| Literature DB >> 32093117 |
Kathrin Haake1, Anna-Lena Neehus1,2,3, Theresa Buchegger1, Mark Philipp Kühnel4,5, Patrick Blank1,6, Friederike Philipp1, Carmen Oleaga-Quintas2,3, Ansgar Schulz7, Michael Grimley8,9, Ralph Goethe10, Danny Jonigk4,5, Ulrich Kalinke6, Stéphanie Boisson-Dupuis2,3,11, Jean-Laurent Casanova2,3,11,12,13, Jacinta Bustamante2,3,11,14, Nico Lachmann1.
Abstract
Interferon γ (IFN-γ) was shown to be a macrophage activating factor already in 1984. Consistently, inborn errors of IFN-γ immunity underlie Mendelian Susceptibility to Mycobacterial Disease (MSMD). MSMD is characterized by genetic predisposition to disease caused by weakly virulent mycobacterial species. Paradoxically, macrophages from patients with MSMD were little tested. Here, we report a disease modeling platform for studying IFN-γ related pathologies using macrophages derived from patient specific induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs). We used iPSCs from patients with autosomal recessive complete- and partial IFN-γR2 deficiency, partial IFN-γR1 deficiency and complete STAT1 deficiency. Macrophages from all patient iPSCs showed normal morphology and IFN-γ-independent functionality like phagocytic uptake of bioparticles and internalization of cytokines. For the IFN-γ-dependent functionalities, we observed that the deficiencies played out at various stages of the IFN-γ pathway, with the complete IFN-γR2 and complete STAT1 deficient cells showing the most severe phenotypes, in terms of upregulation of surface markers and induction of downstream targets. Although iPSC-derived macrophages with partial IFN-γR1 and IFN-γR2 deficiency still showed residual induction of downstream targets, they did not reduce the mycobacterial growth when challenged with Bacillus Calmette-Guérin. Taken together, we report a disease modeling platform to study the role of macrophages in patients with inborn errors of IFN-γ immunity.Entities:
Keywords: MSMD; hematopoiesis; induced pluripotent stem cells; interferon γ; macrophages; mycobacteria
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32093117 PMCID: PMC7072779 DOI: 10.3390/cells9020483
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cells ISSN: 2073-4409 Impact factor: 6.600
Figure 1Overview of patients and their mutations. (A) Overview of mutations of the patients, the connected deficiency and the abbreviation used in this study. (B) Schematic overview of the location of each mutation in the genes. Exons are not to scale.
Figure 2Characterization of patient specific iPSCs. (A) Sequence and electropherogram for the patient-specific mutation. Sequencing was performed on the patient line (top) and a healthy iPSC line (bottom) as wild type (WT) control. The mutated nucleotide or insertion is highlighted in red. (B) Staining for alkaline phosphatase (AP) activity of patient iPSCs. Scale bar = 200 µm. (C) Representative flow cytometric analysis of SSEA4 (left) and TRA-1-60 (right) expression on patient iPSCs. Blue: Isotype. Orange: Marker. (D) qRT-PCR analysis of endogenous NANOG, OCT4 and SOX2 expression of patient iPSCs normalized to H9 control cells. ACTIN was used as a housekeeping gene and CD34+ cells as negative control. N.D. = not detectable (n = 3 biological replicates, mean ± SD). (E) Representative images of cells of the three germ layers after teratoma formation after injection of patient iPSCs into immunodeficient mice. Scale bar = 100 µm. (F) Representative immunofluorescent staining for OCT4 (left) and NANOG (right) in patient iPSCs co-stained with DAPI. Scale bar = 200 µm.
Figure 3Generation of patient specific iPSC-derived macrophages. Patient iPSCs have been differentiated into macrophages and compared to macrophages from a healthy iPSC line (hCD34_iPSC16). (A) Microscopic analysis of patient iPSCs in cytospin images after Pappenheim staining (left, scale bar = 20 µm) or in brightfield images (middle scale bar 200 µm, right scale bar = 100 µm). (B) Representative flow cytometric analysis of CD11b, CD14, CD163 and CD45 expression on patient iPSCs and healthy macrophages of two independent experiments. Blue: Isotype. Pink: Surface marker. FC = fold change of the median fluorescent intensity. (C) Flow cytometric analysis of IFN-γR1 (top) and IFN-γR2 (bottom) expression on healthy and patient iPSC-derived macrophages. Blue: Isotype. Pink: Surface marker. Expression has been quantified by plotting the difference of the median fluorescent intensity (ΔMFI). Each dot represents macrophages from an independent harvest and from at least three independent differentiations (n = 4–7, mean ± SD, Kruskal–Wallis with Dunn’s multiple comparison). Red line shows ΔMFI of 0. (D) GM-CSF clearance of healthy and patient iPSC-derived macrophages over a time of 48 h. Concentrations have been normalized to control well containing no cells (media only) (n = 3, mean ± SD; each dot represents macrophages from an independent harvest and from at least three independent differentiations). (E) Representative flow cytometric (top) and microscopic (bottom) analysis of phagocytic uptake of pH-sensitive fluorescent labeled E. coli bioparticles of healthy and patient iPSC-derived macrophages of two independent experiments; scale bar = 500 µm.
Figure 4Patient mutations lead to IFN-γ-dependent defects in the iPSC-derived macrophages. (A) Representative flow cytometric analysis of surface marker (HLA-DR, CD64, CD38, CD282) upregulation after IFN-γ stimulation in healthy and patient iPSC-derived macrophages. Blue: Isotype. Pink: Surface marker. (B) Fold change of median fluorescent intensity (MFI) of HLA-DR, CD64, CD38 and CD282 in healthy and patient iPSC-derived macrophages (n = 3–7, mean ± SD; each dot represents macrophages from an independent harvest and from at least three independent differentiations, Kruskal–Wallis with Dunn’s multiple comparison)) (C) Representative western blot analysis of STAT1 phosphorylation (pSTAT1) after stimulation with low (25 ng/mL) or high (100 ng/mL) dose of IFN-γ. Tubulin was used as a loading control. The left side of the blot shows the protein size marker. (D) Densitometric analysis of STAT1 phosphorylation after IFN-γ stimulation. Values have been normalized to loading control. (n = 3, mean ± SD; each dot represents macrophages from an independent harvest and from at least two independent differentiations, Kruskal–Wallis with Dunn’s multiple comparison). (E) qRT-PCR analysis of upregulation of downstream targets IRF1, CXCL10, CCL2 and CCL4 after IFNγ stimulation. Values have been normalized to GAPDH as housekeeping gene. (n = 3–5, mean ± SD; each dot represents macrophages from an independent harvest and from at least two independent differentiations, Kruskal–Wallis with Dunn’s multiple comparison). (F) Production of reactive oxygen (ROS) species after IFN-γ stimulation measured via superoxide anion production (n = 3–7, mean ± SD; each dot represents macrophages from an independent harvest and from at least two independent differentiations, Kruskal–Wallis with Dunn’s multiple comparison). (G) Intracellular killing of BCG in unstimulated and stimulated samples. Intracellular killing of BCG was calculated in percent of killing 24 h after infection compared to 15 min after infection. BCG load of cells was evaluated by plating of macrophage cell suspension on Middlebrook 7H10 agar plates (n = 2, mean ± SEM; each dot represents macrophages from an independent harvest).
Figure 5Transcriptional analysis shows differential gene expression in healthy and patient macrophages. (A) Principal component analysis (PCA) of unstimulated and stimulated samples of healthy control and iINFGR2_comp macrophages. PCA was performed on all genes significantly changes (p ≤ 0.05) in healthy control macrophages. (B) Heatmap of all genes significantly up- or downregulated between stimulated and unstimulated healthy control macrophages compared to the other groups. (C) Genes of the hallmark IFN-γ response group (M5913) of the molecular signature database (MSigDB) and their expression in healthy control and iIFNGR2_comp macrophages. (D) Comparison of genes significantly up- or downregulated (p ≤ 0.05) in stimulated compared to unstimulated healthy control macrophages and stimulated compared to unstimulated iIFNGR2_comp macrophages. (E) Genes that were significantly up- or downregulated (p ≤ 0.05 in stimulated healthy control macrophages compared to the other groups were analyzed via gProfiler for enriched WikiPathway groups. The top 10 groups are shown.