|
|
||||||||




* Laboratory of Cellular Physiology and Immunology and Chris Browne Center for Immunology and Immune Diseases, Rockefeller University, New York, NY 10021;
Department of Microbiology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY 10029; and
Department of Dermatology and Venereology, University Hospital of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
| Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
In vivo expression of human DC-SIGN has been reported in cells, possibly DCs, tonsil, the dermis of skin, and the subepithelial region of cervix (1, 19, 20, 21, 22). Studies of lymph nodes have been limited, but have stressed the presence of scattered DC-SIGN-bearing cells in the outer cortex, particularly in the subcapsular sinuses and perifollicular regions (1, 19, 23, 24). In this paper we have studied the in vivo expression and in vitro function of CD209. To facilitate our studies, we first prepared a new panel of mAbs using a recombinant vaccinia-DC-SIGN virus as an immunogen and then compared these mAbs with existing reagents. We report that CD209 in normal human lymph node is actually abundantly expressed by macrophages in the lymph node medulla, rather than DCs in the T cell area. Also, when we studied the blocking effects of anti-CD209 Abs and siRNA in monocyte-derived DCs or DCs from blood, our experiments did not reveal a major contribution of DC SIGN to HIV-1 transmission by DCs, in contrast to DC-SIGN transfectants or to the stimulating function of DCs in culture.
| Materials and Methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
DCs were generated from the blood of normal donors, usually from buffy coats purchased from the New York Blood Center. Monocyte-derived DCs were prepared from PBMC as previously described (25, 26) with some modification. Briefly, CD14+ cells were obtained using anti-CD14 beads (Miltenyi Biotec) and cultured for 6 days with IL-4 (R&D Systems; 10 ng/ml) and GM-CSF (Immunex; 100 IU/ml). The culture medium was RPMI 1640 supplemented with 5% AB human serum (Gemini Bio-Products). Myeloid DCs were also isolated directly from Ficoll-Hypaque-enriched total blood mononuclear cells using the BDCA-1 isolation kit (Miltenyi Biotec). BDCA1-positive cells represent 0.52% of the PBMCs. The DCs were routinely phenotyped to determine contamination with CD3-, CD19-, and CD16-expressing cells. The preparations contained <0.05% CD3+ T cells and only traces of CD19+ and CD16+ cells.
Mice and immunizations
BALB/c mice, 68 wk old, were purchased from Charles River Breeding Laboratories and were used within 8 wk. Four BALB/c mice were immunized i.m. with 100 µg of enhanced GFP plasmid N1 (BD Clontech) expressing the extracellular domain of DC-SIGN fused to GFP. Mice were boosted three times with the same amount of plasmid 2 wk apart and were bled to test for the level of specific Ab in sera. The sera were screened for binding to Madin-Darby canine kidney (MDCK) cells transiently transfected with pCAGGS expressing full-length DC-SIGN and DCs. Five days before fusion, an immunized mouse was given 100 µl of 107 PFU/ml DC-SIGN/recombinant vaccinia virus i.p. Recombinant vaccinia virus stocks expressing full-length DC-SIGN were generated, plaque purified, and propagated in CV-1 African green monkey cells as previously described (27). On the day of fusion, the mouse was bled, and the spleen was removed for fusion. Fusion of splenocytes and SP20 cells were performed by standard techniques previously described (28). On day 10, 100 µl of hybridoma supernatants were collected from each of 960 wells for screening.
Screening of clones
Screening of supernatants was performed by immunostaining of MDCK cells transiently transfected with DC-SIGN/pCAGGS mammalian expression vector. MDCK cells were transiently transfected in 96-well plates 24 h before screening using Lipofectamine 2000 according to the manufacturers protocol (Invitrogen Life Technologies). The cells were fixed with 1% formaldehyde/PBS, washed, and blocked with 1% BSA/PBS for 15 min at room temperature. Supernatants from the wells were added to the MDCK monolayer for 1 h at room temperature, and binding was identified with anti-mouse IgG HRP-conjugated Ab, followed by the addition of the 3-amino-9-ethyl-carbazole substrate (Biomeda). The cells from the positive wells were cloned by limiting dilution to generate single-cell clones. Supernatants from the cloned wells were analyzed for binding to Raji cells expressing DC-SIGN and human DCs by flow cytometry using a Cytomics FC 500 (Beckman Coulter).
DC-SIGN-expressing cells
The generation of mammalian cells expressing type II transmembrane C-type lectins was described previously (29). In brief, the extracellular domains, a whole ectodomain, and a lectin domain of human DC-SIGN were expressed as soluble protein fused to the C terminus of murine IgG Fc. The cDNA constructs were inserted into the pCMV expression vector (BD Clontech) and transfected onto Chinese hamster ovary cells. Expression of the DC-SIGN domains was detected after cell permeabilization and FACS. Chinese hamster ovary cells expressing mouse DC-SIGN and SIGN-R1 have been described previously (30). Raji-DC-SIGN and Hep-LSIGN were provided by D. Littman (New York University, New York, NY) and J. McKeating (Rockefeller University, New York, NY), respectively. The expression of DC-SIGN and L-SIGN was monitored with specific mAbs. The anti-DC-SIGN Abs, 120507 (DC-SIGN specific), 120612 (reacting with DC-SIGN and L-SIGN), and 120604 (L-SIGN specific) were purchased from R&D Systems, whereas AZN-D1 (4) and MR-1 (31) were provided by Y. van Kooyk (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) and A. Corbi (Madrid, Spain), respectively.
Lymph node tissue section staining
Surgical specimens of noninflamed human lymph nodes from the chest and abdomen of cadaver transplant donors were provided by the New York Organ Donor Network. The seven nodes showed no evidence of follicular hyperplasia or infiltration with CD14+ monocytes or CD32+ granulocytes. Tissues were obtained in protocols approved by the institutional review boards of Weill Medical College, Cornell University, and Rockefeller University. Tissues were frozen and stored at 80°C. Cryostat sections (6 µm) were air dried and fixed in acetone for 10 min at room temperature. Ags were detected by immunofluorescence using anti-DC-SIGN mAbs (Table I), anti-DEC-205 (clone MG 38-2) (32), anti-CD68 (DakoCytomation), MMR (clone 3.29; provided by A. Lanzavecchia, Bellinzona, Switzerland), and anti-CD11c (BD Biosciences). All primary mAbs were used at 1 µg/ml. Appropriate anti-mouse Alexa 488 or Alexa 546-conjugated isotype-specific secondary Abs (Molecular Probes) were used at a dilution of 1/300 to reveal the primary mAbs. Sections were examined in a deconvolution microscope (AX70; Olympus).
|
Immature or mature DCs were pretreated with anti-DC-SIGN Abs for 20 min at room temperature and then used to stimulate 105 T cells. The MLR was conducted in round-bottom, 96-well microtest trays in 0.2 ml of RPMI 1640/5% human serum in the continued presence of the blocking mAb at 20 µg/ml. Graded doses of DCs were added as indicated in Results. To monitor the MLR, the T cells were labeled with CFSE (Molecular Probes). Cells were stained with 2 µM CFSE for 10 min at 37°C, followed by quenching with FCS and three washes in complete medium. The MLR was assessed by CFSE dilution on days 46 (see Results),
Sorting of lentivirus-transduced immature DCs and Raji DC-SIGN transfectants
Immature DCs and Raji cells were transduced at a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 20 with lentiviral vectors expressing siRNA for DC-SIGN (si DC-SIGN 11) or empty vector (15). After 48 h, cells were stained with anti-DC-SIGN-PE and sorted for low DC-SIGN-expressing cells as shown in Results. The cells were cultured for 24 h before use.
HIV-1 infection of immature DCs and Raji DC-SIGN transfectants
Cells were infected with the BaL isolate, which we grew in PHA-stimulated PBMCs. The virus was added at doses of 300900 pg of p24 to105 target cells for 2 h at 37°C to immature DCs differentiated from monocytes with GM-CSF and IL-4, DCs from fresh blood, or Raji cells stably transfected with DC-SIGN. To study the blocking capacity of anti-DC-SIGN, the indicated mAbs were added 20 min before infection and maintained through the 2-h infection period. The cells were washed four times. To determine the level of bound p24, cell lysates were obtained by adding 0.5% Triton. For studying HIV-1 transmission, 5 x 104 DC-SIGN-expressing cells were cultured with 105 activated T cells, and supernatants were collected and assayed for p24 by ELISA (Coulter).
| Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
To expand the availability of hybridomas secreting mAbs to DC-SIGN/CD209, we used monocyte-derived DCs to immunize mice. Although some investigators have succeeded in obtaining mAbs in this way (1, 31), our mice did not generate good Ab responses when tested with DC-SIGN transfectants even after four boosts. Next, we immunized mice twice with DC-SIGN DNA and subsequently boosted with vaccinia expressing DC-SIGN. The sera from immunized mice, but not the preimmune sera, were shown to react with immature monocyte-derived DCs by FACS. The immune spleen cells were fused with SP20 myeloma to generate hybridomas, which again were screened by FACS for reactivity on immature DCs. Twelve DC-SIGN-reactive mAbs were obtained and subcloned, spanning most of the major mouse Ig isotypes, and four were extensively characterized (Table I).
Each hybridoma was studied for the ability to stain DCs as well as DC-SIGN and L-SIGN transfectants (and nontransfected parental cells as controls) by flow cytometry (Fig. 1A). Only one clone recognized exclusively DC-SIGN (9E9A8, clone 1); all the others reacted with both DC-SIGN and L-SIGN transfectants. This is not surprising if one considers that DC-SIGN and L-SIGN are 73% homologous and are identical in the membrane-proximal repeat region of the ectodomain (33, 34). None of the Abs recognized mouse SIGNR-1 or mouse DC-SIGN transfectants (not shown). The hybridomas were examined for their capacity to detect DC-SIGN by Western blotting (Fig. 1B); five of the 12 mAbs blotted a major band at 50 kDa, corresponding to DC-SIGN, suggesting that they recognize conformation-independent determinants. The blots showed weaker bands at higher molecular masses which may represent aggregates of DC-SIGN. Our immunization procedure, DC-SIGN DNA prime, followed by vaccinia-DC SIGN boost, therefore elicits a good immune response. We proceeded to use our new anti-DC-SIGN reagents in parallel with other anti-DC-SIGN mAbs provided by colleagues (AZN-D1 (4) and MR-1 (31)) and commercial reagents purchased from R&D Systems.
|
Although previous reports have identified scattered cells bearing DC-SIGN in the outer cortex of human lymph nodes (see Discussion), we surprisingly found that each of the mAbs to DC-SIGN in our large panel produced strong staining of large cells in the medullary sinuses (Fig. 2). Macrophages are known to be the predominant large cell in the medullary sinuses, and in fact, all cells that labeled for the macrophage markers, CD206 or macrophage mannose receptor and CD68, double labeled for DC-SIGN (Fig. 2). This was the case with all anti-DC-SIGN Abs tested, e.g., MR-1, AZN-D1, 507, and clone 1 from Table I (e.g., Fig. 2). To formally prove that the new anti-DC-SIGN mAb stained similarly to previous DC-SIGN Abs, we performed double labeling for MR-1 and found an overlap of the two labels (Fig. 3). Therefore, DC-SIGN is expressed abundantly in the macrophages of the medullary sinuses of uninflamed human lymph nodes.
|
|
|
|
We then assessed a panel of anti-DC-SIGN mAbs for their ability to interfere with HIV-1 binding to Raji-DC-SIGN transfectants and monocyte-derived immature DCs. Cells were incubated with relatively low doses of virus (300900 pg of p24/105 cells) for 2 h at 37°C, washed, and lysed in 0.5% Triton. The amount of HIV-1 gag p24 in the lysates was then quantified by ELISA. HIV-1 bound comparably to both types of cells in this assay (
515 pg of p24), and the degree of binding was dependent on the viral load (not shown). In the case of the Raji transfectants, HIV-1 binding was markedly (9095%) blocked by a mixture of two different commercially Abs (507 reacting with DC-SIGN and 612 reacting with DC-SIGN/DC-L-SIGN), AZN-D1, and the panel of our new Abs (Fig. 6, right panel). In contrast, these same anti-DC-SIGN mAbs only slightly decreased HIV-1 binding to DCs studied in parallel (Fig. 6, left panel). Therefore, HIV-1 binding to DC-SIGN transfectants is DC-SIGN dependent, but a DC-SIGN independent mechanism seems to predominate in monocyte-derived DCs, confirming previous reports with smaller numbers of mAb to DC-SIGN (6, 14, 16, 17).
|
The anti-DC-SIGN mAbs were also tested for their capacity to inhibit HIV-1 transmission from HIV-1-infected cells to activated T cells. Cells preincubated with anti-DC-SIGN mAbs were exposed to virus for 2 h and, after extensive washes, were cocultured with T cells. Transfer of a productive infection to T cells was assessed in the culture supernatants by p24 ELISA. HIV-1 transmission from Raji-DC-SIGN transfectants to T cells was completely blocked by the many different anti-DC-SIGN and anti-L-SIGN Abs tested (Fig. 7A, right panel). However, the anti-DC-SIGN mAbs even at high concentrations (20 µg/ml) had only a minimal effect on HIV-1 transfer from monocyte-derived DC to T cells (Fig. 7A, left panel).
|
Induction of DC-SIGN on blood DC subsets does not affect HIV transmission
We compared the expression of DC-SIGN on monocyte-derived DCs, obtained in a standard way by culture with GM-CSF and IL-4, to expression on the myeloid and plasmacytoid DC subsets retrieved directly from blood with BDCA-1 (CD1c) and BDCA-4 (neuropilin)-positive selection (35). As reported, a high level of DC-SIGN was found on DCs derived from CD14+ monocytes, but it is known that DC-SIGN expression is induced by IL-4 (31), which is frequently used to differentiate monocytes into DCs. We confirmed that low doses of IL-4 alone rapidly induced DC-SIGN expression on CD14+ monocytes (Fig. 8A, left). DC-SIGN was not induced by GM-CSF, but GM-CSF and IL-4 together induced DC-SIGN at levels higher than IL-4 alone. Moreover, circulating blood myeloid DCs did not express DC-SIGN, but upon IL-4 treatment, DC-SIGN expression was again induced (Fig. 8A, right). In contrast, DC-SIGN was not expressed by the plasmacytoid DCs and was not induced after IL-4 treatment (not shown).
|
DC-SIGN is not required for the response of T cells to DCs in the MLR
The allogeneic MLR is used as a model to study the capacity of DCs to initiate primary immune responses. Ab to DC-SIGN has been reported to block this response to some extent (1). We analyzed the effect of the panel of available anti-DC-SIGN mAbs during an MLR, monitored by the dilution of CFSE as an index of proliferation by CFSE-labeled CD3 T cells. The CFSE-labeled T cells were cultured with several ratios of allogeneic and syngeneic DCs that had been pretreated with anti-DC-SIGN mAbs, which were maintained throughout the culture at 20 µg/ml. The positive control for blocking of the MLR was an anti-HLA-DR Ab (clone L243), which profoundly inhibited T cell proliferation. However, none of our new anti-DC-SIGN mAbs had an inhibitory effect in all experiments similar to that shown in Fig. 9A. We then included an additional approach in parallel, which was to knock down DC-SIGN expression with a lentiviral vector expressing siRNA for DC-SIGN. Immature monocyte-derived DCs were infected at an MOI of 1:20 with siRNA DC-SIGN 11 (15), and after 48 h, the low DC-SIGN-expressing cells (Fig. 9B) were sorted to enrich the DC-SIGN-negative cells (Fig. 9C). These DC-SIGNlow DCs were not altered in their MLR-stimulating activity, and in addition, the other available sources of anti-DC-SIGN mAbs were unable to block MLR stimulation (Fig. 9D). We failed to observe inhibition over a range of DC to T cell ratios (1:10 to 1:100) and using both immature monocyte-derived DCs (obtained by monocyte culture with GM-CSF and IL-4) and mature DCs (obtained by treating the immature DCs with a mixture of IL-1
, IL-6, TNF-
, and PGE2). Taken together, our results do not show an involvement of DC-SIGN in DC-induced T cell activation in the MLR.
|
| Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Our findings in sections are surprising relative to the previous literature. Geijtenbeek et al. (1) identified some DC-SIGN+ cells in the T cell areas. Lore et al. (23) reported DC-SIGN+ cells in the parafollicular T cell-rich areas of lymph nodes from patients with HIV and EBV infection, and that these cells were reduced in healthy controls. Soilleux et al. (19) used a polyclonal anti-DC-SIGN serum to examine adult and fetal tissues and reported some cells with a dendritic morphology in the T cell areas and within sinuses in the cortex. Tailleux et al. (38) studied DC-SIGN expression in lymph nodes from tuberculosis patients and reported DC-SIGN+ cells within the granulomas and subcapsular sinuses. Engering et al. (24) reported DC-SIGN+ cells in the outer cortex in proximity to sinuses. While our study was under review, Krutzik et al. (37) described how macrophages in leprosy lesions could express DC-SIGN. Our paper, for the first time, reports the abundance of this lectin in medullary macrophages in noninflamed lymph nodes and its paucity on many T cell area DCs.
