4.6 Article

HLA-B27 in transgenic rats forms disulfide-linked heavy chain oligomers and multimers that bind to the chaperone BiP

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 172, 期 8, 页码 5110-5119

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.172.8.5110

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [R01 AI42860] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAMS NIH HHS [R01 AR38319] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To test the hypothesis that HLA-B27 predisposes to disease by forming disulfide-linked homodimers, we examined rats transgenic for HLA-B27, mutant Cys(67)Ser HLA-B27, or HLA-B7. In splenic Con A blasts from high transgene copy B27 lines that develop inflammatory disease, the anti-H chain mAb HC10 precipitated four bands of molecular mass 78-105 kDa and additional higher molecular mass material, seen by nonreducing SDS-PAGE. Upon reduction, all except one 78-kDa band resolved to 44 kDa, the size of the H chain monomer. The 78-kDa band was found to be BiP/Grp78, and the other high molecular mass material was identified as B27 H chain. Analysis of a disease-resistant low copy B27 line showed qualitatively similar high molecular mass bands that were less abundant relative to H chain monomer. Disease-prone rats with a CYS(67)Ser B27 mutant showed B27 H chain bands at 95 and 115 kDa and a BiP band at 78 kDa, whereas only scant high molecular mass bands were found in cells from control HLA-B7 rats. I-125-surface labeled B27 oligomers were immunoprecipitated with HC10, but not with a mAb to folded B27-beta(2)-microglobulin-peptide complexes. Immunoprecipitation of BiP with anti-BiP Abs coprecipitated B27 H chain multimers. Folding and maturation of B27 were slow compared with B7. These data indicate that disulfide-linked intracellular H chain complexes are more prone to form and bind BiP in disease-prone wild-type B27 and B27-C67S rats than in disease-resistant HLA-B7 rats. The data support the hypothesis that accumulation of misfolded B27 participates in the pathogenesis of B27-associated disease.

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