Retinoic Acid-Induced CCR9 Expression Requires Transient TCR Stimulation and Cooperativity between NFATc2 and the Retinoic Acid Receptor/Retinoid X Receptor Complex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Retinoic acid (RA) imprints gut-homing specificity on T cells upon activation by inducing the expression of chemokine receptor CCR9 and integrin α4β7. CCR9 expression seemed to be more highly dependent on RA than was the α4β7 expression, but its molecular mechanism remained unclear. In this article, we show that NFAT isoforms NFATc1 and NFATc2 directly interact with RA receptor (RAR) and retinoid X receptor (RXR) but play differential roles in RA-induced CCR9 expression on murine naive CD4(+) T cells. TCR stimulation for 6-24 h was required for the acquisition of responsiveness to RA and induced activation of NFATc1 and NFATc2. However, RA failed to induce CCR9 expression as long as TCR stimulation continued. After terminating TCR stimulation or adding cyclosporin A to the culture, Ccr9 gene transcription was induced, accompanied by inactivation of NFATc1 and sustained activation of NFATc2. Reporter and DNA-affinity precipitation assays demonstrated that the binding of NFATc2 to two NFAT-binding sites and that of the RAR/RXR complex to an RA response element half-site in the 5'-flanking region of the mouse Ccr9 gene were critical for RA-induced promoter activity. NFATc2 directly bound to RARα and RXRα, and it enhanced the binding of RARα to the RA response element half-site. NFATc1 also bound to the NFAT-binding sites and directly to RARα and RXRα, but it inhibited the NFATc2-dependent promoter activity. These results suggest that the cooperativity between NFATc2 and the RAR/RXR complex is essential for CCR9 expression on T cells and that NFATc1 interferes with the action of NFATc2.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".