![]()
|
|
||||||||
J Biol Chem, Vol. 274, Issue 45, 32478-32485, November 5, 1999
From the Modification of the amino terminus of regulated
on activated normal T-cell expressed (RANTES) has been shown to have a
significant effect on biological activity and produces proteins with
antagonist properties. Two amino-terminally modified RANTES proteins,
Met-RANTES and aminooxypentane-RANTES (AOP-RANTES), exhibit
differential inhibitory properties on both monocyte and eosinophil
chemotaxis. We have investigated their binding properties as well as
their ability to activate the RANTES receptors CCR1, CCR3, and CCR5 in
cell lines overexpressing these receptors. We show that Met-RANTES has
weak activity in eliciting a calcium response in Chinese hamster ovary
cells expressing CCR1, CCR3, and CCR5, whereas AOP-RANTES has full
agonist activity on CCR5 but is less effective on CCR3 and CCR1. Their
ability to induce chemotaxis of the murine pre-B lymphoma cell line,
L1.2, transfected with the same receptors, consolidates these results.
Monocytes have detectable mRNA for CCR1, CCR2, CCR3, CCR4, and
CCR5, and they respond to the ligands for these receptors in chemotaxis
but not always in calcium mobilization. AOP-RANTES does not induce
calcium mobilization in circulating monocytes but is able to do so as
these cells acquire the macrophage phenotype, which coincides with a
concomitant up-regulation of CCR5. We have also tested the ability of
both modified proteins to induce chemotaxis of freshly isolated
monocytes and eosinophils. Cells from most donors do not respond, but
occasionally cells from a particular donor do respond, particularly to
AOP-RANTES. We therefore hypothesize that the occasional activity of
AOP-RANTES to induce leukocyte chemotaxis is due to donor to donor
variation of receptor expression.
The chemokine family is responsible for the trafficking of
leukocytes to maintain a correctly functioning immune system (1-3). Members of both the Chemokines mediate their biological effects through seven
transmembrane-spanning, G-protein-coupled receptors, which also serve
as the coreceptor with CD4 for HIV-1 infection. Cellular migration is a
consequence of several signaling events, and many intracellular changes
such as actin polymerization, shape change, and receptor polarization
are implicated (4). Many investigations have shown the importance of
the amino-terminal region of the chemokine proteins for receptor
activation via G-protein-coupled signal transduction. Several members
of the CXC family have a three-residue motif, ELR
(Glu-Leu-Arg), preceding the first two cysteines that is essential for
receptor binding and for neutrophil chemotactic activity. Truncation of
the first 5 residues, so that the arginine preceding the CXC
motif of interleukin-8 is retained, produces a receptor antagonist (5)
although activity of this antagonist has not been reported in
vivo. Similarly modification of the amino-terminal region in
several CC chemokines produces proteins with antagonistic properties.
Deletion of the first 8 residues of RANTES results in a protein that is
unable to mobilize calcium or to induce chemotaxis and is able to
antagonize the response of the ligands that bind to RANTES receptors
(6). A similar truncation of MCP-1 also produces a protein antagonist (7, 8). Extension of the amino-terminal region of RANTES, by the
retention of the initiating methionine residue when the recombinant
protein is produced in Escherichia coli, produces a
nanomolar potent antagonist of monocyte migration, Met-RANTES (9).
Similarly the chemical coupling of a five-carbon alkyl chain to the
oxidized amino-terminal serine results in AOP-RANTES which is a potent
inhibitor of HIV-1 infection of CCR5-using strains (10). Such chemokine
receptor antagonists have been shown to prevent cellular recruitment in
several murine models of inflammation (11-14).
Ligand binding triggers phosphorylation of the carboxyl terminus of the
receptor by serine/threonine kinases which leads to receptor
endocytosis. Chemokine receptor endocytosis is independent of
G-protein coupling (15). Met-RANTES is unable to induce significant endocytosis of CCR1 (16) and CCR5 (17), whereas AOP-RANTES has recently
been shown to be more potent than RANTES in receptor activation
resulting in CCR5 receptor endocytosis (17). Down-regulation from the
cell surface of chemokine receptors that function as coreceptors for
HIV infection has been proposed to be a key mechanism for the
inhibitory effects of these chemokines on HIV-1 cell entry (15,
17).
We have further investigated the abilities of the modified chemokines
Met-RANTES and AOP-RANTES to activate receptors via the
G-protein-coupled pathways both in cell lines overexpressing recombinant receptors as well in primary leukocytes. Our results show
that the ability of Met-RANTES or AOP-RANTES to elicit functional responses in eosinophils is donor-dependent and in
monocytes is dependent on their differentiation into the macrophage
phenotype. We therefore investigated their abilities to induce
chemotaxis on cell lines transfected with each of the known RANTES
receptors. In these systems AOP-RANTES is a full agonist for activation
of CCR5-bearing cells but is weaker in activating CCR1 and CCR3. Met-RANTES has only weak activity on all three RANTES receptors.
Reagents--
Unless otherwise stated, all chemicals were
purchased from Sigma. Enzymes were from New England Biolabs, and
chromatographic material was from Amersham Pharmacia Biotech. The
anti-CCR5 mAb (clone MC-1) was a kind gift of Dr. Matthias Mack.
Recombinant Chemokines--
RANTES and MIP-1 Stably Transfected Cell Lines Expressing CC Chemokine
Receptors--
CHO stably transfected cells with CCR1, CCR3, and CCR5
were produced as described (19). CCR1, CCR3, and CCR5 L1.2 cell
transfectants were generated as described previously (20).
Competition Equilibrium Binding Assays--
The affinities of
Met-RANTES and AOP-RANTES for CCR1 and CCR3 was determined by a
scintillation proximity assay (SPA) using membranes prepared from CHO
cells expressing the appropriate CC chemokine receptor as described
(19). Briefly, 2 µg of membrane were incubated with 0.1 nM 125I-MIP-1 Receptor Expression--
mRNA for
Cell surface expression of CCR5 was determined by flow cytometry using
the monoclonal anti-CCR5 antibody MC-1 as described (17).
Calcium Mobilization--
The release of intracellular calcium
stores was carried out as described previously (21).
Chemotaxis--
Monocyte chemotaxis was carried out using the
micro-Boyden chamber assay essentially as described (21). Monocytes
were purified from buffy coats using the following isolation procedure:
100 ml of buffy coat solution was diluted with 100 ml of PBS, layered on Ficoll, and centrifuged at 600 × g for 20 min at
room temperature. The cells forming the interface were collected,
washed twice with PBS, and resuspended at a concentration of
40-100 × 106/ml in RPMI 1640 medium containing 5%
inactivated fetal calf serum, 2 mM glutamine, and 25 mM HEPES, pH 7.2. They were further purified from the
lymphocyte fraction by adding 106 sheep red blood cells/ml,
rosetted overnight at 4 °C, and separated by a second Ficoll
gradient centrifugation at 900 × g for 20 min at room
temperature. The monocytes were washed in PBS and resuspended at
2.5 × 106/ml in RPMI 1640 medium. The purity was
measured by forward and side scatter by fluorescence-activated cell
sorter analysis and was found to be 40-80% depending on the donor.
Eosinophil chemotaxis was carried out as described previously (22).
Eosinophils were purified from freshly drawn venous blood. The blood
was mixed with acidic dextran containing anti-coagulant (0.4% citric
acid, 1.3% sodium citrate, 1.5% dextrose, and 25 mM EDTA)
prior to centrifugation at 500 × g for 20 min at room temperature. The plasma and white buffy coat fractions were discarded, and the remaining blood cell sediment was mixed with an equal volume of
gelatin solution (2.5%, w/v, in 0.9% NaCl) previously warmed to
37 °C and incubated at 37 °C for 30 min. The yellowish supernatant containing polymorphonuclear leukocytes and a few red blood
cells was collected and centrifuged for 10 min at room temperature, and
the cells were washed twice with ice-cold PBS. The eosinophils were
separated by centrifugation on a discontinuous gradient of isotonic
Percoll solutions (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech) prepared by using 1.5 ml
of Percoll solutions with densities of 1.075, 1.077, 1.0785, 1.080, 1.0825, and 1.085 g/ml in 15-ml polystyrene tubes. The crude
polymorphonuclear leukocytes preparation was layered on the top of the
gradient and centrifuged for 900 × g for 10 min at
room temperature. Cells were collected from each interface and aliquots
stained with eosin to identify the purity of each eosinophil
preparation. Fractions containing >90% eosinophils were collected,
and the remaining contaminating red blood cells were lysed with aqueous
0.4% NH4Cl, pH 7.4, prior to use in chemotaxis assays.
Chemotaxis assays with CCR1, CCR3, and CCR5 L1/2 cell transfectants
were performed in 24-well Biocoat transwell chemotaxis plates (Costar
Corp., Cambridge, MA) as described previously (20). Incubation was for
5 h, and data points were performed in duplicate.
Competition Equilibrium Binding Assays--
The extension of the
amino terminus of RANTES does not abolish the capacity to bind to the
three RANTES receptors, CCR1, CCR3, and CCR5. We have previously
reported that Met-RANTES retains its binding to CCR1 (9) and that both
modified chemokines retain their high affinity binding to CCR5 (10).
Although AOP-RANTES binds to CCR5 with classical monophasic binding
properties, RANTES and Met-RANTES display biphasic displacement of the
tracer. We have now compared the affinity of RANTES, AOP-RANTES, and
Met-RANTES for CCR1 and CCR3 in a membrane-based scintillation
proximity assay (SPA) shown in Fig. 1.
AOP-RANTES has a comparable affinity to RANTES on CCR1, displaying an
IC50 of 2 nM compared with 1.7 nM
for RANTES, whereas Met-RANTES has a lower affinity with an IC50 of 30 nM as previously reported (9). For
CCR3, using 125I-MCP-3 as tracer to avoid the difficulties
encountered using RANTES as tracer (23), we were not able to obtain the
high affinity reported by Daugherty et al. (24) but obtained
similar results to those reported by Ponath et al. (20)
using heterologous competition. RANTES showed an IC50 value
of 100 nM, and consistent with CCR1, Met-RANTES had a
lowered affinity with an IC50 value of 360 nM. AOP-RANTES showed a higher affinity with an IC50 value of
32 nM.
mRNA Receptor Expression in Monocytes and
Eosinophils--
mRNA for CCR1, CCR2, CCR3, CCR4, and CCR5
was analyzed in monocytes and eosinophils by RT-PCR. mRNA was
detected for the five receptors in monocytes from three separate donors
(Fig. 2A). However, in
eosinophils from a hypereosinophilic, but non-atopic patient, only CCR3
and CCR1 were detected (Fig. 2B) as has been previously reported (20, 24), whereas in eosinophils from an allergic patient,
mRNA for receptors CCR1, CCR2, CCR3, CCR4, and CCR5 was detected
(Fig. 2C).
Ligand-induced Monocyte Responses--
The migration of freshly
isolated monocytes in response to five chemokines was tested as
follows: RANTES for CCR1, CCR3, and CCR5 activity; MCP-1 for CCR2;
eotaxin for CCR3; TARC for CCR4, and MIP-1
Monocytes prepared from all donors showed a robust calcium mobilization
in response to RANTES and MCP-1 in accordance with their efficacy in
inducing monocyte migration, whereas eotaxin, TARC, and MIP-1 Antagonism of Chemotaxis--
The ability of Met-RANTES and
AOP-RANTES to antagonize chemotaxis was investigated against ligands
with different receptor usage. Both proteins were able to antagonize
RANTES-induced chemotaxis of freshly isolated monocytes. Met-RANTES
inhibited RANTES-induced monocyte chemotaxis with an IC50
of 11 nM, whereas AOP-RANTES was more potent with an
IC50 of 1.4 nM (Fig.
