Go to JCI Insight
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Alerts
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • By specialty
    • COVID-19
    • Cardiology
    • Gastroenterology
    • Immunology
    • Metabolism
    • Nephrology
    • Neuroscience
    • Oncology
    • Pulmonology
    • Vascular biology
    • All ...
  • Videos
    • Conversations with Giants in Medicine
    • Author's Takes
  • Reviews
    • View all reviews ...
    • Aging (Jul 2022)
    • Next-Generation Sequencing in Medicine (Jun 2022)
    • New Therapeutic Targets in Cardiovascular Diseases (Mar 2022)
    • Immunometabolism (Jan 2022)
    • Circadian Rhythm (Oct 2021)
    • Gut-Brain Axis (Jul 2021)
    • Tumor Microenvironment (Mar 2021)
    • View all review series ...
  • Viewpoint
  • Collections
    • In-Press Preview
    • Commentaries
    • Concise Communication
    • Editorials
    • Viewpoint
    • Top read articles
  • Clinical Medicine
  • JCI This Month
    • Current issue
    • Past issues

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Specialties
  • Reviews
  • Review series
  • Conversations with Giants in Medicine
  • Author's Takes
  • In-Press Preview
  • Commentaries
  • Concise Communication
  • Editorials
  • Viewpoint
  • Top read articles
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Alerts
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
Explanations for the clinical and microscopic localization of lesions in pemphigus foliaceus and vulgaris
My G. Mahoney, … , Masayuki Amagai, John R. Stanley
My G. Mahoney, … , Masayuki Amagai, John R. Stanley
Published February 15, 1999
Citation Information: J Clin Invest. 1999;103(4):461-468. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI5252.
View: Text | PDF
Article

Explanations for the clinical and microscopic localization of lesions in pemphigus foliaceus and vulgaris

  • Text
  • PDF
Abstract

Patients with pemphigus foliaceus (PF) have blisters on skin, but not mucous membranes, whereas patients with pemphigus vulgaris (PV) develop blisters on mucous membranes and/or skin. PF and PV blisters are due to loss of keratinocyte cell–cell adhesion in the superficial and deep epidermis, respectively. PF autoantibodies are directed against desmoglein (Dsg) 1; PV autoantibodies bind Dsg3 or both Dsg3 and Dsg1. In this study, we test the hypothesis that coexpression of Dsg1 and Dsg3 in keratinocytes protects against pathology due to antibody-induced dysfunction of either one alone. Using passive transfer of pemphigus IgG to normal and DSG3null neonatal mice, we show that in the areas of epidermis and mucous membrane that coexpress Dsg1 and Dsg3, antibodies against either desmoglein alone do not cause spontaneous blisters, but antibodies against both do. In areas (such as superficial epidermis of normal mice) where Dsg1 without Dsg3 is expressed, anti-Dsg1 antibodies alone can cause blisters. Thus, the anti-desmoglein antibody profiles in pemphigus sera and the normal tissue distributions of Dsg1 and Dsg3 determine the sites of blister formation. These studies suggest that pemphigus autoantibodies inhibit the adhesive function of desmoglein proteins, and demonstrate that either Dsg1 or Dsg3 alone is sufficient to maintain keratinocyte adhesion.

Authors

My G. Mahoney, Zhihong Wang, Kyle Rothenberger, Peter J. Koch, Masayuki Amagai, John R. Stanley

×

Full Text PDF | Download (588.23 KB)


Copyright © 2022 American Society for Clinical Investigation
ISSN: 0021-9738 (print), 1558-8238 (online)

Sign up for email alerts