| Literature DB >> 34992733 |
Kenneth I Onyedibe1,2, Samira Elmanfi3, Uma K Aryal4,5, Eija Könönen3, Ulvi Kahraman Gürsoy3, Herman O Sintim1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Constant exposure of human gingival fibroblasts (HGFs) to oral pathogens trigger selective immune responses. Recently, the activation of immune response to cyclic dinucleotides (CDNs) via STING has come to the forefront. Reports show that other proteins outside the STING-TBK1-IRF3 axis respond to CDNs but a global view of impacted proteome in diverse cells is lacking. HGFs are constantly exposed to bacterial-derived cyclic-di-adenosine monophosphate (c-di-AMP) and cyclic-di-guanosine monophosphate (c-di-GMP). AIM: To understand the response of HGFs to bacterial-derived CDNs, we carried out a global proteomics analysis of HGFs treated with c-di-AMP or c-di-GMP.Entities:
Keywords: Cyclic dinucleotide; fibroblasts; proteomics
Year: 2021 PMID: 34992733 PMCID: PMC8725719 DOI: 10.1080/20002297.2021.2003617
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Oral Microbiol ISSN: 2000-2297 Impact factor: 5.474
Figure 1.Current understanding of how cyclic dinucleotides promote inflammatory response via STING.
Figure 2.Global proteomic profiling. (A) Venn diagram showing the number and percentages of proteins identified in the control and 100 µM of c-di-AMP and c-di-GMP treated fibroblasts. Proteins in the subsets of the Venn diagram are listed in Table S1. (B) Volcano plots of quantified proteins in each treatment group versus controls. Horizontal blue line represents the Log10 (p value) cutoff. Volcano plots of c-di-AMP and c-di-GMP treatments showed significantly upregulated proteins (red dots) and downregulated proteins (green dots) in both treatment conditions. Volcano plots were plotted using the Origin (Pro), Version 2020 software (OriginLab Corporation, Northampton, MA).
Figure 3.(A) Heatmap showing the top 50 regulated proteins (blue = downregulated, oxblood/red = upregulated) following c-di-AMP treatment. (B) Heatmap showing the top 50 regulated proteins following c-di-GMP treatment. Heatmaps were plotted on the MetaboAnalyst software Version 5.0 with auto-scale normalized data.
Figure 4.Top 10 proteins upregulated by c-di-AMP or c-di-GMP. (A) Top 10 statistically significant proteins with a measurable fold change, which are upregulated (blue bars) by c-di-AMP. (B) Top 10 statistically significant proteins with a measurable fold change, which are upregulated (red bars) by c-di-GMP. Charts were plotted using the Origin (Pro), Version 2020 software (OriginLab Corporation, Northampton, MA).
Figure 5.Multivariate analysis shows similar mapping of modulation of expressed proteins by both c-di-AMP and c-di-GMP. Four of the proteins (MX1, IFIT 1, IFIT3 and UBE2L6) seen in the upper left PC2 axis were also at the top of the VIP plots (Figure S6) and were the most statistically significant upregulated proteins (Figures S7 and S8). PCA analysis and biplots were created in the Origin (Pro), Version 2020 software (originlab corporation, northampton, MA).
Figure 6.Enrichment analysis of ingenuity canonical pathways that are regulated by c-di-GMP and c-di-AMP. (A) Activated canonical pathways with z-scores ≥ 2. A positive z-score of 2 represents two standard deviations above the mean. (B) Top 10 ingenuity canonical pathways significantly regulated by c-di-AMP. (C) Top 10 ingenuity canonical pathways significantly regulated by c-di-GMP. The functional analyses and enrichment were generated by IPA (QIAGEN Inc., https://www.qiagenbioinformatics.com/products/ingenuity-pathway-analysis). p values which are represented as -log10 (p values) below the graph represents the magnitude of changes of the entire network of all identified proteins. Data were plotted using the Origin (Pro), Version 2020 software (OriginLab Corporation, Northampton, MA).
Pathways significantly regulated by c-di-AMP and c-di-GMP with -log p > 1.3 (-log p > 1.3 = p < 0.05)
| S/No | Ingenuity Canonical Pathway | c-di-GMP | c-di-GMP (z-score) | Molecules in c-di-GMP treated fibroblasts | c-di-AMP | c-di-AMP (z-score) | Molecules in c-di-AMP treated fibroblasts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Interferon signaling | 9.49 | 2.828 | IFI35,IFIT1,IFIT3,ISG15,MX1,STAT1,STAT2,TAP1 | 11.0 | 2.646 | IFI35,IFIT1,IFIT3,IRF9,ISG15,MX1,STAT1,STAT2 |
| 2 | Hypercytokinemia/hyperchemokinemia in the pathogenesis of influenza | 6.39 | 2.828 | EIF2AK2,IFIT3,ISG15,MX1,NFKB2,PYCARD, STAT1,STAT2 | 6.52 | 2.646 | EIF2AK2,IFIT3,IRF9,ISG15,MX1,STAT1,STAT2 |
| 3 | Coronavirus pathogenesis pathway | 6.48 | 1.265 | ACE,CASP3,FAU,NFKB2,PYCARD,RPS26,SERPINE1,STAT1,STAT2, TRIM25 | 3.9 | −1.633 | IRF9,RPS26,RPS27L,STAT1,STAT2,TRIM25 |
| 4 | Activation of IRF by Cytosolic Pattern Recognition Receptors | 2.81 | 1 | ISG15,NFKB2,STAT1, STAT2 | 3.51 | 1 | IRF9,ISG15,STAT1, STAT2 |
| 5 | Role of PKR in interferon induction and antiviral response | 4.37 | 2.449 | BID,CASP3,EIF2AK2,NFKB2,PYCARD,STAT1, STAT2 | 3.44 | 1.342 | EIF2AK2,IRF9,PDGFRB,STAT1,STAT2 |
| 6 | Antigen presentation pathway | 3.61 | N | HLA-A,HLA-B,PSMB9,TAP1 | 2.98 | N | CANX,HLA-B,PSMB9 |
| 7 | Phagosome maturation | 2.89 | CTSZ,HLA-A,HLA-B,RAB7A,TAP1,TUBG1 | 2.96 | N | ATP6V0C,CANX,DCTN4,HLA-B,VPS18 | |
| 8 | Necroptosis signaling pathway | 2.8 | 1.633 | EIF2AK2,PYCARD,STAT1,STAT2,TNFRSF11B, TOMM20 | 2.88 | 1.342 | EIF2AK2,IRF9,STAT1,STAT2,TOMM20 |
| 9 | Glycogen degradation III | 2.28 | N | GAA,TYMP | 2.64 | N | GAA,TYMP |
| 10 | Protein ubiquitination pathway | 2.22 | N | HLA-A,HLA-B, PSMB9,PSME2,TAP1, UBE2L6,UCHL5 | 2.54 | N | HLA-B, PSMB9, PSME2, THOP1,UBE2C,UBE2L6 |
| 11 | EIF2 signaling | 2.69 | −0.447 | EIF2AK2,FAU,RALB,RPL18,RPL18A,RPL7,RPS26 | 2.22 | N | EIF2AK2,EIF2S3, RPLP1,RPS26,RPS27L |
| 12 | Role of JAK1, JAK2 and TYK2 in interferon signaling | 3.06 | N | NFKB2,STAT1,STAT2 | 2.18 | N | STAT1,STAT2 |
| 13 | Insulin secretion signaling pathway | 1.35 | 0.447 | DLAT,PLCB4,SEC61A1, STAT1,STAT2 | 2.07 | 0.447 | EIF2S3,SEC61A1,SSR4,STAT1,STAT2 |
| 14 | PDGF signaling | 1.51 | N | EIF2AK2,RALB,STAT1 | 2.01 | N | EIF2AK2,PDGFRB, STAT1 |
| 15 | T cell exhaustion signaling pathway | 1.9 | N | HLA-A,HLA-B, RALB,STAT1,STAT2 | 1.90 | N | HLA-B, IRF9, STAT1,STAT2 |
| 16 | Systemic Lupus Erythematosus in B cell signaling pathway | 2.8 | 2.121 | IFIT3,IL6ST,ISG15,MAP4K4,NFKB2,RALB,STAT1,STAT2 | 1.86 | 2.236 | IFIT3,IRF9,ISG15,STAT1,STAT2 |
| 17 | Sumoylation pathway | 2.04 | N | NFKB2,PML,RND3, SP100 | 1.80 | N | PML,RFC2,SP100 |
| 18 | NER pathway | 1.32 | N | CETN2,POLR2A,TOP2A | 1.80 | N | CETN2,POLR2A,RFC2 |
| 19 | Heme degradation | 1.51 | N | HMOX1 | 1.69 | N | HMOX1 |
| 20 | Eumelanin biosynthesis | 1.41 | N | DDT | 1.60 | N | MIF |
| 21 | Iron homeostasis signaling pathway | 2.33 | N | ACO1,FTH1,FTL,HMOX1,TFRC | 1.47 | N | ATP6V0C,HMOX1, PDGFRB |
*N = z-score was not determined/indeterminate by IPA