4.5 Article

The control of the complement lectin pathway activation revisited: Both C1-inhibitor and antithrombin are likely physiological inhibitors, while α2-macroglobulin is not

期刊

MOLECULAR IMMUNOLOGY
卷 54, 期 3-4, 页码 415-422

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.molimm.2013.01.009

关键词

Complement lectin pathway; MBL-associated serine proteases; Serpins; Antithrombin; alpha(2)-Macroglobulin; Heparin

资金

  1. Hungarian Scientific Research Fund (OTKA) [NK77978, NK100834]
  2. Janos Bolyai Research Fellowship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The lectin pathway of complement is an important effector arm of innate immunity. It forms a first line of defense against invading pathogens and dangerously altered self structures. Pattern recognition molecules (mannose-binding lectin (MBL), ficolins) bind to the dangerous particles, which is followed by activation of MBL-associated serine proteases, MASP-1 and MASP-2, resulting in the initiation of the complement cascade. The activation of the lectin pathway is strictly controlled by natural inhibitors, since uncontrolled activation can lead to serious self-tissue damage. Recently we have shown that inhibition of either MASP-1 or MASP-2 by in vitro evolved specific inhibitors completely blocks the lectin pathway in human serum. In this study, we examined the inhibitory action of C1-inhibitor (C1-inh), antithrombin (AT) and alpha(2)-macroglobulin (alpha M-2) on MASP-1 and MASP-2, and studied the inhibition of the lectin pathway in normal human serum in the presence and absence of heparin using C3 and C4 deposition assays. We measured the association rate constants for the serpin/protease reactions. We found that in the presence of heparin both C1-inh and AT are equally efficient inhibitors of the lectin pathway. Although alpha M-2 formed complex with MASP-1 in fluid phase, it could not abolish lectin pathway activation on activator surfaces. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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