Click here to close
Hello! We notice that you are using Internet Explorer, which is not supported by Xenbase and may cause the site to display incorrectly.
We suggest using a current version of Chrome,
FireFox, or Safari.
Viruses
2021 Nov 18;1311:. doi: 10.3390/v13112299.
Show Gene links
Show Anatomy links
The Roles of Amphibian (Xenopus laevis) Macrophages during Chronic Frog Virus 3 Infections.
Hossainey MRH
,
Yaparla A
,
Hauser KA
,
Moore TE
,
Grayfer L
.
???displayArticle.abstract???
Infections by Frog Virus 3 (FV3) and other ranavirus genus members are significantly contributing to global amphibian decline. The Xenopus laevis frog is an ideal research platform upon which to study the roles of distinct frog leukocyte populations during FV3 infections. Frog macrophages (MΦs) are integrally involved during FV3 infection, as they facilitate viral dissemination and persistence but also participate in immune defense against this pathogen. In turn, MΦ differentiation and functionality depend on the colony-stimulating factor-1 receptor (CSF-1R), which is ligated by CSF-1 and iterleukin-34 (IL-34) cytokines. Our past work indicated that X. laevis CSF-1 and IL-34 give rise to morphologically and functionally distinct frog MΦ subsets, and that these CSF-1- and IL-34-MΦs respectively confer susceptibility and antiviral resistance to FV3. Because FV3 targets the frog kidneys and establishes chronic infections therein, presently we examined the roles of the frog CSF-1- and IL-34-MΦs in seeding and maintaining these chronic kidney infections. Our findings indicate that the frog CSF-1-MΦs result in more prominent kidney FV3 infections, which develop into greater reservoirs of lingering FV3 marked by infiltrating leukocytes, fibrosis, and overall immunosuppressive states. Moreover, the antiviral effects of IL-34-MΦs are short-lived and are lost as FV3 infections progress.
Figure 1
CSF-1-MΦ-administered frogs succumb to FV3 infections. X. laevis were injected ip with 2.5 μg of rCSF-1 or rIL-34 in APBS or equal volumes of a recombinant control (r-ctrl) and three days later infected ip with FV3 (5 × 105 PFU). Animal survival was monitored over the course of 50 days, n = 15 per treatment group.
Figure 2
FV3 loads and gene expression analyses in control, CSF-1- and IL-34-MΦ-enriched frogs. X. laevis were injected ip with 2.5 μg of rCSF-1 or rIL-34 in APBS or equal volumes of empty vector control (r-ctrl) and three days later infected ip with FV3 (5 × 105 PFU). At designated times, animals were sacrificed, and their kidneys were examined by qPCR for (A) FV3 DNA loads (n = 6), (B) by plaque assays for FV3 infectious viral particle content per kidney (n = 5) at 7 and 21 dpi, and (C) by qPCR for FV3 gene expression of icp18, rad2 and mcp genes (n = 6). The results are means ± SE. The letters above head bars indicate statistical groups, with each letter representing those treatment groups that are not statically different from each other and distinct letters indicating treatment groups that are significantly different. Asterisks above lines (*) denote statistical differences between the treatment groups denoted by the lines, p < 0.05.
Figure 4
Kidneys from CSF-1-MΦ-enriched, and chronically FV3-infected frogs possess greater expression of chemokine genes. X. laevis were injected ip with 2.5 μg of rCSF-1 or rIL-34 in APBS or equal volumes of empty vector control (r-ctrl) and three days later infected ip with FV3 (5 × 105 PFU) or mock-infected with ip APBS injections. After 28 days of infection, animals were sacrificed, and their kidneys were examined by qPCR for expression of (A) CC and (B) CXC motif chemokine genes. The results are means ± SE (n = 6). All expression was normalized against mock-infected controls, with average baseline (uninfected) expression indicated by horizontal lines. Asterisks (*) indicate significant increase in gene expression above mock-infected controls and asterisks above lines (*) denote statistical differences between the treatment groups denoted by the lines, p < 0.05.
Figure 5
The kidneys of CSF-1-MΦ-enriched, FV3 infected frogs possess greater infiltration of granulocytes. X. laevis were injected ip with 2.5 μg of rCSF-1 (B,E,H,K) or rIL-34 (C,F,I,L) in APBS or equal volumes of a recombinant vector control (r-ctrl; (A,D,G,J); inset a panel: uninfected) and three days later infected ip with FV3 (5 × 105 PFU). At designated times, animals were sacrificed, and their kidneys were processed for histology and examined by NASDCl-specific esterase (Leder) stain, with granulocytes staining pink. The images are representative of sections from kidneys of four mock-infected and five infected animals per treatment group (n = 4 for uninfected controls and n = 5 for FV3-infected groups). Inset panel in (A), denoted (a) is representative of kidneys from mock-infected animals.
Figure 6
The kidneys of CSF-1-MΦ-enriched, FV3 infected frogs possess greater infiltration of MΦs. X. laevis were injected ip with 2.5 μg of rCSF-1 (B, inset b, E) or rIL-34 (C,F) in APBS or equal volumes of a recombinant control (r-ctrl; A,D) and three days later infected ip with FV3 (5 × 105 PFU). At designated times, animals were sacrificed, and their kidneys were processed for histology and examined by α-Naphthyl Acetate (non-specific esterase; Sigma-Aldrich) stain, with MΦ-lineage cells staining brownish-black. The images are representative of sections from kidneys of five infected animals per treatment group (n = 5 for FV3-infected groups). Inset panel in (B), denoted as (b) is higher magnification of part of the same section.
Figure 7
Kidneys from CSF-1-MΦ-enriched, and chronically FV3-infected frogs possess greater expression of myeloid cell markers and immunosuppressive genes. X. laevis were injected ip with 2.5 μg of rCSF-1 or rIL-34 in APBS or equal volumes of empty vector control (r-ctrl) and three days later infected ip with FV3 (5 × 105 PFU) or mock-infected with ip APBS injections. After 28 days of infection, animals were sacrificed, and their kidneys were examined by qPCR for gene expression of (A) leukocyte markers and (B) cytokines. The results are means ± SE (n = 6). All expression was normalized against mock-infected controls, with average baseline (uninfected) expression indicated by horizontal lines. Asterisks (*) indicate significant increase in gene expression above mock-infected controls and asterisks above lines (*) denote statistical differences between the treatment groups denoted by the lines, p < 0.05.
Bayley,
Susceptibility of the European common frog Rana temporaria to a panel of ranavirus isolates from fish and amphibian hosts.
2013, Pubmed
Bayley,
Susceptibility of the European common frog Rana temporaria to a panel of ranavirus isolates from fish and amphibian hosts.
2013,
Pubmed
Chen,
Inflammatory responses and inflammation-associated diseases in organs.
2018,
Pubmed
Comerford,
A myriad of functions and complex regulation of the CCR7/CCL19/CCL21 chemokine axis in the adaptive immune system.
2013,
Pubmed
Cunningham,
Emerging epidemic diseases of frogs in Britain are dependent on the source of ranavirus agent and the route of exposure.
2007,
Pubmed
Duffus,
Frog virus 3-like infections in aquatic amphibian communities.
2008,
Pubmed
Duncan,
Viral determinants of HIV-1 macrophage tropism.
2011,
Pubmed
Dürr,
CXCL12 mediates immunosuppression in the lymphoma microenvironment after allogeneic transplantation of hematopoietic cells.
2010,
Pubmed
Fox,
First case of ranavirus-associated morbidity and mortality in natural populations of the South American frog Atelognathus patagonicus.
2006,
Pubmed
Grayfer,
Distinct functional roles of amphibian (Xenopus laevis) colony-stimulating factor-1- and interleukin-34-derived macrophages.
2015,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Grayfer,
Amphibian macrophage development and antiviral defenses.
2016,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Grayfer,
Divergent antiviral roles of amphibian (Xenopus laevis) macrophages elicited by colony-stimulating factor-1 and interleukin-34.
2014,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Grayfer,
Colony-stimulating factor-1-responsive macrophage precursors reside in the amphibian (Xenopus laevis) bone marrow rather than the hematopoietic subcapsular liver.
2013,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Grayfer,
The amphibian (Xenopus laevis) type I interferon response to frog virus 3: new insight into ranavirus pathogenicity.
2014,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Greaves,
Chemokines and myeloid cell recruitment.
2000,
Pubmed
Green,
Epizootiology of sixty-four amphibian morbidity and mortality events in the USA, 1996-2001.
2002,
Pubmed
Greer,
Five amphibian mortality events associated with ranavirus infection in south central Ontario, Canada.
2005,
Pubmed
Hanington,
Growth factors of lower vertebrates: characterization of goldfish (Carassius auratus L.) macrophage colony-stimulating factor-1.
2007,
Pubmed
Hashimoto,
Dendritic cell and macrophage heterogeneity in vivo.
2011,
Pubmed
Hoverman,
Anuran susceptibilities to ranaviruses: role of species identity, exposure route, and a novel virus isolate.
2010,
Pubmed
Koubourli,
Amphibian (Xenopus laevis) Interleukin-8 (CXCL8): A Perspective on the Evolutionary Divergence of Granulocyte Chemotaxis.
2018,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Landsberg,
Co-infection by alveolate parasites and frog virus 3-like ranavirus during an amphibian larval mortality event in Florida, USA.
2013,
Pubmed
Li,
FOXP3+ regulatory T cells and their functional regulation.
2015,
Pubmed
Lin,
Discovery of a cytokine and its receptor by functional screening of the extracellular proteome.
2008,
Pubmed
Liu,
The emerging role of CXCL10 in cancer (Review).
2011,
Pubmed
Livak,
Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2(-Delta Delta C(T)) Method.
2001,
Pubmed
Majumder,
CXCL10 is critical for the generation of protective CD8 T cell response induced by antigen pulsed CpG-ODN activated dendritic cells.
2012,
Pubmed
Mehta,
Macrophage Biology and Mechanisms of Immune Suppression in Breast Cancer.
2021,
Pubmed
Melchjorsen,
Expression and function of chemokines during viral infections: from molecular mechanisms to in vivo function.
2003,
Pubmed
Morales,
Innate immune responses and permissiveness to ranavirus infection of peritoneal leukocytes in the frog Xenopus laevis.
2010,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Nandi,
Developmental and functional significance of the CSF-1 proteoglycan chondroitin sulfate chain.
2006,
Pubmed
Paquin-Proulx,
Human interleukin-34-derived macrophages have increased resistance to HIV-1 infection.
2018,
Pubmed
Pixley,
CSF-1 regulation of the wandering macrophage: complexity in action.
2004,
Pubmed
Plüddemann,
Innate immunity to intracellular pathogens: macrophage receptors and responses to microbial entry.
2011,
Pubmed
Popovic,
Colony-stimulating factor-1- and interleukin-34-derived macrophages differ in their susceptibility to Mycobacterium marinum.
2019,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Reeve,
Natural stressors and ranavirus susceptibility in larval wood frogs (Rana sylvatica).
2013,
Pubmed
Robert,
Xenopus laevis: a possible vector of Ranavirus infection?
2007,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Robert,
Inflammation-induced reactivation of the ranavirus Frog Virus 3 in asymptomatic Xenopus laevis.
2014,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Samanta,
TLR5-Mediated Reactivation of Quiescent Ranavirus FV3 in Xenopus Peritoneal Macrophages.
2021,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Stegelmeier,
Myeloid Cells during Viral Infections and Inflammation.
2019,
Pubmed
Wang,
Two macrophage colony-stimulating factor genes exist in fish that differ in gene organization and are differentially expressed.
2008,
Pubmed
Wang,
Neutrophils in tissue injury and repair.
2018,
Pubmed
Wendel,
Amphibian (Xenopus laevis) tadpoles and adult frogs mount distinct interferon responses to the Frog Virus 3 ranavirus.
2017,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Yaparla,
The amphibian (Xenopus laevis) colony-stimulating factor-1 and interleukin-34-derived macrophages possess disparate pathogen recognition capacities.
2019,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Yaparla,
Exploring the relationships between amphibian (Xenopus laevis) myeloid cell subsets.
2020,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Yaparla,
Differentiation-dependent antiviral capacities of amphibian (Xenopus laevis) macrophages.
2018,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Zupanovic,
Giant toads Bufo marinus in Australia and Venezuela have antibodies against 'ranaviruses'.
1998,
Pubmed
de Vries,
The pathogenesis of measles.
2012,
Pubmed
