RESUMO
Since the definition of systemic inflammatory response syndrome/sepsis was originally proposed, a large amount of new information has been generated showing a much more complex scenario of inflammatory and counterinflammatory responses during sepsis. Moreover, some fundamental mechanisms of sensing and destroying invading microorganisms have been uncovered, which include the discovery of TLR4 as the lipopolysaccharide (LPS) gene, implications of innate immune cells as drivers of the adaptive response to infection, and the modulation of multiple accessory molecules that stimulate or inhibit monocyte/macrophage and lymphocyte interactions. The complexity of the infection/injury-induced immune response could be better appreciated with the application of genomics and proteomics studies, and LPS was a useful tool in many of these studies. In this review, we discuss aspects of bacterial recognition and induced cellular activation during sepsis. Because of the relevance of endotoxin (LPS) research in the field, we focus on LPS and host interactions as a clue to understand microorganisms sensing and cell signaling, then we discuss how this response is modulated in septic patients.
Assuntos
Bactérias Gram-Negativas/imunologia , Imunidade Celular/imunologia , Lipopolissacarídeos/fisiologia , Sepse/imunologia , Transdução de Sinais/imunologia , Animais , Citocinas/metabolismo , Expressão Gênica/fisiologia , Infecções por Bactérias Gram-Negativas/genética , Infecções por Bactérias Gram-Negativas/imunologia , Interações Hospedeiro-Patógeno/imunologia , Humanos , Imunidade Celular/genética , Leucócitos Mononucleares/imunologia , Linfócitos/imunologia , Camundongos , Monócitos/imunologia , Sepse/genética , Receptor 4 Toll-Like/genéticaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The use of whole blood (WB) in studying lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced cellular activation preserves the milieu in which LPS-cell interaction occurs in vivo. However, little information is available on using such a system at a single-cell level. We evaluated LPS binding and cell activation in WB by using flow cytometry. The influence of heparin or EDTA as anticoagulants was also addressed. METHODS: Blood was obtained from healthy donors in EDTA and/or heparin tubes. Biotinylated LPS (LPSb) was used to evaluate cell binding of LPS in WB. Cells were surface stained with appropriate antibodies and LPSb was detected by adding streptavidin-allophycocyanin (APC). LPS-induced activation was evaluated by the expression of surface activation markers and by the detection of intracellular tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha). RESULTS: LPSb bound promptly to monocytes in EDTA- and heparin-treated blood. In EDTA-treated blood, membrane-bound LPSb decreased after 60 min of incubation, whereas it remained detectable in heparinized blood during the 6 h of incubation. LPS induced TNF-alpha and enhanced the expression of HLA-DR in monocytes, as well as the expression of CD69 in T and B lymphocytes. Induction of both TNF-alpha in monocytes and CD69 in lymphocytes was more efficient in heparinized blood. CONCLUSION: Detection of membrane-bound LPSb on monocytes differed in EDTA or heparin-treated blood, and cell activation was better obtained in heparinized blood.
Assuntos
Ácido Edético/farmacologia , Heparina/farmacologia , Lipopolissacarídeos/metabolismo , Ativação Linfocitária/efeitos dos fármacos , Anticoagulantes/farmacologia , Antígenos CD/biossíntese , Antígenos de Diferenciação de Linfócitos T/biossíntese , Relação Dose-Resposta Imunológica , Citometria de Fluxo , Humanos , Lectinas Tipo C , Monócitos/efeitos dos fármacos , Monócitos/metabolismo , Ligação Proteica/efeitos dos fármacos , Salmonella/imunologia , Fator de Necrose Tumoral alfa/biossínteseRESUMO
We used biotinylated LPS (LPSb) and flow cytometry to study LPS-monocyte interaction and LPS-induced cellular activation in whole blood from septic patients (SP). Expression of surface activation markers was evaluated on monocytes (HLA-DR) and T lymphocytes (CD69 and CD95), and intracellular TNF-alpha on monocytes. Saturating curve and kinetics of LPSb detection on monocytes were similar in SP and healthy volunteers (HV). LPSb bound to monocytes was detected after 5 min of incubation in both groups, with a more pronounced decay in SP. Monocytes from SP had a lower expression of HLA-DR as compared to HV, both constitutive and upon LPS stimulation. The proportion of monocytes producing TNF-alpha after LPS stimulus was higher in HV than SP (mean +/- SD = 25.2 +/- 14.2% and 2.2 +/- 2.6%, respectively, P < 0.001). LPS-induced CD69 on T CD8+ and CD8- lymphocytes was similar for patients and controls. Expression of CD95 on T lymphocytes was higher in SP as compared to HV on T CD8+ cells (GMFI, mean +/- SD = 22.3 +/- 14.6 and 8.6 +/- 5.0, respectively, P = 0.01) and CD8- cells (GMFI, mean +/- SD = 28.3 +/- 7.7 and 14 +/- 4.3 respectively, P < 0.001). Thus, monocytes and lymphocytes seem to respond differently to LPS in septic patients. Monocyte hyporesponsiveness appears not to be related to a decreased binding capacity of LPS, but rather to an impaired signal transduction.