| Literature DB >> 25528552 |
Le Wang1, Kamila Rosamilia Kantovitz2,3, Andrew Robert Cullinane4, Francisco Humberto Nociti5,6, Brian Lee Foster7, Joseph Concepcion Roney8, Anne Bich Tran9, Wendy Jewell Introne10, Martha Joan Somerman11.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chediak-Higashi Syndrome (CHS) is a rare autosomal recessive disease characterized by immunodeficiency, oculocutaneous albinism, neurological dysfunction, and early death. Individuals with CHS present with increased susceptibility to infections of the skin, upper-respiratory tract, gastrointestinal tract, and oral tissues. Classical CHS is caused by mutations in the gene encoding lysosomal trafficking regulator (LYST). Although defects in cytotoxic T cell lytic secretory granule secretion and neutrophil phagocytosis are suggested to contribute to the immunodeficiency in CHS, the underlying molecular mechanisms are unknown. We hypothesized that skin fibroblasts from CHS subjects exhibit impaired immune response due to defective trafficking of inflammatory factors. METHODS ANDEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25528552 PMCID: PMC4296684 DOI: 10.1186/s13023-014-0212-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Orphanet J Rare Dis ISSN: 1750-1172 Impact factor: 4.123
Genotypes of the CHS patients
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||
|
| Classic | c.1540C > T; p.R514X (exon 5) | c.9893delT; p.F3298fsX3304 (exon 43) | Nonsense/Frameshift |
|
| Classic | c.4322_4325delAGAG;p.E1441VfsX11 (exon 12) | c.4353G > A; p.W1451X (exon12) | Frameshift/Nonsense |
|
| Classic | c.10883dupA; p.Y3628X (exon 49) | c.10883dupA; p.Y3628X (exon 49) | Nonsense/Nonsense |
Real-time PCR primer sequences
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
| NM_000576.2 | TACCTGTCCTGCGTGTGAA | TCTTTGGGTAATTTTTGGGATCT |
|
| NM_000600.3 | GATGAGTACAAAAGTCCTGATCCA | CTGCAGCCACTGGTTCTGT |
|
| NM_000963.2 | CTTCACGCATCAGTTTTTCAAG | TCACCGTAAATATGATTTAAGTCCAC |
|
| NM_003264.3 | CGTTCTCTCAGGTGACTGCTC | CCTTTGGATCCTGCTTGC |
|
| NM_003265.2 | AGAGTTGTCATCGAATCAAATTAAAG | AATCTTCCAATTGCGTAAAA |
|
| NM_138557.2 | CCTGCGTGAGACCAGAAAG | TTCAGCTCCATGCATTGATAA |
|
| NM_002046.4 | AGCCACATCGCTCAGACAC | GCCCAATACGACCAAATCC |
Figure 1Immune activity is hyperactive in CHS skin fibroblasts at baseline. A. The differences in the expression of genes encoding 84 inflammation-related factors between CHS cells and control cells (Ctrl) at baseline are shown volcano plot. Y-axis shows the values of minus Log10 (p-value) and X-axis shows the values of Log2 (fold change of CHS vs. control). Red circles fall to the right of the red line represent genes increases more than 2-fold and green circles fall to the left of the green line represents genes decreases more than 2 fold. Circles above the blue line represent genes with changes of statistically significantly differences (p < 0.05 by t-test). Three genes, TLR-1, IL-1R1 and CD14 (listed in Table 3) are significantly (p < 0.05) down-regulated with 2 to 3 fold changes. RT-qPCR data reveals that compared to control cells at baseline: B. Expression of genes encoding TLR-2 and −4 are down-regulated in CHS cells at baseline; C. TLR-3 gene expression is enhanced in CHS cells at baseline. D. Expression of genes encoding IL1β and IL-6 are up-regulated in CHS cells at baseline; E. COX-2 gene expression is up-regulated in CHS cells at baseline. Experiments were done twice, in triplicate, with comparable results. Statistically differences were accessed by a student’s t test (*p < 0.05 and **p < 0.01).
Gene expression profile of untreated CHS cells compared to untreated control cells
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
| Toll-like receptor 1 | −3.25 | 0.00 |
|
| CD14 molecule | −3.14 | 0.01 |
|
| Interleukin 1 receptor, type I | −2.19 | 0.02 |
|
| Toll-like receptor 2 | −8.04 | 0.06 |
|
| Toll-like receptor 4 | −4.37 | 0.15 |
|
| Interleukin 6 | 2.50 | 0.18 |
|
| Interleukin 1β | 9.21 | 0.30 |
|
| Toll-like receptor 3 | 4.03 | 0.31 |
Note: Table 3 corresponds to the volcano plot of Figure 1A. Genes above the dotted line have altered expression in CHS cells with statistical significance (p < 0.05); Genes below the dotted line were evaluated by RT-qPCR.
Summary of correlation between expression of indicated genes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| n/a | r = +0.882; p < 0.05 | r = +0.857; p < 0.05 | r = +0.978; p < 0.001 | n.s. |
|
| # | n/a | n.s. | r = +0.884; p < 0.05 | r = −0.911; p < 0.05 |
|
| # | n.s. | n/a | r = +0.829; p < 0.05 | r = −0.821; p < 0.05 |
|
| # | # | # | n/a | r = −0.831; p < 0.05 |
Note: 1. TLR-2 gene expression is not significantly correlated with any of the genes shown in the table. 2. Correlation analysis was performed by Pearson product moment correlation co-efficient analyses. Pearson r represents the correlation coefficiency where 1 is total positive correlation, 0 is no correlation, and −1 is total negative correlation. The significance is indicated by p value with two-tailed 95% confidence. n/a: not available; n.s.: not significant. #: redundant.
Figure 2Skin fibroblasts from individuals with CHS exhibit a hyposensitive immune response when challenged with LPS. The differences in the expression of genes encoding 84 inflammation-related factors are shown via volcano plots (A-C). Y-axis shows the values of minus Log10 (p-value) and X-axis shows the values of Log2 (Fold change of CHS vs. control). Red circles fall to the right of the red line represent genes increases more than 2-fold and green circles fall to the left of the green line represents genes decreases more than 2 fold. Circles above the blue line represent genes with changes of statistically significantly differences (p < 0.05 by t-test). A. Expression of genes encoding inflammation-related factors are repressed significantly in LPS-treated CHS cells compared to LPS-treated control (Ctrl) cells (shown in Table 5). B. Only 8 genes (shown in Table 6) are up-regulated significantly in LPS treated CHS cells compared to untreated CHS cells. C. 28 genes (shown in Table 7) are up-regulated significantly in LPS-treated control cells compared to untreated control cells. D. RT-qPCR data reveals that when normalized to their respective untreated cells, LPS-treated CHS cells exhibit significantly lower expression of genes encoding IL-6, IL-1β and COX-2 compared to LPS-treated control cells. E. IL-6 expression in cell culture media evaluated by ELISA shows that IL-6 is significantly lower in culture media of CHS cells treated with or without LPS. Experiments were done twice, in triplicate, with comparable results. Statistically differences were accessed by a student’s t test in panel D (**p < 0.01 and ***p < 0.001) and by one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post hoc test in panel E (*p < 0.05).
Gene expression profile of LPS-treated CHS cells compared to LPS-treated control cells
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
| Toll-like receptor 2 | −30.20 | 0.02 |
|
| Interleukin 1, alpha | −7.85 | 0.01 |
|
| Lymphotoxin beta (TNF superfamily, member 3) | −5.80 | 0.02 |
|
| Interleukin 23, alpha subunit p19 | −5.67 | 0.01 |
|
| Toll-like receptor 4 | −4.03 | 0.01 |
|
| Chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 7 | −3.78 | 0.00 |
|
| Chemokine (C-X-C motif) ligand 3 | −3.66 | 0.02 |
|
| Chemokine (C-X-C motif) receptor 2 | −3.55 | 0.02 |
|
| Toll-like receptor 1 | −3.31 | 0.01 |
|
| Interleukin 15 | −3.23 | 0.00 |
|
| Chemokine (C-C motif) receptor 1 | −2.91 | 0.03 |
|
| Interleukin 18 | −2.49 | 0.00 |
|
| Interleukin 10 | −2.20 | 0.05 |
|
| Interleukin 1 receptor, type I | −2.02 | 0.01 |
|
|
|
|
|
Note: Table 5 corresponds to the volcano plot of Figure 2A. * LY96, also known as MD-2, was the only gene significantly up-regulated in LPS treated CHS cells.
