Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-skzmx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T12:03:15.013Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Modulation of innate immunity by African Trypanosomes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 November 2010

DONNA M. PAULNOCK
Affiliation:
Department of Bacteriology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53706, USA
BAILEY E. FREEMAN
Affiliation:
Department of Bacteriology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53706, USA
JOHN M. MANSFIELD*
Affiliation:
Department of Bacteriology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53706, USA Department of Medical Microbiology & Immunology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53706, USA
*
*Contact Information: Professor John M. Mansfield, Department of Bacteriology, 1550 Linden Drive, Microbial Sciences Building, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706USA. (E-mail: mansfield@bact.wisc.edu)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The experimental studies of Brucei group trypanosomes presented here demonstrate that the balance of host and parasite factors, especially IFN-γ GPI-sVSG respectively, and the timing of cellular exposure to them, dictate the predominant MP and DC activation profiles present at any given time during infection and within specific tissues. The timing of changes in innate immune cell functions following infection consistently support the conclusion that the key events controlling host resistance occur within a short time following initial exposure to the parasite GPI substituents. Once the changes in MP and DC activities are initiated, there appears little that the host can do to reverse these changes and alter the final outcome of these regulatory events. Instead, despite the availability of multiple innate and adaptive immune mechanisms that can control parasites, there is an inability to control trypanosome numbers sufficiently to prevent the emergence and establishment of virulent trypanosomes that eventually kill the host. Overall it appears that trypanosomes have carefully orchestrated the host innate and adaptive immune response so that parasite survival and transmission, and alterations of host immunity, are to its ultimate benefit.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Membrane-associated GPI-PLC cleaves the GPI anchor to release soluble VSG with GIP substituents linked to the C-terminal residue of the molecule adapted from Magez et al. (2002) and Paulnock and Coller (2001).

Figure 1

Fig. 2. (A) Detection of GIP-sVSG in the sera of wt and immunodeficient mice infected with Trypanosoma brucei rhodesiense LouTat 1. Western Blots with Ab specific for the cross-reacting determinant (CRD) of the GIP anchor residue in wt mice or against VSG in RAG1 KO mice (Paulnock and Coller, 2001; Coller et al.2003). (B) Binding of fluorochrome labeled GIP-sVSG to MP membranes with subsequent downstream signaling events and activation of pro-inflammatory genes (adapted from Leppert et al. (2007) and Lopez et al. (2008)). Activation of MPs and DCs is dependent upon SR-A mediated, clathrin-dependent internalization of GIP-sVSG and delivery to late endolysosomal compartments. Aadapted from Leppert et al. (2007) and Mansfield and Paulnock (2010).

Figure 2

Fig. 3. GIP-sVSG-induced NFkB signaling is enhanced in the absence of TLR signaling (A): irreversible Traf6 inhibitor; (Leppert et al.2007) and TLR9 inhibitory ODN (B): TLR9 iODN 2088; (Mansfield and Paulnock, 2010).

Figure 3

Fig. 4. (A) Inhibition of IFN-γ mediated STAT1 phosphorylation in MPs by prior exposure to GIP-sVSG. (B) Suppression of iNOS transcription and NO production in MPs exposed to GIP-sVSG prior to activating doses of IFN-γ. Adapted from Coller et al. (2003).

Figure 4

Fig. 5. (A) APCs from trypanosome infected mice were pulsed with HEL or HEL peptides and exposed to HEL-specific T cell hybridomas to assess processing and presentation of HEL antigen. (B) DCs from mice infected with one trypanosome variant, and which express the relevant MHC II-VSG peptides, are unable to process and present exogenous VSGs from other variants. Adapted from Dagenais et al. (2009a,b).

Figure 5

Table 1. Microarray analyses of the immune transcriptome in mice infected with Trypanosoma brucei rhodesiense LouTat 1 (low virulence) vs LouTat 1A (high virulence). LouTat 1 induces the expression of all genes shown with the exception of CXCL19 (*), while LouTat 1A induces only a subset of the genes (underlined). Both organisms express the same VSG gene and surface coat, and exhibit identical GPI anchor residues (Inverso, De Gee et al. 1988; Inverso, Uphoff et al. 2010).