4.7 Article

Genetic Deficiency of Itgb2 or ItgaL Prevents Autoimmune Diabetes Through Distinctly Different Mechanisms in NOD/LtJ Mice

Journal

DIABETES
Volume 58, Issue 6, Pages 1292-1301

Publisher

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/db08-0804

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. American Diabetes Association [05-JF-26]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE-Insulitis is an important pathological feature of autoimmune diabetes; however, mechanisms governing the recruitment of diabetogenic T-cells into pancreatic islets are poorly understood. Here, we determined the importance of leukocyte integrins beta(2) (Itgb2) and alpha L (ItgaL) in developing insulitis and frank diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS-Gene-targeted mutations of either Itgb2 or ItgaL were established on the NOD/LtJ mouse strain. Experiments were performed to measure insulitis and diabetes development. Studies were also performed measuring mutant T-cell adhesion to islet microvascular endothelial cells under hydrodynamic flow conditions. T-cell adhesion molecule profiles and adoptive transfer studies were also performed. RESULTS-Genetic deficiency of either Itgb2 or ItgaL completely prevented the development of hyperglycemia and frank diabetes in NOD mice. Loss of Ifgb2 or ItgaL prevented insulitis with Itgb2 deficiency conferring complete protection. In vitro hydrodynamic flow adhesion studies also showed that, loss of Itgb2 completely abrogated T-cell adhesion. However, ItgaL deficiency did not alter NOD T-cell adhesion to or transmigration across islet endothelial cells. Adoptive transfer of ItgaL-deficient splenocytes into NOD/Rag-1 mice (lid not, result: in development of diabetes, suggesting a role for ItgaL in NOD/LtJ T-cell activation. CONCLUSIONS-Together, these data demonstrate that genetic deficiency of Itgb2 or ItgaL confers protection against autoimmune diabetes through distinctly different mechanisms. Diabetes 58:1292-1301, 2009

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available