4.7 Article

Growth factor independence-1 (Gfi-1) plays a role in mediating specific granule deficiency (SGD) in a patient lacking a gene-inactivating mutation in the C/EBPε gene

期刊

BLOOD
卷 109, 期 10, 页码 4181-4190

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2005-05-022004

关键词

-

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [P01 HL063357, P01-HL63357] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Neutrophil-specific granule deficiency (SGD) is a rare congenital disorder marked by recurrent bacterial infections. Neutrophils from SGD patients lack secondary and tertiary granules and their content proteins and lack normal neutrophil functions. Gene-inactivating mutations in the C/EBP epsilon gene have been identified in 2 SGD patients. Our studies on a third SGD patient revealed a heterozygous mutation in the C/EBP epsilon gene. However, we demonstrate elevated levels of C/EBP epsilon and PU.1 proteins in the patient's peripheral blood neutrophils. The expression of the transcription factor growth factor independence-1 (Gfi-1), however, was found to be markedly reduced in our SGD patient despite the absence of an obvious mutation in this gene. This may explain the elevated levels of both C/EBP epsilon and PU.1, which are targets of Gfi-1 transcriptional repression. We have generated a growth factor-dependent EML cell line from the bone marrow of Gfi-1(+/-) and Gfi-1(+/+) mice as a model for Gfi-1-deficient SGD, and demonstrate that lower levels of Gfi-1 expression in the Gfi-1(+/-) EML cells is associated with reduced levels of secondary granule protein (SGP) gene expression. Furthermore, we demonstrate a positive role for Gfi-1 in SGP expression, in that Gfi-1 binds to and up-regulates the promoter of neutrophil collagenase (an SGP gene), in cooperation with wild-type but not with mutant C/EBP epsilon. We hypothesize that decreased Gfi-1 levels in our SGD patient, together with the mutant C/EBP epsilon, block SGP expression, thereby contributing to the underlying etiology of the disease in our patient.

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

4.7
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