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
Host Response and Inflammation

Antibodies to Protein but Not Glycolipid Structures Are Important for Host Defense against Mycoplasma pneumoniae

Patrick M. Meyer Sauteur, Adrianus C. J. M. de Bruijn, Catarina Graça, Anne P. Tio-Gillen, Silvia C. Estevão, Theo Hoogenboezem, Rudi W. Hendriks, Christoph Berger, Bart C. Jacobs, Annemarie M. C. van Rossum, Ruth Huizinga, Wendy W. J. Unger
Sabine Ehrt, Editor
Patrick M. Meyer Sauteur
aLaboratory of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases and Immunology, Erasmus MC-Sophia Children’s Hospital, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
bDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases and Immunology, Erasmus MC-Sophia Children’s Hospital, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
cDivision of Infectious Diseases and Hospital Epidemiology, University Children’s Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
dChildren’s Research Center, University Children’s Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Adrianus C. J. M. de Bruijn
aLaboratory of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases and Immunology, Erasmus MC-Sophia Children’s Hospital, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Catarina Graça
aLaboratory of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases and Immunology, Erasmus MC-Sophia Children’s Hospital, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anne P. Tio-Gillen
eDepartment of Immunology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
fDepartment of Neurology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Silvia C. Estevão
aLaboratory of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases and Immunology, Erasmus MC-Sophia Children’s Hospital, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Theo Hoogenboezem
aLaboratory of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases and Immunology, Erasmus MC-Sophia Children’s Hospital, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rudi W. Hendriks
gDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christoph Berger
cDivision of Infectious Diseases and Hospital Epidemiology, University Children’s Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
dChildren’s Research Center, University Children’s Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bart C. Jacobs
eDepartment of Immunology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
fDepartment of Neurology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Annemarie M. C. van Rossum
bDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases and Immunology, Erasmus MC-Sophia Children’s Hospital, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ruth Huizinga
eDepartment of Immunology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Wendy W. J. Unger
aLaboratory of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases and Immunology, Erasmus MC-Sophia Children’s Hospital, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sabine Ehrt
Weill Cornell Medical College
Roles: Editor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/IAI.00663-18
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Antibody responses to Mycoplasma pneumoniae correlate with pulmonary M. pneumoniae clearance. However, M. pneumoniae-specific IgG antibodies can cross-react with the myelin glycolipid galactocerebroside (GalC) and cause neurological disorders. We assessed whether antiglycolipid antibody formation is part of the physiological immune response to M. pneumoniae. We show that antibodies against M. pneumoniae proteins and glycolipids arise in serum of M. pneumoniae-infected children and mice. Although antibodies to M. pneumoniae glycolipids were mainly IgG, anti-GalC antibodies were only IgM. B-1a cells, shown to aid in protection against pathogen-derived glycolipids, are lacking in Bruton tyrosine kinase (Btk)-deficient mice. M. pneumoniae-infected Btk-deficient mice developed M. pneumoniae-specific IgG responses to M. pneumoniae proteins but not to M. pneumoniae glycolipids, including GalC. The equal recovery from M. pneumoniae infection in Btk-deficient and wild-type mice suggests that pulmonary M. pneumoniae clearance is predominantly mediated by IgG reactive with M. pneumoniae proteins and that M. pneumoniae glycolipid-specific IgG or IgM is not essential. These data will guide the development of M. pneumoniae-targeting vaccines that avoid the induction of neurotoxic antibodies.

INTRODUCTION

Mycoplasma pneumoniae is a major cause of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and can trigger immune-mediated neurological complications such as Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) and encephalitis (1). M. pneumoniae belongs to the smallest self-replicating microorganisms, in terms of both cellular dimensions and genome size (1). Unlike other bacteria, M. pneumoniae lacks a peptidoglycan layer and is therefore naturally resistant to cell wall synthesis inhibitors such as β-lactams. Macrolide antibiotics are recommended to treat M. pneumoniae infections in children (2). Extensive macrolide use led to an alarming worldwide increase of macrolide-resistant M. pneumoniae (MRMP) strains, with rates of over 90% in some regions (3, 4). This emergence of MRMP highlights the importance of implementing control strategies to prevent infection, such as vaccines. Vaccination primarily induces antibody responses capable of neutralizing infection (5), but attempts to develop such vaccines against M. pneumoniae using inactivated bacteria in humans (reviewed in reference 6) and live attenuated strains in an animal model (7) have been complicated by limited efficacy against respiratory disease. No serious adverse effects and only mild local reactions were reported in humans (6). However, it has been observed that reinfection or challenge after vaccination with inactivated or live attenuated strains led to exacerbation of disease in some anecdotal reports (8, 9) and animal experiments (10–14). Thus, to develop optimal approaches to vaccination against M. pneumoniae, it is critical to understand the immune mechanisms that contribute to resistance and immunopathology of M. pneumoniae disease (15).

Immune responses against M. pneumoniae have been intensively investigated in various animal models (e.g., see references 14 and 16–23). B cells are known to be involved in pulmonary M. pneumoniae clearance (22, 24–27), and we recently showed that in B cell-deficient μMT mice, M. pneumoniae infection led to chronic pulmonary disease, characterized by higher histopathology scores (28). The observed compensatory immune responses by both innate (granulocytes and monocytes) and adaptive (CD4+ and CD8+ T cells) immune cells were not able to clear M. pneumoniae infection in the absence of antibodies. In contrast, μMT mice cleared M. pneumoniae infections in the lungs when passively immunized with M. pneumoniae-specific immunoglobulin G (IgG)-containing serum from infected wild-type (WT) mice 2 weeks after infection. These findings indicate that B cells and M. pneumoniae-specific antibodies are crucial for M. pneumoniae clearance in the lungs. Furthermore, these data suggest that they may not contribute to immunopathology following primary infection given the less severe pulmonary inflammation and better outcome in WT mice than in B cell-deficient μMT mice (28).

M. pneumoniae is covered only with a cell membrane containing antigenic protein and glycolipid structures (29). The membrane-anchored proteins at the cell pole form an attachment structure important for initiating respiratory infection (30). Proteins constitute over two-thirds of the M. pneumoniae membrane mass, with the rest being membrane lipids, i.e., cholesterol, phospholipids, and glycolipids (29). M. pneumoniae glycolipid subfractions have been shown to be highly immunogenic in mice and humans (31). Their strong immunogenicity has been leveraged in diagnosis of M. pneumoniae infection, whereby antigens derived from crude culture extracts that contain large amounts of glycolipids were used in serological assays (32, 33). However, because of cross-reactions with other mycoplasmas or Gram-negative bacteria, current diagnostic assays focus on specific adhesion proteins (e.g., protein P1) rather than glycolipids (32). Importantly, M. pneumoniae glycolipids also exhibit homology with mammalian tissue compounds, which trigger cross-reactive antibodies that may target cells of multiple host organ systems (34). GBS and encephalitis constitute the most common and severe neurological diseases of M. pneumoniae extrapulmonary manifestations in which an underlying postinfectious antibody-mediated process has been proposed (33). In fact, it has been shown that galactocerebroside (GalC)-specific antibodies bind to a lipid structure present in M. pneumoniae, indicative of molecular mimicry between the major myelin glycolipid GalC and M. pneumoniae (35).

We recently showed that both IgM and IgG anti-GalC antibodies are present in the serum of GBS patients and that the presence of anti-GalC IgG correlates with GBS (36). Anti-GalC IgM was also found in 18% of anti-M. pneumoniae-seropositive control patients without neurological diseases (36). Interestingly, all anti-GalC IgM-positive individuals within this control cohort were children. This raises the question of whether the formation of antibodies to M. pneumoniae glycolipids is part of the physiological immune response and necessary to clear M. pneumoniae in children.

Antibody responses against glycolipids are thought to be driven by B-1a cells, splenic marginal zone B cells, and nodal marginal zone B cells (i.e., thymus independent [TI]) or by the help of natural killer T (NKT) cells (i.e., thymus dependent [TD]) (37–40). An important role for B-1a cells in producing antibodies to pathogen-derived glycolipid structures has been shown for Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Francisella tularensis (41–43). Interestingly, priming of Bruton tyrosine kinase-deficient (Btk−) mice with F. tularensis-derived glycolipids did not result in protection against a lethal challenge with an F. tularensis live vaccine strain (44). The lack of a protective antibody response in the Btk-deficient mice was attributed to the absence of B-1a cells (44, 45). Whether TI B cell responses, and in particular B-1a cells, are also important for protection against M. pneumoniae infection is unknown.

We set out to investigate in children which antigenic structures of M. pneumoniae are recognized by antibodies, using a well-defined cohort of children with CAP diagnosed with M. pneumoniae infection. Furthermore, employing WT and Btk− mice, we unraveled the role of TI B cell responses in the resolution of pulmonary M. pneumoniae infection.

RESULTS

IgM but not IgG to GalC is induced during M. pneumoniae infection in children.In light of our previous findings (36), we assessed whether anti-GalC IgM develops in all children with M. pneumoniae CAP. To this end, we examined the serum of children with M. pneumoniae CAP for the presence of anti-GalC antibodies by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and M. pneumoniae-negative asymptomatic healthy control (HC) children were tested as controls. We detected anti-GalC IgM at significantly higher levels in sera of children with M. pneumoniae CAP than in sera of HC children (Fig. 1A). Moreover, anti-GalC IgG was detectable only at very low levels in both children with M. pneumoniae CAP and HC children (Fig. 1B). These findings confirm and extend previous observations that during childhood, M. pneumoniae CAP IgM against GalC develops, whereas anti-GalC IgG does not.

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

The antibody response induced by pulmonary M. pneumoniae infection in children is directed against GalC and M. pneumoniae protein and glycolipid fractions. (A and B) The presence of antigalactocerebroside (anti-GalC) IgM (A) and anti-GalC IgG (B) in serum of children with M. pneumoniae (Mp) community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and healthy controls (HC) was determined by an ELISA. Sera of children with M. pneumoniae CAP were obtained at a median of 34 days (interquartile range, 30 to 42 days) after the onset of symptoms (n = 5). Dots represent data for individual children, and the horizontal line in each graph represents the median. OD, optical density. (C) Total M. pneumoniae and purified M. pneumoniae protein fractions were analyzed by SDS-PAGE followed by silver staining. Lane a, marker; lane b, total untreated M. pneumoniae M129 (125 ng); lane c, M. pneumoniae protein fractions (125 ng). (D) Thin-layer chromatography (TLC) was used to analyze purified M. pneumoniae lipids. Lane a, cerium(IV) sulfate stain for total M. pneumoniae lipids; lane b, orcinol stain for M. pneumoniae glycolipids. C, cholesterol; CE, cholesterol esters. (E to G) IgG and IgM levels in sera of children with M. pneumoniae CAP (n = 5) at the indicated time points after the onset of symptoms and reactivity against total M. pneumoniae (E) or the isolated M. pneumoniae proteins (F) and M. pneumoniae glycolipids (G). Not all children had sera available at each time point beyond 30 days. Data are expressed as fold increases over controls (levels in sera of HC children; n = 5). Control levels are indicated by a dashed line. The means ± standard deviations (SD) are shown. (H) IgG subclasses against M. pneumoniae glycolipids in children with M. pneumoniae CAP and HC children (serum samples as the ones used for panel A). Dots represent data for individual children. **, P < 0.01 (A, B, and H) (by a Mann-Whitney U test).

IgM and IgG recognize M. pneumoniae protein and glycolipid structures during M. pneumoniae infection in humans.In addition to the antiglycolipid response to GalC, we next investigated the antibody response against the complete M. pneumoniae glycolipid as well as M. pneumoniae protein fractions. First, M. pneumoniae proteins and glycolipids were separated from M. pneumoniae cultures using chloroform-methanol (MeOH) extraction (2:1, vol/vol). The separation of proteins and glycolipids from the M. pneumoniae lysate was analyzed by SDS-PAGE followed by silver staining (Fig. 1C) and by thin-layer chromatography (TLC) followed by orcinol staining (Fig. 1D), respectively. The reactivity and kinetics of M. pneumoniae-specific IgM and IgG antibodies toward these structures were subsequently determined with an ELISA. To this end, we incubated sera of children with M. pneumoniae CAP with either M. pneumoniae glycolipid or M. pneumoniae protein fractions and an M. pneumoniae lysate as a control (referred to as total M. pneumoniae). As for total M. pneumoniae, a specific antibody response of both IgM and IgG isotypes against M. pneumoniae proteins and glycolipids could be detected in all M. pneumoniae CAP patients within 9 days after the onset of the first CAP symptoms and peaked at around 1 month (20 to 35 days) (Fig. 1E to G). The specific IgM and IgG response returned to baseline values around 3 months after the onset of CAP symptoms. Analysis of IgG subclasses revealed that both IgG1 and IgG2 subclasses were present in the anti-M. pneumoniae glycolipid IgG pool (Fig. 1H). These findings show that the human IgM and IgG response to M. pneumoniae is directed against both M. pneumoniae glycolipids and M. pneumoniae proteins.

IgG against glycolipids also predominates during M. pneumoniae infection in mice.We previously showed that passive immunization of B cell-deficient μMT mice with serum of WT mice containing M. pneumoniae-specific IgG enabled μMT mice to clear pulmonary M. pneumoniae infection (28). In fact, the detection of M. pneumoniae-specific IgG in bronchoalveolar lavage fluids (BALFs) correlated with bacterial clearance in the lungs of μMT recipient mice after WT serum transfer. Here, we demonstrate that upon M. pneumoniae infection, antibodies are generated against both M. pneumoniae protein and glycolipid structures. However, it is unclear whether both the anti-M. pneumoniae protein and glycolipid antibodies are important for clearance of M. pneumoniae from the lungs. To evaluate this, we examined pulmonary M. pneumoniae infection in WT and Btk− mice, as it has been shown that Btk− mice cannot mediate protective antibody responses to pathogen-derived glycolipid structures (43).

First, we investigated whether M. pneumoniae infection also results in a specific antibody response against M. pneumoniae proteins and glycolipids in WT mice. We therefore tested the reactivity and kinetics of murine serum antibodies of M. pneumoniae-infected C57BL/6 WT mice against M. pneumoniae proteins or glycolipids as for children with M. pneumoniae CAP. Consistent with our data from children, a specific antibody response of both IgM and IgG isotypes against M. pneumoniae proteins and glycolipids could be detected in all mice within 7 days postinfection (p.i.) and peaked at around day 28 p.i. (Fig. 2A to C). These findings in mice parallel the data from children by demonstrating a specific antibody response targeting both M. pneumoniae proteins and glycolipids.

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

Antibody response against GalC and M. pneumoniae protein and glycolipid fractions during pulmonary M. pneumoniae infection in mice. (A to C) IgG and IgM levels in sera of M. pneumoniae-infected C57BL/6 WT mice at the indicated time points postinfection (p.i.) and reactivity against total M. pneumoniae (A) or M. pneumoniae proteins (B) and M. pneumoniae glycolipids (C). Data are expressed as fold increases over controls (i.e., levels in sera of mock-infected control mice). Data for control levels are indicated by a dashed line. The means ± SD are shown (n = 6 to 12 mice/time point). (D and E) Presence of anti-GalC IgM (D) and absence of anti-GalC IgG (E) in sera of M. pneumoniae-infected and mock-infected mice obtained at 28 days p.i. (n = 6). Dots represent data for individual mice, and the horizontal line in each graph represents the median.

Furthermore, we determined whether anti-GalC IgM is also detectable during the course of M. pneumoniae infection in mice. Sera of M. pneumoniae-infected WT mice, isolated at 28 days p.i., were incubated with GalC. Indeed, compared to mock-infected control WT mice, levels of IgM antibodies to GalC were high in M. pneumoniae-infected WT mice, although significance was not reached (P = 0.19) (Fig. 2D). In agreement with the data from children, anti-GalC IgG was detectable at equally very low levels after pulmonary M. pneumoniae infection as in uninfected control WT mice (Fig. 2E).

IgG against M. pneumoniae proteins but not M. pneumoniae glycolipids is crucial to resolve M. pneumoniae infection in mice.We next evaluated whether a potential reduction in antiglycolipid antibodies in Btk− mice affects M. pneumoniae clearance from the lungs. We thus compared Btk− mice with WT mice in terms of the outcomes of M. pneumoniae infection and antiglycolipid antibody responses. Surprisingly, CFU counts of M. pneumoniae in BALF of Btk− mice were not different from those in infected WT mice (Fig. 3A). Btk− mice showed even better control of pulmonary infection than WT mice at day 3 p.i. Nevertheless, both WT and Btk− mice were able to clear M. pneumoniae within 42 days. Analysis of serum antibodies revealed that M. pneumoniae-specific antibody levels increased over time in both WT and Btk− mice, which were much more pronounced for IgG than for IgM, but the levels in Btk− mice were significantly lower than those in WT mice (Fig. 3B and C). The same pattern was observed for total IgG and IgM antibody levels in Btk− mice (data not shown). Although Btk− mice contained lower IgG levels after M. pneumoniae infection, the avidity index of IgG antibodies against M. pneumoniae-derived proteins was not different from that in WT mice (Fig. 3D).

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

IgG against M. pneumoniae proteins but not M. pneumoniae glycolipids is crucial to resolve M. pneumoniae infection in mice. WT C57BL/6 mice (n = 6 to 12 mice/time point) and Btk− mice (n = 6 to 12 mice/time point) were infected intranasally with M. pneumoniae. Control WT mice received SP4 medium alone. Dots represent data for individual mice, and the horizontal lines represent the medians. (A to C) At the indicated time points, bacterial loads in BALF (A) and serum levels of M. pneumoniae-specific IgM (B) and IgG (C) were determined. Bacterial loads are expressed as median CFU per milliliter with interquartile ranges. AU, arbitrary units. (D) Avidity index of IgG against M. pneumoniae proteins at day 42 p.i. The bars represent the means ± SD. (E and F) Serum levels of M. pneumoniae-specific IgM (E) and IgG (F) against total M. pneumoniae (gray and black) or the separated M. pneumoniae proteins (light red and red) and M. pneumoniae glycolipids (light blue and blue) in sera of M. pneumoniae-infected C57BL/6 WT mice (circles) and Btk− mice (triangles) and additionally IgG in sera of CD19-hBtk mice (diamonds) at day 14 p.i. *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01; ***, P < 0.001 (determined by a Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc multiple-comparison test [A to C, E, and F] or Welch’s t test [D]).

The increases in levels of IgM against M. pneumoniae proteins or glycolipids compared to controls were similar between WT and Btk− mice (Fig. 3E). Also, comparable IgG responses to M. pneumoniae proteins were measured in sera from WT and Btk− mice (Fig. 3F, left). In contrast, the IgG response to M. pneumoniae glycolipids in Btk− mice was strikingly different from that in WT mice: no IgG antibodies against M. pneumoniae glycolipids were detected (Fig. 3F, middle). The generation of IgG antibodies against M. pneumoniae glycolipids was partially restored in CD19-hBtk mice (Fig. 3F, right), in which Btk is selectively rescued in B cells and is lacking only in myeloid cells (46). These findings could be corroborated by measuring IgM and IgG to M. pneumoniae proteins or glycolipids of WT and Btk− mice in BALF. As previously observed (28), we found very low levels of IgM, which were comparable between mouse strains for M. pneumoniae proteins and glycolipids (Fig. 4A). As in serum, the IgG antibody levels to M. pneumoniae glycolipids in Btk− mice were significantly lower than those in BALF of WT mice and close to control levels (Fig. 4B). Serum anti-GalC IgM and IgG antibodies were not produced by M. pneumoniae-infected Btk− mice (Fig. 5).

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

Local antibody response against M. pneumoniae protein and glycolipid fractions during pulmonary M. pneumoniae infection in mice. Shown are BALF levels of M. pneumoniae-specific IgM (A) and IgG (B) against total M. pneumoniae (gray and black) or the separated M. pneumoniae proteins (light red and red) and M. pneumoniae glycolipids (light blue and blue) of M. pneumoniae-infected C57BL/6 WT mice (circles) (n = 6) and Btk− mice (triangles) (n = 6) at day 14 p.i. Dots represent data for individual mice, and the horizontal lines represent the medians. *, P < 0.05; ***, P < 0.001 (by a Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc multiple-comparison test).

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

Comparison of the antibody responses against GalC between WT and Btk− mice during pulmonary M. pneumoniae infection. Shown are serum anti-GalC IgM (A) and anti-GalC IgG (B) responses of M. pneumoniae-infected WT mice (n = 5 mice) and Btk− mice (n = 4 mice) at 42 days p.i. ***, P < 0.001 (by a Mann-Whitney U test).

DISCUSSION

Here, we extend previous findings on the essential role of M. pneumoniae-specific IgG antibodies in pulmonary clearance (27, 28) by demonstrating that IgG antibodies reactive with M. pneumoniae proteins alone seem to be sufficient to clear M. pneumoniae in the lungs. We show that Btk− mice clear M. pneumoniae infections comparably to WT mice but do not generate a detectable humoral response to M. pneumoniae glycolipids. These data also indicate that even low levels of M. pneumoniae protein-specific IgG antibodies, albeit of sufficient avidity, are able to mediate protection in the lungs of Btk− mice. Notably, Btk− mice showed better control of pulmonary M. pneumoniae infection than did WT mice at day 3 p.i. At this time point, significantly higher numbers of alveolar macrophages and NK cells were observed in lungs of Btk− mice than in WT mice (data not shown). B-1a cells have been shown to inhibit macrophage-NK cell cross talk (47). The observed improved control of M. pneumoniae replication in Btk− mice may thus result from the absence of B-1a cells in these mice (48, 49). We speculate that in WT mice, M. pneumoniae triggers the activation of B-1a cells, which dampen M. pneumoniae clearance by inhibiting the activation of macrophages and/or NK cells. However, the inhibitory effect of B-1a cells is not as sufficient and/or long lasting, as M. pneumoniae is cleared from the lungs of WT mice within 4 to 6 weeks.

In addition to their important role in the clearance of M. pneumoniae in the lungs, the induced M. pneumoniae protein-specific antibodies may also prevent reinfection or reduce horizontal transmission. It was shown previously that antibodies from M. pneumoniae-immunized guinea pigs targeting recombinant P1 and P30 adhesion proteins inhibit the adherence of M. pneumoniae to human bronchial epithelial cells in vitro (23). This indicates that an M. pneumoniae-specific vaccine for high-risk individuals, i.e., schoolchildren and elderly people, should aim at inducing potent antibodies directed against M. pneumoniae proteins. The data obtained with Btk− mice suggest that such a vaccine may even be effective in children with common variable immunodeficiency or hypogammaglobulinemia with reduced B cells, who have been reported to be at an increased risk for M. pneumoniae pulmonary disease and/or extrapulmonary manifestations (50–54).

Our data reveal that the humoral response against M. pneumoniae glycolipids is redundant for the clearance of M. pneumoniae in the lungs of mice. This is rather unexpected given the fact that levels of IgG against M. pneumoniae glycolipids were higher than those against M. pneumoniae proteins and were of the IgG1 and IgG2 subclasses, which indicates potential neutralization and complement-dependent killing of M. pneumoniae. Furthermore, within the pool of M. pneumoniae glycolipid-specific IgM antibodies, some also bear cross-reactivity to self-tissue (i.e., GalC-like M. pneumoniae structure [33]). Indeed, we previously elucidated cross-reactivity between M. pneumoniae and GalC and associated the presence of anti-GalC IgG with GBS triggered by M. pneumoniae (36). However, here, we confirmed that in the absence of neuropathy, anti-GalC IgG was not formed during pulmonary M. pneumoniae infection. In contrast, the formation of anti-GalC IgM, which seems not to inflict neurotoxicity, was part of the physiological response.

Cross-reactivity of M. pneumoniae glycolipid-specific antibodies with self-tissue, causing immunopathology, may be one possible reason why BALB/c mice vaccinated with live attenuated M. pneumoniae developed more-severe pulmonary disease following infection with wild-type M. pneumoniae (10). This could also be observed after repeated infections with wild-type M. pneumoniae in BALB/c mice but not in C57BL/6 mice (11). It is known that not only rechallenge after vaccination but also primary M. pneumoniae infection of BALB/c mice led to worse pulmonary inflammation than in C57BL/6 mice (18), which simply reflects heterogeneity in susceptibility to M. pneumoniae infection in mice as in humans (1, 18).

The observation that M. pneumoniae glycolipid-specific antibodies are not generated in Btk− mice suggests that the production of lipid-specific antibodies may be, at least in part, mediated by B-1a cells, as these cells are lacking in Btk− mice (48, 49). Notably, in contrast to M. pneumoniae infection, antibodies to pathogen-derived glycolipid structures were shown previously to protect against infections with M. tuberculosis and F. tularensis (41–43). Immunization of Btk− mice with F. tularensis glycolipids did not result in protection against a lethal challenge with an F. tularensis live vaccine strain, which was attributed to the absence of B-1a cell-produced glycolipid-specific antibodies (44, 45). Apart from TI B cell responses, a potential role for nonclassical T helper cells, the NKT cells, in the production of M. pneumoniae lipid antibodies cannot be ruled out.

In fact, cross-linking of the B cell receptor (BCR) on B-1a cells by lipid-based antigens leads to an innate-like polyreactive IgM response (so-called natural antibody response) important for early protection against mucosal pathogens (37). B-1 cells can also provide long-lasting TI IgM memory (43, 55). One might speculate that the presence of anti-GalC IgM but not IgG after M. pneumoniae infection in children and mice indicates that a GalC-like structure in M. pneumoniae triggered specifically B-1a cells to produce natural IgM. Natural antibodies are characterized by low affinity (37, 56), which may explain why M. pneumoniae glycolipid-specific antibodies were redundant for clearance of pulmonary M. pneumoniae infection. Apart from affinity, the level of anti-GalC IgG may be critical for the initiation of M. pneumoniae-associated neurological disease. It is possible that low levels of GalC IgG are removed from the circulation by target-mediated clearance (57). Interestingly, B-1a cells triggered by glycolipid antigens can also undergo activation-induced deaminase-dependent class switching (43). However, this is a rare event (43), as is the development of GBS following M. pneumoniae infection (36). Thus, these findings further support the hypothesis that a GalC-like M. pneumoniae structure may trigger B-1a cells, which undergo class switching in rare cases, and produce potentially neurotoxic anti-GalC IgG. However, the exact events that lead to the induction of autoreactive B cells and anti-GalC IgG remain to be identified.

In conclusion, our data extend previous findings on the essential role of M. pneumoniae-specific antibodies in clearing M. pneumoniae from the lungs (27, 28) by suggesting that the IgG response to M. pneumoniae-derived proteins is important for pulmonary clearance of M. pneumoniae. The finding that M. pneumoniae glycolipid-specific IgM and IgG antibodies are redundant for M. pneumoniae clearance but can also target the myelin glycolipid GalC is of importance not only for the understanding of M. pneumoniae-associated immune-mediated diseases but also for the design of M. pneumoniae-targeting vaccines. Based on our results, such vaccine formulations should include M. pneumoniae protein antigens rather than M. pneumoniae lipids, thereby avoiding the induction of potential autoimmune antiglycolipid antibodies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Mice.C57BL/6 mice were purchased from Charles River Laboratories and used at 8 to 12 weeks of age. Btk− mice (Btk−/− or Btk−/Y, on the C57BL/6 background [48]) and CD19-hBtk mice (backcrossed on Btk− C57BL/6 mice for >10 generations [46]) were bred and housed in the animal facilities of the Erasmus MC under specific-pathogen-free conditions. All experiments were conducted according to Dutch guidelines for animal experimentation and approved by the Animal Experiments Committee of the Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands (protocol numbers 103-13-05 and 103-14-02).

