4.2 Article

Effects of spaceflight on the immunoglobulin repertoire of unimmunized C57BL/6 mice

期刊

LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE RESEARCH
卷 16, 期 -, 页码 63-75

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.lssr.2017.11.003

关键词

Immunoglobulin gene use; Next generation sequencing; Bioinformatics

资金

  1. NASA [NNX13AN34G, NNX15AB45G]
  2. NIH [GM103418]
  3. Kansas State University Johnson Cancer Research Center
  4. Molecular Biology Core - College of Veterinary Medicine at Kansas State University
  5. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [P20GM103418] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Spaceflight has been shown to suppress the adaptive immune response, altering the distribution and function of lymphocyte populations. B lymphocytes express highly specific and highly diversified receptors, known as immunoglobulins (Ig), that directly bind and neutralize pathogens. Ig diversity is achieved through the enzymatic splicing of gene segments within the genomic DNA of each B cell in a host. The collection of Ig specificities within a host, or Ig repertoire, has been increasingly characterized in both basic research and clinical settings using high-throughput sequencing technology (HTS). We utilized HTS to test the hypothesis that spaceflight affects the B-cell repertoire. To test this hypothesis, we characterized the impact of spaceflight on the unimmunized Ig repertoire of C57BL/6 mice that were flown aboard the International Space Station (ISS) during the Rodent Research One validation flight in comparison to ground controls. Individual gene segment usage was similar between ground control and flight animals, however, gene segment combinations and the junctions in which gene segments combine was varied among animals within and between treatment groups. We also found that spontaneous somatic mutations in the IgH and Ig. gene loci were not increased. These data suggest that space flight did not affect the B cell repertoire of mice flown and housed on the ISS over a short period of time.

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

4.2
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