Digital Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala Dissertationsfrom the Faculty of Science and Technology 9

Interaction Between Drosophilamelanogaster mbn-2 Cells and Bacteria

KARIN JOHANSSON

ISSN 1651-6214ISBN 91-554-6140-9urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-4772

ACTAUNIVERSITATIS

UPSALIENSISUPPSALA

2005

List of Papers

This thesis is based on the following papers, which will be referred to in the text by their Roman numerals:

I Lindmark, H., Johansson, K. C., Stöven, S., Hultmark, D., Eng-ström, Y. and Söderhäll, K. Enteric bacteria counteract lipopoly-saccharide induction of antimicrobial peptide genes. J. Immunol.2001. 167: 6920-6923.

II Johansson, K. C., Metzendorf, C. and Söderhäll, K. Microarray analysis of immune challenged Drosophila hemocytes. Exp Cell Res (in press).

III Johansson, K. C., Söderhäll, K. and Cerenius, L. Diptericinexpression in bacteria infected Drosophila mbn-2 cells – effect of infection dose and phagocytosis. Manuscript

IV Johansson, K. C., Lind, M. I. and Söderhäll, K. Pefabloc – a sulfonyl fluoride serine protease inhibitor blocks induction of the diptericin gene in Drosophila mbn-2 cells. Manuscript, Short communication

Reprints were made with permission from the publishers. © The American Association of Immunologists, Inc., 2001 © 2005 Elsevier Ltd

Skaparen har klätt hela världen till en blomtapet och därpå satt människan att spatsera, leva och sig förnöja.

Carl von Linné 1707-1778

Contents

Introduction.....................................................................................................7The immune response of Drosophila melanogaster and other arthropods 8Humoral responses .....................................................................................9

Antimicrobial peptides...........................................................................9Melanization ........................................................................................10

Cellular responses ....................................................................................11Phagocytosis ........................................................................................12Encapsulation.......................................................................................12Clotting ................................................................................................13

Recognition of infection...........................................................................14PGRPs..................................................................................................14GNBPs .................................................................................................15

Signalling pathways regulating immune responses in Drosophila ..........16Toll-pathway........................................................................................16Imd-pathway........................................................................................17JAK/STAT-pathway ............................................................................18

Host – microbe interactions......................................................................19Microbial strategies for overcoming host innate immune responses...19

Objectives .....................................................................................................21Results and discussion..............................................................................21

AMP induction in mbn-2 cells is reduced by live bacterial infection (Paper I) ...............................................................................................21Microarray analysis of immune challenged mbn-2 cells (Paper II).....23Infection dose and bacterial growth rate affects Diptericin expression(Paper III) ............................................................................................25Inhibition of Diptericin expression by a commercial serine protease inhibitor (Paper IV)..............................................................................27

Svensk sammanfattning (Summary in Swedish) ..........................................29

Acknowledgements.......................................................................................31

References.....................................................................................................33

Abbreviations

acyl-HSL Acylated homoserine lactone AI Autoinducer AMPs Antimicrobial peptides

GBP -1, 3-glucan recognition protein DAP-PGN Diaminopimelic acid-type peptido-

glycan DIF Dorsal related immunity factor EMSA Electrophoretic mobility shift assay EST Expressed sequence tag FACS Fluorescence activated cell sorting GNBP Gram-negative binding protein Imd Immune deficiency JAK/STAT Janus kinase/signal transducer and

activator transcription JNK Jun N-terminal kinase LPS Lipopolysaccharide LTA Lipoteichoic acid Lys-PGN Lysine-type peptidoglycan mAb Monoclonal antibody MOI Multiplicity of infection NF- B Nuclear factor-kappa B PGN Peptidoglycan PGRP Peptidoglycan recognition protein PO Phenoloxidase PPAE Prophenoloxidase activating enzyme proPO Prophenoloxidase PRR Pattern Recognition Receptor RNAi RNA interference RT-PCR Reverse transcriptase polymerase

chain reaction SDS/PAGE Sodium dodecylsulphate/ Polyacryl-

amide gel electrophoresis Tep Thioester-containing protein

7

Introduction

Survival of all multicellular organisms depend on mechanisms that can tell the difference between self and potentially harmful non-self (antigens) and then activate the appropriate response that targets antigen-bearing entities while respecting self-cells and tissues.

The immune system is classically divided in two major branches, named innate and adaptive immunity.

Innate immunity is an ancient collection of protective mechanisms that appeared early in the evolution of multicellular organisms. It is common to all metazoans and recognizes molecular patterns present in microorganisms but absent from eukaryotic cells by germ line-encoded non-rearranging re-ceptors referred to as pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) (Janeway, 1989). Innate immune responses include phagocytosis and encapsulation, synthesis of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) and activation of proteolytic cascades that lead to melanization, blood coagulation, release of stress-responsive proteins and molecules believed to function in opsonization and iron sequestration.

Adaptive immunity is younger in origin and appeared some 500 million years ago in the ancestors of cartilaginous fish (e. g. sharks). Today, adaptive immunity is restricted to Gnathostomes, including around 45 000 vertebrate species where it co-exists with innate immune defences (Kimbrell and Beut-ler, 2001; Mayer et al. 2002). Adaptive immunity is based on random gen-eration of antigen receptors in lymphocytes through somatic gene rear-rangements and a subsequent clonal expansion of activated lymphocytes that gives the potential to recognize virtually any antigen that may be encoun-tered. In vertebrates the innate immune system serves as the first line of de-fence and interprets the ‘biological context’ of antigens and instructs the adaptive immune system to make the appropriate antibody or T-cell response (Medzhitov and Janeway, 1999). Adaptive immunity also allows for immu-nological memory, mediating long-term immunity through persistence of selected antibody-producing lymphocytes. A functionally similar feature in invertebrate immunity – ‘immunological priming’ has been discussed (Kurtz and Franz, 2003), but remains controversial as functional evidence for this is still scarce. It refers to observations that past experience with a pathogen can provide individual invertebrates with enhanced resistance in a second expo-sure. The protective action of immunological priming should not be con-fused with the antibody-mediated specificity of adaptive immunity, but may instead act through a prolonged general upregulation of innate immune fac-

8

tors that lingers on after the first encounter with a pathogen (Little and Kraaijveld, 2004).

Although invertebrates lack the tremendous complexity of the adaptive immune system and rely solely on innate immunity their amazing diversity, abundance and evolutionary success argue for a highly efficient defence system against infections.

Research on the common fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster has for over 100 years generated a vast amount of data on genetics and development not only applicable to insects and other invertebrates but also to mammals.Completion of the genome sequence (Adams et al. 2000) in combination with powerful genetic tools that facilitate fast generation of mutants with distinct phenotypes, easy and cost effective maintenance of fly stocks and lack of adaptive immunity has made Drosophila the best-studied insect model for cellular and humoral mechanisms, genetics, signalling cascades and cytotoxic molecules involved in innate immunity.

The immune response of Drosophila melanogaster andother arthropods Fruit flies are cosmopolitan species although permanent populations are restricted to tropical and subtropical climates. Both adults and larva feed on decaying fruit – an environment thriving with potentially harmful microor-ganisms.

The first line of defence against microbial aggression consists of physical barriers; the chorion of the embryo, the cuticle and epidermal layers of the larval instars and the hard exoskeleton of the pupae and the adult fly protects the organism from microbial entry into the hemocoel (body cavity) from the outside, while on the inside the epithelial cells of the digestive and genital tracts, the tracheae and Malpighian tubules produce antimicrobial peptides that inhibit bacterial growth (Tzou et al. 2000; Önfelt Tingvall et al. 2001) Should these barriers be breached in case of injury or by invasive micro-organisms, humoral reactions in the hemolymph and circulating hemocytes (‘blood cells’) are activated to fight infection (Figure 1). The hu-moral/cellular division overlaps since many humoral factors affect hemocyte function and hemocytes are an important source of many humoral molecules (Elrod-Erickson et al. 2000; Lavine and Strand, 2002).

9

Fat body

Nodulation/Encapsulation

Phagocytosis

Antimicrobialpeptides

Melanization

Clotting

Localresponse

Systemicresponse

Epithelium

Hemocytes

Figure 1. Schematic view over the immune response of Drosophila. Microbial entry into the hemocoel is followed by local and systemic defence reactions. Hemocytes phagocytose microorganisms, engage in nodulation/ encapsulation and produce antimicrobial peptides as well as factors that mediate clotting and melanization. Antimicrobial peptides are also produced by epithelial cells and by the fat body.

Humoral responsesHumoral immune responses involve soluble peptides and proteins carried in the hemolymph that when activated lead to the elimination of microorgan-isms. Arthropods have open circulatory systems and the hemolymph, which contains hemocytes and plasma circulates freely in the hemocoel. Hemo-lymph function is analogous to that of vertebrate blood in the transport of nutrients, waste products and signalling molecules although oxygen transport is mediated by soluble oxygen binding proteins and not by the hemocytes.

Antimicrobial peptides The use of endogenous peptide antibiotics is evolutionary conserved in both animals and plants (reviewed by Zasloff 2002). In Drosophila immune-competent tissues like the fat body (the liver counterpart in insects), surface epithelia, salivary glands and hemocytes have the ability to rapidly synthe-size and release antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) into the hemolymph. All AMPs are amphipatic basic molecules with a net positive charge at physio-logical pH and act by directly killing bacteria and fungi probably through lysis of their cell membranes. The small size – most AMPs are below 5 kDa, also allows diffusion through the hemolymph. Seven families of inducible

10

antimicrobial peptides have been identified in Drosophila (reviewed in Bulet et al. 1999). Some are broad-spectrum antibiotics active against both bacteria and fungi or both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria while others have a narrow range. The genes encoding AMPs and their different activities are listed in Table 1.

Peptide Genes Gram-negativebacteria

Gram-positive bacteria

Fungi References

CecropinsCecA1, CecA2, CecB, CecC, Cec- 1, Cec- 2 + + +

(Samakovlis et al. 1990; Ekengren and Hultmark 1999)

Attacins AttA, AttB, AttC, AttD + (Carlsson et al. 1998)

Defensin Def + (Dimarcq et al. 1994)

Drosocin Dro + (Bulet et al. 1993; Charlet et al. 1996)

Diptericin DptA, DptB + (Wicker et al. 1990; Bulet et al 1995)

Metchnikowin Mtk + + (Levashina et al. 1995)

Drosomycin Drs, Drs-1, dro2, dro3, dro4, dro5, dro6

+ (Fehlbaum et al. 1994)

Table 1. Inducible antimicrobial peptides in Drosophila melanogaster

In addition to the inducible AMPs there is also constitutive expression of lysozyme in the gut (Daffre et al. 1994) and of the male-specific antibacterial peptide Andropin in the genital tract (Samakovlis et al. 1991). Expression of antimicrobial peptides is under the control of two NF- B-like intracellular signalling transduction pathways; immune deficiency (Imd) and Toll (dis-cussed below).

MelanizationHumoral melanization is an invertebrate-specific key defence mechanism against a wide range of pathogens that results in deposition of melanin at sites of cuticular injury and around microbes soon after they invade the host hemocoel (Söderhäll, 1982; Ashida and Brey, 1995). Melanization is acti-vated by non-self recognition in the hemolymph and controlled by a cascade of serine proteases that ultimately cleave the zymogen prophenoloxidase (proPO) to its active form. Phenoloxidase (PO) then catalyses the oxidation of tyrosine-derived phenols to quinones, which polymerize non-enzymatically to form melanin. Several of the intermediate compounds formed during melanin synthesis are cytotoxic and participate in the killing

11

of microorganisms. To avoid uncontrolled and possibly fatal systemic acti-vation of the pro-PO system it has to be tightly regulated and the response localized and target specific. ProPO activating enzymes (PPAE) and their inhibitors have been identified and characterized in a number of different arthropod species (reviewed in Cerenius and Söderhäll, 2004).

In Drosophila many of the different components in the proteolytic cas-cade still awaits identification and characterization. So far a key serine pro-tease inhibitor, Serpin 27A (Spn27A) that regulates the melanization cascade by inhibiting PPAE, the terminal enzyme of the serine protease cascade that converts proPO to active PO has been identified although it is not known which of one the five putative PPAEs in the Drosophila genome that it tar-gets (De Gregorio et al. 2001, 2002a; Ligoxygakis et al. 2002b). Three genes encoding prophenoloxidases are present in the Drosophila genome (Fuji-moto et al. 1995; Berkely Drosophila Genome Project). Two are specifically expressed in larval crystal cells (Meister 2004) and one in lamellocytes (Marie Meister – presentation Stockholm University 2004).

Cellular responses In Drosophila cellular immune reactions involve three types of hemocytes; plasmatocytes, crystal cells and lamellocytes and refers to phagocytosis, encapsulation and in a wider definition also to clotting.

Plasmatocytes constitute the bulk of the circulating hemocyte population in larvae and are small, rounded highly phagocytic cells that also produce antimicrobial peptides and partake in clotting (Elrod-Erickson et al. 2000; Lindmark et al 2001; Theopold et al. 2002).

Crystal cells store large amounts of prophenoloxidase (proPO), present in their cytoplasm in a crystallised form. They are fragile cells that readily dis-rupt and deliver their content into the hemolymph where the proPO is acti-vated (Meister 2004).

Lamellocytes are large, adhesive cells that are adapted for encapsulation of foreign bodies too large to be phagocytosed and differentiate only in re-sponse to specific conditions like parasitization of larvae by Hymenopteran wasps.

In larvae plasmatocytes and crystal cells are found in circulation, adhering to organs and epithelia (‘sessile hemocytes’) or confined to the hematopoi-etic organ – the lymph glands. In the adult stages hemocytes are few and mostly sessile (Lanot et al. 2001).

12

Phagocytosis Phagocytosis is not only an innate immune response of macrophage-like cells to engulf and dispose of invading microorganisms but also an ubiqui-tous process that take care of apoptotic cells and debris in development and homeostasis of the tissues. Phagocytosis is initiated by recognition and bind-ing of a target particle to the phagocytic cell followed by uptake through cytoskeletal rearrangements and intracellular vesicular transport to ly-sosomes where the target is destroyed. The latter stages of actin remodelling and vesicular trafficking are probably conserved between invertebrates and higher animals. Recognition of the target is either direct with receptors bind-ing to the target surface or mediated via opsonization factors that mark the particle for phagocytosis.

