4.6 Article

Heat shock co-activates interleukin-8 transcription

出版社

AMER THORACIC SOC
DOI: 10.1165/rcmb.2007-0294OC

关键词

neutrophil; hyperthermia; IL-8; chemokine; heat shock factor-1

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL69057] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM069431, GM066855] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The heat shock (IHS) response is a phylogenetically ancient cellular response to stress, including heat, that shifts gene expression to a set of conserved HS protein (HSP) genes. In our earlier studies, febrile-range hyperthermia (FRIH) not only activated HSP gene expression, but also increased expression of CXC chemokines in mice, leading us to hypothesize that the CXC chemokine family of genes might be HS-responsive. To address this hypothesis we analyzed the effect of HS on the expression of IL-8/CXCL-8, a member of the human CXC family of ELR+ chemokines. HS markedly enhanced TINIF-alpha-induced IL-8 secretion in human A549 respiratory epithelial-like cells and in primary human small airway epithelial cells. IL-8 mRNA was also up-regulated by HS, but the stability of IL-8 mRNA was not affected. TNF-alpha-induced reporter activity of an IL-8 promoter construct IL8(-1471/+44)-JUC stably transfected in A549 cells was also enhanced by HS. Electrophoretic mobility and chromatin immunoprecipitation assays showed that the stress-activated transcription factor heat shock factor-1 (HSF-1) binds to at least two putative heat shock response elements (HSE) present in the IL-8 promoter. Deletional reporter constructs lacking either one or both of these sites showed reduced HS responsiveness. Furthermore, depletion of HSF-1 using siRNA also reduced the effects HS on TNF-alpha-induced IL-8 expression, demonstrating that HSF-1 could also act to regulate IL-8 gene transcription. We speculate that during evolution the CXC chemokine genes may have co-opted elements of the HS response to amplify their expression and enhance neutrophil delivery during febrile illnesses.

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