4.8 Article

Requirement for deoxycytidine kinase in T and B lymphocyte development

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0913900107

关键词

combined immunodeficiency; deoxyribonucleoside salvage; dNTP metabolism; immune development; T and B lymphocytes

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute/National Institutes of Health In Vivo Cellular and Molecular Imaging Cente [P50 CA86306]
  2. National Cancer Institute/National Institutes of Health [5U54 CA119347, R24 CA92865]
  3. US Department of Energy [DE-FG02-06ER64249]
  4. Dana Foundation
  5. California Institute for Regenerative Medicine [RT1-01126-1]
  6. Academic Training in Medical Oncology [T32 CA09297]
  7. Howard Hughes Medical Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Deoxycytidine kinase (dCK) is a rate-limiting enzyme in deoxyribonucleoside salvage, a metabolic pathway that recycles products of DNA degradation. dCK phosphorylates and therefore activates nucleoside analog prodrugs frequently used in cancer, autoimmunity, and viral infections. In contrast to its well established therapeutic relevance, the biological function of dCK remains enigmatic. Highest levels of dCK expression are found in thymus and bone marrow, indicating a possible role in lymphopoiesis. To test this hypothesis we generated and analyzed dCK knockout (KO) mice. dCK inactivation selectively and profoundly affected T and B cell development. A 90-fold decrease in thymic cellularity was observed in the dCK KO mice relative to wild-type littermates. Lymphocyte numbers in the dCK KO mice were 5- to 13-fold below normal values. The severe impact of dCK inactivation on lymphopoiesis was unexpected given that nucleoside salvage has been thought to play a limited, fine-tuning role in regulating deoxyribonucleotide triphosphate pools produced by the de novo pathway. The dCK KO phenotype challenges this view and indicates that, in contrast to the great majority of other somatic cells, normal lymphocyte development critically requires the deoxyribonucleoside salvage pathway.

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

4.8
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