Literature DB >> 28623956

Differential protein expression in chicken macrophages and heterophils in vivo following infection with Salmonella Enteritidis.

Zuzana Sekelova1, Hana Stepanova1, Ondrej Polansky1, Karolina Varmuzova1, Marcela Faldynova1, Radek Fedr2,3, Ivan Rychlik4, Lenka Vlasatikova1.   

Abstract

In this study we compared the proteomes of macrophages and heterophils isolated from the spleen 4 days after intravenous infection of chickens with Salmonella Enteritidis. Heterophils were characterized by expression of MMP9, MRP126, LECT2, CATHL1, CATHL2, CATHL3, LYG2, LYZ and RSFR. Macrophages specifically expressed receptor proteins, e.g. MRC1L, LRP1, LGALS1, LRPAP1 and a DMBT1L. Following infection, heterophils decreased ALB and FN1, and released MMP9 to enable their translocation to the site of infection. In addition, the endoplasmic reticulum proteins increased in heterophils which resulted in the release of granular proteins. Since transcription of genes encoding granular proteins did not decrease, these genes remained continuously transcribed and translated even after initial degranulation. Macrophages increased amounts of fatty acid elongation pathway proteins, lysosomal and phagosomal proteins. Macrophages were less responsive to acute infection than heterophils and an increase in proteins like CATHL1, CATHL2, RSFR, LECT2 and GAL1 in the absence of any change in their expression at RNA level could even be explained by capturing these proteins from the external environment into which these could have been released by heterophils.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28623956      PMCID: PMC5473982          DOI: 10.1186/s13567-017-0439-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vet Res        ISSN: 0928-4249            Impact factor:   3.683


Introduction

Macrophages and heterophils represent professional phagocytes acting as effectors and modulators of innate immunity as well as orchestrators of adaptive immunity [1]. Heterophils, the avian counterparts of mammalian neutrophils, belong among the first responders to bacterial infections and sensing of pathogen associated molecular patterns (PAMPs) stimulates heterophils for phagocytosis as well as release of bactericidal proteins stored in heterophil granules into the extracellular environment [2]. In agreement with their general function in host protection against pathogens, heterophils play a crucial role in the protection of chickens against Salmonella infection and chickens with heterophil depletion are not protected against colonization of systemic sites [3-5]. However, although there are several reports on specific heterophil functions during infection of chickens with Salmonella enterica, their genome-wide response to infection has not been characterized so far. Macrophages are professional phagocytes responsible for the destruction and clearance of pathogens. When activated, macrophages increase their antibacterial activity by the expression of antimicrobial peptides like cathepsins B, C, D and S, avidin, ferritin or ovotransferrin [6], and production of NO radicals from arginine by inducible NO synthase. The antimicrobial proteins expressed by macrophages are commonly produced also by heterophils though it is not known to what extent these may differ in their immediate availability and total amount produced by both cell types. Macrophages can also regulate the immune response by the expression of cytokines e.g. IL1β, IL6, IL8, IL18 or LITAF [7] and are capable of antigen presentation [8-10]. However, similar to heterophils, an unbiased report on total proteome expressed by chicken macrophages is absent. In our previous study we showed that heterophils and macrophages increase in the spleen of chickens when intravenously infected with Salmonella Enteritidis (S. Enteritidis) [7]. Next we characterized the gene expression at the tissue level in the whole spleen and expression of selected transcripts was tested in sorted leukocyte subpopulations [6]. However, none of this provided general data on the protein expression in chicken heterophils and macrophages. Although intravenous infection of chickens only partially represents specific Salmonellachicken interactions which are mixed up with a general response to bacteremia caused by Gram negative bacterium, this way of infection represents a model for the understanding heterophil and macrophage functions during early response to infection. In the current study we therefore isolated heterophils and macrophages from chicken spleens by fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS), purified proteins from these cells and identified them by mass spectrometry. This allowed us to (1) characterize the total proteome of heterophils and macrophages, (2) define proteins which exhibited differential abundance in chicken heterophils compared to macrophages and (3) identify proteins that changed in abundance following the intravenous infection with S. Enteritidis in either of these populations. Since we also included a group of chickens which was vaccinated prior to challenge, we also addressed whether there are any proteins specifically expressed by the macrophages or heterophils from the vaccinated chickens. Using this approach we identified over one hundred proteins characteristic of either chicken heterophils or macrophages which allowed us to further refine their function in chickens.

Materials and methods

Ethics statement

The handling of animals in this study was performed in accordance with current Czech legislation (Animal protection and welfare Act No. 246/1992 Coll. of the Government of the Czech Republic). The specific experiments were approved by the Ethics Committee of the Veterinary Research Institute (permit number 5/2013) followed by the Committee for Animal Welfare of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic (permit number MZe 1480).

Bacterial strains and chicken line

Newly hatched ISA Brown chickens from an egg laying line (Hendrix Genetics, Netherlands) were used in this study. Chickens were reared in perforated plastic boxes with free access to water and feed and each experimental or control group was kept in a separate room. The chickens were vaccinated with S. Enteritidis mutant completely lacking Salmonella pathogenicity island 1 (SPI-1) constructed as described earlier [11] and infected with isogenic wild type S. Enteritidis 147 spontaneously resistant to nalidixic acid. The strains were grown in LB broth at 37 °C for 18 h followed by pelleting bacteria at 10 000 × g for 1 min and re-suspending the pellet in the same volume of PBS as was the original volume of LB broth.

Experimental infection

There were 3 groups of chickens. Six chickens from the control group were sacrificed on day 48 of life. An additional 6 chickens (group 2) were infected intravenously with 107 CFU of wild type S. Enteritidis in 0.1 mL PBS on day 44 of life. The last 6 chickens (group 3) were orally vaccinated on day 1, revaccinated on day 21 of life with 107 CFU of S. Enteritidis SPI-1 mutant in 0.1 mL of inoculum and challenged intravenously with 107 CFU of wild type S. Enteritidis on day 44 of life. Intravenous mode of infection was used mainly to stimulate macrophage and heterophil response rather than to model natural infection of chickens with S. Enteritidis. All chickens in groups 2 and 3 were sacrificed 4 days post infection, i.e. when aged 48 days. The spleens from the chickens from all three groups were collected into PBS during necropsy. To confirm S. Enteritidis infection, approximately 0.5 g of liver tissue was homogenised in 5 mL of peptone water, tenfold serially diluted and plated in XLD agar, as described previously [11].

