4.6 Article

A single DH gene segment creates its own unique CDR-H3 repertoire and is sufficient for B cell development and immune function

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 175, 期 10, 页码 6624-6632

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.175.10.6624

关键词

-

资金

  1. FIC NIH HHS [F06 TW002130, TW02130] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAID NIH HHS [T32 AI007051, R01 AI020047-25, AI07051, AI48115, R01 AI020047, AI42732, R01 AI048115] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NICHD NIH HHS [HD043327] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To test the contribution of individual D gene segments to B cell development and function, we used gene targeting to create mice that contain only DFL16.1 in the D-H locus. We term this D-limited IgH allele Delta D-DFL. Although the absolute number of IgM(+)IgD(-) B cells in the bone marrow was decreased, homozygous Delta D-DFL BALB/c mice contained normal numbers of IgM(+)IgD(+) B cells in bone marrow and spleen and normal numbers of B1a, B1b, and B2 cells in the peritoneal cavity. Bone marrow IgM(+)IgD(+) B cells express a CDR-H3 repertoire similar in length and amino acid composition to the DFL16.1 subset of the wild-type BALB/c repertoire but divergent from sequences that do not contain DFL16.1. This similarity in content is the product of both germline bias and somatic selection, especially in the transition to the mature IgM(+)IgD(+) stage of development. Serum Ig concentrations and the humoral immune response to a T-dependent Ag ([4-hydroxy-3-nitrophenyl]acetyl hapten) were nearly identical to wild-type littermate controls. A greater variance in the immune response to the T-independent Ag (alpha(1 -> 3)-dextran) was observed in Delta D-DFL homozygotes, with half of the mice exhibiting levels below the range exhibited by controls. Although limited to a repertoire specific to DFL16.1, the presence of a single DH gene segment of normal sequence was sufficient for development of normal numbers of mature B cells and for robust humoral immune function.

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