| Literature DB >> 34944072 |
Sara Elhag1, Christopher Stremmel1,2, Annette Zehrer3,4, Josefine Plocke5, Roman Hennel6, Michaela Keuper7, Clarissa Knabe1, Julia Winterhalter1, Vanessa Gölling8,9, Lukas Tomas1,2, Tobias Weinberger1,2, Maximilian Fischer1,2, Lulu Liu1,2, Franziska Wagner1, Michael Lorenz1, Konstantin Stark1,2, Hans Häcker10, Marc Schmidt-Supprian8,9, Uwe Völker5,11, Martin Jastroch7, Kirsten Lauber6,12, Tobias Straub13, Barbara Walzog3,4, Elke Hammer5,11, Christian Schulz1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tissue-resident macrophages have mixed developmental origins. They derive in variable extent from yolk sac (YS) hematopoiesis during embryonic development. Bone marrow (BM) hematopoietic progenitors give rise to tissue macrophages in postnatal life, and their contribution increases upon organ injury. Since the phenotype and functions of macrophages are modulated by the tissue of residence, the impact of their origin and developmental paths has remained incompletely understood.Entities:
Keywords: inflammasome; macrophages; yolk sac
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34944072 PMCID: PMC8699930 DOI: 10.3390/cells10123564
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cells ISSN: 2073-4409 Impact factor: 6.600
Figure 1Generation of functional Hoxb8 YS macrophages. (a) Schematic graph illustrating the process of Hoxb8 cell line generation. (b) Flow cytometry of E9.5 hematopoietic progenitors in the yolk sac (YS) (representative plot, n = 4). (c) mRNA expression analysis of YS and embryonic KIT+ progenitors and CX3CR1+ pre-macrophages (n = 3). (d) mRNA expression analysis of Hoxb8 progenitors and differentiated Hoxb8 macrophages for indicated genes in percent (%) relative to beta actin expression (n = 3). (e) Growth curve for YS and BM Hoxb8 progenitors (n = 3). (f) Bright field images of Hoxb8 cell lines during the process of macrophage differentiation. (g) Microscopic images of Hoxb8 macrophages stained with May–Grünwald–Giesma (n = 3). (h) Immunofluorescence analysis with indicated antibodies (nuclei in blue, Hoechst) and (i) quantification of median fluorescence intensity of the markers Cx3cr1 and F4/80. Median +/− IQR. (j) Phagocytosis assay with pHrodo Zymosan bioparticles (GFP, green) after 1 h of incubation. (k) The ratio of phagocytic (GFP+) to DAPI+ macrophages is indicated (3 independent experiments). Panels show representative images. Scale bars represent 100 µm (f), 20 µm (g,h,j). (**) p < 0.01, (*) p < 0.05.
Figure 2Expression profile and survival of Hoxb8 macrophages. (a) Flow cytometry analysis of floating or adherent differentiated (day 5) Hoxb8 BM cells labeled with indicated antibodies (representative plot, n = 3). (b) Flow cytometry analyses of Hoxb8 progenitors in the process of differentiation towards macrophages (d0 to d6) labeled with indicated antibodies (representative experiment of n = 3). (c) Schematic graph for intraperitoneal Hoxb8 progenitor application. (d–f) Flow cytometry quantification of in vivo differentiated Hoxb8 macrophage and neutrophil populations obtained by peritoneal lavage after one week. Live CD45.1− CD45.2+ CD16/32+ single cells were gated, then macrophages and neutrophils were separated by F4/80 and LY6G intensities. Results are displayed as (d) relative quantities of differentiated cell populations; (e) corresponding contour plots (representative experiment of n = 3). (f) Quantification of UV and SuperFASL dependent apoptosis and necrosis in differentiated Hoxb8 macrophages. n = 3. Unpaired, two-tailed t-test. (*) p < 0.05.
Figure 3Transcriptome and extracellular flux analysis. (a–e) RNA expression analysis of differentiated YS and BM Hoxb8 macrophages. (a) MA plot of macrophage gene expression indicating fold changes (log2) of YS versus BM plotted against abundance (logTPM). Genes are marked in grey (not significant) or black (significant). (b,c) Fold upregulation of selected genes in (b) BM- and (c) YS-derived macrophages. Top 25 (d) upregulated and (e) downregulated genes of YS versus BM Hoxb8 cells without treatment or stimulated with IL4 or LPS. (f–l) Bioenergetic profiling of Hoxb8 macrophages either stimulated or not stimulated with IL4 or LPS for 4 h using XF96 extracellular flux analyzer as described in the Methods section. All data represent the mean of 26–29 wells measured on three independent experimental days and are normalized to 130 ng ds DNA/well, two-way ANOVA, followed by Sidak post hoc test. (f) Oxygen consumption rates (OCR) traces of unstimulated BM and YS macrophages using respiratory inhibitors to probe bioenergetic modules. (g) Respiratory modules of mitochondrial energy transduction in unstimulated and stimulated cells. (h) Mitochondrial efficiency. Coupling efficiency (CE) is the respiratory fraction driving ATP synthesis at resting state; (i) cellular respiratory control ratio (cRCR) is determined using proton leak and uncoupler-induced respiration. (j) Extracellular acidification rate (ECAR) traces of unstimulated BM and YS macrophages using specific inhibitors. (k) ECAR linked to glycolytic activity of unstimulated and stimulated macrophages. (l) Glycolytic ECAR plotted against ATP-linked OCR to depict global changes in cellular energy metabolism, revealing the metabolic switch induced by LPS in BM Hoxb8 macrophages. (***) p < 0.001, (**) p < 0.01, (*) p < 0.05.
Figure 4Inflammasome activation in Hoxb8 macrophages. (a,b) Proteome analysis of day 5 differentiated Hoxb8 macrophages. (a) Protein intensities (log2) of BM versus YS macrophages are indicated. Selected, differentially abundant proteins were annotated and colored in red (BM) or green (YS). (b) Top 10 up- and downregulated proteins after LPS stimulation. (c) Cytokine expression analysis by Multiplex ELISA in untreated (CTRL) and LPS or IL4 stimulated samples. n = 3. Pearson’s correlation. (d–e) IL1β expression analysis by ELISA in LPS-primed crystal stimulated (6 h or 12 h) YS and BM macrophages. One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc test. (d) Stimulation with cholesterol (CH) crystals. n = 8. (e) Stimulation with monosodium urate (MSU) crystals. n = 7. BM Hoxb8 macrophages from Caspase 1/11-deficient mice served as control. n = 6. (f,g) Detection of PYCARD, NLRP3 and CASP1 protein expression in YS and BM Hoxb8 macrophages treated with 250 ug/mL MSU crystals for 24 h (g) with corresponding quantifications (n = 3). Beta actin served as loading reference. RAW264.7 cells served as PYCARD-deficient control. One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc test. (h) IL1β expression analysis by ELISA of macrophages stimulated with E. coli outer membrane vesicles (OMV) (n = 3). One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc test. (***) p < 0.001, (**) p < 0.01, (*) p < 0.05.