Abstract
Background: Cathelicidins are a family of Host Defense Peptides (HDPs), that play an important role in the innate immune response. They exert both broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity against pathogens, and strong immunomodulatory functions that affect the response of innate and adaptive immune cells.
Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate immunomodulation by the chicken cathelicidin CATH-2 and compare its activities to those of the human cathelicidin LL-37.
Methods: Chicken macrophages and chicken monocytes were incubated with cathelicidins. Activation of immune cells was determined by measuring surface markers Mannose Receptor Ctype 1 (MRC1) and MHC-II. Cytokine production was measured by qPCR and nitric oxide production was determined using the Griess assay. Finally, the effect of cathelicidins on phagocytosis was measured using carboxylate-modified polystyrene latex beads.
Results: CATH-2 and its all-D enantiomer D-CATH-2 increased MRC1 and MHC-II expression, markers for antigen presentation, on primary chicken monocytes, whereas LL-37 did not. D-CATH- 2 also increased the MRC1 and MHC-II expression if a chicken macrophage cell line (HD11 cells) was used. In addition, LPS-induced NO production by HD11 cells was inhibited by CATH-2 and D-CATH-2.
Conclusion: These results are a clear indication that CATH-2 (and D-CATH-2) affect the activation state of monocytes and macrophages, which leads to optimization of the innate immune response and enhancement of the adaptive immune response.
Keywords: Host defense peptide, MRC1, antigen presentation, HD11 cells, innate immunity, cathelicidins.
Graphical Abstract
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molimm.2009.05.019] [PMID: 19524300]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0061964] [PMID: 23613986]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40259-013-0039-0]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkl382] [PMID: 17023499]
[PMID: 16053249]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nri.2016.29] [PMID: 27087664]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dci.2013.04.019] [PMID: 23644014]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000336630] [PMID: 22739631]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vaccines6030063] [PMID: 30223448]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cellimm.2012.11.009] [PMID: 23246832]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0707037104] [PMID: 17827276]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00251-004-0675-0] [PMID: 15148642]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M507180200] [PMID: 16326712]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vetimm.2005.03.003] [PMID: 15963828]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0099029] [PMID: 24887410]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.peptides.2010.03.037] [PMID: 20381563]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dci.2016.02.023] [PMID: 26920462]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep26622] [PMID: 27229866]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt1288] [PMID: 17384586]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molimm.2017.07.005] [PMID: 28715682]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molimm.2014.01.004] [PMID: 24491488]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.172.2.1146] [PMID: 14707090]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.0901491] [PMID: 19812202]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1589684] [PMID: 486001]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/m66-143] [PMID: 5339644]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.1002508] [PMID: 21441450]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AAC.49.7.2845-2850.2005] [PMID: 15980359]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bip.21104] [PMID: 18844294]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/0929866524666170428150925] [PMID: 28462713]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147919] [PMID: 26848845]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169154] [PMID: 28045984]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1189/jlb.0513304] [PMID: 24550523]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep40874] [PMID: 28102367]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.1501242] [PMID: 26378074]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.1602164] [PMID: 28710255]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/IAI.00546-17] [PMID: 28947647]