2010
DOI: 10.1038/icb.2010.104
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Bacteria, mucosal‐associated invariant T cells and MR1

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
6
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
1
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although MAIT cells are known to respond to Gram-positive bacteria, Gram-negative bacteria and yeasts 5,6 , and have antimicrobial potential [7][8][9][10] , there is no consensus on their physiological role. Antigen recognition by MAIT cells is mediated by an ab T-cell receptor (TCR), in which the TCRVa chain comprises an almost-invariant Va7.2-Ja33 (TRAV1-2-TRAJ33) rearrangement paired with a limited number of TCRVb chains 1 .…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although MAIT cells are known to respond to Gram-positive bacteria, Gram-negative bacteria and yeasts 5,6 , and have antimicrobial potential [7][8][9][10] , there is no consensus on their physiological role. Antigen recognition by MAIT cells is mediated by an ab T-cell receptor (TCR), in which the TCRVa chain comprises an almost-invariant Va7.2-Ja33 (TRAV1-2-TRAJ33) rearrangement paired with a limited number of TCRVb chains 1 .…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In these experiments, B-LCL cells were infected with E. coli strain BL21, treated or not (none) with mAbs to MR1 antigens (clone 26.5, 10 μg/ml) or IgG2 isotype control for 2 h and then exposed to MAIT cells. Because previous work has shown the ability of fixed targets to activated MAIT cells (6, 7, 44), we also compare frequency of IFN-γ + MAIT cells exposed to live infected targets or infected targets fixed in 1% paraformaldehyde. Although infected targets fixed in 1% paraformaldehyde were able to trigger an increase in the levels of IFN-γ + MAIT cells as compared to controls (uninfected targets), levels of IFN-γ + MAIT cells exposed to fixed targets were substantially lower than MAIT cells exposed to live infected targets (Figure 5A).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Consistent with this explanation, V␣19-J␣33 TCR-transgenic mice that overexpress MAIT cells had lower bacterial loads than control mice after infection with E. coli or M. abscessus (50). However, because the TCR-transgenic mice used in these comparisons have few if any conventional CD4 ϩ and CD8 ϩ T cells, this model system lacks physiologic context or the ability to address the question of whether MAIT cells have a nonredundant role in controlling bacterial infection (12). Another possible explanation to the inconsistency between in vivo and in vitro studies is that perhaps an infection model in mucosal tissues, where MAIT cells mainly reside, needs to be employed.…”
mentioning
confidence: 85%