![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2003, The National Academy of
Sciences Genetics Haplotype variation in bovine Toll-like receptor 4 and computational
prediction of a positively selected ligand-binding domain Departments of *Veterinary Pathobiology and †Animal Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843 ‡
To whom correspondence should be addressed at: MS 4467 TAMU, College Station,
TX 77843. E-mail:
jwomack/at/cvm.tamu.edu.
Contributed by James E. Womack, June 25, 2003 This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.Abstract Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) is a cell-surface receptor that activates
innate and adaptive immune responses. Because it recognizes a broad class of
pathogen-associated molecular patterns presented by lipopolysaccharides and
lipoteichoic acid, TLR4 is a candidate gene for resistance to a large number
of diseases. In particular, mouse models suggest TLR4 as a candidate gene for
resistance to major agents in bovine respiratory disease and Johne's disease.
The coding sequence of bovine TLR4 is divided into three exons, with
intron/exon boundaries and intron sizes similar to those of human TLR4
transcript variant 1. We amplified each exon in 40 individuals from 11 breeds
and screened the sequence for single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). We
identified 32 SNPs, 28 of which are in the coding sequence, for an average of
one SNP per 90 bp of coding sequence. Eight SNPs were nonsynonymous and
potentially alter specificity of pathogen recognition or efficiency of
signaling. To evaluate the functional importance of these SNPs, we used
codon-substitution models to detect diversifying selection in an extracellular
region that may physically interact with ligands. One nonsynonymous SNP is
located within this region, and other substitutions are in adjacent regions
that may interact with coreceptor molecules. The 32 SNPs were found in 20
haplotypes that can be assigned to geographic ranges of origin.
Haplotype-tagging SNP analysis indicated that 12 SNPs need to be genotyped to
distinguish these 20 haplotypes. These data provide a basic understanding of
bovine TLR4 sequence variation and supply haplotype markers for disease
association studies. Toll-like receptors are a family of proteins that perform two functions:
recognition of pathogen ligands and signaling to initiate innate and adaptive
immune responses. Whereas the signaling domains of the 10 Toll-like receptors
known in mammals are highly conserved, the leucine-rich repeat
ligand-recognition domains are more diverse to accommodate recognition of
different pathogen-associated molecular patterns. In conjunction with the
coreceptor MD-2, Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) recognizes lipopolysaccharide and
the structurally similar lipoteichoic acid, components of Gram-negative and
Gram-positive bacterial cell walls, respectively
(1-3). Lack of TLR4 can cripple immune responses to pathogens that produce these
ligands. Salmonella typhimurium is a Gram-negative pathogen to which
mice have some natural resistance. A comparison of closely related strains of
mice showed a reduction of LD50 from 2,000 or more organisms for
the homozygous normal TLR4 strain, to <2 organisms for mice homozygous null
at TLR4 (4). Other phenotypes in model mammalian systems point to TLR4 as a candidate
gene for resistance to two of the most devastating bovine disorders in the
U.S., bovine respiratory disease and Johne's disease. Bovine respiratory
disease complex (”shipping fever”) is a common disorder involving
many component pathogens. However, one of the most important is Mannheimia
haemolytica (formerly Pasteurella haemolytica), which normally
resides in the upper respiratory tract of cattle, but on stress can invade the
lower respiratory tract and cause disease. A related organism, Pasteurella
pneumotropica, has similar features in murine infections. TLR4-null
mutant mice were more likely to develop infection with experimental P.
pneumotropica pneumonia than their wild-type counterparts
(5). This finding suggests TLR4
may play a role in preventing the establishment of such related disorders as
bovine shipping fever. TLR4 also has been shown to play a role in resistance
to Streptococcus pneumoniae-induced pneumonia
(6), further demonstrating the
versatility of this important receptor for respiratory immune protection. TLR4 is also a candidate gene for resistance to both bovine tuberculosis
and Johne's disease. These disorders are caused by Mycobacterium
bovis and Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis,
respectively (7,
8). It has recently been shown
that TLR4 is required to control the infection of a related pathogen,
Mycobacterium tuberculosis, in experimental mice
(9). Whereas the modes of
infection differ among these pathogens, the basic structures recognized by
TLR4 suggest a possible role in resistance to both. Further, because of the
broad range of pathogens and potential pathogens that produce its ligands,
TLR4 may be considered a candidate gene for resistance to several other
infectious diseases. A cDNA sequence for bovine TLR4 has been reported, with 72% and 65% amino
acid similarities to human and mouse TLR4, respectively
(10), and TLR4 is known to
reside on the distal tip of bovine chromosome 8
(11). However, several issues
need to be resolved to further investigate TLR4 as a candidate
disease-resistance gene in cattle. First, the genomic structure needs to be
established and sufficient flanking intronic sequences gathered to enable
simple PCR amplification of the coding portions of the gene. Then, a basic
understanding of naturally occurring variation in bovine TLR4 needs to be
obtained before alleles can be tested for disease association. Therefore, the
present study assesses segregating variation, establishes haplotypic markers
for association studies, and provides an insight into the evolution of bovine
TLR4. Despite the relative abundance of data on TLR4 in mammalian species, the
ligand-binding region has not been identified at a resolution finer than the
extracellular domain. We also attempt to delineate a functional region of this
domain to better evaluate the importance of the sequence variants we
identified. Materials and Methods Forty cattle were selected to represent a cross section of the diversity of
domestic cattle populations. Thirteen Bos taurus indicus individuals
were chosen, including 5 Brahman, 3 Nellore, 2 Gyr, 2 Ankole-Watusi, and 1
Boran. Twenty-seven Bos taurus taurus individuals were
chosen, including 6 Angus, 6 Holstein, 5 Texas Longhorn, 4 Limousin, 3 Jersey,
and 3 N′Dama. In each breed, individuals were selected to be as
unrelated as possible. To determine the intron/exon boundaries and flanking intronic sequences of
bovine TLR4, primers were designed from a consensus sequence composed of
coding sequence (GenBank AF310952) and a 3′ EST (GenBank BF889715), and
amplicons were sequenced. Intron lengths were obtained by gel electrophoresis
of amplicons that spanned the introns. To obtain 5′ UTR sequence, a
bovine bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) library
(12) was screened, BACs
containing bovine TLR4 were subcloned, and the subclones were sequenced.
Primers were then designed to amplify each of the exons with small amounts of
flanking sequence. To screen the diversity panel, each exon was amplified twice for every
individual. The separate replicates of each PCR were used for sequencing in
the forward and reverse directions, to reduce the risk of reporting PCR
artifacts as polymorphisms. The first two exons were amplified by using
AmpliTaq Gold (Perkin-Elmer) with a 10-min step at 94°C, followed by 35
cycles of 94°C, the annealing temperature, and 72°C for 30 sec each,
and a final 5-min extension at 72°C. The long third exon was amplified by
using an Expand Long Template PCR System (Roche Applied Science) with a 2-min
step at 95°C, followed by 35 cycles alternating 30 sec at 95°C and 3
min at 68°C, and a final 5-min extension at 68°C. Sequencing was
performed on an ABI Prism 3100 with BigDye chemistry (Applied Biosystems).
Primers used for PCR and sequencing are shown in Table 5, which is published
as supporting information on the PNAS web site,
www.pnas.org. All single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) occurring in fewer than three
individuals were subcloned to verify correct genotype scoring, and both
alleles were identified in subclones for such heterozygotes. All polymorphisms
were named based on coding nucleotide positions relative to the reference
allele, GenBank accession no. AY297040. HAPLOTYPER
(13) was used to predict
haplotypes for each individual from the genotype data. For this analysis,
individuals were pooled by subspecies. Two Ankole-Watusi individuals were
considered to belong to the B. taurus indicus subspecies, given their
pattern of observed SNPs in TLR4 and breed history of subspecies admixture.