Our tissue section results indicate that many DCs in the T cell areas lack the markers of monocyte-derived DCs, particularly high expression of DC-SIGN/CD209 and mannose receptor/CD206. It is possible that the equivalent of the cultured monocyte-derived DCs only develops under select circumstances, e.g., during an inflammatory response or in special tissue niches. We and others (19, 31, 37, 39) found that cytokines such as IL-4, IL-13, and IL-15 quickly up-regulated DC-SIGN expression on monocytes, so that cells with the phenotype of monocyte-derived DCs might accumulate in situations such as parasite infection and allergy. The reports of DC-SIGN+ cells in lymphatic sinuses, particularly in the subcapsular region of lymph nodes, may also reflect migratory monocyte-derived DCs responding to a stimulus in the periphery. Within the T cell areas, we did detect small foci in which there were CD11c- and DEC-205-positive DCs that coexpressed DC-SIGN. However, most DCs in the T cell area had features shared with the myeloid subset of DCs in blood, i.e., the cells expressed CD11c and DEC-205/CD205, but lacked DC-SIGN and mannose receptor. We propose that the finding of DC-SIGN-positive DCs in the T cell areas represent situations where the equivalent of monocyte-derived DCs are being generated in vivo, but that the major reservoir of DC-SIGN in normal lymph node is the medullary sinus macrophage rather than cortical DCs.
With the anti-DC-SIGN Abs we have generated and those already characterized, we also restudied the role of DC-SIGN as a factor that participates in two types of DC-T cell interaction. All the anti-DC-SIGN mAbs tested, in contrast to anti-HLA-DR, were unable to inhibit DC-induced proliferation of resting T cells in the MLR. These results differ from the initial conclusion that DC-SIGN supports primary immune responses that arose from the observation that anti-DC-SIGN mAbs could reduce MLR stimulation by
60% (1). However, we were unable to detect a block of the MLR with a panel of anti-DC-SIGN mAbs even at limiting doses of DCs and duration of MLR. We also looked at the contribution of DC-SIGN to transmission of HIV by monocyte-derived DCs and by blood DCs that had been induced to express DC-SIGN with IL-4. We found that the mAbs to DC-SIGN did not impose a major reduction on transmission of HIV by these DCs, whereas the same mAbs led to a major
90% reduction of HIV transmission by DC-SIGN-transfected Raji cells. In both the MLR and HIV transmission assays, we additionally evaluated DCs in which DC-SIGN expression had been dampened with siRNA, and again, no blockade was noted, even though this approach markedly reduced HIV transmission from Raji DC-SIGN transfectants. These results are consistent with several other reports that molecules other than DC-SIGN can mediate virus transmission from DCs to T cells, using monocyte-derived DCs (6, 14, 16, 17, 18, 40, 41). Likewise, there are types of DCs that lack DC-SIGN, i.e., Langerhans cells and both myeloid and plasmacytoid DCs in blood, that are able to transmit HIV to T cells in vitro. Clearly, DC-SIGN represents an exciting new mechanism by which pathogens are recognized by innate cells, but DCs use additional mechanisms to transmit HIV, and we suggest that macrophages within lymph nodes be considered in pursuing the functions of DC-SIGN in vivo.
| Acknowledgments |
|---|
| Disclosures |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| Footnotes |
|---|
1 This work was supported by Direct Effect, Center for AIDS Research Grant 5P30AI42848-04 and National Institutes of Health Grants R01AI40045 and MO-1RR00102 (to Rockefeller University General Clinical Research Center). ![]()
2 Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Ralph M. Steinman, Laboratory of Cellular Physiology and Immunology and Chris Browne Center for Immunology and Immune Diseases, Rockefeller University, New York, NY 10021. E-mail address: steinma{at}mail.rockefeller.edu ![]()
3 Abbreviations used in this paper: DC-SIGN, dendritic cell-specific ICAM 3-grabbing nonintegrin; MDCK, Madin-Darby canine kidney; MOI, multiplicity of infection; siRNA, small interfering RNA. ![]()
Received for publication April 20, 2005. Accepted for publication July 18, 2005.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
. J. Exp. Med. 179:1109.-1118.
