Metabolomics,Unknown,Transcriptomics,Genomics,Proteomics

Dataset Information

Gene expression profiling in heterophils with Salmonella enteritidis challenge using a chicken 44K Agilent microarray

ABSTRACT: To determine the transcriptional response to Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis (SE) infection, a newly developed chicken 44K Agilent array was used to analyze total RNA of heterophils from SE-resistant (line A) and SEâsusceptible chickens (line B), treated with in vitro infection of SE (I) or non SE medium (N) for 1 hr. A dual-color balanced design was used to provide a direct comparison between SE-infected and non-infected groups (AI/AN, BI/BN) and between line A and line B (AN/BN, AI/BI). Data retrieved from 426 immunologically important genes were used for functional analysis. The results indicated that: In the comparisons of SE infection with non-infection, 39 genes were found differentially expressed (P < 0.05 with at least 2-fold) after Salmonella infection, while 21 genes were found differentially expressed between different lineages. Numerous of members in Toll-like receptor (TLR) signaling pathway were identified which include receptors: MD-2, TLR-4, -5, -15; adaptors: TLR adaptor molecule1 (TICAM1/TRIF), MAP kinase kinase 3 (MKK3) and NFkB-1, as well as cytokines, chemokines and costimulatory molecule: interleukin (IL)-1Î², IL-6, IL-8, IL-12, chemokine (C-X-C motif) ligand 1, chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 4, CCL 5, and CD80. Most of immune genes were up-regulated after SE infection, and the magnitude of up-regulation was higher in line A than line B in general. The results suggested that a similar TLR regulatory network exists in both lines with strong response in resistant line. This finding has laid the foundation for further study of molecular and cellular modulation of SE infection in chickens. Keywords: disease state analysis A dual color, balanced design was carried on for all of heterophils samples from sixteen chickens. Each sample type (AI, AN, BI and BN) includes four biological replication for labeling. A Dye swap was used in each pair of comparisons including AI/AN, BI/BN, and AI/BI, and AN/BN. Background subtracted signal intensity were collected from 16 arrays and normalized for data analysis.

ORGANISM(S): Gallus gallus

SUBMITTER: Huaijun Zhou

PROVIDER: E-GEOD-9416 | biostudies-arrayexpress |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-arrayexpress

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Gene expression profiling in chicken heterophils with Salmonella enteritidis stimulation using a chicken 44 K Agilent microarray.

Chiang Hsin-I HI Swaggerty Christina L CL Kogut Michael H MH Dowd Scot E SE Li Xianyao X Pevzner Igal Y IY Zhou Huaijun H

BMC genomics 20081106

<h4>Background</h4>Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis (SE) is one of the most common food-borne pathogens that cause human salmonellosis and usually results from the consumption of contaminated poultry products. The mechanism of SE resistance in chickens remains largely unknown. Previously, heterophils isolated from broilers with different genetic backgrounds (SE-resistant [line A] and -susceptible [line B]) have been shown to be important in defending against SE infections. To dissect the ...[more]

PMID: 18990222

Similar Datasets

Project description:While significant advances have been made in EHEC pathogenesis, we still do not fully understand the impact of environmental stress on EHEC virulence. During the course of infection, EHEC must evade or overcome several biological barriers, the first of which is the gastric acidity encountered during passage through the stomach. EHEC is remarkable in its ability to tolerate this acidity. There are four different acid resistance systems that provide E. coli O157:H7 protection against exposure to low pH (2-2.5). Interestingly, EHEC uses these acid resistance systems differentially for survival in foods versus the bovine intestinal tract. The glutamate-dependent acid-resistance system is thought to offer the best protection below pH 3. Since the infectious dose of EHEC is so low (50-100 organisms), acid resistance becomes an important virulence trait. Studies of EHEC response to acid stress have focused primarily on levels of acid tolerance and the molecular basis of tolerance. However, the impact of acid stress on EHEC virulence is less well understood. In the related pathogen, EPEC, the plasmid-encoded regulator, Per, that regulates expression of many EPEC virulence factors, is regulated negatively at pH 5.5 and positively at pH 8.0, suggesting that virulence gene expression is repressed during mild acid stress and enhanced in alkaline pH typical of the small intestine. Expression of EPEC type III secreted factors involved in A/E lesion formation has been shown to be influenced by factors including culture media, iron and calcium levels. Protein secretion was inhibited at pH 6 and 8. In a third study, a gadE (encoding acid resistance regulator) mutation resulted in increased adhesion of E.coli O157:H7 to colonic epithelial cells, suggesting negative regulation of one or more adhesins. Other studies have reported that shiga toxin production is sensitive to culture conditions including pH. However, there are no studies of EHEC virulence changes after more severe acid stress nor studies linking stressed EHEC virulence phenotype with transcriptional changes. The goal of this study was to determine how acid stress affects EHEC virulence properties and through microarray analysis, define the genetic basis for these changes. Understanding how acid stress modulates the virulence potential of this pathogen is essential for delineating the pathogenesis of disease caused by EHEC infection and may offer novel approaches to prevent and treat EHEC infections. Bacteria were grown in LB broth overnight, then subcultured into DMEM and grown at 37C, 5%Co2. Bacteria were then subjected to one of three acid stress protocols: 1) UA30: growth in DMEM pH 7.4 followed by growth in DMEM pH 3.0 for 30 minutes; 2) AA30: growth in DMEM pH 5.0 (adaptation) followed by growth in DMEM pH 3.0; 3) UA15: growth in DMEM pH 7.4 followed by growth in DMEM pH 3.0 for 15 minutes. DMEM was supplemented with 25 mM MES (pH 5.0) and in the case of the control (unadapted, unshocked) 25 mM MOPS (pH 7.4) and the adaptation step was again carried out at 37C and 5% CO2. Acid shocking was done at pH 3.0 (unbuffered) at room temperature for all treatments

Dataset Information

Gene expression profiling in heterophils with Salmonella enteritidis challenge using a chicken 44K Agilent microarray

Publications

Gene expression profiling in chicken heterophils with Salmonella enteritidis stimulation using a chicken 44 K Agilent microarray.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure