4.6 Article

Activated human T cells accomplish MHC class II expression through T cell-specific occupation of class II transactivator promoter III

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 168, 期 2, 页码 763-770

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.168.2.763

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Activated human T cells express HLA-DR, HLA-DQ, and HLA-DP on their surface, but the regulation and functioning of MHC class II molecules in T lymphocytes are poorly understood. Because the MHC class II transactivator (CIITA) is essential for MHC class II expression, we have investigated transcriptional activation of CIITA in activated T cells. In this study, we show that in human activated CD4(+) T cells, CIITA promoter II (CIITA-PIII) drives the expression of CIITA. The in vivo genomic footprint analysis revealed activated T cell-specific occupation of CIITA-PIII. Subsequent EMSA analysis of several promoter regions showed differences in banding pattern among activated T cells, naive T cells, primary B cells, and Raji B cells. Activating response element (ARE)-1 is shown to interact with the acute myeloid leukemia 2 transcription factor in nuclear extracts derived from both T and B cells. Interestingly, the acute myeloid leukemia 3 transcription factor was bound in nuclear extracts of T cells only. The ARE-2 sequence is able to bind CREB/activating transcription factor family members in both T and B cells. In addition, a yet unidentified Ets family member was found to interact with site C in activated T cells, whereas in B cells site C was bound by PU.1 and Pip/IFN regulatory factor 4/IFN consensus sequence binding protein for activated T cells. In Jurkat T cells, both ARE-1 and ARE-2 are crucial for CIITA-PIII activity, similar to Raji B cells. The differential banding pattern in in vivo genomic footprinting and transcription factor binding at the ARE-1 and site C between T cells and B cells probably reflects differences in CIITA-PIII activation pathways employed by these cell types.

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