Cell-type and Donor-specific Transcriptional Responses to
Interferon-
USE OF CUSTOMIZED GENE ARRAYS*,
Joerg F.
Schlaak
,
Catharien M. U.
Hilkens,
Ana P.
Costa-Pereira,
Birgit
Strobl§,
Fritz
Aberger¶,
Anna-Maria
Frischauf¶, and
Ian M.
Kerr
From the Cancer Research UK, London Research Institute, 44 Lincoln's Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PX, United Kingdom, the
§ Institure of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Veterinaerplatz
1, A-1210, Vienna, Austria, and the ¶ Institute of Genetics,
University of Salzburg, Hellbrunnerstr. 34, A-5020 Salzburg, Austria
Received for publication, June 5, 2002, and in revised form, October 15, 2002
 |
ABSTRACT |
A sensitive, specific, reproducible, robust, and
cost-effective customized cDNA array system based on established
nylon membrane technology has been developed for convenient multisample
expression profiling for several hundred genes of choice. The genes
represented are easily adjusted (depending on the availability of
corresponding cDNAs) and the method is accordingly readily
applicable to a wide variety of systems. Here we have focused on the
expression profiles for interferon-
2a, the most widely used
interferon for the treatment of viral hepatitis and malignancies, in
primary cells (peripheral blood mononuclear cells, T cells, and
dendritic cells) and cell lines (Kit255, HT1080, HepG2, and HuH7). Of
150 genes studied, only six were consistently induced in all cell types
and donors, whereas 74 genes were induced in at least one cell type.
IRF-7 was identified as the only gene exclusively induced in the
hematopoietic cells. No gene was exclusively induced in the
nonhematopoietic cell lines. In T cells 12, and in dendritic cells, 25 genes were induced in all donors whereas 45 and 42 genes, respectively,
were induced in at least one donor. The data suggest that signaling through IFN-
2 can be substantially modulated to yield significant cell-type and donor-specific qualitative and quantitative differences in gene expression in response to this cytokine under highly
standardized conditions.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
Type I (predominantly
and
) and type II (
)
IFNs1 play a central role in
mediating antiviral, antiproliferative, and immunomodulatory responses.
The pathways that are involved in IFN-induced gene expression include
specific type I and II receptors, JAKs and STATs (1). Upon ligand
binding, STATs form homo- or heterodimers through phosphotyrosine-SH2
interactions following activation by JAKs. Whereas STAT dimers bind to
-activated sequence elements, both STAT1-2 heterodimers and STAT1
homodimers bind to p48 (ISGF-3
/IRF-9) resulting in a trimer
that binds to interferon-stimulated regulatory elements in
promoters of responsive genes (2).
To date the gene expression profile induced by IFN-
2 has been
studied predominantly in fibrosarcoma and melanoma cell lines (3, 4).
Little is known about the transcriptional profiles for other cell lines
and nontransformed cells or of donor-specific differences. The
definition of cell-type and donor-specific quantitative and qualitative
differences is, however, central to a full understanding of the biology
of the IFNs and their mechanisms of action.
Approaches through expression profiling are also of potential clinical
importance. IFN-
2 is widely used in the treatment of diseases
including chronic viral hepatitis B and C and several malignancies (5,
6). Only a minority of patients, however, respond to this therapy (7).
The definition of gene expression profiles that correspond to
"response" or "nonresponse" should ultimately result in further
optimization of IFN treatment. Genes that are abnormally expressed in
"nonresponders" to IFN-
2 may define novel pharmacological
targets and provide further insight into the pathophysiology of the
underlying disease.
To address these questions it is critical to use read-out systems that
cover expression from a large number of genes. Technological advances
have made possible the simultaneous detection of thousands of gene
transcripts using small tissue or cell samples. These technologies
include DNA chips (high density oligoarrays (8, 9) or microarrays
(10)), differential display (11), differential cDNA arrays
(12-14), serial analysis of gene expression (15), and expressed
sequence tag data base comparison (16). These methods have been used to
analyze gene expression in colon, breast, ovarian, and renal cell
carcinomas, multiple sclerosis lesions, leukemic cells, and to monitor
gene expression in resting, activated, and anergic lymphocytes
(17-25). Although large scale array techniques are particularly useful
to give a broad view of gene expression changes between samples and to
discover "novel" genes that are induced by a particular cytokine or
drug, they are, in general, costly, labor intensive, and unsuitable for
the assay of multiple samples necessary for the detailed analysis of
cytokine responses. Appropriate, customized, nylon membrane-based
filter arrays, however, are attractive for precisely such analyses.
Here, we describe a customized cDNA array system that is specific,
sensitive, robust, reproducible, convenient to use, and cost-effective.
Using this technology we have defined significant quantitative and
qualitative differences in the response of cells of hematopoietic and
nonhematopoietic origin to IFN-
2a under highly standardized
conditions. Substantial quantitative and qualitative donor-specific
differences for T cells and DC were observed in response to this cytokine.
 |
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES |
Cell Culture--
Human HT1080 (fibrosarcoma), HepG2 (hepatoma),
HuH7 (hepatoma), and Kit255 (T cell lymphoma) were cultured in
Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium supplemented with 5% fetal calf
serum, 2 mM L-glutamine, penicillin, and
streptomycin at 37 °C in a humidified atmosphere containing 10%
CO2. Recombinant human IFN-
2a was provided by Roche
Molecular Biochemicals. The human IL-2-dependent T cell line Kit255 (26) was maintained in RPMI 1640 supplemented with 10%
heat-inactivated fetal calf serum and 20 ng/ml rIL-2 (Proleukin, Chiron, Emeryville, CA). Prior to treatment of cells with
IFN-
2, Kit255 cells were washed and then cultured for 48 h in
the absence of rIL-2. PBMC were isolated from buffy coat by density
centrifugation on Lymphoprep (Nycomed, Norway). To obtain TC, PBMC were
activated with phytohemagglutinin (Murex, UK) and maintained in RPMI
1640 supplemented with 10% inactivated fetal calf serum and human
rIL-2 (20 ng/ml) for 1 week. Prior to treatment of cells with IFN-
2, TC were washed and then cultured for 48 h in the absence of rIL-2. To generate DC, monocytes were isolated from PBMC by magnetic cell
sorting using anti-CD14-conjugated magnetic microbeads (Miltenyi Biotec, Cologne, Germany) and cultured for 6 days in RPMI 1640 supplemented with 10% inactivated fetal calf serum, 50 ng/ml
granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, and 50 ng/ml IL-4
(both from R&D Systems). All experiments were performed under stringent
endotoxin-free conditions.
RNA Extraction--
Total RNA was isolated from cells using
Trizol (Invitrogen) according to the instructions of the
manufacturer. RNA quantity and quality was analyzed by
spectrophotometry and additional visualization by agarose gel electrophoresis.
Selection and Propagation of IMAGE Clones--
Genes of interest
were selected from the UniGene data base
(www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/UniGene/Hs.Home.html). 5' IMAGE clones with 0.5-0.8 kb length were chosen and ordered from the Human Genome Mapping Project, Hinxton, UK (www.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk). Bacteria were streaked out onto 1.5% LB-agar plates containing 75 µg/ml ampicillin and cultured overnight at 37 °C. Single clones were picked,
transferred to 96-well plates with 200 µl of LB medium containing 75 µg/ml ampicillin and 10% glycerol, and grown overnight at 37 °C
in an incubator without shaking. A 1/10 dilution of individual clones was set up in 96-well plates by adding 10 µl of bacterial culture to
90 µl of sterile ddH2O. Throughout the duration of the
experiments, the number of genes present on the filters was constantly
extended from 150 to 231 genes (Fig. 1A), reflecting the
flexibility of the method. The data presented here are, however,
restricted to the initial 150 genes (Table I).
Expansion of DNA from IMAGE Clones by PCR--
30-µl aliquots
from the 10-fold diluted bacterial cultures were transferred into PCR
strips on ice. The cDNA inserts were amplified in the presence of
50 mM KCl, 10 mM Tris, pH 9.0, 0.1% Triton
X-100, 1.5 mM MgCl2, 0.2 mM of each
of the deoxynucleotide triphosphates, and 50 units of Taq
polymerase using the following conditions: initial denaturation
94 °C, 3 min; denaturation 94 °C, 40 s; annealing 55 °C,
30 s; elongation 72 °C, 1 min for 30 cycles followed by a final
elongation at 72 °C, 7 min using the M13 forward primer
(5'-GTAAAACGACGGCCAGT-3') and the M13 reverse primer
(5'-CAGGAAACAGCTATGAC-3'). The PCR-amplified DNA was diluted 1/2 with
Tris/EDTA, pH 8.0, in round-bottom 96-well plates, and stored at
20 °C. This DNA was used for spotting onto nylon membranes. To
confirm the identity of the IMAGE clones, DNA was PCR amplified in
50-µl reactions, purified (QIAquick PCR purification kit, Qiagen, Crawley, UK), and sequenced (ABI Prism, Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA).
Preparation of Membranes--
Membranes (Hybond N+,
Amersham Biosciences) were cut (12.5 × 8 cm), placed on
top of one 3MM sheet (12.5 × 8 cm) and assembled on an aluminum
board using a registration device (V&P Scientific, San Diego, CA,
catalog number VP382). 96-pin replicators (V&P Scientific, catalog
number VP409) were treated with surfactant (V&P Scientific, catalog
number VP110) prior to use according to the manufacturer's
instructions. Library copiers (V&P Scientific, catalog number VP381)
were used for exact positioning of the replicator on the 96-well plates
containing the amplified IMAGE clones. DNA was then transferred from
96-well plates to the membranes using 96-pin replicators (1 stroke).
Each clone was spotted in triplicate. Membranes were dried overnight at
room temperature. Batches of four membranes were transferred to plastic
boxes (20 × 20 × 5 cm) and the DNA was denatured in 1 liter
of 0.66 M NaCl, 0.5 M NaOH for 10 min at
room temperature. The membranes were washed in 1 liter of deionized
water, neutralized (40 mM
Na2HPO4/NaH2PO4, pH
7.2), and rewashed with deionized water all for 10 min at room temperature in an orbital shaker. Prior to use, the DNA on the membranes was UV cross-linked (120,000 µJ/cm2).
Generation of Labeled cDNA, Hybridization, Washing of
Membranes, and Analysis--
Radiolabeled cDNA was generated from
5 to 40 µg of total RNA by reverse transcriptase at 42 °C for
2 h using 360 units of reverse transcriptase (Superscript II,
Invitrogen), dATP, dTTP, dGTP (0.5 mM each, Amersham
Biosciences), and dCTP (2 µM, Amersham Biosciences) in
the presence of 30 µCi of [
-33P]dCTP (PerkinElmer
Life Sciences, catalog number NEG613H), T23ACG anchored primers (1 µg), and RNase inhibitor (40 units Stratagene, Amsterdam, Netherlands, catalog number 300-151) in a total volume of
30 µl. After reverse transcription, residual RNA was hydrolyzed by
alkaline treatment (15 µl of 0.1 M NaOH) at 70 °C for
20 min followed by neutralization with 15 µl of 0.1 M
HCl. To remove unincorporated nucleotides the 33P-labeled
cDNA was purified using Sephadex columns (ProbeQuant G-50, Amersham
Biosciences, catalog number 27-5330-01). Before hybridization to the
arrays, the labeled cDNA was mixed with 50 µg of COT1-DNA
(Invitrogen, catalog number 15279-011) and 10 µg of poly(dA) DNA
(Amersham Biosciences, catalog number 27-7836-02) in 4× SSC, 0.1%
SDS, denatured at 95 °C for 5 min, and hybridized for 1 h to
minimize nonspecific binding to repetitive sequences and the poly(A)
tail. After denaturation, the cDNA was added directly to medium
sized hybridization bottles (260 × 40 mm, Amersham Biosciences, catalog number RPN2516) containing the membrane arrays prehybridized in
20 ml of CHURCH buffer for 30 min in a rotary hybridization oven.
Hybridization with the 33P-labeled cDNA was for 16 h at 65 °C. After hybridization the hybridization buffer was
discarded and replaced by 150 ml of washing buffer: the membranes were
washed once in 2× SSC, 0.1% SDS, twice in 0.2× SSC, 0.1% SDS, and
once in 0.1× SSC, 0.1% SDS for 20 min each at 65 °C. The membranes
were transferred to a sheet of 3MM paper, immediately wrapped in Saran
wrap, exposed to intensifying screens for 48 h, and scanned with a
PhosphorImager at 200-micron resolution (Storm 820, Amersham
Biosciences). Images were subsequently analyzed with ImageQuant
(Amersham Biosciences) and converted into a table of signal
intensities. Further data analysis was performed using Excel
(Microsoft). For normalization between samples data were corrected for
glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase present in 18 copies on each
filter. A detailed laboratory protocol for the cDNA array
method described here is available on request from the Schlaak
(joerg.schlaak{at}uni-essen.de) or Kerr (ian.kerr@cancer.org.uk) labs.
RNase Protection Assay--
RPAs were carried out as described
previously (27). Briefly, probes were synthesized from SP6/T7
transcription vectors and labeled with [32P]UTP to a
specific activity of 2-5 × 108 cpm/µg of input
DNA. Aliquots equivalent to 1-3 × 105 cpm of each
probe and 13 µg of total RNA were used per assay. The intensities of
radioactive bands were quantified using a PhosphorImager (Storm,
Amersham Biosciences). Bands of interest were quantitated and corrected
for background. Data are expressed as -fold induction compared with
unstimulated samples.
Statistical Methods--
Statistical analysis was performed
using the two-sample Wilcoxon test.
 |
RESULTS |
Here we have developed a customized cDNA array methodology for
ISGs based on nylon filter technology. At present this system permits
the analysis of between 288 (triplicate spot) and 864 genes (single
spot) for up to 12 samples per day (Fig.
1A). Throughout the duration
of the experiments it was constantly extended from 150 to 231 genes.
The analysis presented here, however, is restricted to the initial 150 genes (Table I). A substantial spectrum
of known ISGs can be assayed with this macroarray ("macro"array: spot size >300 µm; "micro"array: spot size <300 µm) and it
allows the convenient investigation of complex experimental settings including, for example, extensive kinetic and dose-response curves. Moreover the processing, analysis, storage, and recovery of the data is
significantly easier and quicker compared with that for microarrays,
because only genes of interest are investigated. Accordingly, the
analysis of the data for 12 arrays takes ~60-90 min using standard
Microsoft Excel software. Currently, each cDNA is spotted in
triplicate (mean coefficient of variation for triplicates: 6-8%) to
yield maximal reproducibility and sensitivity (Fig. 1B). The
high flexibility of the spotting procedure also permits the generation
of filters with only one spot per gene that are particularly useful for
scanning higher numbers of target genes with lower sensitivity.

View larger version (53K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1.
Macroarray experiment with 12 different
samples. A, digitized image of an experiment with 12 samples. Each nylon filter was spotted with DNA amplified from IMAGE
clones representing 231 different genes including 18 copies of
glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase as normalization control. RNA
was isolated from HT1080 cells, reverse transcribed, and hybridized to
the membranes. All filters were exposed in one PhosphorImager screen
for 48 h and subsequently scanned at 200-micron resolution. The
original data for these 12 experiments are provided as Supplementary
Materials. B, higher resolution of one subarray shown in
A. Each gene was spotted in triplicate. The triplicate
values for the spots shown here are provided as Supplementary
Materials.
|
|
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table I
Complete list of genes investigated in this study
Genes of interest were selected from the UniGene data base. These genes
comprise known ISGs and genes of intrinsic interest that might or might
not be induced by IFNs in different cell systems. They include genes
involved in cell proliferation, immune responses, and the responses to
a variety of cytokines. 5' IMAGE clones with 0.5-0.8 kb length were
chosen and obtained from the Human Genome Mapping Project.
|
|
To enhance the performance of the system it is critical to block
nonspecific hybridization through repetitive sequences or the poly(A)
tail using COT1-DNA and poly(dA) (Fig.
2). This is particularly useful for genes
only marginally (1.5-2.5-fold) induced: differentials for highly
induced genes are still detectable in the absence of prehybridization
with COT1-DNA and poly(dA). The system offers a high degree of
reproducibility as indicated by its low inter- and intra-assay
variation (Fig. 3, A and
B, Supplementary Materials for Table
II, Table IV, experiment TC V/a-d). To
achieve this it is essential to use strict endotoxin-free culture
conditions because lipopolysaccharide can induce IFN-
and the
expression of ISGs (28).2 For
RNA extraction, to avoid artifacts induced by prolonged trypsinization and centrifugation, adherent cells were lysed directly on the tissue
culture plates and suspension cells directly after spinning down
without washing.

View larger version (60K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 2.
Blocking of nonspecific hybridization.
Total RNA was extracted from unstimulated HT1080 cells, reverse
transcribed into labeled cDNA in the absence (control) or presence
of 50 µg of COT1-DNA or 50 µg of COT1-DNA + 10 µg of Poly(A) DNA
and hybridized to target DNA spotted onto nylon membranes. Data are
shown as relative intensities for each gene (control set as
100%).
|
|

View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 3.
Assay variation. A, intra-assay
variation. Two independent samples of total RNA were extracted from
10-cm dishes of unstimulated HT1080 cells, reverse transcribed into
labeled cDNA, and hybridized to target cDNA spotted onto nylon
membranes. In this scatter plot analysis data are shown as absolute
intensity values for each gene. B, inter-assay variation.
HT1080 cells were stimulated in two independent experiments with 1000 units/ml IFN- 2a for 8 h. Total RNA was extracted, reverse
transcribed into labeled cDNA, and hybridized to target cDNA
spotted onto nylon membranes. In this scatter plot analysis data are
shown as -fold induction for each gene in the two experiments.
|
|
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table II
Cell type-specific responses to IFN- 2a
Cells were stimulated with 1000 units/ml IFN- 2a for 6 or 8 h.
Data are sorted for responses (>3-fold) obtained in PBMC and shown as
-fold change compared to a matched control. Shaded areas denote
inductions >2-fold. Replicates of these experiments are available as
supplementary data.
|
|
All of the IMAGE clones used were sequence verified. Comparability of
the macroarray data for known genes with data obtained by alternative
accepted RNase protection methodology was established by data from
experiments carried out as an integral part of our ongoing program. An
example of the data from one such experiment (involving an analysis of
the responses obtained through the endogenous type I and II IFN
receptors and a receptor chimera 2fEg
B (29)), reveals, for the
ISG-56k, IRF-1, and 9-27 ISGs, a good correlation (r = 0.89-0.99) between the data from the two approaches (Fig. 4). Similarly good correlations have been
obtained in a number of further experiments comparing the results by
the two methods for the above and additional ISGs including IP-10,
GBP-1, 6-16, MxA and 2-5OAS (for example, Fig. 7, Table
V).3

View larger version (29K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 4.
Comparative assessment of ISG induction by
macroarray and RNase protection. A, RNase protection assay.
2fEg BY440 cells (lanes 1-4) and JAK2-negative
2AEg BY440 cells (lane 5-8) were stimulated with 1000 units/ml IFN- (lanes 2 and 6), 100 units/ml
Epo (lanes 3 and 7), or 1000 units/ml IFN-
(lanes 4 and 8) for 6 h, respectively.
Aliquots of cytoplasmic RNA (13 µg) were analyzed by RNase protection
assay using probes for ISG-56k, IRF-1, 9-27, and -actin as loading
control. B, comparison of the data obtained by RNase
protection and macroarray analyses. Total RNA (40 µg) from the
experiment shown in A was analyzed by macroarray as
previously described. Quantitative data from both analyses are
compared. Data are shown as -fold induction compared with the matched
control (samples 1 and 5, respectively).
|
|
The sensitivity of the method has also been assessed. As a rule of
thumb, in most micro- and macroarray systems a 2-fold change in the
expression level is regarded as being significant. Statistical analysis
showed that the macroarrays are capable of detecting smaller
differences, after stimulation with very low concentrations of IFN-
(e.g. 10 IU/ml, Fig. 5),
changes in gene expression of 30% or less are detectable with a high
degree of significance (p value < 0.05) by this
method. This permits the analysis of dose-response curves for poorly
induced (<2-fold, Fig. 6) genes considered marginally significant by other methods. Using more replicates of the spotted DNA this high sensitivity may be enhanced even further. The physiological relevance of these relatively small
changes, however, still have to be determined for the individual genes.
Accordingly, we have retained 2-fold as the threshold level for
significant inducibility for comparative expression profiling (Tables
II-IV), which is, in addition, associated with a very high degree of
statistical significance (p = 0.001 and less, Fig.
5).

View larger version (28K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 5.
Sensitivity of the assay. HT1080 cells
were stimulated with 10 units/ml IFN- 2a for 8 h. Total RNA was
extracted, reverse transcribed, and analyzed by macroarray. Data are
shown are for -fold induction and the corresponding p value
as determined by the two-sample Wilcoxon test. The results are sorted
according to the level of induction.
|
|

View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 6.
Dose-response curves for "marginally
induced" genes. HT1080 cells were stimulated with 10, 100, and
1000 units/ml IFN- 2a for 8 h. Total RNA was extracted and
analyzed by macroarray. Data only for marginally induced genes
(induction <2-fold) are shown. The original data are available as
Supplementary Materials.
|
|
Cell Type-specific Responses to IFN-
2a--
To date little is
known about the cell-type specificity for the expression profiles
induced by the
-IFNs. The most substantial current data were
obtained for human fibrosarcoma cell lines (3). Only limited
information is available for nontransformed or hematopoietic cells.
Accordingly, here expression profiles were compared for HT1080, HepG2,
HuH7, and Kit255 cell lines and the nontransformed PBMC, T cells, and
DC. Stimulation was with 1000 units/ml rhIFN-
2a for 6 (T cells) or
8 h (remainder): conditions known from further extensive
experiments to yield maximal responses for each of the cell types
represented. 150 genes (Table I) were represented on the arrays.
Examples of the data from all seven cell types (Table II) and for
different donors for the DC and T cells (Tables III and 4)
are presented. 74 genes were induced more than 2-fold in at least one
cell type (Table II). Of these only ISG-56k, ISG-15, GBP-1, 9-27, 6-16, and LMP-2 were consistently induced in all cell types and all
experiments (Tables II-IV). Even within this group, however, there was
considerable quantitative variation, for example, ISG-56k and ISG-15
were predominantly highly induced (>10-fold, with two exceptions, TC
III and V, Table IV), whereas LMP-2 induction was low (2-4-fold)
throughout and for the 6-16 variable (2-21-fold with no obvious
pattern, Tables II-IV). IRF-7 was consistently induced in the primary
cells but not in the cell lines (Tables II-IV). CCR1 and HIF-1
appeared to be predominantly induced in PBMC with low or no induction
in T cells, DC, or the cell lines (Tables II-IV). VEGF-C, IL-6, E2F-1,
Pim-1, and SOCS2 were up-regulated in PBMC and T cells but not in DC,
which might indicate that under these conditions these genes are
predominantly induced in the T cell population. These genes were not,
however, induced in all 5 T cell donors (Table IV). Of the genes
represented none was exclusively induced in nonhematopoietic cells
although RING4 and phospholipid scramblase 1 showed only low induction
in 4 of 5 of the T cell and 2 of the 3 DC samples (Tables III and IV).
In contrast to the donor variability observed for DC and T cells
(Tables III and IV and below), for the cell lines similar results to
those presented in Table II were obtained in additional experiments
(see Supplementary Materials).
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table III
Donor-specific IFN- 2a responses in DC
Cells were stimulated with 1000 units/ml IFN- 2a for 8 h. Data
are sorted for responses obtained in donor DC I and shown as -fold
change compared to a matched control. Shaded areas denote inductions
>2-fold.
|
|
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table IV
Donor-specific IFN- 2a responses in T cells
Cells were stimulated with 1000 units/ml IFN- 2a for 6 h. Data
are shown as -fold change compared to a matched control. Shaded areas
denote inductions >2-fold. Data for donor TC V are shown as
quadruplicates (a, b, c, and d), experiment TC V/d was performed
separately on a different day. Additional experiments revealed similar
correlations between replicates.
|
|
To establish further the validity of the comparative macroarrays and
the cell type-specific differences between the T and DC cells for IP-10
in particular, a number of RPAs were also carried out on the T and DC
cell RNAs for a spectrum of ISGs (e.g. Fig. 7, Table
V). The data confirm the major
differences in the induction of IP10 (strongly induced in DC but not T
cells) and the similar patterns of induction observed for the ISGs by
the two types of assay. Lower -fold inductions are frequently observed
using macro- or microarray versus alternative assays. This
is particularly obvious here for IP10 in DCs (Table V, a).
In this instance the higher -fold induction by RPA
(60-349-fold) versus macroarray (15.6-20.6-fold) reflects,
in part at least, the very low background values obtained for IP10 in
the RPAs (Fig. 7, lanes 1-4). For the 2-5OAS and 6-16 genes
the generally lower -fold induction values by macroarray
versus RPA almost certainly reflect, in part, similar
differences in background values, but likely also donor variability
(see below) and possibly the relative hybridization efficiencies of the
particular image clones "chosen" for the macroarrays. Despite
these differences in the -fold inductions observed by the RPAs and
macroarrays for some of the ISGs, in general the agreement between the
two types of assay is good with those ISGs registering as substantially
or minimally induced by one assay registering similarly by the other.
Overall, for the induced genes, the data appear consistent with limited
cell-type specificity superimposed upon fairly wide inducibility for
most genes, but with considerable quantitative variation between cell
types and, see below, between the same cell type from individual
donors.

View larger version (56K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 7.
Assessment of ISG induction in dendritic
cells and T cells by RNase protection assay. Dendritic cells
(lanes 1, 2, 5, and 6) and
T cells (lanes 3, 4, 7, and
8) were stimulated with 1000 units/ml IFN- for 8 and
6 h, respectively. Aliquots of cytoplasmic RNA (13 µg) were
analyzed by RNase protection assay using probes for IP-10 (lanes
1-4) or STAT1 , STAT1 , p48, ISG-56k, 2-5OAS,
6-16, 9-27, and GBP-1 (lanes 5-8).
Glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH)
(lanes 1-4) or -actin (lanes
5-8) were used as loading control.
|
|
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table V
Evaluation of cell type-specific responses to IFN in dendritic cells
and T cells using RNase protection assays and macroarrays
Cells from 6 (DC) or 7 (T cells) different donors, respectively, were
stimulated with 1000 units/ml IFN- 2a for 6 h. Data are shown as
-fold change compared to a matched control (ND; not determined). Shaded
areas denote inductions >2-fold.
|
|
Donor-type Specific Responses in DC and T Cells--
Little is
known about donor-specific differences in the transcriptional response
to IFN-
. To address this question DC and T cells from a number of
donors were isolated, cultured, and treated with IFN-
2a under
identical conditions.
Dendritic Cells--
In three independent experiments with DC
derived from 3 different healthy individuals (DC I-III, Table III), a
total of 42 genes was found to be induced in at least one donor,
whereas 30 (71%) genes were up-regulated in at least 2 donors and 25 (60%) in all 3 donors (Table III). 11 (26%) ISGs were found with
apparent qualitative rather than quantitative differences as defined by inductions of >2-fold and
1.3-fold each for at least one donor: TTF-2, collagen type XVI, PRAME, phospholipid scramblase 1, Mig, IP-30,
RAP46, HLA-E, p48/ISGF-3
/IRF-9, iNOS2A, and granzyme B. 5 genes were
exclusively induced in donor DC I, 7 genes were found to be
up-regulated only in donor DC III, whereas no gene was exclusively induced in donor DC II. The larger among these differences,
e.g. those for TTF2, collagen type XVI, and PRAME, at least,
are unlikely to reflect simple quantitative differences because,
overall, a surprising degree of quantitative consistency was observed
between donors for the majority of the induced genes (for example,
IP-10, MxB, IRF-7, IFP-35, and 2-5OAS).
T Cells--
In five independent experiments with T cells from 5 different healthy donors (TC I-V, Table IV), a total of 45 genes was
found to be induced (>2-fold) by IFN-
2a in at least one donor,
whereas 35 (78%) of these were up-regulated in at least 2 donors, 22 (49%) in at least 3 donors, 14 (31%) in at least 4 donors, and 10 (22%) in all 5 donors (Table IV). For donor TC V, data were obtained in quadruplicate. For this donor, the median of the 4 replicates was
used to define the inducibility of the individual genes. 28 (62%) ISGs
were found with apparent qualitative rather than quantitative differences, i.e. substantial induction for one or more and
1.3-fold in at least one donor, extreme examples being MxA (52- versus 0.7-fold) and IFI-16 (15- versus
0.7-fold). As indicated by the lower percentage of "conserved"'
responses among the donors (22 versus 60%) and the
higher percentage of qualitative differences (60 versus
28%), the donor-specific differences appeared to be more prominent in
T cells than DC. In addition to the conserved responses found in
all cell types (ISG-56k, ISG-15, GBP-1, 9-27, 6-16, and LMP-2),
HCV-associated protein 44 kDa, BST2, IRF-7, Hou, and STAT1 were induced
in all 5 donors.
Because T cells and DC were obtained from different donors and no
matched preparations, i.e. T cells and DC from one donor, were available, it is not clear whether the observed donor-specific responses are specific for the cell type investigated. Some ISGs (TTF2,
PRAME, granzyme B, RAP46, and p48/ISGF-3
/IRF-9) were, however,
identified that showed apparent qualitative differences (induction
1.3 in at least one donor) in both T cells and DC suggesting that,
for these genes, the factor(s) responsible for differential
donor-dependent induction by IFN-
2a may be shared between different cell types.
 |
DISCUSSION |
A highly sensitive, specific and reproducible customized cDNA
array system has been established. It is suitable for the routine assay
of multiple samples including, for example, those necessary for the
dose response and kinetic analyses required for detailed comparisons of
the effect of a given cytokine in different cell types (as here) or
under different conditions or in response to the inhibition of a
particular signal transduction pathway. These "custom" arrays are
clearly designed to study a set of known genes, not to discover
"novel" genes involved in particular signaling pathways or
biological conditions. Cell lines offer the advantage of virtually
unlimited availability of RNA. Access to larger amounts of RNA from
possibly more biologically relevant nontransformed cells is, however,
often limited. An advantage of the macroarrays is the relatively small
amount of total RNA required (5-10 µg) per sample. Accordingly,
"macros" are suitable for the assay of sufficient samples for
significant analyses of readily (PBMC) or less readily available (DC)
nontransformed cells. Systematic information on the transcriptional
response of such cells to IFN-
2a has been generated here. The
modular design of this technology allows easy adjustment to address
alternative questions across species borders provided the genes of
interest are known and cDNAs, ideally in the form of IMAGE clones,
are available. Based on the methodology described here, macroarrays for
expression profiling in response to human IFN-
, for type I and II
murine IFNs, and for woodchuck ISGs have also been established and the
technology is being used, for example, to study in vivo
responses in PBMC from patients treated with IFN-
2.
In addition to signaling through ISGF-3 (STATs 1, 2, and
p48/ISGF-3
/IRF-9) type I IFNs variably activate additional STATs. STAT3 is activated in a variety of cell types (30) and IFN-
2a directly activates (in addition to STATs 1, -2, and -3) STAT5 and -6 in
Daudi cells (31), STAT4 in T cells and natural killer cells (32), and
STAT5 in undifferentiated promonocytic U937 cells (33). Moreover,
JAK/STAT signaling is essential but not sufficient for full IFN
responses. Additional pathways activated include the ERK1/2 and p38 MAP
kinases, the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/Akt pathway and those
pathways responsible for the phosphorylation of STAT1 on Ser-727
(34-38). Differential activation of these and other additional
pathways yet to be identified, together with differential STAT
activation might a priori lead to the differential induction
of subsets of genes in different cell types. Indeed an initial
objective was to determine whether such subsets are in fact
differentially induced. If so, this could, in turn, through shared
promoter elements, shed light on the involvement of additional known or
novel signaling pathways in the type I IFN response. Although there is
little evidence here for discrete subsets of genes highly induced
uniquely in one or only a few related cell types, some degree of
cell-type specificity was observed. Relatively few genes appeared to be
induced in all cell types (Table II). More particularly the induction
of IRF-7 appeared to be specific to primary PMBC, DC, and T cells of
the immune system, whereas numerous genes were substantially induced in
one or more of the primary PBMC, DC, or T cells but not the cell lines.
In addition, IFI-16, IP-10, and PRAME provide striking
examples of substantial cell type and donor differentials in DC and T
cells. Because the ISGs analyzed were mainly selected based on data
obtained from experiments with fibrosarcoma cells, further
differentials in the induction of, yet unknown, ISGs can be
anticipated. Accordingly, to build up a comprehensive custom array for
human IFNs, the multisample macroarray analyses will be complemented by
further limited-sample microarrays to identify additional novel ISGs in
a variety of cell types. The appropriate combined application of the
two types of array should permit the detection of additional cell
type-specific ISGs and convenient detailed analysis of their expression.
IRF-7 has previously been reported to be predominantly expressed in
cells of hematopoietic origin (39). Of the genes analyzed IRF-7 was the
only one consistently induced in PBMC, DC, and T cells but not in
nonhematopoietic cells. IRF-7 is induced by a variety of agents
including viruses, lipopolysaccharide, and type I IFNs. It regulates
the production of the
-IFNs, IFN-
, and the chemokines RANTES and
IP-10 in virus-infected cells (40-42). It has also been identified as
a key regulator for monocyte differentiation to macrophages (43). The
lack of expression of IRF-7 in the fibrosarcoma cell line 2fTGH
correlates with hypermethylation of the CpG island in the human IRF-7
promoter (44). Such hypermethylation may represent one mechanism
whereby differential cell type-specific responses to IFNs are generated.
Little is known about donor-specific responses to IFNs and their
molecular background. It is, however, well established that both the
clinical side effects of IFN-
therapy and its efficacy vary largely
within groups of patients treated for chronic viral hepatitis or
malignancies (45-50). There is, therefore, large
donor-dependent variation in the clinical response to this
cytokine. The data here support this in that substantial donor-specific
IFN responses were observed. It is important to emphasize that
differences similar to those observed between the expression profiles
for different donors (Tables III and IV) were not observed for the
remarkably reproducible profiles obtained on different occasions for
the cell lines (e.g. Fig. 2). Overall the data are
consistent with complex modulation ranging from possible specificity
for particular lineages or cell-type (IRF-7) to universal high
induction (ISG-56k and ISG-15), with the majority of genes showing
substantial quantitative variation between cell types and donors
indicative of the likely modulatory effects of differential activation
of STATs and additional pathways. Superimposed on this one can
reasonably expect some degree of quantitative cell type and donor
variation with IFN dose and kinetics.
SNP in the promoter and coding regions of ISGs may also affect their
transcription and function thus contributing to donor-specific differentials. SNPs in IRF-1 in several human liver cancer cell lines
result in different antiproliferative effects of type I IFNs (51) and
have been associated with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (52) and
childhood atopic asthma (53), whereas SNPs in IRF-2 were
found to be associated with atopic dermatitis (54). Although
donor-specific responses to IFNs were not analyzed in these studies,
accepting the secondary requirement for IRFs in the induction of many
ISGs, one can assume that such SNPs can lead to altered function and
result in differential responses to the IFNs. In principle, SNPs in
promoter or coding regions of JAKs or STATs could similarly affect
donor-specific responses. SNPs at phosphorylation sites could
profoundly affect the quality and quantity of downstream signaling
events. Relevant data are not yet available for STAT1 and -2 but SNPs
in the first exon of the STAT6 gene are associated with the development
of allergic diseases (55).
Here, nylon membrane-based cDNA array technology has
been further developed and optimized to provide a sensitive, robust, and convenient method for the analysis of expression profiles for a
substantial "customized" set of genes of interest. The method has
been used to study, in a number of both primary cells and cell lines,
cell-type and donor-specific responses to IFN-
2, the most widely
used IFN for the treatment of viral hepatitis and malignancies. The
data have revealed that signaling in response to IFN-
2 is
substantially modulated leading to significant cell-type and
donor-specific qualitative and quantitative differences in the response
to this cytokine. Further analysis of the in vivo responses
to IFN-
2 and definition of the modulatory factors responsible for
the heterogenous transcriptional responses to this agent will lead to
further insight into the biology of IFN-
signaling and ultimately to
further improvements in IFN therapy.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
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.
The on-line version of this article (available at
http://www.jbc.org) contains additional tables of original data.
To whom correspondence should be addressed: University of Essen,
Dept. of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Hufelandstr. 55, 45122 Essen, Germany. Tel.: 49-201-723-2518; Fax: 49-201-723-5749; E mail: joerg.schlaak{at}uni-essen.de.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, October 16, 2002, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M205571200
2
J. F. Schlaak, unpublished data.
3
C. M. U. Hilkens, J. F. Schlaak,
and I. M. Kerr, manuscript in preparation.
 |
ABBREVIATIONS |
The abbreviations used are:
IFN, interferon;
IRF, interferon regulatory factor;
JAK, Janus kinase;
STAT, signal transducer and activator of transcription;
DC, dendritic cell;
PBMC, peripheral blood mononuclear cells;
TC, peripheral blood T cells;
rIL, recombinant interleukin;
LB, Luria-Bertani;
RPA, RNase protection
assay;
SNP, single nucleotide polymorphism;
ISGF, interferon-stimulated
gene factor.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Stark, G. R.,
Kerr, I. M.,
Williams, B. R.,
Silverman, R. H.,
and Schreiber, R. D.
(1998)
Annu. Rev. Biochem.
67,
227-264[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 2.
|
Bluyssen, A. R.,
Durbin, J. E.,
and Levy, D. E.
(1996)
Cytokine Growth Factor Rev.
7,
11-17[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 3.
|
Der, S. D.,
Zhou, A.,
Williams, B. R.,
and Silverman, R. H.
(1998)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
95,
15623-15628[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 4.
|
Certa, U.,
Seiler, M.,
Padovan, E.,
and Spagnoli, G. C.
(2001)
Br. J. Cancer
85,
107-114[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 5.
|
McHutchison, J. G.,
Gordon, S. C.,
Schiff, E. R.,
Shiffman, M. L.,
Lee, W. M.,
Rustgi,
Goodman, Z. D.,
Ling, M. H.,
Cort, S.,
and Albrecht, J. K.
(1998)
N. Engl. J. Med.
339,
1485-1492[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 6.
|
Niederau, C.,
Heintges, T.,
Lange, S.,
Goldmann, G.,
Niederau, C. M.,
Mohr, L.,
and Haeussinger, D.
(1996)
N. Engl. J. Med.
334,
1422-1427[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 7.
|
Kjaergard, L. L.,
Krogsgaard, K.,
and Gluud, C.
(2001)
Br. Med. J
323,
1151-1155[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 8.
|
Lockhart, D. J.,
Dong, H.,
Byrne, M. C.,
Follettie, M. T.,
Gallo, M. V.,
Chee, M. S.,
Mittmann, M.,
Wang, C.,
Kobayashi, M.,
Horton, H.,
and Brown, E. L.
(1996)
Nat. Biotechnol.
14,
1675-1680[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 9.
|
Lipshutz, R. J.,
Fodor, S. P.,
Gingeras, T. R.,
and Lockhart, D. J.
(1999)
Nat. Genet.
21,
20-24[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 10.
|
Schena, M.,
Shalon, D.,
Davis, R. W.,
and Brown, P. O.
(1995)
Science
270,
467-470[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 11.
|
Liang, P.,
and Pardee, A. B.
(1992)
Science
257,
967-971[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 12.
|
Pietu, G.,
Alibert, O.,
Guichard, V.,
Lamy, B.,
Bois, F.,
Leroy, E.,
Mariage-Sampson, R.,
Houlgatte, R.,
Soularue, P.,
and Auffray, C.
(1996)
Genome Res.
6,
492-503[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 13.
|
Rast, J. P.,
Amore, G.,
Calestani, C.,
Livi, C. B.,
Ransick, A.,
and Davidson, E. H.
(2000)
Dev. Biol.
228,
270-286[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 14.
|
Zhang, Q. H., Ye, M., Wu, X. Y.,
Ren, S. X.,
Zhao, M.,
Zhao, C. J., Fu, G.,
Shen, Y.,
Fan, H. Y., Lu, G.,
Zhong, M., Xu, X. R.,
Han, Z. G.,
Zhang, J. W.,
Tao, J.,
Huang, Q. H.,
Zhou, J., Hu, G. X., Gu, J.,
Chen, S. J.,
and Chen, Z.
(2000)
Genome Res.
10,
1546-1560[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 15.
|
Velculescu, V. E.,
Zhang, L.,
Vogelstein, B.,
and Kinzler, K. W.
(1995)
Science
270,
484-487[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 16.
|
Vasmatzis, G.,
Essand, M.,
Brinkmann, U.,
Lee, B.,
and Pastan, I.
(1998)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
95,
300-304[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 17.
|
Whitney, L. W.,
Becker, K. G.,
Tresser, N. J.,
Caballero-Ramos, C. I.,
Munson, P. J.,
Prabhu, V. V.,
Trent, J. M.,
McFarland, H. F.,
and Biddison, W. E.
(1999)
Ann. Neurol.
46,
425-428[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 18.
|
Alon, U.,
Barkai, N.,
Notterman, D. A.,
Gish, K.,
Ybarra, S.,
Mack, D.,
and Levine, A. J.
(1999)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
96,
6745-6750[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 19.
|
Nacht, M.,
Ferguson, A. T.,
Zhang, W.,
Petroziello, J. M.,
Cook, B. P.,
Gao, Y. H.,
Maguire, S.,
Riley, D.,
Coppola, G.,
Landes, G. M.,
Madden, S. L.,
and Sukumar, S.
(1999)
Cancer Res.
59,
5464-5470[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 20.
|
Wang, K.,
Gan, L.,
Jeffery, E.,
Gayle, M.,
Gown, A. M.,
Skelly, M.,
Nelson, P. S., Ng, W. V.,
Schummer, M.,
Hood, L.,
and Mulligan, J.
(1999)
Gene (Amst.)
229,
101-108[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 21.
|
Moch, H.,
Schraml, P.,
Bubendorf, L.,
Mirlacher, M.,
Kononen, J.,
Gasser, T.,
Mihatsch, M. J.,
Kallioniemi, O. P.,
and Sauter, G.
(1999)
Am. J. Pathol.
154,
981-986[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 22.
|
Golub, T. R.,
Slonim, D. K.,
Tamayo, P.,
Huard, C.,
Gaasenbeek, M.,
Mesirov, J. P.,
Coller, H.,
Loh, M. L.,
Downing, J. R.,
Caligiuri, M. A.,
Bloomfield, C. D.,
and Lander, E. S.
(1999)
Science
286,
531-537[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 23.
|
Alizadeh, A.,
Eisen, M.,
Botstein, D.,
Brown, P. O.,
and Staudt, L. M.
(1998)
J. Clin. Immunol.
18,
373-379[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 24.
|
Marrack, P.,
Mitchell, T.,
Hildeman, D.,
Kedl, R.,
Teague, T. K.,
Bender, J.,
Rees, W.,
Schaefer, B. C.,
and Kappler, J.
(2000)
Curr. Opin. Immunol.
12,
206-209[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 25.
|
Glynne, R.,
Akkaraju, S.,
Healy, J. I.,
Rayner, J.,
Goodnow, C. C.,
and Mack, D. H.
(2000)
Nature
403,
672-676[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 26.
|
Hori, T.,
Uchiyama, T.,
Tsudo, M.,
Umadome, H.,
Ohno, H.,
Fukuhara, S.,
Kita, K.,
and Uchino, H.
(1987)
Blood
70,
1069-1072[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 27.
|
Muller, M.,
Laxton, C.,
Briscoe, J.,
Schindler, C.,
Improta, T.,
Darnell, J. E., Jr.,
Stark, G. R.,
and Kerr, I. M.
(1993)
EMBO J.
12,
4221-4228[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 28.
|
Navarro, L.,
and David, M.
(1999)
J. Biol. Chem.
274,
35535-35538[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 29.
|
Strobl, B.,
Arulampalam, V.,
Is'harc, H.,
Newman, S. J.,
Schlaak, J. F.,
Watling, D.,
Costa-Pereira, A. P.,
Schaper, F.,
Behrmann, I.,
Sheehan, K. C.,
Schreiber, R. D.,
Horn, F.,
Heinrich, P. C.,
and Kerr, I. M.
(2001)
EMBO J.
20,
5431-5442[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 30.
|
Uddin, S.,
Majchrzak, B.,
Wang, P. C.,
Modi, S.,
Khan, M. K.,
Fish, E. N.,
and Platanias, L. C.
(2000)
Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun.
270,
158-162[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 31.
|
Fasler-Kan, E.,
Pansky, A.,
Wiederkehr, M.,
Battegay, M.,
and Heim, M. H.
(1998)
Eur. J. Biochem.
254,
514-519[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 32.
|
Cho, S. S.,
Bacon, C. M.,
Sudarshan, C.,
Rees, R. C.,
Finbloom, D.,
Pine, R.,
and O'Shea, J. J.
(1996)
J. Immunol.
157,
4781-4789[Abstract]
|
| 33.
|
Meinke, A.,
Barahmand-Pour, F.,
Wohrl, S.,
Stoiber, D.,
and Decker, T.
(1996)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
16,
6937-6944[Abstract]
|
| 34.
|
David, M.,
Petricoin, E., III,
Benjamin, C.,
Pine, R.,
Weber, M. J.,
and Larner, A. C.
(1995)
Science
269,
1721-1723[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 35.
|
Mayer, I. A.,
Verma, A.,
Grumbach, I. M.,
Uddin, S.,
Lekmine, F.,
Ravandi, F.,
Majchrzak, B.,
Fujita, S.,
Fish, E. N.,
and Platanias, L. C.
(2001)
J. Biol. Chem.
276,
28570-28577[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 36.
|
Nguyen, V. A.,
Chen, J.,
Hong, F.,
Ishac, E. J.,
and Gao, B.
(2000)
Biochem. J.
349,
427-434[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 37.
|
Uddin, S.,
Fish, E. N.,
Sher, D. A.,
Gardziola, C.,
White, M. F.,
and Platanias, L. C.
(1997)
J. Immunol.
158,
2390-2397[Abstract]
|
| 38.
|
Uddin, S.,
Majchrzak, B.,
Woodson, J.,
Arunkumar, P.,
Alsayed, Y.,
Pine, R.,
Young, P. R.,
Fish, E. N.,
and Platanias, L. C.
(1999)
J. Biol. Chem.
274,
30127-30131[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 39.
|
Zhang, L.,
and Pagano, J. S.
(1997)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
17,
5748-5757[Abstract]
|
| 40.
|
Marie, I.,
Durbin, J. E.,
and Levy, D. E.
(1998)
EMBO J.
17,
6660-6669[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 41.
|
Wathelet, M. G.,
Lin, C. H.,
Parekh, B. S.,
Ronco, L. V.,
Howley, P. M.,
and Maniatis, T.
(1998)
Mol. Cell
1,
507-518[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 42.
|
Sundstrom, J. B.,
McMullan, L. K.,
Spiropoulou, C. F.,
Hooper, W. C.,
Ansari, A. A.,
Peters, C. J.,
and Rollin, P. E.
(2001)
J. Virol.
75,
6070-6085[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 43.
|
Lu, R.,
and Pitha, P. M.
(2001)
J. Biol. Chem.
276,
45491-45496[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 44.
|
Lu, R., Au, W. C.,
Yeow, W. S.,
Hageman, N.,
and Pitha, P. M.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
31805-31812[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 45.
|
Lens, M. B.,
and Dawes, M.
(2002)
J. Clin. Oncol.
20,
1818-1825[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 46.
|
Yuen, M. F.,
and Lai, C. L.
(2001)
Lancet Infect. Dis.
1,
232-241[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 47.
|
Bonifazi, F.,
de Vivo, A.,
Rosti, G.,
Guilhot, F.,
Guilhot, J.,
Trabacchi, E.,
Hehlmann, R.,
Hochhaus, A.,
Shepherd, P. C.,
Steegmann, J. L.,
Kluin-Nelemans, H. C.,
Thaler, J.,
Simonsson, B.,
Louwagie, A.,
Reiffers, J.,
Mahon, F. X.,
Montefusco, E.,
Alimena, G.,
Hasford, J.,
Richards, S.,
Saglio, G.,
Testoni, N.,
Martinelli, G.,
Tura, S.,
and Baccarani, M.
(2001)
Blood
98,
3074-3081[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 48.
|
Heathcote, J.
(2000)
Semin. Liver Dis.
20,
185-199[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 49.
|
Fossa, S. D.
(2000)
Semin. Oncol.
27,
187-193[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 50.
|
Zackheim, H. S.
(1999)
Dermatology
199,
102-105[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 51.
|
Saito, H.,
Tada, S.,
Ebinuma, H.,
Wakabayashi, K.,
Takagi, T.,
Saito, Y.,
Nakamoto, N.,
Kurita, S.,
and Ishii, H.
(2001)
J. Cell. Biochem. Suppl.
36,
191-200[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 52.
|
Donn, R. P.,
Barrett, J. H.,
Farhan, A.,
Stopford, A.,
Pepper, L.,
Shelley, E.,
Davies, N.,
Ollier, W. E.,
and Thomson, W.
(2001)
Arthritis Rheum.
44,
802-810[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 53.
|
Nakao, F.,
Ihara, K.,
Kusuhara, K.,
Sasaki, Y.,
Kinukawa, N.,
Takabayashi, A.,
Nishima, S.,
and Hara, T.
(2001)
J. Allergy Clin. Immunol.
107,
499-504[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 54.
|
Nishio, Y.,
Noguchi, E.,
Ito, S.,
Ichikawa, E.,
Umebayashi, Y.,
Otsuka, F.,
and Arinami, T.
(2001)
J. Hum. Genet.
46,
664-667[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 55.
|
Tamura, K.,
Arakawa, H.,
Suzuki, M.,
Kobayashi, Y.,
Mochizuki, H.,
Kato, M.,
Tokuyama, K.,
and Morikawa, A.
(2001)
Clin. Exp. Allergy
31,
1509-1514[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
Copyright © 2002 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.