| Literature DB >> 30210491 |
Li Sun1, Jai Rautela2,3, Rebecca B Delconte2,3, Fernando Souza-Fonseca-Guimaraes2,3, Emma M Carrington2,3, Robyn L Schenk2,3, Marco J Herold2,3, Nicholas D Huntington2,3, Andrew M Lew2,3,4, Yuekang Xu1, Yifan Zhan2,3,5.
Abstract
GM-CSF promotes myeloid differentiation of cultured bone marrow cells into cells of the granulocytic and monocytic lineage; the latter can further differentiate into monocytes/macrophages and dendritic cells. How GM-CSF selects for these different myeloid fates is unresolved. GM-CSF levels can change either iatrogenically (e.g., augmenting leukopoiesis after radiotherapy) or naturally (e.g., during infection or inflammation) resulting in different immunological outcomes. Therefore, we asked whether the dose of GM-CSF may regulate the development of three types of myeloid cells. Here, we showed that GM-CSF acted as a molecular rheostat where the quantity determined which cell type was favored; moreover, the cellular process by which this was achieved was different for each cell type. Thus, low quantities of GM-CSF promoted the granulocytic lineage, mainly through survival. High quantities promoted the monocytic lineage, mainly through proliferation, whereas moderate quantities promoted moDCs, mainly through differentiation. Finally, we demonstrated that monocytes/macrophages generated with different doses of GM-CSF differed in function. We contend that this selective effect of GM-CSF dose on myeloid differentiation and function should be taken into consideration during pathophysiological states that may alter GM-CSF levels and during GM-CSF agonistic or antagonistic therapy.Entities:
Keywords: GM-CSF; cytokines; dendritic cells; granulocytes; inflammation mediators
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30210491 PMCID: PMC6120981 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.01922
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Immunol ISSN: 1664-3224 Impact factor: 7.561
Figure 1The effect of GM-CSF dose on generation of granulocytic vs. monocytic myeloid cells. BM cells were cultured in the presence of different doses of GM-CSF for 7 days. Cultures were harvested and analyzed for cell composition. (A) FACS plots show profiles of Ly6Ghi granulocytes and Ly6GloCD11bhi monocytic myeloid cells on gated PI−CD11b+ cells. (B) Plots show the recovered cell number and percentage of granulocytes and monocytic myeloid cells with different doses of GM-CSF. *p < 0.05, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001 (ANOVA). Data are from one of 3 repeated experiments. Plot on the right shows the ratio of granulocyte to monocytic myeloid cells in the cultures with different doses of GM-CSF. (C–G) Spleen cells of WT (including CCR2.CFP.DTR mice) and GMtg mice (including CCR2.CFP.DTR/GMTg mice) were prepared and stained for myeloid markers. (C) autofluorescent macrophages and NK1.1+ cells were gated out for analysis of CD11b+ cells; (D) within CD11b+ cells, granulocytes were gated as Ly6G+ cells; Ly6G− cells were then separated into three populations: CD11b+ CD4+ cDC2, CCR2+ and CCR2− cells; (E) Three populations are shown for expression of CD11c and MHC class II. (F) Scatter plots show the number of granulocytes (pooled from 4 independent experiments) and monocytic myeloid cells (from one of 4 similar experiment). Numbers in the plots show fold increase. **p < 0.01 (G) CCR2+ and CCR2− cells are shown for the percentages of DCs. *p < 0.05, ****p < 0.0001 (student's t-test).
Figure 2The effect of GM-CSF dose on the differentiation of mo/mΦ and moDCs. (A–C) BM cells were cultured with different dose of GM-CSF for 7 days. Cultures were harvested and analyzed for cell composition. (A). Gating strategy for mo/mΦ and moDCs characterization in current study. (B) moDCs and mo/mΦ from gated Ly6GloCD11c+MHCII+ population are shown for expression of additional markers. Shade area show FMO controls for gated population. (C) The ratio of moDCs to mo/mΦ and absolute number of recovered moDCs and mo/mΦ in the cultures with different doses of GM-CSF were plotted. ****p < 0.0001 (ANOVA). Data are from one of 3 repeated experiments. (D) After culturing with 10 ng/mL GM-CSF for 7 days in vitro, mo/mΦ were purified by flow sorting and then re-cultured with different doses of GM-CSF for 22 h. The percentage and number of recovered DCs are shown. (E) After culturing with 10 ng/mL GM-CSF for 7 days in vitro, sorted mo/mΦ were re-cultured with 2 ng/mL GM-CSF for 22 h. Histograms show expression of different markers of monocytic myeloid cells. Shade area show FMO controls for gated population. (F). Spleen cells were prepared from CCR2.CFP.DTR mice (8–12 week female, n = 3) and CCR2.CFP.DTR/GMTg mice (8–12 week female, n = 3). FACS plots show distribution of moDCs and cDCs. Bar graphs show numbers, percentages and expression of CD64 and FcεR1 by DC subsets. Numbers in the plots show fold increase. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001 (student's t-test).
Figure 3The effect of GM-CSF dose on myeloid cell survival in culture. (A) Granulocytes, moDCs and mo/mΦ were purified from WT BM cultures by flow sorting, then were cultured with or without 10 ng/mL GM-CSF for 22 h. The total recovery of viable (PI excluding) cells was presented. ****p < 0.0001 (student's t-test). Data are from one of 3 repeated experiments. (B) Granulocytes, moDCs and mo/mΦ were purified from WT and A1−/− BM cultures by flow sorting, then were cultured with or 1 ng/mL GM-CSF for 22 h. The total recovery of viable (PI excluding) cells was presented. ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001 (student's t-test). Data are from one of 3 repeated experiments. (C,D) Granulocytes and monocytes were isolated and purified from WT mice blood, then cultured with or without different doses of GM-CSF for 22 and 68 h. ****p < 0.0001(ANOVA). Data are from one of 3 repeated experiments. (E) moDCs were isolated and purified from GMtg mice spleen, then cultured with or without different doses of GM-CSF for 22 or 68 h. (F) To exclude the possibility that increased recovery of viable cells under GM-CSF stimulation was due to cell proliferation, granulocytes and monocytes from Fucci mice blood were isolated and purified, then cultured with or without different doses of GM-CSF. Data are from one of 3 repeated experiments.
Figure 4The effect of GM-CSF dose on the proliferation of monocytic myeloid cells and granulocytes. (A,B) FACS plots show profiles of FucciGreen+ Red− proliferating cells of monocytic myeloid cells and granulocytes with different doses of GM-CSF from day3 to day5. (C) Plots show the percentage of proliferation of monocytic myeloid cells and granulocytes with different doses of GM-CSF from day1 to day7. ****p < 0.0001 (ANOVA). (D) Plots show BM cells prior to culture. (E) Gated on CD11c+MHCII+, FACS plots show profiles of MHCIIintermCD11bhi mo/mΦ and MHCIIhiCD11binterm moDCs with different doses of GM-CSF from day 5 to day 7. (F) Plots show the percentage of moDCs under different GM-CSF dose stimulation from day 5 to day 7. (G) FACS plots show profiles of proliferating cells of moDCs and mo/mΦ with different doses of GM-CSF on day5.
Figure 5Granulocyte, moDCs, and mo/mΦ from the same cultures differ in cytokine production. After culturing with 10 ng/mL GM-CSF for 7 days in vitro, granulocytes (G), moDCs and mo/mΦ were purified by flow sorting, then stimulated by LPS (1 μg/mL) and CpG (1 μ) for 20 h. (A) Accumulation of inflammatory cytokines and chemokines in the supernatant was measured after 20 h. The concentration (pg/mL) of inflammatory cytokines and chemokines produced by the three myeloid populations are shown. (B) Plots show the percentage of cell recovery for the three populations after culturing for 20 h. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001(student's t-test).