Literature DB >> 26484252

Gene expression profiling of Gram-negative bacteria-induced inflammation in human whole blood: The role of complement and CD14-mediated innate immune response.

Corinna Lau1, Ole Kristoffer Olstad2, Marit Holden3, Ståle Nygård4, Hilde Fure1, Knut Tore Lappegård5, Ole-Lars Brekke6, Terje Espevik7, Eivind Hovig8, Tom Eirik Mollnes9.   

Abstract

Non-sterile pathogen-induced sepsis and sterile inflammation like in trauma or ischemia-reperfusion injury may both coincide with the life threatening systemic inflammatory response syndrome and multi-organ failure. Consequently, there is an urgent need for specific biomarkers in order to distinguish sepsis from sterile conditions. The overall aim of this study was to uncover putative sepsis biomarkers and biomarker pathways, as well as to test the efficacy of combined inhibition of innate immunity key players complement and Toll-like receptor co-receptor CD14 as a possible therapeutic regimen for sepsis. We performed whole blood gene expression analyses using microarray in order to profile Gram-negative bacteria-induced inflammatory responses in an ex vivo human whole blood model. The experiments were performed in the presence or absence of inhibitors of complement proteins (C3 and CD88 (C5a receptor 1)) and CD14, alone or in combination. In addition, we used blood from a C5-deficient donor. Anti-coagulated whole blood was challenged with heat-inactivated Escherichia coli for 2 h, total RNA was isolated and microarray analyses were performed on the Affymetrix GeneChip Gene 1.0 ST Array platform. The initial experiments were performed in duplicates using blood from two healthy donors. C5-deficiency is very rare, and only one donor could be recruited. In order to increase statistical power, a technical replicate of the C5-deficient samples was run. Subsequently, log2-transformed intensities were processed by robust multichip analysis and filtered using a threshold of four. In total, 73 microarray chips were run and analyzed. The normalized and filtered raw data have been deposited in NCBI's Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) and are accessible with GEO Series accession number GSE55537. Linear models for microarray data were applied to estimate fold changes between data sets and the respective multiple testing adjusted p-values (FDR q-values). The interpretation of the data has been published by Lau et al. in an open access article entitled "CD14 and Complement Crosstalk and Largely Mediate the Transcriptional Response to Escherichia coli in Human Whole Blood as revealed by DNA Microarray" (Lau et al., 2015).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Escherichia coli; Human whole blood; Inflammation; Innate immunity; Microarray

Year:  2015        PMID: 26484252      PMCID: PMC4583639          DOI: 10.1016/j.gdata.2015.05.019

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genom Data        ISSN: 2213-5960


Direct link to deposited data

The normalized and filtered log2-transformed intensities are available here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE55537.

Experimental design, materials and methods

Ex vivo model of Gram-negative bacteria-induced inflammation in human whole blood

Venous blood from two healthy control donors (Ctrl, Ctrl2) and one complement factor 5 (C5)-deficient individual (C5D) was drawn into sterile 5 mL cryo tube vials (Nunc, Roskilde, Denmark) (4 mL blood per vial) containing the highly specific thrombin inhibitor lepirudin (Refludan®, Pharmion, Copenhagen, Denmark) at a final concentration of 50 μg/mL. Subsequently, the fresh anti-coagulated blood samples were divided into 1.8 mL Nunc cryo tube vials containing complement- and CD14 inhibitors or inhibitor controls at final concentrations of 25 μM compstatin (Ac-I[CV(1MeW) QDWGAHRC]T) (kindly provided by Prof. John Lambris), 10 μM CD88 (C5aR1)-specific C5a receptor antagonist (C5aR antagonist) AvF[OPdChaWR] (kindly provided by Prof. John Lambris) and 50 μg/mL anti-human CD14 F(ab′)2 antibody fragment (clone 18D11) (Diatec AS, Oslo, Norway). As inhibitor control, a cocktail consisting of a control peptide (25 μM; kindly provided by Prof. John Lambris) and a control F(ab′)2 (50 μg/mL; clone BH1) (Diatec AS, Oslo, Norway) was used. After preincubation for 7 min at 37 °C on a heating block, 1 × 106/mL (day 1, D1) or 5 × 106/mL (day 2, D2) heat-inactivated Escherichia coli strain LE392 (ATCC 33572, Manassas, VA) or phosphate buffered saline (PBS) containing calcium and magnesium (Sigma, St. Louis, MO) were added, and incubation was proceeded for 120 min at 37 °C on a rock'n'roller. The ratio between the volumes for inhibitor, blood and activator per sample was 1:5:1. The inflammatory reaction was stopped by the addition of 10 mM EDTA (pH 8.0). Experiments with C5D blood were set up twice, one set was performed with C5D blood and the other with C5D blood reconstituted with 80 μg/mL purified recombinant human C5 (Quidel, San Diego, CA) (C5DR) prior to preincubation with inhibitors or PBS. Importantly, the Nunc cryo tube vials used here are not entirely biocompatible, which results in a weak bacteria-independent inflammatory response during the two-hour incubation. As a reference for this background activation, we included an additional unstimulated sample for both healthy blood donors (Ctrl, Ctrl2) and C5D, which was terminated at time point zero after preincubation (initial state, T0). The ex vivo model of inflammation, project-specific modifications and a detailed description of the blood donors have been published earlier [1], [2], [3]. The blood donors were adult male (Ctrl2) and female (Ctrl and C5D) Scandinavians, of whom two (Ctrl2 and C5D) displayed functionally equivalent genetic deficiencies in mannose binding lectin (MBL). MBL is involved in the lectin pathway of complement activation. Genetic variations in the MBL2 gene are very frequent, and their clinical manifestations are debated. In our model, MBL deficiency had no impact on the inflammatory responses tested earlier [2].