, and anti-inflammatory agents. J. Immunol. 168:2634.-2643. This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
P. Zhang, M. Skurnik, S.-S. Zhang, O. Schwartz, R. Kalyanasundaram, S. Bulgheresi, J. J. He, J. D. Klena, B. J. Hinnebusch, and T. Chen Human Dendritic Cell-Specific Intercellular Adhesion Molecule-Grabbing Nonintegrin (CD209) Is a Receptor for Yersinia pestis That Promotes Phagocytosis by Dendritic Cells Infect. Immun., May 1, 2008; 76(5): 2070 - 2079. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. M. Higgins, J. Sanchez-Campillo, A. G. Rosas-Taraco, J. R. Higgins, E. J. Lee, I. M. Orme, and M. Gonzalez-Juarrero Relative Levels of M-CSF and GM-CSF Influence the Specific Generation of Macrophage Populations during Infection with Mycobacterium tuberculosis J. Immunol., April 1, 2008; 180(7): 4892 - 4900. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. K. Neumann, N. L. Thompson, and K. Jacobson Distribution and lateral mobility of DC-SIGN on immature dendritic cells-implications for pathogen uptake J. Cell Sci., March 1, 2008; 121(5): 634 - 643. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
T. Kawamura, Y. Koyanagi, Y. Nakamura, Y. Ogawa, A. Yamashita, T. Iwamoto, M. Ito, A. Blauvelt, and S. Shimada Significant Virus Replication in Langerhans Cells following Application of HIV to Abraded Skin: Relevance to Occupational Transmission of HIV J. Immunol., March 1, 2008; 180(5): 3297 - 3304. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. Trumpfheller, M. Caskey, G. Nchinda, M. P. Longhi, O. Mizenina, Y. Huang, S. J. Schlesinger, M. Colonna, and R. M. Steinman The microbial mimic poly IC induces durable and protective CD4+ T cell immunity together with a dendritic cell targeted vaccine PNAS, February 19, 2008; 105(7): 2574 - 2579. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. G. Duvall, K. Lore, H. Blaak, D. A. Ambrozak, W. C. Adams, K. Santos, C. Geldmacher, J. R. Mascola, A. J. McMichael, A. Jaye, et al. Dendritic Cells Are Less Susceptible to Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 2 (HIV-2) Infection than to HIV-1 Infection J. Virol., December 15, 2007; 81(24): 13486 - 13498. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. J. Lee, P. A. Sieling, M. T. Ochoa, S. R. Krutzik, B. Guo, M. Hernandez, T. H. Rea, G. Cheng, M. Colonna, and R. L. Modlin LILRA2 Activation Inhibits Dendritic Cell Differentiation and Antigen Presentation to T Cells J. Immunol., December 15, 2007; 179(12): 8128 - 8136. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
L. de Witte, M. Bobardt, U. Chatterji, G. Degeest, G. David, T. B. H. Geijtenbeek, and P. Gallay Syndecan-3 is a dendritic cell-specific attachment receptor for HIV-1 PNAS, December 4, 2007; 104(49): 19464 - 19469. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
W. J. Mayer, U. M. Irschick, P. Moser, M. Wurm, H. P. Huemer, N. Romani, and E. U. Irschick Characterization of Antigen-Presenting Cells in Fresh and Cultured Human Corneas Using Novel Dendritic Cell Markers Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., October 1, 2007; 48(10): 4459 - 4467. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. L. Zhang, P. Colmenero, U. Purath, C. Teixeira de Matos, W. Hueber, L. Klareskog, I. H. Tarner, E. G. Engleman, and K. Soderstrom Natural killer cells trigger differentiation of monocytes into dendritic cells Blood, October 1, 2007; 110(7): 2484 - 2493. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J.-H. Wang, A. M. Janas, W. J. Olson, and L. Wu Functionally Distinct Transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Mediated by Immature and Mature Dendritic Cells J. Virol., September 1, 2007; 81(17): 8933 - 8943. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. W.-P. Hong, S. Nguyen, S. Young, S. V. Su, and B. Lee Identification of the Optimal DC-SIGN Binding Site on Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 gp120 J. Virol., August 1, 2007; 81(15): 8325 - 8336. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
|