4.6 Review

gamma delta T cell responses: How many ligands will it take till we know?

期刊

SEMINARS IN CELL & DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY
卷 84, 期 -, 页码 75-86

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.semcdb.2017.10.009

关键词

Unconventional T cells; T cell receptor; Ligand recognition; Innate immunity; Adaptive immunity; Stress immune surveillance; Infection; Cancer; Immunotherapy

资金

  1. Medical Research Council (UK)
  2. Wellcome Trust ISSF Translational Seed-corn Fund
  3. Kidney Research UK
  4. Tenovus (UK)
  5. Fonds National de la Recherche Scientifique (FRS-FNRS, Belgium)
  6. Fonds Gaston Ithier (Belgium)
  7. 7th Framework Programme of the European Commission
  8. Horizon 2020 Programme of the European Commission
  9. MRC [MC_PC_13060, MR/N023145/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

gamma delta T cells constitute a sizeable and non-redundant fraction of the total T cell pool in all jawed vertebrates, but in contrast to conventional alpha beta T cells they are not restricted by classical MHC molecules. Progress in our understanding of the role of gamma delta T cells in the immune system has been hampered, and is being hampered, by the considerable lack of knowledge regarding the antigens gamma delta T cells respond to. The past few years have seen a wealth of data regarding the TCR repertoires of distinct gamma delta T cell populations and a growing list of confirmed and proposed molecules that are recognised by gamma delta T cells in different species. Yet, the physiological contexts underlying the often restricted TCR usage and the chemical diversity of gamma delta T cell ligands remain largely unclear, and only few structural studies have confirmed direct ligand recognition by the TCR. We here review the latest progress in the identification and validation of putative gamma delta T cell ligands and discuss the implications of such findings for gamma delta T cell responses in health and disease. (C) 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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