4.5 Article

Phenotypic differences between mice deficient in XIAP and SAP, two factors targeted in X-linked lymphoproliferative syndrome (XLP)

期刊

CELLULAR IMMUNOLOGY
卷 259, 期 1, 页码 82-89

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.cellimm.2009.05.017

关键词

Immunodeficiency; Viral; Apoptosis; Signal transduction

资金

  1. Department of Defense [W81XWH-06-1-0429]
  2. American Heart Association
  3. National Institutes of Health [CA86867, A1065543, HLO87846]
  4. American Asthma Foundation [GM067827]
  5. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [R01CA086867] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  6. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [R01HL087846] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  7. NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE [ZIAHG000123] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  8. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES [T32AI007413, R01AI065543, R56AI065543] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  9. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [R01GM067827] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mutations in the X-linked inhibitor of apoptosis (XIAP) have recently been identified in patients with the rare genetic disease, X-linked lymphoproliferative syndrome (XLP), which was previously thought to be solely attributable to mutations in a distinct gene, SAP. To further understand the roles of these two factors in the pathogenesis of XLP, we have compared mice deficient in Xiap with known phenotypes of Sap-null mice. We show here that in contrast to Sap-deficient mice, animals lacking Xiap have apparently normal NKT cell development and no apparent defect in humoral responses to T cell-dependent antigens. However, Xiap-deficient cells were more susceptible to death upon infection with the murine herpesvirus MHV-68 and gave rise to more infectious virus. These differences could be rescued by restoration of XIAP. These data provide insight into the differing roles of XIAP and SAP in the pathogenesis of XLP. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. 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