Phagocytosis by Drosophila hemocytes is poorly understood in relation to the situation in vertebrates (Greenberg and Grinstein, 2002) and available data on phagocytic receptors is currently limited to three proteins; Cro-quemort, involved in apoptotic cell removal in embryos (Franc et al. 1999), the scavenger receptor dSR-CI identified by Pearson et al. (1995) that recog-nizes Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria (Rämet et al. 2001) and PGRP-LC, a peptidoglycan recognition protein that is involved in phagocy-tosis of Gram-negative but not Gram-positive bacteria in S2 cells (Rämet et al. 2002a). In addition a number of cytoskeletal proteins that regulate phago-cytosis have been identified (Pearson et al. 2003).

Encapsulation Encapsulation seems to be a cellular immune response that is specific for invertebrates in defence against foreign bodies too large for phagocytic clearance by individual hemocytes. Both insect and crustacean molecules directly involved in the encapsulation reaction have been identified and characterized, for example Calreticulin in the moth Galleria melonella (Choi et al. 2002) and crayfish Peroxinectin (Johansson et al. 1995; Sritunyaluck-sana et al. 2001;).

Drosophila can be parasitized by some 50 species of hymenopteran wasps that lay their eggs in the hemocoel of larvae (Carton et al. 1986). Circulating plasmatocytes attach to the parasite surface and within hours enhanced pro-liferation of crystal cells and massive differentiation and release of lamello-cytes from the lymph glands is observed. The lamellocytes attach to and form a multilayered capsule around the parasite, which is eventually killed by the cytotoxic molecules produced during melanization of the capsule (Meister 2004; Nappi et al. 1995, 2000).

How plasmatocytes recognize and signal the presence of an invader that they cannot phagocytose is unknown. Recent work by Crozatier and others has shed new light on the differentiation of lamellocytes. A putative signal is

13

integrated in the posterior part of the lymph glands by a subset of cells that express Collier (col) – an orthologue to the vertebrate gene encoding early B-cell factor (EBF), and this region appears to serve as a signalling centre with an instructive role in orienting prohemocytes towards the lamellocyte cell fate in response to parasitization. (Lebestky et al. 2003; Crozatier et al. 2004). Another hemocyte specific glycophorin-like protein, Hemese has been suggested a modulatory role in the encapsulation response since RNAi-mediated depletion of hemese mRNA causes a phenotype which hyper-reacts to wasp infestation with respect to proliferation of hemocytes and lamellocyte formation (Kurucz et al. 2003).

ClottingClotting or coagulation is an integral part of innate immunity, especially in invertebrates with open circulatory systems that in which efficient mecha-nisms that prevent blood loss in case of injury and stop microbes from enter-ing the body through the wound is vital. Hemolymph clotting overlaps the humoral/cellular boundary and involves a combination of soluble and cell-derived factors (Johansson et al. 1999; Theopold et al. 2002). Clotting has been most studied in two other non-insect arthropod species with signifi-cantly different clotting reactions; the freshwater crayfish and the horseshoe crab. In crayfish it involves a hemocyte derived clotting protein that is cross-linked into polymers by a hemolymph transglutaminase (Hall et al. 1999; Wang et al. 2001), whereas in the horseshoe crab it involves a proteinase cascade that terminates with activation of the clotting protein coagulogen (Iwanaga et al. 1998).

Molecular data from Drosophila is still quite limited (reviewed by Theo-pold et al. 2004), but a hemocyte-specific protein, Hemolectin is induced by injury and causes abnormal bleeding when knocked-down (Goto et al. 2001; 2003) and an ecdysone-regulated mucin is associated with extracellular bac-terial entrapment (Korayem et al. 2004). Recently, Scherfer and collabora-tors used a pullout assay to isolate proteins from Drosophila larval clots, which confirmed Hemolectin as the most abundant protein in the clot and identified several novel clot proteins. They also showed that the clot entraps bacteria and can form in the absence of phenoloxidase activity (Scherfer et al. 2004). Drosophila PO may instead contribute to killing of the microor-ganisms through the production of reactive intermediates during the subse-quent hardening and melanization of the clot (Scherfer et al. 2004; Theopold et al. 2004).

Ultrastructurally the insect clot is similar to nodules – aggregations of phagocytic cells, bacteria and melanized debris that form when large num-bers of bacteria enter the hemocoel (Lavine and Strand, 2002; Ratcliffe and Rowley, 1979).

14

Recognition of infection The key event that initiates any immune response is recognition of non-self. In innate immunity this is achieved by pattern recognition receptors (PRRs), constitutively present in the hemolymph, on cell surfaces or even intracellu-larly (Werner et al. 2000; Inohara and Nunez, 2003). Selection over evolu-tionary time has resulted in a repertoire of proteins that recognize certain non-variant molecular patterns found in microbes but not in self-tissues (Janeway, 1989; Medzhitov and Janeway, 1997). Molecular patterns that are recognized are often small molecular motifs of polysaccharides from the cell walls of bacteria and fungi. Pattern recognition is the most expansive field in innate immunity research at the moment and any attempt to list identified PRRs runs the risk of becoming incomplete very fast. In Drosophila recogni-tion of different types of bacterial peptidoglycan (PGN) and fungal mole-cules ( -1, 3-glucans) induce distinctive immune responses, thus its immune system can to some extent distinguish between different classes of microor-ganims that may cause infection. Characterized PRRs are presented below.

PGRPsPeptidoglycan recognition proteins (PGRPs) represent a conserved family of PRRs with orthologous genes found in insects and mammals (Yoshida et al. 1996; Kang et al. 1998).

The Drosophila genome contains 13 PGRPs – structurally divided in two classes; Short PGRPs with predicted extracellular location and Long PGRPs with intracellular and trans-membrane regions. Both classes are inducible or constitutively expressed in tissues like hemocytes, fat body and gut (Werner et al. 2000). To date four Drosophila PGRPs have been defined as PRRs. PGRP-SA is a short secreted PGRP that circulates in the hemolymph and specifically recognizes lysine (Lys)-type PGN of some Gram-positive bacte-ria, most notably Micrococcus luteus, which triggers a humoral cascade of proteases that activates the Toll pathway (Michel et al. 2001; Leulier et al. 2003). The most recent addition to the growing list of PRRs is PGRP-SD, which is also circulatory and partially redundant to PGRP-SA in the recogni-tion of other Gram-positive species (Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pyogenes) upstream of Toll (Bischoff et al. 2004). The PGRP-LC gene ex-hibits alternative splicing and gives rise to a transmembrane protein with an invariant intracellular part and different extracellular PGRP-domains. One of these, PGRP-LCx binds diaminopimelic acid (DAP)-type PGN from mainly Gram-negative bacteria (Werner et al 2003; Kaneko et al. 2004) and acts as a receptor for the Imd pathway (Choe et al. 2002; Gottar et al. 2002; Rämet et al. 2002a). Recent loss of function analysis has also established a function for PGRP-LE as a receptor upstream of Imd that acts in parallel with PGRP-LC. PGRP-LE also activates the prophenoloxidase cascade in larvae (Take-

15

hana et al. 2002, 2004). Some PGRPs like PGRP-SC1b and -LB seem to have scavenging functions as PGN degrading enzymes (Mellroth et al. 2003; Kim et al. 2003), while others PGRP-LA, -LD and -LF still await functional characterisation.

GNBPsThe Gram-negative binding proteins constitute the other family of PRRs in Drosophila. GNBPs or -GRPs ( -glucan recognition proteins) form a well-documented group of non-self recognition proteins in many invertebrate species where they are involved in activation of the pro-PO cascade (Söderhäll et al. 1988; Ochiai and Ashida, 1988; Beschin et al. 1998; Ma and Kanost, 2000; Lee and Söderhäll, 2001; Zang et al. 2003). In the Drosophila genome three full-length -GRPs (GNBP1-GNBP3) have been found. GNBP1 is a hemolymph protein that efficiently binds to lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and -1, 3-glucan in vitro (Kim et al. 2000). A mutant in the GNBP1 gene Osiris is unable to activate the Toll pathway and dies from Gram-positive bacterial infection (Leclerc and Reichhart, 2004). Since Gram-positive bacteria lack both LPS and -1, 3-glucan it is unknown which mole-cule GNBP1 recognizes. Another mutation, in the Hades gene that encodes GNBP3, renders flies susceptible to fungal infection making GNBP3 a can-didate PRR for fungi upstream of Toll (Dominique Ferrandon, EMBO work-shop, Trest, Czech Republic, 2003).

Both genetic and biochemical data points to that perfect sensing of either Gram-negative or Gram-positive infection depends on cooperation between different PRRs in the hemolymph of Drosophila (Gottar et al. 2002; Take-hana et al. 2004; Gobert et al. 2003; Pili-Floury et al. 2004). The fact that bacterial cell walls are made up of several components that can serve as rec-ognizable molecular patterns may be reflected in the dual specificity of many insect PRRs. Drosophila PGRP-SA can bind Lys-type PGN and lipoteichoic acid (LTA) from Gram-positive bacteria (Royet, 2004), the Tobacco horn-worm Manduca sexta GRP1 and 2 recognize both -1,3-glucan and LTA (Jiang et al. 2003), and Holotrichia diomphalia PGRPs recognize and bind both PGN and -1, 3-glucan (Lee et al. 2004). It does not seem unlikely that the cell wall composition variability of different bacterial species could lead to clustering of different combinations of PRRs that activate downstream signalling in a species-specific manner, but more data on the exact motifs that are recognized by receptors individually or in combination is needed before final conclusions about binding/signalling mechanisms can be drawn (Bischoff et al. 2004; Royet, 2004).

16

Signalling pathways regulating immune responses in DrosophilaDrosophila recognition of infection occurs extracellularly and initiates a signal that is relayed via extracellular and intracellular signalling pathways that ultimately activate gene transcription in immune-responsive tissues. Two NF- B-like intracellular signalling pathways; Toll and Imd are the main regulators of antimicrobial defences, clearly illustrated by Toll/Imddouble-mutant flies that fail to express antimicrobial peptides altogether and have a severely compromised resistance to any type of microbial infection (Hoffmann and Reichhart, 2002). Recent genome-wide expression analyses in Drosophila hemocyte-like cell lines have also shown that the JNK and JAK/STAT pathways are involved in the immune response. (Boutros et al. 2002; Johansson et al. 2005). Comparative genomics has also established that many factors identified in the cell signalling pathways of Drosophilahave orthologues in many other eukaryotes, including humans (Rubin et al. 2000). Recognition and signalling events in the Drosophila immune re-sponse are summarized in Figure 2.

Toll-pathway Drosophila Toll is a transmembrane protein with an extracellular receptor domain containing leucine-rich repeats and a cytoplasmic domain with simi-larity to the mammalian interleukin (IL)-1 receptor. The prevailing model for activation of the Toll pathway is that binding of Lys-PGN to hemolymph PGRPs and another molecule from Gram-positive bacteria to GNBP 1 (Gobert et al. 2003; Pili-Floury et al. 2004) activates a protease cascade end-ing in cleavage of the Toll-ligand Spätzle (Weber et al. 2003). A fungal product that most likely is a -1, 3-glucan can activate Toll via a similar but separate protease cascade (Levashina et al. 1999; Ligoxygakis et al. 2002a). Binding of Spätzle to Toll leads to Toll dimerization and formation of a re-ceptor-adaptor complex with MyD88, Tube and the kinase Pelle (Sun et al. 2002; Weber et al. 2003). This event activates a downstream signalling cas-cade that leads to phosphorylation of the I -B-like inhibitor Cactus which targets it for degradation by the proteasome. This releases the Rel transcrip-tion factor dorsal-related immunity factor (DIF), which translocates to the nucleus and activates transcription of target genes including the antifungal peptide Drosomycin, PRRs and several serine proteases involved in melani-zation (De Gregorio et al. 2002b). Toll signalling has also been proposed a role in cellular immunity since constitutive activation of the Toll pathway causes a mutant phenotype with overproliferation of hemocytes that form melanotic cell masses (Qiu et al. 1998), resembling the anti-parasitic cellular response.

17

Toll

IMD

FungiG(+) bacter ia

Lys-type PGN

G(–) bacteriaDAP-type PGN

Sp�tzle

Hades/ GNBP3Osiris/ GNBP1

Proteasecascade

PGRP-SAPGRP-SD

MyD88Tube

Pelle

Cyt

opla

smH

emol

ymph

Nuc

leus

PGRP-LC PGRP-LEDome

RelishDIF

Cactus

AMP, PRR-encoding genes

JNK-pathway

dFADD

DREDD

Kinasecascade

Tak1

IKK

STAT92E

JAK/Hopscotch

kB kB kB

Upd3

TEP 1, Tot-genesActivation of lamellocytes

Figure 2. Recognition of microorganisms and activation of signalling pathways that control the transcription of immune genes in Drosophila. The Toll and Imd-pathways together regulate genes encoding antimicrobial peptides and pattern rec-ognition proteins. The JNK- pathway downstream of Tak1 regulates cytoskeletal and stress response proteins. The JAK/ STAT pathway regulates Tep and Tot proteins in the systemic defence and lamellocyte differentiation in encapsulation.

Imd-pathway The Imd pathway is primarily, but not exclusively involved in defence against Gram-negative bacteria. The name refers to the immune deficient phenotype of the mutation that first defined this pathway (Lemaitre et al.1995). Activation of the Imd-pathway involves direct binding of microbial motifs to the extracellular domain of PGRP-LCx in the cell membrane – possibly in a heterodimer with circulating PGRP-LE. The exact mechanism that translates the recognition event into an intracellular signal is currently unknown but probably it triggers the formation of a downstream recep-tor/adaptor complex comprising IMD, dFADD and the caspase DREDD which in turn induces activation of a cascade of kinases including Tak1 and

18

IKK that phosphorylates the Rel transcription factor Relish (Vidal et al. 2001; Leulier et al. 2000). Phosphorylated Relish is then cleaved by an ef-fector caspase, probably recruited by DREDD (Leulier et al. 2000; Stöven et al. 2003, Leclerc and Reichhart, 2004), leading to dissociation of the I -B-like domain from the DNA binding Rel-domain that becomes free to translo-cate to the nucleus and activate transcription of most of the antimicrobial peptide genes and pattern recognition proteins like PGRPs (De Gregorio et al. 2002b). The Imd-pathway proved even more complex when Boutros and others found evidence for branching into Rel- and Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK)-dependent branches downstream of Tak1(Boutros et al. 2002; Silverman et al. 2003; Park et al. 2004).