4A).
Met-RANTES was inefficient at inhibiting the response induced by
ligands which are specific for CCR3. Inhibition of eotaxin-induced monocyte chemotaxis was only observed at high concentrations showing an
IC50 of 150 nM (Fig. 4B), and it was
almost ineffective at antagonizing the eosinophil chemotaxis induced by
eotaxin, although it was able to efficiently inhibit eosinophil
chemotaxis induced by RANTES with an IC50 of 30 nM (Fig. 5). However, it was
able to weakly inhibit MCP-3-induced eosinophil chemotaxis with an IC50 of 330 nM. AOP-RANTES, in accordance with
its greater affinity for CCR3 than Met-RANTES, was able to inhibit
eotaxin-induced monocyte chemotaxis (Fig. 4B) with nanomolar
potency (IC50 of 1 nM) and eotaxin-induced
eosinophil chemotaxis with an IC50 of 45 nM
(Fig. 5).
In accordance with the retention of high affinity binding of both
Met-RANTES and AOP-RANTES for CCR5, they were both able to efficiently
inhibit MIP-1 Leukocyte Responses to Met-RANTES and AOP-RANTES--
The ability
of Met-RANTES and AOP-RANTES to induce monocyte chemotaxis was
investigated with cells isolated from 3 and 6 donors, respectively, in
comparison to the chemotaxis induced by RANTES (Fig.
6, A and B). The
chemotaxis index observed with RANTES varied from 4 to 11 depending on
the donor. No response was observed for both modified proteins in
almost all of the donors tested, with the exception of one donor whose
monocytes responded only to AOP-RANTES with a chemotaxis index of 3.7, compared with 6 for RANTES using cells from the same donor in the same
experiment.
Eosinophil chemotaxis was similarly tested from several donors. Of the
8 donors tested, the eosinophils from 3 donors did not respond to
Met-RANTES (Fig. 6C). The remaining 6 patients showed a
small response that did not exceed 20% of the response induced by
RANTES on the eosinophils from the same donor. Similarly, AOP-RANTES
showed no activity on eosinophils from one donor out of the four
tested, whereas it induced a small response in two others. However, in
the fourth donor, AOP-RANTES induced a chemotactic response equivalent
to that induced by RANTES (Fig. 6D).
Receptor Activation in Recombinant Transfected Cell
Lines--
Both Met-RANTES and AOP-RANTES tested at 100 nM
were able to induce a calcium response in CHO cells expressing CCR1,
CCR3, and CCR5 (Fig. 7a).
However, the kinetics of the response elicited by the modified proteins
was significantly slower than that elicited by RANTES, with the
exception of AOP-RANTES on the CHO/CCR5 cell line. Chemokines generally
elicit a robust response within 2-4 s, whereas the response elicited
by the amino-terminally modified proteins required 8-10 s (Fig.
7b). It is therefore difficult to judge whether the
concentration of calcium mobilized reflects the actual activity of
these modified proteins measured in this assay or is in fact an
overestimate.
The ability of Met-RANTES and AOP-RANTES to elicit cellular migration
through the three RANTES receptors was investigated using the murine
pre-B cell line L1.2, transfected with the individual receptors (Fig.
8). Met-RANTES was inactive on CCR1 and
CCR3 but showed weak activity on CCR5 with significantly reduced
potency. AOP-RANTES was able to induce a response comparable to wild
type RANTES through CCR5 (Fig. 8C). Furthermore, this
derivative was more potent than Met-RANTES on the two other receptors,
since it showed moderate efficacy on CCR3 (Fig. 8B), but
less on CCR1 (Fig. 8A).
Cell Surface CCR5 Expression on Differentiating
Monocytes--
Cell surface expression was investigated for CCR5 on
monocytes using the monoclonal antibody, MC-1. No CCR5 was detectable by flow cytometry on freshly isolated monocytes from four separate donors (data not shown). After 24 h in culture, as the cells
became adherent, half the population showed surface CCR5 expression, whereas after 48 h, CCR5 surface expression was detectable on the
entire monocyte-derived macrophage culture (Fig.
9a).
The modification of the amino terminus of RANTES by the
addition of either a single amino acid due to the retention of the initiating methionine in recombinant RANTES (Met-RANTES) expressed in
E. coli (9) or by the chemical coupling of a penta-carbon alkyl chain (AOP-RANTES) (10) results in proteins that are able to
inhibit agonist-induced activities with nanomolar potency in vitro. AOP-RANTES has been shown to be the most potent inhibitor of HIV-1 infection mediated by CCR5 reported to date (10, 25). Met-RANTES has been shown to significantly reduce the inflammatory symptoms in several animal models of inflammation including crescentic glomerular nephritis (11), rheumatoid arthritis (12), airways inflammation (26), and organ transplant rejection (14).
These proteins were initially described as being inactive in calcium
mobilization and chemotaxis assays in the pro-monocytic cell line,
THP-1 (9), and on freshly isolated monocytes (10). However they retain
the ability to activate certain cellular responses. AOP-RANTES is more
active than RANTES in inducing CCR5 internalization (17). Receptor
endocytosis is known to be an agonist-mediated event involving G
protein-coupled receptor kinase-mediated phosphorylation of the
carboxyl-terminal region (27) but does not involve the classical
G-protein-linked cascade (15). Another modified RANTES protein, which
is produced by the truncation of the first 8 amino acids to form
RANTES-(9-68), is also able to mediate receptor internalization (15)
but, in contrast to AOP-RANTES, is reported to be devoid of the ability
to induce calcium mobilization and chemotaxis. From these observations
it can be concluded that modification of the amino terminus of RANTES
disturbs its ability to fully activate certain signaling events, while
not affecting other receptor activation states that lead to events such
as receptor internalization.
We have shown here that both Met-RANTES and AOP-RANTES are in fact
capable of mediating calcium mobilization in CHO cells overexpressing
RANTES receptors. However, the efficacy of these modified ligands
should be interpreted with caution due to the difference in the
kinetics of the response. The natural ligands induce a rapid, robust
response to attain a certain magnitude of calcium influx, whereas the
amount of calcium influx reported for the modified proteins requires a
2-3-fold increase in time of response, with the exception of
AOP-RANTES activation of CCR5. This untypical response induced by these
modified proteins could therefore lead to an overestimation of the
calcium mobilized from internal stores typical of chemokine activity
and could be in part the result of the opening of membrane calcium
channels through alternative signal transduction mechanisms.
Calcium mobilization induced by the modified RANTES proteins was not
detectable in primary cells, but this could be attributed to the
sensitivity of the method used. We have observed that calcium mobilization cannot be detected in freshly isolated monocytes in
response to eotaxin, TARC, and MIP-1 AOP-RANTES is unable to induce a calcium response in monocytes before
the cells become adherent, and the ability of this protein to induce
the response coincides with the ability to detect cell surface CCR5
expression by flow cytometry. Since RANTES is able to induce a robust
calcium response in freshly isolated monocytes, presumably it does so
through one of the other receptors, such as CCR1. It has been
previously reported that circulating monocytes do not express
detectable levels of surface CCR5 which is rapidly up-regulated as the
cells differentiate into macrophages (28-30). This is particularly
relevant for HIV infection since HIV viral particles are not detected
in circulating monocytes (31), whereas resident tissue macrophages are
thought to be one of first targets of the HIV virus during transmission
(32).
By using L1.2 transfectants, we have shown that the modified proteins
are able to activate the RANTES receptors CCR1, CCR3, and CCR5 to
mediate chemotaxis with varying efficiency. Met-RANTES is the least
active, showing only minimal activity on CCR5, whereas AOP-RANTES is
very poor at activating CCR1, has half the activity of RANTES on CCR3,
but is fully active on CCR5. However, AOP-RANTES is only on rare
occasions able to mediate the chemotaxis of primary cells. Although
monocytes do have functional CCR5 as shown by the ability of MIP-1 The differential expression of chemokine receptors has been addressed
recently by several laboratories. Here we show by the occasional
reactivity of certain leukocytes to AOP-RANTES in in vitro
chemotaxis assays that Met-RANTES has been reported to prevent the recruitment of eosinophils
into the airways following ovalbumin challenge in ovalbumin-sensitized mice (1, 26). In view of the fact that Met-RANTES has a reduced affinity for CCR3 and is also very poor at inhibiting human
eotaxin-mediated chemotaxis, as well as murine eosinophil chemotaxis
induced by eotaxin,3 it must
mediate the inhibition of eosinophil recruitment by a different
mechanism. Either the inhibition is mediated by another RANTES receptor such as CCR1, CCR5, or another as yet
unknown RANTES receptor or, alternatively, the effect is indirect.
Since it also reduces the recruitment of lymphocytes in vivo
(11), the production of specific eosinophil chemoattractants in
situ may be modulated.
The potent antagonistic effects of Met-RANTES and AOP-RANTES in
inhibiting inflammation and HIV infection, respectively, render them
candidates as potential therapeutic agents. Here we have shown that
both modified proteins have partial agonist activity and that
AOP-RANTES is fully active on CCR5. These observations are important
when considering their application therapeutically. However, a report
of the systemic administration of recombinant fully active MIP-1 We thank M. Mack for the anti-CCR5 antibody,
MC-1, and A. Meyer and B. Dufour for excellent technical assistance.
*
The costs of publication of this
article were defrayed in part by the
payment of page charges. The article
must therefore be hereby marked
"advertisement" in
accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section
1734 solely to indicate this fact.
§
To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel.: 41 22 706 98 00;
Fax: 41 22 794 69 65; E-mail: amanda.proudfoot@serono.com.
2
N. Lukacs, personal communication.
3
A. J. Coyle, personal communication.
The abbreviations used are:
MCP, monocyte
chemoattractant protein;
RANTES, regulated on activated normal T-cell
expressed;
MIP, macrophage inflammatory protein;
TARC, thymus and
activation-regulated chemokine;
AOP-RANTES, aminooxypentane-RANTES,
SPA, scintillation proximity assay;
HIV, human immunodeficiency virus;
PBS, phosphate-buffered saline;
RT-PCR, reverse
transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction;
CHO, Chinese hamster ovary;
mAb, monoclonal antibody.
Amino-terminally Modified RANTES Analogues Demonstrate
Differential Effects on RANTES Receptors*
§,
,
,
,
,
, and
Serono Pharmaceutical Research Institute,
14 Chemin des Aulx, 1228 Plan-les-Ouates, Geneva, Switzerland,
¶ LeukoSite Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142, the
** Department of Dermatology and Allergology, University of Kiel,
Kiel, Germany, and
Département de Biochimie
Médicale, Centre Medical Universitaire, Geneva
1228, Switzerland
![]()
ABSTRACT
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
![]()
INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
- and
-subclasses of chemokines may be
expressed constitutively and have been shown to be responsible for
leukocyte homing, whereas many others are inducible and have been shown to be up-regulated in inflammatory conditions, both in human disease as
well as animal models of inflammation. Inflammatory chemokines include
members of the MCP1 and MIP
families, as well as the closely related proteins, RANTES and eotaxin.
![]()
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
were purified as
described (18); Met-RANTES was produced according to Ref. 9, and the
chemical conjugate AOP-RANTES was produced as described (10).
125I-MIP-1
and 125I-MCP-3 were obtained from
Amersham Pharmacia Biotech. MIP-1
, MCP-3, and eotaxin were purchased
from PeproTech.
for CCR1 and 0.1 nM 125I-MCP-3 for CCR3 and increasing
concentrations of the unlabeled chemokine upon agitation for 4 h
at room temperature.
-chemokine receptors
CCR1, CCR2, CCR3, CCR4, and CCR5 in freshly isolated monocytes and
eosinophils was detected by RT-PCR. Total RNA was isolated from
eosinophils and monocytes using TrizolTM (Life
Technologies, Inc.). Reverse transcriptase reactions were performed on
1 µg of RNA using an oligo(dT) primer with the
SuperscriptTM preamplification system (Life Technologies,
Inc.). One-twentieth of the reverse transcriptase reaction mixture was
then subjected to 35 cycles of PCR (2 min at 94 °C; 2 min at
55 °C, and 2 min at 72 °C) using AmplitaqTM
(Perkin-Elmer) in a 50-µl reaction mixture containing 50 pmol of
sense and antisense primer pairs for the CC chemokine receptors CCR1,
CCR2, CCR3, CCR4, and CCR5, and GAPDH as a control for the quality of
the cDNA used in each PCR reaction, in an MJ Research DNA engine.
Primers were designed to amplify the full coding sequence (~1.1 kb),
based on the receptor sequences obtained from the GenBankTM
data base. The predicted size of the GAPDH product was 1 kb. In
addition, control PCR reactions were performed with each primer pair on
RNA samples that had been incubated in the absence of reverse
transcriptase (results not shown). The identity of PCR products
migrating at the predicted size was verified following gel purification
using a Wizard PCR preps kit (Promega), by direct sequencing using the
same primers as for the PCR reaction, in an ABI 377 DNA sequencer.
![]()
RESULTS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

View larger version (18K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 1.
Equilibrium competition binding assays using
membranes prepared from CHO transfectants. The assays were carried
out using the SPA as described in the text. A, competition
of 125I-MIP-1
binding to CHO/CCR1 membranes by
increasing concentrations of RANTES (
), Met-RANTES (
), and
AOP-RANTES (
). B, competition of 125I-MCP-3
binding to CHO/CCR3 membranes by increasing concentrations of MCP-3
(
) RANTES (
), Met-RANTES (
), and AOP-RANTES (
).

View larger version (73K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 2.
RT-PCR expression of CCR1, CCR2, CCR3, CCR4,
and CCR5 in monocytes and eosinophils. A, monocytes;
B, eosinophils isolated from a hypereosinophilic, non-atopic
donor; and C, eosinophils isolated from an allergic
donor.
for CCR5, in order to
investigate functional receptor expression. Monocytes from four donors
tested responded to these ligands in separate experiments (Fig.
3a). The migration was
greatest in response to RANTES and MCP-1, showing chemotaxis indices of 5 and 7, respectively, whereas the CCR3-, CCR4-, and CCR5-mediated responses induced by their respective ligands resulted in lower efficacies ranging between 3 and 4.

View larger version (17K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 3.
Functional responses of monocytes to
RANTES, MCP-1, eotaxin, TARC, and MIP-1
.
a, Boyden chamber assays of chemotaxis induced by MCP-1,
RANTES, eotaxin, TARC, and MIP-1
were performed as described in the
text. The results shown are the average of four separate experiments
with cells from four donors. b, calcium mobilization
measured in Fura-2-AM-loaded monocytes. The results shown are a
representative set from four separate experiments.
were
unable to elicit a response (Fig. 3b). Met-RANTES and
AOP-RANTES were unable to stimulate calcium mobilization in freshly
isolated monocytes from all donors (results not shown). However, after
24 h in culture, AOP-RANTES was able to induce a robust calcium
response in a dose-related manner in monocytes, and this response was
significantly greater after 48 h in culture (Fig. 9b).
Met-RANTES was not tested in view of its weak activity on all RANTES receptors.

View larger version (19K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 4.
Antagonism of monocyte chemotaxis by
Met-RANTES and AOP-RANTES. Chemotaxis was carried out by the
Boyden chamber assay as described in the text. The concentrations of
the agonists were fixed at 10 nM. A, RANTES;
B, eotaxin; C, MIP-1
-induced chemotaxis. The
antagonists Met-RANTES (
) and AOP-RANTES (
) were placed in the
lower chamber, and the average of 3 experiments for eotaxin, 8 experiments for MIP-1
, and 10 experiments for RANTES are
shown.

View larger version (22K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 5.
Antagonism of eosinophil chemotaxis by
Met-RANTES and AOP-RANTES. 10 nM agonist was incubated
with the antagonist in the lower chamber. Met-RANTES inhibition of
RANTES (
), eotaxin (
), and MCP-3 (
) and AOP-RANTES inhibition
of eotaxin (
).
-induced monocyte chemotaxis with IC50
values of 1.0 and 2.3 nM, respectively (Fig.
4C).

View larger version (29K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 6.
Leukocyte chemotaxis induced by RANTES,
Met-RANTES, and AOP-RANTES. Monocyte chemotaxis induced by
Met-RANTES (
) (A) on monocytes from three donors and
AOP-RANTES (
) from seven donors (B). Two separate
experiments were performed with cells from each donor with data points
in triplicate. The chemotactic index for RANTES-induced chemotaxis
ranged from 6 to 12. The RANTES (
) dose response of the donor whose
monocytes responded to AOP-RANTES is shown in B. Eosinophil
chemotaxis induced by Met-RANTES (
) on eosinophils from eight donors
(C) and AOP-RANTES (
) from four donors (D).
The chemotactic index for RANTES-induced chemotaxis ranged from 2.5 to
5. The RANTES (
) dose response of the donor whose eosinophils
responded to AOP-RANTES is shown in D.

View larger version (27K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 7.
Calcium mobilization in CHO
transfectants. The concentration of the ligands was 100 nM. A, RANTES (open bars); AOP-RANTES
(gray bars); Met-RANTES (cross-hatched bars);
eotaxin (hatched bars). B, calcium mobilization
in CHO/CCRI cells induced by 100 nM RANTES (dotted
line) and 100 nM Met-RANTES (solid
line).

View larger version (18K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 8.
Chemotactic activity of RANTES, Met-RANTES,
and AOP-RANTES on CCR1, CCR3, and CCR5 L1.2 cell transfectants.
A, L1.2 cells expressing CCR1, B, L1.2 cells
expressing CCR3, C, L1.2 cells expressing CCR5. Chemotaxis
was carried out in 24-well Biocoat chemotaxis plates with an incubation
time of 5 h. The results shown are a representative experiment of
3 separate experiments with data points in duplicate. Chemotaxis was
induced by RANTES (
), AOP-RANTES (
), and Met-RANTES (
).

View larger version (20K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 9.
The correlation of CCR5 surface expression
with the ability of AOP-RANTES to induce a calcium response in
monocytes. A, analysis of surface CCR5 by flow
cytometry using the monoclonal anti-CCR5 MC-1 antibody. The
shaded area represents background staining with secondary
antibody alone, and the open areas represent CCR5-positive
cells. B, the induction of calcium mobilization by
AOP-RANTES upon isolation (
), after 24 h in culture (
), and
after 48 h in culture (
).
![]()
DISCUSSION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
, yet the mRNA for CCR3, -4, and -5 is detectable by RT-PCR. In contrast monocytes are able to
respond to these ligands in the chemotaxis assays indicating that the
appropriate receptors are expressed on the cell surface but possibly at
levels too low to allow detectable calcium mobilization. RANTES and
MCP-1, which induced a robust calcium response, were significantly more
efficacious than eotaxin and TARC, which were not able to induce
calcium, in mediating chemotaxis. Although freshly isolated monocytes
had undetectable levels of CCR5 using the mAb MC-1, the specific CCR5
ligand MIP-1
induced a robust chemotactic response, and it was not
able to mediate calcium. We therefore hypothesize that fewer surface
receptors are required for cellular migration than for the mobilization
of calcium when measured using Fura-2-AM-loaded cells.
to induce chemotaxis of these cells, AOP-RANTES is unable to do so
despite its full activity on the L1.2/CCR5 transfectants. The
possibility remains that AOP-RANTES can only activate a certain
conformer of CCR5, which has been recently shown to adopt multiple
conformational states (33) and that MIP-1
is less sensitive to the
different conformational states.
-chemokine receptor expression varies considerably from donor to donor and may depend on the health state of
the individual. The up-regulation of certain chemokine receptors by
cytokine treatment in vitro was first reported by Loetscher
et al. (34) who showed that in T lymphocytes interleukin-2 was able to significantly affect the levels of CCR1 and -2. Similarly, human neutrophils do not respond to MIP-1
and eotaxin, but treatment with inflammatory stimuli such as interferon-
leads to up-regulation of CCR1 and CCR3 rendering these cells responsive to their ligands (35). Differential chemokine receptor expression has also been noticed
in eosinophils using a murine model of airways inflammation following
sensitization with cockroach antigen (36). In this model, circulating
eosinophils express predominantly CCR3 and CCR1, whereas the
eosinophils that have been recruited into the airways express CCR2, -4, and -5 in addition to CCR1 and
CCR3.2 Although the
expression of CCR5 on human eosinophils reported here was only detected
on a single patient and is shown at the mRNA level, the reactivity
of AOP-RANTES in a different allergic patient could indicate that CCR5
can be expressed in eosinophils in certain individuals. We are
currently screening eosinophils from a panel of donors for CCR5
expression with anti-CCR5 mAbs.
in
a clinical trial showed no inflammatory side effects (37). We therefore
conclude that the chemoattractant property of chemokines does not
necessarily induce inflammation per se, but accessory
signals may be required. This hypothesis is substantiated by data from
transgenic mice engineered to overexpress a chemokine ligand such as
MCP-1 (38). In conclusion, the data presented here must be taken into
consideration when envisaging such a therapeutic strategy. We are
currently investigating the effects of administration of higher doses
of these modified chemokines than those reported to date in animal
models of inflammation.
![]()
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
![]()
FOOTNOTES
![]()
ABBREVIATIONS
![]()
REFERENCES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
1.
Wells, T. N. C.,
Power, C. A.,
and Proudfoot, A. E. I.
(1998)
Trends Pharmacol. Sci.
19,
376-380[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
2.
Luster, A. D.
(1998)
N. Engl. J. Med.
338,
436-445 3.
Rollins, B. J.
(1997)
Blood
90,
909-928 4.
Nieto, M.,
Frade, J. M.,
Sancho, D.,
Mellado, M.,
Martinez, A. C.,
and Sanchez-Madrid, F.
(1997)
J. Exp. Med.
186,
153-158 5.
Moser, B.,
Dewald, B.,
Barella, L.,
Schumacher, C.,
Baggiolini, M.,
and Clark-Lewis, I.
(1993)
J. Biol. Chem.
268,
7125-7128 6.
Gong, J. H.,
Uguccioni, M.,
Dewald, B.,
Baggiolini, M.,
and Clark-Lewis, I.
(1996)
J. Biol. Chem.
271,
10521-10527 7.
Gong, J. H.,
and Clark-Lewis, I.
(1995)
J. Exp. Med.
181,
631-640 8.
Zhang, Y.,
and Rollins, B. J.
(1995)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
15,
4851-4855[Abstract]
9.
