JCB logo
Keystone Symposia
  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents

Published online 7 October 2002. doi:10.1083/jcb1591iti4
This Article
Right arrow PDF (Full Text)
Right arrow PPT slides of all figures
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Services
Right arrow Email this article
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new content in the JCB
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by LeBrasseur, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by LeBrasseur, N.
Related Collections
Right arrowRelated Article
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
© The Rockefeller University Press, 0021-9525/2002/10/13-a $5.00
The Journal of Cell Biology, Volume 159, Number 1, 13-a-13


In This Issue

Neutrophils choose the right direction


End targets win the migration battle by blocking Akt phosphorylation (right).

Two distinct signaling pathways operate sequentially, thus guiding neutrophils to bacterial invaders, according to Heit et al. on page 91. Although one pathway lures neutrophils in the right general direction, the other pathway dominates when the prey is within reach.

Neutrophils leave the bloodstream and migrate to infection sites by following intermediary chemokine signals (such as IL-8) that are generated by damaged host cells. End-target signals like fMLP or LPS, either released by the pathogen itself or by the body in response to the bacteria, also attract neutrophils. Since the blood cells prefer to pursue end-targets when both signals are present, the authors speculated, correctly, that different pathways controlled the two responses.

The pathways can be distinguished by their kinase-dependence. Migration to intermediary chemoattractants depended on PI3K, which phosphorylated Akt. End-targets induced migration via p38 MAPK and inhibited Akt phosphorylation, even at low concentrations. The result is that neutrophils ignore intermediate molecules when bacteria are in the vicinity. The authors speculate that migration may change depending on the {alpha} integrin subunit recruited—the CD11a recruited by PI3K may be subservient in migration competence to the CD11b recruited by p38 MAPK. The findings could explain why the leakage of bacterial products into the bloodstream can cause such severe problems, as these chemicals keep neutrophils from following intermediary signals into the surrounding tissue. {blacksquare}



Nicole LeBrasseur

lebrasn{at}rockefeller.edu


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Related Article

An intracellular signaling hierarchy determines direction of migration in opposing chemotactic gradients
Bryan Heit, Samantha Tavener, Eko Raharjo, and Paul Kubes
J. Cell Biol. 2002 159: 91-102. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




This Article
Right arrow PDF (Full Text)
Right arrow PPT slides of all figures
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Services
Right arrow Email this article
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new content in the JCB
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by LeBrasseur, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by LeBrasseur, N.
Related Collections
Right arrowRelated Article
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?


  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents