Dataset Information

Gene Expression in Naive and Tolerant Macrophages stimulated with LPS

ABSTRACT: The inflammatory response initiated by microbial products signaling through Toll-like receptors (TLRs) of the innate immune system is essential for host defense against infection. Because inflammation can be harmful to host tissues, the innate response is highly regulated. Negative regulation of TLR4, the receptor for bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS), results in LPS tolerance, defined as hyporesponsiveness to repeated stimulation with LPS. LPS tolerance is thought to protect the host from excessive inflammation by turning off TLR4 signal, which then shuts down TLR-induced genes. However, TLR signaling induces hundreds of genes with very different functions. We reasoned that genes with different functions should have different requirements for regulation. Specifically, genes encoding proinflammatory mediators should be transiently inactivated to limit tissue damage, while genes encoding antimicrobial effectors, which directly target pathogens, should remain inducible in tolerant cells to protect the host from infection. Using an in vitro system of LPS tolerance in macrophages, here we show that TLR-induced genes may indeed be divided into two distinct categories based on their functions and regulatory requirements. Further, we show these distinct groups are regulated by gene-specific, and not signal-specific mechanisms. Keywords: Treatment Comparison

ORGANISM(S): Mus musculus

PROVIDER: GSE7348 | GEO | 2007/04/22

SECONDARY ACCESSION(S): PRJNA100445

REPOSITORIES: GEO

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Siglec-E is a murine CD33-related siglec that functions as an inhibitory receptor and is expressed mainly on neutrophils and macrophage populations. Recent studies have suggested that siglec-E is an important negative regulator of LPS-TLR4 signalling and one report (Wu et al 2016) claimed that siglec-E is required for TLR4 endocytosis following uptake of Escherichia coli by macrophages and dendritic cells (DCs). Our attempts to reproduce these observations using cells from wildtype (WT) and siglec E deficient mice were unsuccessful. We used a variety of assays to determine if siglec-E expressed by different macrophage populations can regulate TLR-4 signalling in response to LPS, but found no consistent differences in cytokine secretion in vitro and in vivo, comparing 3 different strains of siglec-E-deficient mice with matched WT controls. No evidence was found that the siglec-E deficiency was compensated by expression of siglecs-F and –G, the other murine inhibitory CD33-related siglecs. Quantitative proteomics was used as an unbiased approach and provided additional evidence that siglec-E does not suppress inflammatory TLR4 signaling. Interestingly, proteomics revealed a siglec E dependent alteration in macrophage phenotype that could be relevant to functional responses in host defence. In support of this, siglec-E-deficient mice exhibited enhanced growth of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium in the liver following intravenous infection, but macrophages lacking siglec-E did not show altered uptake or killing of bacteria in vitro. Using various cell types including bone marrow derived DCs (BMDC), splenic DCs and macrophages from WT and siglec-E-deficient mice, we showed that siglec-E is not required for TLR4 endocytosis following E.coli uptake or LPS challenge. We failed to see expression of siglec-E by BMDC even after LPS-induced maturation, but confirmed previous studies that splenic DCs express low levels of siglec-E. Taken together, our findings do not support a major role of siglec-E in regulation of TLR4 signalling functions or TLR4 endocytosis in macrophages or DCs. Instead, they reveal that induction of siglec-E by LPS can modulate the phenotype of macrophages, the functional significance of which is currently unclear.

Dataset Information

Gene Expression in Naive and Tolerant Macrophages stimulated with LPS

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure