HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 279, Issue 13, 12848-12853, March 26, 2004

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 279/13/12848    most recent M313324200v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Pili-Floury, S. Articles by Lemaitre, B. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Pili-Floury, S. Articles by Lemaitre, B. Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

In Vivo RNA Interference Analysis Reveals an Unexpected Role for GNBP1 in the Defense against Gram-positive Bacterial Infection in Drosophila Adults^*

Sebastien Pili-Floury, François Leulier¶, Kuniaki Takahashi||, Kaoru Saigo**, Emmanuel Samain, Ryu Ueda||, and Bruno Lemaitre

From the Centre de Génétique Moléculaire, CNRS, 91198 Gif-sur-Yvette, France, the ^||Genetic Strains Research Center, National Institute of Genetics, Shizuoka 411-8540, Japan, the ^**Department of Biophysics and Biochemistry, Graduate School of Science, University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan, and Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Université de Franche Comté, 3 Bd Fleming, 25030 Besançon, France

Received for publication, December 5, 2003 , and in revised form, January 7, 2004.

	ABSTRACT

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
The Drosophila immune system discriminates between different classes of infectious microbes and responds with pathogen-specific defense reactions via the selective activation of the Toll and the immune deficiency (Imd) signaling pathways. The Toll pathway mediates most defenses against Gram-positive bacteria and fungi, whereas the Imd pathway is required to resist Gram-negative bacterial infection. Microbial recognition is achieved through peptidoglycan recognition proteins (PGRPs); Gram-positive bacteria activate the Toll pathway through a circulating PGRP (PGRP-SA), and Gram-negative bacteria activate the Imd pathway via PGRP-LC, a putative transmembrane receptor, and PGRP-LE. Gram-negative binding proteins (GNBPs) were originally identified in Bombyx mori for their capacity to bind various microbial compounds. Three GNBPs and two related proteins are encoded in the Drosophila genome, but their function is not known. Using inducible expression of GNBP1 double-stranded RNA, we now demonstrate that GNBP1 is required for Toll activation in response to Gram-positive bacterial infection; GNBP1 double-stranded RNA expression renders flies susceptible to Gram-positive bacterial infection and reduces the induction of the antifungal peptide encoding gene Drosomycin after infection by Gram-positive bacteria but not after fungal infection. This phenotype induced by GNBP1 inactivation is identical to a loss-of-function mutation in PGRP-SA, and our genetic studies suggest that GNBP1 acts upstream of the Toll ligand Spätzle. Altogether, our results demonstrate that the detection of Gram-positive bacteria in Drosophila requires two putative pattern recognition receptors, PGRP-SA and GNBP1.

	INTRODUCTION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
The innate immune response is activated by receptors known as pattern recognition receptors, which recognize surface determinants, such as lipopolysaccharide (LPS),¹ peptidoglycan (PG), and mannan, that are conserved among microbes but absent in the host. After microbial recognition, pattern recognition receptors activate signaling cascades that regulate immune reactions (1). The Drosophila antimicrobial response has been the focus of intense study in recent years and provides a good genetic model for dissecting innate immunity (2-4). One of the landmarks of the Drosophila immune response is the synthesis of antimicrobial peptides by the fat body with distinct but overlapping specificities for different microbes. These peptides are secreted into the hemolymph, where they directly kill invading pathogens. Genetic analyses have shown that antimicrobial peptide genes are regulated by the Toll and immune deficiency (Imd) pathways. These two pathways share many common features with the mammalian Toll-like receptor (TLR) and tumor necrosis factor receptor signaling cascades that regulate NF-B transcription factors (2-4). The Toll and Imd pathways also activate NF-B-like transactivators that, in turn, modulate specific transcriptional programs (5, 6). The Toll pathway is triggered by the proteolytic cleavage of the Toll ligand, Spätzle (Spz), and regulates the rel proteins dorsal immune-related factor (DIF) and Dorsal. This pathway is mainly activated by Gram-positive bacteria and fungi and controls, in large part, the expression of antimicrobial peptides active against fungi (e.g. Drosomycin) (7-10). In contrast, the Imd pathway mainly responds to Gram-negative bacterial infection and controls antibacterial peptide genes (e.g. Diptericin) via the rel protein, Relish (8, 11, 12).

Microbial recognition upstream of the Toll and Imd pathways is achieved, at least in part, through peptidoglycan recognition proteins (PGRPs) (13). PGRPs bind to PG, a component of the bacteria envelope, and are found in many species including insects and mammals (14, 15). In Drosophila, 13 PGRP genes have been identified (16), and three of them are currently implicated in the immune response; an extracellular recognition factor, PGRP-SA, activates the Toll pathway in response to Gram-positive bacterial but not fungal infection (17); PGRP-LC, a putative transmembrane protein, acts upstream of the Imd pathway (18-20); and PGRP-LE, which encodes a secreted PGRP, can activate the Imd pathway when overexpressed in flies (21). Recently, we demonstrated that the Imd pathway is activated by the recognition of DAP-type PG found in Gram-negative and Bacillus bacterial species, whereas the Toll pathway is more responsive to the lysine-type PG found in most Gram-positive bacteria (22). Thus, the Drosophila immune system activates pathogen-specific immune response, at least in part, through the recognition of different forms of PG.

Gram-negative binding proteins (GNBPs) form a second class of immune recognition proteins that were initially identified in the Silkworm Bombyx mori for their ability to bind Gram-negative bacteria (23). In contrast to PGRPs, GNBPs are only found in invertebrates and contain an inactive 1-3 glucanase like domain that is similar to several bacterial glucanase. This domain is also found in -glucan recognition proteins (GRPs) that are implicated in glucan sensing in insects and crustacae (24-27). The Drosophila genome encodes three GNBPs and two immune inducible related genes (28). The overexpression of GNBP-1 in cell culture enhanced the LPS-mediated induction of AMP genes in cultured cells, suggesting a role in the Drosophila antimicrobial response (28). However, the exact function of GNBPs in the Drosophila immune response remained unknown. Using a genetic approach, we now report that GNBP1 is required to activate the Toll pathway in response to Gram-positive bacterial infection.

	MATERIALS AND METHODS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
Fly Stocks—RNA interference (RNAi) transgenic fly lines of GNBP1 were obtained using the inducible RNAi method. A 500-bp-long cDNA fragment (nucleotide position, 122-621 of the coding sequence) was amplified by PCR and inserted as an inverted repeat (IR) in a modified pUAST transformation vector, pUAST-R57, which possesses an IR formation site consisting of paired KpnI-CpoI and XbaI-SfiI restriction sites. The pUAST-R57 has a 282-bp-long genome fragment of the Drosophila Ret oncogene, in which introns 5 and 6 are contained between two IR fragments to enhance the effect of RNAi (29). The IR was constructed in a head-to-head orientation by using a combination of tag sequences of PCR primers and restriction sites on the vector. Detailed cloning procedures will be described elsewhere.² Transformation of Drosophila embryos was carried out in w¹¹¹⁸ fly stock. Each experiment was repeated using two independent UAS-RNAi insertions. The GAL4 drivers have been described previously (30). In this study, we used adult flies carrying one copy of the UAS-RNAi construct combined with one copy of the GAL4 driver. The GNBP1-IR1 and GNBP1-IR2 insertions are located on the second chromosome. A stable line carrying GNBP1-IR2 and da-GAL4 was used in this study (GNBP1-IR2; da-GAL4)

da-Gal4, DD1 (y, w, P(ry+, Diptericin-lacZ), P(w+, Drosomycin-GFP)) flies were used as wild-type strains (31). spz^rm7, kenny¹, PGRPSA^seml, PGRP-LC^E12, Dredd^B118, and relish^E20 alleles are described elsewhere (8, 11, 17, 19, 32). Drosophila stocks were maintained at 25 °C using standard medium.

Infection and Survival Experiments—Bacterial and fungal infections were performed by pricking adults with a thin needle dipped previously into a concentrated culture of bacteria. Natural infections with Beauveria bassiana were performed by shaking anesthetized flies for a few seconds in a Petri dish containing a sporulating fungal culture (7). Bacterial and fungal strains were described previously (7). For more details on infection procedure, see Ref. 33. A highly purified solution of Micrococcus luteus PG was produced and injected in flies as described in (22).

Quantitative Real-time PCR—For Drosomycin and Diptericin mRNA quantification from whole animals, RNA was extracted using RNA TRIzol^TM. cDNAs were synthesized using SuperScript II (Invitrogen), and PCR was performed using dsDNA dye SYBR Green I (Roche Diagnostics). Primer pairs for Diptericin (sense, 5'-GCT GCG CAA TCG CTT CTA CT-3', and antisense, 5'-TGG TGG AGT GGG CTT CAT G-3'), Drosomycin (sense, 5'-CGT GAG AAC CTT TTC CAA TAT GAT G-3', and antisense, 5'-TCC CAG GAC CAC CAG CAT-3'), and control Rp49 (sense, 5'-GAC GCT TCA AGG GAC AGT ATC TG-3', and antisense, 5'-AAA CGC GGT TCT GCA TGA G-3') were used to detect target gene transcripts. SYBR Green analysis was performed on a Lightcycler (Roche Diagnostics). All samples were analyzed in duplicate, and the amount of mRNA detected was normalized to control RP49 mRNA values. We used normalized data to quantify the relative levels of a given mRNA according to cycling threshold analysis (Ct).

	RESULTS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
Silencing of GNBP1 Confers Susceptibility to Gram-positive Bacterial Infection—In this study, we have used the inducible expression of GNBP1 double-stranded RNA to analyze the role of GNBP1 in the Drosophila immune response. This approach, which exploits the UAS/GAL4 binary system to drive expression of double-stranded RNA in a defined tissue, is a form of RNAi that has been shown previously to block the expression of defined genes without interfering with the Drosophila immune system (30, 34).

We have generated transgenic flies carrying the UAS-GNBP1-IR element. This construct consists of two 500-bp-long inverted repeats (IR) of the GNBP1 gene, separated by an intronic DNA sequence that acts as a spacer, to give a hairpin-loop shaped RNA. Two independent UAS-GNBP1-IR insertions were used in this study (GNBP1-IR1 or GNBP1-IR2). These transgenic flies were crossed to flies carrying GAL4 drivers that express the GAL4 protein strongly and ubiquitously to activate transcription of the hairpin-encoding transgene in the progeny. We confirmed by real-time PCR (RT-PCR) that overexpression of UAS-GNBP1-IR leads to significant decrease of GNBP1 transcripts (data not shown).

To address the role of GNBP1 role in the Drosophila host defense, we expressed the UAS-GNBP1-IR transgene using the daughterless-GAL4 (da-GAL4) and Actin5C-GAL4 ubiquitous GAL4 insertions (data not shown for Act5C-GAL4). Flies that express GNBP1-IR ubiquitously through da-GAL4 (referred to as GNBP1-IR) show no detectable defects, indicating that GNBP1 is not essential for development (data not shown). We first assayed the susceptibility of GNBP1-IR flies and other mutant lines to infection by six micro-organisms. We pricked flies with a Gram-negative bacteria (Erwinia carotovara carotovora), two Gram-positive bacteria (Enterococcus faecalis and Staphylococcus aureus), or the fungus Aspergillus fumigatus, and we naturally infected with the entomopathogenic fungus B. bassiana. Fig. 1(A and B) shows that GNBP1-IR flies rapidly succumb to infection by E. faecalis and S. aureus. The GNBP1-IR phenotype is similar to the phenotype induced by mutation in PGRP-SA and spz, two mutations affecting upstream components of the Toll pathway. We noticed that GNBP1-IR flies exhibit a slightly lower susceptibility to these two Gram-positive bacteria species when compared with spz and PGRP-SA mutants. In contrast to spz flies, GNBP1-IR flies were resistant to fungal infection. Finally, GNBP1-IR flies also resisted infection by Gram-negative bacterial infection, whereas the relish mutants rapidly succumbed (Fig. 1, C-E). This survival analysis demonstrates that the GNBP1 gene product, like PGRP-SA, is required to resist Gram-positive bacterial infection.

View larger version (18K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIG. 1. GNBP1 is required for resistance to Gram-positive bacterial infection. The survival rates of da-GAL4/+ (), da-GAL4; UAS-GNBP1-IR1 (), da-GAL4; UAS-GNBP1-IR2(), PGRP-SAseml (), RelishE20 (x), and spzrm7 (*) flies after infection by E. carotovora carotovora 15 (Gram -), E. faecalis (Gram +), S. aureus (Gram +), A. fumigatus (fungi), and B. bassiana (fungi) are presented. 40 adults, aged 2-4 days, were pricked with a needle dipped previously into bacterial pellet (OD = 200 for E. carotovora carotovora, OD = 50 for S. aureus, and E. faecalis) or a concentrated spore solution of A. fumigatus; or naturally infected by B. bassiana. The infected flies were incubated at 29 °C and transferred to fresh vials every 3 days. PGRP-SAseml and da-GAL4; UAS-GNBP1-IR adult flies are highly susceptible to infection by Gram-positive bacteria but resistant to Gram-negative or fungal infection (data not shown for Act5C-GAL4).

View larger version (23K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIG. 2. GNBP1 regulates the expression of Drosomycin in response to Gram-positive bacterial infection. A, time course analysis of Drosomycin gene expression after septic injury with M. luteus. Quantitative RT-PCR analysis was performed on total RNA extracts from da-GAL4/+ (), da-GAL4; UAS GNBP1-IR1 () or da-GAL4; UAS GNBP1-IR2 () female flies collected at different time intervals (as indicated) after injection of M. luteus. This experiment was repeated twice and yielded similar results. B, Drosomycin-GFP expression in wild-type (WT, top), PGRP-SAseml (middle), and GNBP1-IR; da-GAL4 (bottom) flies collected 24 h after challenge by M. luteus. Left, bright field; right, GFP fluorescence.

View larger version (15K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIG. 3. GNBP1 inhibition has the same affect on Drosomycin expression as the PGRP-SA mutation. Quantitative RT-PCR analysis was performed with total RNA extracts from wild-type (WT, da-GAL4/+) and mutant females collected after septic injury with M. luteus (A), after injection of A. fumigatus spores (B), or after septic injury with E. carotovora (C). Flies carrying mutations affecting the Toll pathway (spzrm7 and PGRP-SAseml) or the Imd pathway (DreddB118, PGRP-LCE12) or overexpressing the UAS-GNBP1-IR with da-GAL4 were collected at 24 h (M. luteus and A. fumigatus) or 6 h (E. carotovora carotovora) after injection. These RT-PCR analysis show that expression of GNBP1-IR with a da-GAL4 driver affects the expression of the Drosomycin (Drs) gene after Gram-positive bacterial infections. Experiments were repeated twice and yielded similar results.

View larger version (14K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIG. 4. GNBP1 functions upstream of Spz and does not synergize with PGRP-SA. A, overexpression of UAS-spz* (encoding an active form of Spz) by the da-GAL4 driver induced Drosomycin expression in the absence of challenge and independently of the GNBP1 gene. The genotypes of the tested flies are UAS-spz*/+; da-GAL4/+ and UAS-spz*/GNBP1-IR; da-GAL4/+. Noninfected flies (C) and flies collected 24 h after bacteria challenge with M. luteus were used for control of the Drosomycin expression range. WT, wild type. B and C, Drosomycin expression (B) and survival analysis (C) in PGRP-SAseml mutant flies overexpressing the GNBP1-IR construct. Overexpression of GNBP1-IR did not significantly enhance the PGRP-SA phenotype. B, RT-PCRs were performed on flies collected 24 h after septic injury with M. luteus as in Fig. 3A. C, the survival analysis was performed as follows: da-GAL4/+ (), da-GAL4; UAS-GNBP1-IR2 (), PGRPSAseml; UAS-GNBP1-IR2; da-GAL4 (), PGRP-SAseml () and spzrm7 (x), flies as in Fig. 1A.

View larger version (17K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIG. 5. Gram-positive bacterial lysine-type PG-mediated Drosomycin expression requires both GNBP1 and PGRP-SA. Quantitative RT-PCR analysis was performed with total RNA extracts from wild-type (WT, da-GAL4/+) and mutant females collected 24 h after injection with 9 nl of M. luteus PG ([PG] = 5 mg/ml). In flies carrying mutations affecting the Toll pathway (spzrm7 and PGRPSAseml) or overexpressing the GNBP1-IR construct, Drosomycin expression by M. luteus PG is blocked. Mutations affecting the Imd pathway (kenny1, PGRP-LCE12) did not affect Drosomycin expression after injection of lysine-type PG.

GNBP1 Functions Upstream of the Toll Ligand Spz—Overexpression of a mature form of the Toll ligand spz leads to the constitutive transcription of the Drosomycin gene (35) (Fig. 4A). Fig. 4 shows that expression of GNBP1-IR did not reduce Drosomycin expression in flies that overexpress spz, indicating that GNBP1 does not function downstream of Spz. This observation and the report that GNBP1 is present in the culture medium of mbn-2 cells (25) strongly suggest that GNBP1 functions as a secreted microbial recognition factor upstream of Spz.

PGRP-SA and GNBP1 Function in the Same Pathway—We next tested whether GNBP1 and PGRP-SA function in a synergistic fashion; i.e. do flies carrying mutation affecting both GNBP1 and PGRP-SA have a stronger phenotype than either single mutant? For this experiment, we expressed GNBP1-IR with da-GAL4 in PGRP-SA^seml flies. Fig. 4B shows that inactivation of GNBP1 by gene silencing did not significantly increase the PGRP-SA phenotype. Both GNBP1-IR; PGRP-SA^seml flies and PGRP-SA flies died at the same rate after infection by the Gram-positive bacteria E. faecalis and failed to express the Drosomycin gene (Fig. 4, B and C). No additional phenotype was observed in GNBP1-IR; PGRP-SA^seml flies. This points out that PGRP-SA and GNBP1 do not work in synergy but are both required to regulate Drosomycin expression. Altogether, our genetic analysis indicates that GNPB1 and PGRP-SA are both required to regulate the Toll pathway in response to Gram-positive bacterial infection and probably function upstream of Spz.

GNBP1 Is Required for Toll Activation in Response to Lysine-type PG—GNBP1 was initially identified as a pattern recognition receptor for LPS or 1-3 glucan (25); however, our present results demonstrate a role of GNBP1 in the response to Gram-positive bacterial infection. Recently, we have reported that lysine-type PG, a PG form found in most Gram-positive bacteria is a very potent inducer of Drosomycin, suggesting that PG is one of the main bacterial determinants of Gram-positive bacteria recognized by the Toll pathway (22). We also demonstrated that Drosomycin expression by lysine-type PG is mediated through PGRP-SA and Spz (22) (Fig. 5). To determine whether the Drosomycin induction by lysine-type PG also requires GNBP1, we injected GNBP1-IR flies with 9 nl of a solution of highly purified PG extracted from the Gram-positive bacterial species M. luteus and monitored the level of Drosomycin expression by RT-PCR. Fig. 5 clearly shows that overexpression of GNBP1-IR blocks the induction of Drosomycin in response to lysine-type PG as observed in PGRP-SA and spz mutants. This experiment demonstrates that GNBP1 is required either for the direct recognition of lysine-type PG or in a step downstream of the recognition event.

	DISCUSSION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
In this study, we have identified GNPB1, a putative pattern recognition receptor, as a regulator of the Drosophila antimicrobial response to Gram-positive bacteria. GNBP1 inactivation by RNAi induces a high susceptibility to infection by Gram-positive bacterial species and reduces the expression of the Drosomycin gene after challenge by Gram-positive bacteria and lysine-type PG. The GNBP1 phenotypes we observed are identical to the phenotypes induced by a mutation in PGRP-SA. We observed, however, that GNBP-IR flies have a slightly weaker phenotype than PGRP-SA^seml flies that carry a genetically null mutation in PGRP-SA. It is generally assumed that RNAi mimics partial loss-of-function mutations of the target gene. Thus, we cannot exclude that a null mutation in GNBP1 may induce a stronger phenotype than those described here.

Several studies have already demonstrated that Drosomycin expression is tightly regulated by the Toll pathway in response to Gram-positive bacterial infections. Therefore, our results strongly suggest that, like PGRP-SA, GNBP1 regulates the Toll pathway in response to Gram-positive bacterial infection. Our observation that GNBP1-IR does not interfere with the constitutive expression of Drosomycin induced by the overexpression of a mature form of Spz suggests that GNBP1 acts upstream of the Toll ligand. A role for GNBP1 in the extracellular compartment is supported by the observation that GNBP1 is secreted into the culture medium of mbn-2 cells (25).

The implication of GNBP1 in the response to Gram-positive bacteria was unexpected since GNBPs contain a mutated 1-3 glucanase domain that is present in -glucan recognition protein of other insects (24-27). However, our data are supported by a recent study in the silkworm B. mori showing that a specific anti-GNBP antibody blocks the PGRP-mediated activation of the prophenoloxydase cascade by PG but not by 1-3-glucan.³ Although there is no evidence for direct interaction between GNBP1 and a Gram-positive bacterial compound, this biochemical study and our genetic results point to a clear implication of some members of the GNBP family in the activation of immune response by PG. The complexity of pattern recognition receptor/microbial ligand interactions was recently underlined by the implication of a PGRP from the beetle Holotrichia diomphalia in the activation of the prophenoloxidase cascade in response to 1,3-D glucan (36). Therefore, it is not surprising that GNBPs may also be involved in the recognition of distinct classes of micro-organisms.

The similarities between the phenotypes induced by the PGRP-SA mutation and GNBP1 RNAi and our observation that GNBP1 inactivation did not block Drosomycin induction by Spz expression suggest that both proteins function in the same extracellular pathway that links Gram-positive bacterial recognition to activation of Spz by serine protease(s). It has already been reported that in vitro, PGRP-SA binds to lysine-type PG found on Gram-positive bacteria cell walls. Our observation that the activation of the Toll pathway by lysine-type PG requires both PGRP-SA and GNBP1 indicates that the two proteins cannot function independently. The implication of two putative pattern recognition receptors in sensing Gram-positive bacteria is reminiscent of the situation observed in mammals, where protein complexes rather than a single recognition receptor participate in LPS and Glucan recognition. In vertebrates, it is proposed that CD14 transfers LPS to the co-receptor MD2/TLR4 (37). GNBP1 may play a similar function by acting upstream of PGRP-SA. However, we believe that this is not likely because PGRP-SA is a secreted protein that binds to lysine-type PG by itself in vitro (16). Alternatively, GNBP1 may be part of a recognition complex with PGRP-SA. Under this hypothesis, GNBP1 could facilitate PG sensing by PGRP-SA or could bind to another factor from Gram-positive bacteria (for example, lipotechoic acid or techoic acid). Finally, we cannot exclude that GNBP1 is not directly involved in microbial recognition but functions as a downstream adaptor that links PGRP-SA to the serine protease that processes Spz. The crystal structure of PGRP-LB has revealed the presence of a hydrophobic groove in the PGRP domain that may be involved in protein-protein interactions (38). GNBP1 is a good candidate for the factor that interacts with a similar domain in PGRP-SA to establish a link between PGRP-SA and a putative downstream serine protease. Additional biochemical studies are required to elucidate the relationship between PGRP-SA and GNBP1 in Gram-positive bacteria sensing and to determine whether GNBP1 interacts directly with microbial ligands.

In conclusion, using an RNAi approach, we demonstrate that GNBP1 plays a critical role in the antibacterial defense against Gram-positive bacteria. The existence of a specific phenotype for GNBP1 demonstrates the absence of redundancy among the three Drosophila GNBP members as observed previously in other large families of recognition proteins such as TLRs and PGRPs. This study also confirms the power of the inducible expression of the double-stranded RNA technique to address the in vivo function of genes that mediate the Drosophila antimicrobial response. Disruptions of the GNBP2 and GNBP3 genes using a similar approach are promising projects to determine the exact function of the GNBP family.

	FOOTNOTES

 
^* This work was supported in part by grants from MITILS (to R. U.) and from the Mext of Japan (to K. S. and R. U.). The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

^¶ Supported by a fellowship from the Fondation pour la Recherche Médicale.

To whom correspondence should be addressed: Centre de Génétique Moléculaire, CNRS, F-91198 Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex France. Tel.: 33-1-69-82-32-27; Fax: 33-1-69-82-43-86; E-mail: lemaitre{at}cgm.cnrs-gif.fr.

¹ The abbreviations used are: LPS, lipopolysaccharide; PGRP, peptidoglycan recognition proteins; GNBP, Gram-negative binding proteins; Imd, immune deficiency; PG, peptidoglycan; TLR, Toll-like receptor; RNAi, RNA interference; RT-PCR, real-time PCR; Spz, Spätzle; IR, inverted repeat; GFP, green fluorescent protein.

² R. Ueda and K. Saigo, in preparation.

³ M. Ochiai and M. Ashida, personal communication.

	ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

 
We thank Jean Marc Reichhart for providing uas-spz flies, Won-Jae Lee for the gift of the GNBP1 cDNA, and our colleagues Brigitte Maroni and Marisa Vinals for assistance and stimulating discussions. The laboratory of B. L. was funded by the Association pour la Recherche contre le Cancer, the Fondation Schlumberger, and Programme Microbiologie (PRMMIP00).

	REFERENCES

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 

1. Girardin, S. E., Philpott, D. J., and Lemaitre, B. (2003) EMBO Rep. 4, 932-936[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
2. Tzou, P., De Gregorio, E., and Lemaitre, B. (2002) Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 5, 102-110[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
3. Hoffmann, J. A., and Reichhart, J. M. (2002) Nat. Immunol. 3, 121-126[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
4. Hultmark, D. (2003) Curr. Opin. Immunol. 15, 12-19[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
5. De Gregorio, E., Spellman, P. T., Tzou, P., Rubin, G. M., and Lemaitre, B. (2002) EMBO J. 21, 2568-2579[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
6. Boutros, M., Agaisse, H., and Perrimon, N. (2002) Dev. Cell 3, 711-722[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
7. Lemaitre, B., Reichhart, J., and Hoffmann, J. (1997) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 94, 14614-14619[Abstract/Free Full Text]
8. Leulier, F., Rodriguez, A., Khush, R. S., Abrams, J. M., and Lemaitre, B. (2000) EMBO Rep. 1, 353-358[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
9. Rutschmann, S., Jung, A. C., Hetru, C., Reichhart, J. M., Hoffmann, J. A., and Ferrandon, D. (2000) Immunity 12, 569-580[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
10. Rutschmann, S., Kilinc, A., and Ferrandon, D. (2002) J. Immunol. 168, 1542-1546[Abstract/Free Full Text]
11. Hedengren, M., Asling, B., Dushay, M. S., Ando, I., Ekengren, S., Wihlborg, M., and Hultmark, D. (1999) Mol. Cell 4, 827-837[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
12. Vidal, S., Khush, R. S., Leulier, F., Tzou, P., Nakamura, M., and Lemaitre, B. (2001) Genes Dev. 15, 1900-1912[Abstract/Free Full Text]
13. Kurata, S. (2004) Dev. Comp. Immunol. 28, 89-95[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
14. Yoshida, H., Kinoshita, K., and Ashida, M. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 13854-13860[Abstract/Free Full Text]
15. Kang, D., Liu, G., Lundstrom, A., Gelius, E., and Steiner, H. (1998) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 95, 10078-10082[Abstract/Free Full Text]
16. Werner, T., Liu, G., Kang, D., Ekengren, S., Steiner, H., and Hultmark, D. (2000) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 97, 13772-13777[Abstract/Free Full Text]
17. Michel, T., Reichhart, J. M., Hoffmann, J. A., and Royet, J. (2001) Nature 414, 756-759[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
18. Choe, K. M., Werner, T., Stoven, S., Hultmark, D., and Anderson, K. V. (2002) Science 296, 359-362[Abstract/Free Full Text]
19. Gottar, M., Gobert, V., Michel, T., Belvin, M., Duyk, G., Hoffmann, J. A., Ferrandon, D., and Royet, J. (2002) Nature 416, 640-644[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
20. Ramet, M., Manfruelli, P., Pearson, A., Mathey-Prevot, B., and Ezekowitz, R. A. (2002) Nature 416, 644-648[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
21. Takehana, A., Katsuyama, T., Yano, T., Oshima, Y., Takada, H., Aigaki, T., and Kurata, S. (2002) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 99, 13705-13710[Abstract/Free Full Text]
22. Leulier, F., Parquet, C., Pili-Floury, S., Ryu, J. H., Caroff, M., Lee, W. J., Mengin-Lecreulx, D., and Lemaitre, B. (2003) Nat. Immunol. 4, 478-484[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
23. Lee, W., Lee, J., Kravchenko, V., Ulevitch, R., and Brey, P. (1996) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 93, 7888-7893[Abstract/Free Full Text]
24. Beschin, A., Bilej, M., Hanssens, F., Raymakers, J., Van Dyck, E., Revets, H., Brys, L., Gomez, J., De Baetselier, P., and Timmermans, M. (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273, 24948-24954[Abstract/Free Full Text]
25. Lee, S. Y., Wang, R., and Soderhall, K. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 1337-1343[Abstract/Free Full Text]
26. Ochiai, M., and Ashida, M. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 4995-5002[Abstract/Free Full Text]
27. Ma, C., and Kanost, M. R. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 7505-7514[Abstract/Free Full Text]
28. Kim, Y. S., Ryu, J. H., Han, S. J., Choi, K. H., Nam, K. B., Jang, I. H., Lemaitre, B., Brey, P. T., and Lee, W. J. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 32721-32727[Abstract/Free Full Text]
29. Kalidas, S., and Smith, D. P. (2002) Neuron 33, 177-184[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
30. Leulier, F., Vidal, S., Saigo, K., Ueda, R., and Lemaitre, B. (2002) Curr. Biol. 12, 996-1000[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
31. Manfruelli, P., Reichhart, J. M., Steward, R., Hoffmann, J. A., and Lemaitre, B. (1999) EMBO J. 18, 3380-3391[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
32. Rutschmann, S., Jung, A. C., Zhou, R., Silverman, N., Hoffmann, J. A., and Ferrandon, D. (2000) Nat. Immunol. 1, 342-347[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
33. Tzou, P., Meister, M., and Lemaitre, B. (2002) Methods Microbiol. 31, 507-529
34. Reichhart, J. M., Ligoxygakis, P., Naitza, S., Woerfel, G., Imler, J. L., and Gubb, D. (2002) Genesis 34, 160-164[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
35. Ligoxygakis, P., Pelte, N., Hoffmann, J. A., and Reichhart, J. M. (2002) Science 297, 114-116[Abstract/Free Full Text]
36. Lee, M. H., Osaki, T., Lee, J. Y., Baek, M. J., Zhang, R., Park, J. W., Kawabata, S. I., Soderhall, K., and Lee, B. L. (2003) J. Biol. Chem.
37. Akashi, S., Saitoh, S., Wakabayashi, Y., Kikuchi, T., Takamura, N., Nagai, Y., Kusumoto, Y., Fukase, K., Kusumoto, S., Adachi, Y., Kosugi, A., and Miyake, K. (2003) J. Exp. Med. 198, 1035-1042[Abstract/Free Full Text]
38. Kim, M. S., Byun, M., and Oh, B. H. (2003) Nat. Immunol. 4, 787-793[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. Wang, R. J. C. Gilbert, M. L. Atilano, S. R. Filipe, N. J. Gay, and P. Ligoxygakis Peptidoglycan recognition protein-SD provides versatility of receptor formation in Drosophila immunity PNAS, August 19, 2008; 105(33): 11881 - 11886. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. S. Ribeiro, E. Kuranaga, T. Tenev, F. Leulier, M. Miura, and P. Meier DIAP2 functions as a mechanism-based regulator of drICE that contributes to the caspase activity threshold in living cells J. Cell Biol., December 31, 2007; 179(7): 1467 - 1480. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Matsumoto, M. Ukai-Tadenuma, R. G. Yamada, J. Houl, K. D. Uno, T. Kasukawa, B. Dauwalder, T. Q. Itoh, K. Takahashi, R. Ueda, et al. A functional genomics strategy reveals clockwork orange as a transcriptional regulator in the Drosophila circadian clock Genes & Dev., July 1, 2007; 21(13): 1687 - 1700. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Tanji, X. Hu, A. N. R. Weber, and Y. T. Ip Toll and IMD Pathways Synergistically Activate an Innate Immune Response in Drosophila melanogaster Mol. Cell. Biol., June 15, 2007; 27(12): 4578 - 4588. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J.-W. Park, C.-H. Kim, J.-H. Kim, B.-R. Je, K.-B. Roh, S.-J. Kim, H.-H. Lee, J.-H. Ryu, J.-H. Lim, B.-H. Oh, et al. Clustering of peptidoglycan recognition protein-SA is required for sensing lysine-type peptidoglycan in insects PNAS, April 17, 2007; 104(16): 6602 - 6607. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. Sasaki, T. Sasamura, H. O. Ishikawa, M. Kanai, R. Ueda, K. Saigo, and K. Matsuno Polarized exocytosis and transcytosis of Notch during its apical localization in Drosophila epithelial cells. Genes Cells, January 1, 2007; 12(1): 89 - 103. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. Leulier, N. Lhocine, B. Lemaitre, and P. Meier The Drosophila Inhibitor of Apoptosis Protein DIAP2 Functions in Innate Immunity and Is Essential To Resist Gram-Negative Bacterial Infection Mol. Cell. Biol., November 1, 2006; 26(21): 7821 - 7831. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. P. Lazzaro, T. B. Sackton, and A. G. Clark Genetic Variation in Drosophila melanogaster Resistance to Infection: A Comparison Across Bacteria Genetics, November 1, 2006; 174(3): 1539 - 1554. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Kobayashi, L. Michaut, A. Ino, K. Honjo, T. Nakajima, Y. Maruyama, H. Mochizuki, M. Ando, I. Ghangrekar, K. Takahashi, et al. Differential microarray analysis of Drosophila mushroom body transcripts using chemical ablation PNAS, September 26, 2006; 103(39): 14417 - 14422. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Tang, Z. Kambris, B. Lemaitre, and C. Hashimoto Two Proteases Defining a Melanization Cascade in the Immune System of Drosophila J. Biol. Chem., September 22, 2006; 281(38): 28097 - 28104. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J.-H. Lim, M.-S. Kim, H.-E. Kim, T. Yano, Y. Oshima, K. Aggarwal, W. E. Goldman, N. Silverman, S. Kurata, and B.-H. Oh Structural Basis for Preferential Recognition of Diaminopimelic Acid-type Peptidoglycan by a Subset of Peptidoglycan Recognition Proteins J. Biol. Chem., March 24, 2006; 281(12): 8286 - 8295. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. S. Bulmer and R. H. Crozier Variation in Positive Selection in Termite GNBPs and Relish Mol. Biol. Evol., February 1, 2006; 23(2): 317 - 326. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Dziarski and D. Gupta Peptidoglycan recognition in innate immunity Innate Immunity, October 1, 2005; 11(5): 304 - 310. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P. Mellroth, J. Karlsson, J. Hakansson, N. Schultz, W. E. Goldman, and H. Steiner Ligand-induced dimerization of Drosophila peptidoglycan recognition proteins in vitro PNAS, May 3, 2005; 102(18): 6455 - 6460. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K.-M. Choe, H. Lee, and K. V. Anderson Drosophila peptidoglycan recognition protein LC (PGRP-LC) acts as a signal-transducing innate immune receptor PNAS, January 25, 2005; 102(4): 1122 - 1126. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. R. Stenbak, J.-H. Ryu, F. Leulier, S. Pili-Floury, C. Parquet, M. Herve, C. Chaput, I. G. Boneca, W.-J. Lee, B. Lemaitre, et al. Peptidoglycan Molecular Requirements Allowing Detection by the Drosophila Immune Deficiency Pathway J. Immunol., December 15, 2004; 173(12): 7339 - 7348. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Guan, A. Roychowdhury, B. Ember, S. Kumar, G.-J. Boons, and R. A. Mariuzza Structural basis for peptidoglycan binding by peptidoglycan recognition proteins PNAS, December 7, 2004; 101(49): 17168 - 17173. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]