Four haplotypes were predicted with probabilities <95%, and were subject to
further verification. One haplotype was confirmed by pooling African breed
samples from both subspecies for analysis by Clark's method
(14). For the remaining three
individuals with low probability haplotype predictions, all informative exons
were amplified, subcloned, and sequenced. In each case, at least five
subclones were sequenced, including at least one copy of each allele. To test apparent SNPs in adjacent coding positions 1947-1948,
PCR-restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP) assays were designed
that would allow haplotype testing for these two SNPs. PCR products were
generated by using the PCRRFLP primers (see Table 5) to amplify all five
heterozygous individuals and six homozygous controls. Eco0109I cut GG
haplotypes only, and TfiI cut AA haplotypes only. SNPTAGGER (15) was used to
assess the numbers and positions of SNP markers necessary to distinguish
observed haplotypes. MEGA 2.1
(16) was used to perform
Z tests for purifying selection. These tests used the Nei-Gobojori
method for computation of potential synonymous and nonsynonymous substitutions
(17) and estimated variances
of average substitution rates by bootstrapping with 1,000 replications.
Positively selected codon sites were identified by using the PAML 3.12
software package (18). This
analysis incorporated a neighbor-joining tree computed with MEGA 2.1, but the
method is remarkably robust to deviations in tree morphology
(19). TLR4 sequences used were
from human, pygmy chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan, mouse, hamster, rat, cat,
horse, and cow. The PAML analysis used the discrete M3 model
(19) with three classes of
omega values and equilibrium codon frequencies calculated from average
nucleotide frequencies at the three codon positions. A likelihood ratio test
for positive selection was conducted by comparing likelihoods from the M0 and
M3 models. Results Bovine TLR4 has three exons, with splice sites similar to those of human
TLR4 transcript variant 1
(20). Exon 1 includes coding
base pairs 1-95, exon 2 consists of base pairs 96-260, and exon 3 comprises
base pairs 261-2526. Each exon has been submitted to GenBank along with
flanking sequences (accession nos. AY297041-AY297043). The whole genomic
length is estimated to be ≈11 kb, of which the first intron comprises about
5 kb and the second, 3 kb. Thirty-two SNPs were found among the 40 individuals in our panel, and 28 of
these SNPs were in coding regions (cSNP). All SNPs have been submitted to
dbSNP (accession nos. 9805774-9805805), and are listed in
Table 1. Each cSNP is described
relative to the reference allele found in GenBank accession AY297040, which is
the allele found at the highest frequency in taurine cattle. SNPs outside
coding regions are listed with reference to the nearest coding region. For
example, E2-60 refers to a SNP 60 bp 5′ to exon 2. Summaries of
nonsynonymous SNPs are shown in Table
2. Relative positions of all SNPs are shown in
Fig. 1
Twenty haplotypes were predicted to exist in the panel individuals.
PCR-RFLP was used to confirm that all individuals heterozygous for the
adjacent SNPs at base pairs 1947-1948 had AA/GG haplotypes, as predicted by
HAPLOTYPER (data not shown). Four haplotypes were assigned probabilities of
less than 95% by HAPLOTYPER. Of these, one was an African haplotype at low
frequency in our sample, and it was confirmed by Clark's method
(14) on pooled African breed
samples from both subspecies. For the remaining three lower-confidence
haplotypes, all informative exons were subcloned and sequenced. Final
haplotypes revised to incorporate these data are included in
Table 1. Haplotype assignments
for all individuals is shown in Table 6, which is published as supporting
information on the PNAS web site. Diversity statistics for both subspecies are
found in Table 3.
Single-tailed Z tests provide significant support for overall
purifying selection in B. taurus indicus (P < 0.001), but
not in Bos t. taurus (P = 0.209; see note below
Table 3 concerning population
composition for these tests). However, the likelihood ratio test strongly
indicates the existence of positively selected sites (P <<
0.001) in TLR4 across mammals. The discrete model M3 used three classes with
estimated ω values of 0.001, 0.596, and 2.239 and probabilities of
0.379, 0.515, and 0.106, respectively. The overall average ω value was
0.545. Table 4 shows a list of
amino acid sites with posterior probabilities for positive selection
P(ω > 1) > 0.90. Twenty-one sites had probabilities >
0.90, twelve > 0.95, and two > 0.99.
Discussion Bovine TLR4 shares genomic structure with human and mouse TLR4. In each
case the intron/exon boundaries are conserved, and the intron lengths are
variable but reasonably similar. The overall length of bovine TLR4 is ≈11
kb, which compares to ≈10 kb for human and ≈14 kb for mouse. Most of the
differences in length are found in lengths of the introns. As in human and mouse, TLR4 is a highly polymorphic gene
(20,
21). In our sample of 40
individuals from 11 breeds, we observed 32 SNPs, 28 of which are cSNPs. This
gives an average of 1 SNP per 90 bp of coding for bovine TLR4, which is higher
than other reports for bovine coding sequence
(22). The bovine data also
show more polymorphisms in equal or smaller sample size than human or mouse
(20,
21), which is consistent with
previous reports that indicate cattle are more polymorphic than humans
(23,
24). This finding is not
surprising, given that breeding populations of cattle are represented by two
divergent subspecies. However, our data do confirm the overall trend of high
interspecies sequence conservation but simultaneously high intraspecies
diversity in innate immune receptors
(25). The cSNPs we observed are located in most of the predicted domains, except
for the Toll/IL-1 receptor/resistance (TIR) signaling domain. The absence of
variation in TIR domain is not surprising, given its high level of
conservation across other mammalian species. The nonsynonymous cSNPs
(Table 2) are distributed
almost evenly in the remaining domains, and this distribution is consistent
with the reduced interspecies conservation of these regions. The B. taurus indicus subspecies was found to be more diverse than
B. taurus taurus at TLR4, which is consistent with data from nuclear
microsatellites (26). Indicine
cattle have more alleles at both the nucleotide and amino acid levels, as well
as higher heterozygosity at both levels (see
Table 3). However, it should be
noted that the five Brahman individuals we sampled were all homozygous for one
allele, that with the A designations in
Fig. 2
From our data, it appears that purifying selection has been at work on TLR4
in the B. taurus indicus subspecies of cattle, as with TLR4 in humans
(21). A codon-based,
one-tailed Z test shows evidence for purifying selection in that
subspecies (P < 0.001). Further, nonsynonymous SNPs have a lower
average allele frequency than synonymous SNPs, which is consistent with
purifying selection. Statistical tests of historical selection pressure are
inconclusive for taurine cattle, but this may be because of the small number
of cSNPs in that subspecies. These overall conclusions based on our
segregating data are consistent with patterns evident from TLR4 evolution in
many mammals. Our analysis relied on the widely used statistic ω, which
is based on the ratio of nonsynonymous/synonymous polymorphisms. ω
values < 1 indicate purifying selection, ω = 1 indicates neutral
selection, and ω > 1 indicates purifying selection. As described for
other genes (19), the PAML M3
discrete model best fit the TLR4 data, giving an average ω value of
0.545, which indicates the overall pattern of purifying negative selection in
TLR4 among mammals. However, this model also detected several sites under diversifying
selection (see Table 4). Most
of these codon sites are included in the region 274-368, which is located
approximately in the middle of the extracellular domain (see
Fig. 1 Given this model of the TLR4 extracellular domain, one might expect to
observe a higher number of nonsynonymous substitutions currently segregating
in the putative ligand-binding region than in adjacent regions of TLR4. Our
data do not show this for cattle, and neither do data for mouse and human TLR4
(20,
21), but several factors may
be involved. First, in each case there is a small sample of nonsynonymous
substitutions, and the results may be because of sampling effects. Second,
selection pressure may be of variable intensity, which fits with the sporadic
emergence of important pathogen variants. It could be that each population is
currently between episodes of selection for TLR4 variants. A third possibility
is that selective pressures may be of such low intensity that it is difficult
to detect at specific time points in a population. Regardless, the overall
trend in mammalian TLR4 indicates positive selection in this putative
ligand-binding region. It is interesting to note two bovine SNPs that lie in or close to this
putative ligand-binding region and result in evolutionarily divergent amino
acid substitutions. Position 347 is very divergent with the negatively charged
A347E substitution, which may indicate that this is a deleterious allele. In
the case of position 381, cattle are segregating two alleles, but both are
positively charged amino acids, not the polar serine found in all other
species studied to date, including chicken. Either position could result in
unique aspects of bovine TLR4 biology. Given the proximity of both segregating
polymorphisms to the putative ligand-binding domain, both merit further
investigation. Another potentially important observation is an apparently recent SNP that
leads to the I674T substitution. It was found on only one haplotype, B1
(Fig. 2 The haplotypes we observed can all be assigned to subspecies and historical
continents of origin. Fig. 2 These haplotype data could be used to produce several haplotype marker sets
for different purposes. Analysis with SNPTAGGER
(15) indicates that only 12
SNPs (of 32) need to be genotyped to distinguish the 20 complete haplotypes we
found. If one considers only amino acid substitutions, just six SNPs need to
be genotyped to distinguish the nine haplotypes we observed. Only one SNP must
be genotyped to distinguish the two most common amino acid haplotypes, which
total 87% of observed haplotypes in our sample, 100% of observed in taurine
cattle, and more than 60% of those observed in indicine cattle, by frequency.
However, the broad diversity of indicine haplotypes suggests that this single
SNP analysis might miss meaningful information if the bovine population
sampled has a large percentage of indicine genetic background. Examples of
each of these sets of haplotype-tagging SNPs (htSNPs) are shown in Table 7,
which is published as supporting information on the PNAS web site. In summary, these data show bovine TLR4 to be highly polymorphic. We have
defined a spectrum of common variation in this gene, against which future
variants can be meaningfully compared, and we suggest a putative
ligand-binding region with adjacent coreceptor-binding regions in the
extracellular domain of TLR4. Additionally this study developed a set of
haplotype markers for use in disease association studies with the many
pathogens that produce ligands of TLR4, including important pathogens involved
in bovine shipping fever, tuberculosis, and Johne's disease. Supporting Tables
Acknowledgments We thank Dr. Loren Skow for helpful discussions and suggestions in the
review process; Janice Elliott, Elaine Owens, and Natalie Halbert for
assistance and support; Christopher Seabury and Dr. Jim Derr for providing
some of the DNA samples used in this project; and Avni Santani, Dr. Bhanu
Chowdhary, and Dr. Terje Raudsepp for helpful discussions and studies
underpinning our work. This work was supported by a Programs of Excellence
grant from the Life Sciences Task Force of Texas A&M University, U.S.
Department of Agriculture Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service National Research Initiative Grant 99-35205-8534, and Grant
517-0186-2001 from the State of Texas Advanced Technology Program. Notes Abbreviations: TLR4, Toll-like receptor 4; SNP, single-nucleotide
polymorphism; cSNP, SNP in a coding region; TIR domain, Toll/IL-1
receptor/resistance domain; PCR-RFLP, PCR-restriction fragment length
polymorphism. Data deposition: The sequences reported in this paper have been deposited
in the GenBank database (accession nos. AY297040-AY297043). The polymorphism
data in this paper have been deposited in the dbSNP database (accession nos.
9805774-9805805). References 1. Chow, J. C., Young, D. W., Golenbock, D. T., Christ, W. J. &
Gusovsky, F. (1999. ) J. Biol. Chem.
274,
10689-10692. [PubMed] 2. Takeuchi, O., Hoshino, K., Kawai, T., Sanjo, H., Takada, H., Ogawa,
T., Takeda, K. & Akira, S. (1999. )
Immunity 11,
443-451. [PubMed] 3. Lien, E., Means, T. K., Heine, H., Yoshimura, A., Kusumoto, S.,
Fukase, K., Fenton, M. J., Oikawa, M., Qureshi, N., Monks, B., et al.
(2000. ) J. Clin. Invest.
105,
497-504. [PubMed] 4. O'Brien, A. D., Rosenstreich, D. L., Scher, I., Campbell, G. H.,
MacDermott, R. P. & Formal, S. B. (1980. ) J.
Immunol. 124,
20-24. [PubMed] 5. Chapes, S. K., Mosier, D. A., Wright, A. D. & Hart, M. L.
(2001. ) J. Leukocyte Biol.
69,
381-386. [PubMed] 6. Malley, R., Henneke, P., Morse, S. C., Cieslewicz, M. J., Lipsitch,
M., Thompson, C. M., Kurt-Jones, E., Paton, J. C., Wessels, M. R. &
Golenbock, D. T. (2003. ) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
USA 100,
1966-1971. [PubMed] 7. Thoen, C. O. & Himes, E. M. (1986. )
Prog. Vet. Microbiol. Immunol.
2, 198-214. [PubMed] 8. Bendixen, P. H. (1978. ) Nord. Vet.
Med. 30,
163-168. [PubMed] 9. Abel, B., Thieblemont, N., Quesniaux, V. J., Brown, N., Mpagi, J.,
Miyake, K., Bihl, F. & Ryffel, B. (2002. ) J.
Immunol. 169,
3155-3162. [PubMed] 10. Werling, D. & Jungi, T. W. (2003. ) Vet.
Immunol. Immunopathol. 91,
1-12. [PubMed] 11. White, S. N., Kata, S. R. & Womack, J. E. (2003. )
Mamm. Genome 14,
149-155. [PubMed] 12. Cai, L., Taylor, J. F., Wing, R. A., Gallagher, D. S., Woo, S. S.
& Davis, S. K. (1995. ) Genomics
29,
413-425. [PubMed] 13. Niu, T., Qin, Z. S., Xu, X. & Liu, J. S. (2002. )
Am. J. Hum. Genet. 70,
157-169. [PubMed] 14. Clark, A. G. (1990. ) Mol. Biol.
Evol. 7,
111-122. [PubMed] 15. Ke, X. & Cardon, L. R. (2003. )
Bioinformatics 19,
287-288. [PubMed] 16. Kumar, S., Tamura, K., Jakobsen, I. B. & Nei, M.
(2001. ) Bioinformatics
17,
1244-1245. [PubMed] 17. Nei, M. & Gojobori, T. (1986. ) Mol.
Biol. Evol. 3,
418-426. [PubMed] 18. Yang, Z. (1997. ) Comput. Appl.
Biosci. 13,
555-556. [PubMed] 19. Yang, Z., Nielsen, R., Goldman, N. & Pedersen, A. M.
(2000. ) Genetics
155,
431-449. [PubMed] 20. Smirnova, I., Poltorak, A., Chan, E. K., McBride, C. & Beutler,
B. (2000. ) Genome Biol.
1, 1-10. [PubMed] 21. Smirnova, I., Hamblin, M. T., McBride, C., Beutler, B. & Di
Rienzo, A. (2001. ) Genetics
158,
1657-1664. [PubMed] 22. Heaton, M. P., Grosse, W. M., Kappes, S. M., Keele, J. W.,
Chitko-McKown, C. G., Cundiff, L. V., Braun, A., Little, D. P. & Laegreid,
W. W. (2001. ) Mamm. Genome
12, 32-37. [PubMed] 23. Konfortov, B. A., Licence, V. E. & Miller, J. R.
(1999. ) Mamm. Genome
10,
1142-1145. [PubMed] 24. Kruglyak, L. & Nickerson, D. A. (2001. )
Nat. Genet. 27,
234-236. [PubMed] 25. Lazarus, R., Vercelli, D., Palmer, L. J., Klimecki, W. J.,
Silverman, E. K., Richter, B., Riva, A., Ramoni, M., Martinez, F. D., Weiss,
S. T. & Kwiatkowski, D. J. (2002. ) Immunol.
Rev. 190,
9-25. [PubMed] 26. MacHugh, D. E., Shriver, M. D., Loftus, R. T., Cunningham, P. &
Bradley, D. G. (1997. ) Genetics
146,
1071-1086. [PubMed] 27. Poltorak, A., Ricciardi-Castagnoli, P., Citterio, S. & Beutler,
B. (2000. ) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
97,
2163-2167. [PubMed] 28. Hughes, A. L., Ota, T. & Nei, M. (1990. )
Mol. Biol. Evol. 7,
515-524. [PubMed] 29. Arbour, N. C., Lorenz, E., Schutte, B. C., Zabner, J., Kline, J.
N., Jones, M., Frees, K., Watt, J. L. & Schwartz, D. A.
(2000. ) Nat. Genet.
25,
187-191. [PubMed] 30. Shimazu, R., Akashi, S., Ogata, H., Nagai, Y., Fukudome, K.,
Miyake, K. & Kimoto, M. (1999. ) J. Exp.
Med. 189,
1777-1782. [PubMed] 31. Akashi, S., Ogata, H., Kirikae, F., Kirikae, T., Kawasaki, K.,
Nishijima, M., Shimazu, R., Nagai, Y., Fukudome, K., Kimoto, M. & Miyake,
K. (2000. ) Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun.
268,
172-177. [PubMed] 32. Ohashi, K., Burkart, V., Flohe, S. & Kolb, H.
(2000. ) J. Immunol.
164,
558-561. [PubMed] 33. Termeer, C., Benedix, F., Sleeman, J., Fieber, C., Voith, U.,
Ahrens, T., Miyake, K., Freudenberg, M., Galanos, C. & Simon, J. C.
(2002. ) J. Exp. Med.
195,
99-111. [PubMed] 34. Biragyn, A., Ruffini, P. A., Leifer, C. A., Klyushnenkova, E.,
Shakhov, A., Chertov, O., Shirakawa, A. K., Farber, J. M., Segal, D. M.,
Oppenheim, J. J. & Kwak, L. W. (2002. )
Science 298,
1025-1029. [PubMed] |
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||||
J Biol Chem. 1999 Apr 16; 274(16):10689-92.
[J Biol Chem. 1999]J Clin Invest. 2000 Feb; 105(4):497-504.
[J Clin Invest. 2000]J Immunol. 1980 Jan; 124(1):20-4.
[J Immunol. 1980]J Leukoc Biol. 2001 Mar; 69(3):381-6.
[J Leukoc Biol. 2001]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Feb 18; 100(4):1966-71.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003]Prog Vet Microbiol Immunol. 1986; 2():198-214.
[Prog Vet Microbiol Immunol. 1986]Nord Vet Med. 1978 Apr-May; 30(4-5):163-8.
[Nord Vet Med. 1978]J Immunol. 2002 Sep 15; 169(6):3155-62.
[J Immunol. 2002]Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2003 Jan 10; 91(1):1-12.
[Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2003]Mamm Genome. 2003 Feb; 14(2):149-55.
[Mamm Genome. 2003]Genomics. 1995 Sep 20; 29(2):413-25.
[Genomics. 1995]Am J Hum Genet. 2002 Jan; 70(1):157-69.
[Am J Hum Genet. 2002]Mol Biol Evol. 1990 Mar; 7(2):111-22.
[Mol Biol Evol. 1990]Bioinformatics. 2003 Jan 22; 19(2):287-8.
[Bioinformatics. 2003]Bioinformatics. 2001 Dec; 17(12):1244-5.
[Bioinformatics. 2001]Mol Biol Evol. 1986 Sep; 3(5):418-26.
[Mol Biol Evol. 1986]Comput Appl Biosci. 1997 Oct; 13(5):555-6.
[Comput Appl Biosci. 1997]Genetics. 2000 May; 155(1):431-49.
[Genetics. 2000]Genome Biol. 2000; 1(2):comment1002.1-1002.2.
[Genome Biol. 2000]Mol Biol Evol. 1990 Mar; 7(2):111-22.
[Mol Biol Evol. 1990]Genome Biol. 2000; 1(2):comment1002.1-1002.2.
[Genome Biol. 2000]Genetics. 2001 Aug; 158(4):1657-64.
[Genetics. 2001]Mamm Genome. 2001 Jan; 12(1):32-7.
[Mamm Genome. 2001]Mamm Genome. 1999 Dec; 10(12):1142-5.
[Mamm Genome. 1999]Nat Genet. 2001 Mar; 27(3):234-6.
[Nat Genet. 2001]Genetics. 1997 Jul; 146(3):1071-86.
[Genetics. 1997]Genetics. 2001 Aug; 158(4):1657-64.
[Genetics. 2001]Genetics. 2000 May; 155(1):431-49.
[Genetics. 2000]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Feb 29; 97(5):2163-7.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000]Mol Biol Evol. 1990 Nov; 7(6):515-24.
[Mol Biol Evol. 1990]Genetics. 2001 Aug; 158(4):1657-64.
[Genetics. 2001]Nat Genet. 2000 Jun; 25(2):187-91.
[Nat Genet. 2000]J Exp Med. 1999 Jun 7; 189(11):1777-82.
[J Exp Med. 1999]Genome Biol. 2000; 1(2):comment1002.1-1002.2.
[Genome Biol. 2000]Genetics. 2001 Aug; 158(4):1657-64.
[Genetics. 2001]Bioinformatics. 2003 Jan 22; 19(2):287-8.
[Bioinformatics. 2003]