Bacterial and viral pathogen-associated molecular patterns induce divergent early transcriptomic landscapes in a bovine macrophage cell line.
Animals
Cattle
Cell Line
CpG Islands
/ genetics
Cytochrome P-450 CYP1A1
/ genetics
Gene Expression Profiling
Genome
/ genetics
High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing
Ligands
Macrophages
/ metabolism
Pathogen-Associated Molecular Pattern Molecules
Poly I-C
/ genetics
Transcriptome
/ genetics
Tumor Necrosis Factors
/ genetics
Bomac cells
Bovine macrophage
CpG DNA
PAMPs
Poly(I:C)
RNASeq
Journal
BMC genomics
ISSN: 1471-2164
Titre abrégé: BMC Genomics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100965258
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 Jan 2019
08 Jan 2019
Historique:
received:
07
08
2018
accepted:
26
12
2018
entrez:
10
1
2019
pubmed:
10
1
2019
medline:
10
4
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Pathogens stimulate immune functions of macrophages. Macrophages are a key sentinel cell regulating the response to pathogenic ligands and orchestrating the direction of the immune response. Our study aimed at investigating the early transcriptomic changes of bovine macrophages (Bomacs) in response to stimulation with CpG DNA or polyI:C, representing bacterial and viral ligands respectively, and performed transcriptomics by RNA sequencing (RNASeq). KEGG, GO and IPA analytical tools were used to reconstruct pathways, networks and to map out molecular and cellular functions of differentially expressed genes (DE) in stimulated cells. A one-way ANOVA analysis of RNASeq data revealed significant differences between the CpG DNA and polyI:C-stimulated Bomac. Of the 13,740 genes mapped to the bovine genome, 2245 had p-value ≤0.05, deemed as DE. At 6 h post stimulation of Bomac, poly(I:C) induced a very different transcriptomic profile from that induced by CpG DNA. Whereas, 347 genes were upregulated and 210 downregulated in response to CpG DNA, poly(I:C) upregulated 761 genes and downregulated 414 genes. The topmost DE genes in poly(I:C)-stimulated cells had thousand-fold changes with highly significant p-values, whereas in CpG DNA stimulated cells had 2-5-fold changes with less stringent p-values. The highest DE genes in both stimulations belonged to the TNF superfamily, TNFSF18 (CpG) and TNFSF10 (poly(I:C)) and in both cases the lowest downregulated gene was CYP1A1. CpG DNA highly induced canonical pathways that are unrelated to immune response in Bomac. CpG DNA influenced expression of genes involved in molecular and cellular functions in free radical scavenging. By contrast, poly(I:C) highly induced exclusively canonical pathways directly related to antiviral immune functions mediated by interferon signalling genes. The transcriptomic profile after poly(I:C)-stimulation was consistent with induction of TLR3 signalling. CpG DNA and poly(I:C) induce different early transcriptional landscapes in Bomac, but each is suited to a specific function of macrophages during interaction with pathogens. Poly(I:C) influenced antiviral response genes, whereas CpG DNA influenced genes important for phagocytic processes. Poly(I:C) was more potent in setting the inflammatory landscape desirable for an efficient immune response against virus infection.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Pathogens stimulate immune functions of macrophages. Macrophages are a key sentinel cell regulating the response to pathogenic ligands and orchestrating the direction of the immune response. Our study aimed at investigating the early transcriptomic changes of bovine macrophages (Bomacs) in response to stimulation with CpG DNA or polyI:C, representing bacterial and viral ligands respectively, and performed transcriptomics by RNA sequencing (RNASeq). KEGG, GO and IPA analytical tools were used to reconstruct pathways, networks and to map out molecular and cellular functions of differentially expressed genes (DE) in stimulated cells.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A one-way ANOVA analysis of RNASeq data revealed significant differences between the CpG DNA and polyI:C-stimulated Bomac. Of the 13,740 genes mapped to the bovine genome, 2245 had p-value ≤0.05, deemed as DE. At 6 h post stimulation of Bomac, poly(I:C) induced a very different transcriptomic profile from that induced by CpG DNA. Whereas, 347 genes were upregulated and 210 downregulated in response to CpG DNA, poly(I:C) upregulated 761 genes and downregulated 414 genes. The topmost DE genes in poly(I:C)-stimulated cells had thousand-fold changes with highly significant p-values, whereas in CpG DNA stimulated cells had 2-5-fold changes with less stringent p-values. The highest DE genes in both stimulations belonged to the TNF superfamily, TNFSF18 (CpG) and TNFSF10 (poly(I:C)) and in both cases the lowest downregulated gene was CYP1A1. CpG DNA highly induced canonical pathways that are unrelated to immune response in Bomac. CpG DNA influenced expression of genes involved in molecular and cellular functions in free radical scavenging. By contrast, poly(I:C) highly induced exclusively canonical pathways directly related to antiviral immune functions mediated by interferon signalling genes. The transcriptomic profile after poly(I:C)-stimulation was consistent with induction of TLR3 signalling.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
