4.6 Article

The human cytomegalovirus MHC class I homolog UL18 inhibits LIR-1+ but activates LIR-1- cells

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 178, 期 7, 页码 4473-4481

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.178.7.4473

关键词

-

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [G0500617, G0300180, G0700142] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. MRC [G0500617, G0300180, G0700142] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Medical Research Council [G0500617(74644), G0300180(65735), G0300180, G0700142, G0500617] Funding Source: Medline
  4. Wellcome Trust Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The inhibitory leukocyte Ig-like receptor 1 (LIR-1, also known as ILT2, CD85j, or LILRB1) was identified by its high affinity for the human CMV (HCMV) MHC class I homolog gpUL18. The role of this LIR-1-gpUL18 interaction in modulating NK recognition during HCMV infection has previously not been clearly defined. In this study, LIR-1(+) NKL cell-mediated cytotoxicity was shown to be inhibited by transduction of targets with a replication-deficient adenovirus vector encoding UL18 (RAd-UL18). Fibroblasts infected with an HCMV UL18 mutant (Delta UL18) also exhibited enhanced susceptibility to NKL killing relative to cells infected with the parental virus. In additional cytolysis assays, UL18-mediated protection was also evident in the context of adenovirus vector transduction and HCMV infection of autologous fibroblast targets using IFN-alpha-activated NK bulk cultures derived from a donor with a high frequency of LIR-1(+) NK cells. A single LIR-1(high) NK clone derived from this donor was inhibited by UL18, while 3 of 24 clones were activated. CD107 mobilization assays revealed that LIR-1(+) NK cells were consistently inhibited by UL18 in all tested donors, but this effect was often masked in the global response by UL18-mediated activation of a subset of LIR-1(-) NK cells. Although Ab-blocking experiments support UL18 inhibition being induced by a direct interaction with LIR-1, the UL18-mediated activation is LIR-1 independent.

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