Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About IAI
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Infection and Immunity
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About IAI
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Cellular Microbiology: Pathogen-Host Cell Molecular Interactions

FAD-I, a Fusobacterium nucleatum Cell Wall-Associated Diacylated Lipoprotein That Mediates Human Beta Defensin 2 Induction through Toll-Like Receptor-1/2 (TLR-1/2) and TLR-2/6

Sanghamitra Bhattacharyya, Santosh K. Ghosh, Bhumika Shokeen, Betty Eapan, Renate Lux, Janna Kiselar, Stanley Nithianantham, Andrew Young, Pushpa Pandiyan, Thomas S. McCormick, Aaron Weinberg
S. M. Payne, Editor
Sanghamitra Bhattacharyya
aDepartment of Biological Science, Case School of Dental Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Santosh K. Ghosh
aDepartment of Biological Science, Case School of Dental Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Santosh K. Ghosh
Bhumika Shokeen
bSchool of Dentistry, University of California—Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Betty Eapan
aDepartment of Biological Science, Case School of Dental Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Renate Lux
bSchool of Dentistry, University of California—Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Janna Kiselar
cCenter for Proteomics, Case School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stanley Nithianantham
aDepartment of Biological Science, Case School of Dental Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andrew Young
dDepartment of Dermatology, Case School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Pushpa Pandiyan
aDepartment of Biological Science, Case School of Dental Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Thomas S. McCormick
aDepartment of Biological Science, Case School of Dental Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
dDepartment of Dermatology, Case School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Aaron Weinberg
aDepartment of Biological Science, Case School of Dental Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
S. M. Payne
Roles: Editor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/IAI.01311-15
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

We previously identified a cell wall-associated protein from Fusobacterium nucleatum, a Gram-negative bacterium of the oral cavity, that induces human beta defensin 2 (hBD-2) in primary human oral epithelial cells (HOECs) and designated it FAD-I ( F usobacterium-associated defensin inducer). Here, we report differential induction of hBD-2 by different strains of F. nucleatum; ATCC 25586 and ATCC 23726 induce significantly more hBD-2 mRNA than ATCC 10953. Heterologous expression of plasmid-borne fadI from the highly hBD-2-inducing strains in a ΔfadI mutant of ATCC 10953 resulted in hBD-2 induction to levels comparable to those of the highly inducing strains, indicating that FAD-I is the principal F. nucleatum agent for hBD-2 induction in HOECs. Moreover, anti-FAD-I antibodies blocked F. nucleatum induction of hBD-2 by more than 80%. Recombinant FAD-I (rFAD-I) expressed in Escherichia coli triggered levels of hBD-2 transcription and peptide release in HOECs similar to those of native FAD-I (nFAD-I) isolated from F. nucleatum ATCC 25586. Tandem mass spectrometry revealed a diacylglycerol modification at the cysteine residue in position 16 for both nFAD-I and rFAD-I. Cysteine-to-alanine substitution abrogated FAD-I's ability to induce hBD-2. Finally, FAD-I activation of hBD-2 expression was mediated via both Toll-like receptor-1/2 (TLR-1/2) and TLR-2/6 heterodimerization. Microbial molecules like FAD-I may be utilized in novel therapeutic ways to bolster the host innate immune response at mucosal surfaces.

INTRODUCTION

The epithelial surfaces of the oral cavity are sites of active bacterial colonization. While colonizing, certain bacteria promote activation of human beta defensin (hBD) expression in the oral mucosa (1–3). By virtue of their antimicrobial and immunoregulatory properties, these epithelial-cell-derived innate response peptides contribute to the homeostasis between the bacterium and the host (4). Human beta defensin 2 (hBD-2) and hBD-3 are the two inducible members of the hBD peptide family that we and others have described in the oral cavity (1, 5–10). Interestingly, while hBD-3 is associated with the highly proliferating, nondifferentiated stratum basale of the oral mucosa, hBD-2 is compartmentalized in the more superficial stratum spinosum and stratum granulosum; i.e., nonproliferating yet differentiating regions of the oral mucosa (11, 12). This, along with other results showing that hBD-2 is induced as a result of inflammation via MAPK or NFκΒ (5) while hBD-3 is activated through epidermal growth factor receptor (13, 14), strongly suggests that the latter is more involved in wound healing while the former plays a more active role in inhibiting microbial invasion during mucosal-barrier disruption (15–17). Moreover, in addition to their antimicrobial properties (18, 19), both peptides have been shown to act as chemokines in recruiting lymphoid and myeloid cells from the bloodstream (20).

Fusobacterium nucleatum, a ubiquitous Gram-negative bacterium of the human oral cavity, has been extensively studied for its properties of adhesion to other bacteria, an important feature in oral biofilm formation (21, 22). In addition to its role in oral community architecture, we and others have shown that the cell wall of F. nucleatum induces hBD-2 expression in normal primary human oral epithelial cells (HOECs) (1, 5, 10, 23). The presence of F. nucleatum in oral biofilms colonizing oral surfaces may be a reason why the generally inducible hBD-2 is constitutively expressed in the upper strata of the oral mucosa, a trait apparently unique to this site compared to other mucosal body sites (5, 11, 17). We have also shown that, as well as in HOECs, F. nucleatum is also capable of inducing hBD-2 in skin keratinocytes (14).

Recently, we reported the identification, isolation, and functional evaluation of a cell wall-associated protein from F. nucleatum that induces hBD-2 in HOECs (1). We named this protein Fusobacterium-associated defensin inducer (FAD-I). Expression of FAD-I in a bacterium (Porphyromonas gingivalis ATCC 33277) that did not promote hBD-2 expression resulted in its ability to do so (1). Here, we present new evidence showing that (i) FAD-I is the principal F. nucleatum molecule responsible for hBD-2 induction; (ii) FAD-I is posttranslationally modified at its cysteine in position 16 (C16) by a diacylglycerol, which is essential for FAD-I-dependent hBD-2 activation in HOECs; and (iii) FAD-I induces hBD-2 in HOECs through both Toll-like receptor-1/2 (TLR-1/2) and TLR-2/6. Since most mucosal body sites do not express constitutive levels of hBD-2, FAD-I, or its derivatives, offers the possibility of inducing the body's own innate antimicrobial agents in vulnerable mucosa.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

HOEC culture and treatment.Tissue acquisition for primary cell isolation was conducted in accordance with our Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved protocol (NHR-15-19) for the use of discarded tissue. Primary HOECs were expanded from tissues overlying impacted third molars, as previously described (24), and grown as monolayers to ∼70% confluence. The cells were cultured in EpiLife medium (Gibco, Life Technologies) supplemented with 1% penicillin-streptomycin, 0.2% Fungizone, and 1% human keratinocyte growth supplement (HKGS) (Gibco) at 37°C and 5% CO2 prior to challenge with various agents.

HOECs that reached ∼70% confluence were trypsinized, split, and seeded in 12- or 24-well plates at concentrations of 1.7 × 105 and 3.5 × 105 cells/well, respectively. The plates were incubated for 1 or 2 days until the cells reached ∼80% confluence. These cells were then used for the various experiments described below. Incubations with the various agents were for ∼18 h.

