4.8 Article

Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress Sensor IRE1α Enhances IL-23 Expression by Human Dendritic Cells

期刊

FRONTIERS IN IMMUNOLOGY
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2017.00639

关键词

glycolysis; C/EBP beta; 2-deoxy-D-glucose; fungal patterns; IL-23; lactate; unfolded protein response; XBP1

资金

  1. Sociedad Espanola de Hematologia y Hemoterapia
  2. Plan Nacional de Salud y Farmacia [SAF2013-44521-R]
  3. Fundacion Domingo Martinez

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Human monocyte-derived dendritic cells (DCs) exposed to pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs) undergo bioenergetic changes that influence the immune response. We found that stimulation with PAMPs enhanced glycolysis in DCs, whereas oxidative phosphorylation remained unaltered. Glucose starvation and the hexokinase inhibitor 2-deoxy-D-glucose (2-DG) modulated cytokine expression in stimulated DCs. Strikingly, IL23A was markedly induced upon 2-DG treatment, but not during glucose deprivation. Since 2-DG can also rapidly inhibit protein N-glycosylation, we postulated that this compound could induce IL-23 in DCs via activation of the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress response. Indeed, stimulation of DCs with PAMPs in the presence of 2-DG robustly activated inositol-requiring protein 1 alpha (IRE1 alpha) signaling and to a lesser extent the PERK arm of the unfolded protein response. Additional ER stressors such as tunicamycin and thapsigargin also promoted IL-23 expression by PAMP-stimulated DCs. Pharmacological, biochemical, and genetic analyses using conditional knockout mice revealed that IL-23 induction in ER stressed DCs stimulated with PAMPs was IRE1 alpha/X-box binding protein 1-dependent upon zymosan stimulation. Interestingly, we further evidenced PERK-mediated and CAAT/enhancer-binding protein beta-dependent trans-activation of IL23A upon lipopolysaccharide treatment. Our findings uncover that the ER stress response can potently modulate cytokine expression in PAMP-stimulated human DCs.

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