liver-resident memory NK cell subsets have been identified that potentially harbour antigen-specificity. Phenotypic counter-parts have recently been characterised in the human liver, adding to the mounting evidence suggesting that a spectrum of NK cell memory subsets exist in primates. These include cytomegalovirus-associated peripheral blood NK cell expansions that in humans have been shown to harbour epigenetic alterations that impact cellular phenotype and function. Here we discuss some general mechanisms of non-classical immune memory. We highlight themes of commonality that may yield clues to the molecular mechanisms of NK cell memory, whilst emphasising some outstanding questions. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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