4.6 Article

Structurally distinct membrane nanotubes between human macrophages support long-distance vesicular traffic or surfing of bacteria

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 177, 期 12, 页码 8476-8483

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.177.12.8476

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We report that two classes of membrane nanotubes between human monocyte-derived macrophages can be distinguished by their cytoskeletal structure and their functional properties. Thin membrane nanotubes contained only F-actin, whereas thicker nanotubes, i.e., those > similar to 0.7 mu m in diameter, contained both F-actin and microtubules. Bacteria could be trapped and surf along thin, but not thick, membrane nanotubes toward connected macrophage cell bodies. Once at the cell body, bacteria could then be phagocytosed. The movement of bacteria is aided by a constitutive flow of the nanotube surface because streptavidin-coated beads were similarly able to traffic along nanotubes between surface-biotinylated macrophages. Mitochondria. and intracellular vesicles, including late endosomes and lysosomes, could be detected within thick, but not thin, membrane nanotubes. Analysis from kymographs demonstrated that vesicles moved in a stepwise, bidirectional manner at similar to 1 mu m/s, consistent with their traffic being mediated by the microtubules found only in thick nanotubes. Vesicular traffic in thick nanotubes and surfing of beads along thin nanotubes were both stopped upon the addition of azide, demonstrating that both processes require ATP. However, microtubule destabilizing agents colchicine or nocodazole abrogated vesicular transport but not the flow of the nanotube surface, confirming that distinct cytoskeletal structures of nanotubes give rise to different functional properties. Thus, membrane nanotubes between macrophages are more complex than unvarying ubiquitous membrane tethers and facilitate several means for distal interactions between immune cells.

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