Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Infection and Immunity, December 2003, p. 6799-6807, Vol. 71, No. 12
0019-9567/03/$08.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/IAI.71.12.6799-6807.2003
Copyright © 2003, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.
Department of Periodontics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195
Received 30 June 2003/ Returned for modification 21 August 2003/ Accepted 18 September 2003
|
|
|---|
B in human
microvascular endothelial (HMEC-1) cells, consistent with antagonism
occurring upstream from the TLR/IL-1 receptor adaptor protein, MyD88.
Surprisingly, P. gingivalis LPS weakly but significantly
activated NF-
B in HMEC-1 cells in the absence of E.
coli LPS, and the P. gingivalis LPS-dependent agonism was
blocked by transient expression of a dominant negative murine TLR4.
Pretreatment of HUVECs with P. gingivalis LPS did not
influence the ability of E. coli LPS to stimulate E-selectin
mRNA expression. Taken together, these data provide the first evidence
that P. gingivalis LPS-dependent antagonism of E.
coli LPS in human endothelial cells likely involves the ability of
P. gingivalis LPS to directly compete with E. coli
LPS at the TLR4 signaling
complex. |
|
|---|
Another key property of P. gingivalis LPS is that it not only fails to stimulate E-selectin expression or p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase activation in human umbilical endothelial cells (HUVEC), but can potently antagonize the ability of E. coli LPS to stimulate adhesion molecule expression in HUVEC (7, 9). This property suggests that P. gingivalis LPS provides a "stealth" function allowing P. gingivalis to escape innate immune system detection via the vasculature during the course of human periodontal disease initiation and progression.
The cellular
signaling pathway and mechanism by which P. gingivalis LPS
antagonizes E. coli LPS-dependent activation of human
endothelial cells has not been identified. The toll-like receptor 4
(TLR4) and its coreceptor, MD-2, are considered to represent the
authentic LPS signal transducers in many cell types and therefore are
valid candidates for the site of P. gingivalis LPS antagonism
(2,
21,
36,
41,
44). Data supporting a
role for TLR4 in mediating the ability of P. gingivalis LPS to
act as an antagonist for E. coli LPS were recently presented.
In one study, P. gingivalis LPS was unable to activate p38
mitogen-activated protein kinase in either human endothelial cells or
CHO cells stably expressing human TLR4 and mCD14. In both cell types,
P. gingivalis LPS effectively blocked E. coli
LPS-dependent activation of p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase
(7). Similarly, P.
gingivalis LPS does not activate NF-
B in CHO cells stably
expressing human TLR4 and mCD14, but is able to antagonize E.
coli LPS-dependent NF-
B in these cells
(16,
52). However, P.
gingivalis LPS is able to activate NF-
B in CHO cells
expressing human TLR2, consistent with previous reports indicating that
P. gingivalis LPS can function as an agonist through TLR2
(1,
20).
Interestingly, P. gingivalis LPS can act as both an agonist and an antagonist for cytokine release in human monocytes or for adhesion molecule expression in human gingival fibroblasts, and each of these cell types express both TLR4 and TLR2 (16, 52). Therefore, identification of the specific TLR that is responsible for P. gingivalis LPS-dependent agonism or antagonism in a given cell type may be critical to elucidating whether or not distinct or similar molecular mechanisms underlie P. gingivalis LPS-dependent antagonism for different cell types.
Currently, at least two distinct mechanisms have been proposed to account for the ability of P. gingivalis LPS to functionally antagonize E. coli LPS-dependent cell activation. P. gingivalis LPS might bind directly at TLR4 to block E. coli LPS binding and activation at this receptor complex in CHO cells expressing human TLR4 or in human THP-1 monocytes (7, 16). Alternatively, it has been suggested that P. gingivalis LPS might abrogate E. coli LPS-dependent activation indirectly via an LPS-dependent tolerance mechanism involving down-regulation and uncoupling of key TLR signaling components following extended exposure of murine macrophages to LPS (12).
In this
study, we present novel evidence that P. gingivalis
LPS-mediated antagonism of E. coli LPS in human endothelial
cells occurs via a TLR4-mediated mechanism. Although P.
gingivalis LPS fails to induce significant E-selectin expression
in human endothelial cells, it functions as a weak agonist to elicit
TLR4-dependent NF-
B activation in the human microvascular
endothelial cell line HMEC-1. Brief pretreatment of HUVEC with P.
gingivalis LPS suggests that P. gingivalis LPS does not
antagonize E. coli LPS through indirect mechanisms such as
sustained negative regulation of TLR4 signaling components. These
findings have important implications with regard to elucidating the
mechanism of P. gingivalis LPS-dependent antagonism of E.
coli LPS in human endothelial
cells.
|
|
|---|
B activation in HEK cells cotransfected with TLR4 (data not
shown). However, the repurified E. coli LPS is unable to
activate NF-
B in HEK293 cells cotransfected with TLR2 and
TLR6, thus functionally verifying the removal of contaminating
lipoproteins (data not shown). P. gingivalis strain ATCC 33277 was obtained from the American Type Culture Collection. P. gingivalis LPS was prepared by the cold MgCl2-ethanol procedure (10) followed by lipid extraction (14) and conversion to sodium salts (35). Where indicated in the text, the P. gingivalis LPS preparations were further purified by the method of Manthey and Vogel, and analyzed by SDS-PAGE and enhanced colloidal gold staining (29). Colloidal gold staining of reextracted LPS preparations revealed no detectable protein bands compared to primary LPS preparations (data not shown). msbBLPS was isolated from the E. coli mutant strain BMS67C12 as described previously (45). Recombinant Mycobacterium tuberculosis HSP60.1 (a kind gift from Brian Henderson, University of London, London, United Kingdom) was isolated from E. coli by metal chelate affinity chromatography, and contaminating LPS was reported to contribute less than 0.12 ng/µg of purified protein, as described by the authors (26). Further tests performed in our laboratory revealed that polymyxin B (5 µg/ml) completely inhibited E. coli LPS (10 ng/ml) induction of E-selectin mRNA in HUVEC while only partially inhibiting HSP60.1 (10 µg/ml) induction of E-selectin mRNA (data not shown). Recombinant human IL-1ß was purchased from R&D Systems (Minneapolis, Minn.). Staphylococcus aureus peptidoglycan was obtained from Fluka (St. Louis, Mo.).
Cell culture. HUVECs were obtained from Clonetics (San Diego, Calif.). The cells were maintained in growth medium containing medium 199 (Life Technologies; Grand Island, NY) supplemented with 4 mM L-glutamine, 90 µg of heparin per ml, 1 mM sodium pyruvate, 30 µg of endothelial cell growth supplement (Bedford, Mass.) per ml, 100 units of penicillin per ml, 100 µg of streptomycin per ml, and 20% fetal bovine serum (HyClone Laboratories, Logan, Utah). HUVEC stimulation medium is medium 199 supplemented with 4 mM glutamine, 90 µg of heparin per ml, 1 mM sodium pyruvate, 1 mg of human serum albumin per ml, and 5 to 10% human serum (Gemini Bioproducts, Calabasas, Calif.). HMEC-1 (passage 11) were obtained from F. J. Candal (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Atlanta, Ga.). HMEC-1 cells were maintained in MCDB-131 medium (Life Technologies, Grand Island, N.Y.) supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum, 10 ng of epidermal growth factor per ml, 100 units of penicillin per ml, and 100 µg of streptomycin per ml.
Plasmids and expression
constructs.
The
NF-
B firefly luciferase reporter construct
pNF-
B-TA-Luc was obtained from Invitrogen (Carlsbad, Calif.).
The ß-actin-Renilla luciferase reporter construct and
the modified pDisplay expression vector and the plasmids encoding human
TLR2 (phTLR2), human mCD14 (phmCD14), and murine TLR4 (pmuTLR4)
generously provided by C. Wilson (University of Washington, Seattle)
(17,
18). By with PCR-based
site-directed mutagenesis, the proline codon encoding amino acid number
712 of the wild-type murine TLR4 coding region was replaced with a
histidine codon. This mutation is known to be responsible for
inactivating TLR4 in C3H/HeJ mice
(36) and confers dominant
negative activity against the human TLR4 in HMEC-1 cells
(13).
Detection of E-selectin protein expression on HUVEC. HUVEC (passaged four times) were plated on 96-well plates coated with collagen and grown overnight in HUVEC growth medium. Plates were washed once with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), and 0.1 ml of HUVEC stimulation medium containing 5% human serum and the appropriate LPS mixture as indicated in the text and figure legends was added to each well and incubated at 37°C for 4 h under 5% CO2. Following stimulation, the plates were washed twice in PBS and processed to detect E-selectin expression as described previously (9). E-selectin expression intensity was reported as absorbance at 450 nm. Data points were plotted with GraphPad Prism software (GraphPad Software Inc., San Diego, Calif.).
Reverse transcription-PCR assay of E-selectin mRNA expression. HUVEC (passage 4) were plated on 1% gelatin in six-well plates and grown to confluency. Plates were washed once with PBS, and 1 ml of stimulation medium containing 5% human serum and the indicated activators was added to each well, and the stimulations proceeded for 4 h at 37°C and 5%CO2. In some experiments, cells were treated with P. gingivalis LPS (1 µg/ml) for 2 h and washed twice with stimulation medium containing no serum prior to stimulation with E. coli LPS as described above.
Total cellular RNA was harvested by standard phenol-guanidinium isothiocyanate extraction. Template RNAs were then subjected to reverse transcription-PCR with the Access RT-PCR system (Promega, Madison, Wis.); 0.5 µg total of HUVEC RNA was mixed with 0.25 µg of oligo(dT) (12-mer-18-mer mixture), and the mixture was then heated 65°C for 5 min and cooled to room temperature prior to being subjected to RT-PCR.
Reverse transcription was carried out at 48°C for 50 min. The number of cycles required for quantitative determination of target gene expression was determined empirically. Amplification with the E-selectin and ß-actin primer sets was performed for 21 cycles at 94°C for 10 s, 55°C for 30 s, and 68°C for 2 min. The primers used to detect E-selectin mRNA expression were as follows: antisense, 5'-GCCAGTGTTCAGCCAGAACT-3', and sense, 5'-GAATACAGAAGATGGATGT-3'. The primers used to detect ß-actin mRNA expression were as follows: antisense, 5'-AGCCCTGGCTGCCTCCAC-3', and sense, 5'-GTCGGTTGGAGCGAGCATC-3'. PCR products were resolved on 1.5% agarose gels, stained, and visualized, and images were stored with the Eagle-eye gel documentation system (Stratagene, La Jolla, Calif.). Images of PCR products were quantified with Image Quant software (Molecular Dynamics, Sunnyvale, Calif.). The densitometric values obtained for E-selectin PCR products were normalized to the values obtained for ß-actin PCR products, and the resulting values were graphed with GraphPad Prism software (GraphPad Software Inc., San Diego, Calif.).
Transient transfection
assays.
HMEC-1 cells were
cotransfected with the plasmids pNF-
B-TA-Luc and
pß-actin-Renilla luciferase combined either with
pDisplay, pmuTLR4P714H, phTLR2, or phmCD14, as described previously, in
24-well culture dishes
(13). Transfected cells
were stimulated with activators (in triplicate) as indicated in the
text and figures. Following 5 h of stimulations in HUVEC
stimulation medium containing 5 to 10% human serum, the cells
were rinsed once with PBS and lysed with 100 µl of passive
lysis buffer (Promega Corporation, Madison, Wis.). The luciferase
activity of 12-µl samples was measured on a microplate
luminometer with the dual luciferase assay kit (Promega Corporation;
Madison, Wis.). Data points were plotted and statistical analyses were
performed with GraphPad Prism software (GraphPad Software Inc., San
Diego, Calif.). Results are presented as means ± standard
deviations of triplicate determinations. Unpaired t tests were
performed to determine statistical significance. Asterisks indicate
statistically significant (P < 0.05) differences. All
experiments were performed at least twice for
confirmation.
|
|
|---|
To address this concern, we subjected a standard preparation of P. gingivalis LPS to reextraction with phenol in order to remove trace proteins (20). As determined by gel electrophoresis followed by colloidal gold staining, protein was undetectable in P. gingivalis LPS preparations (1). Crude P. gingivalis LPS and reextracted P. gingivalis LPS (P. gingivalis LPSRE) were then compared to repurified E. coli LPS for relative ability to induce E-selectin expression in HUVEC (Fig. 1A). P. gingivalis LPS and P. gingivalis LPSRE were similarly poor stimulators of E-selectin expression compared to E. coli LPS over a dosage range of 0.1 ng/ml to 10 µg/ml. Antagonism experiments were performed to test the relative abilities of P. gingivalis LPS and P. gingivalis LPSRE to inhibit E. coli LPS induction of E-selectin expression in HUVEC. Figure 1B and Fig. 1C demonstrate that both P. gingivalis LPS (1 µg/ml) and P. gingivalis LPSRE (1 µg/ml) are effective antagonists to a range of E. coli LPS dosages as determined by induction of E-selectin expression.
![]() View larger version (16K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 1. P.
gingivalis LPS antagonizes E. coli LPS-activation of
E-selectin expression in HUVEC as measured by enzyme-linked
immunosorbent assay. Cells were treated for 4 h with the
indicated doses of LPSs, and E-selectin expression was determined as
described in Materials and Methods. Data are represented as the mean
absorbance from duplicate samples. (A) Ability of E.
coli LPS (EcLPS), P. gingivalis LPS (PgLPS), and P.
gingivalis LPSRE to activate E-selectin expression in
HUVEC. (B) Ability of P. gingivalis LPS to
antagonize E. coli LPS-dependent activation of E-selectin
expression in HUVEC. (C) Ability of P. gingivalis
LPSRE to antagonize E. coli LPS-dependent
activation of E-selectin expression in HUVEC. Results shown are
representative of three independent
experiments.
|
It has recently been reported that TLR4 is the major LPS receptor in HUVEC and HMEC-1 cells, based on RNA expression profiles, anti-TLR4 antibody-blocking experiments, and experiments with dominant negative versions of murine TLR4 (13, 19). The IL-1 receptor (IL-1R) and TLR4 converge intracellularly at the plasma membrane via interaction with myeloid differentiation factor 88 (MyD88) (31, 53). To further probe the specificity and site of P. gingivalis LPS-dependent antagonism, we tested the ability of P. gingivalis LPS to antagonize either E. coli LPS or IL-1ß-dependent activation of E-selectin mRNA expression in HUVEC (Fig. 2). P. gingivalis LPS (1 µg/ml) potently inhibited the ability of E. coli LPS (10 ng/ml) to induce E-selectin mRNA expression without modulating the ability of IL-1ß (10 ng/ml) to activate E-selectin expression. These data demonstrate the specificity of P. gingivalis LPS-dependent antagonism for the TLR4 pathway and are consistent with the site of P. gingivalis LPS antagonism occurring upstream from the MyD88 adaptor protein.
![]() View larger version (38K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 2. P.
gingivalis LPS (PgLPS) antagonizes E. coli LPS (EcLPS)
induction but not Il-1ß induction of E-selectin mRNA expression
in HUVEC. Cells were plated in six-well culture dishes and treated with
the indicated activators for 4 h. Total RNA was harvested,
and RT-PCR analysis was performed to detect E-selectin and
ß-actin mRNA expression as described in Materials and Methods.
The resulting RT-PCR products (lower panels) were imaged and subjected
to densitometric analysis. E-selectin mRNA expression was normalized to
ß-actin mRNA expression, and the resulting values were
expressed as E-selectin mRNA induction relative to the unstimulated
control (upper panel). Results shown are representative of three
independent
experiments.
|
For an alternative LPS
antagonist, we used the E. coli LPS variant
msbB LPS, which lacks the 14:0 myristic acid on
lipid A and can inhibit E. coli LPS stimulation of E-selectin
protein expression in HUVEC at doses similar to that of P.
gingivalis LPS (45).
Results from antagonism experiments with M. tuberculosis
HSP60.1 and msbB LPS are shown in Fig.
3 and demonstrate that both P. gingivalis LPS (1 µg/ml)
and msbB LPS (1 µg/ml) effectively
antagonized either E. coli LPS (10 ng/ml)-dependent or M.
tuberculosis HSP60.1 (10 µg/ml)-dependent activation of
E-selectin mRNA expression in HUVEC. These data are in good agreement
with earlier findings in which P. gingivalis LPS was observed
to antagonize the protein TLR4 agonist recombinant FimA in human THP-1
monocytes (16). These
results also suggest that HSP60.1 (10 µg/ml) interacts more
weakly with the TLR4 signaling complex than E. coli LPS (10
ng/ml), since P. gingivalis LPS and msbB
LPS inhibited HSP60.1-dependent cell activation at an approximately 1:1
molar ratio versus the 100:1 molar ratio required for inhibition of
E. coli LPS-dependent cell activation. Similarly, it was
reported that Rhodobacter sphaeroides lipid A (1
µg/ml) antagonized Chlamydia pneumoniae HSP60 (10
µg/ml) and E. coli LPS (20 ng/ml) activation of
NF-
B in HMEC-1 cells at similar efficiencies
(5).
![]() View larger version (33K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 3. P.
gingivalis LPS (PgLPS) and msbBLPS antagonize both E.
coli LPS (EcLPS) induction and HSP60.1 induction of E-selectin
mRNA expression in HUVEC. Cells were plated in six-well culture dishes
and treated with the indicated stimulants and doses for 4 h.
Total RNA was harvested, and RT-PCR analysis was performed to detect
E-selectin and ß-actin mRNA expression as described in
Materials and Methods. The resulting RT-PCR products (lower panels)
were imaged and subjected to densitometric analysis. E-selectin mRNA
expression was normalized to ß-actin mRNA expression, and the
resulting values were expressed as E-selectin mRNA induction relative
to the unstimulated control (upper panel). Results shown are
representative of three independent
experiments.
|
B in HMEC-1 cells.
We speculated that the ability of
P. gingivalis LPS to inhibit E. coli LPS-dependent
TLR4 activation involves the suppression of NF-
B activation in
endothelial cells. NF-
B is known to play a pivotal role in the
ability of LPS and cytokines to stimulate E-selectin expression in
HUVEC (4,
40). To test this
possibility, HMEC-1 cells were transiently transfected with an
NF-
B-luciferase reporter construct, and antagonism experiments
were performed. Figure
4 shows that E. coli LPS (10 ng/ml)-dependent NF-
B
activation was effectively inhibited by P. gingivalis LPS (1
µg/ml), while P. gingivalis LPS (1 µg/ml) was
unable to antagonize IL-1ß (10 ng/ml)-mediated NF-
B
activation in HMEC-1 cells. Similar results were obtained with both
P. gingivalis LPS and P. gingivalis LPSRE
(data not shown). This correlates well with P. gingivalis LPS
antagonism of E. coli LPS-dependent E-selectin mRNA induction
in HUVEC (compare Fig. 2
and Fig. 4). These results
indicate that P. gingivalis LPS antagonism of E. coli
LPS is due in part to the inhibition of NF-
B activation via
blockage of TLR4-mediated
signaling.
![]() View larger version (21K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 4. P.
gingivalis LPS (PgLPS) antagonizes E. coli LPS
(EcLPS)-dependent activation of NF- B in HMEC-1. Cells were
plated in 24-well culture dishes and cotransfected with
pNF- B-TA-Luc and pß-actin Renilla luciferase
as described in Materials and Methods. The following day, transfected
cells were exposed to the indicated stimulants and doses for
5 h and washed with PBS, and the resulting cell lysates were
analyzed for firefly luciferase activity and Renilla
luciferase activity. Firefly luciferase values were normalized to
Renilla luciferase values, and the resulting values are
represented as NF- B activation. Results are presented as means
± standard deviations of triplicate determinations and are
representative of three independent experiments. Two independent
preparations of P. gingivalis LPS that were used for these
experiments yielded similar
results.
|
B in HMEC-1 cells.
Further experiments were performed to
explore the hypothesis that P. gingivalis LPS antagonizes
E. coli LPS-dependent activation of HMEC-1 cells via
modulation of TLR4 signaling. Figure
5 shows that P. gingivalis LPS (1 µg/ml) effectively
antagonized M. tuberculosis HSP60.1 (10 µg/ml) as well
as E. coli LPS (10 ng/ml). In addition,
msbB LPS (1 µg/ml) antagonized both E.
coli LPS and M. tuberculosis HSP60.1 effectively. Again,
a striking parallel in the pattern of antagonism observed in HUVEC
(E-selectin mRNA) and HMEC-1 (NF-
B activation) cells was noted
(compare Fig. 3 and Fig.
5). The ability of P.
gingivalis LPS and the E. coli LPS variant
msbB LPS to similarly antagonize distinct TLR4
agonists (E. coli LPS and M. tuberculosis HSP60.1)
provides further support for the hypothesis that the mechanism of
P. gingivalis LPS antagonism involves proximal or direct
interactions with the TLR4 signaling system.
![]() View larger version (18K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 5. P.
gingivalis LPS (PgLPS) and msbB LPS antagonize both
E. coli LPS (EcLPS)-dependent and M. tuberculosis
HSP60.1-dependent activation of NF- B in HMEC-1 cells. Cells
were plated in 24-well culture dishes and cotransfected with
pNF- B-TA-Luc and pß-actin Renilla luciferase
as described in Materials and Methods. The following day, transfected
cells were exposed to the indicated stimulants and doses for
5 h and washed with PBS, and the resulting cell lysates were
analyzed for firefly luciferase activity and Renilla
luciferase activity. Firefly luciferase values were normalized to
Renilla luciferase values, and the resulting values are
represented as NF- B activation. Results are presented as means
± standard deviations of triplicate determinations and are
representative of two independent experiments. Two independent
preparations of P. gingivalis LPS that were used for these
experiments yielded similar
results.
|
B via the TLR4 receptor
complex in HMEC-1 cells.
In
the absence of positive functional activity of P. gingivalis
LPS at TLR4 in HMEC-1 cells (i.e., P. gingivalis LPS agonism),
it remains uncertain whether or not P. gingivalis LPS
antagonism of E. coli LPS depends on direct, proximal, or
distal interactions relative to the TLR4 receptor complex. Expression
studies in vitro or in vivo indicate that crude P. gingivalis
LPS does not strongly stimulate innate immune responses in endothelial
cells (7,
9,
38). To assess the
ability of P. gingivalis LPS to elicit a detectable activation
of HMEC-1 cells, cells were transfected with the NF-
B
luciferase reporter construct and then exposed to various
concentrations of P. gingivalis LPS in the absence of E.
coli LPS.
As shown in Fig.
6A, P. gingivalis LPS (100 ng/ml and 1 µg/ml) was able to
weakly but significantly (P < 0.05) activate
NF-
B in HMEC-1 cells. The TLR2 agonist S. aureus
peptidoglycan (10 µg/ml)
(42) did not activate
HMEC-1 cells unless the cells were transiently cotransfected with a
plasmid construct bearing recombinant human TLR2 (Fig.
6B)
(13). These data provide
strong evidence that the weak activation elicited by P.
gingivalis LPS is due to interaction with the TLR4 complex in
human endothelial cells
(33). In support of this,
the weak activation of NF-
B elicited by P. gingivalis
LPS was eliminated by ectopic expression of the dominant negative
murine TLR4 (Fig. 6C)
(13). The dominant
negative murine TLR4 effect was also specific for E. coli LPS,
a TLR4 agonist, but not for IL-1ß, an IL-1R agonist
(13) (Fig.
6D). In contrast to the
results shown above, other cell types such as murine macrophages and
human monocytes are believed to be activated by P. gingivalis
LPS through interaction with TLR2
(20,
30). Based upon the data
shown in Fig. 6A to 6D, we
conclude that P. gingivalis LPS can function as a weak TLR4
agonist in HMEC-1 cells in the absence of E. coli
LPS.
![]() View larger version (22K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 6. P.
gingivalis LPS -dependent activation of NF- B is mediated
by TLR4 in HMEC-1 cells. Cells were plated in 24-well culture dishes
and cotransfected with pNF- B-TA-Luc, pß-actin
Renilla luciferase, and either (A) the irrelevant
plasmid control, pDisplay, (B) phTLR2, or (C and D)
pmuTLR4P712H. The following day, transfected cells were exposed to the
indicated doses of P. gingivalis LPS (PgLPS), E. coli
LPS (EcLPS), or IL-1ß for 5 h and washed with PBS,
and the resulting cell lysates were analyzed for firefly luciferase
activity and Renilla luciferase activity. Firefly luciferase
values were normalized to Renilla luciferase values, and the
resulting values are represented as NF- B activation. Results
are presented as means ± standard deviations of triplicate
determinations. Asterisks indicate statistically significant
(P < 0.05) differences between P. gingivalis
LPS- and peptidoglycan-treated cells and the unstimulated control.
Results shown are representative of three independent
experiments.
|
B activation of
HMEC-1 cells.
P.
gingivalis LPS has been reported to act as an agonist or an
antagonist for cell activation depending upon the cell type that is
tested (7,
9,
30,
52). The more pronounced
ability of P. gingivalis LPS to activate monocytes and
gingival fibroblasts has been ascribed to the presence of significant
levels of the TLR4 coreceptor mCD14
(43,
50). The lack of
substantial mCD14 expression on the surface of HUVEC and HMEC-1 cells
may be sufficient to account for the relative inability of these cells
to respond efficiently to P. gingivalis LPS
(22,
37). This might also
explain the ability of P. gingivalis LPS to efficiently
antagonize E. coli LPS in endothelial cells.
In order to
examine this possibility, HMEC-1 cells were transfected with phmCD14
and then stimulated with P. gingivalis LPS (10 ng/ml to 1
µg/ml) (Fig.
7). These data show that transient expression of recombinant human mCD14
rendered HMEC-1 cells slightly more responsive to P.
gingivalis LPS (10 ng/ml) activation of NF-
B compared to
control transfections (Fig.
7A). However, the maximal
activation of NF-
B was not significantly influenced. Likewise,
the ability of P. gingivalis LPS to antagonize E.
coli LPS was not appreciably reduced when human mCD14 was
expressed in HMEC-1 cells, although E. coli LPS responsiveness
was increased compared to that in cells that were transfected with an
irrelevant plasmid control, pDisplay (Fig.
7B).
![]() View larger version (22K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 7. Ectopic
expression of mCD14 does not reduce the ability of P.
gingivalis LPS (PgLPS) to antagonize E. coli LPS (EcLPS)
in HMEC-1 cells. Cells were plated in 24-well culture dishes and
cotransfected with pNF- B-TA-Luc, pß-actin
Renilla luciferase, and either pDisplay or phmCD14 as
indicated in panels A and B. The following day, transfected cells were
exposed to the indicated doses for 5 h and washed with PBS,
and the resulting cell lysates were analyzed for firefly luciferase
activity and Renilla luciferase activity. Firefly luciferase
values were normalized to Renilla luciferase values, and the
resulting values are represented as NF- B activation. Each
treatment was performed in triplicate and expressed as the standard
deviation of the mean. (A) P. gingivalis
LPS-dependent agonism in HMEC-1 cells transiently expressing human
mCD14. (B) P. gingivalis LPS-dependent antagonism of
E. coli LPS in HMEC-1 cells transiently expressing human
mCD14. Results shown are representative of two independent
experiments.
|
![]() View larger version (37K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 8. Pretreatment
of HUVEC with P. gingivalis LPS (PgLPS) does not influence the
ability of E. coli LPS (EcLPS) to induce E-selectin mRNA
expression. HUVEC were plated in six-well culture dishes and treated
for 2 h with either growth medium alone or growth medium
containing P. gingivalis LPS (1 µg/ml). Subsequently,
the cells were treated with the indicated LPSs for 4 h. Total
RNA was harvested, and RT-PCR analysis was performed to detect
E-selectin and ß-actin mRNA expression as described in
Materials and Methods. The resulting RT-PCR products (lower panels)
were imaged and subjected to densitometric analysis. E-selectin mRNA
expression was normalized to ß-actin mRNA expression, and the
resulting values are expressed as E-selectin mRNA induction relative to
the unstimulated control (upper panel). Results shown are
representative of three independent
experiments.
|
|
|
|---|
B activation
(3,
31,
51,
53). Therefore, it is
plausible that an indirect P. gingivalis LPS-dependent
inhibition of TLR4 signaling components would also inhibit
IL-1R-mediated signaling. However, we failed to observe any such
influence on IL-1ß-dependent cell activation in the presence of
P. gingivalis LPS (Fig.
2 to
4), indicating that P.
gingivalis LPS-dependent antagonism likely occurs upstream of the
MyD88 adaptor protein and that it is specific for the TLR4 signaling
pathway. The experimental approach used to investigate antagonism in the present study involves administering a mixture of agonist and antagonist simultaneously to the endothelial cell in the presence of human serum for a relatively short-term exposure (4 h). Consequently, it is not likely that an indirect mechanism such as LPS-induced tolerance is involved in P. gingivalis LPS-dependent antagonism of E. coli LPS in endothelial cells since an extended preexposure of cells to LPS is required (typically 24 h) to elicit desensitization to LPS responsiveness (12, 16, 27, 30). In addition, the establishment of LPS-induced tolerance is likely to require long-term transcriptional changes that occur in negative regulatory TLR signaling components, including IRAK-M, SOCS-1, and MyD88s (6, 15, 23, 24). Nevertheless, it is conceivable that a specific, rapid, and sustained negative regulatory event desensitizes the TLR4 pathway during cell exposure to P. gingivalis LPS, resulting in an indirect inhibition of E. coli LPS-dependent cell activation. Indeed, evidence is emerging for the existence of an early-phase negative regulatory circuit in the TLR4 signaling pathway in monocytes (15). However, we observed that E. coli LPS was able to strongly activate HUVEC regardless of P. gingivalis LPS preexposure and that P. gingivalis LPS must be added concurrently with E. coli LPS to elicit antagonism (Fig. 8). These data demonstrate that P. gingivalis LPS-dependent antagonism of E. coli LPS in human endothelial cells does not involve indirect inhibitory effects such as sustained desensitization of the TLR4 signaling pathway.
The data discussed above do not provide
support for an indirect mechanism of antagonism and are consistent with
a direct mechanism such as competitive inhibition. However, to date it
has been difficult to demonstrate that the P. gingivalis LPS
interacts with the TLR4 receptor in human endothelial cells because it
has only been reported to act as an antagonist in these cells
(7,
9). Interestingly, P.
gingivalis LPS may function as an agonist in murine macrophages or
human monocytes, presumably through utilization of either TLR4 or TLR2
(7,
20,
33). Human endothelial
cells express TLR4 but do not express TLR2
(13,
19) (Fig.
6A and 6B), and they do
not express E-selectin in response to P. gingivalis LPS
(9). Similarly, CHO cells
expressing mCD14 and human TLR4 fail to respond to P.
gingivalis LPS, as determined by NF-
B-dependent CD25
expression (16,
52) or p38
mitogen-activated protein kinase activation
(7), but P.
gingivalis LPS can clearly antagonize E. coli LPS in this
system (7,
16,
52).
Unexpectedly,
we observed that P. gingivalis LPS was capable of acting as a
weak agonist in HMEC-1 cells, as determined by highly sensitive
NF-
B-luciferase reporter assays (Fig.
6). We conclude that
P. gingivalis LPS-dependent activation of NF-
B in
HMEC-1 cells occurs via interaction with TLR4, as determined by the
ability of an ectopically expressed dominant negative murine TLR4 to
suppress P. gingivalis LPS-dependent NF-
B activation
(Fig. 6A and 6C). Thus,
the present study provides the first evidence that P.
gingivalis LPS acts as both a weak agonist and a strong antagonist
at the same receptor (TLR4) in human endothelial cells. These data
suggest that direct P. gingivalis LPS interaction with the
TLR4 complex is able to modulate the ability of E. coli LPS to
activate human endothelial cells. This finding is also consistent with
the hypothesis that P. gingivalis LPS antagonizes E.
coli LPS by competitive binding of LPS-engaged TLR4 complexes.
Interestingly, an analogous mechanism has recently been reported to
occur for TLR2. In this case, lung collectin surfactant protein A
directly blocks zymosan interaction with TLR2 by competitive binding.
This results in functional antagonism of zymosan-dependent macrophage
activation (39).
In conclusion, the main findings of this study demonstrate for the first time that P. gingivalis LPS can act as either a weak agonist alone or a strong antagonist in combination with E. coli LPS at the TLR4 signaling complex in human endothelial cells (HUVEC and HMEC-1). P. gingivalis LPS does not appear to antagonize E. coli LPS via an indirect and nonspecific mechanism, since IL-1ß-dependent cell activation was not influenced in antagonism experiments. In addition, P. gingivalis LPS pretreatment of HUVEC did not influence the ability of E. coli LPS to activate HUVEC, and antagonism was observed only when E. coli LPS and P. gingivalis LPS were administered simultaneously. Taken together, the data suggest that P. gingivalis LPS antagonism is the outcome of the ability of high concentrations of P. gingivalis LPS to directly compete for E. coli LPS binding sites at the human TLR4 complex in endothelial cells and that in the absence of E. coli LPS, P. gingivalis LPS binding manifests simply as weak agonism. The development of effective E. coli LPS and P. gingivalis LPS binding assays for TLR4 would help to test this possibility. Future studies with recombinant TLR4-MD-2 receptor complexes should also assist in further elucidating the mechanism of P. gingivalis LPS-dependent antagonism of E. coli LPS.
This work was supported by National Institutes of Health grant R01 DE12768.
|
|
|---|
B binding sites in the human E-selectin gene required for
maximal tumor necrosis factor alpha-induced expression. Mol.
Cell. Biol.
14:5820-5831.
This article has been cited by other articles:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»