Yeretssian et al. reply

Garabet Yeretssian, Ricardo G. Correa, Karine Doiron, Patrick Fitzgerald, Christopher P. Dillon, Douglas R. Green, John C. Reed and Maya Saleh ()
Additional contact information
Garabet Yeretssian: McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3G 0B1, Canada
Ricardo G. Correa: Sanford-Burnham Medical Research Institute, La Jolla, California 92037, USA
Karine Doiron: McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3G 0B1, Canada
Patrick Fitzgerald: St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital
Christopher P. Dillon: St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital
Douglas R. Green: St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital
John C. Reed: Sanford-Burnham Medical Research Institute, La Jolla, California 92037, USA
Maya Saleh: McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3G 0B1, Canada

Nature, 2012, vol. 488, issue 7412, E6-E8

Abstract: Abstract Replying to U. Nachbur, J. E. Vince, L. A. O'Reilly, A. Strasser & J. Silke Nature 488, 10.1038/nature11366 (2012). Nucleotide-binding and oligomerization domain (NOD) receptors are cytosolic sensors of microbe-associated molecular patterns (MAMPs). Like other members of the BCL2 family of proteins (such as BCL2 and BCL-XL1), BID has a role in inflammation and innate immunity2,3. Its association with the NOD signallosome showed it to be an important player in the pathway. Furthermore, a recent report demonstrated unequivocal and direct binding of BID to purified NOD1 protein4. Although Nachbur et al.5 question whether BID is essential for NOD signalling, they show no clear evidence to the contrary. Instead, they provided three data sets, and an analysis of these data sets is presented in Fig. 1 and Appendix Fig. 1 (ref. 5). Although there was considerable variability in the results from these independently performed experiments (also apparent in the data presented in their Comment), overall the data support the findings in our Letter6 that BID contributes to the NOD-mediated response. A challenge to our conclusions was based on the claim that BID deficiency does not affect NOD signalling. Data in Appendix Fig. 1a and b (ref. 5) support our conclusions and show a role for BID in NF-κB activation (decreased p65 phosphorylation). By contrast, a third set of immunoblots shows the opposite effect, in which BID seems to be a negative regulator of NF-κB signalling (increased p65 phosphorylation in Bid−/− cells; Fig. 1 from ref. 5). The basis for these incoherent and non-reproducible results is unclear but suggests technical caveats. For instance, it is surprising to see p65 phosphorylation in Ripk2−/− cells (Fig. 1c in ref. 5).

Date: 2012
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11367 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:nat:nature:v:488:y:2012:i:7412:d:10.1038_nature11367

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://www.nature.com/

DOI: 10.1038/nature11367

Access Statistics for this article

Nature is currently edited by Magdalena Skipper

More articles in Nature from Nature
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().