4.8 Article

Injury enhances TLR2 function and antimicrobial peptide expression through a vitamin D-dependent mechanism

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL INVESTIGATION
卷 117, 期 3, 页码 803-811

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL INVESTIGATION INC
DOI: 10.1172/JCI30142

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [N01-AI-40029AI48176, AI052453, R37 AI052453, R01 AI052453] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAMS NIH HHS [R01 AR045676, R01 AR038386, AR45676] Funding Source: Medline
  3. PHS HHS [HHSN26620040029C] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An essential element of the innate immune response to injury is the capacity to recognize microbial invasion and stimulate production of antimicrobial peptides. We investigated how this process is controlled in the epidermis. Keratinocytes surrounding a wound increased expression of the genes coding for the microbial pattern recognition receptors CD14 and TLR2, complementing an increase in cathelicidin antimicrobial peptide expression. These genes were induced by 1,25(OH)(2) vitamin D-3 (1,25D3; its active form), suggesting a role for vitamin D-3 in this process. How 1,25D3 could participate in the injury response was explained by findings that the levels of CYP27B1, which converts 250H vitamin D3 (25133) to active 1,25D3, were increased in wounds and induced in keratinocytes in response to TGF-beta(1). Blocking the vitamin D receptor, inhibiting CYP27B1, or limiting 25D3 availability prevented TGF-beta(1), from inducing cathelicidin, CD14, or TLR2 in human keratinocytes, while CYP27B1-deficient mice failed to increase CD14 expression following wounding. The functional consequence of these observations was confirmed by demonstrating that 1,25D3 enabled keratinocytes to recognize microbial components through TLR2 and respond by cathelicidin production. Thus, we demonstrate what we believe to be a previously unexpected role for vitamin D-3 in innate immunity, enabling keratinocytes to recognize and respond to microbes and to protect wounds against infection.

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

4.8
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