| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
*
Division of Infectious Diseases, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois-Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland;
Pharma Research, Novartis, Basel, Switzerland;
Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Epalinges, Switzerland; and
§
Research Department, Kantonspital, Basel, Switzerland
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
LBP is a critical component of innate immunity that is implicated in the initiation of host defense against Gram-negative bacteria. LBP serves to alarm the host to the presence of minute amounts of LPS (9). However, upon exposure to larger quantities of LPS, the amplification of LPS effects mediated by LBP may be detrimental to the host. In fact, LBP has been shown to contribute to LPS toxicity in experimental endotoxemia. Blockade of LBP activity with polyclonal Abs was found to protect mice from lethal endotoxemia (10, 11). These data suggest that LBP contributes to the toxicity of high doses of LPS, and that the transfer of LPS to high density lipoproteins is not sufficient to prevent the activation of cells via the LPS/LBP/CD14 pathway.
Experiments using mice with a disruption of the LBP gene have yielded conflicting results. In one study, disruption of the LBP gene was associated with a suppression of TNF production and protected mice challenged with LBP-dependent doses of LPS (12). In contrast, the results of another study showed that wild-type or LBP-deficient mice produced similar amounts of TNF upon exposure to LBP-dependent doses of LPS in vivo, raising doubts about the role of LBP as a mediator of LPS-induced cell activation (13). Moreover, it was recently reported that i.p. injections of high doses of recombinant LBP exerted protective rather than detrimental effects in mice challenged with LPS (14). Given these apparently discordant observations, we used a classical approach to study the role of LBP in the host responses to LPS and generated well-characterized rat mAbs to murine LBP. Using mAbs that inhibit the binding of LPS to LBP or the presentation of LPS/LBP complexes to CD14, we found that LBP is an important component of the host response to LPS, confirming the central role of LBP in innate immunity.
|
Materials and Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Recombinant murine LBP (rmLBP) was expressed in the baculovirus using the cotransfection method with the Baculo-Gold (PharMingen, San Diego, CA), expressed in SF9 insect cells, and cultivated in SF9-II medium (Life Technologies, Basel, Switzerland), as described previously (15). The concentration of rmLBP in the supernatant of LBP-expressing SF9 cells was 2 µg/ml as measured by an LBP-specific ELISA (see below). rmLBP was further purified to homogeneity (single band of 55 kDa, data not shown), as described previously (16). The LPS content of LBP preparations was <1 pg/µg of protein. Recombinant human LBP expressed in Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells (17) was a kind gift of P. S. Tobias (Scripps Clinics, La Jolla, CA).
Antibodies
rmLBP was electrophoresed in preparative gels (SDS-PAGE), sliced from the gel, and microsequenced for confirmation. Rabbits were immunized with 100 µg of rmLBP emulsified in 1 ml of Ribi adjuvant (Ribi Immunochem, Hamilton, MT) that was injected five times within 4 wk. Each immunization consisted of 6 x 50 µl administered intradermally, 2 x 300 µl administered i.m., and 1 x 100 µl administered s.c. Immune IgG was purified by HPLC using Hitrap protein G-columns (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech, Dubendorf, Switzerland). Rats were immunized seven times with 10 µg of rmLBP emulsified in 500 µl of Ribi adjuvant. Each injection was divided into two s.c. injections (2 x 200 µl) and one i.p. injection (100 µl).
At 14 days after the last injection, the rat with the highest titer was
boosted (day -3 before fusion with 50 µg of rmLBP i.v. and 100 µg
of rmLBP i.p.). On days -2 and -1, another 80 µg of rmLBP was given
i.p. On the day of fusion, the rat was killed by CO2
inhalation, and two separate fusions were made using PEG 4000. Fusion
RR (rat-rat) was made by fusing 1.5 x 108 rat spleen
cells with 5 x 107 cells of the
8-azaguanine-resistant rat myeloma YB 2/0 (purchased from American Type
Culture Collection, Manassas, VA). Fused cells were plated out in 480
Nr 3524 wells (Costar, Cambridge, MA) in HAT medium supplemented with
RPMI 1640 containing 10% FCS and 5 ng/ml human rIL-6. Fusion M (mouse)
was made by fusing 1.5 x 108 rat spleen cells with
5 x 107 cells of the 8-azaguanine-resistant mouse
myeloma PAI-O (a kind gift from Dr. T. Staehlin, Basel, Switzerland)
(18). A total of 480 wells were plated out in HAT medium on mouse
peritoneal cell feeder layers. Supernatants from hybridomas, which had
reached 80% confluency, were assayed by ELISA using a coating of rmLBP
at a concentration of 5 µg/ml (100 µl/well). Blocking was conducted
with skimmed milk in PBS. Milk and BSA were used as controls for
nonspecific binding. Screening was only conducted for hybridomas of the
IgG class; therefore, alkaline phosphatase-conjugated affinity-purified
F(ab)2 fragments of goat anti-rat IgG (Fc
-specific
Ab) were used at a 1/25,000 dilution (112-056-071, Jackson
ImmunoResearch, West Grove, PA). Hybridomas found to be positive for
LBP were cloned by limiting dilution and adapted to serum-free growth;
production was conducted in roller bottles.
mAbs were purified by protein G chromatography, dialyzed into PBS, and stored at -80°C. The LPS content of the anti-LBP mAbs was <5 pg/µg of protein. Anti-LBP IgG (polyclonal and monoclonal) recognized purified rmLBP and native mouse plasma LBP by ELISA or Western blotting (data not shown).
Isotyping of rat Abs
Isotyping of mAbs was performed using reagents and protocols
from Immunopartners (Omega, Lyon, France). Briefly, microplates were
coated with 1 µg/ml of MARG1-2 (mouse mAb against the heavy chain of
rat IgG1), MARG2a-1 (against IgG2a), MARG2b-3 (against IgG2b), or
MARG2C-5 (against IgG2c) in 0.1 M carbonate buffer (pH 9.5). After
washing, purified mAbs were then added at a 1 µg/ml concentration;
binding of mAbs was revealed with peroxidase-labeled MARK1 plus MARL15
(1 µg/ml), a mixture of Abs recognizing rat 
- and 
-chains at a
1 µg/ml concentration. Peroxidase was revealed using
o-phenylenediamine (OPD), and OD was measured by
spectrophotometry using 490/690-nm filters.
Cells
CHO cells were transfected with the murine CD14 gene as follows: Full-length mouse cDNA was cloned into the pRc/CMV2 plasmid (Invitrogen, Leek, The Netherlands) and stably transfected by electroporation into CHO cells. CD14-expressing cells were grown under G418 selection, analyzed, and sorted by FACS using hamster anti-murine CD14 mAbs (Abs to be published). CHO cells transfected with the human CD14 gene (CHO/huCD14) and control CHO cells transfected with the neomycin resistance vector alone (CHO/NEO) (19) were a kind gift of Dr. D. T. Golenbock (Boston, MA). RAW 264.7 cells and J774 cells were cultured in RPMI 1640 containing 10% FCS.
ELISA for measuring LBP
The 96-well microtiter plates (Dynatech Laboratories, Embrach, Switzerland) were coated overnight at room temperature with 1 µg/well of purified rmLBP in 100 µl of 0.1 M carbonate buffer (pH 9.5). Negative control plates included plates coated with saline. Thereafter, all incubation steps were performed for 1 h at room temperature. The plates were then incubated successively with 1% milk, followed by dilutions of purified rmLBP, SF9/LBP supernatant, or plasma and subsequently with rabbit anti-LBP IgG (10 µg/ml). LBP was detected with 1/1000 dilutions of rabbit anti-LBP IgG labeled with peroxidase (Sigma, St. Louis, MO). Washings were performed with PBS, and dilutions of reagents were made in PBS with 0.1% milk. Peroxidase was revealed using OPD, and OD was measured by spectrophotometry using 490/690-nm filters.
ELISA for measuring binding of rat mAbs to murine LBP
Plates were coated with various amounts of Re595-LPS (List Biologicals, Campbell, CA) diluted in 100 µl of 0.1 M carbonate buffer containing 20 mM of EDTA (pH 9.6) for 3 h at 37°C. The LPS solution was flicked out, and the plates were rinsed thoroughly under running water and air-dried overnight, as described previously (20). Excess binding sites were then blocked with 200 µl/well of PBS containing 1% BSA. rmLBP (usually supernatant of transfected cells) or an equivalent amount of plasma LBP was then added in 100 µl of PBS containing 0.1% BSA for 2 h at 37°C. After washing, rat mAbs were added at various concentrations in PBS containing 0.1% BSA. The binding of rat mAbs was evaluated with 1/1000 dilutions of anti-rat IgG conjugated with peroxidase (Sigma), and peroxidase was revealed using OPD. OD was measured by spectrophotometry using 490/690-nm filters.
To establish the optimal protocol for detecting the binding of rat anti-LBP mAbs to LBP, plates were coated with concentrations of ReLPS ranging from 0.3 to 30 µg/well. A total of 0.1–100 nM of purified LBP was added, and the LBP bound to LPS was detected with 0.1–100 nM of anti-LBP mAbs. The optimal conditions were 3 µg/well of ReLPS for coating, 4 nM of LBP, and 25 nM of mAbs (data not shown).
In an alternative protocol, 25 nM of mAbs were first preincubated with 4 nM of LBP or with murine plasma (dilutions containing 4 nM of LBP) before addition of the LBP/anti-LBP complexes to plates coated with rough LPS (Re595-LPS, 3 µg/well). The binding of LBP was then evaluated using rabbit IgG anti-murine LBP (10 µg/ml), followed by the appropriate peroxidase conjugate.
Evaluation of the capacity of anti-LBP mAbs to neutralize LBP activity in vitro
Two protocols were used to investigate the capacity of anti-LBP mAbs to neutralize LBP activity. The capacity of LBP to present LPS-FITC to CD14+ cells was analyzed using a binding assay; the LBP-dependent TNF production of LPS-stimulated RAW 264.7 cells was measured by a bioassay.
Because anti-LBP mAbs could block either LBP directly or LBP bound to LPS (LBP/LPS complexes), two experimental protocols were performed to determine the mode of action of the mAbs. In the first series of experiments, LBP was initially preincubated with mAbs for 15 min at 37°C before the addition of LPS-FITC (binding assay) or LPS (TNF assay). In the second series of experiments, LBP was first mixed with LPS-FITC (binding assay) or LPS (TNF assay) for 15 min at 37°C before the addition of anti-LBP mAbs.
Flow cytometry assay for measuring reactivity of rat mAbs with rmLBP
CHO cells transfected with the murine or the human CD14 gene (CHO/muCD14 or CHO/huCD14) and murine macrophage J774 and RAW 264.7 cells were used to investigate the effects of rat anti-LBP mAbs on the binding of FITC-LPS to CD14. The binding of FITC-LPS to CD14 was LBP-dependent for all four cell lines. CD14 was required for the efficient binding (or uptake) of LPS-FITC through LBP, as LPS-FITC did not bind to control CHO cells transfected with the vector alone (CHO/NEO) or to CHO/huCD14 cells pretreated with a neutralizing anti-CD14 mAb (3C10) (data not shown). We could not investigate the contribution of murine CD14 in this setting, because neutralizing Abs to murine CD14 are not available.
LPS from Serratia marcescens (Sigma) was labeled with FITC (21) and used at concentrations of 5 nM (0.2 µg/ml), 20 nM, or 100 nM. These experiments were performed using supernatant of LBP-expressing SF9 cells. The optimal concentration of LBP in the assay was 4 nM (data not shown), and the Abs were tested from 2 nM to 64 nM. Two protocols were used: 1) preincubation of LBP with anti-LBP mAbs followed by the addition of FITC-LPS; or 2) preincubation of FITC-LPS with LBP before the addition of anti-LBP mAbs. Reagents were incubated for 1 h with 105 target cells in a final volume of 200 µl. Next, cells were washed, and fluorescence on CD14+ cells was detected using a FACScan, as described previously (2).
Neutralization of LBP measured by the TNF bioassay
Two different experimental protocols were used. In the first protocol, rat mAbs (4 µg/ml in a 20-µl volume) were initially preincubated with rmLBP (200 ng in a 20-µl volume) for 15 min to generate LBP/anti-LBP complexes. The LBP/anti-LBP complexes were then added to RAW 264.7 cells (2 x 104 cells in a 200-µl final volume). A total of 10 ng/ml LPS (20 µl volume) was added for 4 h at 37°C. In the second protocol, LPS was first reacted with LBP to form LPS/LBP complexes. Complexes were then added to RAW 264.7 cells together with rat anti-LBP mAbs and incubated for 4 h at 37°C. All supernatants were collected for TNF determination.
Evaluation of LBP blockade in vivo
Female BALB/c mice (8 wk old) were purchased from IFFA Credo (Lyon, France) and were acclimatized 1 wk before experimentation. To investigate whether mAbs could block LBP activity in vivo, BALB/c mice were injected i.v. with 100 µg/mouse of rat anti-LBP mAbs. Plasma was collected at 1 h or 7 h postinjection and kept frozen at -80°C. LBP activity was evaluated by measuring the capacity of LBP to present LPS-FITC to CD14+ cells. To do so, 2 µg/ml of LPS-FITC was added to 5% plasma, and the binding of LPS/LBP complexes to CHO/muCD14 was assessed by flow cytometry.
Endotoxemic model in mice
For all experiments, mice received 25 mg of D-galactosamine (D-gal) (Sigma) i.p. and 100 µg/mouse of rat mAbs i.v. in a volume of 250 µl of saline. After 15 min, mice were injected i.v. with Escherichia coli O111 LPS (30–1250 ng) from Sigma dissolved in 100 µl of saline. Plasma was obtained via the tail vein at 75 min after LPS challenge to determine peak plasma TNF concentrations.
TNF and LPS determination
TNF was measured by bioassay using WEHI clone 13 as a target, as described previously (2). The presence of LPS in reagents was determined with the Limulus assay (Chromogenix, Embrach, Switzerland).
Statistics
Statistical analyses were done using the 
2 test
or Fisher’s exact test for comparisons of proportions and the ANOVA
test to compare intergroup differences.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
A total of 63 clones (IgG2a, IgG2b, or IgG2c isotype) were
obtained after limiting dilution that were either of mouse/rat origin
(clone M) or rat/rat origin (clones RR). All clones produced Abs that
reacted in ELISA with rmLBP and mouse plasma LBP but not with purified
human LBP (data not shown). Three pairs of clones of the same isotype
(IgG2a) (Table I
) but with different
inhibitory properties (see thereafter) were selected for the present
studies. Cross-competition experiments showed that these clones
recognized different epitopes (data not shown).
|
As shown in Table I
, all six clones reacted with LBP by ELISA.
Using LPS-coated plates, we subsequently tested 1) whether the mAbs
bound to preformed LPS/LBP complexes and 2) whether the binding of the
mAbs to LBP inhibited the binding of LBP to LPS.
To test the first hypothesis, rmLBP or murine plasma was first
incubated with LPS plates to allow the formation of LPS/LBP complexes.
Under these conditions, clones 2A, 2B, 3A, and 3B bound to LPS/LBP
complexes, whereas clones 1A and 1B did not (Fig. 1A), even in the presence of a
20-fold molar excess of mAbs (data not shown). To test the second
hypothesis, rmLBP or murine plasma was first mixed with the mAbs and
then added to the LPS-coated plates. Preincubation of LBP with clones
1A and 1B, but not with the other four clones, prevented the binding of
LBP to LPS-coated plates (Fig. 1B). In both experimental
settings, identical results were obtained using either recombinant or
native (plasma) murine LBP. Thus, these experiments suggested that
clones 1A and 1B were directed against the epitope(s) implicated in the
binding of LPS to LBP, whereas the other four clones recognized other
epitopes of the LBP molecule.
|
In the next series of experiments, we investigated whether the
anti-LBP mAbs blocked the LBP-mediated binding of LPS to CD14. The
experiments were performed with CHO cells transfected with either
murine CD14 (CHO/muCD14) or human CD14 (CHO/huCD14) and with two murine
macrophage cell lines (J774 and RAW 264.7). The binding of LPS-FITC to
CD14+ cells was measured by flow cytometry (2). Clones 1A,
1B, 2A, and 2B were found to inhibit the binding of LPS to CHO/muCD14;
clones 3A and 3B did not (Fig. 2).
Complete inhibition of LPS binding to CHO/muCD14 cells required a mAb
to LBP molar ratio of 
4:1. Decreasing the concentration of mAbs
resulted in a progressive loss of the inhibition that was 
40% at a
1:1 mAb to LBP molar ratio. We subsequently examined whether LPS was
able to displace the LBP/anti-LBP complexes (Fig. 3). Dissociation of LBP/anti-LBP
complexes occurred at high concentrations of LPS (20 or 100 nM) with
clone 1B, and also, but to a lesser extent, with clone 1A. Increasing
the LPS concentrations had no effect with clone 2A.
|
|
and 3).
Fig. 4 shows the results obtained with
CHO/huCD14 and RAW 264.7 cells (similar observations were made with
CHO/muCD14 and J774 cell lines, data not shown). Clone 2A and clone 2B
inhibited the binding of FITC-LPS to CD14+ targets in both
experimental conditions, whereas clone 1A and clone 1B suppressed the
binding of FITC-LPS to CD14+ targets only when LBP was
first preincubated with anti-LBP mAbs before the addition of LPS.
Clone 3A and clone 3B had no effect. Moreover, preincubation of
CHO/huCD14 cells with clones 2B or 1A followed by washing and
subsequent addition of LBP together with LPS-FITC did not inhibit the
binding of FITC-LPS to CD14 (data not shown), indicating that the
effect of the anti-LBP mAbs was due to a specific inhibition of LBP
activity and not to a nonspecific interaction with the target cells.
|
Effect of anti-LBP mAbs on TNF production by RAW 264.7 cells
Binding of LPS to membrane CD14+ at the surface of
monocytes triggers cell activation and induces the release of
cytokines. Therefore, we studied the effect of anti-LBP mAbs on the
production of TNF by RAW 264.7 cells stimulated with LPS. In the
presence of LBP in the cell-culture medium, RAW 264.7 cells released
abundant amounts of TNF (1500 pg/ml) after stimulation with 10 ng/ml of
LPS (Fig. 5A); no such release
was observed in the absence of LBP (<20 pg/ml, data not shown). When
anti-LBP mAbs were first incubated with LBP, clones 1A, 1B, 2A, and
2B almost completely suppressed TNF production in LPS-stimulated RAW
264.7 cells. Clones 3A and 3B had no effect (Fig. 5A).
Clones 2A and 2B, but not clones 1A and 1B, also inhibited TNF
production when LPS was first incubated with LBP to form LPS/LBP
complexes (Fig. 5B). Clones 3A and 3B did not block TNF
production under this experimental setting either. Similar results were
obtained with J774 cells (data not shown). Therefore, these results
confirm the observations made in previous experiments.
|
In vivo neutralization of LBP
We subsequently investigated whether the anti-LBP mAbs also
blocked the LBP activity in vivo. This was first done by measuring the
functional activity of LBP, assessed by its ability to present FITC-LPS
to CHO/muCD14 cells, after the injection of anti-LBP mAbs. The
concentration of LBP in the plasma of normal BALB/c mice is 20 nM as
measured by ELISA. Consequently, mice were injected i.v. with 100 µg
of mAb (corresponding approximately to 750 nM based on an estimated
circulating blood volume of 1 ml), and plasma was collected at 1 h
postinjection. Confirming the results obtained in vitro, clones 1A, 1B,
2A, and 2B completely blocked the ability of plasma LBP to present LPS
to CHO/muCD14, whereas clone 3A and clone 3B had no effect (Table II).
|
).
Injection of 50 ng or 1250 ng of LPS per mouse induced massive TNF
production and killed almost all mice pretreated with saline.
Pretreatment with clone 2A before a challenge with 50 ng of LPS
completely suppressed the LBP activity of plasma, caused a marked
reduction of the circulating levels of TNF, and improved survival. At a
higher LPS dose (250 ng/mouse), clone 2A did not reduce TNF production
and did not protect the mice, despite the fact that the LBP activity of
plasma was inhibited for 
7 h after LPS challenge (Table III), ruling
out the possibility that the dose of mAb was insufficient to block LBP
at higher LPS doses. Thus, these results suggest that death is
triggered by LBP-independent events at a high dose of LPS.
|
). Mortality was 69% in mice treated
with saline, whereas pretreatment with clones 1A, 1B, 2A, or 2B
resulted in almost complete protection (mortality: 0%, 18%, 0%, and
6%, respectively). Protection was associated with very low circulating
levels of TNF in all survivors. As predicted by the results obtained in
vitro, clones 3A and 3B did not reduce plasma TNF levels and did not
protect mice (mortality: 56% and 62%).
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
To further investigate the role of LBP in innate immunity, we generated
well-characterized neutralizing anti-LBP mAbs and tested their
effects in experimental endotoxemia. The present data provide evidence
to support the concept that LBP enhances host response to low doses of
LPS in vivo. Neutralization of LBP activity with anti-LBP mAbs was
found to suppress TNF production by murine macrophages and to protect
mice from LPS-induced lethality. Suppression of cytokine production and
protection from lethal endotoxemia was achieved by two different
mechanisms. A first class of anti-LBP mAbs (class 1 mAbs, Fig. 6) inhibited LBP activity by blocking the
binding of LPS. According to ELISA, class 1 mAbs did not bind to
LBP/LPS complexes and were unable to bind to LPS upon preincubation of
mAbs with LBP. Class 1 mAbs inhibited the binding of FITC-LPS to
CD14+ cells when they were first preincubated with LBP but
not when FITC-LPS/LBP complexes were formed before incubation with
anti-LBP mAbs. Class 1 mAbs also suppressed LPS-induced TNF
production by murine macrophage cells, but only when anti-LBP mAbs
were first incubated with LBP. A second class of anti-LBP mAbs
(class 2 mAbs, Fig. 6) recognized either LBP alone or LBP/LPS
complexes. They inhibited LBP activity by blocking the binding of
LPS/LBP complexes to cells expressing the CD14 receptor. In contrast to
class 1 mAbs, class 2 mAbs inhibited the binding of FITC-LPS/LBP
complexes to CD14+ cells or LPS-induced TNF production by
macrophages regardless of whether or not the mAbs had been preincubated
with LBP before adding LPS.
|
), could account for these slight
differences.
Anti-LBP mAbs protected mice from death induced by low doses of LPS (50
ng/mouse), but not high doses of LPS (250 ng/mouse), a finding well in
agreement with the results of previous in vitro studies (9, 22). High
doses of LPS trigger death by activating LBP-independent pathways, as
shown by the fact that mice succumb despite a complete neutralization
of LBP for 7 h after LPS challenge, indicating that the dose of mAbs
was not a limiting factor in these experiments.
Recent reports have suggested that LBP could suppress rather than enhance LPS-induced cytokine production by activated mouse macrophages in vitro (24, 25). An i.p. injection of high doses of recombinant LBP (100 µg) was observed to protect mice from an otherwise lethal LPS challenge (14). However, in our hands, the protection afforded by the anti-LBP mAbs did not differ regardless of whether the LPS was administered i.v. or i.p (data not shown). Normal levels of LBP are low in the peritoneal cavity (usually <10 ng/ml, data not shown), and such levels are unlikely to play a protective role in endotoxemia, as observed in the present experiments. However, this does not rule out the possibility that the high levels of LBP produced during the acute phase responses might exert a protective role by a mechanism that remains to be identified (14).
In summary, we have produced anti-LBP mAbs that recognize different epitopes of the LBP molecule. Abs blocking either the binding of LPS to LBP or the binding of LPS/LBP complexes to CD14 were found to neutralize the LBP activity, to inhibit macrophage TNF production in vitro and in vivo, and to protect mice from lethal endotoxemia. Studies are now in progress to characterize the epitopes recognized by these Abs, which should give us more insight into the interactions between LPS, LBP, and CD14. Although LBP KO mice are more resistant than wild-type mice to LPS, they exhibit increased sensitivity to Gram-negative infections and readily succumb to Salmonella typhimurium infections, presumably because of impaired host defense mechanisms (12). Using the anti-LBP mAbs we have generated, we are currently investigating the role of LBP in infections caused by Gram-negative bacteria. These investigations should broaden our understanding of the pathophysiology of Gram-negative infections and conceivably may offer new treatment opportunities for the management of patients with sepsis and septic shock.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
|
Footnotes |
|---|
2 Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Didier Heumann, Division of Infectious Diseases, BH19, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois 1011 Lausanne, Switzerland. E-mail address:
3 Abbreviations used in this paper: LBP, LPS-binding protein; rmLBP, recombinant murine LBP; CHO, Chinese hamster ovary; D-gal, D-galactosamine; OPD, o-phenylenediamine; KO, knockout.
Received for publication December 31, 1998. Accepted for publication April 6, 1999.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
B induced by lipopolysaccharide does not require tyrosine kinase activity. J. Biol. Chem. 269:22253.This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  B. Daubeuf, J. Mathison, S. Spiller, S. Hugues, S. Herren, W. Ferlin, M. Kosco-Vilbois, H. Wagner, C. J. Kirschning, R. Ulevitch, et al. TLR4/MD-2 Monoclonal Antibody Therapy Affords Protection in Experimental Models of Septic Shock J. Immunol., November 1, 2007; 179(9): 6107 - 6114. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Lehnert, T. Uehara, B. U. Bradford, H. Lind, Z. Zhong, D. A. Brenner, I. Marzi, and J. J. Lemasters Lipopolysaccharide-binding protein modulates hepatic damage and the inflammatory response after hemorrhagic shock and resuscitation Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol, September 1, 2006; 291(3): G456 - G463. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Akashi-Takamura, T. Furuta, K. Takahashi, N. Tanimura, Y. Kusumoto, T. Kobayashi, S.-i. Saitoh, Y. Adachi, T. Doi, and K. Miyake Agonistic Antibody to TLR4/MD-2 Protects Mice from Acute Lethal Hepatitis Induced by TNF-{alpha} J. Immunol., April 1, 2006; 176(7): 4244 - 4251. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Branger, S. Florquin, S. Knapp, J. C. Leemans, J. M. Pater, P. Speelman, D. T. Golenbock, and T. van der Poll LPS-binding protein-deficient mice have an impaired defense against Gram-negative but not Gram-positive pneumonia Int. Immunol., November 1, 2004; 16(11): 1605 - 1611. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Lanza-Jacoby, S. Miller, S. Jacob, D. Heumann, A. G. Minchenko, and J. T. Flynn Hyperlipoproteinemic low-density lipoprotein receptor-deficient mice are more susceptible to sepsis than corresponding wild-type mice Innate Immunity, December 1, 2003; 9(6): 341 - 347. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Heumann, R. Lauener, and B. Ryffel The dual role of LBP and CD14 in response to Gram-negative bacteria or Gram-negative compounds Innate Immunity, December 1, 2003; 9(6): 381 - 384. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. d. J. Arana, M. G. Vallespi, G. Chinea, G. V. Vallespi, I. Rodriguez-Alonso, H. E. Garay, W. A. Buurman, and O. Reyes Inhibition of LPS-responses by synthetic peptides derived from LBP associates with the ability of the peptides to block LBP-LPS interaction Innate Immunity, October 1, 2003; 9(5): 281 - 291. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. Ohgami, I. B. Ilieva, K. Shiratori, E. Isogai, K. Yoshida, S. Kotake, T. Nishida, N. Mizuki, and S. Ohno Effect of Human Cationic Antimicrobial Protein 18 Peptide on Endotoxin-Induced Uveitis in Rats Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., October 1, 2003; 44(10): 4412 - 4418. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. S. Van Amersfoort, T. J. C. Van Berkel, and J. Kuiper Receptors, Mediators, and Mechanisms Involved in Bacterial Sepsis and Septic Shock Clin. Microbiol. Rev., July 1, 2003; 16(3): 379 - 414. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 I. Nagaoka, S. Hirota, F. Niyonsaba, M. Hirata, Y. Adachi, H. Tamura, S. Tanaka, and D. Heumann Augmentation of the Lipopolysaccharide-Neutralizing Activities of Human Cathelicidin CAP18/LL-37-Derived Antimicrobial Peptides by Replacement with Hydrophobic and Cationic Amino Acid Residues Clin. Vaccine Immunol., September 1, 2002; 9(5): 972 - 982. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. Ishida, H. Kubo, S. Suzuki, T. Suzuki, S. Akashi, K. Inoue, S. Maeda, H. Kikuchi, H. Sasaki, and T. Kondo Hypoxia Diminishes Toll-Like Receptor 4 Expression Through Reactive Oxygen Species Generated by Mitochondria in Endothelial Cells J. Immunol., August 15, 2002; 169(4): 2069 - 2075. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Fierer, M. A. Swancutt, D. Heumann, and D. Golenbock The Role of Lipopolysaccharide Binding Protein in Resistance to Salmonella Infections in Mice J. Immunol., June 15, 2002; 168(12): 6396 - 6403. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Uesugi, M. Froh, G. E. Arteel, B. U. Bradford, M. D. Wheeler, E. Gabele, F. Isayama, and R. G. Thurman Role of Lipopolysaccharide-Binding Protein in Early Alcohol-Induced Liver Injury in Mice J. Immunol., March 15, 2002; 168(6): 2963 - 2969. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Zweigner, H.-J. Gramm, O. C. Singer, K. Wegscheider, and R. R. Schumann High concentrations of lipopolysaccharide-binding protein in serum of patients with severe sepsis or septic shock inhibit the lipopolysaccharide response in human monocytes Blood, December 15, 2001; 98(13): 3800 - 3808. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Heumann CD14 and LBP in endotoxemia and infections caused by Gram-negative bacteria Innate Immunity, December 1, 2001; 7(6): 439 - 441. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. Nagaoka, S. Hirota, F. Niyonsaba, M. Hirata, Y. Adachi, H. Tamura, and D. Heumann Cathelicidin Family of Antibacterial Peptides CAP18 and CAP11 Inhibit the Expression of TNF-{alpha} by Blocking the Binding of LPS to CD14+ Cells J. Immunol., September 15, 2001; 167(6): 3329 - 3338. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Le Roy, F. Di Padova, Y. Adachi, M. P. Glauser, T. Calandra, and D. Heumann Critical Role of Lipopolysaccharide-Binding Protein and CD14 in Immune Responses against Gram-Negative Bacteria J. Immunol., September 1, 2001; 167(5): 2759 - 2765. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 I. A. Schrijver, M. van Meurs, M.-J. Melief, C. Wim Ang, D. Buljevac, R. Ravid, M. P. Hazenberg, and J. D. Laman Bacterial peptidoglycan and immune reactivity in the central nervous system in multiple sclerosis Brain, August 1, 2001; 124(8): 1544 - 1554. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. Heumann, Y. Adachi, D. Le Roy, N. Ohno, T. Yadomae, M. P. Glauser, and T. Calandra Role of Plasma, Lipopolysaccharide-Binding Protein, and CD14 in Response of Mouse Peritoneal Exudate Macrophages to Endotoxin Infect. Immun., January 1, 2001; 69(1): 378 - 385. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. C. E. Vreugdenhil, A. M. P. Snoek, J. W. M. Greve, and W. A. Buurman Lipopolysaccharide-Binding Protein Is Vectorially Secreted and Transported by Cultured Intestinal Epithelial Cells and Is Present in the Intestinal Mucus of Mice J. Immunol., October 15, 2000; 165(8): 4561 - 4566. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. G. Scott, C. M. Rosenberger, M. R. Gold, B. B. Finlay, and R. E. W. Hancock An {alpha}-Helical Cationic Antimicrobial Peptide Selectively Modulates Macrophage Responses to Lipopolysaccharide and Directly Alters Macrophage Gene Expression J. Immunol., September 15, 2000; 165(6): 3358 - 3365. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Ermert, M. Merkle, R. Mootz, F. Grimminger, W. Seeger, and L. Ermert Endotoxin priming of the cyclooxygenase-2-thromboxane axis in isolated rat lungs Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol, June 1, 2000; 278(6): L1195 - L1203. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. G. Scott, A. C. E. Vreugdenhil, W. A. Buurman, R. E. W. Hancock, and M. R. Gold Cutting Edge: Cationic Antimicrobial Peptides Block the Binding of Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) to LPS Binding Protein J. Immunol., January 15, 2000; 164(2): 549 - 553. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
, clone 1A; 
, clone 1B; 
, clone 2A; •, clone
2B; *, clone 3A; 
, clone 3B).
, 100 nM of LPS). Top panel, clone 1B;
middle panel, clone 1A; bottom panel,
clone 2A.
