4.8 Article

Bacterial genotoxins induce T cell senescence

期刊

CELL REPORTS
卷 35, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2021.109220

关键词

-

资金

  1. Independent Research Fund Denmark [DFF-4092-00122]
  2. Danish Cancer Society [R56-A2924-12-S2, R221A13193]
  3. Lundbeck Foundation [2015-486]
  4. Swedish Cancer Society [CAN 2017/315]
  5. Swedish Research Council [2018-02521]
  6. Kempestiftelserna [JCK-1826]
  7. Cancer Research Foundation in Northern Sweden [AMP 17-884]
  8. Umea University
  9. Novo Nordisk Research Foundation [NNF14OC0012345]
  10. LEO Foundation
  11. Swedish Research Council [2018-02521] Funding Source: Swedish Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research shows that the bacterial genotoxin CDT can cause premature senescence in T cells and promote T cell senescence in vivo. Additionally, genotoxin-induced senescent CD4 T cells exhibit a senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP), partly orchestrated by the ATMp38 signaling axis.
Several types of pathogenic bacteria produce genotoxins that induce DNA damage in host cells. Accumulating evidence suggests that a central function of these genotoxins is to dysregulate the host's immune response, but the underlying mechanisms remain unclear. To address this issue, we investigated the effects of the most widely expressed bacterial genotoxin, the cytolethal distending toxin (CDT), on T cells-the key mediators of adaptive immunity. We show that CDT induces premature senescence in activated CD4 T cells in vitro and provide evidence suggesting that infection with genotoxin-producing bacteria promotes T cell senescence in vivo. Moreover, we demonstrate that genotoxin-induced senescent CD4 T cells assume a senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP) which, at least partly, is orchestrated by the ATMp38 signaling axis. These findings provide insight into the immunomodulatory properties of bacterial genotoxins and uncover a putative link between bacterial infections and T cell senescence.

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