| Literature DB >> 35027054 |
Stephen Meek1, Tom Watson2, Lel Eory2, Gus McFarlane2, Felicity J Wynne3, Stephen McCleary3, Laura E M Dunn4, Emily M Charlton2, Chloe Craig2, Barbara Shih2, Tim Regan2, Ryan Taylor2, Linda Sutherland2, Anton Gossner2, Cosmin Chintoan-Uta2, Sarah Fletcher2, Philippa M Beard2,4, Musa A Hassan2, Finn Grey2, Jayne C Hope2, Mark P Stevens2, Monika Nowak-Imialek5, Heiner Niemann6, Pablo J Ross7, Christine Tait-Burkard2, Sarah M Brown2, Lucas Lefevre8, Gerard Thomson9, Barry W McColl8,10, Alistair B Lawrence2,11, Alan L Archibald2, Falko Steinbach3, Helen R Crooke3, Xuefei Gao12, Pentao Liu13,14,15, Tom Burdon16.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Infectious diseases of farmed and wild animals pose a recurrent threat to food security and human health. The macrophage, a key component of the innate immune system, is the first line of defence against many infectious agents and plays a major role in shaping the adaptive immune response. However, this phagocyte is a target and host for many pathogens. Understanding the molecular basis of interactions between macrophages and pathogens is therefore crucial for the development of effective strategies to combat important infectious diseases.Entities:
Keywords: ASFV; CRISPR; Macrophage; PRRSV; Pig; Pluripotent stem cell; gene editing
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35027054 PMCID: PMC8759257 DOI: 10.1186/s12915-021-01217-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Biol ISSN: 1741-7007 Impact factor: 7.431
Fig. 1Generation and expression profiling of porcine PSCdMs. Schematic and timeline illustrating the differentiation protocol and cytokines used for deriving macrophages from porcine PSCs. Solid arrows indicate steps in which cells are attached: either on STO feeder cells (PSCs), gelatin (macrophage differentiation) or non-coated TC plastic (macrophage maturation). The hollow arrow representing mesoderm induction indicates that embryoid body formation was performed in suspension. Representative bright-field images are shown for the different cell morphologies generated at each stage. B RT-qPCR expression profile analysis of cells generated at each step of macrophage differentiation for markers of pluripotency (NANOG), early mesoderm induction (KDR1), HSC induction (RUNX1) and macrophages (PU.1 and CSF1R). Mean and SD of two biological replicates from three experiments. C Score plot showing the first two principal components (PC1 and PC2) in tissue-specific gene expression. Based on PC1 and PC2 the data shows good separation of porcine PSCs, in vitro-derived porcine PSCdMs, ex vivo-derived PAMs, microglia, brain and other tissue samples. D Heatmap of the hundred most highly expressed genes in pig tissues and cell lines. Lower expression levels are highlighted in blue and higher expression values in red. Biological replicates are indicated in green. Hierarchical clustering of the samples, shown as a tree at the top of the heatmap, was calculated using Euclidean distances between samples after transposing the variance stabilised expression data. E Heatmap showing the similarities between samples based on the Euclidean distances. The darker the colour, the closer the sample relationship is based on their expression profile. F Flow cytometry analysis comparing primary pig PAMs with in vitro-derived porcine macrophages derived from two independent porcine PSC lines (PSCdM 1 & 2) co-stained with CD14/CD16 (red) and CD169/CD172a (blue) relative to isotype controls (grey)
Fig. 2Functional validation of in vitro-derived porcine PSCdMs. A Composite bright-field and fluorescent image showing phagocytosed pHrodo-Red beads fluorescing within porcine PSCdMs. Image taken 3 h after pHrodo bead addition. B Quantification of phagocytosis activity in PAMs (blue) and PSCdMs (red). Graph shows the level of pHrodo bead fluorescence between 0 and 8 h. Mean and SD of two PSCdM and one PAM line from three experiments. C Flow cytometry analysis of PAMs (blue) and PSCdMs (red) 8 h after pHrodo-Red bead addition relative to negative control cells (grey). D RT-qPCR analysis comparing DDX58 and IFNB expression in PAMs and PSCdMs following 4 h pre-treatment with 200 ng/ml LPS or 25 μg/ml poly(I:C) relative to untreated controls. Mean and SD of three experimental replicates. E Confocal Z-stack projected image of PSCdMs 1 h post-infection with EGFP-labelled Salmonella typhimurium. DNA is stained with DAPI (blue) and actin filaments with phalloidin (red). F Ratio of colony-forming Salmonella typhimurium recovered from infected PAMs and PSCdMs at 3 h post-infection relative to T0. Mean and SD of duplicate plates from two dilutions. G Confocal image of PSCdMs 24 h post-infection with EGFP-labelled Toxoplasma gondii. DNA is stained with DAPI (blue) and actin filaments with phalloidin (red). H RT-qPCR analysis of CCL22 and IRF7 expression in uninfected and Toxoplasma gondii-infected PAMs and PSCdMs. Mean and SD of three experimental replicates
Fig. 3Viral infection of porcine PSCdMs. A Bright-field image from a haemadsorption assay of ASFV-infected porcine PSCdMs, 24 h post-infection. Red blood cells can be seen aggregating around two PSCdMs (black arrows). B Composite bright-field and fluorescent image of ASFV-infected PSCdMs, 24 h post-infection, stained for p72 viral protein (green). C RT-qPCR analysis of ASFV levels (genome copies) present in supernatants from PAMs and PSCdMs 24 h and 48 h post infection. Mean and SD of four experimental replicates. D Flow cytometry analysis of cell surface CD163 (green) on PAMs and PSCdMs derived from two independent PSC lines relative to isotype control (red) and unstained cells (grey). E Confocal image of a PRRSV-infected PSCdM, 19 h post-infection and stained for PRRSV nucleocapsid protein (green). DNA is stained with DAPI (blue) and actin filaments with phalloidin (red). F Flow cytometry analysis for PRRSV nucleocapsid protein in PRRSV-infected PAMs (blue) and two independent PSCdM lines (red) 18 h post-infection and relative to uninfected PSCdMs (grey)
Infection of pig PAMs with PRRSV cell supernatants harvested from PAMs and PSCdMs
| Cell line supernatant | 6 h | 24 h | 48 h | 30 h | 72 h |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PAM | 0.12 | 43.6 | 43.8 | 46.6 | 36.2 |
| PSCdM 1 | 0.24 | 44.2 | 41.7 | 41.7 | 41.2 |
| PSCdM 2 | 0.36 | 49 | 54.6 | 47.9 | 48.0 |
Data represents the percentage of PRRSV nucleocapsid protein positive cells relative to uninfected controls
Fig. 4CRISPR-Cas9 editing in porcine PSCs and PSCdMs. A IRF3 CRISPR/Cas9 editing diagram. The entire IRF3 coding sequence was deleted using a pair of guides (blue lightning bolts) designed to cut immediately after the initiation codon and 3 bp upstream of the stop codon. Coding exons are shown as red boxes, non-coding genomic sequence as thick black lines and 5′ and 3′ UTRs as brown boxes. Genotyping was performed using a pool of two forward primers (green and yellow arrowheads) and one reverse primer (pink arrowhead), where the yellow forward primer located in exon 6 is specific for the wild-type allele. PCR product sizes are indicated. B PCR analysis showing the expected products for three wild-type (WT) and three IRF3 knock-out (KO) clones using the primer pool indicated in A. Water (-ve) and parental porcine PSC genomic DNA (+ve) were included as controls. C Bright-field images of PSCdM generated from wild-type (WT) and IRF3 knock-out (KO) clones. D RT-qPCR analysis for IRF3 expression in PSCdMs from wild-type (WT) and IRF3 knock-out (KO) clones. Mean and SD of three biological replicates. E Ratio of PRRSV-infected WT and IRF3 KO porcine PSCdMs in poly(I:C)-treated:untreated conditions. Data represents ratio of parental line and mean ratio of three KO clones. F Brightfield and fluorescent images of lenti-EGFP-transduced porcine PSCdMs, 7 d post-transduction. G Flow cytometry analysis of lenti-EGFP-transduced porcine PSCdMs 7 d post-transduction relative to non-transduced porcine PSCdMs. H CD163 CRISPR/Cas9 editing diagram. A pair of guides that delete exon7 [41] results in a 487 bp deletion that can be detected by PCR using flanking primers (green and pink arrowheads). Expected PCR product sizes are indicated. I PCR analysis demonstrating lentiviral-mediated CD163 editing in porcine PSCdMs using the screening strategy in panel H. Water (-ve) and non-transduced cells (Non) were included as controls
IRF3 editing efficiency
| No. of colonies picked | Wild type | Heterozygous | Homozygous |
|---|---|---|---|
| 80 | 43 (54%) | 34 (42%) | 3 (4%) |
| Gene | Sequence |
|---|---|
| Ccl22_For | TCTGCTGCCGGGACTACATC |
| Ccl22_Rev | CTTCTTCACCCAGGGCAGTC |
| CD163_For | GTGGTCAACTTCGCCTGGTC |
| CD163_Rev | TCAGGTCCCAGCTGTCATCA |
| Csf1r_For | CCACACACACGGAGAGGAAA |
| Csf1r_Rev | TGCGATTCTTCCAGACGAGC |
| DDX58_For | ATCCAAACCAGAGGCAGAGG |
| DDX58_Rev | TCTTTGTCGATCAGATCAGCG |
| IFN-β_For | GTTGCCTGGGACTCCTCAAT |
| IFN-β_Rev | ATGCCGAAGATCTGCTGGAG |
| IRF3_For | TTTTCCCGGCTCACTGTACC |
| IRF3_Rev | CACACCCCACTTCTCGTCAG |
| IRF7_For | GACTTCGGCACCTTCTTCCA |
| IRF7_Rev | CCCGAAGCCCAGGTAGATG |
| Kdr1_For | AGAAGCCAGGCGATGGAAGT |
| Kdr1_Rev | CTTGGCTCAGGACCCACATC |
| Nanog_For | GGTACCCAGCAGCAAATCAT |
| Nanog_Rev | TTACGGTGCAGCAGAAATTG |
| PU.1_For | TACAGGCGTGCAAAATGGAA |
| PU.1_Rev | AAGTCCCAGTAATGGTCGCT |
| RPL4_For | AGGAGGCTGTTCTGCTTCTG |
| RPL4_Rev | TCCAGGGATGTTTCTGAAGG |
| Runx1_For | CCTCTCCTTCTGTCCACCCA |
| Runx1_Rev | GTCAGGTCAGGTGCACTTGA |
| Gene | Sequence |
|---|---|
| Csf1r_For | AGATCTGCTCCCTCCTCCAG |
| Csf1r_Rev | GTTGTTGGGTTGCAGCAGG |
| Nanog_For | ACTTGCTAAGAGTCCCAGTCC |
| Nanog_Rev | TGTACTTCAACAAACCAGCCA |
| Oct4_For | GCAGAGGAAGGGGAGAGCTA |
| Oct4_Rev | TGAACTTCACCTTCCCTCCA |
| PU.1_For | CACTTCACGGAGCTGCAGA |
| PU.1_Rev | CCTCCTCTTCATCCGAGCTG |
| RPL4_For | AATGTCACTTTGCCTGCTGT |
| RPL4_Rev | CTGGGAATTCGAGCCACAG |
| Runx1_For | GCCTCCTTGAACCACTCCAC |
| Runx1_Rev | GGACTGATCATAGGACCACGG |