4.6 Article

Kinase Activities of RIPK1 and RIPK3 Can Direct IFN-β Synthesis Induced by Lipopolysaccharide

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 198, 期 11, 页码 4435-4447

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.1601717

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01GM080356, R01GM084205, R01CA190542, R01 AI113166, R01AI07118, R01NS047447]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The innate immune response is a central element of the initial defense against bacterial and viral pathogens. Macrophages are key innate immune cells that upon encountering pathogen-associated molecular patterns respond by producing cytokines, including IFN-beta. In this study, we identify a novel role for RIPK1 and RIPK3, a pair of homologous serine/threonine kinases previously implicated in the regulation of necroptosis and pathologic tissue injury, in directing IFN-beta production in macrophages. Using genetic and pharmacologic tools, we show that catalytic activity of RIPK1 directs IFN-beta synthesis induced by LPS in mice. Additionally, we report that RIPK1 kinase-dependent IFN-beta production may be elicited in an analogous fashion using LPS in bone marrow-derived macrophages upon inhibition of caspases. Notably, this regulation requires kinase activities of both RIPK1 and RIPK3, but not the necroptosis effector protein, MLKL. Mechanistically, we provide evidence that necrosome-like RIPK1 and RIPK3 aggregates facilitate canonical TRIF-dependent IFN-beta production downstream of the LPS receptor TLR4. Intriguingly, we also show that RIPK1 and RIPK3 kinase-dependent synthesis of IFN-beta is markedly induced by avirulent strains of Gram-negative bacteria, Yersinia and Klebsiella, and less so by their wild-type counterparts. Overall, these observations identify unexpected roles for RIPK1 and RIPK3 kinases in the production of IFN-beta during the host inflammatory responses to bacterial infection and suggest that the axis in which these kinases operate may represent a target for bacterial virulence factors.

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