Patients.Children with CAP and asymptomatic controls, admitted for a planned elective surgical procedure, from 3 to 18 years of age were enrolled from 1 May 2016 to 30 April 2017 during a CAP study at the University Children’s Hospital Zurich (P. M. Meyer Sauteur, unpublished data). Diagnosis was based on the detection of M. pneumoniae DNA in pharyngeal swab specimens by PCR, specific serum IgM antibodies by an ELISA, and circulating IgM antibody-secreting cells by an enzyme-linked immunospot (ELISpot) assay (Meyer Sauteur, unpublished). Asymptomatic controls tested negative for M. pneumoniae by PCR and serum IgM. Sera of these M. pneumoniae-positive CAP patients and M. pneumoniae-negative asymptomatic controls were used in this study, since no further information about respiratory disease characteristics was available from previous M. pneumoniae-seropositive controls without neurological diseases (36), and M. pneumoniae infection can present with a wide range of respiratory tract symptoms apart from CAP. The study was approved by the ethics committee of the Canton Zurich, Switzerland (BASEC number 2016-00148). Written informed consent was obtained from all parents and from children above the age of 14 years.

Bacteria.M. pneumoniae reference strain M129 (subtype 1; ATCC 29342) was cultured as previously described (28).

Infection.Mice were inoculated intranasally with 1 × 109 CFU of M. pneumoniae M129 diluted in 50 µl SP4 medium. Control mice were inoculated with 50 µl SP4 medium.

M. pneumoniae quantification.The presence of M. pneumoniae was detected by either PCR or culture of BALF on SP4 agar plates (58).

Lipid extraction.Lipids were extracted from the M. pneumoniae M129 culture by the addition of chloroform-methanol-water (2:1:1, vol/vol/vol). After a 1-h incubation at 4°C, the mixture was vortexed and centrifuged at 2,000 × g for 1 min. After repeating the extraction procedure, cells were sonicated for 30 min and centrifuged at 10,000 × g for 5 min. Lipid extracts contained in the chloroform layer were pooled and evaporated under nitrogen. Lipids were dissolved in ethanol, and extraction was verified by the Liebermann-Burchard reaction. The purification of M. pneumoniae glycolipids was confirmed by TLC. Here, extracted lipids (5 µg) were applied to a silica glass plate (Merck Millipore) after activation for 2 h at 110°C. The TLC plate was developed using CHCl3–MeOH–Milli-Q (60:35:8, vol/vol/vol). Total lipids were visualized by using 10% cerium(IV) sulfate in 15% H2SO4, and glycolipids were visualized by using 0.1% orcinol in 5% H2SO4, with heating up to 110°C.

Protein extraction.After delipidation of the M. pneumoniae lysate by chloroform-methanol-water (2:1:1, vol/vol/vol) extraction, cold acetone was added to the aqueous (upper) layer and the insoluble interface, followed by incubation at 4°C for 2 h. Proteins were collected by centrifugation at 10,000 × g for 5 min. Pellets were washed twice with acetone, air dried on ice, and dissolved in 4 M urea–250 mM ammonium bicarbonate. The protein concentration was determined by a bicinchoninic acid assay. Additionally, proteins (125 ng) were analyzed by SDS-PAGE, followed by silver staining (Merck).

Quantification of M. pneumoniae-specific antibodies against M. pneumoniae antigens and GalC.To assess the presence of specific antibodies against total M. pneumoniae, M. pneumoniae proteins and glycolipids, and GalC, 96-well half-area polystyrene plates (Corning Costar) were coated overnight at 4°C with an M. pneumoniae lysate (0.5 µg) (28) or M. pneumoniae proteins (normalized to 1 ng adhesion protein P1 per well present in both total M. pneumoniae and M. pneumoniae protein fractions) in a 100 mM sodium carbonate-bicarbonate buffer (pH 9.6) containing 1 M urea or with M. pneumoniae glycolipids (normalized to 0.6 µg cholesterol per well present in both total M. pneumoniae and M. pneumoniae glycolipid fractions) and GalC (900 pmol) dissolved in ethanol. Nonspecific binding was blocked using phosphate-buffered saline (PBS)–1% bovine serum albumin (BSA) (Sigma). Serum samples, diluted in PBS–0.1% BSA, and undiluted BALF samples were added and incubated overnight at 4°C. Bound antibodies were detected by the addition of horseradish peroxidase (HRP)-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgM or rabbit anti-mouse IgG (Thermo Scientific), biotinylated goat anti-human IgM with HRP-conjugated streptavidin (Thermo Scientific), or HRP-conjugated rabbit anti-human IgG (Invitrogen) and IgG1 to -4 (Sanquin). Reactions were visualized by using tetramethylbenzidine (TMB; Sigma) as the substrate and stopped by using 1 M H2SO4. The optical density was measured at 450 nm with an ELISA microplate reader (VersaMax). The results were analyzed by microplate data collection and analysis software (VersaMax).

Statistical analysis.The R software environment (version 3.4.0) was used for statistical analysis. Welch’s t test, the Mann-Whitney U test, and the Kruskal-Wallis test with post hoc Dunn’s multiple-comparison test of selected pairs were used to determine statistical significance. Statistical significance was defined as a P value of <0.05.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A.M.C.V.R. was supported by a grant from the Sophia Scientific Research Foundation (SSWO 2014-150/WO). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

We thank the Erasmus Medical Center experimental animal facility for their care for our mice and assistance with experiments.

We have no conflict of interest.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 10 October 2018.
    • Accepted 28 October 2018.
    • Accepted manuscript posted online 5 November 2018.
  • Copyright © 2019 American Society for Microbiology.

All Rights Reserved.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Waites KB,
    2. Talkington DF
    . 2004. Mycoplasma pneumoniae and its role as a human pathogen. Clin Microbiol Rev 17:697–728. doi:10.1128/CMR.17.4.697-728.2004.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Bradley JS,
    2. Byington CL,
    3. Shah SS,
    4. Alverson B,
    5. Carter ER,
    6. Harrison C,
    7. Kaplan SL,
    8. Mace SE,
    9. McCracken GH, Jr,
    10. Moore MR,
    11. St Peter SD,
    12. Stockwell JA,
    13. Swanson JT
    , Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, Infectious Diseases Society of America. 2011. The management of community-acquired pneumonia in infants and children older than 3 months of age: clinical practice guidelines by the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society and the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 53:e25–e76. doi:10.1093/cid/cir531.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Meyer Sauteur PM,
    2. Unger WWJ,
    3. Nadal D,
    4. Berger C,
    5. Vink C,
    6. van Rossum AMC
    . 2016. Infection with and carriage of Mycoplasma pneumoniae in children. Front Microbiol 7:329. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2016.00329.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. 4.↵
    1. Waites KB,
    2. Xiao L,
    3. Liu Y,
    4. Balish MF,
    5. Atkinson TP
    . 2017. Mycoplasma pneumoniae from the respiratory tract and beyond. Clin Microbiol Rev 30:747–809. doi:10.1128/CMR.00114-16.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Ada G
    . 2001. Advances in immunology—vaccines and vaccination. N Engl J Med 345:1042–1053. doi:10.1056/NEJMra011223.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. 6.↵
    1. Linchevski I,
    2. Klement E,
    3. Nir-Paz R
    . 2009. Mycoplasma pneumoniae vaccine protective efficacy and adverse reactions—systematic review and meta-analysis. Vaccine 27:2437–2446. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.01.135.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Yayoshi M,
    2. Araake M,
    3. Hayatsu E,
    4. Takezawa T,
    5. Yoshioka M
    . 1985. Immunogenicity and protective effect of hemolysis mutants of Mycoplasma pneumoniae. Microbiol Immunol 29:1029–1037. doi:10.1111/j.1348-0421.1985.tb00893.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Smith CB,
    2. Chanock RM,
    3. Friedewald WT,
    4. Alford RH
    . 1967. Mycoplasma pneumoniae infections in volunteers. Ann N Y Acad Sci 143:471–483. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1967.tb27691.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. 9.↵
    1. Smith CB,
    2. Friedewald WT,
    3. Chanock RM
    . 1967. Inactivated Mycoplasma pneumoniae vaccine. Evaluation in volunteers. JAMA 199:353–358. doi:10.1001/jama.1967.03120060051007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Szczepanek SM,
    2. Majumder S,
    3. Sheppard ES,
    4. Liao X,
    5. Rood D,
    6. Tulman ER,
    7. Wyand S,
    8. Krause DC,
    9. Silbart LK,
    10. Geary SJ
    . 2012. Vaccination of BALB/c mice with an avirulent Mycoplasma pneumoniae P30 mutant results in disease exacerbation upon challenge with a virulent strain. Infect Immun 80:1007–1014. doi:10.1128/IAI.06078-11.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Chu HW,
    2. Breed R,
    3. Rino JG,
    4. Harbeck RJ,
    5. Sills MR,
    6. Martin RJ
    . 2006. Repeated respiratory Mycoplasma pneumoniae infections in mice: effect of host genetic background. Microbes Infect 8:1764–1772. doi:10.1016/j.micinf.2006.02.014.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  12. 12.↵
    1. Cimolai N,
    2. Cheong AC,
    3. Morrison BJ,
    4. Taylor GP
    . 1996. Mycoplasma pneumoniae reinfection and vaccination: protective oral vaccination and harmful immunoreactivity after re-infection and parenteral immunization. Vaccine 14:1479–1483. doi:10.1016/S0264-410X(96)00068-0.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Cimolai N,
    2. Mah DG,
    3. Taylor GP,
    4. Morrison BJ
    . 1995. Bases for the early immune response after rechallenge or component vaccination in an animal model of acute Mycoplasma pneumoniae pneumonitis. Vaccine 13:305–309. doi:10.1016/0264-410X(95)93318-4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Cimolai N,
    2. Taylor GP,
    3. Mah D,
    4. Morrison BJ
    . 1992. Definition and application of a histopathological scoring scheme for an animal model of acute Mycoplasma pneumoniae pulmonary infection. Microbiol Immunol 36:465–478. doi:10.1111/j.1348-0421.1992.tb02045.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  15. 15.↵
    1. Bodhankar S,
    2. Sun X,
    3. Woolard MD,
    4. Simecka JW
    . 2010. Interferon gamma and interleukin 4 have contrasting effects on immunopathology and the development of protective adaptive immunity against mycoplasma respiratory disease. J Infect Dis 202:39–51. doi:10.1086/653121.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Hardy RD,
    2. Jafri HS,
    3. Olsen K,
    4. Wordemann M,
    5. Hatfield J,
    6. Rogers BB,
    7. Patel P,
    8. Duffy L,
    9. Cassell G,
    10. McCracken GH,
    11. Ramilo O
    . 2001. Elevated cytokine and chemokine levels and prolonged pulmonary airflow resistance in a murine Mycoplasma pneumoniae pneumonia model: a microbiologic, histologic, immunologic, and respiratory plethysmographic profile. Infect Immun 69:3869–3876. doi:10.1128/IAI.69.6.3869-3876.2001.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Martin RJ,
    2. Chu HW,
    3. Honour JM,
    4. Harbeck RJ
    . 2001. Airway inflammation and bronchial hyperresponsiveness after Mycoplasma pneumoniae infection in a murine model. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol 24:577–582. doi:10.1165/ajrcmb.24.5.4315.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. 18.↵
    1. Fonseca-Aten M,
    2. Ríos AM,
    3. Mejías A,
    4. Chávez-Bueno S,
    5. Katz K,
    6. Gómez AM,
    7. McCracken GH, Jr,
    8. Hardy RD
    . 2005. Mycoplasma pneumoniae induces host-dependent pulmonary inflammation and airway obstruction in mice. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol 32:201–210. doi:10.1165/rcmb.2004-0197OC.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  19. 19.↵
    1. Kannan TR,
    2. Coalson JJ,
    3. Cagle M,
    4. Musatovova O,
    5. Hardy RD,
    6. Baseman JB
    . 2011. Synthesis and distribution of CARDS toxin during Mycoplasma pneumoniae infection in a murine model. J Infect Dis 204:1596–1604. doi:10.1093/infdis/jir557.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Kurata S,
    2. Osaki T,
    3. Yonezawa H,
    4. Arae K,
    5. Taguchi H,
    6. Kamiya S
    . 2014. Role of IL-17A and IL-10 in the antigen induced inflammation model by Mycoplasma pneumoniae. BMC Microbiol 14:156. doi:10.1186/1471-2180-14-156.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  21. 21.↵
    1. Maselli DJ,
    2. Medina JL,
    3. Brooks EG,
    4. Coalson JJ,
    5. Kannan TR,
    6. Winter VT,
    7. Principe M,
    8. Cagle MP,
    9. Baseman JB,
    10. Dube PH,
    11. Peters JI
    . 2018. The immunopathologic effects of Mycoplasma pneumoniae and community-acquired respiratory distress syndrome toxin. A primate model. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol 58:253–260. doi:10.1165/rcmb.2017-0006OC.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. 22.↵
    1. Hayatsu E
    . 1978. Acquired immunity to Mycoplasma pneumoniae. Pneumonia in hamsters. Microbiol Immunol 22:181–195. doi:10.1111/j.1348-0421.1978.tb00362.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Hausner M,
    2. Schamberger A,
    3. Naumann W,
    4. Jacobs E,
    5. Dumke R
    . 2013. Development of protective anti-Mycoplasma pneumoniae antibodies after immunization of guinea pigs with the combination of a P1-P30 chimeric recombinant protein and chitosan. Microb Pathog 64:23–32. doi:10.1016/j.micpath.2013.07.004.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. 24.↵
    1. Berglof A,
    2. Sandstedt K,
    3. Feinstein R,
    4. Bolske G,
    5. Smith CI
    . 1997. B cell-deficient muMT mice as an experimental model for mycoplasma infections in X-linked agammaglobulinemia. Eur J Immunol 27:2118–2121. doi:10.1002/eji.1830270841.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Sandstedt K,
    2. Berglof A,
    3. Feinstein R,
    4. Bolske G,
    5. Evengard B,
    6. Smith CI
    . 1997. Differential susceptibility to Mycoplasma pulmonis intranasal infection in X-linked immunodeficient (xid), severe combined immunodeficient (scid), and immunocompetent mice. Clin Exp Immunol 108:490–496. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2249.1997.3981294.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  26. 26.↵
    1. Evengard B,
    2. Sandstedt K,
    3. Bolske G,
    4. Feinstein R,
    5. Riesenfelt-Orn I,
    6. Smith CI
    . 1994. Intranasal inoculation of Mycoplasma pulmonis in mice with severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) causes a wasting disease with grave arthritis. Clin Exp Immunol 98:388–394.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  27. 27.↵
    1. Hayatsu E,
    2. Kawakubo Y,
    3. Yayoshi M,
    4. Araake M,
    5. Yoshioka M,
    6. Nishiyama Y
    . 1980. Role of humoral antibodies in resistance to Mycoplasma pneumoniae pneumonia in hamsters. Microbiol Immunol 24:585–593. doi:10.1111/j.1348-0421.1980.tb02861.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Meyer Sauteur PM,
    2. de Groot RCA,
    3. Estevao SC,
    4. Hoogenboezem T,
    5. de Bruijn ACJM,
    6. Sluijter M,
    7. de Bruijn MJW,
    8. De Kleer IM,
    9. van Haperen R,
    10. van den Brand JMA,
    11. Bogaert D,
    12. Fraaij PLA,
    13. Vink C,
    14. Hendriks RW,
    15. Samsom JN,
    16. Unger WWJ,
    17. van Rossum AMC
    . 2018. The role of B cells in carriage and clearance of Mycoplasma pneumoniae from the respiratory tract of mice. J Infect Dis 217:298–309. doi:10.1093/infdis/jix559.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  29. 29.↵
    1. Razin S,
    2. Yogev D,
    3. Naot Y
    . 1998. Molecular biology and pathogenicity of mycoplasmas. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 62:1094–1156.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. 30.↵
    1. Nakane D,
    2. Kenri T,
    3. Matsuo L,
    4. Miyata M
    . 2015. Systematic structural analyses of attachment organelle in Mycoplasma pneumoniae. PLoS Pathog 11:e1005299. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1005299.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Razin S,
    2. Prescott B,
    3. Chanock RM
    . 1970. Immunogenicity of Mycoplasma pneumoniae glycolipids: a novel approach to the production of antisera to membrane lipids. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 67:590–597. doi:10.1073/pnas.67.2.590.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Beersma MF,
    2. Dirven K,
    3. van Dam AP,
    4. Templeton KE,
    5. Claas EC,
    6. Goossens H
    . 2005. Evaluation of 12 commercial tests and the complement fixation test for Mycoplasma pneumoniae-specific immunoglobulin G (IgG) and IgM antibodies, with PCR used as the “gold standard.” J Clin Microbiol 43:2277–2285. doi:10.1128/JCM.43.5.2277-2285.2005.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. 33.↵
    1. Meyer Sauteur PM,
    2. Jacobs BC,
    3. Spuesens EB,
    4. Jacobs E,
    5. Nadal D,
    6. Vink C,
    7. van Rossum AM
    . 2014. Antibody responses to Mycoplasma pneumoniae: role in pathogenesis and diagnosis of encephalitis? PLoS Pathog 10:e1003983. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1003983.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Barile MF
    . 1979. Mycoplasma-tissue cell interactions, p 425–474. In Tully JG, Whitcomb RF (ed), The mycoplasmas II. Human and animal mycoplasmas, vol 2. Academic Press, New York, NY.
    OpenUrl
  35. 35.↵
    1. Kusunoki S,
    2. Shiina M,
    3. Kanazawa I
    . 2001. Anti-Gal-C antibodies in GBS subsequent to mycoplasma infection: evidence of molecular mimicry. Neurology 57:736–738. doi:10.1212/WNL.57.4.736.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  36. 36.↵
    1. Meyer Sauteur PM,
    2. Huizinga R,
    3. Tio-Gillen AP,
    4. Roodbol J,
    5. Hoogenboezem T,
    6. Jacobs E,
    7. van Rijn M,
    8. van der Eijk AA,
    9. Vink C,
    10. de Wit MC,
    11. van Rossum AM,
    12. Jacobs BC
    . 2016. Mycoplasma pneumoniae triggering the Guillain-Barre syndrome: a case-control study. Ann Neurol 80:566–580. doi:10.1002/ana.24755.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  37. 37.↵
    1. Vinuesa CG,
    2. Chang PP
    . 2013. Innate B cell helpers reveal novel types of antibody responses. Nat Immunol 14:119–126. doi:10.1038/ni.2511.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Christiansen D,
    2. Vaughan HA,
    3. Milland J,
    4. Dodge N,
    5. Mouhtouris E,
    6. Smyth MJ,
    7. Godfrey DI,
    8. Sandrin MS
    . 2011. Antibody responses to glycolipid-borne carbohydrates require CD4+ T cells but not CD1 or NKT cells. Immunol Cell Biol 89:502–510. doi:10.1038/icb.2010.166.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. King IL,
    2. Fortier A,
    3. Tighe M,
    4. Dibble J,
    5. Watts GF,
    6. Veerapen N,
    7. Haberman AM,
    8. Besra GS,
    9. Mohrs M,
    10. Brenner MB,
    11. Leadbetter EA
    . 2011. Invariant natural killer T cells direct B cell responses to cognate lipid antigen in an IL-21-dependent manner. Nat Immunol 13:44–50. doi:10.1038/ni.2172.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Palm AK,
    2. Friedrich HC,
    3. Kleinau S
    . 2016. Nodal marginal zone B cells in mice: a novel subset with dormant self-reactivity. Sci Rep 6:27687. doi:10.1038/srep27687.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  41. 41.↵
    1. Ordonez C,
    2. Savage HP,
    3. Tarajia M,
    4. Rivera R,
    5. Weeks-Galindo C,
    6. Sambrano D,
    7. Riley L,
    8. Fernandez PL,
    9. Baumgarth N,
    10. Goodridge A
    . 18 February 2018. Both B-1a and B-1b cells exposed to Mycobacterium tuberculosis lipids differentiate into IgM antibody-secreting cells. Immunology doi:10.1111/imm.12909.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  42. 42.↵
    1. Rothstein TL,
    2. Griffin DO,
    3. Holodick NE,
    4. Quach TD,
    5. Kaku H
    . 2013. Human B-1 cells take the stage. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1285:97–114. doi:10.1111/nyas.12137.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. Yang Y,
    2. Ghosn EE,
    3. Cole LE,
    4. Obukhanych TV,
    5. Sadate-Ngatchou P,
    6. Vogel SN,
    7. Herzenberg LA,
    8. Herzenberg LA
    . 2012. Antigen-specific antibody responses in B-1a and their relationship to natural immunity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109:5382–5387. doi:10.1073/pnas.1121631109.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. 44.↵
    1. Cole LE,
    2. Elkins KL,
    3. Michalek SM,
    4. Qureshi N,
    5. Eaton LJ,
    6. Rallabhandi P,
    7. Cuesta N,
    8. Vogel SN
    . 2006. Immunologic consequences of Francisella tularensis live vaccine strain infection: role of the innate immune response in infection and immunity. J Immunol 176:6888–6899. doi:10.4049/jimmunol.176.11.6888.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. 45.↵
    1. Cole LE,
    2. Yang Y,
    3. Elkins KL,
    4. Fernandez ET,
    5. Qureshi N,
    6. Shlomchik MJ,
    7. Herzenberg LA,
    8. Herzenberg LA,
    9. Vogel SN
    . 2009. Antigen-specific B-1a antibodies induced by Francisella tularensis LPS provide long-term protection against F. tularensis LVS challenge. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106:4343–4348. doi:10.1073/pnas.0813411106.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  46. 46.↵
    1. Maas A,
    2. Dingjan GM,
    3. Grosveld F,
    4. Hendriks RW
    . 1999. Early arrest in B cell development in transgenic mice that express the E41K Bruton’s tyrosine kinase mutant under the control of the CD19 promoter region. J Immunol 162:6526–6533.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  47. 47.↵
    1. Crane DD,
    2. Griffin AJ,
    3. Wehrly TD,
    4. Bosio CM
    . 2013. B1a cells enhance susceptibility to infection with virulent Francisella tularensis via modulation of NK/NKT cell responses. J Immunol 190:2756–2766. doi:10.4049/jimmunol.1202697.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. 48.↵
    1. Hendriks RW,
    2. de Bruijn MF,
    3. Maas A,
    4. Dingjan GM,
    5. Karis A,
    6. Grosveld F
    . 1996. Inactivation of Btk by insertion of lacZ reveals defects in B cell development only past the pre-B cell stage. EMBO J 15:4862–4872. doi:10.1002/j.1460-2075.1996.tb00867.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    1. Khan WN,
    2. Alt FW,
    3. Gerstein RM,
    4. Malynn BA,
    5. Larsson I,
    6. Rathbun G,
    7. Davidson L,
    8. Muller S,
    9. Kantor AB,
    10. Herzenberg LA,
    11. Rosen FS
    . 1995. Defective B cell development and function in Btk-deficient mice. Immunity 3:283–299. doi:10.1016/1074-7613(95)90114-0.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  50. 50.↵
    1. Taylor-Robinson D,
    2. Gumpel JM,
    3. Hill A,
    4. Swannell AJ
    . 1978. Isolation of Mycoplasma pneumoniae from the synovial fluid of a hypogammaglobulinaemic patient in a survey of patients with inflammatory polyarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 37:180–182. doi:10.1136/ard.37.2.180.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  51. 51.↵
    1. Taylor-Robinson D,
    2. Webster AD,
    3. Furr PM,
    4. Asherson GL
    . 1980. Prolonged persistence of Mycoplasma pneumoniae in a patient with hypogammaglobulinaemia. J Infect 2:171–175. doi:10.1016/S0163-4453(80)91284-0.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  52. 52.↵
    1. Roifman CM,
    2. Rao CP,
    3. Lederman HM,
    4. Lavi S,
    5. Quinn P,
    6. Gelfand EW
    . 1986. Increased susceptibility to Mycoplasma infection in patients with hypogammaglobulinemia. Am J Med 80:590–594. doi:10.1016/0002-9343(86)90812-0.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  53. 53.↵
    1. Furr PM,
    2. Taylor-Robinson D,
    3. Webster AD
    . 1994. Mycoplasmas and ureaplasmas in patients with hypogammaglobulinaemia and their role in arthritis: microbiological observations over twenty years. Ann Rheum Dis 53:183–187. doi:10.1136/ard.53.3.183.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  54. 54.↵
    1. Franz A,
    2. Webster AD,
    3. Furr PM,
    4. Taylor-Robinson D
    . 1997. Mycoplasmal arthritis in patients with primary immunoglobulin deficiency: clinical features and outcome in 18 patients. Br J Rheumatol 36:661–668. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/36.6.661.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. 55.↵
    1. Alugupalli KR,
    2. Leong JM,
    3. Woodland RT,
    4. Muramatsu M,
    5. Honjo T,
    6. Gerstein RM
    . 2004. B1b lymphocytes confer T cell-independent long-lasting immunity. Immunity 21:379–390. doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2004.06.019.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  56. 56.↵
    1. Xu Z,
    2. Zan H,
    3. Pone EJ,
    4. Mai T,
    5. Casali P
    . 2012. Immunoglobulin class-switch DNA recombination: induction, targeting and beyond. Nat Rev Immunol 12:517–531. doi:10.1038/nri3216.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. 57.↵
    1. Cunningham ME,
    2. McGonigal R,
    3. Meehan GR,
    4. Barrie JA,
    5. Yao D,
    6. Halstead SK,
    7. Willison HJ
    . 2016. Anti-ganglioside antibodies are removed from circulation in mice by neuronal endocytosis. Brain 139:1657–1665. doi:10.1093/brain/aww056.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. 58.↵
    1. Spuesens EB,
    2. Hoogenboezem T,
    3. Sluijter M,
    4. Hartwig NG,
    5. van Rossum AM,
    6. Vink C
    . 2010. Macrolide resistance determination and molecular typing of Mycoplasma pneumoniae by pyrosequencing. J Microbiol Methods 82:214–222. doi:10.1016/j.mimet.2010.06.004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Antibodies to Protein but Not Glycolipid Structures Are Important for Host Defense against Mycoplasma pneumoniae
Patrick M. Meyer Sauteur, Adrianus C. J. M. de Bruijn, Catarina Graça, Anne P. Tio-Gillen, Silvia C. Estevão, Theo Hoogenboezem, Rudi W. Hendriks, Christoph Berger, Bart C. Jacobs, Annemarie M. C. van Rossum, Ruth Huizinga, Wendy W. J. Unger
Infection and Immunity Jan 2019, 87 (2) e00663-18; DOI: 10.1128/IAI.00663-18

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.
Antibodies to Protein but Not Glycolipid Structures Are Important for Host Defense against Mycoplasma pneumoniae
(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
Antibodies to Protein but Not Glycolipid Structures Are Important for Host Defense against Mycoplasma pneumoniae
Patrick M. Meyer Sauteur, Adrianus C. J. M. de Bruijn, Catarina Graça, Anne P. Tio-Gillen, Silvia C. Estevão, Theo Hoogenboezem, Rudi W. Hendriks, Christoph Berger, Bart C. Jacobs, Annemarie M. C. van Rossum, Ruth Huizinga, Wendy W. J. Unger
Infection and Immunity Jan 2019, 87 (2) e00663-18; DOI: 10.1128/IAI.00663-18
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • INTRODUCTION
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

Bruton tyrosine kinase
Guillain-Barré syndrome
Mycoplasma pneumoniae
antibodies
autoimmunity
encephalitis
galactocerebroside
molecular mimicry
pneumonia
vaccine

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