Overall, these results suggest that mCRAMP also functions in the regulation of Th2 IL-4-producing cell differentiation. The role of mCRAMP during an antibody response

to TI and TD antigens has not been fully investigated. Since B cells express Camp/mCRAMP and Camp is rapidly upregulated following B-cell activation, the possibility exists that mCRAMP directly regulates B cells during an antibody response. Furthermore, since LPS induces class switching to IgG3 34 and IL-4 induces class switch recombination (CSR) to IgG1 and IgE 31, and IFN-γ induces CSR to IgG2a/2c 35, respectively, we hypothesized that mCRAMP mRNA upregulation during activation with these factors might affect the levels of specific antibody isotypes produced. Resting splenic B cells were sort-purified from WT and Camp−/− mice and activated in vitro in the presence of LPS, CD40L/IL-4, selleck compound AZD2014 in vitro and CD40L/IFN-γ. WT and Camp−/− B cells produce similar amounts of IgM (Fig. 3A) and IgG3 (Fig. 3B) in response to LPS stimulation, while CD40L/IFN-γ induced equivalent amounts of IgG2c (Fig. 3C). However, Camp−/− B cells produced significantly less IgG1 (Fig. 3D) and IgE (Fig. 3E) in response

to CD40L/IL-4 when compared with WT B cells. To determine whether mCRAMP directly mediated these effects in vitro and the optimal peptide concentration, mCRAMP peptide (1 ng/mL–1μg/mL) was added to Camp−/− B-cell cultures on day 0 with CD40L/IL-4 and the level of IgG1 was measured on day 5. The addition of mCRAMP resulted in a dose-dependent increase in IgG1 with an optimal concentration of 100 ng/mL (Fig. 3F). Camp−/− B cells cultures were repeated with the addition of 100 ng/mL of mCRAMP and the level of IgG2c (Fig. 3C) was unchanged while IgG1 (Fig. 3D) and IgE (Fig. 3E) returned to WT

levels. Overall, these results suggest that mCRAMP functions to positively regulate the level of antibody produced by B cells in an IL-4-dependent manner. The mechanism by which Camp−/− B cells produce less IgG1 in comparison to WT B cells could be explained by a number of factors including differences in proliferation, survival, and CSR. To determine the mechanism by which Camp−/− B cells produce less IgG1, resting B cells were sort-purified and activated with CD40L/IL-4 or LPS/IL-4. The total live CYTH4 B-cell number (Fig. 4A), the percentage of surface IgG1+ B cells (Fig. 4B), and the cell cycle analysis (data not shown) were determined, showing no difference between WT and Camp−/− B cells. ELISpot experiments were performed on day 5 B-cell cultures and spots were enumerated to determine the number of IgG1-secreting B cells. Total spot counts were equivalent between WT and Camp−/− B cells (Fig. 4C), suggesting that CSR is not affected. However, visual inspection of the spot size of WT B cells appeared larger than that of Camp−/− B cell spots. Total ASC spots were dissolved with DMSO and the absorbance was measured at 650 nm (Fig. 4D), showing a significant decrease in absorbance in the Camp−/− B cells.