4.6 Article

Murine TOLL-like receptor 4 confers lipopolysaccharide responsiveness as determined by activation of NFκB and expression of the inducible cyclooxygenase

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 275, 期 44, 页码 34035-34040

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M007386200

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA-75613] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK-41868] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Genetic evidence indicating that TOLL-like receptor 4 (Tlr4) is the lipopolysaccharide (LPS) receptor in mice was reported. However, biochemical evidence that murine Tlr4 confers LPS responsiveness has not been convincingly demonstrated. Inducible cyclooxygenase (COX-2) is selectively expressed in LPS-stimulated macrophages in part mediated through the activation of NF kappaB. Thus, we determined whether murine Tlr4 confers LPS responsiveness as evaluated by the activation of NF kappaB and COX-2 expression. Transfection of a murine macrophage-like cell line (RAW264.7) with the constitutively active form (Delta Tlr4) of Tlr4 is sufficient to activate NF kappaB and COX-2 expression. However, the truncated form (Delta Tlr4(P712H)) of the missense mutant Tlr4(P712H) found in LPS-hyporesponsive mouse strain (C3H/HeJ) inhibits LPS-induced NF kappaB activation and COX-2 expression. The inability of Delta Tlr4(P712H) to activate NF kappaB and induce COX-2 expression is rescued by a constitutively active adapter protein myeloid differentiation factor 88 (MyD88), which interacts directly with the cytoplasmic domain of Tlr proteins. Furthermore, MyD88 is co-immunoprecipitated with the wild-type Delta Tlr4 but not with the Delta Tlr4(P712H) mutant. Together, these results indicate that Tlr4 confers LPS responsiveness in RAW264.7 cells and suggest that hyporesponsiveness of C3H/HeJ mice to LPS is attributed to the disruption of Tlr4-mediated signaling pathways that results from the inability of the mutant Tlr4(P712H) to interact with MyD88.

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