Sample preparation for microarray analysis

Immediately after termination of the whole blood model experiments, 3 mL 1 × nucleic acid purification lysis buffer (Life Technologies, Applied Biosystems™, Foster City, CA, USA; PN4305895) were added per 2 mL sample. Total RNA isolation was performed batch-wise with 16 to 18 samples per plate following the standard procedure for ABI PRISM™ 6100 Nucleic Acid PrepStation using Applied Biosystems AB6100™ total RNA chemistry. Total RNA was recovered in 150 μL nucleic acid purification elution solution (Applied Biosystems™; PN4305893) per well. For further purification, the RNA was precipitated overnight at − 70 °C in the presence of 2.5 volumes ethanol (96%) and 10% 3 M sodium acetate, before it was washed in 70% ethanol, air-dried and recovered in 60 μL elution solution. Subsequently, RNA quality was approved using a 2100 Bioanalyzer (Agilent) and RNA concentration was determined using a Nanodrop system (Thermo). The average RNA integrity number was estimated to be 8.8, and the average RNA yield was 2.2 μg per mL venous blood.

DNA microarray analysis

The total experimental setup involved three independent main series (Ctrls, C5D, C5DR) consisting of four or two biological replicates per series (two Ctrls × two days; one C5D × two days; one C5DR × two days) and seven experimental conditions per replicate (PBS, E. coli, E. coli + inhibitors of C3 and CD14, alone or in combination, inhibitor of C5aR1, or inhibitor controls). In addition to three initial state controls (one for each individual: Ctrl, Ctrl2, C5D), this gave rise to a total of 59 samples. Due to repeated microarray analysis (technical replicate) of all D1 samples containing C5D or C5DR blood, a total of 73 arrays were run and data sets are available (for a summarized overview see Table 1).
Table 1

List of microarray data sets generated by this study.