Collecting heterophil and macrophage subpopulations by flow cytometry

The cell suspensions were prepared by pressing the spleen tissue through a fine nylon mesh followed by 2 washes with 30 mL of cold PBS. After the last washing step, the splenic leukocytes were re-suspended in 1 mL of PBS and used for surface marker staining. In total 108 of cells were incubated for 20 min with anti-monocyte/macrophage:FITC (clone KUL01 from Southern Biotech) and CD45:APC (clone LT40 from Southern Biotech), followed by wash with PBS. Monocytes/macrophages (CD45+KUL01+) and heterophils (identified based on FSC/SSC characteristics within CD45+ cells) were sorted using a FACSFusion flow cytometer operated by FACSDiva software (BD Biosciences). Only for simplicity, the monocytes/macrophages population will be called as “macrophage (Ma)” in the rest of this paper. Sorted cells were collected in PBS and immediately processed as described below. A small aliquot from each sample was subjected to immediate purity analysis. The purity of macrophages was 88.6 ± 5.3% and of heterophils 88.1 ± 4.2% when counting cell of expected staining, and FSC and SSC parameters out of all particles. When we gated at the area with live cells, the purity of macrophages and heterophils was between 97 and 98%. Majority of contaminants therefore represented cellular debris and only around 2.5% of contaminants were formed by non-target cells.

Protein and RNA isolation from sorted cells, reverse transcription of mRNA and quantitative real time PCR (qPCR)

Sorted leukocyte subpopulations were lysed in 500 µL of Tri Reagent (MRC) for parallel isolation of RNA and proteins. Upon addition of 4-bromoanisole and 15 min centrifugation at 14 000 × g, proteins were precipitated with acetone from the lower organic phase. RNA present in upper aqueous phase was further purified using RNeasy purification columns according to the instructions of the manufacturer (Qiagen). The concentration of RNA was determined spectrophotometrically (Nanodrop, Thermo Scientific) and 1 µg of RNA was immediately reverse transcribed into cDNA using MuMLV reverse transcriptase (Invitrogen) and oligo dT primers. After reverse transcription, the cDNA was diluted 10 times with sterile water and stored at −20 °C prior qPCR. qPCR was performed in 3 µL volumes in 384-well microplates using QuantiTect SYBR Green PCR Master Mix (Qiagen) and a Nanodrop pipetting station from Innovadyne for PCR mix dispensing following MIQE recommendations [12]. Amplification of PCR products and signal detection were performed using a LightCycler II (Roche) with an initial denaturation at 95 °C for 15 min followed by 40 cycles of 95 °C for 20 s, 60 °C for 30 s and 72 °C for 30 s, followed by the determination of melting temperature of resulting PCR products to exclude false positive amplification. Each sample was subjected to qPCR in duplicate and the mean values of the Cq values of genes of interest were normalized (ΔCt) to an average Cq value of three reference genes (GAPDH, TBP and UB). The relative expression of each gene of interest was finally calculated as 2−ΔCq. Statistical analysis using a two sample t test for means equality was performed when comparing levels of mRNA expression between chicken groups and results with p value ≤ 0.05 were considered as significantly different in expression. Sequence of reference genes GAPDH, TBP and UB have been published elsewhere [13, 14]. Sequences of all newly designed primers used in this study including their location within different exons and sizes of PCR products are listed in Additional file 1.

Sample preparation for LC–MS/MS analysis

Precipitated proteins were washed with acetone and dried. The pellets were dissolved in 300 µL of 8 M urea and processed by the filter aided sample preparation method [15] using Vivacon 10 kDa MWCO filter (Sartorius Stedim Biotech). Proteins were washed twice with 100 µL of 8 M urea and reduced by 100 µL of 10 mM DTT. After reduction, proteins were incubated with 100 µL of 50 mM IAA and washed twice with 100 µL of 25 mM TEAB. Trypsin (Promega) was used at 1:50 ratio (w/w) and the digestion proceeded for 16 h at 30 °C. For comparative analysis, peptide concentration was determined spectrophotometrically (Nanodrop, Thermo Scientific) and samples from the same group of chickens were pooled. Pooled samples were then labelled using the stable isotope dimethyl labelling protocol as described previously [16]. Labeled samples were mixed and 3 subfractions were prepared using Oasis MCX Extraction Cartridges (Waters). The samples were desalted on SPE C18 Extraction Cartridges (Empore) and concentrated in a SpeedVac (Thermo Scientific) prior to LC–MS/MS.

LC–MS/MS analysis

Protein samples were analysed on LC–MS/MS system using an UltiMate 3000 RSLCnano liquid chromatograph (Dionex) connected to LTQ-Orbitrap Velos Pro mass spectrometer (Thermo Scientific). Chromatographic separation was performed on EASY-Spray C18 separation column (25 cm × 75 µm, 3 µm particles, Thermo Scientific) with 2 h long (label free) or 3 h long (label based) 3–36% acetonitrile gradient. High resolution (30 000 FWHM at 400 m/z) MS spectra were acquired for the 390–1700 m/z interval in an Orbitrap analyser with an AGC target value of 1 × 106 ions and maximal injection time of 100 ms. Low resolution MS/MS spectra were acquired in Linear Ion Trap in a data-dependent manner and the top 10 precursors exceeding a threshold of 10 000 counts and having a charge state of +2 or +3 were isolated within a 2 Da window and fragmented using CID.

Data processing, protein identification and quantification

Raw data were analysed using the Proteome Discoverer (v.1.4). MS/MS spectra identification was performed by SEQUEST using the Gallus gallus protein sequences obtained from Uniprot database. Precursor and fragment mass tolerance were 10 ppm and 0.6 Da, respectively. Carbamidomethylation (C) and oxidation (M) were set as static and dynamic modifications, respectively. Dimethylation (N-term and K) was set as static modification in the label-based analysis. Only peptides with a false discovery rate FDR ≤ 5% were used for protein identification. Spectral counting, the protocol in which abundance of a protein is expressed as the total number of tandem mass spectra matching its peptides (peptide spectrum matches, PSM), was used for comparative label-free analysis of heterophil and macrophage proteomes [17]. For a general comparison of protein abundance between heterophils and macrophages, PSMs belonging to a particular protein from all three groups of chickens, i.e. 18 samples, were summed up. The identification of at least two distinct peptides belonging to the particular protein and the threshold of at least 5 PSMs in at least one sample was required for its reliable identification [18, 19]. All data were normalized to the total number of PSMs in individual samples. Statistical analysis using a t test was performed and the proteins with p value ≤ 0.05 and with at least four fold differences in its amounts were considered as significantly different in their abundance between the subpopulations. In the label-based quantification, only unique peptide sequences with at least 20 PSMs were considered for peptide ratio calculations. Subsequent analysis of label-based data was performed in R (https://www.R-project.org). For each protein, its individual peptide ratios were log2 transformed, mean values were calculated and tested with a one sample t test. Benjamini-Hochberg correction for multiple testing was then applied to the obtained p values. Only proteins having ≥ twofold change and adjusted p value ≤ 0.05 were considered as being significantly different in abundance.

Bioinformatic analysis

Protein interaction networks were built using the online database resource Search Tool for the Retrieval of Interacting Genes (STRING). Proteins were further analyzed using Gene Ontology (GO) database and the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) for their classification into specific pathways. PCA plots were calculated and created in R (https://www.R-project.org).

Results

S. Enteritidis infection

Intravenous S. Enteritidis infection resulted in a high colonization of systemic sites. Average log10 S. Enteritidis counts were 5.03 ± 0.54 and 3.06 ± 0.99 CFU/g of liver in the infected chickens and the vaccinated and infected chickens, respectively. Despite this, no fatalities were observed among infected chickens. No S. Enteritidis was detected in any of the control non-infected chickens.

Identification of heterophil and macrophage specific proteins

Proteins specific for chicken heterophils or macrophages were determined irrespective whether these were obtained from the infected or non-infected chickens. Altogether, 858 proteins from heterophils and 1032 proteins from macrophages were detected. Out of these, 654 proteins were expressed both in heterophils and macrophages. Two-hundred and eight proteins were detected in macrophages only and an additional 126 proteins were 4 times or more abundant in macrophages than in heterophils. On the other hand, 34 proteins were detected in heterophils only and an additional 44 proteins were 4 times or more abundant in heterophils than in macrophages (Additional file 2).

Proteins characteristic for heterophils

Out of 78 proteins characteristic for heterophils (Additional file 2), 20 with the highest PSM difference between heterophils and macrophages are listed in Table 1. These included MRP126, LECT2, CATHL1, CATHL2, CATHL3, LYG2, LYZ and RSFR proteins, all with antibacterial functions. STOM and RAB27A proteins controlling storage and release of granular proteins in neutrophils also belonged among the characteristic and highly expressed proteins in heterophils. Two serine protease inhibitors, SERPINB10 and SERPINB1, were also found among the 20 most characteristic heterophil proteins (Table 1). Only a single KEGG pathway was specifically enriched in heterophils and this was the starch and sucrose metabolism pathway comprising PYGL, PGM1 and PGM2 proteins (p = 1.7E−4). Despite the KEGG pathway designation, all these proteins represent enzymes involved in glycogen metabolism [20].
Table 1

Twenty most characteristic proteins of heterophils (Het) compared to macrophages (Ma)

Acc. no.Protein nameGene ID∆PSMa Fold ratio Het:MaResponse to the infectionFunction
P28318MRP126, calprotectinMRP12671709.07NoCalcium and zinc binding
P08940Myeloid protein 1LECT255326.32DecreaseChemotactic factor for Het
P02789OvotransferrinOTFB23514.87DecreaseIron binding, immune response
O73790Heterochromatin-associated protein MENTSERPINB1017606.00NoDNA condensation, cysteine protease inhibitor
E1C0K1Extracellular fatty acid-binding proteinExFABP17424.94NoFatty acid and bacterial siderophores binding
F1NG13Transglutaminase 3TGM3157219.94NoTransglutaminase
Q2IAL7Cathelicidin 2CATHL214027.49DecreaseAntimicrobial peptide
P27042Lysozyme GLYG29894.57DecreaseAntimicrobial peptide
Q2IAL6Cathelicidin 3CATHL39365.37NoAntimicrobial peptide
P00698Lysozyme CLYZ8395.17DecreaseAntimicrobial peptide
Q6QLQ5Cathelicidin 1CATHL18334.62DecreaseAntimicrobial peptide
E1BTH1Leukocyte elastase inhibitorSERPINB1627Only HetDecreaseProtection against own proteases
F1P284Leukotriene A(4) hydrolaseLTA4H6035.78DecreaseEpoxide hydrolase and aminopeptidase
F1NGT3Matrix metallopeptidase 9MMP9600Only HetDecreaseDegradation of the extracellular matrix
F2Z4L6Serum albuminALB5574.79DecreasePlasma carrier
P30374Ribonuclease homologRSFR5486.89DecreaseLysosomal cysteine protease
R9PXN7Hematopoietic prostaglandin D synthaseHPGDS50417.79NoCytosolic glutathione S-transferases
E1BTV1StomatinSTOM50223.82NoIntegral membrane protein
D2D3P4Rab27aRab27a43588.08NoSmall GTPase, exocytosis
R4GI24Integrin alpha-DITGAD3797.73NoAdhesion of leukocytes

aThe difference in PSM counts of particular protein in Het and Ma.

Twenty most characteristic proteins of heterophils (Het) compared to macrophages (Ma) aThe difference in PSM counts of particular protein in Het and Ma.

Proteins characteristic for macrophages

Out of 334 proteins specific for macrophages (Additional file 2), 20 with the highest PSM difference between macrophages and heterophils are listed in Table 2. Five of these represented receptor proteins MRC1L, LRP1, LGALS1, LRPAP1 and DMBT1L, the last one containing the scavenger receptor cysteine-rich (SRCR) domain. CTSB, CKB, MECR, PHB2, H9KZK0 and p41/Li are involved in phagocytosis and antigen presentation. An additional 4 proteins UQCR, UQCRC1, ACO2 and HADHB are localized to the mitochondria. Only 3 proteins, MRC1L, HSP70 and p41/Li, were already recorded in chicken macrophages [21-23] although except for NAT3, PLB and SSB, the expression of the remaining proteins (out of the most abundant listed in Table 2) has been already recorded in murine or human macrophages. Proteins enriched in macrophages belonged to oxidative phosphorylation (p = 4.7E−8), fatty acid metabolism (p = 1.73E−6), citrate cycle (p = 4.2E−6), arginine and proline metabolism (p = 8.5E−8) and proteasome (p = 4.5E−4).
Table 2

Twenty most characteristic proteins for macrophages (Ma) compared to heterophils (Het)

Acc. no.Protein nameGene ID∆PSMa Fold ratio Ma:HetResponse to the infectionFunction
M1XGZ4Macrophage mannose receptor 1 likeMRC1L993Only MaNoC-Type lectin
P98157Low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 1LRP1810Only MaNoEndocytic receptor
P07583Galectin 1LGALS1607Only MaNoBeta-galactoside-binding lectin
P43233Cathepsin BCTSB5388.42IncreaseCysteine protease
F1NZ86Heat shock 70 protein, mortalinHSP705085.30NoChaperon
P05122Creatine kinase B-typeCKB46734.77NoEnergy transduction
F1NDD6LDL receptor related protein associated protein 1LRPAP1374Only MaNoLDL receptors trafficking
F1NIX4Trans-2-enoyl-CoA reductaseMECR35633.16IncreaseFatty acid elongation
F1P180Aspartate aminotransferaseGOT23507.27NoTransaminase
P13914Arylamine N-acetyltransferaseNAT335023.92NoConjugating enzyme
H9KZK0Protein containing the scavenger receptor cysteine-rich (SRCR) domainDMBT1L318Only MaNoScavenger receptor
E1BZF7Putative phospholipase BPLB3176.23NoRemoving fatty acids from phospholipids
Q6J613Invariant chain isoform p41Li3126.87NoChaperone
F1P582Mitochondrial ubiquinol-cytochrome-c reductase complex core protein 2UQCR3094.36NoOxidative phosphorylation
Q5ZMW1Aconitate hydratase, mitochondrialACO23066.17NoTCA cycle
F1NAC6Cytochrome b-c1 complex subunit 1UQCRC12896.42NoOxidative phosphorylation
F6R1X6Lupus la proteinSSB2886.90NoProtecting of 3′ poly(U) terminus of transcribed RNA
E1BTT4Trifunctional enzyme subunit beta, mitochondrialHADHB28730.61Increaseβ-Oxidation of fatty acids
Q5ZMN3Prohibitin-2PHB228210.52NoNot clear
F1NJD6Guanine deaminase, cypinGDA275Only MaNoOxidizes hypoxanthine to xanthine

aThe difference in PSM counts of particular protein in Ma and Het.

Twenty most characteristic proteins for macrophages (Ma) compared to heterophils (Het) aThe difference in PSM counts of particular protein in Ma and Het.

Heterophil proteins responding to in vivo infection with S. Enteritidis

Altogether, 153 proteins were present in different abundance in the heterophils before and after S. Enteritidis infection. Of these, 109 proteins increased and 44 proteins decreased in abundance (Additional files 3 and 4 for all quantified heterophil proteins). Proteins belonging to 2 KEGG categories were enriched in heterophils following S. Enteritidis infection. These included the category translation with 39 proteins (p = 2.58E−62) and protein processing in endoplasmic reticulum (12 proteins, p = 1.74E−11). Twenty proteins with the highest increase in abundance, except for those belonging to the category translation, are listed in Table 3. Among others, these included AVD, F13A, ANXA2, ANXA7 or CTSC.
Table 3

Proteins which increased in abundance in heterophils in response to Enteritidis infection

Acc. no.Protein nameGene IDFold ratio Inf: noninfFold ratio vac: noninfFunction
P02701AvidinAVD55.57*32.06*Biotin binding
F1P4F4Translocon-associated proteinSSR19.22*6.36Protein translocase
P17785Annexin A2ANXA26.44*2.11Activates macrophages for cytokine production
E1BWG1Coagulation factor XIIIAF13A5.63*2.60*Crosslinking of fibrin chains, entrapment of bacteria
R4GJX3Interferon-induced transmembrane proteinIFITM4.99*1.73Acidification of the endosomal compartments, mediator of the host antiviral response
F1NK96Protein disulfide-isomerase A6PDIA64.33*2.66*Protein foldase
F1NVA4NucleophosminNPM13.68*1.87Alarmin, nuclear chaperon
F1NT28Inorganic pyrophosphatasePPA13.52*1.67Hydrolysis of inorganic pyrophosphate (PPi)
Q9059378 kDa glucose-regulated proteinBiP3.44*1.94Chaperon
F1NWB7EndoplasminHSP90B13.33*1.99Chaperon
E1C1D1Annexin 7ANXA73.27*2.68*Granular membranes fusion and degranulation
P24367Peptidyl-prolyl cis–trans isomerase BPPIB3.26*2.23*Regulation of protein folding and maturation
E1C2S1Talin-1TLN13.12*2.56*Activation of neutrophils
Q49B65EF hand-containing protein 1EFHD13.12*1.72Calcium binding
F1NWG2Cathepsin CCTSC3.10*1.99Activates serine proteases (elastase, cathepsin G and granzymes)
F1NDY9Protein disulfide-isomerase A4PDIA42.93*1.86Protein foldase
E1C8M9CalnexinCANX2.88*1.75Integral protein of the endoplasmic reticulum
E1BQN9Calcyclin-binding proteinCACYBP2.88*2.38*Calcium-dependent ubiquitination
H9L340ATP synthase subunit betaATP5B2.82*1.56Energy metabolism
F1NB92Endoplasmic reticulum aminopeptidase 1ERAP12.78*0.89Antigen processing and presentation of endogenous peptide via MHC class I

* Significantly different from the expression in heterophils from the non-infected chickens.

Proteins which increased in abundance in heterophils in response to Enteritidis infection * Significantly different from the expression in heterophils from the non-infected chickens. Forty-four proteins decreased in abundance in heterophils following S. Enteritidis infection and 20 of these with the highest decrease are listed in Table 4. Proteins with decreased abundance were those found in heterophil granules such as MPO, LYZ, LYG2, CTSG, CTSL1, CATHL1, CATHL2, RSFR, MMP9 and LECT2. Another set of proteins which decreased in heterophils following S. Enteritidis infection included ALB, FN1 and OTFB (Table 4).
Table 4

List of proteins which decreased in abundance in heterophils in response to Enteritidis infection

Acc. no.Protein nameGene IDFold ratio inf: noninfFold ratio vac: noninfFunction
F1P1U6MyeloperoxidaseMPO0.013*0.071*Oxidative burst
E1C677Natural killer cell activatorGga.183060.026*0.21*GO prediction: regulation of cytokine biosynthetic process
F1NJT3FibronectinFN10.11*0.56Binds components of extracellular matrix
F1NFQ7Serine protease 57PRSSL10.15*0.37*Serine-type endopeptidase activity
P00698Lysozyme CLYZ0.16*0.37*Antimicrobial peptide
H9L027Cathepsin GCTSG0.19*0.30*Lysosomal cysteine protease
Q6QLQ5Cathelicidin-1CATHL10.20*0.51Bactericidal, fungicidal and immunomodulatory activity
F1NZ37Cathepsin L1CTSL10.22*0.48*Controlling element of neutrophil elastase activity
P30374Ribonuclease homologRSFR0.23*0.51Lysosomal cysteine protease
P27042Lysozyme GLYG20.24*0.60Antimicrobial peptide
F2Z4L6Serum albuminALB0.24*0.67Plasma carrier
P02789OvotransferrinOTFB0.26*0.55Iron binding, immune response
F1NGT3Matrix metallopeptidase 9MMP90.26*0.77Degradation of the extracellular matrix
F1NVM1G-protein coupled receptor 97GPR970.27*0.66Regulates migration
Q2IAL7Cathelicidin-2CATHL20.31*0.78Antimicrobial peptide
Q2UZR2Phosphoglucomutase 1PGM10.35*0.43*Glucose metabolic process
E1BZS2Nucleosome assembly protein 1-likeNAP1L10.36*0.22*Chaperone for the linker histone
P08940Myeloid protein 1LECT20.37*0.62Chemotactic factor
R4GH86Glutathione peroxidaseGPX0.41*0.57Protects organism from oxidative damage
F1NYH8Ena/VASP-like proteinEVL0.42*0.70Regulators of the actin cytoskeleton and cell migration

* Significantly different from the expression in heterophils from the non-infected chickens.

List of proteins which decreased in abundance in heterophils in response to Enteritidis infection * Significantly different from the expression in heterophils from the non-infected chickens.

Macrophage proteins responding to in vivo infection with S. Enteritidis

Four KEGG pathways were specifically enriched when testing proteins of increased abundance in macrophages following S. Enteritidis infection. These included fatty acid elongation pathway (MECR and HADHB proteins, p = 2.49E−4), lysosomal proteins CTSB and CTSC (p = 6.98E−3), phagosomal proteins RAB7A and STX7 (p = 9.23E−3) and LDHA and HADHB from the microbial metabolism in diverse environments pathway (p = 9.4E−3). Other proteins with increased abundance in macrophages following S. Enteritidis infection were MRP126, CATHL1, CATHL2, GAL1, CTSB, CTSC, RSFR, SOD1, LECT2, LY86 and FTH, all with antibacterial functions (Table 5). Proteins which decreased in abundance in macrophages following S. Enteritidis infection included RBMX, NDUFA4, FNBP1, FAM107, STMN1, GLOD4 and OLA1 (Table 5; Additional files 5, 6 for all quantified macrophage proteins).
Table 5

Proteins of increased or decreased abundance in macrophages in response to Enteritidis infection

Acc. no.Protein nameGene IDFold ratio inf:noninfFold ratio vac:noninfFunction
P28318MRP126, calprotectinMRP12615.67*5.01*Calcium and zinc binding
Q6QLQ5Cathelicidin-1CATHL17.32*2.95*Antimicrobial peptide
P30374Ribonuclease homologRSFR5.84*1.66Lysosomal cysteine protease
F1NIX4Trans-2-enoyl-CoA reductaseMECR5.47*3.99*Fatty acid elongation
P46156Gallinacin 1GAL14.15*1.12Antimicrobial protein
F1N8Q1Superoxide dismutaseSOD14.01*2.58Oxygen scavenger
P08940Myeloid protein 1LECT23.87*1.35Chemotactic factor for Het
F1P4F3Lymphocyte antigen 86, MD-1LY863.53*3.03Inhibits LPS response of immune cells
F1NS9160S ribosomal protein L9RPL93.51*3.82Structural part of ribosome
E1BTT4Trifunctional enzyme subunit beta, mitochondrialHADHB3.38*3.54*β-Oxidation of fatty acids
P43233Cathepsin BCTSB2.88*2.57*Lysosomal cysteine protease
B4X9P4Microsomal glutathione S-transferase 1MGST12.87*1.46Membrane protection from oxidative stress
Q5ZMP2Syntaxin 7STX72.72*2.94*Late endosome–lysosome fusion
E1C0F3Ras-related protein Rab-7aRAB7A2.69*2.38*Involved in endocytosis, phagosome–lysosome fusion
F1N9J7Tubulin alpha-3 chainTuba3a2.63*1.96Major constituent of microtubules
P08267Ferritin heavy chainFTH2.62*2.33*Storage of iron in a soluble, nontoxic state
P02263Histone H2A-IVH2A42.61*3.64*Formation of nucleosome
F1NWG2Cathepsin CCTSC2.48*2.46*Activates serine proteases
Q2IAL7Cathelicidin-2CATHL22.45*1.01Antimicrobial peptide
Q6EE32CalreticulinCALR2.33*2.21*Molecular chaperon
Q9I9D1Voltage-dependent anion-selective channel protein 2VDAC22.27*2.07*Inhibits mitochondrial way of apoptosis
P02607Myosin light polypeptide 6MYL62.7*1.66Found in phagosome
F1NB92Endoplasmic reticulum aminopeptidase 1ERAP12.21*2.04Antigen processing and presentation of endogenous peptide via MHC class I
E1BTT8Lactate dehydrogenase ALDHA2.07*1.71Glycolysis
R4GM10Fructose-bisphosphate aldolase CALDOC2.07*2.33Glycolysis
P24367Peptidyl-prolyl cis–trans isomerase BPPIB2.00*0.97Regulation of protein folding and maturation
Q5ZKQ9RNA binding motif protein, X-linkedRBMX0.49*0.59Regulation of pre- and post-transcriptional processes
R4GGZ2NADH dehydrogenase [ubiquinone] 1 alpha subcomplex subunit 4NDUFA40.38*0.65Oxidative phosphorylation
E1BYF8Formin-binding protein 1FNBP10.33*0.47*Role in late stage of clathrin-mediated endocytosis
R4GJP1Family with sequence similarity 107, member BFAM1070.32*0.30*Candidate tumor suppressor gene
P31395Stathmin 1STMN10.27*0.51Promotes disassembly of microtubules
E1BQI4Glyoxalase domain-containing protein 4GLOD40.21*0.18*Unknown
Q5ZM25Obg-like ATPase 1OLA10.12*0.11Negative role in cell adhesion and spreading

