| Literature DB >> 36248901 |
Gisela Jimenez-Duran1,2, Joseph Kozole3, Rachel Peltier-Heap4, Eleanor R Dickinson4, Christopher R Kwiatkowski3, Francesca Zappacosta3, Roland S Annan3, Nicholas W Galwey5, Eva-Maria Nichols6, Louise K Modis6, Martha Triantafilou1,2, Kathy Triantafilou1,2, Lee M Booty1.
Abstract
The complement system is an ancient and critical part of innate immunity. Recent studies have highlighted novel roles of complement beyond lysis of invading pathogens with implications in regulating the innate immune response, as well as contributing to metabolic reprogramming of T-cells, synoviocytes as well as cells in the CNS. These findings hint that complement can be an immunometabolic regulator, but whether this is also the case for the terminal step of the complement pathway, the membrane attack complex (MAC) is not clear. In this study we focused on determining whether MAC is an immunometabolic regulator of the innate immune response in human monocyte-derived macrophages. Here, we uncover previously uncharacterized metabolic changes and mitochondrial dysfunction occurring downstream of MAC deposition. These alterations in glycolytic flux and mitochondrial morphology and function mediate NLRP3 inflammasome activation, pro-inflammatory cytokine release and gasdermin D formation. Together, these data elucidate a novel signalling cascade, with metabolic alterations at its center, in MAC-stimulated human macrophages that drives an inflammatory consequence in an immunologically relevant cell type.Entities:
Keywords: NLRP3 inflammasome; complement; immunometabolism; macrophage; mitochondrial dysfunction; reactive oxygen species
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36248901 PMCID: PMC9554752 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.918551
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Immunol ISSN: 1664-3224 Impact factor: 8.786
Figure 1Establishment of suitable sublytic MAC deposition assay in hMDMs. (A) schematic of sublytic MAC deposition assay in hMDMs. (B–D) hMDMs treated with antibodies (anti-CD55, CD59, HLA) and increasing concentrations of NHS for 1 hour before viability measurement by CellTitreGlo (n=6; B), terminal complement component (TCC) MSD assay (n=3; C) or immunocytochemistry against C9 protein [n=3, representative image shown; (D)]. Negative controls were performed by addition of anti-C7 (aC7) + MAC (B, D) and EDTA, which blocks complement activation (C only). Error bars represent mean ± S. E. M. ** = p<0.01, *** = p<0.001.
Figure 2Targeted metabolomics shows alteration of glycolysis intermediates and other glucose related pathways downstream of sublytic complement attack on hMDMs. (A) Extracellular lactate produced by hMDMs upon MAC stimulation over time with representative anti-C7 control at 24 h (n=3). (B) Quantification of MAC deposition by TCC MSD assay after 4 hours of sublytic complement stimulation with NHS (n=6). (C) Volcano plot of targeted metabolomics between untreated and NHS conditions using fold change and p value cut-off at 0. 05 (n=6). (D) Fold change of selected metabolites of glucose metabolic pathways between untreated and NHS conditions (n=6). (E) Raw values of peak area from selected metabolites (n=6). Error bars represent mean ± S. E. M and whiskers in (E) represent min to max. Statistical significance in A and E was determined by unpaired student’s T-test with Welch’s correction for unequal SDs. * = p<0.05, ** = p<0.01.
Figure 3Proteomics analysis shows alteration of glycolysis and mitochondrial proteins and other glucose related pathways downstream of sublytic complement attack on hMDMs. hMDMs treated with sublytic MAC, anti-C7 or untreated controls for 4 hours (n=6 independent donors). (A) Volcano plots representing all proteins from the analysis using a fold change cut-off of 0. 5 and unpaired t-test p < 0.05. (B) Top 10 list of MAC upregulated pathways from proteomics data using statistical enrichment test for GO biological processes analysis (N= 99 upregulated proteins). See methods section. (C) Hierarchical clustering of normalized protein intensities (z-score) for significantly regulated metabolic proteins of interest, which were identified as described in the main text and methods section. Statistical analysis performed in (C) was one-way ANOVA, FDR corrected, with post-hoc Tukey’s test p < 0.05 significant for both Untreated vs MAC and MAC vs AC7 (N= 17 regulated proteins).
Figure 4Real-time kinetic metabolic analysis by Seahorse XF technology reveals mitochondrial perturbations and glyolytic upregulation. (A–F) hMDMs stimulated with MAC, anti-C7 + MAC or NHS only (no complement sensitising antibodies prior to NHS) before running a Glycolytic Rate Test (A, C, D) or Mitochondrial Stress Test (B, E) (n=4). Parameters in C-F were calculated using Wave software. (G) hMDMs were incubated with 5 mM glycine prior to MAC stimulation for 4 hours and cell viability was measured by CellTitre-Glo. (n=3) (H–J) Mitochondrial stress test of hMDMs incubated with MAC or MAC + anti-C7, Glycine + MAC, NHS alone (no antibodies, serum only), Rotenone/Antimycin A (0. 5 uM) or glycine alone (5 mM) for 4 hours prior to initiation of Seahorse assay (n=3). (H) kinetic trace; (I) basal respiration; (J) maximal respiration. Statistical significance between MAC and all the other control groups was assessed by (G) unpaired student’s t-test with Welch’s correction for unequal SDs or (C–F, I, J) a 1-way ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey’s test. Error bars represent mean ± S. E. M. * = p<0.05, ** = p<0.01, *** = p<0.001.
Figure 5MAC drives disruption of mitochondrial dynamics and membrane potential, triggers increased intracellular calcium and mitochondrial ROS. (A, B) Intracellular calcium of hMDMs measured by Fura2 after MAC stimulation (± anti-C7 or glycine (5 mM)), NHS only or untreated for 1 h by fluorescence plate reader (B; n=3) or select conditions by confocal microscopy (A; n=3, representative image shown). (C) hMDM were stained with 500 nM MitoTracker Red CMXRos for 15 min before MAC stimulation +/- anti-C7 or 5 μM ionomycin and imaged (n=4 independent donors; representative image shown). (D) Quantification of mitochondrial network morphology, expressed as mitochondrial branch length mean, from stimulations described in (C) were quantified from confocal microscopy images using MiNa Fiji/ImageJ software (n=4 cells per condition per donor analysed). (E) hMDMs were stimulated for 1 h with MAC (+/- anti-C7), 5 μM ionomycin, 1. 2 μM FCCP or 1 μM rotenone and membrane potential measured by JC-10 assay and normalised to untreated cells (n=3). (F) Intracellular ROS production measured over time by mean fluorescence intensity using CellROX. hMDMs were stimulated with MAC (+/- anti-C7) and normalised to menadione (30 μM) treatment as positive control (n=3). (G) hMDMs were incubated with MAC (+/- anti-C7) or 5 μM MitoPQ for 3 hours and Prx3 dimerization measured by Western blot (n=3; representative blot shown). (H, I) H2O2 production of hMDMs stimulated with MAC (anti-CD59 plus C5b6-9 purified components (+/- 50 min pre-incubation with rotenone (0. 5 μM), 2-DG (5 mM) or Glycine (5 mM)) or with C5b6 only or 200 nM PMA only controls (n=4). Statistically significant data between MAC and control groups was assessed by (B, D) 1-way ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey’s test and (E, F, H, I) unpaired student’s t-test with Welch’s correction for unequal SDs. Significance comparisons in (E) are to UT, in (F, H) to respective time point of UT control and in (I) to MAC treatment. Error bars represent mean +/- S. E. M. * = p<0.05, ** = p<0.01, *** = p<0.001.
Figure 6NLRP3 inflammasome activation in hMDMs triggered by MAC. (A) IL-18 release by hMDMs detected by IL-18 ELISA of supernatants of hMDMs in 1 million cells per condition (24-well plates) stimulated with MAC or indicated controls for select time points. ‘NHS only’ is serum only, no antibodies, and ‘antibodies only’ is antibodies only, no human serum (n=3) (B) Full length and N-terminal GSDMD as assessed by western blot in hMDMs treated with MAC (+/- anti-C7) for 0.5 or 4 hours, as well as LPS-nigericin (3 h LPS (100 ng/mL) + 1 h nigericin (10 µM)). Representative blot image is present alongside densitometry analysis of all three donors using UT/LPS-nigericin controls as relative comparions. (C) Immunofluorescence staining against C9 or ASC in cells treated with MAC or MAC + anti-C7 control for 3 hours. Representative images from 1 donor (total, n=3). (D) IL-18 ELISA of supernatants from hMDMs in 130k cells per condition (96-well plates) stimulated with MAC for 3 hours with additional inhibitors MCC950 (1 μM), Ac-YVAD-CMK (10 µM), S1QE1. 1 and S3QEL as indicated. Positive control was LPS (100 ng/mL for 3h) followed by nigericin (5 uM for 1 h). (E) Mitochondrial membrane potential of hMDMs measured by JC10 after 1h treatment with MAC or controls with MCC950 (1 uM) to block NLRP3 activation (n=3). Statistical analysis performed on (A, B, E) was assessed by unpaired student’s t-test with Welch’s correction for unequal SDs. Error bars represent ± S. E. M. * = p<0.05, ** = p<0.01, *** = p<0.001, **** is p = <0.0001. Ns, non significant; Nd, non-detectable.
Figure 7Schematic of hMDM response to MAC stimulation; MAC binding drives glycolysis, ion flux and mitochondrial dysfunction characterised by increased extracellular lactate, fragmented mitochondrial morphology, collapsed mitochondrial respiration and increased mitochondrial ROS production. This activates NLRP3 which in turn mediates caspase 1 activation with subsequent IL-18 and GSDMD cleavage, providing a conduit for active pro-inflammatory cytokine. Longer term changes also include increases in key pathways associated with pro-inflammation.
Reagents List.
| REAGENT | SUPPLIER | IDENTIFIER |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
|
| Quidel | A221 |
|
| IBGRL | BRIC 216 |
|
| IBGRL | BRIC 229 |
|
| BioLegend | 311402 |
|
| LI-COR | 926-32213 |
|
| LI-COR | 926-68072 |
|
| Abcam | Ab73349 |
|
| Cell Signalling | 93709 |
|
| Sigma | A2228 |
|
| HyCult | HM2264 |
|
| Adipogen | AG-25B-0006-C100 |
|
| Thermo-Fisher | A-21202 |
|
| Thermo-Fisher | A10040 |
|
| (Abcam, biotinylated in-house) | ab66768 |
|
| (Quidel, ruthenylated in-house) | A219 |
|
| ||
|
| Sigma | L2880-10MG |
|
| Sigma | C2920-10mg |
|
| Invitroogen | TLRL-NIG |
|
| Sigma | R8875 |
|
| Sigma | 50046 |
|
| Sigma | 208795 |
|
| Sigma | L3771 |
|
| Sigma | 30970 |
|
| Abcam | ab146819 |
|
| Thermofisher | M7512 |
|
| Abcam | ab120873 |
|
| R&D Systems | 215-GM-010/CF |
|
| Sigma | I3909 |
|
| Sigma | D6134- 1G |
|
| Abcam | ab144269 |
|
| Sigma Life Science | CP-456773 |
|
|
| Inh-yvad |
|
| Thermofisher | C10422 |
|
| Sigma | M5625-100G |
|
| Sigma | P1585 |
|
| CompTech | A122 |
|
| CompTech | A124 |
|
| CompTech | A125 |
|
| CompTech | A126 |
|
| Generated | N/A |
|
| Sigma | SML1554 |
|
| Sigma | ML1948 |
|
| ||
|
| Abcam | ab112134 |
|
| Invitrogen | A22188 |
|
| Promega | G7571 |
|
| Trevigen | 4892-010-K |
|
| Abcam | Ab65330 |
|
| R&D Systems | DY318 |
|
| Agilent | 103015-100 |
|
| Agilent | 103344-100 |
|
| ||
|
| Applied Biosystems | Hs01555410m1 |
|
| Applied Biosystems | Hs00998698_m1 |
|
| Applied Biosystems | Hs00153153_m1 |
|
| Qiagen | QT00003325 |
|
| Applied Biosystems | Hs00427620_m1 |
|
| Applied Biosystems | Hs00430290_m1 |
|
| Applied Biosystems | Hs00187842m1 |
|
| ||
|
| GraphPad Software |
|
|
| ImageJ |
|
|
| Zeiss |
|
|
| Agilent |
|
|
| MetaboAnalyst |
|
|
| MaxQuant |
|
|
| GeneOntology, Unifying Biology |
|
|
| Licor |
|