GEO sample IDSample titleCEL fileProtocolScan date
GSM1338877C5DR_anti-CD14 + Compstatin_D110_C5_D1.CELC5 deficient, C5-reconstituted, 1 × E06/mL E.coli, combined C3 and CD14 inhibition, 120 min, day1, replicate 16/5/2010
GSM1338878C5DR_anti-CD14 + Compstatin_D1_No210_C5_D1_Nr2.CELC5 deficient, C5-reconstituted, 1 × E06/mL E.coli, combined C3 and CD14 inhibition, 120 min, day 1, replicate 26/3/2010
GSM1338879C5DR_anti-CD14 + Compstatin_D210_C5_D2.CELC5 deficient, C5-reconstituted, 5 × E06/mL E.coli, combined C3 and CD14 inhibition, 120 min, day 25/13/2010
GSM1338859C5D_C5aR antagonist_D111_C5_D1.CELC5 deficient, 1 × E06/mL E.coli, C5aR-inhibition, 120 min, day 1, replicate 16/5/2010
GSM1338860C5D_C5aR antagonist_D1_No211_C5_D1_Nr2.CELC5 deficient, 1 × E06/mL E.coli, C5aR-inhibition, 120 min, day 1, replicate 26/3/2010
GSM1338861C5D_C5aR antagonist_D211_C5_D2.CELC5 deficient, 5 × E06/mL E.coli, C5aR-inhibition, 120 min, day 25/13/2010
GSM1338880C5DR_C5aR antagonist_D112_C5_D1.CELC5 deficient, C5-reconstituted, 1 × E06/mL E.coli, C5aR-inhibition, 120 min, day 1, replicate 16/5/2010
GSM1338881C5DR_C5aR antagonist_D1_No212_C5_D1_Nr2.CELC5 deficient, C5-reconstituted, 1 × E06/mL E.coli, C5aR-inhibition, 120 min, day 1, replicate 26/3/2010
GSM1338882C5DR_C5aR antagonist_D212_C5_D2.CELC5 deficient, C5-reconstituted, 5 × E06/mL E.coli, C5aR-inhibition, 120 min, day 25/13/2010
GSM1338862C5D_inhibitor ctrl_D113_C5_D1.CELC5 deficient, 1 × E06/mL E.coli, inhibitor controls, 120 min, day 1, replicate 16/5/2010
GSM1338883C5DR_inhibitor ctrl_D114_C5_D1.CELC5 deficient, C5-reconstituted, 1 × E06/mL E.coli, inhibitor controls, 120 min, day 1, replicate 16/5/2010
GSM1338863C5D_inhibitor ctrl_D1_No215_C5_D1_Nr2.CELC5 deficient, 1 × E06/mL E.coli, inhibitor controls, 120 min, day 1, replicate 26/3/2010
GSM1338864C5D_inhibitor ctrl_D215_C5_D2.CELC5 deficient, 5 × E06/mL E.coli, inhibitor controls, 120 min, day 25/13/2010
GSM1338884C5DR_inhibitor ctrl_D1_No216_C5_D1_Nr2.CELC5 deficient, C5-reconstituted, 1 × E06/mL E.coli, inhibitor controls, 120 min, day 1, replicate 26/3/2010
GSM1338885C5DR_inhibitor ctrl_D216_C5_D2.CELC5 deficient, C5-reconstituted, 5 × E06/mL E.coli, inhibitor controls, 120 min, day 25/13/2010
GSM1338816ctrl2_PBS_D117_C2_D1.CELHealthy donor 2, PBS, 120 min, day 15/20/2010
GSM1338817ctrl2_PBS_D217_C2_D2.CELHealthy donor 2, PBS, 120 min, day 25/28/2010
GSM1338818ctrl_PBS_D117_C5_D1.CELHealthy donor 1, PBS, 120 min, day 15/20/2010
GSM1338819ctrl_PBS_D217_C5_D2.CELHealthy donor 1, PBS, 120 min, day 25/28/2010
GSM1338820ctrl2_E.coli_D118_C2_D1.CELHealthy donor 2, 1 × E06/mL E.coli, uninhibited, 120 min, day 15/20/2010
GSM1338821ctrl2_E.coli_D218_C2_D2.CELHealthy donor 2, 5 × E06/mL E.coli, uninhibited, 120 min, day 25/28/2010
GSM1338822ctrl_E.coli_D118_C5_D1.CELHealthy donor 1, 1 × E06/mL E.coli, uninhibited, 120 min, day 15/20/2010
GSM1338823ctrl_E.coli_D218_C5_D2.CELHealthy donor 1, 5 × E06/mL E.coli, uninhibited, 120 min, day 25/28/2010
GSM1338824ctrl2_Compstatin_D119_C2_D1.CELHealthy donor 2, 1 × E06/mL E.coli, C3-inhibition, 120 min, day 15/20/2010
GSM1338825ctrl2_Compstatin_D219_C2_D2.CELHealthy donor 2, 5 × E06/mL E.coli, C3-inhibition, 120 min, day 25/28/2010
GSM1338826ctrl_Compstatin_D119_C5_D1.CELHealthy donor 1, 1 × E06/mL E.coli, C3-inhibition, 120 min, day 15/20/2010
GSM1338827ctrl_Compstatin_D219_C5_D2.CELHealthy donor 1, 5 × E06/mL E.coli, C3-inhibition, 120 min, day 25/28/2010
GSM1338844C5D_PBS_D11_C5_D1.CELC5 deficient, PBS, 120 min, day 1, replicate 16/5/2010
GSM1338845C5D_PBS_D1_No21_C5_D1_Nr2.CELC5 deficient, PBS, 120 min, day 1, replicate 26/3/2010
GSM1338846C5D_PBS_D21_C5_D2.CELC5 deficient, PBS, 120 min, day 25/13/2010
GSM1338828ctrl2_anti-CD14_D120_C2_D1.CELHealthy donor 2, 1 × E06/mL E.coli, CD14-inhibition, 120 min, day 15/20/2010
GSM1338829ctrl2_anti-CD14_D220_C2_D2.CELHealthy donor 2, 5 × E06/mL E.coli, CD14-inhibition, 120 min, day 25/28/2010
GSM1338830ctrl_anti-CD14_D120_C5_D1.CELHealthy donor 1, 1 × E06/mL E.coli, CD14-inhibition, 120 min, day 15/20/2010
GSM1338831ctrl_anti-CD14_D220_C5_D2.CELHealthy donor 1, 5 × E06/mL E.coli, CD14-inhibition, 120 min, day 25/28/2010
GSM1338832ctrl2_anti-CD14 + Compstatin_D121_C2_D1.CELHealthy donor 2, 1 × E06/mL E.coli, combined C3 and CD14 inhibition, 120 min, day 15/20/2010
GSM1338833ctrl2_anti-CD14 + Compstatin_D221_C2_D2.CELHealthy donor 2, 5 × E06/mL E.coli, combined C3 and CD14 inhibition, 120 min, day 25/28/2010
GSM1338834ctrl_anti-CD14 + Compstatin_D121_C5_D1.CELHealthy donor 1, 1 × E06/mL E.coli, combined C3 and CD14 inhibition, 120 min, day 15/20/2010
GSM1338835ctrl_anti-CD14 + Compstatin_D221_C5_D2.CELHealthy donor 1, 5 × E06/mL E.coli, combined C3 and CD14 inhibition, 120 min, day 25/28/2010
GSM1338836ctrl2_C5aR antagonist_D122_C2_D1.CELHealthy donor 2, 1 × E06/mL E.coli, C5aR-inhibition, 120 min, day 15/20/2010
GSM1338837ctrl2_C5aR antagonist_D222_C2_D2.CELHealthy donor 2, 5 × E06/mL E.coli, C5aR-inhibition, 120 min, day 25/28/2010
GSM1338838ctrl_C5aR antagonist_D122_C5_D1.CELHealthy donor 1, 1 × E06/mL E.coli, C5aR-inhibition, 120 min, day 15/20/2010
GSM1338839ctrl_C5aR antagonist_D222_C5_D2.CELHealthy donor 1, 5 × E06/mL E.coli, C5aR-inhibition, 120 min, day 25/28/2010
GSM1338840ctrl2_inhibitor ctrl_D124_C2_D1.CELHealthy donor 2, 1 × E06/mL E.coli, inhibitor controls, 120 min, day 15/20/2010
GSM1338841ctrl2_inhibitor ctrl_D224_C2_D2.CELHealthy donor 2, 5 × E06/mL E.coli, inhibitor controls, 120 min, day 25/28/2010
GSM1338842ctrl_inhibitor ctrl_D124_C5_D1.CELHealthy donor 1, 1 × E06/mL E.coli, inhibitor controls, 120 min, day 15/20/2010
GSM1338843ctrl_inhibitor ctrl_D224_C5_D2.CELHealthy donor 1, 5 × E06/mL E.coli, inhibitor controls, 120 min, day 25/28/2010
GSM1338865C5DR_PBS_D12_C5_D1.CELC5 deficient, C5-reconstituted, PBS, 120 min, day 1, replicate 16/5/2010
GSM1338866C5DR_PBS_D1_No22_C5_D1_Nr2.CELC5 deficient, C5-reconstituted, PBS, 120 min, day 1, replicate 26/3/2010
GSM1338867C5DR_PBS_D22_C5_D2.CELC5 deficient, C5-reconstituted, PBS, 120 min, day 25/13/2010
GSM1338847C5D_E.coli_D13_C5_D1.CELC5 deficient, 1 × E06/mL E.coli, uninhibited, 120 min, day 1, replicate 16/5/2010
GSM1338848C5D_E.coli_D1_No23_C5_D1_Nr2.CELC5 deficient, 1 × E06/mL E.coli, uninhibited, 120 min, day 1, replicate 26/3/2010
GSM1338849C5D_E.coli_D23_C5_D2.CELC5 deficient, 5 × E06/mL E.coli, uninhibited, 120 min, day 25/13/2010
GSM1338868C5DR_E.coli_D14_C5_D1.CELC5 deficient, C5-reconstituted, 1 × E06/mL E.coli, uninhibited, 120 min, day 1, replicate 16/5/2010
GSM1338869C5DR_E.coli_D1_No24_C5_D1_Nr2.CELC5 deficient, C5-reconstituted, 1 × E06/mL E.coli, uninhibited, 120 min, day 1, replicate 26/3/2010
GSM1338870C5DR_E.coli_D24_C5_D2.CELC5 deficient, C5-reconstituted, 5 × E06/mL E.coli, uninhibited, 120 min, day 25/13/2010
GSM1338850C5D_Compstatin_D15_C5_D1.CELC5 deficient, 1 × E06/mL E.coli, C3-inhibition, 120 min, day 1, replicate 16/5/2010
GSM1338851C5D_Compstatin_D1_No25_C5_D1_Nr2.CELC5 deficient, 1 × E06/mL E.coli, C3-inhibition, 120 min, day 1, replicate 26/3/2010
GSM1338852C5D_Compstatin_D25_C5_D2.CELC5 deficient, 5 × E06/mL E.coli, C3-inhibition, 120 min, day 25/13/2010
GSM1338871C5DR_Compstatin_D16_C5_D1.CELC5 deficient, C5-reconstituted, 1 × E06/mL E.coli, C3-inhibition, 120 min, day 1, replicate 16/3/2010
GSM1338872C5DR_Compstatin_D1_No26_C5_D1_Nr2.CELC5 deficient, C5-reconstituted, 1 × E06/mL E.coli, C3-inhibition, 120 min, day 1, replicate 26/3/2010
GSM1338873C5DR_Compstatin_D26_C5_D2.CELC5 deficient, C5-reconstituted, 5 × E06/mL E.coli, C3-inhibition, 120 min, day 25/13/2010
GSM1338853C5D_anti-CD14_D17_C5_D1.CELC5 deficient, 1 × E06/mL E.coli, CD14-inhibition, 120 min, day 1, replicate 16/5/2010
GSM1338854C5D_anti-CD14_D1_No27_C5_D1_Nr2.CELC5 deficient, 1 × E06/mL E.coli, CD14-inhibition, 120 min, day 1, replicate 26/3/2010
GSM1338855C5D_anti-CD14_D27_C5_D2.CELC5 deficient, 5 × E06/mL E.coli, CD14-inhibition, 120 min, day 25/13/2010
GSM1338874C5DR_anti-CD14_D18_C5_D1.CELC5 deficient, C5-reconstituted, 1 × E06/mL E.coli, CD14-inhibition, 120 min, day 1, replicate 16/5/2010
GSM1338875C5DR_anti-CD14_D1_No28_C5_D1_Nr2.CELC5 deficient, C5-reconstituted, 1 × E06/mL E.coli, CD14-inhibition, 120 min, day 1, replicate 26/3/2010
GSM1338876C5DR_anti-CD14_D28_C5_D2.CELC5 deficient, C5-reconstituted, 5 × E06/mL E.coli, CD14-inhibition, 120 min, day 25/13/2010
GSM1338856C5D_anti-CD14 + Compstatin_D19_C5_D1.CELC5 deficient, 1 × E06/mL E.coli, combined C3 and CD14 inhibition, 120 min, day 1, replicate 16/5/2010
GSM1338857C5D_anti-CD14 + Compstatin_D1_No29_C5_D1_Nr2.CELC5 deficient, 1 × E06/mL E.coli, combined C3 and CD14 inhibition, 120 min, day 1, replicate 26/3/2010
GSM1338858C5D_anti-CD14 + Compstatin_D29_C5_D2.CELC5 deficient, 5 × E06/mL E.coli, combined C3 and CD14 inhibition, 120 min, day 25/13/2010
GSM1338886ctrl2_T0_D2K2_T0_Dag2.CELHealthy donor 2, PBS, 0 min, day 25/28/2010
GSM1338887ctrl_T0_D2K5_T0_Dag2.CELHealthy donor 1, PBS, 0 min, day 25/28/2010
GSM1338888C5D_T0_D2T0_Dag1_C5_D2.CELC5 deficient, PBS, 0 min, day 25/13/2010
For microarray analysis, 150 ng total RNA of each sample, in concentrations of minimum 50 ng/μL, was subjected to cDNA synthesis and amplification followed by in vitro transcription, clean-up and labeling using Affymetrix® GeneChip® Whole Transcript (WT) Sense Target Labelling Assay (Manual: P/N701880 Rev.4). cDNA was hybridized with arrays of the GeneChip Gene 1.0 ST Array (Affymetrix) platform (Gene Expression Omnibus platform ID: GPL6244). Staining and washing of the arrays was performed using the GeneChip Hybridization, Wash and Stain Kit (Affymetrix; P/N 900720) on the Fluidics Station 450 using protocol FS450_0007. For technical replicates of all day 1 samples of C5D and C5DR the here described procedure was performed in duplicates, starting with the same total RNA. Scanned images of the arrays were processed using AGCC (Affymetrix GeneChip Command Console) software. For further analysis, the Affymetrix CEL files (containing probe intensities) were imported into the Partek Genomics Suite software (Partek, Inc. MO, USA). Expression data were normalized, background corrected and summarized yielding normalized, log2-transformed signal intensities using the Robust Multichip Analysis (RMA) algorithm implemented in Partek Genomic Suit software. Finally, the intensities were filtered using a threshold of log2 intensity = 4. The normalized and filtered log2 intensities of all passed transcripts (n = 19,695) have been used for downstream statistical analyses and deposited in NCBI's Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) and are accessible with GEO Series accession number GSE55537 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE55537).

Microarray quality control analyses

RMA normalized, unfiltered log2 intensities of all individual arrays (n = 73) were displayed in an intensity graph, which indicated consistency within the entire data set as well as limited technical variation between scan dates (Fig. 1). The same data were subjected to principle component analysis (PCA) using Partek Genomics Suite software. Most of the experimental and technical replicate arrays for the different experimental conditions clustered together in the PCA 3D scatter plots (Fig. 2A–C), indicating high reproducibility of (i) the samples, despite of the use of unmatched control donors and different E. coli concentrations, and (ii) the hybridization protocol. PCA plots were generated for the three series independently. Further, Pearson's correlation analyses were performed using normalized and filtered log2 intensities. The Pearson correlation coefficients (r) for each pair of arrays ranged from 0.88 to 0.99 and reflected the overall consistency, also of the filtered data set (Fig. 3).
Fig. 1

The intensity graph shows RMA normalized, unfiltered log2 intensities for all 73 arrays. The arrays were scanned in batches on five different days. Arrays which were scanned at the same day are highlighted in the same color. See Table 1 for a detailed overview of the arrays and their scan dates.

Fig. 2

Principal component analysis (PCA) 3D scatter plots were generated for all 73 arrays contained by the three series healthy blood donors (Ctrls) (A), C5-deficient (C5D) blood (B), and C5-reconstituted C5-deficient (C5DR) blood (C). Colors indicate experimental conditions, while symbols indicate replicates from day 1 (D1, circle) and day 2 (D2, rectangle). The replicates are either biological (two healthy blood donors, Ctrl and Ctrl2) (A) or technical (duplicate microarray analyses of D1 samples) (B and C). See Table 1 for a detailed overview of the arrays. #Ctrl2 samples, *potential outlier array (GSM1338836; ctrl2_C5aR antagonist_D1), **T0 sample of Ctrl 2 (GSM1338886), ***T0 sample of Ctrl (GSM1338887), ****T0 sample of C5D (GSM1338888).