* Significantly different from the expression in macrophages from the non-infected chickens.

Proteins of increased or decreased abundance in macrophages in response to Enteritidis infection * Significantly different from the expression in macrophages from the non-infected chickens.

RNA expression

Finally we verified the expression of 37 genes coding for selected proteins listed in Tables 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Expression of 4 genes, LRP1, MPO, PPIB and TUBA3A was too low and these genes were excluded from further consideration (Additional file 7). Six genes (LGALS1, MRC1L, GDA, MECR, DMBT1, LRPAP1) out of 7 proteins selected as specific for macrophages were transcribed in macrophages at a higher level than in heterophils. Only HSP70 was transcribed in macrophages and heterophils at the same level though it was present in higher abundance at the protein level in macrophages. Nine genes (MRP126, OTFB, LYG2, LYZ, SERPINB1, CATHL1, CATHL2, MMP9, LECT2) out of 14 heterophil specific proteins were transcribed in heterophils at a higher level than in macrophages. Two genes of this group (GPX, CTSG) were transcribed in heterophils and macrophages at the same level and the remaining 2 genes (RSFR, LTA4H) were transcribed at a higher level in macrophages though protein mass spectrometry indicated their higher abundance in heterophils. Expression of 11 proteins which increased in abundance in macrophages following infection of chickens with S. Enteritidis was also tested at the RNA level. Except for MRP126, 10 of these (MECR, CTSC, ERAP1, RSFR, SOD1, CALR, CATHL1, CATHL2, LECT2, GAL1) did not exhibit any difference at the transcriptional level. 6 of 7 proteins (ANXA2, F13A, CTSC, ERAP1, AVD, HSP90B1) exhibiting an increased abundance in heterophils following infection of chickens with S. Enteritidis, also increased their expression at the level of transcription. Only IFITM did not change its expression at the RNA level. Finally we verified the expression of 11 proteins which decreased in abundance in heterophils following infection of chickens with S. Enteritidis. Eight of them (FN1, ALB, CTSL1, OTFB, LYZ, CATHL1, MMP9, LECT2) did not change their expression at the level of transcription and transcripts of 3 of them (RSFR, LYG2, CSTC) even increased following infection. Similar to the results of protein mass spectrometry, RNA levels of the tested genes in the heterophils or macrophages from the vaccinated chickens were in between the expression in non-infected chickens and chickens infected without previous vaccination. Only 3 genes in heterophils did not follow this scheme and CATHL1, CATHL2 and LECT2 were expressed in heterophils from the vaccinated chickens at significantly higher level than in the heterophils from infected chickens.

Discussion

Until now, chicken heterophils and macrophages have been characterized only by their specific characteristics like cytokine signaling or production of antimicrobial peptides [2, 6, 7, 24, 25] and an unbiased report characterizing their total proteome, before and after infection, has been missing. In the current study we therefore isolated proteins from heterophils and macrophages and quantified their abundance before and after infection with S. Enteritidis by mass spectrometry. We have to remind that mass spectrometry provides reliable data for approximately 800 the most abundant proteins. The lowly represented proteins, despite their potential specificity or responsiveness to infection, could not be therefore detected. Chicken macrophages differed from heterophils in 3 specific features. First, macrophages specifically expressed receptors such as MRC1L, LRP1, LGALS1, LRPAP1 and DMBT1L. Second, macrophages exhibited higher mitochondrial activity including fatty acid degradation, TCA cycle and oxidative phosphorylation. And third, macrophages specifically expressed enzymes involved in arginine and proline metabolism (Figure 1). Receptors specifically expressed by macrophages indicate their potential to sense signals from the external environment which allows them to modulate immune response [6, 7] including their own polarization [26, 27]. The dependency of macrophages on oxidative phosphorylation and mitochondria functions was already described for human macrophages and neutrophils [28]. Macrophages were also enriched in arginine and proline metabolism since one of their bactericidal activities is the production of NO radicals by iNOS and arginine [29]. Following infection with S. Enteritidis, macrophages increased the expression of lysosomal and phagosomal proteins what could be associated not only with S. Enteritidis inactivation but also with macrophage ability of antigen presentation.
Figure 1

The most characteristic proteins and their functions in chicken heterophils and macrophages. Heterophils express MMP9, MRP126, LECT2, CATHL1, CATHL2, CATHL3, LYG2, LYZ and RSFR proteins. Following S. Enteritidis infection, heterophils decreased fibrinogen FN1 and albumin ALB, and increased ribosomal proteins. In addition, endoplasmic reticulum proteins are activated which results in the release of granular proteins. Heterophils expressed glycogen (Gly) metabolism pathway which allows for rapid glucose (Glu) availability and anaerobic ATP generation via glycolysis while macrophages increased mitochondrial activity. Macrophages expressed receptor proteins MRC1, LGALS1, LRPAP1 and DMBT1L, mitochondria-localized proteins and arginine metabolism proteins. Following infection with S. Enteritidis, macrophages increased the expression of lysosomal and phagosomal proteins (CTSB, CTSC, RAB7A, CATHL1, RSFR, GAL1, SOD1).

