Abonnement à la biblothèque: Guest
Portail numérique Bibliothèque numérique eBooks Revues Références et comptes rendus Collections
Critical Reviews™ in Immunology
Facteur d'impact: 1.352 Facteur d'impact sur 5 ans: 3.347 SJR: 0.657 SNIP: 0.55 CiteScore™: 2.19

ISSN Imprimer: 1040-8401
ISSN En ligne: 2162-6472

Volumes:
Volume 39, 2019 Volume 38, 2018 Volume 37, 2017 Volume 36, 2016 Volume 35, 2015 Volume 34, 2014 Volume 33, 2013 Volume 32, 2012 Volume 31, 2011 Volume 30, 2010 Volume 29, 2009 Volume 28, 2008 Volume 27, 2007 Volume 26, 2006 Volume 25, 2005 Volume 24, 2004 Volume 23, 2003 Volume 22, 2002 Volume 21, 2001 Volume 20, 2000 Volume 19, 1999 Volume 18, 1998 Volume 17, 1997 Volume 16, 1996 Volume 15, 1995 Volume 14, 1994

Critical Reviews™ in Immunology

DOI: 10.1615/CritRevImmunol.v23.i56.50
32 pages

Major Histocompatibility Lineages and Immune Gene Function in Teleost Fishes: The Road Not Taken

Rene J. M. Stet
Cell Biology and Immunology Group, Wageningen Institute of Animal Sciences, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands
Corine P. Kruiswijk
Cell Biology and Immunology Group, Wageningen Institute of Animal Sciences, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands
Brian Dixon
Department of Biology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

RÉSUMÉ

It has become increasingly clear over the course of the past decade that the immune system genes of teleosts and tetrapods are plainly derived from common ancestral genes. The last 5 years, however, have also made it abundantly clear that in the teleost genome some of these genes are organized in a manner very different from that seen in mammals. These differences are probably the result of differences in life history traits, such as fecundancy, within each group of species when faced with an evolutionary fork in the road shortly after their divergence from each other. One group, the tetrapods, including mammals, chose a highly organized linked major histocompatibility complex, while in teleosts the major histocompatibility genes remained unlinked. In this review we will discuss the structural and functional implications of this different organization, particularly for major histocompatibility genes, but drawing on the current knowledge of some other genes for further support for the hypothesis that each group took a different road, one more traveled and one less taken.


Articles with similar content:

Interplay between Chromatin Modifying and Remodeling Complexes in Transcriptional Regulation
Critical Reviews™ in Eukaryotic Gene Expression, Vol.9, 1999, issue 3-4
Rimma Belotserkovskaya , Shelley L. Berger
Histone Deacetylase Co-Repressor Complex Control of Runx2 and Bone Formation
Critical Reviews™ in Eukaryotic Gene Expression, Vol.17, 2007, issue 3
Aswathy K. Nair, Eric D. Jensen, Jennifer J. Westendorf
Historical Perspective of Cell-Cell Fusion in Cancer Initiation and Progression
Critical Reviews™ in Oncogenesis, Vol.18, 2013, issue 1 - 2
George E. Parris
The Complexity in Hunting for Candidate Genes Within QTL That Determine Susceptibility to Arthritis in Rats
Critical Reviews™ in Immunology, Vol.28, 2008, issue 2
Weikuan Gu, S. Terry Canale, Jiaqian Zhu, Karen A. Hasty, Qing Xiong, John M. Stuart
DO SCIENTISTS HELP PEOPLE? BELIEFS ABOUT SCIENTISTS AND THE INFLUENCE OF PROSOCIAL CONTEXT ON GIRLS' ATTITUDES TOWARD PHYSICS
Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, Vol.10, 2004, issue 4
Karen L. Yanowitz