4.6 Article

Na+-dependent high-affinity glutamate transport in macrophages

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 164, 期 10, 页码 5430-5438

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.164.10.5430

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Excessive accumulation of glutamate in the CNS leads to excitotoxic neuronal damage. However, glutamate clearance is essentially mediated by astrocytes through Na+-dependent high-affinity glutamate transporters (excitatory amino acid transporters (EAATs)), Nevertheless, EAAT function was recently shown to be developmentally restricted in astrocytes and undetectable in mature astrocytes. This suggests a need for other cell types for clearing glutamate in the brain. As blood monocytes infiltrate the CNS in traumatic or inflammatory conditions, we addressed the question of,whether macrophages expressed EAATs and were involved in glutamate clearance. We found that macrophages derived from human blood monocytes express both the cystine/glutamate antiporter and EAATs, Kinetic parameters were similar to those determined for neonatal astrocytes and embryonic neurons. Freshly sorted tissue macrophages did not possess EAATs, whereas cultured human spleen macrophages and cultured neonatal murine microglia did. Moreover, blood monocytes did not transport glutamate, but their stimulation with TNF-alpha led to functional transport. This suggests that the acquisition of these transporters by macrophages could be under the control of inflammatory molecules. Also, monocyte-derived macrophages overcame glutamate toxicity in neuron cultures by clearing this molecule. This suggests that brain-infiltrated macrophages and resident microglia may acquire EAATs and, along with astrocytes, regulate extracellular glutamate concentration. Moreover, we showed that EAATs are involved in the regulation of glutathione synthesis by providing intracellular glutamate, These observations thus offer new insight into the role of macrophages in excitotoxicity and in their response to oxidative stress.

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