Article

Expression of SLAM (CD150) cell-surface receptors on human B-cell subsets: From pro-B to plasma cells

Immunology Unit, Department of Cell Biology, Immunology and Neurosciences, Medical School, University of Barcelona, Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi I Sunyer (IDIBAPS), C/Casanova 143, Barcelona, Spain.
Immunology letters (Impact Factor: 2.37). 10/2010; 134(2):129-36. DOI: 10.1016/j.imlet.2010.09.021
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The SLAM (CD150) family receptors are leukocyte cell-surface glycoproteins involved in leukocyte activation. These molecules and their adaptor protein SAP contribute to the effective germinal center formation, generation of high-affinity antibody-secreting plasma cells, and memory B cells, thereby facilitating long-term humoral immune response. Multi-color flow cytometric analysis was performed to determine the expression of CD48 (SLAMF2), CD84 (SLAMF5), CD150 (SLAM or SLAMF1), CD229 (Ly9 or SLAMF3), CD244 (2B4 or SLAMF4), CD319 (CRACC, CS1, or SLAMF7), and CD352 (NTB-A or SLAMF6) on human cell lines and B-cell subsets. The following subsets were assessed: pro-B, pre-B, immature-B, and mature-B cells from bone marrow; transitional and B1/B2 subsets from peripheral blood; and naïve, pre-germinal center, germinal center, memory, plasmablasts, and plasma cells from tonsil and spleen. All receptors were expressed on B cells, with the exception of CD244. SLAM family molecules were widely distributed during B-cell development, maturation and terminal differentiation into plasmablasts and plasma cells, but their expression among various B-cell subsets differed significantly. Such heterogeneous expression patterns suggest that SLAM molecules play an essential and non-redundant role in the control of humoral immune responses.

3 Followers
 · 
97 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: X-linked lymphoproliferative syndrome, characterized by fatal responses to Epstein-Barr virus infection, is caused by mutations affecting the adaptor SAP, which links SLAM family receptors to downstream signaling. Although cytotoxic defects in SAP-deficient T cells are documented, the mechanism remains unclear. We show that SAP-deficient murine CD8(+) T cells exhibited normal cytotoxicity against fibrosarcoma targets, yet had impaired adhesion to and killing of B cell and low-avidity T cell targets. SAP-deficient cytotoxic lymphocytes showed specific defects in immunological synapse organization with these targets, resulting in inefficient actin clearance. In the absence of SAP, signaling through the SLAM family members Ly108 and 2B4 resulted in increased recruitment of the SHP-1 phosphatase, associated with altered SHP-1 localization and decreased activation of Src kinases at the synapse. Hence, SAP and SLAM receptors regulate positive and negative signals required for organizing the T cell:B cell synapse and setting thresholds for cytotoxicity against distinct cellular targets.
    Immunity 06/2012; 36(6):1003-16. DOI:10.1016/j.immuni.2012.05.017 · 19.75 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The SLAM family recently has been reported to show an important biological role in lymphocyte development and immunological function, and it is efficient to highly purify hematopoietic stem cells using a simple combination of SLAM family members. To elucidate the presence of this family on acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), as well as its relationship with the leukemia-initiating potential, we analyzed the expression pattern of this family members on human ALL progenitor cells, combined with serial xenotransplantation assay. Expression analysis was carried out by flow cytometry. We combined the expression pattern of human CD(150), CD(244) and CD(48) with serial xenotransplantation of B-ALL progenitor cells to indicate their relationship. CD(48) and CD(244) were expressed on most B-ALL progenitor cells, the percentage being (93.08 ± 6.46)% and (63.37 ± 29.31)%, respectively. Interestingly, the proportion of CD(150)(+) cells declined obviously in engrafted cases ((24.94 ± 7.32)%) compared with non-engrafted cases ((77.54 ± 5.93)%, P < 0.01), which indicated that only blast cells with low percentage of CD(150)(+) population were able to reconstitute leukemia into primary, secondary and tertiary NOD/SCID mice. SLAM family members are present on B-ALL progenitor cells and the leukemia-initiating potential of leukemic blasts is correlated negatively with the proportion of CD(150)(+) cells, the percentage of which can serve as a useful predictor for engraftment success of B-ALL to immune deficient mice.
    Chinese medical journal 10/2011; 124(19):3074-9. · 1.02 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We developed and validated a two-gene signature that predicts prognosis in previously-untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients. Using a 65 sample training set, from a cohort of 131 patients, we identified the best clinical models to predict time-to-treatment (TTT) and overall survival (OS). To identify individual genes or combinations in the training set with expression related to prognosis, we cross-validated univariate and multivariate models to predict TTT. We identified four gene sets (5, 6, 12, or 13 genes) to construct multivariate prognostic models. By optimizing each gene set on the training set, we constructed 11 models to predict the time from diagnosis to treatment. Each model also predicted OS and added value to the best clinical models. To determine which contributed the most value when added to clinical variables, we applied the Akaike Information Criterion. Two genes were consistently retained in the models with clinical variables: SKI (v-SKI avian sarcoma viral oncogene homolog) and SLAMF1 (signaling lymphocytic activation molecule family member 1; CD150). We optimized a two-gene model and validated it on an independent test set of 66 samples. This two-gene model predicted prognosis better on the test set than any of the known predictors, including ZAP70 and serum β2-microglobulin.
    PLoS ONE 12/2011; 6(12):e28277. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0028277 · 3.53 Impact Factor

Similar Publications