The Drosophila JNK pathway is involved in epithelial cell movement in embryonic dorsal closure (Jacinto and Martin, 2001) and in wound healing (Rämet et al. 2002b) but not in AMP expression. Moreover, JNK signalling activates several genes that are also activated by oxidative stress (Wang et al. 2003). Induction of cytoskeletal, cell adhesion and oxidative stress genes through JNK signalling in immune challenged Drosophila hemocyte-like cell-lines (Boutros et al. 2002; Johansson et al. 2005) may reflect a link to tissue repair and a stress response that protects cells from the reactive oxy-gen species produced during melanization.

JAK/STAT-pathway In mammals the Janus kinase (JAK)/signal transducer and activator tran-scription (STAT) pathway integrates cytokine signals resulting from trauma, injury or bacterial infection in the acute phase response (reviewed in Darnell, 1997).

Drosophila JAK/STAT signalling is involved a number of embryonic and adult developmental processes including control of hemocyte proliferation and differentiation in the larval lymph glands (Zeidler et al. 2000; Meister, 2004). Research on Drosophila JAK/STAT in the context of immunity was spurred by the discovery that Anopheles gambiae mosquito AgSTAT is acti-vated and translocates to the nucleus in response to bacterial infection (Baril-las-Mury et al. 1999). The four main components of this pathway in Droso-phila are the receptor Domeless (Dome) – homologous to the vertebrate cytokine class 1 receptor (Brown et al. 2001), the cytokine-like ligand Un-paired (Upd) (Harrison et al. 1998), the JAK (Hopscotch) (Binari and Perri-mon, 1994), and STAT (STAT92E) (Hou et al. 1996; Yan et al. 1996). Simi-lar to mosquito, Drosophila STAT translocates to the nucleus of fat body cells after immune challenge where it binds target DNA sequences and acti-vates transcription (Agaisse et al. 2003). Identified target genes of the JAK/STAT pathway include thioester-containing proteins (TEPs) (Lagueux et al. 2000) proposed to promote phagocytosis in a complement-like manner in insects (Levashina et al. 2001), and a family of humoral stress response

19

factors, the Turandot (Tot) proteins which are secreted into the hemolymph after infection, heat shock and oxidative stress (Ekengren et al. 2000; Agaisse and Perrimon, 2004). JAK/STAT is probably also involved in regu-lating lymph gland differentiation of lamellocytes in the encapsulation re-sponse. Constitutive activation of hop in the dominant gain-of-function mu-tant Tum-1, leads to overproliferation of hemocytes, premature differentia-tion of lamellocytes and melanotic tumours in the absence of infection (Luo et al. 1995), while a loss-of-function mutation in hop gives a phenotype that is unable to encapsulate parasites (Agaisse and Perrimon, 2004). A function for JAK/STAT in a cytokine-mediated process in response to septic injury was also established when Agaisse and others showed that expression of the stress response protein TotM in the fat body specifically depends on the Upd3 cytokine from hemocytes and on the Imd/Relish-pathway (Agaisse et al. 2003). This finding supports that Drosophila blood cells can act as sen-tries against injury and infection and that a systemic response that resembles the acute phase response in mammals is operational in Drosophila (Agaisse and Perrimon, 2004).

There is evidence that injury in itself activates the immune response – sterile wounding induces weak transcription of all AMPs in wild-type flies and natural infection by feeding bacteria to larvae results in a weaker response than if infection is caused by bacterial injection (Braun et al. 1998; Basset et al. 2000). Every open wound represents a potential route of entry for micro-organisms that has to be rapidly sealed. It seems therefore that additional signals, perhaps from injured tissues also have to be involved in activation of known immune signalling pathways and this is perhaps most important for clotting (Theopold et al. 2002; Leclerc and Reichhart, 2004). This is in line with an extended version of Janeway’s PRR model proposed by Matzinger (1994, 2002) called the ‘danger hypothesis’ in which distressed or damaged tissues send alarm signals that alert the immune system. What these signals are and how they are recognized is rather poorly known. Putative alarm sig-nals could be physical like sudden changes in oxidizing environment, or biochemical clues like release or exposure of intracellular self-molecules that are not normally found outside healthy cells.

Host – microbe interactions Microbial strategies for overcoming host innate immune responsesNot only do microorganisms activate immune responses when they are de-tected in parts of the body where their presence may be detrimental to the host. Many have evolved counter-defensive strategies to enhance their own survival and proliferation within the organism they infect. Most of the data

20

from this field of host – pathogen interaction has come from studies of mammalian immune responses in mice or humans. Some of the themes used by pathogenic bacteria to avoid or manipulate innate immunity in these sys-tems include; evasion of recognition by host PRRs through shielding or modification of exposed surface molecules and prevention of opsonization and complement system activation through inactivation of host proteins (Guo et al, 1997; Wurzner, 1999), resistance to antimicrobial peptides by proteolytic degradation or active transport of AMPs out from the bacterial cytoplasm (Guina et al. 2000; Shafer et al. 1998) or direct interference with host signalling pathways by translocated effector proteins or bacterial DNA leading to altered host cell gene expression (Orth et al. 1999; Islam et al. 2001), to give just a handful of examples. Recent reviews of this field have been written by Rehn et al. 2000 and Hornef et al. 2002.

Many bacteria produce diffusible chemical signalling molecules, collec-tively called autoinducers (AI) that accumulate to a threshold concentration in the environment, which leads to a population dependent activation of tar-get genes. This cell-to-cell communication or ‘quorum sensing’ thus enables coordinated ‘multicellular behaviour’ within a bacterial population and has been found to regulate many associations with higher organisms including symbiosis, biofilm formation and expression of virulence factors for tissue colonization in pathogenic relationships (reviewed in Miller and Bassler, 2001; Winans and Bassler, 2002). In addition, AIs like acylated homoserine lactones (acyl-HSLs), produced by Gram-negative bacteria have been con-nected with immune modulatory activity in eukaryotic cells (Telford et al. 1998; Williams et al. 2004).

Microbial manipulation of immunity in Drosophila is a relatively unex-plored field and one reason for this may be that most of the bacterial species used to analyse the Drosophila immune response are not specialized insect pathogens and are unable to breach anatomical barriers like the epidermis or gut epithelial cells. However, when introduced by wounding they neverthe-less activate immunity in parts of the body that under healthy conditions are kept sterile. Natural Drosophila pathogens, like the entomopathogenic fun-gus Beauveria bassiana and the bacteria Bacillus thuringensis and Serratia marcescens seem resistant to antimicrobial effectors and these infections are fatal (Lemaitre et al. 1997). This, of course opens the possibility that such pathogens have evolved means to actively suppress host immunity although the underlying molecular mechanisms are basically unknown at this point. Examples of suppression of the encapsulation and melanization response by certain endoparasitic wasp species are found in Drosophila and other insects (Hayakawa and Yazaki, 1997; Asgari et al. 2003; Nappi et al. 2004) and suppression of antibacterial peptides by entomopathogenic bacterial infec-tion has been reported in lepidopteran Spodoptera (Ji and Kim, 2004) and shows that insects are by no means spared from active microbial immune suppression.

21

Objectives

This thesis covers four papers on the immune responses of Drosophilahemocyte-like cells where the aim was to investigate the regulation of im-mune genes in response to infection with bacterial cell wall molecules versus intact live bacteria (Paper I–III). The last manuscript briefly reports the ef-fect of a synthetic serine protease inhibitor on induction of the Imd-pathway (paper IV).

Results and discussion AMP induction in mbn-2 cells is reduced by live bacterial infection (Paper I) Our first paper describes a series of experiments that use crude LPS induc-tion of antimicrobial peptide genes in Drosophila mbn-2 cells as a model system to study a putative immune evasion mechanism that bacteria may use to down-regulate the humoral innate immune response. Mbn-2 (malignant blood neoplasm-2) cells were originally established from circulating larval hemocytes (Gateff, 1978) and have retained the ability to express AMPs and phagocytose bacteria and thus offer an in vitro system to study signal trans-duction in innate immunity. Prior to immune challenge cells were treated with ecdysone, a natural steroid moulting hormone that is important in regu-lating modification and regeneration of tissues during metamorphosis (Lanot et al. 2001) and also have a positive effect on immune competence (Dimarcq et al. 1997; Sorrentino et al. 2002). For example, the induction of drosomy-cin by fungi is not detectable by Northern blot in untreated mbn-2 cells (Thomas Werner, personal communication). We also omitted the antibiotics normally added to cell culture media to better mirror the situation in a natu-ral infection with the possibility of bacterial propagation.

By infecting mbn-2 cells with different bacterial species in combination with crude LPS we found that live Gram-negative bacteria, including Es-cherichia coli, Salmonella typhimurium, Erwinia carotovora and Pseudomo-nas aeruginosa blocked the expression of the antimicrobial peptides Dip-tericin, Drosocin, Drosomycin and Cecropin that were induced by crude LPS or heat-killed bacteria of the same species, whereas Gram-positive Micro-coccus luteus and Streptococcus equi did not. To further study this phe-

22

nomenon we focused on an enteropathogenic E. coli strain and used dip-tericin gene transcription as a molecular read-out of Imd-pathway activation. EMSA with nuclear proteins from infected mbn-2 cells and a labelled probe containing the B-site in the diptericin promoter showed much lower bind-ing activity in cells infected with live E. coli either with or without crude LPS, as compared with mbn-2 cells infected with heat-killed bacteria or crude LPS alone. An antibody confirmed that Relish was part of the probe/protein complex and hence that the putative block on Imd-signalling was at or upstream of this transcription factor. A kinetic study showed that the inhibition occurred throughout the time course of the normal response of mbn-2 cells to crude LPS alone. Importantly, the inhibitory effect was found to be dependent on two things. First, the initial infection dose had to exceed 20 bacteria per mbn-2 cell (MOI 20) since lower doses failed to show this response and second, there had to be physical contact between bacteria and mbn-2 cells. It was known before that many Gram-negative bacteria, includ-ing the four species used in our experiments, can inject effector proteins directly into the cytosol of host cells via a multiprotein type III secretion system (Cornelis and Van Gijsegem, 2000), but a tested type III deficient mutant E. coli strain did not differ from the wild-type parental strain in the ability to suppress expression of diptericin. Blocking phagocytosis by cyto-chalasin D treatment did not affect diptericin suppression either. Full rein-duction of diptericin expression in washed cells was taken as a confirmation of unchanged cell viability. Moreover, mRNA levels of the control genes ferritin, Rp49 and gapdh 1 were unaffected by bacteria why we draw the conclusion that inhibition was specific for immune genes and might repre-sent a mechanism of Gram-negative bacterial immune evasion distinct from type III secretion dependent pathogenesis.

However, at this stage activation of the Toll and Imd-pathways by differ-ent classes of microorganisms was not fully elucidated and based on survival experiments of Toll and Imd mutants that died of fungal or bacterial infec-tions respectively. During the publication of our manuscript the model was refined as Toll activation by Gram-positive bacteria was reported and Imdmutants found to be more sensitive to Gram-negative bacterial infection (Khush et al. 2001). Later still, the PGRP-mediated Lys-/DAP-type PGN-specificity of the two pathways was unravelled (Leulier et al. 2003; Werner et al 2003; Kaneko et al 2004). In retrospect it explains why the Gram-positive bacteria we used did not induce diptericin expression. Therefore we later conducted a more detailed study of Imd-activation in response to infec-tion and included DAP-PGN Gram-positive bacteria and also looked again at the effect of phagocytosis (Paper III).

23

Microarray analysis of immune challenged mbn-2 cells (Paper II) In recent years a number of microarray studies have been used to define immunity-induced target genes. However these experiments were mostly performed on whole adult male flies after infection by injury with a bacteria soaked needle or natural infection through feeding or coating the animals with fungal spores (De Gregorio et al. 2001; Irving et al. 2001; De Gregorio et al. 2002b; Roxström-Lindqvist et al. 2004). One study of S2 cells which describes the response to LPS has also been published (Boutros et al. 2002). In vitro infection experiments using cell culture has the advantage that the immune response can be studied without the wounding response induced by injury that by itself induces changes in gene expression (discussed above).

We decided to take advantage of Affymetrix Drosophila genome arrays to examine how the transcriptional response of mbn-2 cells challenged with a high dose of intact live Gram-negative bacteria compares with exposure to only solitary bacterial cell wall components in the form of crude LPS and hoped to achieve two things. First, to see if transcription of genes other than Imd-pathway dependent AMPs was affected by bacteria as in our earlier results (Lindmark et al. 2001) (Paper I) and second, to obtain a more refined response from hemocytes as a single type of immune responsive tissue.

The overall picture that emerged when we compared the arrays from na-ïve, crude LPS treated and E. coli infected cells was that of the around 13 000 unique genes and ESTs represented, the total number of transcribed genes was changed by the different treatments: from 35.6% in naïve cells to 37.2% and 30.8% in crude LPS and E. coli infected cells, respectively. Based on their expression patterns we identified three main classes with clear relevance for immunity; (1) Genes induced by crude LPS and up-regulated by E. coli infection. (2) Genes unaffected by crude LPS but up-regulated by live bacteria, and (3) genes up-regulated by crude LPS and down-regulated by E. coli infection. In (1) many genes with defined func-tions in both humoral and cellular immunity were found. In (2), relish and genes associated with cytoskeletal function, tissue remodelling and stress signalling but also unexpectedly genes involved in development of the nerv-ous system were found. As expected, in (3) we found genes encoding AMPs including attacin-A and -C, diptericin, drosomycin, drosocin and also the short PGRP-SA, -SB1 and –SD, serine proteases, two Kunitz-type serine protease inhibitors and cytochrome P450.

Some transcripts involved in immunity were assumed to have very low abundance in naïve cells, therefore we narrowed down the comparison to E. coli infection versus crude LPS treatment in the hope to pick up transcripts that were specifically changed by bacterial infection but missed by the selec-tion criteria in the first overall comparison. By doing this we identified 517 differentially expressed genes, 210 up-regulated and 274 down-regulated.

24

The magnitude of the changes varied between 1.3 to 11-fold or -1.2 to -14-fold for increased and decreased transcripts, respectively. However, most genes showed relatively small changes, in the interval 1.2 to 2-fold up- or down-regulation. Not unexpected there was some overlap with the earlier comparison but also new genes showed up; annexin IX, tep4, a Vitellogenin-like protein (CG15828), the transcription factor Psc and two Unpaired cyto-kines upd2, upd3 (up-regulated) and tep1, the Cactus kinase ird5, and CG4823, another alpha-2-macroglobulin family protein (down-regulated). In general, genes connected with cellular immunity – integrins, actin binding and extracellular matrix proteins were up-regulated while humoral factors like AMPs, proteases and protease inhibitors were down-regulated. Since tep1 is a likely target of the JAK/STAT pathway in fat body cells (Lagueux et al. 2000) it has been asked whether other Tep-family proteins are regu-lated by JAK/STAT as well. The difference between tep1 and tep4 expres-sion patterns in our array data indicates that members of this gene family may be regulated differently in Drosophila hemocytes.

Some known immune genes showed steady mRNA levels. The three proPO genes Bc, CG8193 and Dox-A3 were unaffected by either type of challenge as was the five putative PPAEs. The latter is in contrast to results from injury infected flies (De Gregorio et al. 2001), but may reflect the more complex response of a physically injured animal, which involves additional tissues like epithelium and fat body. That mbn-2 cells experience oxidative stress, possibly as a result of PO activation in response to crude LPS and bacterial infection, was indicated by moderate up-regulation of metal-lothionein A, Heat shock protein 68, Glutathione S transferase – JNK regu-lated genes that increase tolerance to reactive oxygen species. The discrep-ancy between our array data and immunohistochemistry results obtained with a PO-specific mAb that stained 10-15% more cells after bacterial infec-tion compared with naïve or crude LPS treated mbn-2 cells is more difficult to explain but may have to do with posttranslational regulation of PO mRNA or that other proteins with the same epitope were up-regulated by bacterial challenge. Therefore, further investigation of the antibody specificity is needed before this result can be taken as conclusive evidence for the pro-posed cell differentiation.

Changes in adhesion and cell shape were connected with live bacterial in-fection. This included a marked increase in cells that detached from the sup-port and aggregated together in the suspension – in good correlation with down-regulation of cadherins, basal lamina- and anticoagulant proteins in the array data. Formation of filopodia and increased deposition of extracellu-lar coagulum-like material containing bacteria was also observed. The dif-ferent transcriptional profiles and morphological alterations made us hy-pothesise that when challenged with a massive bacterial infection hemocytes may become biased towards cellular reactions like phagocytosis and clotting. Combined with increased synthesis of hemocyte derived cytokines like

25

Spätzle, Upd3 and Upd2 to activate or augment fat body responses – the main organ for production of humoral effectors in vivo, what we observe with mbn-2 cells could perhaps represent the local response of hemocytes near a site of injury that is perhaps more effective in dealing with large num-bers of microorganisms that have entered the hemocoel and threatens to spread and develop into a systemic infection in the animal.

The use of LPS as an immune stimulant for the Imd-pathway has been sub-ject to intense discussions since three independent studies in the last years showed that peptidoglycan recognition proteins are required for immune activation in response to Gram-negative bacteria (Choe et al. 2002; Gottar et al. 2002; Rämet et al. 2002a). LPS challenge was (is) one of the most com-mon ways to induce an immune response in invertebrates both in vivo and invitro and works well in Drosophila due to the presence of small amounts of peptidoglycan that contaminates many if not most commercial LPS prepara-tions. Thus for the purpose of achieving a non-specific control activation of the Imd-pathway the use of crude LPS is still justified. Only recently has ultra pure LPS been tested and shown to be without activity for Imd-dependent antimicrobial peptide induction in Drosophila (Leulier et al. 2003; Kaneko et al. 2004), which may have consequences also for how non-self recognition is viewed in other invertebrates.

Infection dose and bacterial growth rate affects Diptericinexpression (Paper III) The recent discovery that the Imd-pathway specifically responds to bacteria with DAP-type PGN prompted us to reinvestigate the host – pathogen inter-action reported in Paper I in order to better understand the underlying mechanism of AMP suppression.

The requirement of a bacterial concentration above a critical threshold level suggested that a bacterial density dependent pathogenicity mechanism could be involved. Therefore, we tested if any of two currently known bacte-rial quorum sensing systems: AI-1 based on acyl-HSLs or AI-2, most likely a furanolsyl borate diester (Xavier and Bassler, 2003) were involved. The AI-2 deficient E. coli luxS - mutant was tested for immune suppression in different doses and found to be no different from the wild-type strain used in parallel. Since no AI-1 mutant was available we instead decided to test two Bacillus species since Gram-positive bacteria communicate with small oli-gopeptides (Xavier and Bassler, 2003). Bacilli have DAP-PGN and the two strains chosen, B. megaterium and B. subtilis also displayed growth rates that matched E. coli and the other Gram-negative bacteria used earlier (Paper I) which insured similar MOI values throughout the length of the infection. A non-virulent common laboratory strain of E. coli was also included as a con-

26

trol. Surprisingly, all tested bacterial species gave near identical patterns of suppressed diptericin expression when the MOI of the initial infection dose was 200 bacteria/mbn-2 cell. This indicated that infection dose and bacte-rial growth rate rather than virulence was intimately coupled to abolished diptericin expression.

In vivo, the humoral immunity defect of Imd mutants is enhanced by in-jection of beads that blocks the phagocytic defence (Elrod-Erickson et al. 2000). Phagocytic plasmatocytes account for ~95% of total cell number in the mbn-2 system so we therefore suspected that phagocytosis could some-how be involved in decreased AMP expression, perhaps through over stimu-lation of the cellular defence. The effect of phagocytosis on diptericin ex-pression was assayed in two different ways. First ‘indirectly’ by adding FITC-labelled yeast cells to already bacteria infected mbn-2 cells, which showed that the remaining phagocytic capacity was compromised when bac-terial infection dose had been high, and that diptericin expression followed the same trend. Second, flow cytometry and FACS were used to estimate the number of mbn-2 cells that phagocytosed FITC-labelled heat-killed E. coliand then cells were sorted into phagocytic and non-phagocytic subsets. Dip-tericin expression of both subpopulations was measured by quantitative real time RT-PCR. The results showed that the mbn-2 system is heterogeneous and contains both a large phagocytic subpopulation and a proportionately smaller population of non-phagocytic cells. Both subpopulations express diptericin when challenged with bacteria, albeit to a much reduced level in comparison with crude LPS treated control cells. The non-phagocytic sub-population thus contain cells with the necessary receptors for activation of the Imd-pathway and they may be immature plasmatocytes unable of bacte-rial uptake or crystal cells which are not known to produce AMPs or phago-cytose microorganisms. It also became clear that dead bacteria, if adminis-tered in a large enough dose also lead to decreased diptericin expression.