Proudfoot, A. E. I.,
Power, C. A.,
Hoogewerf, A. J.,
Montjovent, M.-O.,
Borlat, F.,
Offord, R. E.,
and Wells, T. N. C.
(1996)
J. Biol. Chem.
271,
2599-2603 10.
Simmons, G.,
Clapham, P. R.,
Picard, L.,
Offord, R. E.,
Rosenkilde, M. M.,
Schwartz, T. W.,
Buser, R.,
Wells, T. N. C.,
and Proudfoot, A. E. I.
(1997)
Science
276,
276-279 11.
Lloyd, C. M.,
Minto, A. W.,
Dorf, M. E.,
Proudfoot, A. E. I.,
Wells, T. N. C.,
Salant, D. J.,
and Gutierrez-Ramos, J. C.
(1997)
J. Exp. Med.
185,
1371-1380 12.
Plater-Zyberk, C.,
Hoogewerf, A. J.,
Proudfoot, A. E. I.,
Power, C. A.,
and Wells, T. N. C.
(1997)
Immunol. Lett.
57,
117-120[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
13.
Gong, J. H.,
Ratkay, L. G.,
Waterfield, J. D.,
and Clark-Lewis, I.
(1997)
J. Exp. Med.
186,
131-137 14.
Gröne, H.-J.,
Weber, C.,
Weber, K. S. C.,
Gröne, E. F.,
Rabelink, T.,
Klier, C. M.,
Wells, T. N. C.,
Proudfoot, A. E. I.,
Schlondorff, D.,
and Nelson, P. J.
(1999)
FASEB J.
13,
1371-1383 15.
Amara, A.,
Gall, S. L.,
Schwartz, O.,
Salamero, J.,
Montes, M.,
Loetscher, P.,
Baggiolini, M.,
Virelizier, J. L.,
and Arenzana, S. F.
(1997)
J. Exp. Med.
186,
139-146 16.
Solari, R.,
Offord, R. E.,
Remy, S.,
Aubry, J.-P.,
Wells, T. N. C.,
Whitehorn, E.,
Oung, T.,
and Proudfoot, A. E. I.
(1997)
J. Biol. Chem.
272,
9617-9620 17.
Mack, M.,
Luckow, B.,
Nelson, P. J.,
Cihak, J.,
Simmons, G.,
Clapham, P. R.,
Signoret, N.,
Marsh, M.,
Stangassinger, M.,
Borlat, F.,
Wells, T. N. C.,
Schlondorff, D.,
and Proudfoot, A. E. I.
(1998)
J. Exp. Med.
187,
1215-1224 18.
Proudfoot, A. E. I.,
Power, C. A.,
Hoogewerf, A.,
Montjovent, M. O.,
Borlat, F.,
and Wells, T. N. C.
(1995)
FEBS Lett.
376,
19-23[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
19.
Coulin, F.,
Power, C. A.,
Alouani, S.,
Peitsch, M. C.,
Schroeder, J. M.,
Moshizuki, M.,
Clark-Lewis, I.,
and Wells, T. N. C.
(1997)
Eur. J. Biochem.
248,
507-515[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
20.
Ponath, P. D.,
Qin, S.,
Post, T. W.,
Wang, J.,
Wu, L.,
Gerard, N. P.,
Newman, W.,
Gerard, C.,
and Mackay, C. R.
(1996)
J. Exp. Med.
183,
2437-2448 21.
Lusti-Narasimhan, M.,
Power, C. A.,
Allet, B.,
Alouani, S.,
Bacon, K. B.,
Mermod, J.-J.,
Proudfoot, A. E. I.,
and Wells, T. N. C.
(1995)
J. Biol. Chem.
270,
2716-2721 22.
Schroder, J. M.
(1997)
Methods Enzymol.
288,
266-297[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
23.
Neote, K.,
DiGregorio, D.,
Mak, J. Y.,
Horuk, R.,
and Schall, T. J.
(1993)
Cell
72,
415-425[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
24.
Daugherty, B. L.,
Siciliano, S. J.,
DeMartino, J. A.,
Malkowitz, L.,
Sirotina, A.,
and Springer, M. S.
(1996)
J. Exp. Med.
183,
2349-2354 25.
Kledal, T. N.,
Rosenkilde, M. M.,
Coulin, F.,
Simmons, G.,
Johnsen, A. H.,
Alouani, S.,
Power, C. A.,
Luttichau, H. R.,
Gerstoft, J.,
Clapham, P. R.,
Clark-Lewis, I.,
Wells, T. N. C.,
and Schwartz, T. W.
(1997)
Science
277,
1656-1659 26.
Gonzalo, J. A.,
Lloyd, C. M.,
Albar, J. P.,
Wen, D.,
Wells, T. N. C.,
Proudfoot, A. E. I.,
Martinez-A, C.,
Bjerke, T.,
Coyle, A. J.,
and Gutierrez-Ramos, J. C.
(1998)
J. Exp. Med.
188,
157-167 27.
Koenig, J. A.,
and Edwardson, J. M.
(1997)
Trends Pharmacol. Sci.
18,
276-287[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
28.
Wu, L.,
Paxton, W. A.,
Kassam, N.,
Ruffing, N.,
Rottman, J. B.,
Sullivan, N.,
Choe, H.,
Sodroski, J.,
Newman, W.,
Koup, R. A.,
and Mackay, C. R.
(1997)
J. Exp. Med.
185,
1681-1691 29.
Naif, H. M.,
Li, S.,
Alali, M.,
Sloane, A.,
Wu, L.,
Kelly, M.,
Lynch, G.,
Lloyd, A.,
and Cunningham, A. L.
(1998)
J. Virol.
72,
830-836 30.
Sozzani, S.,
Ghezzi, S.,
Iannolo, G.,
Luini, W.,
Borsatti, A.,
Polentarutti, N.,
Sica, A.,
Locati, M.,
Mackay, C.,
Wells, T. N. C.,
Biswas, P.,
Vicenzi, E.,
Poli, G.,
and Mantovani, A.
(1998)
J. Exp. Med.
187,
439-444 31.
Massari, F. E.,
Poli, G.,
Schnittman, S. M.,
Psallidopoulos, M. C.,
Davey, V.,
and Fauci, A. S.
(1990)
J. Immunol.
144,
4628-4632[Abstract]
32.
Proudfoot, A. E. I.,
Wells, T. N. C.,
and Clapham, P. R.
(1999)
Biochem. Pharmacol.
57,
451-463[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
33.
Lee, B.,
Sharron, M.,
Blanpain, C.,
Doranz, B. J.,
Vakili, J.,
Setoh, P.,
Berg, E.,
Liu, G.,
Guy, H. R.,
Durell, S. R.,
Parmentier, M.,
Chang, C. N.,
Price, K.,
Tsang, M.,
and Doms, R. W.
(1999)
J. Biol. Chem.
274,
9617-9626 34.
Loetscher, P.,
Seitz, M.,
Baggiolini, M.,
and Moser, B.
(1996)
J. Exp. Med.
184,
569-577 35.
Bonecchi, R.,
Polentarutti, N.,
Luini, W.,
Borsatti, A.,
Bernasconi, S.,
Locati, M.,
Power, C. A.,
Proudfoot, A. E. I.,
Wells, T. N. C.,
Mackay, C.,
Mantovani, A.,
and Sozzani, S.
(1999)
J. Immunol.
162,
474-479 36.
Campbell, E. M.,
Kunkel, S. L.,
Strieter, R. M.,
and Lukacs, N. W.
(1998)
J. Immunol.
161,
7047-7053 37.
Clemons, M. J.,
Marshall, E.,
Durig, J.,
Watanabe, K.,
Howell, A.,
Miles, D.,
Earl, H. K.,
Griffiths, A.,
Towlson, K.,
DeTakats, P.,
Testa, N. G.,
Dougal, M.,
Hunter, M. G.,
Wood, L. M.,
Czaplewski, L. G.,
Millar, A.,
Dexter, T. M.,
and Lord, B. I.
(1998)
Blood
92,
1532-1540 38.
Grewal, I. S.,
Rutledge, B. J.,
Fiorillo, J. A.,
Gu, L.,
Gladue, R. P.,
Flavell, R.,
and Rollins, B. J.
(1997)
J. Immunol.
159,
401-408[Abstract]
Copyright © 1999 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
V. Musante, F. Longordo, E. Neri, M. Pedrazzi, F. Kalfas, P. Severi, M. Raiteri, and A. Pittaluga RANTES Modulates the Release of Glutamate in Human Neocortex J. Neurosci., November 19, 2008; 28(47): 12231 - 12240. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. C. Jensen, S. Thiele, T. Ulven, T. W. Schwartz, and M. M. Rosenkilde Positive Versus Negative Modulation of Different Endogenous Chemokines for CC-chemokine Receptor 1 by Small Molecule Agonists through Allosteric Versus Orthosteric Binding J. Biol. Chem., August 22, 2008; 283(34): 23121 - 23128. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
T. Kenakin Functional Selectivity through Protean and Biased Agonism: Who Steers the Ship? Mol. Pharmacol., December 1, 2007; 72(6): 1393 - 1401. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. W. Choi, G. C. Hildebrandt, K. M. Olkiewicz, D. A. Hanauer, M. N. Chaudhary, I. A. Silva, C. E. Rogers, D. T. Deurloo, J. M. Fisher, C. Liu, et al. CCR1/CCL5 (RANTES) receptor-ligand interactions modulate allogeneic T-cell responses and graft-versus-host disease following stem-cell transplantation Blood, November 1, 2007; 110(9): 3447 - 3455. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
E. Cittera, M. Leidi, C. Buracchi, F. Pasqualini, S. Sozzani, A. Vecchi, J. D. Waterfield, M. Introna, and J. Golay The CCL3 Family of Chemokines and Innate Immunity Cooperate In Vivo in the Eradication of an Established Lymphoma Xenograft by Rituximab J. Immunol., May 15, 2007; 178(10): 6616 - 6623. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
N. F. Neel, L. A. Lapierre, J. R. Goldenring, and A. Richmond RhoB plays an essential role in CXCR2 sorting decisions J. Cell Sci., May 1, 2007; 120(9): 1559 - 1571. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. Vergote, G. S. Butler, M. Ooms, J. H. Cox, C. Silva, M. D. Hollenberg, J. H. Jhamandas, C. M. Overall, and C. Power Proteolytic processing of SDF-1{alpha} reveals a change in receptor specificity mediating HIV-associated neurodegeneration PNAS, December 12, 2006; 103(50): 19182 - 19187. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. K. Lim, W. Lu, O. Hartley, and A. L. DeVico N-terminal proteolytic processing by cathepsin G converts RANTES/CCL5 and related analogs into a truncated 4-68 variant J. Leukoc. Biol., December 1, 2006; 80(6): 1395 - 1404. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. M. Fox, P. Najarro, G. L. Smith, S. Struyf, P. Proost, and J. E. Pease Structure/Function Relationships of CCR8 Agonists and Antagonists: AMINO-TERMINAL EXTENSION OF CCL1 BY A SINGLE AMINO ACID GENERATES A PARTIAL AGONIST J. Biol. Chem., December 1, 2006; 281(48): 36652 - 36661. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Notohamiprodjo, R. Djafarzadeh, A. Mojaat, I. von Luttichau, H.-J. Grone, and P. J. Nelson Generation of GPI-linked CCL5 based chemokine receptor antagonists for the suppression of acute vascular damage during allograft transplantation Protein Eng. Des. Sel., January 1, 2006; 19(1): 27 - 35. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
|
|