Fig. 3

Pearson correlation coefficients (r) were estimated for each pair of arrays using the RMA normalized, filtered log2 intensities of the 19,695 passed transcripts and all 73 arrays. The arrays are arranged according to the three series healthy donors (Ctrls), C5-deficient (C5D) and C5-reconstituted C5-deficient (C5DR). Arrays are indicated with their GEO depository sample IDs. See Table 1 for a detailed overview of the arrays. The heat map was generated using the heatmap.2 function in library gplots (http://cran.r-project.org/package=gplots). A histogram of r values is shown, with the density of arrays with respective r values indicated as a blue line. *Potential outlier array (GSM1338836; ctrl2_C5aR antagonist_D1), **T0 sample of Ctrl 2 (GSM1338886), ***T0 sample of Ctrl (GSM1338887), ****T0 sample of C5D (GSM1338888).

The PCA plots revealed donor-specific clustering of arrays for Ctrls (Fig. 2A), which needed to be considered for downstream statistical analyses. Arrays for C5D (Fig. 2B) and C5DR (Fig. 2C) could be found in two separated clusters, where one of them contained the arrays of the CD14-inhibited response (anti-CD14), combined inhibited response (anti-CD14 + compstatin) and background activation (PBS), only. The same clustering was observed for Ctrls, when only a limited number of genes (n = 7786) was included according to an ANOVA, which removed the noise from non-significant differences (FDR q-value ≥ 0.1) between experimental conditions (not shown). This observation is in agreement with the high efficacy of the combined inhibitory strategy in our model and the increased importance of CD14 in C5D compared to Ctrls [1]. Both, PCA and Pearson's correlation analysis revealed that the three initial state control samples taken at time point zero (T0; GSM1338886, GSM1338887, GSM1338888) as well as one single array of Ctrl2 (ctrl2_C5aR antagonist_D1; GSM1338836) correlated the least with any other array. However, all correlation coefficients were still high (r ≥ 0.88), and none of the data sets were excluded. The low correlation of the initial state controls is likely due to (i) the lack of intrinsic activation in the samples taken at time point zero as compared to background levels at the end of the experiment, and (ii) the fact that those samples were kept for 2 h on ice prior to lysis, compared to immediate lysis of the remaining samples. Notably, good correlation was observed between the three T0 data sets (Fig. 3). No replicates were performed, here. The transcript intensities of the single outlier array (GSM1338836) correlated rather well with those of the three replicate samples (GSM1338837, GSM1338838, GSM1338839) as well as of the six samples from C5D and C5DR containing the same inhibitor (GSM1338859, GSM1338860, GSM1338861, GSM1338880, GSM1338881, GSM1338882) (Fig. 3). The validity of the microarray data was proven by qPCR performed on selected genes using the same RNA material [1].

Downstream statistical analyses

For interpretation of the results, which have been published elsewhere [1], the normalized and filtered log2 intensities of the 19,695 passed transcripts and for all 73 arrays were subjected to downstream statistical analyses using linear models for microarray data (Limma Bioconductor) [4], [5]. To correct for multiple testing, FDR q-values were computed from the p-values using the Benjamini–Hochberg method for controlling the false discovery rate (FDR) [6]. Genes with FDR q-values below 0.05 were considered to be significantly differentially expressed. Statistical significance was determined for differential expression in (i) uninhibited (presence of E. coli) vs. background activation (absence of E. coli), and (ii) inhibited (presence of E. coli and inhibitors of C3 and CD14, alone or in combination, inhibitor of C5aR1, or inhibitor controls) vs. uninhibited activation for each of the three series (Ctrls, C5D, C5DR). Also, these data were compared across series (Ctrls vs. C5D, Ctrls vs. C5DR, and C5D vs. C5DR). For the two healthy donors (Ctrl and Ctrl2), fold change expression estimates (log2FC) for each replicate were combined as follows. The estimates of day 1 (D1) and day 2 (D2) were pooled for each donor before the mean of both pools was calculated. For C5D or C5DR, fold change estimates were calculated from the pooled data of the technical replicates of D1 and from the data of D2, before the mean of both estimates was calculated. The technical replicate, which substituted for the lack of a biological one for C5D and C5DR, contributed to higher correlation between data sets compared to data sets from healthy donors, and thus to a higher statistical significance. Of the 19,695 transcripts included in the analysis, 2335 had an FDR q-value below 0.05 for the uninhibited E. coli response vs. background activation in healthy controls, and were designated E. coli-responsive genes (ERGs). For all final analyses only the data sets for ERGs were tested for statistical significance. For detailed tests of combined inhibitory versus single inhibitory effects, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied [1].

Study design control analyses

The replicate combination strategy for healthy controls was based on the observation that the inflammatory response was more dependent on the donor (male MBL defect versus female MBL sufficient) than on variations in E. coli concentrations used here. No significant E. coli concentration-dependent changes were found for healthy controls (FDR q-value < 0.05), when pooled fold change data for uninhibited vs. background activation of D1 (1 × 106/mL) were compared to those of D2 (5 × 106/mL). In contrast, a reasonable but low number of responses were significantly donor-dependent, when uninhibited (n = 94) or combined C3/CD14 inhibited (n = 96) E. coli responses were compared between healthy donors (Fig. 4A). Background activation was more donor-dependent, with roughly 42% (n = 992) of all ERGs being differentially affected between the two healthy controls (Fig. 4A). However, only 10% (n = 95 = 41 + 15 + 39) of these genes were also donor-dependent in the presence of E. coli, either with or without combined inhibition, which were the most important experimental conditions tested in this study. In our study, these observed donor-dependent differences could be due to various factors including age and sex. Also, we cannot exclude that MBL deficiency affects the inflammatory response on the transcriptional level, although we have not seen alterations in functional read-outs [2].
Fig. 4

Venn diagrams based on Limma-derived gene lists containing statistical significant fold changes (FDR q-value < 0.05) for the indicated comparisons for the 2335 E. coli-responsive genes (ERGs). Numbers of ERGs with significant changes are displayed within circles while numbers of the remaining ERGs with non-significant changes are displayed in the lower right corner. A, Log2 intensities of the 2335 ERGs contained by healthy control-specific (Ctrl or Ctrl2) CEL files for uninhibited E. coli response (E. coli) or initial state time point zero (T0) were compared to those for background activation in absence of E. coli (PBS) for each healthy control alone. In the same way, combined C3 and CD14 inhibition was compared to uninhibited response. Afterwards, significant differences were established between the two control donors for the three comparisons entitled uninhibited, background activation, and C3/CD14 inhib. B, ERG log2 intensities contained by all healthy control (Ctrls) CEL files for inhibitor controls (inhibitor ctrl) and combined C3 and CD14 inhibition (anti-CD14 + Compstatin) were compared to those for the uninhibited response (E. coli). Afterwards, significant differences were established between the results of these analyses (C3/CD14 Inhib vs. Inhib ctrl). C and D, ERG log2 intensities contained by CEL files for the uninhibited response (E. coli) were compared to those for background activation (PBS) for healthy donors (Ctrls), C5-deficient (C5D) and C5-reconstituted C5-deficient (C5DR), separately. Afterwards, significant differences were established between Ctrls and C5DR (C; Ctrls vs. C5DR) and C5D and C5DR (D; C5D vs. C5DR). See Table 1 for a detailed overview of the arrays and their CEL files.

Further, we controlled for non-specific effects induced by the administration of inhibitor molecules per se. Combined inhibition of C3 and CD14 led to significant differential expression of 1687 ERGs compared to the uninhibited response (Fig. 4B). Administration of the inhibitor control cocktail affected only 84 ERGs, most of which (n = 53) had significantly different effects than combined inhibition. Care must be taken when interpreting the results for the remaining 18 transcripts. Here, combined inhibition and control inhibition had almost indistinguishable effects, which were, however, rather minor (below two-fold compared to uninhibited) (not shown). C5-reconstitution of C5D had earlier been shown by Lappegård et al. to fully restore C5-dependent functions like monocyte tissue factor and CD11b expression, phagocytosis and oxidative burst [2]. Importantly, C5-reconstitution of C5-deficient blood (C5DR) was functionally sufficient also on the gene expression level. C5DR resembled healthy donor samples (Ctrls) more than C5D when significant differences in gene expression between C5DR and Ctrls or C5D were estimated. For example, for the uninhibited response to E. coli, 60 and 336 ERGs responded significantly different in Ctrls compared to C5DR and C5D compared to C5DR, respectively (Fig. 4C and D).

Discussion

The here described comprehensive set of microarray data allows for (i) studying gene expression in the inflammatory response to Gram-negative bacteria induced in an ex vivo human whole blood model, (ii) characterization of the role of innate immunity key components, i.e., complement and CD14, and (iii) identification of potential sepsis markers. Applying statistical analyses with multiple testing, we detected a reasonable large number of significant differences with interpretable fold changes. We found 2335 (12%) of all included 19,695 transcripts to respond significantly to treatment with E. coli in healthy donor blood, with 362 responding more than two-fold compared to untreated. Of the 2335 transcripts, 72% were affected by combined inhibition of C3 and CD14, which was the most efficient inhibition strategy tested. Using blood of a C5-deficient individual, either C5-reconstituted (C5DR) or not (C5D), shed light on the C5-dependency of the transcriptional response and the role of CD14 in another innate immunity key component-deficient background. Importantly, C5 deficiency is very rare. At the time point of the present study, the here involved C5-deficient individual was the only one known in Norway. Despite a limited number of donors, three to four replicate data sets of each experimental condition were generated for three independent series (healthy donor, C5D, and C5DR) in order to strengthen the downstream statistical analyses. We suggest our general observations to be representative and indicative for subsequent studies. However, since transcriptional responses can in fact be donor-dependent, the general value for effects on single genes should be further tested by including more healthy donors. Microarray analysis is a high throughput approach, allowing for the study of more than 20,000 transcripts in various conditions, as long as high quality RNA can be retrieved. The here presented RNA profile reflects the reprogramming of blood cells in response to bacterial challenge. However, the response to such acute insults occurs not only on the level of transcription. On the contrary, the extension of the present study into the fields of more instant posttranscriptional and, most importantly, epigenetic regulations would further contribute to the overall understanding of innate immunity in systemic inflammation, either sterile or bacteria-induced.
Specifications
Organism/cell line/tissueHuman whole blood (from healthy blood donors and a C5-deficient patient)
SexMale and female
Sequencer or array typeAffymetrix Human Gene 1.0 ST Array (GEO platform GPL6244)
Data formatNormalized log2-transformed signal intensities (CEL files)
Experimental factorsStimulation (120 min, 37 °C) with heat-inactivated Escherichia coli strain LE392 versus PBS in presence or absence of inhibitors of C3, CD14, and C5aR1 (CD88)
Experimental featuresEx vivo human whole blood model of inflammation followed by whole blood RNA isolation and microarray analysis (including cDNA synthesis). Signal values (SV) from all chips were log-transformed (log2), normalized using Robust Multichip Analysis, and filtered using a threshold of log2SV = 4.
ConsentA written informed consent was obtained from all blood donors before participation. The study protocol was approved by the Regional Ethical Committee (REC) of the Northern and South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authorities.
Sample source locationBodø, Norway
  5 in total

1.  Linear models and empirical bayes methods for assessing differential expression in microarray experiments.

Authors:  Gordon K Smyth
Journal:  Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol       Date:  2004-02-12

2.  Essential role of the C5a receptor in E coli-induced oxidative burst and phagocytosis revealed by a novel lepirudin-based human whole blood model of inflammation.

Authors:  Tom Eirik Mollnes; Ole-Lars Brekke; Michael Fung; Hilde Fure; Dorte Christiansen; Grethe Bergseth; Vibeke Videm; Knut Tore Lappegård; Jörg Köhl; John D Lambris
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2002-09-01       Impact factor: 22.113

3.  Human genetic deficiencies reveal the roles of complement in the inflammatory network: lessons from nature.

Authors:  Knut Tore Lappegård; Dorte Christiansen; Anne Pharo; Ebbe Billmann Thorgersen; Bernt Christian Hellerud; Julie Lindstad; Erik Waage Nielsen; Grethe Bergseth; Dag Fadnes; Tore G Abrahamsen; E Arne Høiby; Lone Schejbel; Peter Garred; John D Lambris; Morten Harboe; Tom Eirik Mollnes
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2009-08-26       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Bioconductor: open software development for computational biology and bioinformatics.

Authors:  Robert C Gentleman; Vincent J Carey; Douglas M Bates; Ben Bolstad; Marcel Dettling; Sandrine Dudoit; Byron Ellis; Laurent Gautier; Yongchao Ge; Jeff Gentry; Kurt Hornik; Torsten Hothorn; Wolfgang Huber; Stefano Iacus; Rafael Irizarry; Friedrich Leisch; Cheng Li; Martin Maechler; Anthony J Rossini; Gunther Sawitzki; Colin Smith; Gordon Smyth; Luke Tierney; Jean Y H Yang; Jianhua Zhang
Journal:  Genome Biol       Date:  2004-09-15       Impact factor: 13.583

5.  CD14 and complement crosstalk and largely mediate the transcriptional response to Escherichia coli in human whole blood as revealed by DNA microarray.

Authors:  Corinna Lau; Ståle Nygård; Hilde Fure; Ole Kristoffer Olstad; Marit Holden; Knut Tore Lappegård; Ole-Lars Brekke; Terje Espevik; Eivind Hovig; Tom Eirik Mollnes
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-02-23       Impact factor: 3.240

  5 in total
  2 in total

Review 1.  Resolving Clinical Phenotypes into Endotypes in Allergy: Molecular and Omics Approaches.

Authors:  Tesfaye B Mersha; Yashira Afanador; Elisabet Johansson; Steven P Proper; Jonathan A Bernstein; Marc E Rothenberg; Gurjit K Khurana Hershey
Journal:  Clin Rev Allergy Immunol       Date:  2021-04       Impact factor: 8.667

2.  miRNA targeted signaling pathway in the early stage of denervated fast and slow muscle atrophy.

Authors:  Gang Li; Qing-Shan Li; Wen-Bin Li; Jian Wei; Wen-Kai Chang; Zhi Chen; Hu-Yun Qiao; Ying-Wei Jia; Jiang-Hua Tian; Bing-Sheng Liang
Journal:  Neural Regen Res       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 5.135

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.