EDP Sciences logo
Subscriber Authentication Point
Search
Menu
Home All issues Volume 23 / No 2 (Février 2007) Med Sci (Paris), 23 2 (2007) 173-179 References
Free Access
Issue
Med Sci (Paris)
Volume 23, Number 2, Février 2007
Page(s) 173 - 179
Section M/S revues
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/medsci/2007232173
Published online 15 February 2007
  1. Foussat A, Galanaud P, Emilie D. Les chimiokines et la longue marche des leucocytes. Med Sci (Paris) 2000; 16 : 757–66. [Google Scholar]
  2. Cyster JG. Chemokines, sphingosine-1-phosphate, and cell migration in secondary lymphoid organs. Annu Rev Immunol 2005; 23 : 127–59. [Google Scholar]
  3. Mantovani A. The chemokine system: redundancy for robust outputs. Immunol Today 1999; 20 : 254–7. [Google Scholar]
  4. Morange M. Déconstruction de la notion de gène. Med Sci (Paris) 2004; 20 : 835–6. [Google Scholar]
  5. Luster AD, Alon R, von Andrian UH. Immune cell migration in inflammation: present and future therapeutic targets. Nat Immunol 2005; 6 : 1182–90. [Google Scholar]
  6. Rot A, Von Andrian UH. Chemokines in innate and adaptive host defense: basic chemokinese grammar for immune cells. Ann Rev Imm. 2004; 22 : 891–928. [Google Scholar]
  7. Springael JY, Urizar E, Parmentier M. Dimerization of chemokine receptors and its functional consequences. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev 2005; 16 : 611–23. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bulenger S, Marullo S, Bouvier M. Emerging role of homo- and heterodimerization in G-protein-coupled receptor biosynthesis and maturation. Trends Pharmacol Sci 2005; 26 : 131–7. [Google Scholar]
  9. Jordan BA, Devi LA. G-protein-coupled receptor heterodimerization modulates receptor function. Nature 1999; 399 : 697–700. [Google Scholar]
  10. Percherancier Y, Berchiche YA, Slight I, et al. Bioluminescence resonance energy transfer reveals ligand-induced conformational changes in CXCR4 homo- and heterodimers. J Biol Chem 2005; 280 : 9895–903. [Google Scholar]
  11. El-Asmar L, Springael JY, Ballet S, et al. Evidence for negative binding cooperativity within CCR5-CCR2b heterodimers. Mol Pharmacol 2005; 67 : 460–9. [Google Scholar]
  12. Chen C, Li J, Bot G, et al. Heterodimerization and cross-desensitization between the [mu]-opioid receptor and the chemokine CCR5 receptor. Eur J Pharmacol 2004; 483 : 175–86. [Google Scholar]
  13. Lortat-Jacob H, Grosdidier A, Imberty A. Structural diversity of heparan sulfate binding domains in chemokines. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2002; 99 : 1229–34. [Google Scholar]
  14. Proudfoot AE, Handel TM, Johnson Z, et al. Glycosaminoglycan binding and oligomerization are essential for the in vivo activity of certain chemokines. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2003; 100 : 1885–90. [Google Scholar]
  15. Van Den Steen PE, Wuyts A, Husson SJ, et al. Gelatinase B/MMP-9 and neutrophil collagenase/MMP-8 process the chemokines human GCP-2/CXCL6, ENA-78/CXCL5 and mouse GCP-2/LIX and modulate their physiological activities. Eur J Biochem 2003; 270 : 3739–49. [Google Scholar]
  16. Thelen M. Dancing to the tune of chemokines. Nat Immunol 2001; 2 : 129–34. [Google Scholar]
  17. Roscic-Mrkic B, Fischer M, Leemann C, et al. RANTES (CCL5) utilizes the proteoglycan CD44 as an auxiliary receptor to mediate cellular activation signals and HIV-1 enhancement. Blood 2003; 24 : 24. [Google Scholar]
