| Literature DB >> 29475453 |
Na Zhang1, Yun-Juan Bao1,2, Amy Hin-Yan Tong1,3, Scott Zuyderduyn3, Gary D Bader3, J S Malik Peiris4, Si Lok5,6, Suki Man-Yan Lee7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Avian influenza A H5N1 virus can cause lethal disease in humans. The virus can trigger severe pneumonia and lead to acute respiratory distress syndrome. Data from clinical, in vitro and in vivo suggest that virus-induced cytokine dysregulation could be a contributory factor to the pathogenesis of human H5N1 disease. However, the precise mechanism of H5N1 infection eliciting the unique host response are still not well understood.Entities:
Keywords: H5N1; Influenza A virus; Macrophage polarization; RNA-Seq; Transcriptomics
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29475453 PMCID: PMC6389164 DOI: 10.1186/s12920-018-0335-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Genomics ISSN: 1755-8794 Impact factor: 3.063
Fig. 1Differential gene expression profile reflecting macrophage polarization in response to influenza A virus infection. a k-means clustering analysis of RNA-Seq counts using a Poisson-based distance metric. The final representative values in each cluster were normalized to the total library size for the purpose of visualization. b The estimated percentage of the M1 macrophage subtype in each sample as estimated by non-negative matrix factorization. 95% confidence intervals are denoted by the whiskers displayed around each point. c The relative pattern of expression of genes identified as strong M1 and M2 subtype markers based on RNA-Seq data. Each point represents the mean sample-wise rank of the top 1000 putative M1-associated genes (red) and top 1000 putative M2-associated genes (blue) based on the cell subtype coefficient estimated from the linear model applied to the RNA-Seq dataset
Fitted expression of macrophage subtype-specific markers
| Gene | Subtype | β0a | βsubtype | Gene | Subtype | β0 | βsubtype | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| M1 | − 11.57 | 1.73 | 0.005 |
| M2a | − 12.04 | − 1.04 | < 0.001 |
|
| M1 | − 9.66 | 1.18 | 0.009 |
| M2a | − 13.42 | − 0.459 | 0.219 |
|
| M1 | − 11.82 | 2.03 | 0.034 |
| M2a | − 7.24 | 0.0164 | 0.904 |
|
| M1 | expressed in H5N1 6-h only |
| M2a | − 13.58 | − 1.19 | 0.066 | ||
|
| M1 | − 24.95 | 13.07 | 0.001 |
| M2a | not expressed | ||
|
| M1 | − 8.47 | 0.0759 | 0.443 |
| M2a | not expressed | ||
|
| M1 | − 13.76 | 2.25 | 0.027 |
| M2a | − 11.25 | − 0.300 | 0.027 |
|
| M1 | − 13.98 | 0.576 | 0.150 |
| M2a | − 9.96 | 0.238 | 0.176 |
|
| M1 | − 13.64 | 0.835 | 0.148 |
| M2a | − 12.21 | − 1.28 | 0.003 |
|
| M1 | − 8.87 | 0.881 | 0.100 |
| M2a/b/c | − 11.86 | 0.379 | 0.035 |
|
| M1 | − 11.97 | 0.367 | 0.351 |
| M2a/b/c | − 14.54 | − 0.289 | 0.652 |
|
| M1 | − 9.74 | 0.288 | 0.028 |
| M2a/c | − 7.34 | 0.677 | 0.002 |
|
| M1 | − 8.28 | 0.488 | < 0.001 |
| M2a/c | − 12.23 | − 0.869 | 0.182 |
|
| M2a/c | − 9.79 | − 0.455 | 0.032 | |||||
|
| M2b | − 13.94 | − 0.895 | 0.098 | |||||
|
| M2c | − 13.39 | − 0.814 | 0.067 | |||||
|
| M2c | − 13.42 | − 0.459 | 0.219 | |||||
|
| M2c | − 10.44 | − 0.739 | < 0.001 | |||||
|
| M2c | − 9.45 | − 0.508 | 0.047 | |||||
|
| M2c | − 12.94 | − 0.343 | 0.378 | |||||
|
| M2c | − 8.83 | − 0.592 | 0.003 | |||||
|
| M2c | − 11.22 | − 0.166 | 0.251 | |||||
aβ0 indicates the intercept for the fitted linear model
Fig. 2Heatmap of the scaled likelihood for each gene representing a specific pattern of differential expression. Of the 256 possible groupings, only the nine shown here have significant likelihood of differential expression for at least one gene. The top (6 h-specific differential expression) and bottom (H5N1, 6 h-specific differential expression) patterns are the most prominent
Significantly enriched pathways in response to influenza H5N1 virus infection at 6-h post-infection
| Pathway Name | Gene Count | Enrichment | FDR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| upregulated | NOD-like receptor signaling pathway [KEGG] | 58 | 10 | 0.012 |
| RIG-I-like receptor signaling pathway [KEGG] | 66 | 18 | 0.006 | |
| Chemokine receptors bind chemokines [Reactome] | 51 | 12 | 0.020 | |
| Cytosolic DNA sensing pathway [KEGG] | 55 | 17 | 0.019 | |
| downregulated | Packaging of telomere ends [Reactome] | 43 | 20 | 0.000 |
| RNA polymerase I promoter clearance [Reactome] | 69 | 30 | 0.005 | |
| Viral mRNA translation [Reactome] | 82 | 39 | 0.009 | |
| RNA polymerase I promoter opening [Reactome] | 48 | 26 | 0.009 | |
| Ribosome [KEGG] | 84 | 42 | 0.011 | |
| Insulin synthesis and secretion [Reactome] | 126 | 50 | 0.011 | |
| Peptide chain elongation [Reactome] | 82 | 38 | 0.039 |
Fig. 3The genes and their functional relationships within the RLR signaling pathway. Genes highlighted in red show strong M1 subtype specific differential expression in response to H5N1 virus infection at 6-h post-infection. “NA” indicates nucleic acids
Fig. 4Expression patterns of the SOCS family genes at 1-, 3-, and 6-h post-infection compared to mock infection. SOCS1 and SOCS3 were expressed with at least 2.5-fold higher in H5N1-infected macrophages than in mock-infected control cells at 6-h post-infection. No genes were significantly up-regulated in H1N1 virus-infected cells
Fig. 5Kinetics of antiviral gene expression and virus replication in influenza A virus infected human macrophages. Expression of IFN-β in human macrophages after (a) single-round or (b) multiple-rounds of influenza A virus replication. Expression kinetics of antiviral genes, (c) ISG15 and (d) MxA in response to influenza A virus infection. e Influenza A viral replication kinetics in human macrophages. Data of mean ± S.D. of three independent experiments are shown
Fig. 6Small RNA expression profiles of macrophages in response to H5N1 virus- and H1N1 virus-infection. a Composition of human macrophage small RNA libraries at different post-infection time points. b Expression patterns for the identified human mature miRNAs ordered by descending RPM in mock-infected macrophage at 1-h post-infection. RPM represents number of reads per million mappable reads. c Heatmaps of the known mature miRNA differential expression profiles in influenza A H5N1 virus- and H1N1 virus-infected macrophages compared with mock-infected cells at different post-infection time points. Co-regulated genes were clustered