4.6 Article

Antigen presentation capacity and cytokine production by murine splenic dendritic cell subsets upon Salmonella encounter

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 169, 期 1, 页码 108-116

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.169.1.108

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Salmonella typhimurium is an intracellular bacterium that replicates in the spleen and mesenteric lymph nodes (MLN) of orally infected mice. However, little is known about the Ag presentation and cytokine production capacity of dendritic cells (DC), particularly CD8alpha(+), CD8alpha(-)CD4(-), and CD8alpha(-)CD4(+) DC, from these organs in response to Salmonella. Infection of purified splenic DC with S. typhimiurium expressing green fluorescent protein (GFP) and OVA revealed that all three splenic DC subsets internalize bacteria, and splenic as well as MLN DC process Salmonella for peptide presentation. Furthermore, presentation of Salmonella Ags on MHC-I and MHC-II was evident in both CD8alpha(+) and CD8alpha(-) splenic DC subsets. Direct ex vivo analysis of splenic DC from mice infected with GFP-expressing Salmonella showed that all three subsets harbored bacteria, and splenic DC purified from mice given Salmonella-expressing OVA presented OVA-derived peptides on MHC-I and MHC-II. Cytokine production analyzed by intracellular staining of splenic DC infected with GFP-expressing Salmonella revealed that TNF-alpha was produced by a large percentage of CD8alpha(-) DC, while only a minor proportion of CD8(+) DC produced this cytokine following bacterial exposure. In contrast, the greatest number of IL-12p40-producing DC were among CD8alpha(+) DC. Experiments inhibiting bacterial uptake by cytochalasin D as well as use of a Transwell system revealed that bacterial contact, but not internalization, was required for cytokine production. Thus, DC in sites of Salmonella replication and T cell activation, spleen and MLN, respond to bacterial encounter by Ag presentation and produce cytokines in a subset-specific fashion.

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