  18. Moatti D, Faure S, Fumeron F, et al. Polymorphism in the fractalkine receptor CX3CR1 as a genetic risk factor for coronary artery disease. Blood 2001; 97 : 1925–8. [Google Scholar]
  19. Lavergne E, Labreuche J, Daoudi M, et al. Adverse associations between CX3CR1 polymorphisms and risk of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2005; 25 : 847–53. [Google Scholar]
  20. Campbell DJ, Kim CH, Butcher EC. Chemokines in the systemic organization of immunity. Immunol Rev 2003; 195 : 58–71 [Google Scholar]
  21. Muller G, Hopken UE, Lipp M. The impact of CCR7 and CXCR5 on lymphoid organ development and systemic immunity. Immunol Rev 2003; 195 : 117–35. [Google Scholar]
  22. Breitfeld D, Ohl L, Kremmer E, et al. Follicular B helper T cells express CXC chemokine receptor 5, localize to B cell follicles, and support immunoglobulin production. J Exp Med 2000; 192 : 1545–52. [Google Scholar]
  23. O’Garra A, McEvoy LM, Zlotnik A. T-cell subsets: chemokine receptors guide the way. Curr Biol 1998; 8 : R646–9. [Google Scholar]
  24. Rabin RL, Park MK, Liao F, et al. Chemokine receptor responses on T cells are achieved through regulation of both receptor expression and signaling. J Immunol 1999; 162 : 3840–50. [Google Scholar]
  25. Morris MA, Ley K. Trafficking of natural killer cells. Curr Mol Med 2004; 4 : 431–8. [Google Scholar]
  26. Ancuta P, Moses A, Gabuzda D. Transendothelial migration of CD16+ monocytes in response to fractalkine under constitutive and inflammatory conditions. Immunobiology 2004; 209 : 11–20. [Google Scholar]
  27. Caux C, Vanbervliet B, Massacrier C, et al. Regulation of dendritic cell recruitment by chemokines. Transplantation 2002; 73 : S7–11. [Google Scholar]
  28. Murphy PM. Viral exploitation and subversion of the immune system through chemokine mimicry. Nat Immunol 2001; 2 : 116–22. [Google Scholar]
  29. Hatabu T, Kawazu S, Aikawa M, et al. Binding of Plasmodium falciparum-infected erythrocytes to the membrane-bound form of Fractalkine/CX3CL1. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2003; 100 : 15942–6. [Google Scholar]
  30. Onuffer J, Horuk R. Chemokines, chemokine receptors and small-molecule antagonists : recent developments. Trends Pharmacol Sci 2002; 23 : 459. [Google Scholar]
  31. Reape TJ, Groot PH. Chemokines and atherosclerosis. Atherosclerosis 1999; 147 : 213–25. [Google Scholar]
  32. Bursill CA, Channon KM, Greaves DR. The role of chemokines in atherosclerosis: recent evidence from experimental models and population genetics. Curr Opin Lipidol 2004; 15 : 145–9. [Google Scholar]
  33. Elsner J, Escher SE, Forssmann U. Chemokine receptor antagonists: a novel therapeutic approach in allergic diseases. Allergy 2004; 59 : 1243–58. [Google Scholar]
  34. Charo IF, Ransohoff RM. The many roles of chemokines and chemokine receptors in inflammation. N Engl J Med 2006; 354 : 610–21. [Google Scholar]
  35. Hancock WW, Lu B, Gao W, et al. Requirement of the chemokine receptor CXCR3 for acute allograft rejection. J Exp Med 2000; 192 : 1515–20. [Google Scholar]
  36. Haskell CA, Hancock WW, Salant DJ, et al. Targeted deletion of CX(3)CR1 reveals a role for fractalkine in cardiac allograft rejection. J Clin Invest 2001; 108 : 679–88. [Google Scholar]
  37. Gao W, Topham PS, King JA, et al. Targeting of the chemokine receptor CCR1 suppresses development of acute and chronic cardiac allograft rejection. J Clin Invest 2000; 105 : 35–44. [Google Scholar]