The most characteristic proteins and their functions in chicken heterophils and macrophages. Heterophils express MMP9, MRP126, LECT2, CATHL1, CATHL2, CATHL3, LYG2, LYZ and RSFR proteins. Following S. Enteritidis infection, heterophils decreased fibrinogen FN1 and albumin ALB, and increased ribosomal proteins. In addition, endoplasmic reticulum proteins are activated which results in the release of granular proteins. Heterophils expressed glycogen (Gly) metabolism pathway which allows for rapid glucose (Glu) availability and anaerobic ATP generation via glycolysis while macrophages increased mitochondrial activity. Macrophages expressed receptor proteins MRC1, LGALS1, LRPAP1 and DMBT1L, mitochondria-localized proteins and arginine metabolism proteins. Following infection with S. Enteritidis, macrophages increased the expression of lysosomal and phagosomal proteins (CTSB, CTSC, RAB7A, CATHL1, RSFR, GAL1, SOD1). Heterophils specifically expressed granular proteins MPO, LYZ, LYG2, RSFR, LECT2, CATHL1, CATHL2, CTSL1, CTSG, OTFB, SERPINB1 and MMP9, and endoplasmic reticulum proteins SSR1, PDIA4, PDIA6, PPIB, BiP, HSP90B1 and CANX. The latter group of proteins is activated when lumenal conditions in endoplasmic reticulum are altered or chaperone capacity is overwhelmed by unfolded or misfolded proteins [30]. Induction of an unfolded protein response leads to neutrophil degranulation in mice [31] and based on our results, a similar response can be predicted also in chicken heterophils. Granular proteins decreased in heterophils in response to infection. Since transcription of genes encoding these proteins did not change and the number of ribosomal proteins increased, these genes must have remained continuously transcribed and translated even after initial degranulation [24, 32–35]. However, not all proteins that decreased in heterophils following S. Enteritidis infection were assigned to pathogen inactivation. Matrix metalloproteinase MMP9 is used for degradation of the extracellular matrix to enable leukocyte infiltration to the site of inflammation [36], and ALB and FN1, are found at the surface of granulocytes and inhibit their migration [37, 38]. The decrease of ALB and FN1 together with the degradation of extracellular matrix by MMP9 leads to heterophil translocation from the blood circulation to the site of inflammation. Comparing expression at the protein and RNA levels provided several unexpected results. Changes in expression at the RNA level in response to infection were more pronounced in heterophils than in macrophages. We can exclude any technical issues in macrophage gene expression analysis since there were at least 3 genes inducible at the RNA level also in macrophages (AVD, MRP126 and F13A). Unlike macrophages, there were also greater differences in the expression profiles of heterophils obtained from vaccinated chickens in comparison to those obtained from naive but infected animals and an increase in CATHL2 and LECT2 in the heterophils from the vaccinated chickens following S. Enteritidis challenge appeared as a specific positive marker of vaccination. Despite this, expression in heterophils and macrophages in naive but infected chickens tended to approach a similar expression profile (Figure 2).
Figure 2

PCA cluster analysis of chicken heterophils and macrophages using expression data from qPCR. Each spot represents heterophils (circles) or macrophages (triangles) isolated from non-infected (green color), infected (red color), and vaccinated and infected chickens (blue color), 6 chickens per group. Heterophils from vaccinated chickens responded to infection more than macrophages from the same chicken. Transcription of heterophils and macrophages from naive but infected chickens approached the same profile.

PCA cluster analysis of chicken heterophils and macrophages using expression data from qPCR. Each spot represents heterophils (circles) or macrophages (triangles) isolated from non-infected (green color), infected (red color), and vaccinated and infected chickens (blue color), 6 chickens per group. Heterophils from vaccinated chickens responded to infection more than macrophages from the same chicken. Transcription of heterophils and macrophages from naive but infected chickens approached the same profile. In this study we characterized protein expression in chicken heterophils and macrophages in response to intravenous infection with S. Enteritidis. Heterophils decreased ALB and FN1, and released MMP9 to enable their translocation to the site of infection. Secondly the endoplasmic reticulum proteins increased in heterophils which resulted in the release of granular proteins. On the other hand, macrophages were less responsive to acute infection and an increase in proteins like CATHL1, CATHL2, RSFR, LECT2 and GAL1 in the absence of any change in their expression at RNA level could even be explained by capturing these proteins from the external environment into which these could have been released by heterophils. Additional file 1. List of primers used in quantitative RT PCR in the study. Additional file 2. Identification of heterophil and macrophage specific proteins using label-free LC MS/MS and PSM quantification. Additional file 3. Heterophil proteins responding to in vivo infection with Enteritidis. Additional file 4. All heterophil proteins quantified in this study. Additional file 5. Macrophage proteins responding to in vivo infection with Enteritidis. Additional file 6. All macrophage proteins quantified in this study. Additional file 7. Expression of selected genes at RNA level determined by quantitative RT PCR.
  38 in total

Review 1.  Computational methods for the comparative quantification of proteins in label-free LCn-MS experiments.

Authors:  Jason W H Wong; Matthew J Sullivan; Gerard Cagney
Journal:  Brief Bioinform       Date:  2007-09-28       Impact factor: 11.622

Review 2.  RNase A ribonucleases and host defense: an evolving story.

Authors:  Helene F Rosenberg
Journal:  J Leukoc Biol       Date:  2008-01-22       Impact factor: 4.962

Review 3.  The avian heterophil.

Authors:  Kenneth J Genovese; Haiqi He; Christina L Swaggerty; Michael H Kogut
Journal:  Dev Comp Immunol       Date:  2013-04-10       Impact factor: 3.636

4.  Fibronectin enhances the migration rate of human neutrophils in vitro.

Authors:  E A Everitt; A B Malik; B Hendey
Journal:  J Leukoc Biol       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 4.962

5.  Chicken heterophils are recruited to the site of Salmonella infection and release antibacterial mature Cathelicidin-2 upon stimulation with LPS.

Authors:  Albert van Dijk; Monique H G Tersteeg-Zijderveld; Johanna L M Tjeerdsma-van Bokhoven; Alfons J M Jansman; Edwin J A Veldhuizen; Henk P Haagsman
Journal:  Mol Immunol       Date:  2009-02-01       Impact factor: 4.407

6.  Virulence potential of five major pathogenicity islands (SPI-1 to SPI-5) of Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis for chickens.

Authors:  Ivan Rychlik; Daniela Karasova; Alena Sebkova; Jiri Volf; Frantisek Sisak; Hana Havlickova; Vladimir Kummer; Ariel Imre; Annamaria Szmolka; Bela Nagy
Journal:  BMC Microbiol       Date:  2009-12-19       Impact factor: 3.605

7.  In vivo activation of heterophil function in chickens following injection with Salmonella enteritidis-immune lymphokines.

Authors:  M H Kogut; E D McGruder; B M Hargis; D E Corrier; J R DeLoach
Journal:  J Leukoc Biol       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 4.962

Review 8.  Salmonella infections: immune and non-immune protection with vaccines.

Authors:  P A Barrow
Journal:  Avian Pathol       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 3.378

9.  Identification of chicken cathelicidin-2 core elements involved in antibacterial and immunomodulatory activities.

Authors:  Albert van Dijk; E Margo Molhoek; Edwin J A Veldhuizen; Johanna L M Tjeerdsma-van Bokhoven; Eveline Wagendorp; Floris Bikker; Henk P Haagsman
Journal:  Mol Immunol       Date:  2009-06-12       Impact factor: 4.407

10.  Avian macrophage and immune response: an overview.

Authors:  M A Qureshi
Journal:  Poult Sci       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 3.352

View more
  13 in total

1.  Practical application of a Bayesian network approach to poultry epigenetics and stress.

Authors:  Emiliano A Videla Rodriguez; Fábio Pértille; Carlos Guerrero-Bosagna; John B O Mitchell; Per Jensen; V Anne Smith
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2022-07-01       Impact factor: 3.307

2.  Avian MRP126 Restricts Microbial Growth through Ca(II)-Dependent Zn(II) Sequestration.

Authors:  Aaron T Bozzi; Elizabeth M Nolan
Journal:  Biochemistry       Date:  2020-01-21       Impact factor: 3.162

3.  Expression and regulation of avian beta-defensin 8 protein in immune tissues and cell lines of chickens.

Authors:  Deivendran Rengaraj; Anh Duc Truong; Hyun S Lillehoj; Jae Yong Han; Yeong Ho Hong
Journal:  Asian-Australas J Anim Sci       Date:  2018-03-13       Impact factor: 2.509

4.  Avian Pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC) Strain-Dependent Immunomodulation of Respiratory Granulocytes and Mononuclear Phagocytes in CSF1R-Reporter Transgenic Chickens.

Authors:  Andreas Alber; Katrina M Morris; Karen J Bryson; Kate M Sutton; Melissa S Monson; Cosmin Chintoan-Uta; Dominika Borowska; Susan J Lamont; Catherine Schouler; Pete Kaiser; Mark P Stevens; Lonneke Vervelde
Journal:  Front Immunol       Date:  2020-01-10       Impact factor: 7.561

5.  Transcriptional regulation of chicken leukocyte cell-derived chemotaxin 2 in response to toll-like receptor 3 stimulation.

Authors:  Seokhyun Lee; Ra Ham Lee; Sung-Jo Kim; Hak-Kyo Lee; Chong-Sam Na; Ki-Duk Song
Journal:  Asian-Australas J Anim Sci       Date:  2019-07-02       Impact factor: 2.509

6.  Effects of lysine biomass supplementation on growth performance and clinical indicators in broiler chickens.

Authors:  Julianna C Jespersen; Susann Richert; Juliano Cesar de Paula Dorigam; Maci L Oelschlager; Ryan N Dilger
Journal:  Poult Sci       Date:  2020-12-29       Impact factor: 3.352

7.  Novel Models for Chronic Intestinal Inflammation in Chickens: Intestinal Inflammation Pattern and Biomarkers.

Authors:  Gabriela C Dal Pont; Bruna L Belote; Annah Lee; Cristiano Bortoluzzi; Cinthia Eyng; Milena Sevastiyanova; Alireza Khadem; Elizabeth Santin; Yuhua Z Farnell; Christos Gougoulias; Michael H Kogut
Journal:  Front Immunol       Date:  2021-05-12       Impact factor: 7.561

8.  Antiviral Activity of Chicken Cathelicidin B1 Against Influenza A Virus.

Authors:  Lianci Peng; Wenjuan Du; Melanie D Balhuizen; Henk P Haagsman; Cornelis A M de Haan; Edwin J A Veldhuizen
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2020-03-19       Impact factor: 5.640

9.  Transcriptome sequencing supports a conservation of macrophage polarization in fish.

Authors:  Annelieke S Wentzel; Jules Petit; Wouter G van Veen; Inge Rosenbek Fink; Marleen H Scheer; M Carla Piazzon; Maria Forlenza; Herman P Spaink; Geert F Wiegertjes
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-08-10       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  The immunomodulatory effect of cathelicidin-B1 on chicken macrophages.

Authors:  Lianci Peng; Maaike R Scheenstra; Roel M van Harten; Henk P Haagsman; Edwin J A Veldhuizen
Journal:  Vet Res       Date:  2020-09-24       Impact factor: 3.683

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.