Emmanuel Kwaku Asiamah1, Kingsley Ekwemalor2, Sarah Adjei-Fremah3, Bertha Osei4, Robert Newman3, Mulumebet Worku2. 1. Department of Agriculture-Animal Science, University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, AR 71601, USA. 2. Department of Animal Sciences, North Carolina A&T State University, Greensboro, NC 27411, USA. 3. Department of Biology, North Carolina A&T State University, Greensboro, NC 27411, USA. 4. Functional and Chemical Genomics, Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, OK 73104, USA.
Cows are infected by numerous pathogens that affect their productivity and
health.These pathogens include bacteria, protozoa, and viruses. Diseases caused by
pathogens affect the profitability of rearing animals [1,2]. Pathogen-associated
Molecular Patterns (PAMPs) are recognized by pathogen recognition receptors (PRRs)
on host cells to trigger immune responses [3].
Lipopolysaccharide (LPS), peptidoglycan (PGN), double-stranded viral RNA (Poly I:C)
and bacterial oligonucleotides (CpG ODNs) are associated with infectious and
metabolic diseases in the cow [2,4-6]. PAMPs mediate the production of cytokines by primarily binding to PRRs,
such as TLRs on immune cells to activate several signaling pathways [7-9]. There are 10 TLRs identified in cows that recognize PAMPs [10]. Previous studies have reported that the
increase of LPS in the digestive tract of the cow phenomenon called subacute ruminal
acidosis, and its translocation into the bloodstream, results in immune responses
which if not controlled, causes serious health consequences [11]. Proper recognition and elimination is essential to animal
health and production [12]. Aside from TLRs,
other receptors and co-receptors play significant roles in recognition and pathogen
elimination.Numerous studies have shown that Gal, a family of proteins defined by their affinity
for β-galactosides, participate in the regulation of both
innate and adaptive immunity [13-15].Some galectins have been studied to bind microorganism-specific glycans, or host-like
glycans on microorganisms to initiate immune responses [16]. Galectin mediated immune response could either lead to
clearance of microorganism or favor establishment of the pathogens. Galectins (Gal)
act as PRRs that orchestrate immune responses according to the level of
pathogenicity of the invading microorganisms [17]. Some members of the galectin family are also known alarmins for
sepsis, a condition caused by an overwhelming immune response to microbial infection
[18].The most significant advancement in animal health in the past three decades has been
the paradigm shift from treatment of clinical illness to disease prevention [19]. Overuse of antibiotics in animal
production has raised food safety and public health concerns in addition to its
reduced effectiveness and resistance in animals [20]. As such, numerous studies are emerging to better understand the
molecular mechanisms leading to infectious diseases to design more effective
management practices to reduce cow health disorders [7,8]. An increased understanding
of the genetics underlying the immune response mechanism of cows during infections
may offer opportunities for alternative control strategies.Because galectins are involved in immune responses and the outcome of microbial
infections, it was essential to evaluate whether its expression in cows is affected
by pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMP) stimulation in whole blood.
Understanding galectin expression in response to PAMP stimulation will aid in drug
design aimed at galectins as targets. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of
stimulation with known PAMPs (natural and synthetic) on galectin gene expression in
cow blood.
Materials and Methods
Animals
The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of North Carolina A&T State
University approved all protocols for animals handling. Five multiparous
Holstein Friesian periparturient cows (N = 5) from North Carolina A&T
State Dairy farm were used. None of the animals showed any signs of disease or
received medications during the 4-week period before blood sampling.
Blood sampling
Complete details of blood sampling have been reported elsewhere [21]. Briefly, Whole blood (10 mL) was
collected aseptically from the jugular vein of the animals into vacutainer tubes
containing 1mL of the anti-coagulant Acid CitrateDextrose. The tubes were
gently mixed and placed on ice immediately after collection. The samples were
transported to the Laboratory for Animal Genomic Diversity and Biotechnology at
North Carolina A&T State University for further analysis.
Stimulation of whole blood
One mL of blood from the cows was each incubated with 10 μg/mL each of
either Escherichia coli derived LPS (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis,
MO), Staphylococcus aureus-derived PGN (Sigma-Aldrich), CpG ODN
(2216) class A (Invivogen, San Diego CA ), CpG ODN (2006) class B (Invivogen)
and 12.5 μg/mL of poly I:C (Invivogen) individually to assess the
expression of LGALS. Samples treated with phosphate buffer
saline (PBS) served as control. Samples were incubated at 37°C, with
85% humidity and 5% CO2 for 30 minutes. At the end of
the incubation period, the tubes were spun down at 1,700 × g at
4°C for 10 minutes. Supernatants were collected and stored at
–80°C to measure secreted galectins concentration. Trizol (1 mL)
was added to cell pellets and stored for RNA isolation
(Ambion®, Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc, Waltham, MA).
Total RNA isolation and cDNA synthesis
Total RNA was isolated using Trizol according to the manufacturer’s
instructions (Sigma-Aldrich St. Louis, MO). The appropriate precautions were
used to avoid RNase contamination throughout the entire procedure [9]. The RNA concentration (ng/μL) and
purity (260/280) were assessed using a Nanodrop Spectrophotometer ND 1000
(Thermo Scientific Inc., Waltham, MA). Total RNA was pipetted into an RNA 6000
Nano LabChip® (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA) and RNA
integrity was determined using Bioanalyzer following manufacturer’s
protocol (Agilent). Complimentary DNA (cDNA) synthesis was performed with 500
ng/μL RNA (purity 260/280 = 1.8, RIN = 7). Retroscript kits
(Ambion®) were used to synthesize cDNA for real-time
Polymerase chain reaction. cDNA synthesis was performed in an MWG AG Biotech
Primus 96 Plus Industrial Lab Thermal Cycler (MWG Biotech Huntsville, AL). Total
RNA (1 μg) was heated to 85°C for 3 minutes and placed on ice,
centrifuged briefly, and returned to ice. The remaining
RETROscript® components were added: 10X RT (PCR) buffer (2
μL), dNTP mix (4 μL), RNase inhibitor (1 μL), and MMLV-RT
(1 μL), for a final volume of 20 μL. The components were mixed
gently, centrifuged briefly and incubated at 42–44°C for 1 hour,
followed by an incubation step at 92°C for 10 minutes to inactivate the
Reverse Transcriptase (RT). Polymerase chain reaction was performed by
assembling the following components: RT reaction buffer (5 μL), 10X PCR
buffer (5 μL), dNTP (2.5 μL), Nuclease-free water (37.5
μL), PCR primers (provided in kit) (2.5 μL), and thermostable DNA
Polymerase (1–2 units (U)). The PCR cycle was: Step 1) Initial
denaturation, 94°C for 2 minutes; Step 2) Amplification, 94°C for
30 seconds (denaturation), 60°C (annealing) for 30 seconds, 72°C
(extension) for 1 minute; Step 3) to Step 2 for 30 cycles; and Step 4) Final
Extension, 72°C for 5 minutes.
Gene expression profiling
With the use of Primer-3 online tool (http://bioinfo.ut.ee/primer3-0.4.0/), Forward and reverse
primers for cow galectin genes LGALS1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 12,
and 15 were designed commercially. Based on published
sequences, cow specific Glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase
(GAPDH) and β actin were purchased
from MWG, Biotech Huntsville AL. β-actin and GAPDH were
used as internal controls and for normalization.
Real-time qPCR
Real-time qPCR was performed in the CFX Connect real-time system (Bio-rad
Laboratories, Hercules, CA). The qPCR reaction mixture consisted of template,
primer (μL), intercalating dye SYBR Green, DH2O, 200 ng of
cDNA, 1 μL (100 μM) of forward primer, 1 μL (100 μM)
of reverse primer, 10 μL of SYBR Green and DH2O to the volume
of 20 μL.All samples were carried out in triplicate 20-μL reactions in 96-well
plates, and a negative control with no cDNA template were included in every run.
