4.6 Article

A granular variant of CD63 is a regulator of repeated human mast cell degranulation

期刊

ALLERGY
卷 65, 期 10, 页码 1242-1255

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2010.02350.x

关键词

CD63; mast cell; repeated degranulation; tetraspanin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

P>Background: Mast cells are secretory immune cells whose degranulation can provoke acute allergic reactions. It is presently unclear, however, whether an individual mast cell can repeatedly degranulate or turns dysfunctional after a single antigen stimulus. This work thus aims to better define the mast cell life cycle, with particular focus on new target structures for therapeutic or diagnostic approaches in allergy. Methods: Monoclonal antibodies were raised against degranulated cord blood-derived human mast cells. A subset of these antibodies that exclusively recognized degranulated mast cells, but did not cross-react with quiescent mast cells or other hematopoietic cell types, became key reagents in subsequent experiments. Results: We identified a granular variant of tetraspanin CD63 as an exclusive molecular marker of degranulated human mast cells. Mutant analyses indicate that a cysteine cluster around residue C170 and protein glycosylation at residue N172 account for the antibody specificity. Here, we show that mast cells, which underwent an initial Fc epsilon RI-mediated degranulation, can be degranulated for at least another cycle in vitro. Repeated degranulation, however, requires an IgE/antigen stimulus that differs from the preceding one. Furthermore, the new variant-specific anti-CD63 antibodies effectively impair repeated cycles of mast cell degranulation. Conclusion: Our findings indicate that mast cells are stable, multiple-use cells, which are capable of surviving and delivering several consecutive hits. Surface expression of the novel CD63 variant is a distinguishing feature of such primed cells. Reagents directed against this molecular hallmark may thus become valuable diagnostic and therapeutic agents.

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