| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. |
Record Nr. |
UNINA9910136799903321 |
|
|
Titolo |
Endoplasmic reticulcum and its role in tumor immunity [[electronic resource] /] / edited by: Paul Eggleton, Marek Michalak and Edwin Bremer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pubbl/distr/stampa |
|
|
Frontiers Media SA, 2016 |
|
[Lausanne, Italy] : , : Frontiers Media SA, , 2016 |
|
©2016 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Descrizione fisica |
|
1 online resource (101 pages) : illustrations; digital, PDF file(s) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collana |
|
Frontiers Research Topics |
Frontiers in Oncology |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disciplina |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Soggetti |
|
Endoplasmic reticulum |
Tumors - Immunological aspects |
Immunology |
Oncology |
Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lingua di pubblicazione |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Formato |
Materiale a stampa |
|
|
|
|
|
Livello bibliografico |
Monografia |
|
|
|
|
|
Nota di bibliografia |
|
Includes bibliographical references. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sommario/riassunto |
|
The endoplasmic reticulum (ER) is an organelle crucial to many cellular functions and processes, including the mounting of T-cell immune responses. Indeed, the ER has a well-established central role in anti-tumor immunity. Perhaps best characterized is the role of the ER in the processing of antigen peptides and the subsequent peptide assembly into MHC class I and II molecules. Such MHC/tumor-derived peptide complexes are pivotal for the correct recognition of altered self or viral peptides and the subsequent clonal expansion of tumor-reactive T-cells. In line with the role of the ER in immunity, tumor-associated mutations in ER proteins, as well as ER protein content and localization can have both deleterious and advantageous effects on anti-tumor immune responses. For instance, loss of function of ER-aminopeptidases, that trim peptides to size for MHC, alter the MHC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
class I - peptide repertoire thereby critically and negatively affecting T-cell recognition. On the other hand, altered localization of ER proteins can have immune-promoting effects. Specifically, translocation of certain ER proteins to the cell surface has been shown to promote anti-tumor T-cell immunity by directing uptake of apoptotic tumor cells to professional antigen presenting cells, thereby facilitating anti-tumor T-cell immunity. These selected examples highlight a diverse and multi-faceted role of the ER in anti-tumor immunity. Molecular biological insights from the past decade have uncovered that ER components may affect tumor immunity and have invoked a variety of follow-up questions. For instance, how and why are ER proteins over-expressed in tumors? How do nucleotide and somatic mutations in ER chaperones/processing machinery affect the MHC/peptide complex and tumor cell immunogenicity? How do ER-proteins translocate to the cell surface? What if any is the potential role of extracellular ER protein in tumor immunotherapy/vaccines, and can they be delivered to the tumor cell surface by photodynamic therapy, anthracyclines or by other means? In this special research topics issue, we welcome basic and clinical research reports covering all aspects of ER proteins in cancer recognition by the immune system, therapy and drug development. We also welcome reports describing new insights into ER stress, signalling and homeostasis in immunogenic cell death in cancer, the effect of parasitic ER proteins on tumour growth, ER protein regulation of angiogenesis. Submission of original research articles, perspective, reviews and topical comments is encouraged. We aim to provide a comprehensive series of articles that will aid our understanding in a new and exiting avenue of tumour immunology and therapeutic development, exploiting a collection of proteins within the ER that are not obvious candidates for immunity to tumors. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. |
Record Nr. |
UNICAMPANIAVAN0124366 |
|
|
Titolo |
Usa |
|
|
|
|
|
Pubbl/distr/stampa |
|
|
London, : Butterworths, 1994 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ISBN |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Descrizione fisica |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lingua di pubblicazione |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Formato |
Materiale a stampa |
|
|
|
|
|
Livello bibliografico |
Monografia |
|
|
|
|
|
3. |
Record Nr. |
UNINA9910781169303321 |
|
|
Titolo |
Language usage and language structure [[electronic resource] /] / edited by Kasper Boye, Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pubbl/distr/stampa |
|
|
New York, NY, : Mouton de Gruyter, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ISBN |
|
1-282-71481-3 |
9786612714818 |
3-11-021918-2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Descrizione fisica |
|
1 online resource (368 p.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collana |
|
Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs ; ; 213 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Classificazione |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Altri autori (Persone) |
|
BoyeKasper <1972-> |
Engberg-PedersenElisabeth <1952-> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disciplina |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Soggetti |
|
Structural linguistics |
Language and languages - Usage |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lingua di pubblicazione |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Formato |
Materiale a stampa |
|
|
|
|
|
Livello bibliografico |
Monografia |
|
|
|
|
|
Note generali |
|
Description based upon print version of record. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nota di bibliografia |
|
Includes bibliographical references and index. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nota di contenuto |
|
Frontmatter -- Table of Contents -- Introduction -- Usage and structure: The case of clausal complementation -- What conversational English tells us about the nature of grammar:A critique of Thompson's analysis of object complements -- Usage, structure, scientific explanation, and the role of abstraction, by linguists and by language |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
users -- Raising verbs and auxiliaries in a functional theory of grammatical status -- The rise of structure -- How not to disagree: The emergence of structure from usage -- Paradigmatic structure in a usage-based theory of grammaticalisation -- Where do simple clauses come from? -- Structure, usage and variation -- Alternative agreement controllers in Danish: Usage or structure? -- Schmidt redux: How systematic is the linguistic system if variation is rampant? -- More tiles on the roof: Further thoughts on incremental language production -- Reconciling structure and usage: On the advantages of a dynamic, dialogic conception of the linguistic sign -- Methodology -- Ten unwarranted assumptions in syntactic argumentation -- Backmatter |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sommario/riassunto |
|
During most of the 20th century, the classical Saussurean distinction between language usage and language structure remained untranscendable in much linguistic theory. The dominant view, propagated in particular by generative grammar, was that there are structural facts and usage facts, and that in principle the former are independent of, and can be described in complete isolation from, the latter. With the appearance of functional-cognitive approaches on the scene, this view has been challenged. The view of structure as usage-based has had two consequences that make time ripe for a focused study of the interaction between usage and structure. Within the generative camp it has inspired a more explicit and precise description of the status of usage. Within the functional-cognitive camp it has blurred the status of structure. Perhaps because functionalists and cognitivists have had to position themselves in relation to generative grammar, some have emphasized the role of usage facts to the extent that structure is largely ignored. Accounts of language usage, language acquisition and language change are impossible without an assumption about what it is that is being used, acquired, or subjected to change. And more moderate functionalists and cognitive functionalists recognize both structural facts and usage facts as genuine facts central to the understanding of language. Still, the linguistic literature that shares this position does not abound with explicit, precise characterizations of the relationship between usage and structure. The present volume brings together scholars from different theoretical positions to address theoretical and methodological aspects of the relation between language usage and structure. The contributors differ with respect to how they conceive of this relation and, more basically, with respect to how they conceive of linguistic structure. What they have in common, however, is that they recognize structure and usage as non-reducible linguistic phenomena and take seriously the challenge to describe the relation between them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |