![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||||
Peptidoglycan Induces Loss of a Nuclear PGRP During Host Tissue Development in a Beneficial Animal–Bacterial Symbiosis 1Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706, USA 2Department of Microbiology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA 3Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA 01605, USA 4Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA 5Department of Physics, Laboratory of Space Sciences, Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA Correspondence: MJ McFall-Ngai - Email: mjmcfallngai/at/wisc.edu; phone, (608) 262-2393; fax, (608) 262-8418 The publisher's final edited version of this article is available at Cell Microbiol.SUMMARY Peptidoglycan recognition proteins (PGRPs) are mediators of innate immunity and recently have been implicated in developmental regulation. To explore the interplay between these two roles, we characterized a PGRP in the host squid Euprymna scolopes (EsPGRP1) during colonization by the mutualistic bacterium Vibrio fischeri. Previous research on the squid-vibrio symbiosis had shown that, upon colonization of deep epithelium-lined crypts of the host light organ, symbiont-derived peptidoglycan monomers induce apoptosis-mediated regression of remote epithelial fields involved in the inoculation process. In this study, immunofluorescence microscopy revealed that EsPGRP1 localizes to the nuclei of epithelial cells, and symbiont colonization induces the loss of EsPGRP1 from apoptotic nuclei. The loss of nuclear EsPGRP1 occurred prior to DNA cleavage and breakdown of the nuclear membrane, but followed chromatin condensation, suggesting that it occurs during late stage apoptosis. Experiments with purified peptidoglycan monomers and with V. fischeri mutants defective in peptidoglycan-monomer release provided evidence that these molecules trigger nuclear loss of EsPGRP1 and apoptosis. The demonstration of a nuclear PGRP is unprecedented, and the dynamics of EsPGRP1 during apoptosis provide a striking example of a connection between microbial recognition and developmental responses in the establishment of symbiosis. INTRODUCTION Peptidoglycan-recognition proteins, or PGRPs, are a protein family of innate immune system effectors and receptors conserved across the animal kingdom (Zhang et al., 2007, Coteur et al., 2007, Dziarski et al., 2006b, Werner et al., 2000, Goodson et al., 2005). PGRPs mediate host responses to the bacterial cell-envelope component, peptidoglycan (PGN). In-depth research on the PGRPs in the last 10 years has principally focused on biochemical characterizations of the activity and binding specificity of the purified proteins, as well as the genetics of their in vivo function in Drosophila melanogaster (Filipe et al., 2005, Park et al., 2007, Kaneko et al., 2004, Kaneko et al., 2006, Lim et al., 2006, Dziarski et al., 2006a, Lu et al., 2006). For example, in vitro studies have demonstrated that the characteristic PGRP domain binds specifically to PGN ligands (Swaminathan et al., 2006, Chang et al., 2006) and in some isoforms also cleaves the substrate (Steiner, 2004). Genetic analyses have implicated these behaviors in the regulation of downstream response pathways (Michel et al., 2001, Kaneko et al., 2004, Bischoff et al., 2006). These studies have defined similarities and differences among the vertebrates and invertebrates. In both animal groups, some PGRPs can act to attenuate the inflammatory response by degrading the PGN through N-acetyl-muramyl-L-alanine amidase (NAMLAA) activity (Gelius et al., 2003, Zaidman-Remy et al., 2006, Bischoff et al., 2006), which requires a cysteine residue in the PGN-binding pocket. In this enzymatic behavior, the stem peptide is cleaved from the sugar backbone of PGN, resulting in products that are less immunogenic (Bischoff et al., 2006). Although all mammalian PGRPs described thus far are reported to be secreted proteins, the invertebrate homologs can act as receptors for PGN, a feature reflected in their localization. The invertebrate PGRPs are predicted to be either intracellular, membrane associated, or secreted (Royet et al., 2007), although few studies have defined precise cellular localization (Gupta, 2008, Kaneko et al., 2006, Dziarski et al., 2003). The more varied predicted localization of invertebrate PGRPs correlates with broader function. In Drosophila, PGRPs have been implicated in the regulation of apoptosis and development (Maillet et al., 2008, Bischoff et al., 2006), activation or dampening of the immune response (Yoshida et al., 1996, Takehana et al., 2002, Kaneko et al., 2006, Kaneko et al., 2004, Maillet et al., 2008), control of phagocytosis (Ramet et al., 2002), and as direct immune effectors (Mellroth et al., 2006). PGRPs have been implicated not only in mediating responses to microbial pathogens, but also in the dynamics of mutualistic symbioses in invertebrates (Anselme et al., 2006, Bischoff et al., 2006, Anselme et al., 2008). The binary association between the Hawaiian bobtail squid Euprymna scolopes and the marine bacterium Vibrio fischeri has been used for the last 20 years as a model for the study of mutualistic symbioses [for reviews see: (Nyholm et al., 2004, Visick et al., 2006)]. The analysis of an EST database constructed from the symbiotic tissues of juvenile E. scolopes revealed the expression of four host PGRPs, EsPGRP1-4, in these bacteria-containing tissues (Goodson et al., 2005). This finding suggested the squid-vibrio system could be a model for the study of these proteins in mutualistic associations. In this naturally occurring, binary symbiosis, the partners can be experimentally manipulated. This feature facilitates the discovery of the molecular underpinnings of the cellular interactions between host and symbiont. In addition, molecular genetics have been developed in V fischeri, providing the opportunity to study changes in the host in response to genetic alterations in key symbiont characters (Visick et al., 2006). A key feature of this symbiosis is its exclusivity: only V. fischeri is capable of colonizing host tissues and inducing morphogenesis (McFall-Ngai et al., 1991). The exclusivity is achieved through the multiple steps required for colonization, including competitive dominance during aggregation in host mucus, locomotion to the light-organ pores, and resistance to the oxidatively stressful environment of the ducts (Nyholm et al., 2004). V. fischeri cells appear to signal morphogenesis from the light-organ interior, which is several cell layers away from the tissue layer that regresses (Fig. 1
Studies of these early developmental events implicated the cell-envelope constituents of V. fischeri, specifically derivatives of lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and PGN, in the triggering of host tissue morphogenesis. V. fischeri is one of the few bacterial species known to release the tetrapeptide peptidoglycan monomer, 'tracheal cytotoxin' (TCT) (Cloud-Hansen et al., 2006, Rosenthal et al., 1987), which mediates the destruction of epithelial tissues in certain pathogenic associations (Cookson et al., 1989, Cloud et al., 2002). Further, as stated above, only V. fischeri can enter the crypts of E. scolopes to present these morphogens. Light organ development can be triggered in the absence of V. fischeri by exposing juvenile squid to the synergistic activity of TCT and the lipid A component of LPS (Koropatnick et al., 2004). LPS alone fails to drive light organ development but will induce chromatin condensation without progression into the later stages of apoptosis, such as DNA fragmentation (Foster et al., 1998). When added as pharmacological agents, which are readily taken up into the crypt spaces, TCT synergizes with LPS to mimic symbiont-induced chromatin condensation and epithelial regression (Koropatnick et al., 2004). While the effects of TCT and LPS on late-stage apoptosis were not investigated, this study led to the model that these biomolecules are sufficient to induce light organ morphogenesis. The finding that V. fischeri PGN is critical for morphogenesis, coupled with the discovery of expression of PGRPs in the juvenile light organ, suggested that the EsPGRPs are good candidates to mediate the host response to bacterial PGN products. EsPGRP1 is of particular interest because its 107 expression is up-regulated during early morphogenesis (Chun et al., 2008). The derived amino acid sequence and lack of a putative signal peptide predicted that EsPGRP1 is a 23.5-kDa intracellular protein (Goodson et al., 2005). The presence of conserved amino acid residues required for NAMLAA activity suggested EsPGRP1 has PGN amidase activity. In this study, we sought to describe the role of EsPGRP1 during early post-embryonic development of the light organ. We observed this protein in host tissues of uncolonized animals and during colonization by wild-type V. fischeri or by TCT-production mutants, as well as during the host response to pharmacological exposure to PGN and LPS derivatives. The data presented here provide evidence that PGRPs are components of the host response to mutualistic microbial associations and are integral components of the developmental response to bacterial cues in this symbiosis. RESULTS Characterization of the EsPGRP1 protein and an anti-EsPGRP1 antibody Western blot analyses determined that EsPGRP1 is present in the soluble fraction of lysed cells of whole newly-hatched animals. The EsPGRP1 antibody (Fig. 2A
EsPGRP1 localized to epithelial nuclei To gain insight into the possible functions of EsPGRP1 in the symbiosis, we performed confocal immunocytochemistry to localize the protein in tissues and cells. Reactivity to the EsPGRP1 antibody occurred in the nuclei of epithelia throughout the body (Fig. 3
Absence of nuclear EsPGRP1 was correlated with symbiosis-induced late-stage apoptosis in the light organ To understand the function of EsPGRP1 during colonization, we first examined its localization at 24 h. All morphogenic processes of the superficial light organ epithelia are underway at this time. Whereas all epithelial cells of non-symbiotic animals stained similarly, a subset of the epithelial nuclei in 24-h symbiotic light organs did not stain for EsPGRP1 (Fig. 4A
To determine the relationship of EsPGRP1 loss to the integrity of the nucleus during apoptosis, we examined EsPGRP1 localization in the context of known nuclear apoptosis events. We observed an alternate intra-nuclear distribution of EsPGRP1, in which the DNA appeared condensed and EsPGRP1 appeared to fill the remainder of the nucleoplasm (Fig. 4C Timing of EsPGRP1 loss suggested a role in late-stage apoptosis and morphogenesis As described above, all TUNEL-positive nuclei were EsPGRP1 negative while only a subset of EsPGRP1-negative nuclei was TUNEL positive (Fig. 4B
Because the onset of nuclear-EsPGRP1 loss coincided with the delivery of an irreversible morphogenic signal by V. fischeri at 12 h (Doino et al., 1995), we hypothesized that the EsPGRP1 phenotype was a component of the host response to this morphogenesis signal. To test this hypothesis, we performed “curing” experiments to determine whether EsPGRP1 loss is also a component of the irreversible morphogenic program. In these experiments, symbiotic juvenile E. scolopes were treated with the antibiotic chloramphenicol to clear the crypts of symbionts either before or after the 12-h time point and were subsequently assayed at 24 h (Fig. 5C TCT induced nuclear loss of EsPGRP1 in light organ tissues Because TCT and LPS together irreversibly signal morphogenesis at 12 h (Koropatnick et al., 2004), we performed experiments to determine whether TCT and LPS are sufficient to trigger EsPGRP1 loss and entry into late-stage apoptosis. We took two approaches: (i) pharmacological treatment with TCT and/or LPS (or its active component lipid A), and (ii) colonization with V. fischeri mutants defective in TCT release. While treatment with V. fischeri LPS had no effect on either the nuclear localization of EsPGRP1 or late-stage apoptosis, the presence of 10 µM TCT induced a level of nuclear loss of EsPGRP1 close to that characteristic of symbiotic tissues (Fig 6A, B The TCT-induced loss of nuclear EsPGRP1 and late-stage apoptosis was limited to the light organ epithelia. In addition to light organ tissues, we also examined the epithelia and connective tissues of the gut, gills and epidermis. In the epithelia of these three tissues, neither TCT treatment nor symbiosis was observed to have any effect on either the nuclear localization of EsPGRP1 or the induction of apoptosis (Fig. 6A DISCUSSION In this study, we characterized the cellular dynamics of EsPGRP1 in symbiont-induced tissue destruction in the light organ of E. scolopes, a process in which apoptosis is a hallmark character (Fig. 1C The nuclear localization of EsPGRP1 is unprecedented and, to our knowledge, no other PGRPs have been reported to localize to the nucleus. While the EsPGRP1 protein contains no obvious nuclear localization signals, some proteins with molecular weights less than ~50 kDa can passively diffuse into the nucleus (Talcott et al., 1999). Passive diffusion alone would likely result in an even distribution of protein between the cytoplasm and the nucleus. However, EsPGRP1 concentrates in the nucleus relative to the cytoplasm. This uneven distribution suggests that some mechanism other than passive diffusion must also contribute to the cellular localization of EsPGRP1, e.g., binding to nuclear elements may be responsible for sequestering EsPGRP1, or EsPGRP1 may specifically bind to an unknown protein with a strong nuclear localization signal resulting in nuclear import. Multiple lines of evidence tie the nuclear localization dynamics of EsPGRP1 to the apoptotic process. EsPGRP1 was lost from nuclei with morphologies consistent with apoptosis, and these EsPGPR1-negative nuclei occurred with a frequency similar to that observed for apoptotic cells during light organ morphogenesis (Foster et al., 1998, Koropatnick et al., 2004, Foster et al., 2000). All TUNEL-positive nuclei were EsPGRP1 negative and loss of nuclear EsPGRP1 occurred shortly after chromatin condensation, and prior to the re-distribution and breakdown of nucleoporins (Fig. 4 An association between PGRPs and apoptosis has begun to gain recognition. Genetic studies of PGRPs have revealed that they can both activate and be activated by the transcription factor NF-κB, a known regulator of apoptosis (Michel et al., 2001, Kaneko et al., 2004, Lang et al., 2008, Beg et al., 1996). Drosophila PGRP-LF mutants are developmentally defective in wing formation, including the aberrant appearance of apoptotic cells in the wing imaginal discs (Maillet et al., 2008). The correlation of EsPGRP1 activity and apoptosis within E. scolopes epithelial cells further supports the relationship between the PGRP family of innate immunity proteins and animal development through control and/or interaction with apoptosis pathways. In experiments with bacterial cell-envelope components known to induce morphogenesis in the light organ, TCT was capable of inducing a full EsPGRP1 response with little or no contribution from lipid A or LPS. However, treatment with TCT or TCT + LPS failed to induce the full apoptotic response that is induced by V. fischeri, i.e., including late stage apoptosis as visualized by TUNEL (Fig. 6B Candidates for additional morphogenic signals include other cell surface molecules of the symbiont, such as the flagellins and the Syp exopolysaccharide, both of which are important early in colonization (Millikan et al., 2004, Yip et al., 2005). Symbiont luminescence, another possible signal, has been shown to have specific effects on morphogenesis. Bioluminescence is induced following colonization of the deep crypts. V. fischeri luxA mutants, which fail to produce light, are attenuated in their ability to induce host hemocyte trafficking (Koropatnick et al., 2007) and cell swelling (Visick et al., 2000), and are delayed in regression (unpublished data, Koropatnick and McFall-Ngai). It is intriguing to speculate that the slowed morphogenesis in animals colonized by luxA mutants could be due to a reduction in the speed of apoptosis due to the lack of symbiotic bioluminescence. Future studies will investigate whether dark mutants of V. fischeri are also deficient in their induction of the nuclear loss of EsPGRP1 and late-stage apoptosis. Microarray studies of the onset of the symbiosis revealed that ESPGRP1 mRNA levels are increased at 18 h following inoculation in animals colonized by V. fischeri, i.e., concurrent with the loss of EsPGRP1 from the nuclei of the superficial epithelial field. In addition, luxA mutants fail to induce the full increase in EsPGRP1 transcript levels characteristic of colonization with wild-type V. fischeri (Chun et al., 2008). The findings that the luxA mutants are delayed in regression and show lower levels of EsPGRP1 mRNA suggest that these symbiont-triggered increases in EsPGRP1 gene transcription are important for the induction of full morphogenesis. How this up-regulation interfaces with the eventual loss of the protein from the nuclei of the cells of the superficial epithelial field remains to be determined. It is unclear whether the activity of TCT is the result of a direct interaction with EsPGRP1 or works through an intermediary receptor/signal transduction pathway. Genetic evidence from D. melanogaster suggests TCT can be transported across host cell membranes (Kaneko et al., 2006), so it is conceivable that TCT could gain access to the cytoplasm and the nucleus, via passive diffusion, of light organ epithelial cells. We attempted to determine the location of TCT in host tissue through a suite of approaches including confocal microscopy of hatchling E. scolopes treated with FITC-labeled TCT (data not shown) (Flak et al., 1998) and NanoSIMS tracing of stable isotope labeled TCT (Fig. S4) (Lechene et al., 2006). To our knowledge, the localization of TCT in host cells has not been accomplished in any system. In the present study, we were unable to detect TCT associated with the host tissue. However, apoptotic cells in tissues that are unresponsive to TCT undergo nuclear loss of EsPGRP1, suggesting that this process is a component of apoptosis, independent of TCT induction. Thus, it seems unlikely that EsPGRP1 is responding directly to TCT. EsPGRP4 is an obvious candidate for a TCT-receptor because this protein is expressed in the light organ, contains a putative transmembrane domain, and topology prediction programs suggest that the PGRP domain would be localized on the extracellular membrane surface (Goodson et al., 2005). However, the cytoplasmic domain of this putative integral membrane protein is small, providing few clues as to possible downstream signaling pathways that could potentially result in activation of apoptosis and morphogenesis. Recently, an intranuclear bacterial pathogen of bivalve mollusks, Candidatus Endonucleobacter bathymodioli, was characterized (Zielinski et al., 2009), suggesting a selection pressure that could explain the nuclear localization of EsPGRP1. It is easy to envision that rapidly inducing apoptosis upon intranuclear invasion by a pathogen would limit the infectious potential of such a pathogen by inhibiting its access to the energy-rich molecules of the nucleus. In such a scenario, it would seem likely that this immune associated apoptosis was co-opted for developmental regulation during the establishment of the squid/vibrio mutualism. Whereas this is the first report of a nuclear PGRP associated with apoptosis, we expect that this phenomenon is not unique. An interesting avenue for further research will be the determination of mechanistic link to apoptosis. We predict that future studies of intracellular localization of PGRPs among the marine invertebrates will reveal other nuclear members of the PGRP protein family. Further, while the study of PGRPs has primarily focused on their roles in ameliorating pathogenesis, we demonstrate a role for these proteins in mutualistic associations of animals with their bacterial partners. Experimental Procedures General methods Unless otherwise noted, all chemicals were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO). Adult E. scolopes were caught in shallow coastal waters of Oahu and maintained and bred in the lab as previously described (Montgomery et al., 1993). Juvenile squid used in experiments were collected within 10 min of hatching, washed 3 times in filter sterilized Instant Ocean (FSIO), and placed in scintillation vials containing either FSIO (non-symbiotic) or FSIO + 5×103 cfu/ml of V. fischeri ES114 grown in LBS or SWT broth at 28°C (symbiotic). The Δltg mutant (ES114-derivative strain DMA388: ΔltgA, ΔltgD, ltgY::erm) and its derivatives were used at 2×103 CFU/ml (Adin et al., 2008). In these experiments, ES114 was used at identical concentrations to V. fischeri mutants. All animal experiments were carried out on a 12-h light/dark cycle and colonization by V. fischeri was monitored by following luminescence using a TD-20/20 luminometer (Turner Designs, Sunnyvale, CA) (Ruby et al., 1993). In experiments in which animals were cured of their symbionts, symbiotic juveniles were exposed 364 to 20 µg/ml of chloramphenicol in FSIO beginning at 8.5 h or 14 h post colonization (Doino et al., 1995) and were scored at 24 h post colonization. Non-symbiotic juveniles exposed to chloramphenicol were also analyzed as a control for any effects of the antibiotic on EsPGRP1. For experiments involving bacterial cell envelope components, juvenile E. scolopes were exposed to 10 µM TCT and/or 10 ng/ml of either V. fischeri LPS or lipid A in FSIO for 24 h. Cell envelope components were purified from V. fischeri as previously described (Cookson et al., 1989, Apicella et al., 1994). Antibody generation and western blots Rabbit polyclonal antibodies were raised against an EsPGRP1 synthetic peptide conjugated to ovalbumin (Harlan Biosciences, Indianapolis, IN). The synthetic peptide of 13 amino acids, WSHYGLRNHNKSA, was selected from the C-terminal region of EsPGRP1 because it is predicted to be highly antigenic (Lasergene Protean, DNA Star, Madison, WI) and because it contains little similarity to the other EsPGRPs (Fig. 2A TCT degradation assays The EsPGRP1 coding sequence was PCR amplified with a C-terminal FLAG-tag using the following DNA primers: JT73, ACAGTGGATCCATGCACCATCACCATCACCATATGCACGCGTTCGGAG; and JT74, ACTGTGCGGCCGCTTATTTATCGTCATCGTCTTTGTAGTCACCAATAATGGCACTTT. The PCR product was subsequently cloned into the pPAC-PL plasmid using the BamHI and NotI restriction enzymes. Plasmid pJT28 was constructed by subcloning the FLAG-tagged EsPGRP1 coding sequence into the pRmHa-3 expression plasmid downstream of a Cu2+-inducible metallothionien promoter by EcoRI and SalI restriction of the PCR product of the following primers: JT136, TACTTGAATTCATGCACCATCACCATCACCATATGCACGCGTTCG; and JT134, ACTCTGTCGACTTATTTATCGTCATCGTCTTTGTAGTC. Drosophila S2* cells were stably transfected with pJT28 as previously described (Silverman et al., 2000). EsPGRP1 protein was induced by addition of 500 µM CuSO4 into the media for 8–12 hours. Cells were then harvested, washed with PBS and frozen at −80°C. The Cu2+-induced pJT28/S2* cells were resuspended in lysis buffer (20 mM Tris, pH 7.4, protease inhibitor cocktail III and 1mM PMSF) and incubated on ice for 10 min. Sodium chloride was then added to a final concentration of 100 mM and the insoluble material was separated by centrifugation at 20,000 × g for 10 min at 4°C. The supernatant was passed over an anti-FLAG antibody affinity column three times and the column was subsequently washed with 500 column volumes of TBS (20 mM Tris, pH 7.4, 150 mM Sodium chloride). Bound proteins were eluted from the column with 100 µM FLAG-peptide. Fractions containing high levels of the EsPGRP1 protein were determined by anti-FLAG immunoblots. These fractions were combined and dialyzed against storage buffer (20 mM Tris, pH 7.4, 300 mM Sodium chloride, 1mM DTT and 50% glycerol) and 411 stored at −20°C. Anti-FLAG immunoblots were performed as above except using using 4% non-fat dry milk/TBS as the blocking solution and a 1:1,000 dilution of rabbit polyclonal anti-FLAG antibodies for 1 h at room temperature. To perform the TCT-degradation assay, ~370 ng of the FLAG-purified EsPGRP1 protein fraction was diluted into 500 µL of reaction buffer (50 mM ammonium acetate, pH 7, 550 mM Sodium chloride, 4 µM ZnSO4 and 1% BSA) and concentrated to 9.2 ng/µL on a 3-kDa molecular weight cutoff microcon column (Millipore, Billerica, MA). 64 ng of the EsPGRP1 protein fraction was mixed 1:1 with 1mM TCT. The reaction was incubated at room temperature for 1 h, diluted with 86 µL HPLC-grade water and loaded onto a Betasil C18 reverse phase column (Thermo Hypersil-Keystone, Bellefonte, PA). The TCT was mobilized using a 0–15% acetonitrile gradient and detected by absorbance at 215 nm. The crude S2* cell protein extract was generated as above, excluding the anti-FLAG affinity fractionation step. To control for S2* cell-derived amidase activity, which could be contaminating the EsPGRP1-enriched protein fraction, 24 µg of the crude S2* cell protein extract was incubated with TCT for 2 h. Immunocytochemical detection of EsPGRP1 in E. scolopes tissues Unless otherwise noted, all fluorophores were obtained from Molecular Probes (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA). To prepare juvenile squid for immunocytochemistry, they were anaesthetized in FSIO + 2% ethanol and fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde in mPBS (50 mM sodium phosphate, pH 7.4, 0.45M sodium chloride) for 18 h at 4°C. Post-fix samples were kept at 4°C throughout the remainder of the protocol. Fixed squid were washed 4 times for 30 min in mPBS. The light organs were removed from each juvenile, permeabolized with 1% Triton-X-100 in mPBS (mPBST) for 2 days and then blocked overnight (mPBST, 0.5% BSA, 1% goat serum). Light organs were then exposed to the EsPGRP1 antisera diluted 1:1000 in the block solution for 7 days. Light organs were washed 4 times for 1 h each wash with mPBST and incubated overnight again in blocking solution. Samples were then exposed overnight to fluorescent goat anti-rabbit antibody conjugates (FITC or TRITC, Jackson ImmunoResearch Labs; AlexaFluor 633) diluted 1:25 in blocking solution overnight. To counterstain the actin cytoskeleton, light organs were incubated with 165 nM Alexa Fluor 633-phalloidin in mPBST overnight. To counterstain nuclear DNA, light organs were incubated with 100 µg/ml RNaseA in 2×SSC (30 mM sodium citrate, pH 7.2, 300 mM sodium chloride) for 30 min at 37°C and then stained with either 1.5 µM propidium iodide for 5 min or 2 µM TOTO-3 for 30 min at room temperature. Apoptotic chromosomal cleavage was detected using the DeadEnd Fluorimetric TUNEL Assay kit (Promega, Madison, WI) according to manufacturer’s instructions. The nuclear pore complex was visualized by immunocytochemistry as above, except the anti-nucleoporin mAb 414 (Covance Research Products, Denver PA) was co-diluted 1:1000 with the anti-PGRP1 Ab. Light organs were mounted in Vectashield anti-bleaching medium (Vector Labs, Burlingame, CA) and viewed on an LSM510 laser scanning confocal microscope (Carl Zeiss Microimaging, Thornwood, NY). Supp data Click here to view.(8.3M, pdf) Acknowledgements We are grateful to Michael Apicella for kindly providing the V. fischeri LPS and lipid A used in this study. We thank N. Bekiares, M C. Brennan, J. Dillard, H. Goodrich-Blair, L. Knoll, Mandel, B. Rader and E. Ruby for helpful comments on the manuscript. This work was funded by NIH RO1-AI50661 to MMN, NSF IOS 0817232 to MMN and EG Ruby, NIH RR R01-12294 to EG Ruby, and by NIH NRSA AI55397 to JVT through the Microbial Pathogenesis and Host Responses Training Program. Reference List
|
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||||
Immunogenetics. 2007 Nov; 59(11):883-98.
[Immunogenetics. 2007]Dev Comp Immunol. 2007; 31(8):790-804.
[Dev Comp Immunol. 2007]Genome Biol. 2006; 7(8):232.
[Genome Biol. 2006]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Dec 5; 97(25):13772-7.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000]Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005 Nov; 71(11):6934-46.
[Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005]Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2003 Jul 11; 306(4):988-94.
[Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2003]Immunity. 2006 Apr; 24(4):463-73.
[Immunity. 2006]PLoS Pathog. 2006 Feb; 2(2):e14.
[PLoS Pathog. 2006]Nat Rev Microbiol. 2007 Apr; 5(4):264-77.
[Nat Rev Microbiol. 2007]Cell Host Microbe. 2008 May 15; 3(5):273-4.
[Cell Host Microbe. 2008]Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006 Oct; 72(10):6766-72.
[Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006]PLoS Pathog. 2006 Feb; 2(2):e14.
[PLoS Pathog. 2006]BMC Biol. 2008 Oct 16; 6():43.
[BMC Biol. 2008]Nat Rev Microbiol. 2004 Aug; 2(8):632-42.
[Nat Rev Microbiol. 2004]Curr Opin Microbiol. 2006 Dec; 9(6):632-8.
[Curr Opin Microbiol. 2006]Science. 1991 Dec 6; 254(5037):1491-4.
[Science. 1991]Nat Rev Microbiol. 2004 Aug; 2(8):632-42.
[Nat Rev Microbiol. 2004]Development. 1994 Jul; 120(7):1719-29.
[Development. 1994]Nat Rev Microbiol. 2006 Sep; 4(9):710-6.
[Nat Rev Microbiol. 2006]Infect Immun. 1987 Sep; 55(9):2117-20.
[Infect Immun. 1987]Infect Immun. 1989 Jul; 57(7):2223-9.
[Infect Immun. 1989]Infect Immun. 2002 Jun; 70(6):2752-7.
[Infect Immun. 2002]Science. 2004 Nov 12; 306(5699):1186-8.
[Science. 2004]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Aug 12; 105(32):11323-8.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008]Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005 Nov; 71(11):6934-46.
[Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005]Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005 Nov; 71(11):6934-46.
[Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005]Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2003 Jul 11; 306(4):988-94.
[Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2003]Dev Genes Evol. 1998 Aug; 208(6):295-303.
[Dev Genes Evol. 1998]Science. 2004 Nov 12; 306(5699):1186-8.
[Science. 2004]J Cell Sci. 2001 Oct; 114(Pt 20):3643-53.
[J Cell Sci. 2001]Science. 2004 Nov 12; 306(5699):1186-8.
[Science. 2004]Trends Cell Biol. 1999 Aug; 9(8):312-8.
[Trends Cell Biol. 1999]Dev Genes Evol. 1998 Aug; 208(6):295-303.
[Dev Genes Evol. 1998]Science. 2004 Nov 12; 306(5699):1186-8.
[Science. 2004]Dev Biol. 2000 Oct 15; 226(2):242-54.
[Dev Biol. 2000]Development. 1994 Jul; 120(7):1719-29.
[Development. 1994]Nature. 2001 Dec 13; 414(6865):756-9.
[Nature. 2001]Immunity. 2004 May; 20(5):637-49.
[Immunity. 2004]Neurosci Lett. 2008 Jan 10; 430(2):138-41.
[Neurosci Lett. 2008]Science. 1996 Nov 1; 274(5288):782-4.
[Science. 1996]Cell Host Microbe. 2008 May 15; 3(5):293-303.
[Cell Host Microbe. 2008]Science. 2004 Nov 12; 306(5699):1186-8.
[Science. 2004]J Bacteriol. 2004 Jul; 186(13):4315-25.
[J Bacteriol. 2004]Mol Microbiol. 2005 Sep; 57(5):1485-98.
[Mol Microbiol. 2005]Biol Bull. 2007 Feb; 212(1):29-39.
[Biol Bull. 2007]J Bacteriol. 2000 Aug; 182(16):4578-86.
[J Bacteriol. 2000]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Aug 12; 105(32):11323-8.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008]Nat Immunol. 2006 Jul; 7(7):715-23.
[Nat Immunol. 2006]Anal Biochem. 1998 Nov 1; 264(1):41-6.
[Anal Biochem. 1998]J Biol. 2006; 5(6):20.
[J Biol. 2006]Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005 Nov; 71(11):6934-46.
[Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005]Arch Microbiol. 1993; 159(2):160-7.
[Arch Microbiol. 1993]Infect Immun. 1989 Jul; 57(7):2223-9.
[Infect Immun. 1989]Methods Enzymol. 1994; 235():242-52.
[Methods Enzymol. 1994]Genes Dev. 2000 Oct 1; 14(19):2461-71.
[Genes Dev. 2000]Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006 Jan; 72(1):802-10.
[Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006]