Construction of F. nucleatum mutant and complementation strains.For generation of an F. nucleatum ATCC 10953 mutant derivative lacking FAD-I, allelic-exchange mutagenesis was used to replace the ATCC 10953 fadI gene with the catP gene resistance cassette. Briefly, the construct was generated by fusing 1 kb of DNA upstream and downstream of fadI with the catP gene, along with its promoter. The upstream region was amplified from F. nucleatum ATCC 10953 using primer pair BS933/BS934, while the downstream region was amplified using the primer pair BS937/BS938. The catP gene was PCR amplified from pHS30 (25) using primers BS935 and BS936. The primers contained an overlap of 25 to 30 bp to allow fusion in PCRs, and the fusion PCR was carried out as described by Shevchuk et al. (26). The fusion product was cloned into pCR-BluntII-TOPO (Invitrogen) and confirmed by sequencing. The plasmid DNA was electroporated into F. nucleatum ATCC 10953 as described by Haake et al. (25) and plated on selective medium containing thiamphenicol to obtain the corresponding ΔfadI derivative. The genomic DNA of the obtained colonies was analyzed by PCR for the presence of the catP gene and the absence of fadI. One of the colonies was designated the ΔfadI inactivated mutant for complementation with heterologous expressed fadI from highly hBD-2-inducing F. nucleatum strains ATCC 23726 and ATCC 25586 under the control of the fomA promoter. The fadI genes of F. nucleatum ATCC 23726 and ATCC 25586 were amplified from the respective genomes using the primer pair BS926/BS927. The fomA promoter was amplified from F. nucleatum 10953 using the primer pair BS924/BS925. The fused products of the fomA promoter and the respective fadI genes were cloned into the shuttle vector pHS58 (27). All the resulting plasmids were confirmed by sequencing and transformed into the ΔfadI derivative of F. nucleatum ATCC 10953 for complementation and heterologous expression of the different fadI genes. The presence of the fusion construct between the fomA promoter and fadI from ATCC 25586 and ATCC 23726 in the transformants was confirmed by PCR. The primer pairs used are described in Table S1 in the supplemental material.

Isolation of FnCW.F. nucleatum cell wall (FnCW) extracts from different F. nucleatum parent and mutant strains were prepared as previously described (28).

Isolation of nFAD-I.Native FAD-I (nFAD-I) was isolated from FnCW extracts derived from F. nucleatum ATCC 25586 by immunoprecipitation using a polyclonal anti-FAD-I antibody (1). To eliminate nonspecific interactions, 100 μg of the bacterial cell wall fraction was initially incubated with 50 μl of preimmune serum at 4°C overnight in the presence of antibody binding buffer (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA) and protease inhibitors (Thermo Scientific). Precleared lysates were obtained by adding 25 μl of protein A magnetic beads (Novex, Life Technologies) to the mixture. Thirty micrograms of the anti-FAD-I antibody was added to the supernatants and continuously mixed at 4°C overnight. The magnetic beads were washed with antigen-antibody binding buffer (Thermo Scientific). nFAD-I was eluted out of the complex at room temperature with Gentle antigen elution buffer (Thermo Scientific) by 40 min of incubation at room temperature with constant rotation. The isolated protein was further dialyzed against Tris buffer (pH 7.5) at 4°C overnight, and the protein content was measured with a Dc protein assay kit (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA). The protein was identified by mass spectrometric (MS) analysis (Proteomics Core, Case Western Reserve University [CWRU]).

Cloning and bacterial overexpression of rFAD-I.The full-length FAD-I gene (FN1527) (1) was amplified by PCR from genomic DNA of F. nucleatum strain ATCC 25586 using primers (see Table S2 in the supplemental material) with Nde1 and Xho1 restriction sites at their ends (New England BioLabs). The PCR product was gel purified using a PCR purification kit (Qiagen, Germantown, MD) and cloned in the pET-20b vector (Novagen). Recombinant FAD-I (rFAD-I) protein was overexpressed from one positive clone in the host Escherichia coli BL21(DE3) (Invitrogen, Life technologies). The E. coli culture, maintained at 37°C with 1 mM IPTG (isopropyl-β-d-thiogalactopyranoside), generated the recombinant protein within 4 h. Bacterial cells were harvested by centrifugation at 4,000 rpm for 10 min, and the cell pellet was washed with 1× phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) and stored at −80°C until further processed. Different mutant forms of FAD-I (Δ15, C16A, and 15-amino-acid signal sequence) (see Fig. S1 in the supplemental material) were generated using a Quick Site-Directed Mutagenesis kit (Stratagene, La Jolla, CA) with the full-length FAD-I gene of F. nucleatum strain ATCC 25586 as the template. The primers used for creating the mutants are listed in Table S2 in the supplemental material. Cloning and overexpression were conducted in pET20b following the same protocol used to generate the full-length FAD-I protein.

Purification of overexpressed proteins from E. coli.E. coli cell pellets overexpressing complete FAD-I, the Δ15 and C16A derivatives, or the signal peptide (SP) were suspended in 50 mM Na2HPO4, 100 mM NaCl (pH 7.5), 0.1 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride (PMSF), and 1× Halt protease inhibitor (Thermo Scientific) and sonicated on ice using a Fisher Sonic Dismembrator 300 (Thermo Fisher, Bridgewater, NJ) on ice. The cells were subjected to 20 cycles of 5-s pulses repeated 5 times with a wait time of 2 to 3 min after each cycle. The lysed cells were centrifuged at 18,000 rpm and 4°C for 30 min. The supernatant underwent further processing to isolate the desired protein using a Qiaexpress Ni-nitrilotriacetic acid (NTA) column (Qiagen), following the manufacturer's protocol. The His-tagged column eluent was dialyzed against 10 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.5, and 100 mM NaCl. The dialyzed protein was concentrated using an Amicon tube concentrator with a 5-kDa cutoff (Millipore, MA). The recombinant signal sequence was expressed in inclusion bodies. Recovery of the overexpressed protein from the inclusion bodies and its purification were done using inclusion body solubilization reagent (Thermo Scientific) according to the manufacturer's protocol.

Mass spectrometric analysis.A C18 reverse-phase column was utilized for identification of possible posttranslational modifications (PTM), including phosphorylation, myristoylation, and sulfonation. Approximately 300 ng of both the rFAD-I and the nFAD-I peptide mixtures was loaded onto a 100-μm by 2-cm Acclaim PepMap100 C18 reverse-phase trapping column to preconcentrate and wash away excess salts using a nano-UltiMate-3000 Rapid Separation LC system (Dionex, Sunnyvale, CA). The reverse-phase separation was performed on a 75-μm by 25-cm (particle size, 2 μm, and pore size, 100 A) Acclaim PepMap100 C18 reverse-phase column (Dionex) using a linear gradient of 5 to 60% buffer B (100% acetonitrile-0.1% formic acid [FA]) over 55 min.

A C4 reverse-phase column was utilized for identification of lipid modification only. The approximately 300 ng of digest mixture derived from both the rFAD-I and the nFAD-I proteins was loaded onto a 100-μm by 2-cm Acclaim PepMap100 C18 reverse-phase trapping column to preconcentrate and wash away excess salts using a nano-UltiMate-3000 Rapid Separation LC system (Dionex, Sunnyvale, CA). The reverse-phase separation was performed on a 75-μm by 15-cm (particle size, 5 μm, and pore size, 300 A) Acclaim PepMap300 C4 reverse-phase column (Dionex) using a linear gradient of 20 to 100% buffer B over 64 min.

Proteolytic peptides eluting from either C18 or C4 columns were directed to an LTQ-FT mass spectrometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Wilmington, DE) equipped with a nanospray ion source with a needle voltage of 2.4 kV. All mass spectra were obtained from data-dependent experiments in the positive ion mode. MS and tandem-MS (MS-MS) spectra were acquired with full-scan MS recorded in the FT analyzer at a resolution (R) of 100,000, followed by MS-MS of the eight most intense peptide ions in the LTQ analyzer. The data were analyzed by searching tandem-MS spectra using Mascot software against a database containing FN1527 protein, considering variable modification of S, T, and Y residues by 79.966 Da; S, T, and Y residues by 79.957 Da; C residues by 210.198 Da; and C residues by 576.511 Da, which correspond to phosphorylation, sulfation, myristoylation, and S-diacylglycerol cysteine, respectively.

RNA isolation, quantitative PCR (qPCR), and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).RNA was extracted from HOECs with the RNeasy minikit (Qiagen) following the manufacturer's instructions. The RNA concentration was measured by UV absorbance at 260/280 nm using a Nanodrop 1000 (Thermo Fisher Scientific). Quantitative real-time PCR was performed with a Bio-Rad CFX96 system with a high-capacity cDNA reverse-transcription kit (Applied Biosystems, Carlsbad, CA) and SyBr Green Supermix (Bio-Rad) according to the manufacturer's protocol. The primer sequences for hBD-2 and the glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH) housekeeping gene are shown in Table S2 in the supplemental material. Primers were designed using Primer3 primer design software (29) and were analyzed using Oligo Analysis (Integrated DNA Technologies [IDT]) in order to avoid secondary structures. The medium supernatants from HOECs were analyzed for hBD-2 protein levels following our previously described protocol (9, 10).

Flow cytometry.Biotin-conjugated anti-TLR-1, allophycocyanin (APC)-conjugated anti-TLR-2, and phycoerythrin (PE)-conjugated anti-TLR-6 antibodies were used for flow cytometry (Ebiosciences, San Diego, CA). For surface staining, the cells were first harvested in cell dissociation buffer and then washed and stained in PBS- bovine serum albumin (BSA) (0.5%)-EDTA (0.5 mM) buffer for 1 h and immediately analyzed (LSR II Fortessa; BD Biosciences, CA). Cells were harvested in trypsin-EDTA and washed in PBS-BSA (0.5%)-EDTA (0.5 mM) buffer to remove surface proteins. Unconjugated antibodies were used to further block the remaining surface proteins. The cells were then fixed using 1× fixation buffer (Ebiosciences) overnight, followed by permeabilization and staining, using the conjugated antibodies mentioned above, in 1× permeabilization buffer (Ebiosciences) for 2 h, and analyzed by flow cytometry. Surface detection of the same receptor proteins was done with and without cytochalasin D (CytD) (Life Technologies) treatment. HOECs were pretreated with 40 μM cytochalasin D at 37°C 1 h prior to FAD-I stimulation. We also used fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC)-labeled FAD-I (Bio Basic Canada Inc., Markham, Ontario, Canada) to measure the receptor-ligand association at the surface, as detected by TLR-2 and FAD-I–FITC-double-positive cells by flow cytometry.

Statistical analysis.All statistical analyses (Student t test or analysis of variance [ANOVA]) were performed using Graph Pad (La Jolla, CA) Prism v.6 software. P values of <0.05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

FAD-I is the main inducer of hBD-2 in F. nucleatum.We have shown that F. nucleatum ATCC 25586 induces hBD-2 upon contact with primary HOECs (5). We screened two additional sequenced F. nucleatum strains (ATCC 23726 and ATCC 10953) for the ability to induce hBD-2 transcription by challenging HOECs with live bacterial cultures (multiplicity of infection [MOI], 1:100) and discovered that while hBD-2 mRNA induction by ATCC 23726 was similar to that by ATCC 25586, ATCC 10953 showed significantly less activity (Fig. 1A). We isolated FnCW fractions from each of the three strains and found that the fractions behaved like whole bacterial cells (Fig. 1B). To compare the levels of FAD-I protein in the whole-cell lysates of ATCC 10953 (a low inducer) with those of high-inducer strains (ATCC 25586 and ATCC 23726), we performed Western immunoblot analysis, which revealed relatively low levels of FAD-I in ATCC 10953 compared to those in high-inducer strains (Fig. 2A; see Fig. S3 in the supplemental material). Additionally, alignment of the corresponding FAD-I sequences revealed that the proteins of strains ATCC 25586 and ATCC 23726 differed in only a single amino acid (99.2% similarity), while strain ATCC 10953 shared only 87.6% sequence similarity with either of the other two strains (Fig. 2B). Interestingly, the sequence differences between ATCC 10953 and the other two strains were found principally in the signal peptide region of FAD-I, along with various sites in the mature-peptide region (Fig. 2B).

FIG 1
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 1

Induction of hBD-2 mRNA by live bacterial cells (A) and cell wall preparations (10 μg/ml cell wall F. nucleatum [Fn] ATCC 25586, ATCC 23726, and ATCC 10953 (B). The data presented are means ± standard deviations (SD) of the results of three to six replicate experiments; *, significant (P < 0.05), and NS, not significant between the indicated experiments.

FIG 2
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 2

(A) Western immunoblot of FAD-I protein in whole-cell lysates of F. nucleatum ATCC 25586, ATCC 23726, ATCC 10953, ATCC 10953 ΔfadI, and ATCC 10953 ΔfadI/pFAD-I 23726 (ATCC 10953 ΔfadI with plasmid-based expression of FAD-I from ATCC 23726). For Western blotting, whole-cell lysates derived from 1.5 × 107 cells of the different Fusobacterium strains at the mid-logarithmic growth phase were resolved in a 4 to 12% SDS-PAGE precast gel (NuPAGE, Invitrogen, USA) according to standard protocols, and anti-FAD-I antibody (1) was used to detect FAD-I. (B) Multiple-sequence alignment of FAD-I peptides from three F. nucleatum strains (ATCC 25586, ATCC 23726, and ATCC 10953). The Clustal W (54) Web-based service was used to align the sequences. The arrow indicates a conserved cysteine; the box at the N terminus indicates the signal peptide sequences; the dark-blue-shaded amino acids are common to all three proteins, while the amino acids shaded light blue or white indicate differences in sequences.

Since F. nucleatum ATCC 10953 has a greatly reduced ability to trigger hBD-2 transcription in HOECs, it provides an ideal background to test whether FAD-I is the key agent produced by F. nucleatum for induction of hBD-2. To remove possible FAD-I background activity, we first created a mutant derivative of ATCC 10953 lacking the FAD-I-encoding gene (see Materials and Methods for details). The fadI genes of the highly hBD-2-inducing strains ATCC 25586 and ATCC 23726 were cloned into a fusobacterial shuttle vector under the control of a constitutive fusobacterial promoter and transformed into the ATCC 10953 ΔfadI mutant strain. The FAD-I production of the resulting strains was confirmed, and then the strains were tested for the ability to induce hBD-2 transcription in HOECs. Both ATCC 10953 ΔfadI derivatives expressing heterologous FAD-I of ATCC 25586 or ATCC 23726 displayed FAD-I activities similar to the respective highly hBD-2-inducing parent strains (Fig. 3A). The Western immunoblot for FAD-I expression in cell lysates of ATCC 10953 ΔfadI complemented with FAD-I of ATCC 23726 (a high inducer) showed a level of expression of FAD-I in cell lysates comparable to that of the parent highly inducing strain (Fig. 2A). Finally, addition of anti-FAD-I antibodies reduced hBD-2 induction by F. nucleatum ATCC 25586 cell wall fractions by more than 80% (Fig. 3C).

FIG 3
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 3

Induction of hBD-2 mRNA by cell wall preparations (10 μg/ml) of parent ATCC 10953, ATCC 10953 ΔfadI, ATCC 10953 ΔfadI/pFAD-I25586 (ATCC 10953 ΔfadI with plasmid-based expression of FAD-I from ATCC 25586), and ATCC 10953 ΔfadI/pFAD-I23726 (ATCC 10953 ΔfadI with plasmid-based expression of FAD-I from ATCC 23726) (A) and 25586 FnCW (10 μg/ml) (B) in the presence of anti-FAD-I antibody (1) or isotype control. The data presented are means ± SD of the results of three to six replicate experiments; *, significant (P < 0.05), and NS, not significant between the indicated treatments.

Recombinant FAD-I is as potent as native FAD-I in inducing hBD-2.We previously reported that FAD-I from F. nucleatum ATCC 25586 could be recombinantly expressed in E. coli (rFAD-I) and that the purified protein induces hBD-2 production (1). We now wanted to compare the hBD-2-inducing ability of rFAD-I with that of nFAD-I and purified both proteins (as described in Materials and Methods). Challenge of HOECs with either rFAD-I or nFAD-I resulted in comparable hBD-2 transcript expression and peptide release (see Fig. S1 in the supplemental material), and hence, we continued using rFAD-I in our subsequent studies due to easier manipulation and purification of the protein.

The signal peptide is important for FAD-I activity.Sequence analysis of FAD-I revealed that the full-length protein is comprised of 129 amino acids (14 kDa), with residues 1 to 15 (MKKILLLLSSLFLFA) corresponding to the predicted signal sequence (Fig. 2; see Fig. S2 in the supplemental material). The processed mature protein, without the signal sequence, consists of 114 residues and is referred to as Δ15 FAD-I. We recombinantly produced mature FAD-I (Δ15 FAD-I) and SP as separate entities and compared their abilities to induce hBD-2 with that of full-length rFAD-I. Our results show that rFAD-I is significantly compromised upon deletion of the signal peptide (Fig. 4A and B). Interestingly, HOECs stimulated with the signal peptide alone and the signal peptide in conjunction with mature FAD-I (Δ15 FAD-I) were unable to induce hBD-2, indicating that the intact rFAD-I, containing its signal peptide, is essential for activity.

FIG 4
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 4

Comparison of hBD-2 induction and release from HOECs by rFAD-I, mature rFAD-I, and its signal peptide. HOECs were treated for 18 h with 10 μg/ml of the indicated peptides {rFAD-I, recombinant full-length FAD-I; Δ15 FAD-I, rFAD-I with the 15-amino-acid signal sequence deleted; Signal Peptide (SP), signal peptide only; [SP]+[Δ15 FAD-I], mixture of signal peptide and Δ15 FAD-I}. Fold changes in hBD-2 mRNA (A) and released peptide (B) compared to untreated HOECs were measured. The data presented are means ± SD of the results of six independent experiments; *, significant (P < 0.05) compared to untreated HOECs; #, significant (P < 0.05) compared to rFAD-I-treated cells.

FAD-I is posttranslationally modified at the cysteine in position 16.The cysteine in position 16 is conserved (Fig. 2) in the predicted amino acid sequences of FAD-I proteins present in the three F. nucleatum strains tested. Further analysis of the FAD-I sequences of ATCC 25586, ATCC 23726, and ATCC 10953 with the ScanProsite tool (30) revealed a potential posttranslational lipid modification at C16 by either S-diacyl-glycerol or N-palmitoyl-cysteine (see Fig. S2 in the supplemental material). To confirm this modification and further analyze its nature, rFAD-I (Fig. 5A) and nFAD-I (Fig. 5B) proteins corresponding to F. nucleatum ATCC 25586 were digested with trypsin and analyzed by liquid chromatography (LC)–MS-MS (as described in Materials and Methods). A doubly protonated ion signal at m/z 914.53 that corresponds to the CANIDTGVDESK peptide (C16-K27) with a mass shift of 576.14 Da was observed. MS-MS analysis of doubly protonated ion signals at m/z 914.53 derived from the FAD-I tryptic digest produced a spectrum in which all the observed b-fragment ions, including b1 to b11 ions, were shifted by +576.14 Da. In contrast, the observed y-fragment ions, including y1 to y11 ions, were unchanged. The shifting of the b1 to b11 ions but not the y1 to y11 ions by 576.4 Da is indicative of S-diacyl-glycerol modification at the cysteine residue of the CANIDTGVDESK peptide (i.e., the cysteine at position 16 of the full-length FAD-I peptide).

FIG 5
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 5

(A and B) Tandem-mass-spectrometry chromatograms for identification of the lipid moiety in rFAD-I (A) and nFAD-I (B). The chromatogram shows the doubly charged peptide CANIDTGVDESK at m/z 914.53, where Cys modified by 576.4 Da corresponds to S-diacylglycerol cysteine. The asterisk indicates modification. (C and D) HOECs were treated for 18 h with 10 μg/ml of each of the peptides, as indicated [rFAD-I, recombinant FAD-I; rFAD-I (C16A), rFAD-I with the cysteine at position 16 mutated to alanine]. Fold changes in hBD-2 mRNA (C) and released peptide (D) compared to untreated HOECs were determined. The data presented are means ± SD of the results of six independent experiments; *, P < 0.05.

To investigate the importance of the lipidated C16 in hBD-2 induction, the cysteine was replaced by alanine (A) in rFAD-I. This significantly reduced the ability of FAD-I to induce hBD-2, indicating the importance of the cysteine-diacylglycerol modification in hBD-2 induction (Fig. 5C and D).

FAD-I-mediated hBD-2 induction is TLR-1/2 and TLR-2/6 dependent.Previously, we reported that the induction of hBD-2 by FAD-I is TLR-2 dependent (1). Here, we investigated if this TLR dependence included heterodimerization of TLR-2 with either TLR-1 or TLR-6. When we treated HOECs with FAD-I in the presence or absence of anti-TLR-1 or anti-TLR-6 antibody, we observed significantly diminished hBD-2 induction, indicating that TLR-2 interaction with both TLR-1 and TLR-6 is involved in induction of hBD-2 by FAD-I in HOECs (Fig. 6A).

FIG 6
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 6

HOEC TLR-1/2 and TLR-2/6 interaction with rFAD-I. (A) HOECs were treated with either rFAD-I (10 μg/ml), Pam2Cys (a positive control for TLR-2/6; 20 ng/ml; Invivogen, USA), or Pam3Cys (a positive control for TLR-1/2; 20 ng/ml; Invivogen, USA) for 18 h in the presence or absence of anti-TLR antibodies (Invivogen, USA) as indicated. The antibodies were incubated with HOECs for 60 min prior to 18 h of incubation with the other reagents. HBD-2 mRNA fold changes compared to untreated HOECs were determined. The data presented are means ± SD of the results of three independent experiments; *, P < 0.05. (B and C) Flow cytometric analysis of TLR interaction with rFAD-I. HOECs were plated in 24-well clusters in duplicate. Upon attaining 70 to 80% confluence, the cells were harvested (0 h); left untreated (untreated); or incubated with either recombinant FAD-I (rFAD-I), Pam2Cys, or Pam3Cys for 30 min. Cells were harvested for surface staining (B) or intracellular detection (C) of TLRs by flow cytometry. (D to F) Flow cytometric analysis of TLR2 after rFAD-I and FITC-labeled rFAD-I challenge of cytochalasin D-treated HOECs. (D) Semiconfluent HOECs were harvested (0 h) and left untreated or treated with either dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), rFAD-I, rFAD-I plus CytD (Sigma, USA), FITC-labeled rFAD-I, or FITC-labeled rFAD-I plus CytD for 45 min. Cells were then harvested for TLR-2 surface staining and analyzed by flow cytometry. (E and F) The percentage of surface TLR2 (only)-expressing cells (E) or the percentage of surface TLR2+ rFAD-I–FITC double-positive cells (F) among HOECs harvested at 0 h, incubated with DMSO (DMSO), left untreated (untreated), or incubated with FITC-labeled rFAD-I [rFAD-I (FITC)] for 30 min in the presence or absence of 40 μM CytD was determined. The flow cytometric data presented are representative of two independent experiments.

To further investigate this observation, we conducted flow cytometric analysis to reveal the presence or absence of TLR receptors on HOEC surfaces after FAD-I challenge. Representative flow cytometric analysis demonstrated that both TLR-1/2 and TLR-2/6 are reduced on the surfaces of HOECs following FAD-I challenge, with more surface expression reduction of TLR-1 than of TLR-6 (Fig. 6B and D). Additionally, while both TLR-1 and TLR-6 were internalized in response to FAD-I, there was a greater percentage of TLR-1 internalization than of TLR-6 compared to untreated cells (Fig. 6B and C).

The FAD-I–TLR-2 interaction was additionally investigated using CytD, an inhibitor of actin polymerization, to see if blocking of receptor internalization can inhibit the reduction in TLR-2 surface expression in the presence of FAD-I. HOECs in the presence of CytD showed little change in TLR2 surface expression after challenge with FAD-I compared to FAD-I-treated HOECs alone (Fig. 6D). This was confirmed by using FITC-labeled rFAD-I in the presence and absence of CytD (Fig. 6E and F).

DISCUSSION

Previously, the cell wall of F. nucleatum, a ubiquitous bacterium of the oral cavity, was shown to induce hBD-2 in HOECs (5). More recently, using systematic biochemical fractionation of FnCW, we identified FAD-I as the hBD-2-inducing factor. This was further confirmed via functional heterologous expression of FAD-I in P. gingivalis (1). In our present study, we report differential induction of hBD-2 by different strains of F. nucleatum; ATCC 25586 and ATCC 23726 trigger significantly more hBD-2 mRNA production than ATCC 10953. ATCC 25586 and ATCC 23726 are therefore designated high inducers, while ATCC 10953 is designated a low inducer of hBD-2. Via heterologous expression of fadI from highly hBD-2-inducing strains in a ΔfadI derivative of the low-hBD-2-inducing strain ATCC 10953, we were able to restore FAD-I induction in the low inducer to levels comparable to those observed for the highly inducing strains.

In addition, by using antibodies specifically targeting FAD-I, we inhibited the high-inducer cell wall fraction from inducing hBD-2 by more than 80%. These two independent approaches support our contention that FAD-I is the principal cell wall-associated fusobacterial agent responsible for hBD-2 induction in HOECs.

Our mass spectroscopy analysis and replacement of cysteine (C16) with alanine revealed the importance of the posttranslational C16 diacylglycerol moiety in FAD-I in promoting hBD-2 expression in HOECs. Additionally, our in silico analysis revealed that all three F. nucleatum strains expressed a diacylglycerol moiety bound to cysteine in position 16. Therefore, that alone could not explain the strain-related differences in hBD-2 induction.

The Western immunoblot data using whole-cell lysates of F. nucleatum hBD2 low- and high-inducer strains showed reduced FAD-I expression in the whole-cell lysates of the low inducer (ATCC 10953) compared to the high inducers (ATCC 25586 and ATCC 23726), which was even more apparent when we used cell wall fractions for these strains (see Fig. S3 in the supplemental material). The mechanism of protein secretion in eukaryotes and prokaryotes requires the signal sequence to facilitate transport of the translated protein to the membrane (31), and it also helps the protein attain the right conformation required to maintain its functionality (32). The fact that the major sequence difference between the FAD-I of ATCC 10953 and those of the other two strains is in the signal peptide domain of FAD-I (Fig. 2; see Fig. S2 in the supplemental material) suggests that the variability in levels of FAD-I production and cell wall integration in ATCC 10953 compared to ATCC 25586 and ATCC 23726 could be due to variability in the efficiency of FAD-I signal peptide anchoring to the outer membranes of the respective strains. However, we cannot rule out the possibility that a conformational difference, as demonstrated by amino acid sequence differences in the mature-peptide region of FAD-I proteins from the hBD2 low- and high-inducer strains could also contribute to variability in hBD-2 induction in HOECs. The theoretically predicted structures of FAD-I proteins from ATCC 10953 and ATCC 25586 based on I-TASSER (iterative threading assembly refinement) (33, 34) showed differences in the residues predicted to interact with the TLRs (data not shown). Therefore, differences in FAD-I presentation from its cognate receptors, along with differences in levels of expression of FAD-I on the outer membranes of F. nucleatum strains, may collectively be responsible for variability in hBD-2 induction in HOECs. Deciphering this intriguing hypothesis will require additional work, which is under way in our laboratory.

Purified FAD-I proteins, resolved under denaturing conditions, resulted in two prominent bands, i.e., at 14 kDa and 12 kDa, as detected by Coomassie staining and Western blotting (see Fig. S4 in the supplemental material), indicating the presence of full-length and mature peptide in rFAD-I. Another F. nucleatum outer-membrane-associated protein, FadA, which has been shown to play an important role in binding and invasion of host cells by the organism, also exhibits a premature and a mature peptide when resolved by SDS-PAGE. The amino acid sequence analysis of FAD-I indicated the presence of a 15-amino-acid signal peptide. Challenging HOECs with recombinantly produced mature FAD-I, i.e., without the signal peptide (Δ15 FAD-I), significantly reduced its activity, and adding the signal peptide to the assay mixture in the presence of the mature peptide did not restore FAD-I activity to an appreciable extent. This suggests that the signal sequence and the mature peptide must be bound as a single unit to maintain conformational integrity for FAD-I activity when presented to HOECs as a standalone molecule. However, this may not be relevant in vivo when F. nucleatum comes in contact with HOECs, since the outer membrane, in which FAD-I would be embedded, would provide conformational stability to the molecule. According to Mascioni et al. (35), the amino terminus of bacterial lipoproteins may not only function to direct outer membrane localization, but also serve as an extended linker sequence, making the protein available at the extracellular surface.

Our current results show that nFAD-I and rFAD-I behave similarly in their ability to induce hBD-2. Mass spectrometric analysis demonstrated the presence of a PTM associated with the only cysteine in the molecule in both proteins. Interestingly, rFAD-I generated in E. coli retained the same posttranslational modification as nFAD-I, which we isolated from F. nucleatum, i.e., diacylglycerol and not triacylglycerol. The classical lipoprotein modification pathway in bacteria is composed of three sequential enzymatic reactions catalyzed by two acetyltransferases and one signal peptidase (36). The enzymes lipoprotein diacylglyceryl transferase (Lgt) and signal peptidase II (Lsp) are involved in producing diacylated lipoproteins (36), while triacylated lipoproteins are the result of additional catalysis steps by apolipoprotein N-acyltransferase (Lnt) (36, 37). We searched for these enzymes in the F. nucleatum ATTC 25586 genome database (38) and found Lgt (GeneID 991758; gene symbol, FN0489) and Lsp (GeneID 991403; gene symbol, FN0068) homologues, but not lnt, consistent with our finding that FAD-I is diacylated and not triacylated. Gram-negative bacteria are known to have lnt, which promotes triacylated-lipoprotein generation (39). E. coli, like other Gram-negative bacteria, expresses all three enzymes; however, in the generation of lipoproteins, lnt causes diacylated moieties to become triacylated, as it is the default enzyme that adds an acyl group to the N terminus of the diacylated molecule (36, 39). Thus, the lipid modification of FAD-I appears to be unique, as it is a diacyl peptide produced by a Gram-negative bacterium (F. nucleatum). It is also surprising that even when produced in E. coli it is diacylated, in spite of the presence of machinery for triacylation. We could speculate that there could be a specific recognition motif that determines the number of acyl groups added to the lipoprotein; however, while this opens up a new avenue for further investigation, it is beyond the scope of the present study.

The lipid moiety of a bacterial lipoprotein plays a crucial role in bacterium-host cell interactions. For example, lipidated peptides are discriminated by host TLRs on the basis of the degree of fatty acid acylation. Among the TLRs, TLR-2 plays a major role in the recognition of Gram-positive bacteria (40). Biochemical studies using cell wall component-deficient mutant bacteria demonstrated that bacterial lipoproteins, but not lipoteichoic acid or peptidoglycan, act as real native TLR-2 ligand molecules (41–43). Only the lipoproteins are real TLR-2 ligands, and the others may contain lipoproteins as contaminants during their preparation (44). In the present report, we show that FAD-I is a diacylated lipopeptide, and previously, we demonstrated that it induces hBD-2 in HOECs through TLR-2 (1). TLR-2 is unique in its ability to form heterodimer complexes with TLR-1 or TLR-6. Triacyl and diacyl synthetic lipopeptides, such as N-palmitoyl-S-dipalmitoylglyceryl CSK4 and MALP-2, have been used as TLR-1/2 and TLR-2/6 agonists, respectively, leading to a model in which triacylated lipopeptides/lipoproteins activate through the TLR-1/2 heterodimer, whereas diacylated lipopeptides/lipoproteins activate through the TLR-2/6 heterodimer (45–47). Here, we report that induction of hBD-2 by diacylated FAD-I induces hBD-2 through both TLR-1/2 and TLR-2/6 in HOECs. Triacylated SitC lipoprotein purified from Staphylococcus aureus cells has been shown to stimulate immune cells via both TLR-1/2 and TLR-2/6 heterodimers (43), and some diacylated bacterial lipopeptides can also activate cells in a TLR-6-independent manner (48, 49).

In the context of induction of innate response elements in human oral mucosa, we envision that variability in hBD-2 induction could be the result of both the FAD-I expression level and conformation differences, as demonstrated by low- and high-inducer F. nucleatum strains, along with interpersonal variability in TLR levels of expression in oral mucosal cells (50).

Teleologically, bacterial molecules such as FAD-I, from various oral bacterial species, could be contributing to the regulation of homeostasis in the oral mucosa and thus explain why hBD-2, while inducible, is constitutively expressed in the oral mucosa with little concomitant inflammation. Interestingly, hBD-2 appears only in the presence of infection or inflammation in most tissues, including the skin (51), trachea (52), and gut epithelium (53, 54), sites where F. nucleatum is not a normal inhabitant. Furthermore, we have noticed that FAD-I does not induce interleukin 8 (IL-8) in HOECs (data not shown). Therefore, the interaction of FAD-I with the host mucosal epithelium, which results in expression of antimicrobials, such as hBD-2 (1) and CCL20 (10), without simultaneously triggering inflammatory mediator(s), may reflect an inherent strategy of symbiosis between certain bacteria and the host mucosa. The growing problem of resistance to conventional antibiotics and the need for new antimicrobials has stimulated interest in the development of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs), such as hBDs, as human therapeutics. Unlike conventional antibiotics, resistance by an organism to AMPs is surprisingly rare and difficult to generate (55–57). This is probably due to the nonspecific nature of the electrostatic/hydrophobic interaction of the AMP with various anionic components of the bacterial membrane (55, 56). We hypothesize that a new class of therapeutics could be developed that would facilitate the production of endogenous AMPs when needed and locally where applied. Identification and characterization of bacterial molecules, such as FAD-I, including understanding their interactions with the host, may one day offer a new paradigm in immunoregulatory therapeutics to promote mucosal protection at vulnerable body sites.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by NIH/NIDCR grants R01 DE018276 (A.W.) and RO1 DE021108 (R.L.).

We thank J. R. Blakemore, E. K. Schneider, W. S. Blood, S. Alperin, and F. Faddoul for providing normal human oral tissue.

A.W., T.S.M., R.L., and S.K.G. conceived the study. A.W., S.K.G, T.S.M., R.L., and P.P. analyzed and interpreted data. S.K.G. and A.W. wrote and prepared the manuscript. T.S.M. and R.L. edited the manuscript. S.B. purified nFAD-I and different mutants of rFAD-I and performed cell cultures, qPCR, ELISA, and Western immunoblotting. B.S. generated different mutants of F. nucleatum. S.N. and A.Y. developed the protocol and generated rFAD-I. J.K. performed mass spectrophotometric analysis of FAD-I. B.E. isolated primary human oral epithelial cells. P.P. performed flow cytometry for TLR internalization.

We declare that we have no conflicts of interest with the contents of this article.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 19 October 2015.
    • Returned for modification 20 November 2015.
    • Accepted 13 February 2016.
    • Accepted manuscript posted online 29 February 2016.
  • Supplemental material for this article may be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/IAI.01311-15.

  • Copyright © 2016, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Gupta S,
    2. Ghosh SK,
    3. Scott ME,
    4. Bainbridge B,
    5. Jiang B,
    6. Lamont RJ,
    7. McCormick TS,
    8. Weinberg A
    . 2010. Fusobacterium nucleatum-associated beta-defensin inducer (FAD-I): identification, isolation, and functional evaluation. J Biol Chem 285:36523–36531. doi:10.1074/jbc.M110.133140.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Gomes PDS,
    2. Fernandes MH
    . 2010. Defensins in the oral cavity: distribution and biological role. J Oral Pathol Med 39:1–9. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0714.2009.00832.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Gursoy UK,
    2. Könönen E
    . 2012. Understanding the roles of gingival beta-defensins. J Oral Microbiol 2012:4. doi:10.3402/jom.v4i0.15127.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. 4.↵
    1. Hancock RE,
    2. Sahl HG
    . 2006. Antimicrobial and host-defense peptides as new anti-infective therapeutic strategies. Nat Biotechnol 24:1551–1557. doi:10.1038/nbt1267.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. 5.↵
    1. Krisanaprakornkit S,
    2. Kimball JR,
    3. Weinberg A,
    4. Darveau RP,
    5. Bainbridge BW,
    6. Dale BA
    . 2000. Inducible expression of human beta-defensin 2 by Fusobacterium nucleatum in oral epithelial cells: multiple signaling pathways and role of commensal bacteria in innate immunity and the epithelial barrier. Infect Immun 68:2907–2915. doi:10.1128/IAI.68.5.2907-2915.2000.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Dale BA,
    2. Krisanaprakornkit S
    . 2001. Defensin antimicrobial peptides in the oral cavity. J Oral Pathol Med 30:321–327. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0714.2001.300601.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. 7.↵
    1. Ji S,
    2. Shin JE,
    3. Kim YS,
    4. Oh JE,
    5. Min BM,
    6. Choi Y
    . 2009. Toll-like receptor 2 and NALP2 mediate induction of human beta-defensins by fusobacterium nucleatum in gingival epithelial cells. Infect Immun 77:1044–1052. doi:10.1128/IAI.00449-08.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Dommisch H,
    2. Reinartz M,
    3. Backhaus T,
    4. Deschner J,
    5. Chung W,
    6. Jepsen S
    . 2012. Antimicrobial responses of primary gingival cells to Porphyromonas gingivalis. J Clin Periodontol 39:913–922. doi:10.1111/j.1600-051X.2012.01933.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Ghosh SK,
    2. Gerken TA,
    3. Schneider KM,
    4. Feng Z,
    5. McCormick TS,
    6. Weinberg A
    . 2007. Quantification of human beta-defensin-2 and -3 in body fluids: application for studies of innate immunity. Clin Chem 53:757–765. doi:10.1373/clinchem.2006.081430.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Ghosh SK,
    2. Gupta S,
    3. Jiang B,
    4. Weinberg A
    . 2011. Fusobacterium nucleatum and human beta-defensins modulate the release of antimicrobial chemokine CCL20/macrophage inflammatory protein 3α. Infect Immun 79:4578–4587. doi:10.1128/IAI.05586-11.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Jin G,
    2. Kawsar HI,
    3. Hirsch SA,
    4. Zeng C,
    5. Jia X,
    6. Feng Z,
    7. Ghosh SK,
    8. Zheng QY,
    9. Zhou A,
    10. McIntyre TM,
    11. Weinberg A
    . 2010. An antimicrobial peptide regulates tumor-associated macrophage trafficking via the chemokine receptor CCR2, a model for tumorigenesis. PLoS One 5:e10993. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010993.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Kawsar HI,
    2. Weinberg A,
    3. Hirsch SA,
    4. Venizelos A,
    5. Howell S,
    6. Jiang B,
    7. Jin G
    . 2009. Overexpression of human beta-defensin-3 in oral dysplasia: potential role in macrophage trafficking. Oral Oncol 45:696–702. doi:10.1016/j.oraloncology.2008.10.016.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  13. 13.↵
    1. Doss M,
    2. White MR,
    3. Tecle T,
    4. Hartshorn KL
    . 2010. Human defensins and LL-37 in mucosal immunity. J Leukoc Biol 87:79–92. doi:10.1189/jlb.0609382.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. 14.↵
    1. Feng Z,
    2. Jia X,
    3. Adams MD,
    4. Ghosh SK,
    5. Bonomo RA,
    6. Weinberg A
    . 2014. Epithelial innate immune response to Acinetobacter baumannii challenge. Infect Immun 82:4458–4465. doi:10.1128/IAI.01897-14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Ganz T
    . 2003. Defensins: antimicrobial peptides of innate immunity. Nat Rev Immunol 3:710–720. doi:10.1038/nri1180.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. 16.↵
    1. Kimball JR,
    2. Nittayananta W,
    3. Klausner M,
    4. Chung WO,
    5. Dale BA
    . 2006. Antimicrobial barrier of an in vitro oral epithelial model. Arch Oral Biol 51:775–783. doi:10.1016/j.archoralbio.2006.05.007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Yin L,
    2. Dale BA
    . 2007. Activation of protective responses in oral epithelial cells by Fusobacterium nucleatum and human beta-defensin-2. J Med Microbiol 56:976–987. doi:10.1099/jmm.0.47198-0.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. 18.↵
    1. Pazgier M,
    2. Prahl A,
    3. Hoover DM,
    4. Lubkowski J
    . 2007. Studies of the biological properties of human beta-defensin 1. J Biol Chem 282:1819–1829. doi:10.1074/jbc.M607210200.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Harder J,
    2. Gläser R,
    3. Schröder JM
    . 2007. Human antimicrobial proteins: effectors of innate immunity. J Endotoxin Res 13:317–338. doi:10.1177/0968051907088275.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Weinberg A,
    2. Jin G,
    3. Sieg S,
    4. McCormick TS
    . 2012. The yin and yang of human beta-defensins in health and disease. Front Immunol 3:294. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2012.00294.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Kolenbrander PE,
    2. Palmer RJ, Jr,
    3. Periasamy S,
    4. Jakubovics NS
    . 2010. Oral multispecies biofilm development and the key role of cell-cell distance. Nat Rev Microbiol 8:471–480. doi:10.1038/nrmicro2381.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Kolenbrander PE
    . 2011. Multispecies communities: interspecies interactions influence growth on saliva as sole nutritional source. Int J Oral Sci 3:49–54. doi:10.4248/IJOS11025.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Krisanaprakornkit S,
    2. Kimball JR,
    3. Dale BA
    . 2002. Regulation of human beta-defensin-2 in gingival epithelial cells: the involvement of mitogen-activated protein kinase pathways, but not the NF-kappaB transcription factor family. J Immunol 168:316–324. doi:10.4049/jimmunol.168.1.316.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. Oda D,
    2. Watson E
    . 1990. Human oral epithelial cell culture. I. Improved conditions for reproducible culture in serum-free medium. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol 26:589–595.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  25. 25.↵
    1. Haake SK,
    2. Yoder SC,
    3. Attarian G,
    4. Podkaminer K
    . 2000. Native plasmids of Fusobacterium nucleatum: characterization and use in development of genetic systems. J Bacteriol 182:1176–1180. doi:10.1128/JB.182.4.1176-1180.2000.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    1. Shevchuk NA,
    2. Bryksin AV,
    3. Nusinovich YA,
    4. Cabello FC,
    5. Sutherland M,
    6. Ladisch S
    . 2004. Construction of long DNA molecules using long PCR-based fusion of several fragments simultaneously. Nucleic Acids Res 32:e19. doi:10.1093/nar/gnh014.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Kaplan A,
    2. Kaplan CW,
    3. He X,
    4. McHardy IH,
    5. Shi W,
    6. Lux R
    . 2014. Characterization of aid1, a novel gene involved in Fusobacterium nucleatum interspecies interactions. Microb Ecol 68:379–387. doi:10.1007/s00248-014-0400-y.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Kennell W,
    2. Holt SC
    . 1990. Comparative studies of the outer membranes of Bacteroides gingivalis, strains ATCC 33277, W50, W83, 381. Oral Microbiol Immunol 5:121–130. doi:10.1111/j.1399-302X.1990.tb00409.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Rozen S,
    2. Skaletsky H
    . 2000. Primer3 on the WWW for general users and for biologist programmers. Methods Mol Biol 132:365–386.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. de Castro E,
    2. Sigrist CJ,
    3. Gattiker A,
    4. Bulliard V,
    5. Langendijk-Genevaux PS,
    6. Gasteiger E,
    7. Bairoch A,
    8. Hulo N
    . 2006. ScanProsite: detection of PROSITE signature matches and ProRule-associated functional and structural residues in proteins. Nucleic Acids Res 34:W362–W365. doi:10.1093/nar/gkl124.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  31. 31.↵
    1. Emr SD,
    2. Silhavy TJ
    . 1983. Importance of secondary structure in the signal sequence for protein secretion. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 80:4599–4603. doi:10.1073/pnas.80.15.4599.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Singh P,
    2. Sharma L,
    3. Kulothungan SR,
    4. Adkar BV,
    5. Prajapati RS,
    6. Ali PS,
    7. Krishnan B,
    8. Varadarajan R
    . 2013. Effect of signal peptide on stability and folding of Escherichia coli thioredoxin. PLoS One 8:e63442. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0063442.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Roy A,
    2. Kucukural A,
    3. Zhang Y
    . 2010. I-TASSER: a unified platform for automated protein structure and function prediction. Nat Protoc 5:725–738. doi:10.1038/nprot.2010.5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  34. 34.↵
    1. Zhang Y
    . 2008. I-TASSER server for protein 3D structure prediction. BMC Bioinformatics 9:40. doi:10.1186/1471-2105-9-40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Mascioni A,
    2. Bentley BE,
    3. Camarda R,
    4. Dilts DA,
    5. Fink P,
    6. Gusarova V,
    7. Hoiseth SK,
    8. Jacob J,
    9. Lin SL,
    10. Malakian K,
    11. McNeil LK,
    12. Mininni T,
    13. Moy F,
    14. Murphy E,
    15. Novikova E,
    16. Sigethy S,
    17. Wen Y,
    18. Zlotnick GW,
    19. Tsao DH
    . 2009. Structural basis for the immunogenic properties of the meningococcal vaccine candidate LP2086. J Biol Chem 284:8738–8746. doi:10.1074/jbc.M808831200.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. 36.↵
    1. Kovacs-Simon A,
    2. Titball RW,
    3. Michell SL
    . 2011. Lipoproteins of bacterial pathogens. Infect Immun 79:548–561. doi:10.1128/IAI.00682-10.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. 37.↵
    1. Tokuda H
    . 2009. Biogenesis of outer membranes in Gram-negative bacteria. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem 73:465–473. doi:10.1271/bbb.80778.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  38. 38.↵
    1. Kapatral V,
    2. Anderson I,
    3. Ivanova N,
    4. Reznik G,
    5. Los T,
    6. Lykidis A,
    7. Bhattacharyya A,
    8. Bartman A,
    9. Gardner W,
    10. Grechkin G,
    11. Zhu L,
    12. Vasieva O,
    13. Chu L,
    14. Kogan Y,
    15. Chaga O,
    16. Goltsman E,
    17. Bernal A,
    18. Larsen N,
    19. D'Souza M,
    20. Walunas T,
    21. Pusch G,
    22. Haselkorn R,
    23. Fonstein M,
    24. Kyrpides N,
    25. Overbeek R
    . 2002. Genome sequence and analysis of the oral bacterium Fusobacterium nucleatum strain ATCC 25586. J Bacteriol 184:2005–2018. doi:10.1128/JB.184.7.2005-2018.2002.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. 39.↵
    1. Tschumi A,
    2. Nai C,
    3. Auchli Y,
    4. Hunziker P,
    5. Gehrig P,
    6. Keller P,
    7. Grau T,
    8. Sander P
    . 2009. Identification of apolipoprotein N-acyltransferase (Lnt) in mycobacteria. J Biol Chem 284:27146–27156. doi:10.1074/jbc.M109.022715.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. 40.↵
    1. Takeuchi O,
    2. Hoshino K,
    3. Kawai T,
    4. Sanjo H,
    5. Takada H,
    6. Ogawa T,
    7. Takeda K,
    8. Akira S
    . 1999. Differential roles of TLR2 and TLR4 in recognition of gram-negative and gram-positive bacterial cell wall components. Immunity 11:443–451. doi:10.1016/S1074-7613(00)80119-3.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  41. 41.↵
    1. Hashimoto M,
    2. Tawaratsumida K,
    3. Kariya H,
    4. Aoyama K,
    5. Tamura T,
    6. Suda Y
    . 2006. Lipoprotein is a predominant Toll-like receptor 2 ligand in Staphylococcus aureus cell wall components. Int Immunol 18:355–362.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  42. 42.↵
    1. Hashimoto M,
    2. Tawaratsumida K,
    3. Kariya H,
    4. Kiyohara A,
    5. Suda Y,
    6. Krikae F,
    7. Kirikae T,
    8. Götz F
    . 2006. Not lipoteichoic acid but lipoproteins appear to be the dominant immunobiologically active compounds in Staphylococcus aureus. J Immunol 177:3162–3169. doi:10.4049/jimmunol.177.5.3162.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. 43.↵
    1. Kurokawa K,
    2. Lee H,
    3. Roh KB,
    4. Asanuma M,
    5. Kim YS,
    6. Nakayama H,
    7. Shiratsuchi A,
    8. Choi Y,
    9. Takeuchi O,
    10. Kang HJ,
    11. Dohmae N,
    12. Nakanishi Y,
    13. Akira S,
    14. Sekimizu K,
    15. Lee BL
    . 2009. The triacylated ATP binding cluster transporter substrate-binding lipoprotein of Staphylococcus aureus functions as a native ligand for Toll-like receptor 2. J Biol Chem 284:8406–8411. doi:10.1074/jbc.M809618200.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. 44.↵
    1. Nakayama H,
    2. Kurokawa K,
    3. Lee BL
    . 2012. Lipoproteins in bacteria: structures and biosynthetic pathways. FEBS J 279:4247–4268. doi:10.1111/febs.12041.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    1. Takeda K,
    2. Takeuchi O,
    3. Akira S
    . 2002. Recognition of lipopeptides by Toll-like receptors. J Endotoxin Res 8:459–463. doi:10.1177/09680519020080060101.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    1. Takeuchi O,
    2. Akira S
    . 2010. Pattern recognition receptors and inflammation. Cell 140:805–820. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2010.01.022.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  47. 47.↵
    1. Takeuchi O,
    2. Kawai T,
    3. Mühlradt PF,
    4. Morr M,
    5. Radolf JD,
    6. Zychlinsky A,
    7. Takeda K,
    8. Akira S
    . 2001. Discrimination of bacterial lipoproteins by Toll-like receptor 6. Int Immunol 13:933–940. doi:10.1093/intimm/13.7.933.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  48. 48.↵
    1. Buwitt-Beckmann U,
    2. Heine H,
    3. Wiesmüller KH,
    4. Jung G,
    5. Brock R,
    6. Akira S,
    7. Ulmer AJ
    . 2005. Toll-like receptor 6-independent signaling by diacylated lipopeptides. Eur J Immunol 35:282–289. doi:10.1002/eji.200424955.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  49. 49.↵
    1. Buwitt-Beckmann U,
    2. Heine H,
    3. Wiesmüller KH,
    4. Jung G,
    5. Brock R,
    6. Akira S,
    7. Ulmer AJ
    . 2006. TLR1- and TLR6-independent recognition of bacterial lipopeptides. J Biol Chem 281:9049–9057. doi:10.1074/jbc.M512525200.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  50. 50.↵
    1. Kinane DF,
    2. Shiba H,
    3. Stathopoulou PG,
    4. Zhao H,
    5. Lappin DF,
    6. Singh A,
    7. Eskan MA,
    8. Beckers S,
    9. Waigel S,
    10. Alpert B,
    11. Knudsen TB
    . 2006. Gingival epithelial cells heterozygous for Toll-like receptor. Genes Immun 7:190–200. doi:10.1038/sj.gene.6364282.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  51. 51.↵
    1. Ong PY,
    2. Ohtake T,
    3. Brandt C,
    4. Strickland I,
    5. Boguniewicz M,
    6. Ganz T,
    7. Gallo RL,
    8. Leung DY
    . 2002. Endogenous antimicrobial peptides and skin infections in atopic dermatitis. N Engl J Med 347:1151–1160. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa021481.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  52. 52.↵
    1. Starner TD,
    2. Agerberth B,
    3. Gudmundsson GH,
    4. McCray PB, Jr
    . 2005. Expression and activity of beta-defensins and LL-37 in the developing human lung. J Immunol 174:1608–1615. doi:10.4049/jimmunol.174.3.1608.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  53. 53.↵
    1. O'Neil DA,
    2. Porter EM,
    3. Elewaut D,
    4. Anderson GM,
    5. Eckmann L,
    6. Ganz T,
    7. Kagnoff MF
    . 1999. Expression and regulation of the human beta-defensins hBD-1 and hBD-2 in intestinal epithelium. J Immunol 163:6718–6724.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  54. 54.↵
    1. Wehkamp J,
    2. Fellermann K,
    3. Herrlinger KR,
    4. Baxmann S,
    5. Schmidt K,
    6. Schwind B,
    7. Duchrow M,
    8. Wohlschläger C,
    9. Feller AC,
    10. Stange EF
    . 2002. Human beta-defensin 2 but not beta-defensin 1 is expressed preferentially in colonic mucosa of inflammatory bowel disease. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 14:745–752. doi:10.1097/00042737-200207000-00006.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  55. 55.↵
    1. Diamond G,
    2. Beckloff N,
    3. Weinberg A,
    4. Kisich KO
    . 2009. The roles of antimicrobial peptides in innate host defense. Curr Pharm Des 15:2377–2392. doi:10.2174/138161209788682325.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  56. 56.↵
    1. Zasloff M
    . 2002. Antimicrobial peptides of multicellular organisms. Nature 415:389–395. doi:10.1038/415389a.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  57. 57.↵
    1. Ge Y,
    2. MacDonald DL,
    3. Holroyd KJ,
    4. Thornsberry C,
    5. Wexler H,
    6. Zasloff M
    . 1999. In vitro antibacterial properties of pexiganan, an analog of magainin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 43:782–788.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  58. 58.
    1. Larkin MA,
    2. Blackshields G,
    3. Brown NP,
    4. Chenna R,
    5. McGettigan PA,
    6. McWilliam H,
    7. Valentin F,
    8. Wallace IM,
    9. Wilm A,
    10. Lopez R,
    11. Thompson JD,
    12. Gibson TJ,
    13. Higgins DG
    . 2007. Clustal W and Clustal X version 2.0. Bioinformatics 23:2947–2948. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btm404.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
FAD-I, a Fusobacterium nucleatum Cell Wall-Associated Diacylated Lipoprotein That Mediates Human Beta Defensin 2 Induction through Toll-Like Receptor-1/2 (TLR-1/2) and TLR-2/6
Sanghamitra Bhattacharyya, Santosh K. Ghosh, Bhumika Shokeen, Betty Eapan, Renate Lux, Janna Kiselar, Stanley Nithianantham, Andrew Young, Pushpa Pandiyan, Thomas S. McCormick, Aaron Weinberg
Infection and Immunity Apr 2016, 84 (5) 1446-1456; DOI: 10.1128/IAI.01311-15

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Infection and Immunity article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
FAD-I, a Fusobacterium nucleatum Cell Wall-Associated Diacylated Lipoprotein That Mediates Human Beta Defensin 2 Induction through Toll-Like Receptor-1/2 (TLR-1/2) and TLR-2/6
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Infection and Immunity
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Infection and Immunity.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
FAD-I, a Fusobacterium nucleatum Cell Wall-Associated Diacylated Lipoprotein That Mediates Human Beta Defensin 2 Induction through Toll-Like Receptor-1/2 (TLR-1/2) and TLR-2/6
Sanghamitra Bhattacharyya, Santosh K. Ghosh, Bhumika Shokeen, Betty Eapan, Renate Lux, Janna Kiselar, Stanley Nithianantham, Andrew Young, Pushpa Pandiyan, Thomas S. McCormick, Aaron Weinberg
Infection and Immunity Apr 2016, 84 (5) 1446-1456; DOI: 10.1128/IAI.01311-15
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • INTRODUCTION
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About IAI
  • Editor in Chief
  • Editorial Board
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #IAIjournal

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0019-9567; Online ISSN: 1098-5522