4.6 Article

Extracellular Isoforms of CD6 generated by alternative splicing regulate targeting of CD6 to the immunological synapse

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 178, 期 7, 页码 4351-4361

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.178.7.4351

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA 68675] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The great majority of mammalian genes yield multiple transcripts arising from. differential mRNA processing, but in very few instances have alternative forms been assigned distinct functional properties. We have cloned and characterized a new isoform of the accessory molecule CD6 that lacks the CD166 binding domain and is expressed in rat and human primary cells. The novel isoform, CD6 Delta d3, results from exon 5 skipping and consequently lacks the third scavenger receptor cysteine-rich (SRCR) domain of CD6. Differential expression of the SRCR domain 3 resulted in a remarkable functional difference: whereas full-length CD6 targeted to the immunological synapse, CD6Ad3 was unable to localize at the T cell:APC interface during Ag presentation. Analysis of expression of CD6 variants showed that, while being more frequent in coexpression with full-length CD6, the CD6Ad3 isoform constituted the sole species in a small percentage of T cells. In the rat thymus, CD6Ad3 is less represented in double-positive thymocytes but is detectable in nearly 50% of single-positive CD4 or CD8 thymocytes, suggesting that CD6 switching between full-length and Delta d3 isoforms may be involved in thymic selection. Strikingly, CD6 Delta d3 is markedly up-regulated upon activation of T lymphocytes, partially substituting full-length CD6, as evaluated by RT-PCR analysis at the single-cell level, by immunoblotting, and by How cytometry using Abs recognizing SRCR domains 1 and 3 of human CD6. This elegant mechanism controlling the expression of the CD166 binding domain may help regulate signaling delivered by CD6, through different types of extracellular engagement.

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