Gene expression profile of LPS-treated CHS cells compared to untreated CHS cells
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
| Chemokine (C-X-C motif) ligand 2 | 75.76 | 0.04 |
|
| Chemokine (C-X-C motif) ligand 1 (melanoma growth stimulating activity, alpha) | 68.75 | 0.03 |
|
| Interleukin 8 | 68.59 | 0.03 |
|
| Chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 7 | 17.88 | 0.00 |
|
| Interleukin 1, alpha | 13.09 | 0.00 |
|
| Chemokine (C-X-C motif) ligand 6 | 11.50 | 0.01 |
|
| Chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 4 | 7.53 | 0.00 |
|
| Complement component 3a receptor 1 | 2.45 | 0.03 |
Note: Table 6 corresponds to the volcano plot in Figure 2B.
Gene expression profile of LPS-treated control cells compared to untreated control cells
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
| Chemokine (C-X-C motif) ligand 3 | 2048.00 | 0.00 |
|
| Chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 5 | 1722.16 | 0.01 |
|
| Tumor necrosis factor | 1652.00 | 0.02 |
|
| Interleukin 1, beta | 1573.76 | 0.00 |
|
| Interleukin 8 | 658.63 | 0.00 |
|
| Chemokine (C-X-C motif) ligand 2 | 633.27 | 0.00 |
|
| Chemokine (C-X-C motif) ligand 1 (melanoma growth stimulating activity, alpha) | 557.70 | 0.00 |
|
| Interleukin 6 (interferon, beta 2) | 450.90 | 0.01 |
|
| Selectin E | 257.78 | 0.02 |
|
| Prostaglandin-endoperoxide synthase 2 (prostaglandin G/H synthase and cyclooxygenase) | 206.98 | 0.01 |
|
| Chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 2 | 197.18 | 0.00 |
|
| Interleukin 1, alpha | 141.04 | 0.00 |
|
| Interleukin 23, alpha subunit p19 | 61.53 | 0.00 |
|
| Chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 7 | 36.50 | 0.00 |
|
| Receptor-interacting serine-threonine kinase 2 | 10.78 | 0.00 |
|
| Nuclear factor of kappa light polypeptide gene enhancer in B-cells 1 | 9.32 | 0.00 |
|
| Lymphotoxin beta (TNF superfamily, member 3) | 7.82 | 0.01 |
|
| Chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 13 | 7.26 | 0.01 |
|
| Interleukin 15 | 6.74 | 0.00 |
|
| Toll-like receptor 2 | 6.02 | 0.03 |
|
| Colony stimulating factor 1 (macrophage) | 5.76 | 0.00 |
|
| Toll-like receptor 7 | 3.20 | 0.05 |
|
| Interleukin 10 | 3.20 | 0.00 |
|
| B-cell CLL/lymphoma 6 | 3.13 | 0.00 |
|
| Toll-like receptor 4 | 2.81 | 0.00 |
|
| CD40 molecule, TNF receptor superfamily member 5 | 2.53 | 0.00 |
|
| Interleukin 1 | 2.39 | 0.03 |
|
| Toll-like receptor 3 | 2.36 | 0.03 |
Note: Table 7 corresponds to the volcano plot of Figure 2C.
Figure 3Skin fibroblasts from individuals with CHS exhibit diminished protein expression of TLR-2 and −4. A-B. Representative microscopy images of fibroblasts from control and a CHS patient stained for TLR-2 and TLR-4. A. The protein expression of TLR-2 on the plasma membrane in CHS cells is clearly reduced compared to control cells (b vs. a). Staining in permeabilized cells shows that there is still very little signal seen in CHS patient cells, suggesting that TLR-2 is being mis-trafficked and degraded in these cells (f-h). In control cells there is co-localization of TLR-2 and Rab11a shown as yellow in the merged image (c-e). B. Similar to TLR-2, the amount of TLR-4 on the plasma membrane in CHS cells is significantly reduced compared to control cells (j vs. i). Staining in permeabilized cells shows that there is a noticeable reduction in signal in CHS cells (n). In control cells there is co-localization of TLR-4 and Rab11a (m), but very little co-localization can be seen in CHS cells (p). Inserts are enlarged images of area inside dashed boxes. Scale bar represents 20 mm. C-F. Quantitative analysis of Western blot result shows the expression of TLR-4 and −2 of cells, treated with or without LPS. Experiments were done twice, in triplicate, with comparable results. Statistically differences were accessed by one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post hoc test in panel E (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 and ***p < 0.001).