The run program used were: Step 1) 95°C for 15 seconds for denaturing,
Step 2) 60°C for 30 seconds for primer annealing, and 72°C for
elongation. Step 3) to Step 2 for 30 cycles; and Step 4) Final Extension,
72°C for 5 minutes. Specificity of the amplicon products was confirmed by
visual inspection of melting curves. Real-time PCR data was analyzed using the
Livak’s method [22]. The
housekeeping genes (GAPDH and β actin) and samples from far-off/PBS
treated cows were used to determine the ΔΔCt [22]. Fold change in transcript abundance
was calculated using the Livak method. WhereΔCt = (Target genes treat –
GAPDH/β actin treat)– ΔCt (Target genes PBS –
GAPDH/β actin PBS).Fold change = 2 (–ΔΔCt).
Evaluation of galectin secretion
Commercial bovine specific galectin ELISA kits were purchased and used to
determine the concentrations of secreted Gal-1 (catalog no. MBS2882620,
detection range; 0.31 ng/mL & 20.0 ng/mL), Gal-2 (catalog no. MBS033680
detection range; 0.625 ng/mL & 20 ng/mL), Gal-3 (catalog no. MBS017323
detection range; 0.156 ng/mL & 10 ng/mL), Gal-4 (catalog no. MBS028694,
detection range; 0.25 ng/mL & 8 ng/mL), Gal-8 (catalog no. MBS041856
detection range; 0.5 ng/mL & 16 ng/mL), Gal-9 (catalog no. MBS033074
detection range; 0.625 ng/mL & 20 ng/mL), Gal-12 (catalog no. MBS032400,
detection range; 31.2 pg/mL & 1,000 pg/mL) in plasma according to the
manufac-turer’s instructions (My BioSource®)) [23]. A microplate reader was used to
measure the absorbance at 450 nm (BioTek Instruments, Inc., Winooski, VT).
Galectin concentration was then determined using a standard curve. The
sensitivity was 0.1 ng/mL for all assays. Both intraassay CV (%) and
inter-assay CV (%) for all assays was less than 15%.[CV (%)
= SD/mean ×100].
Statistical analysis
Real-time PCR data were analyzed using Livak’s method [22]. Housekeeping genes (GAPDH and
β actin) and samples from PBS treated samples were
used to determine the ΔΔCt, as described above. The Proc GLM
procedure in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc, Cary NC) was used to analyze data
obtained for total galectins concentrations. Each sample was assayed in
triplicates. The PDIFF statement in SAS (SAS Institute Inc. Cary, NC) was used
to compare all least square means. Significant differences were declared at
p < 0.05. PROC corr was used to do a correlation
analysis between LGALS and Gal concentrations in plasma.
Results
Effect of PAMPs on LGALS transcription
LPS increased transcription of LGALS4 and
LGALS12 (2.5 and 2.02 folds respectively) (Fig. 1A). PGN increased transcription of
LGALS-1, -2, -3, -4, -7, and -12 (3.0,
2.3, 2.0, 4.1, 3.3, 2.4 folds respectively) (Fig.
1b). Poly I:C increased the transcription of LGALS1,
LGALS4, and LGALS8 (1.78, 1.88, and 1.73 folds
respectively) (Fig. 1c). CpG
oligodeoxynucleotides 2006 (CpG ODN2006) did not cause any significant fold
changes in LGALS transcription (FC < 2) (Fig. 1d). CpG oligodeoxynucleotides 2216 (CpG
ODN2216) increased transcription of LGALS1 and
LGALS3 (3.8 and 1.6 respectively), but reduced
LGALS2, LGALS4, LGALS 7, and LGALS12
(–1.9, –2.0, –2.0 and –2.7) (Fig. 2).
Fig. 1.
Fold changes in mRNA expression of LGALS-1, -2, -3-,4, -7,
-8, -9, and -12 after stimulation of whole
blood with LPS (A), PGN (B), POLY I: C (C), CpG ODN
2006 (D).
Error lines represent the ± standard deviation of the mean.
Fig. 2.
Fold changes in mRNA expression of LGALS-1, -2, -3-,4, -7,
-8, -9, and -12 after stimulation of whole
blood with CpG ODN (2216) class A (N = 5).
Error lines represent the ± standard deviation of the mean.
Fold changes in mRNA expression of LGALS-1, -2, -3-,4, -7,
-8, -9, and -12 after stimulation of whole
blood with LPS (A), PGN (B), POLY I: C (C), CpG ODN
2006 (D).
Error lines represent the ± standard deviation of the mean.
Fold changes in mRNA expression of LGALS-1, -2, -3-,4, -7,
-8, -9, and -12 after stimulation of whole
blood with CpG ODN (2216) class A (N = 5).
Error lines represent the ± standard deviation of the mean.
Effects of PAMPs on galectin secretion
Poly I:C and CpG ODN2006 increased plasma secretion of Gal-1 compared to control
(PBS) (p = 0.10 and p = 0.0125
respectively) (Fig. 3a). CpG ODN 2216
increased Gal-2 concentration in plasma compared to control (PBS)
(p = 0.0459) (Fig.
3b). CpG ODN 2216 and CpG ODN 2006 increased Gal-3 compared to
control (PBS) (p = 0.013 and p =
0.0195 respectively) (Fig. 3c). LPS, CpG
ODN2216, and CpG ODN2006 reduced Gal-4 concentrations in plasma compared to
control (PBS) (p = 0.04, p =
0.0005 and p = 0.0273 respectively (Fig. 4a). PGN and Poly I:C increased Gal-8 secretion
compared to control (PBS) (p = 0.001 and
p <.0001 respectively (Fig. 4a). PGN and Poly I:C increased Gal-9 secretion compared to
control (PBS) (p = 0.001 and p
<.0001 respectively) (Fig. 4b).
PAMPs did not affect plasma concentration of Gal-12 (p >
0.05) (Fig. 4c).
Fig. 3.
Effects of stimulating cow blood from multiparous Holstein with
Lipopolysaccharide (LPS), Peptidoglycan (PGN),
Polyinosinic-Polycytidylic Acid (Poly I:C), CpG ODN (2216) class A, CpG
ODN (2006) class B on plasma Gal-1 (A), Gal-2 (B), Gal-3 (C), and Gal-4
(D) (N = 5).
Error lines represent the ± standard deviation of the mean.
*significantly different from the control (PBS) at p
< 0.05.
Fig. 4.
Effects of stimulating cow blood from multiparous Holstein with
Lipopolysaccharide (LPS), Peptidoglycan (PGN),
Polyinosinic-Polycytidylic Acid (Poly I:C), CpG ODN (2216) class A, CpG
ODN (2006) class B on plasma Gal-8 (A), Gal-9 (B) and Gal-12 (C) (N =
5).
Error lines represent the ± standard deviation of the mean.
*significantly different from the control (PBS) at p
< 0.05.
Effects of stimulating cow blood from multiparous Holstein with
Lipopolysaccharide (LPS), Peptidoglycan (PGN),
Polyinosinic-Polycytidylic Acid (Poly I:C), CpG ODN (2216) class A, CpG
ODN (2006) class B on plasma Gal-1 (A), Gal-2 (B), Gal-3 (C), and Gal-4
(D) (N = 5).
Error lines represent the ± standard deviation of the mean.
*significantly different from the control (PBS) at p
< 0.05.
Effects of stimulating cow blood from multiparous Holstein with
Lipopolysaccharide (LPS), Peptidoglycan (PGN),
Polyinosinic-Polycytidylic Acid (Poly I:C), CpG ODN (2216) class A, CpG
ODN (2006) class B on plasma Gal-8 (A), Gal-9 (B) and Gal-12 (C) (N =
5).
Error lines represent the ± standard deviation of the mean.
*significantly different from the control (PBS) at p
< 0.05.
Analysis of correlation between galectin transcription and secretion
LGALS1 correlated negatively with Gal-1 (p
= 0.02) and correlated positively with Gal-2 (p =
0.03). LGALS2 correlated positively with Gal-4
(p =< 0.0001) and Gal-3 (p
= 0.0009). LGALS3 correlated negatively with Gal-1
(p = 0.006) and Gal-3 (p =
0.05). LGALS4 correlated positively with Gal-4
(p =< 0.0001) and negatively with Gal-3.
LGALS8 correlated positively with Gal-8 (p
=< 0.0001), Gal-9 (p =< 0.0001) and
Gal-4 (p = 0.0002), and negatively with Gal-2
(p =< 0.0002). LGALS9
correlated positively with Gal-9 (p = 0.007), Gal-8
(p = 0.0006) and Gal-4 (p =
0.002), and negatively with Gal-3.LGALS12 correlated positively with Gal-4 (p
=< 0.0001) and negatively with Gal3 (p =
0.0073).
Discussion
In the past few years, galectins have been shown to participate in the regulation of
both innate and adaptive immunity [13,24]. Furthermore, there is research that
supports the ability of Gals to recognize microbial pathogens like viruses, bacteria
and protozoan parasites [15] directly. The
ability of Gals to function as PRRs in the immune defense against invading microbes
makes them indispensable components in the innate immune response [16]. To test whether microbial infection
affects galectin expression in cow blood, we treated blood with natural bacteria
cell wall components (LPS and PGN), synthetic bacterial DNA adjuvants (CpGODN2006
and CpGODN2216) and viral RNA (Poly I:C). Treatment of cells with PAMPs mimic
microbial infection and regulates expression of various genes [25]. The current study showed that PAMP modulates
LGALS gene transcription as well as Gal secretion
differentially in cow blood. Both transcription and secretion depended on the type
of stimulant used.Bacterial LPS and PGN designated PAMPs, are recognized by TLR-4 and TLR-2
respectively [26]. The binding of these PAMPs
to their receptors is characterized by transcription of genes involved in immune
responses and secretion of cytokines [8,9,27]. In
the present study, LPS stimulation increased the transcription of
LGALS4 and LGALS12 in cow blood (Fig. 1a). Gal-4 has been studied to be only
expressed in inflamed cells and therefore has a more restricted distribution in
normal cells [28]. Gal-4 also promotes
resolution of inflammatory diseases, therefore, making it an important player in
immune responses [29]. Gal-12, on the other
hand, is preferentially expressed in adipose tissues and has also been studied to be
associated with impaired metabolic conditions [30]. Both Gal-4 and Gal-12 exert regulatory functions in immune cells
and have strong potential as biomarkers. This data suggests a possible role of Gal-4
and -12 in the recognition and resolution of gram-negative bacteria in cows. The
relationship between LPS and the transcription of these galectins need to be
explored.The gram-positive bacterial cell wall, PGN also increased transcription of
LGALS4 and LGALS12 as well as all galectins
tested. The differential LGALS transcription and secretion in
response to LPS and PGN observed in the study suggest distinct immunological
activities in response to these PAMPs. This also accentuates the fact that both
gram-positive and gram-negative are recognized by different receptors to elicit
different immunological responses. Thus, either LPS or PGN can be used as adjuvants
to induce the production of different galectins.Recently, galectins have been observed to interact directly with the
β-galactosides on the surface of viruses thereby
participating in antiviral defense, via the activation of the innate and adaptive
immune responses [31,32]. Previous research has shown that viral infection has
modulatory effects on galectin expression and function [33]. In this study, galectin expression in blood in response to
viral challenge assessed by a PolyI:C challenge. Poly I:C is a viral PAMP that
promotes cellular recognition of RNA viruses by binding to TLR3 to induce
proinflammatory, as well as regulatory and cytokine re-sponses [34]. In this study, Poly I:C increased the
transcription of LGALS1, LGALS4, and LGALS8 with a
subsequent secretion of Gal-1, -3, -8 and 9 in plasma. In a previous study,
secretion of several galectins, including Gal-1 and -3 were increased in
virus-infected macrophages [35]. Gonzalez et
al. (2005) has also postulated that induced Gal-1 secretion after a viral infection
is beneficial for the virus due to its anti-inflammatory functions [31]. On the contrary, Gal-3 has opposing
functions since it recruits inflammatory cells to the site of infection. It is
possible that the balance between the secreted extracellular Gal-1 and -3 in the
current may regulate the direction of the inflammatory response in cows. It is also
noteworthy that Gal-8, which has been known to be involved in phagocytosis [36] is transcribed and secreted upon viral PAMP
stimulation. The current study suggests that these galectins may also be involved in
recognition of viral PAMPs and promote the removal of these viral pathogens through
phagocytosis, or prevent viruses from entering the host cell.Studies have indicated that oligodeoxynucleotides (CpG ODNs) containing unmethylated
CpG dinucleotides are potent activators of both innate and adaptive immunity [37]. CpG ODNs are recognized by the Toll-like
receptor 9 (TLR9) [38]. The TLR9 signaling
pathway involves mitogen-activated protein kinases, and NF-kB-inducing kinase-IKK-
Inhibitor of KappaB Kinase (IkB) pathways [39]. Both CpG ODN 2216 and CpG ODN 2006 have been studied to show distinct
functional profiles depending on the type of CD8+ cells they are
exposed to. CpG ODN 2216 induces high amounts of interferon alpha in plasmacytoid
dendritic cells whereas CpG ODN2006 only induces small amounts of IFN alpha [40]. Furthermore, CpG ODN2006 has also been
studied to be a weak activator of natural killer cells compared to CpG ODN2216
[41]. This proves that both CpG ODN
motifs show distinct immunologic activities. In the present study, the 2 types of
CpG ODN adjuvants also affected LGALS transcription and secretion
distinctively in cow blood. Although no fold changes were observed in
LGALS transcription (FC < 2), CpG ODN2006 treatment
increased secretion of Gal-1 and Gal3 in plasma (Fig.
1d). This increase supports the proinflammatory roles of CpG ODNs since
Gal-1 and Gal-3 are proinflammatory in pathogenic conditions. CpG ODN2216, however,
increased Gal-2, a pro-apoptotic galectin and Gal-3, a proinflammatory galectin.
This also points to a balance in immune response upon PAMP recognition. Improper
orchestration of the immune response to microbial infections may lead to sepsis, a
condition caused by an overwhelming immune responses [7].It was also important to note from this study that although LPS and the CpG ODNs
motifs are both of bacteria origin, LPS did not affect galectin secretion in plasma.
This could mean that Gal secretion in cow blood is increased in response to bacteria
DNA compared to its cell wall components. The concentration of LPS (10 μg)
used as well as the length of exposure could also cause variation in transcription
and translation in blood [42]. Also, the fact
that transcription of LGALS4 was reduced in blood treated the CpG
ODN motifs is noteworthy since both PAMPs are synthetic adju-vants. This points to a
negative regulatory effect of these PAMPs on LGALS4. The results of
this study have impli-cations for vaccination and use of synthetic PAMPs in cows and
immunomodulation.
Conclusion
The results demonstrate that PAMPs differentially modulate transcription of mRNA and
secretion of Gal in cow blood. Elucidation of the relationship between PAMPS and
galectin expression may help to define their roles in infectious diseases as well as
aid in drug design for the dairy industry.
Authors: H Hemmi; O Takeuchi; T Kawai; T Kaisho; S Sato; H Sanjo; M Matsumoto; K Hoshino; H Wagner; K Takeda; S Akira Journal: Nature Date: 2000-12-07 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: A Krug; S Rothenfusser; V Hornung; B Jahrsdörfer; S Blackwell; Z K Ballas; S Endres; A M Krieg; G Hartmann Journal: Eur J Immunol Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Gabriel A Rabinovich; Linda G Baum; Nicola Tinari; Roberto Paganelli; Clara Natoli; Fu Tong Liu; Stefano Iacobelli Journal: Trends Immunol Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 16.687
Authors: A K Nichani; A Mena; Y Popowych; D Dent; H G G Townsend; G K Mutwiri; R Hecker; L A Babiuk; P J Griebel Journal: Vet Immunol Immunopathol Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 2.046
Authors: Omai B Garner; Hector C Aguilar; Jennifer A Fulcher; Ernest L Levroney; Rebecca Harrison; Lacey Wright; Lindsey R Robinson; Vanessa Aspericueta; Maria Panico; Stuart M Haslam; Howard R Morris; Anne Dell; Benhur Lee; Linda G Baum Journal: PLoS Pathog Date: 2010-07-15 Impact factor: 6.823