CpG DNA and poly(I:C) induce different early transcriptional landscapes in Bomac, but each is suited to a specific function of macrophages during interaction with pathogens. Poly(I:C) influenced antiviral response genes, whereas CpG DNA influenced genes important for phagocytic processes. Poly(I:C) was more potent in setting the inflammatory landscape desirable for an efficient immune response against virus infection.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30621583
doi: 10.1186/s12864-018-5411-5
pii: 10.1186/s12864-018-5411-5
pmc: PMC6323673
doi:
Substances chimiques
Ligands
0
Pathogen-Associated Molecular Pattern Molecules
0
Tumor Necrosis Factors
0
Cytochrome P-450 CYP1A1
EC 1.14.14.1
Poly I-C
O84C90HH2L
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
15Subventions
Organisme : Center for Integrative Mammalian Research
ID : Toka/Bovine TRIM
Références
Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 1995 Apr;45(3-4):211-20
pubmed: 7676607
J Exp Med. 2013 Oct 21;210(11):2447-63
pubmed: 24081950
J Virol. 2017 Jul 12;91(15):
pubmed: 28490589
J Biol Chem. 2007 May 25;282(21):15319-23
pubmed: 17395581
J Immunol. 2009 Dec 15;183(12):8035-43
pubmed: 19923450
J Clin Invest. 2013 Mar;123(3):1343-7
pubmed: 23376791
Bioinformatics. 2009 Jul 15;25(14):1841-2
pubmed: 19468054
Bioinformatics. 2014 Feb 15;30(4):523-30
pubmed: 24336805
J Reprod Immunol. 2017 Sep;123:58-64
pubmed: 28938125
Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 1999 May;68(2-4):113-30
pubmed: 10438312
Blood. 2006 May 1;107(9):3617-23
pubmed: 16397134
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Feb 16;107(7):3012-7
pubmed: 20133703
Bioinformatics. 2013 Jul 15;29(14):1830-1
pubmed: 23740750
Bioinformatics. 2013 Jan 1;29(1):15-21
pubmed: 23104886
BMC Genomics. 2013 Oct 10;14:694
pubmed: 24112552
J Neurosci. 2017 Apr 12;37(15):4128-4144
pubmed: 28283558
Vet Res. 2018 Jan 9;49(1):2
pubmed: 29316971
Bioinformatics. 2014 Apr 1;30(7):923-30
pubmed: 24227677
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Feb 14;114(7):E1128-E1137
pubmed: 28154144
Microb Pathog. 2015 Dec;89:43-53
pubmed: 26341952
Viral Immunol. 2017 Jun;30(5):315-329
pubmed: 28453414
Methods Mol Biol. 2016;1418:391-416
pubmed: 27008025
Front Immunol. 2014 Sep 25;5:461
pubmed: 25309543
Arthritis Rheumatol. 2015 May;67(5):1193-202
pubmed: 25707478
Circ Res. 2012 Feb 3;110(3):416-27
pubmed: 22194622
Nucleic Acids Res. 2013 May 1;41(10):e108
pubmed: 23558742
Cell Res. 2010 Mar;20(3):314-31
pubmed: 19935772
J Biol Chem. 2012 May 18;287(21):17100-8
pubmed: 22461627
PLoS One. 2012;7(2):e32034
pubmed: 22384131
Genome Biol. 2010;11(2):R14
pubmed: 20132535
BMC Genomics. 2013 Apr 08;14:230
pubmed: 23565803
Cancer Res. 2005 Sep 1;65(17):7546-53
pubmed: 16140916
Genome Biol. 2010;11(3):R25
pubmed: 20196867
Immunology. 2013 Oct;140(2):153-67
pubmed: 23909285
Science. 2009 Apr 24;324(5926):522-8
pubmed: 19390049
F1000Res. 2016 Jun 20;5:1438
pubmed: 27508061
Front Immunol. 2015 Feb 04;6:23
pubmed: 25699042
Bioinformatics. 2010 Jan 1;26(1):139-40
pubmed: 19910308
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Dec 22;112(51):15713-8
pubmed: 26644586
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Jul 6;101(27):10116-21
pubmed: 15218108
PLoS One. 2016 Apr 12;11(4):e0153671
pubmed: 27071061
J Intern Med. 2009 Jan;265(1):43-57
pubmed: 19093959
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Mar 13;109(11):4239-44
pubmed: 22371602
Anim Health Res Rev. 2015 Jun;16(1):4-14
pubmed: 26050567
Nat Methods. 2015 Feb;12(2):115-21
pubmed: 25633503
Mol Cell Biol. 2000 Aug;20(15):5454-68
pubmed: 10891486
BMC Genomics. 2013 Dec 17;14:891
pubmed: 24341851
FASEB J. 2016 Oct;30(10):3352-3367
pubmed: 27328944
J Virol. 2016 Nov 28;90(24):11145-11156
pubmed: 27707917
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Sep 19;114(38):E7860-E7862
pubmed: 28882878
Mol Cell Biol. 2002 Apr;22(7):2283-93
pubmed: 11884613
BMC Cancer. 2009 Jun 16;9:187
pubmed: 19531241
Mol Biol Cell. 2015 Sep 15;26(18):3178-89
pubmed: 26224317