4.8 Article

Role of a selecting ligand in shaping the murine gamma delta-TCR repertoire

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1718328115

关键词

gamma delta-T cells; repertoire selection; gamma delta-T cell ligand; gamma delta-T lineage commitment; H2-T

资金

  1. NIH [P01 AI102853, T32CA009035, F32AI120541, F32AI098241]
  2. NIH Cancer Center Support Grant [P30CA006927]
  3. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [MOP-42387]
  4. Krembil Foundation
  5. Cancer Center Support Grant [P30CA006927]
  6. Bishop Fund
  7. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [P30CA006927, T32CA009035] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  8. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES [F32AI098241, P01AI102853, F32AI120541] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  9. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [R35GM122517, R01GM084453] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Unlike alpha beta-T lineage cells, where the role of ligand in intrathymic selection is well established, the role of ligand in the development of gamma delta-T cells remains controversial. Here we provide evidence for the role of a bona fide selecting ligand in shaping the gamma delta-T cell-receptor (TCR) repertoire. Reactivity of the gamma delta-TCR with the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) Class Ib ligands, H2-T10/22, is critically dependent upon the EGYEL motif in the complementarity determining region 3 (CDR3) of TCR delta. In the absence of H2-T10/22 ligand, the commitment of H2-T10/22 reactive gamma delta-T cells to the gamma delta fate is diminished, and the specification of those gamma delta committed cells to the IFN-gamma or interleukin-17 effector fate is altered. Furthermore, those cells that do adopt the gamma delta fate and mature exhibit a profound alteration in the gamma delta TCR repertoire, including depletion of the EGYEL motif and reductions in both CDR3 delta length and charge. Taken together, these data suggest that ligand plays an important role in shaping the TCR repertoire of gamma delta-T cells.

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