  38. Gao W, Faia KL, Csizmadia V, et al. Beneficial effects of targeting CCR5 in allograft recipients. Transplantation 2001; 72 : 1199–205. [Google Scholar]
  39. Hancock WW, Wang L, Ye Q, et al. Chemokines and their receptors as markers of allograft rejection and targets for immunosuppression. Curr Opin Immunol 2003; 15 : 479–86. [Google Scholar]
  40. Fischereder M, Luckow B, Hocher B, et al. CC chemokine receptor 5 and renal-transplant survival. Lancet 2001; 357 : 1758–61. [Google Scholar]
  41. Sgadari C, Angiolillo AL, Tosato G. Inhibition of angiogenesis by interleukin-12 is mediated by the interferon-inducible protein 10. Blood 1996; 87 : 3877–82. [Google Scholar]
  42. Salcedo R, and Oppenheim JJ. Role of chemokines in angiogenesis: CXCL12/SDF-1 and CXCR4 interaction, a key regulator of endothelial cell responses. Microcirculation 2003; 10 : 359–70. [Google Scholar]
  43. Balkwill F. Cancer and the chemokine network. Nat Rev Cancer 2004; 4 : 540–50. [Google Scholar]
  44. Moran CJ, Arenberg DA, Huang CC, et al. RANTES expression is a predictor of survival in stage I lung adenocarcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 2002; 8 : 3803–12. [Google Scholar]
  45. Ohta M, Tanaka F, Yamaguchi H, et al. The high expression of Fractalkine results in a better prognosis for colorectal cancer patients. Int J Oncol 2005; 26 : 41–7. [Google Scholar]
  46. Rollins BJ, Sunday ME. Suppression of tumor formation in vivo by expression of the JE gene in malignant cells. Mol Cell Biol 1991; 11 : 3125–31. [Google Scholar]
  47. Biragyn A, Kwak LW. B-cell malignancies as a model for cancer vaccines: from prototype protein to next generation genetic chemokine fusions. Immunol Rev 1999; 170 : 115–26. [Google Scholar]
  48. Caux C, Ait-Yahia S, Chemin K, et al. Dendritic cell biology and regulation of dendritic cell trafficking by chemokines. Springer Semin Immunopathol 2000; 22 : 345–69. [Google Scholar]
  49. Merad M, Fong L, Bogenberger J, et al. Differentiation of myeloid dendritic cells into CD8alpha-positive dendritic cells in vivo. Blood 2000; 96 : 1865–72. [Google Scholar]
  50. Shedlock DJ, Weiner DB. DNA vaccination: antigen presentation and the induction of immunity. J Leukoc Biol 2000; 68 : 793–806. [Google Scholar]
  51. Scheerlinck JY. Genetic adjuvants for DNA vaccines. Vaccine 2001; 19 : 2647–56. [Google Scholar]
  52. Xin KQ, Lu Y, Hamajima K, et al. Immunization of RANTES expression plasmid with a DNA vaccine enhances HIV-1-specific immunity. Clin Immunol 1999; 92 : 90–6. [Google Scholar]
  53. Sozzani S. Dendritic cell trafficking: more than just chemokines Cytokine Growth Factor Rev 2005; 16 : 581–92. [Google Scholar]
  54. Moser B, Wolf M, Walz A, et al. Chemokines: multiple levels of leukocyte migration control. Trends Immunol 2004; 25 : 75–84. [Google Scholar]
  55. O’Garra A, McEvoy LM, Zlotnik A. T-cell subsets: chemokine receptors guide the way Curr Biol 1998; 8 : R646–9. [Google Scholar]
  56. Geissmann F, Jung S, Littman DR. Blood monocytes consist of two principal subsets with distinct migratory properties. Immunity 2003; 19 : 71–82. [Google Scholar]
  57. Ancuta P, Rao R, Moses A, et al. Fractalkine preferentially mediates arrest and migration of CD16+ monocytes. J Exp Med 2003; 197 : 1701–7. [Google Scholar]
  58. Maghazachi AA. Compartmentalization of human natural killer cells. Mol Immunol 2005; 42 : 523–9. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.