Anti-XCR1 (extracellular domain) polyclonal antibody

Chemokines are known to have a role in the nervous system, influencing a range of processes including the development of chronic pain. To date there are very few studies describing the functions of the chemokine lymphotactin (XCL1) or its receptor (XCR1) in the nervous system. We investigated the role of the XCL1-XCR1 axis in nociceptive processing, using a combination of immunohistochemical, pharmacological and electrophysiological techniques. Expression of XCR1 in the rat mental nerve was elevated 3 days following chronic constriction injury (CCI), compared with 11 days post-CCI and sham controls. XCR1 co-existed with neuronal marker PGP9.5, leukocyte common antigen CD45 and Schwann cell marker S-100. In the trigeminal root and white matter of the brainstem, XCR1-positive cells co-expressed the oligodendrocyte marker Olig2. In trigeminal subnucleus caudalis (Vc), XCR1 immunoreactivity was present in the outer laminae and was colocalized with vesicular glutamate transporter 2 (VGlut2), but not calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) or isolectin B4 (IB4). Incubation of brainstem slices with XCL1 induced activation of c-Fos, ERK and p38 in the superficial layers of Vc, and enhanced levels of intrinsic excitability. These effects were blocked by the XCR1 antagonist viral CC chemokine macrophage inhibitory protein-II (vMIP-II). This study has identified for the first time a role for XCL1-XCR1 in nociceptive processing, demonstrating upregulation of XCR1 at nerve injury sites and identifying XCL1 as a modulator of central excitability and signaling via XCR1 in Vc, a key area for modulation of orofacial pain, thus indicating XCR1 as a potential target for novel analgesics. (C) 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of IBRO.

Development and function of conventional dendritic cell (cDC) subsets, cDC1 and cDC2, depend on transcription factors (TFs) IRF8 and IRF4, respectively. Since IRF8 and IRF4 can each interact with TF BATF3 at AP1-IRF composite elements (AICEs) and with TF PU.1 at Ets-IRF composite elements (EICEs), it is unclear how these factors exert divergent actions. Here, we determined the basis for distinct effects of IRF8 and IRF4 in cDC development. Genes expressed commonly by cDC1 and cDC2 used EICE-dependent enhancers that were redundantly activated by low amounts of either IRF4 or IRF8. By contrast, cDC1 -specific genes relied on AICE-dependent enhancers, which required high IRF concentrations, but were activated by either IRF4 or IRF8. IRF8 was specifically required only by a minority of cDC1 -specific genes, such as Xcr1, which could distinguish between IRF8 and IRF4 DNA-binding domains. Thus, these results explain how BATF3-dependent Irf8 autoactivation underlies emergence of the cDC1-specific transcriptional program.