Negative Regulation by Amidase PGRPs Shapes the Drosophila Antibacterial Response and Protects the Fly from Innocuous Infection  Juan C. Paredes, David P.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Volume 138, Issue 2, Pages (July 2009)
Advertisements

Septic Shock: On the Importance of Being Tolerant
Volume 14, Issue 6, Pages (December 2011)
IL-22 Gets to the Stem of Colorectal Cancer
Volume 19, Issue 2, Pages (February 2016)
Gut Nod2 Calls the Bone Marrow for Monocyte Reinforcements
Infection-Induced Intestinal Oxidative Stress Triggers Organ-to-Organ Immunological Communication in Drosophila  Shih-Cheng Wu, Chih-Wei Liao, Rong-Long.
Volume 5, Issue 5, Pages (May 2009)
Volume 19, Issue 4, Pages (April 2017)
PGRP-SD, an Extracellular Pattern-Recognition Receptor, Enhances Peptidoglycan- Mediated Activation of the Drosophila Imd Pathway  Igor Iatsenko, Shu Kondo,
Volume 47, Issue 1, Pages e7 (July 2017)
Volume 12, Issue 2, Pages (August 2012)
Negative Regulation by Amidase PGRPs Shapes the Drosophila Antibacterial Response and Protects the Fly from Innocuous Infection  Juan C. Paredes, David P.
Volume 12, Issue 10, Pages (September 2015)
Volume 6, Issue 3, Pages (September 2009)
Volume 18, Issue 5, Pages (November 2015)
Volume 26, Issue 1, Pages (January 2007)
Lorri R. Marek, Jonathan C. Kagan  Immunity 
Volume 12, Issue 2, Pages (August 2012)
Jonathan B. Muyskens, Karen Guillemin  Cell Host & Microbe 
Tumor Necrosis Factor Signaling Mediates Resistance to Mycobacteria by Inhibiting Bacterial Growth and Macrophage Death  Hilary Clay, Hannah E. Volkman,
Monica Boyle, Chihunt Wong, Michael Rocha, D. Leanne Jones 
Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages (January 2005)
Volume 24, Issue 4, Pages (April 2006)
Volume 17, Issue 1, Pages (January 2007)
Ranjiv S. Khush, William D. Cornwell, Jennifer N. Uram, Bruno Lemaitre 
Volume 26, Issue 5, Pages (September 2013)
Matthew H. Sieber, Carl S. Thummel  Cell Metabolism 
Inducible Expression of Double-Stranded RNA Reveals a Role for dFADD in the Regulation of the Antibacterial Response in Drosophila Adults  François Leulier,
Volume 11, Issue 1, Pages (January 2010)
Volume 23, Issue 10, Pages (October 2016)
Germ-Cell Loss Extends C
Volume 36, Issue 4, Pages (April 2012)
Volume 34, Issue 1, Pages (January 2011)
Volume 22, Issue 5, Pages (March 2012)
Volume 13, Issue 6, Pages (June 2011)
Volume 3, Issue 5, Pages (May 2008)
Volume 9, Pages (November 2018)
Volume 17, Issue 2, Pages (February 2015)
A Sox Transcription Factor Is a Critical Regulator of Adult Stem Cell Proliferation in the Drosophila Intestine  Fanju W. Meng, Benoît Biteau  Cell Reports 
Volume 48, Issue 4, Pages e4 (April 2018)
Volume 4, Issue 2, Pages (August 2008)
Volume 22, Issue 21, Pages (November 2012)
Piwi Is Required to Limit Exhaustion of Aging Somatic Stem Cells
Volume 11, Issue 1, Pages (July 2018)
Volume 6, Issue 3, Pages (September 2009)
Tumor Necrosis Factor Signaling Mediates Resistance to Mycobacteria by Inhibiting Bacterial Growth and Macrophage Death  Hilary Clay, Hannah E. Volkman,
Clock and cycle Limit Starvation-Induced Sleep Loss in Drosophila
Kanyan Xu, Xiangzhong Zheng, Amita Sehgal  Cell Metabolism 
Infection-Induced Host Translational Blockage Inhibits Immune Responses and Epithelial Renewal in the Drosophila Gut  Sveta Chakrabarti, Peter Liehl,
Dynamic Coordination of Innate Immune Signaling and Insulin Signaling Regulates Systemic Responses to Localized DNA Damage  Jason Karpac, Andrew Younger,
Chunli Ren, Paul Webster, Steven E. Finkel, John Tower  Cell Metabolism 
Pallavi Lamba, Diana Bilodeau-Wentworth, Patrick Emery, Yong Zhang 
Volume 42, Issue 1, Pages (January 2015)
Volume 5, Issue 5, Pages (May 2009)
David P. Welchman, Serap Aksoy, Frank Jiggins, Bruno Lemaitre 
Volume 138, Issue 2, Pages (July 2009)
Volume 33, Issue 5, Pages (November 2010)
Shree Ram Singh, Wei Liu, Steven X. Hou  Cell Stem Cell 
Volume 30, Issue 4, Pages (April 2009)
Dynamic Coordination of Innate Immune Signaling and Insulin Signaling Regulates Systemic Responses to Localized DNA Damage  Jason Karpac, Andrew Younger,
Volume 15, Issue 17, Pages (September 2005)
Tumor Suppressor CYLD Regulates JNK-Induced Cell Death in Drosophila
Systemic infection in Drosophila larvae by septic injury with a fine tungsten needle. Systemic infection in Drosophila larvae by septic injury with a fine.
Matthew H. Sieber, Carl S. Thummel  Cell Metabolism 
Volume 22, Issue 21, Pages (November 2012)
Volume 26, Issue 2, Pages (January 2016)
Volume 15, Issue 22, Pages (November 2005)
Volume 5, Issue 3, Pages (September 2003)
Volume 16, Issue 8, Pages (April 2006)
Presentation transcript:

Negative Regulation by Amidase PGRPs Shapes the Drosophila Antibacterial Response and Protects the Fly from Innocuous Infection  Juan C. Paredes, David P. Welchman, Mickaël Poidevin, Bruno Lemaitre  Immunity  Volume 35, Issue 5, Pages 770-779 (November 2011) DOI: 10.1016/j.immuni.2011.09.018 Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Immunity 2011 35, 770-779DOI: (10.1016/j.immuni.2011.09.018) Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 PGRP-LB, PGRP-SCs, and Pirk Contribute to the Downregulation of the Imd Pathway during the Systemic Immune Response Diptericin (Dpt) expression was monitored at different time points in whole flies by RT-qPCR, representing the systemic activation of the Imd pathway. Flies carrying various combinations of amidase PGRP and pirk mutations present a higher activation of the Imd pathway compared to wild-type (OregonR, OrR) flies after infection by septic injury with the Gram-negative bacteria Ecc15 (A), or injection with the Gram-negative peptidoglycan of E. coli (B). A cross indicates that data could not be analyzed because many of the flies were dead at this time point. Data are representative of at least three independent experiments (mean + SEM). ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗∗∗ p < 0.001 with a Student's t test. SCΔ: PGRP-SCΔ, LBΔ: PGRP-LBΔ, SCΔ;LBΔ: PGRP-SCΔ;LBΔ, pirkEY: pirkEY00723. Immunity 2011 35, 770-779DOI: (10.1016/j.immuni.2011.09.018) Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 PGRP-LB, PGRP-SCs, and Pirk Contribute to the Downregulation of the Imd Pathway during the Local Immune Response (A) Dpt expression was measured with the β-galactosidase activity (X-gal staining in blue) of Dpt::LacZ reporter lines in unchallenged guts (A, left panel) or guts orally challenged (20 hr) with Ecc15 (A, right panel). Dpt is highly induced by gut microbiota (A, left panel) and ingested bacteria (A, right panel) in PGRP-LBΔ compared to the wild-type. Dpt::LacZ expression is reduced when PGRP-LBΔ mutant flies are raised in a germ-free environment (LBΔ germ-free). Representative images are shown of at least ten dissected guts. (B) Endogenous Dpt expression was monitored by RT-qPCR at different time points after oral infection with Ecc15. Data are representative of at least three independent experiments (mean + SEM). ∗p < 0.05 and ∗∗p < 0.01 with a Student's t test. Immunity 2011 35, 770-779DOI: (10.1016/j.immuni.2011.09.018) Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 PGRP-LB, PGRP-SCs, and Pirk Prevent the Activation of the Systemic Immune Response after Oral Infection with Ecc15 (A) Dpt expression was monitored at different time points in whole flies by RT-qPCR, representing the systemic activation of the Imd pathway. Oral infection with Ecc15 induced strong systemic Dpt expression in amidase PGRP-deficient flies but not in wild-type flies. The levels measured in this experiment correspond to systemic expression of Dpt by the fat body since the contribution of gut Dpt expression is negligible (see Figure S2C). (B) The same enhancement of Dpt expression is revealed with the Dpt::LacZ reporter line in fly carcasses in the presence (OrR) or absence (LBΔ) of PGRP-LB. Carcasses of flies were fixed and stained 1 day after the oral infection with Ecc15. (C) The use of ubiquitous (da-Gal4), fat body (C564-Gal4) and gut (NP1-Gal4) Gal4 drivers show that expression of PGRP-LB in the whole body, gut, or fat body and hemocytes is sufficient to block the systemic immune response 1 day after oral infection with Ecc15. A cross indicates that data could not be analyzed because many of the flies were dead at this time point. Data are representative of at least three independent experiments (mean + SEM). ∗p < 0.05 and ∗∗p < 0.01 with a Student's t test. Immunity 2011 35, 770-779DOI: (10.1016/j.immuni.2011.09.018) Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 4 A Transgene, P[PGRP-SC∗], Containing the PGRP-SC Gene Cluster Devoid of CG14743 Gene Rescued the PGRP-SCΔ Phenotype Dpt expression was monitored in whole flies after 1 day of infection by septic injury with Ecc15 by RT-QPCR. Data are representative of at least three independent experiments (mean + SEM). Immunity 2011 35, 770-779DOI: (10.1016/j.immuni.2011.09.018) Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 5 Amidase PGRPs and Pirk Enhance Fly Fitness in Response to Innocuous Infections (A) Survival analysis of flies orally infected with Ecc15 reveals a marked decrease in the survival rate of PGRP-SCΔ;LBΔ and pirkEY,PGRP-SCΔ;LBΔ flies (p < 0.001). (B) Mortality rates of flies orally infected with sonicated Ecc15 indicate that the cause of the rapid death of pirkEY,PGRP-SCΔ;LBΔ is the strong immune activation rather than bacterial proliferation in the gut (see also Figure S6). In agreement, the use of the Dredd mutation indicates that this susceptibility is mostly due to excessive activation of the Imd pathway (p < 0.001) (A). (C) Lifespan analysis of unchallenged flies reveals an increase in mortality rate of PGRP-SCΔ;LBΔ and pirkEY,PGRP-SCΔ;LBΔ flies that can be partially rescued in germ-free conditions (p < 0.001). Each survival curve corresponds to at least three independent experiments of 3 tubes of 20 flies each. p values were calculated with the Log-rank and Wilcoxon test. A detailed statistical analysis is shown in Table S1. Immunity 2011 35, 770-779DOI: (10.1016/j.immuni.2011.09.018) Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 6 Amidase PGRPs and Pirk Protect the Gut from a Damaging Immune Response (A) Phospho-Histone-3-positive cells were counted in the dissected guts of wild-type, pirkEY,PGRP-SCΔ;LBΔ, and Dredd;pirkEY,PGRP-SCΔ;LBΔ flies in unchallenged conditions or after 16 hr of Ecc15 oral infection. (B) JAK-STAT pathway activation was measured by the expression of Socs36E and upd3 in unchallenged dissected guts. Data are representative of at least three independent experiments (mean + SEM). ∗p < 0.05 and ∗∗∗p < 0.001 with a Student's t-test (A) or Mann Withney test (B and C). Immunity 2011 35, 770-779DOI: (10.1016/j.immuni.2011.09.018) Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions