Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38651368›Full record

ArticleEpigenomes2024

TNFR1 Absence Is Not Crucial for Different Types of Cell Reaction to TNF: A Study of the TNFR1-Knockout Cell Model.

Alina A Alshevskaya, Julia A Lopatnikova, Julia V Zhukova, Olga Y Perik-Zavodskaia, Saleh Alrhmoun, Irina A Obleukhova, Anna K Matveeva, Darya A Savenkova, Ilnaz R Imatdinov, Dmitry V Yudkin and 1 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epigenomes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 37% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Mechanisms of sepsis-induced acute liver injury: a comprehensive review.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Alina A AlshevskayaFederal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education I.M. Sechenov, First Moscow State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, 119435 Moscow, Russia.
Julia A LopatnikovaFederal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education I.M. Sechenov, First Moscow State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, 119435 Moscow, Russia.
Julia V ZhukovaFederal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education I.M. Sechenov, First Moscow State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, 119435 Moscow, Russia.ORCID 0000-0002-2287-0918
Olga Y Perik-ZavodskaiaFederal State Budgetary Scientific Institution, "Research Institute of Fundamental and Clinical Immunology" (RIFCI), 630099 Novosibirsk, Russia.ORCID 0000-0003-4911-1994
Saleh AlrhmounFederal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education I.M. Sechenov, First Moscow State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, 119435 Moscow, Russia.ORCID 0000-0003-0788-5385
Irina A ObleukhovaFederal State Budgetary Scientific Institution, "Research Institute of Fundamental and Clinical Immunology" (RIFCI), 630099 Novosibirsk, Russia.
Anna K MatveevaGenome Research Department, State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology "Vector", Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and Human Well-Being (FBRI SRC VB "Vector", Rospotrebnadzor), 630559 Koltsovo, Russia.ORCID 0009-0006-6509-1427
Darya A SavenkovaGenome Research Department, State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology "Vector", Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and Human Well-Being (FBRI SRC VB "Vector", Rospotrebnadzor), 630559 Koltsovo, Russia.ORCID 0009-0004-1335-6249
Ilnaz R ImatdinovGenome Research Department, State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology "Vector", Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and Human Well-Being (FBRI SRC VB "Vector", Rospotrebnadzor), 630559 Koltsovo, Russia.
Dmitry V YudkinGenome Research Department, State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology "Vector", Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and Human Well-Being (FBRI SRC VB "Vector", Rospotrebnadzor), 630559 Koltsovo, Russia.ORCID 0000-0002-8940-9173
Sergey V SennikovFederal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education I.M. Sechenov, First Moscow State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, 119435 Moscow, Russia.ORCID 0000-0002-7366-7768
Sechenov University · RUState Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology VECTOR · RUResearch Institute of Fundamental and Clinical Immunology · RU

Funding

Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation agreement number 075-15-2019-1665Unified State Accounting Information System research, development and technological work for civil purposes 122011800353-4
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOne of the mechanisms regulating the biological activity of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) in cells is the co-expression of TNFR1/TNFR2 receptors. A model with a differential level of receptor expression is required to evaluate the contribution of these mechanisms.

aimThe development of a cellular model to compare the effects of TNF on cells depending on the presence of both receptors and TNFR2 alone.

methodsTNFR1 absence modifications of ZR-75/1 and K-562 cell lines were obtained by TNFR1 knockout. The presence of deletions was confirmed by Sanger sequencing, and the absence of cell membrane receptor expression was confirmed by flow cytometry. The dose-dependent effect of TNF on intact and knockout cells was comparatively evaluated by the effect on the cell cycle, the type of cell death, and the profile of expressed genes.

resultsKnockout of TNFR1 resulted in a redistribution of TNFR2 receptors with an increased proportion of TNFR2+ cells in both lines and a multidirectional change in the density of expression in the lines (increased in K562 and decreased in ZR75/1). The presence of a large number of cells with high TNFR2 density in the absence of TNFR1 in the K562 cells was associated with greater sensitivity to TNF-stimulating doses and increased proliferation but did not result in a significant change in cell death parameters. A twofold increase in TNFR2+ cell distribution in this cell line at a reduced expression density in ZR75/1 cells was associated with a change in sensitivity to low cytokine concentrations in terms of proliferation; an overall increase in cell death, most pronounced at standard stimulating concentrations; and increased expression of the lymphocyte-activation gene groups, host-pathogen interaction, and innate immunity.

conclusionsThe absence of TNFR1 leads to different variants of compensatory redistribution of TNFR2 in cellular models, which affects the type of cell response and the threshold level of sensitivity. The directionality of cytokine action modulation and sensitivity to TNF levels depends not only on the fraction of cells expressing TNFR2 but also on the density of expression.

Indexed as

flow cytometrygene knockoutreceptor expression densityTNFR1TNFR2TNF receptors

Identifiers

PMID38651368
PMCPMC11036270
OpenAlexW4393899283

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.