To date phagocytosis by larval hemocytes can be mediated by either PGRP-LC (Rämet et al. 2002a) or the scavenger receptor dSR-CI (Rämet et al. 2001). Since only PGRP-LC is also required for AMP expression we hypothesised that reduced diptericin expression could be a consequence of saturation of this receptor at the cell surface perhaps within the first hour of high-dose infection as we had previously observed (Paper I). Phagocytosis may then continue via dSR-CI or indeed through other still unidentified re-ceptors. It is still unknown which receptor(s) mediate the ptake of yeast. At a first glance there appeared to be no significant difference in the suppression of diptericin between the phagocytic and non-phagocytic cells. However, since this experiment reveals little about the initial diptericin inducibility of the two sub-populations in response to crude LPS it is difficult to draw any clear-cut conclusion about the effect of phagocytosis. Assumed that dip-tericin inducibility is equally strong in both phagocytic and non-phagocytic cells then phagocytosis does not seem to affect diptericin expression but if

27

the opposite is true, and the small non-phagocytic subset have a low induc-tion level, then the much larger phagocytic subpopulation would account for most of the reduced diptericin transcription and phagocytosis would appear to have a considerable effect. Further investigation of the effect of phagocy-tosis on AMP expression would benefit from identification of cell markers that could be used to separate phagocytic and non-phagocytic mbn-2 cells before bacterial challenge. This would allow both cell-subsets to be induced separately and diptericin expression before and after high dose bacterial challenge could be determined.

Inhibition of Diptericin expression by a commercial serine protease inhibitor (Paper IV) In this paper we report that Pefabloc SC – a sulfonyl fluoride serine protease inhibitor can block the expression of diptericin in response to crude LPS and live or heat-killed Gram-negative bacteria in mbn-2 cells. The effect of Pe-fabloc was initially observed in infection experiments where we wanted to inactivate putative bacterial proteases that we believed could interfere with pattern recognition of Gram-negative bacteria upstream of Imd. Pefabloc reacts covalently with the Ser-residue in the active centre of serine proteases forming a stable acylated protein without proteolytic activity. The minimum inhibitory concentration was determined by titration to 2 mM. At this con-centration a 15 min pre-treatment with Pefabloc before crude LPS or E. coli challenge was enough for complete silencing of diptericin expression after 2 h. The inhibitory effect persisted for at least 24 h without any signs of cell toxicity that reduced viability compared to untreated control cells. On the contrary, Pefabloc application after crude LPS stimulation did not block diptericin expression. Therefore Pefabloc probably acts in the early induc-tion of the Imd-pathway.

Pefabloc treatment also caused rapid changes in cell shape, from the nor-mal ‘spread-out’ appearance to a ‘rounded-up’ morphology in 30 min which probably resulted from destabilization of Cadherin-cytoskeletal interaction as reported on Pefabloc influence on human epithelial cells by Serres et al (1997).

In order to isolate proteins secreted in response to crude LPS and eventu-ally the putative extracellular serine protease(s) interacting with Pefabloc we started by resolving precipitated mbn-2 cell culture supernatant proteins from naïve and treated mbn-2 cells by SDS/PAGE. Only one band of ~20 kDa displayed differential increased intensity after 12 h crude LPS treatment compared with the naïve cell sample on the Coomassie stained reducing SDS/PAGE. This band also appeared to decrease slightly with 2mM Pe-fabloc treatment which means that it could represent a putative immune fac-tor for which induction is disturbed by Pefabloc. However, the mechanism

28

by which Pefabloc inhibits diptericin induction is still unknown and awaits further investigation.

29

Svensk sammanfattning(Summary in Swedish)

Alla flercelliga organismer är beroende av ett väl fungerande immunförsvar för sin överlevnad. Immunförsvaret delas vanligen upp i två delar, det med-födda (innata) som är nedärvt och det förvärvade eller adaptiva som under hela organismens livstid utökar sin repertoar av olika antikroppar och också har en minnesfunktion – ett tidigare påträffat antigen ger ett snabbare och mer effektivt immunsvar vid en senare exponering. Det medfödda immun-försvaret är evolutionärt mycket äldre än det förvärvade och bygger på en begränsad uppsättning receptorer som känner igen relativt ovariabla molekylära mönster hos t ex polysackarider och lipoproteiner som finns på ytan av mikroorganismer men i normalt inte den egna kroppen. När sådana strukturer påträffas i vävnader där mikroorganismer inte tolereras initierar receptorbindning en signal i värdcellerna som genom olika signal-transduktionsvägar resulterar i aktivering av humorala och cellulära skyddsmekanismer. Den humorala delen innefattar lösliga molekyler och proteiner i blod och plasma som t ex endogena antimikrobiella peptider och koaguleringsfaktorer, medan cellulära reaktioner som t ex fagocytos utövas av olika typer av blodceller.

Mikrobiell invasion inducerar dock inte alltid immunreaktioner som leder till att de elimineras. Många patogena bakterier använder sig av olika strate-gier för att undkomma eller manipulera det medfödda immunförsvaret hos den organism de infekterar, ofta med en snabb bakterietillväxt som följd.

Ryggradslösa djur som insekter och skaldjur har till skillnad från ryggradsdjur endast den medfödda delen av immunförsvaret. De har också ofta en öppen kroppsplan utan kärlsystem med hemolymfa som cirkulerar fritt i kroppshålan. Om mikrober tränger igenom skyddande exoskelett och epitel spelar reaktiva hemocyter som circulerar i hemolymfan en nyckelroll i förhindrandet av systemisk infektion genom snabb koagulering, utsöndring av antimikrobiella peptider och cytokiner som aktiverar andra immunkompe-tenta vävnader. Hemocyter är även bärare av fenoloxidas som inducerar melanisering, en unik försvarsreaktion hos ryggradslösa djur som är toxisk för bakterier och parasiter.

Den vanliga bananflugan Drosophila melanogaster har haft stor betydelse för kartläggningen av igenkänning, signaltransduktion och aktivering i det

30

medfödda immunförsvaret inte bara i andra insekter men även i däggdjur. Arvsmassan hos Drosophila är känd vilket i kombination med en mängd genetiska verktyg gör den särskilt behändig och användbar som försöksdjur för identifiering av gener inblandade i ett ursprungligt medfött immun-system.

I den här avhandlingen användes en hemocytliknande cell-linje, mbn-2 som modell för att studera regleringen av bl a antimikrobiella peptid gener i Drosophila efter stimulering med molekyler från Gram-negativa bakteriers cellväggar (LPS/PGN) eller efter en reell bakterieinfektion. Våra resultat visar att vid låga initiala infektionsdoser av bakterier produderar mbn-2 cel-ler antimikrobiella peptider på samma sätt som efter stimulering med LPS/PGN. Däremot ger höga initiala infektionsdoser en annan respons, pro-duktionen av antimikrobiella peptider går ner samtidigt som gener för cyto-kiner som verkar på fettkropp och lymfkörtlar in vivo uppregleras. Eftersom detta även åtföljs av morfologiska förändringar som påminner om koaguler-ing och nodulering i andra insekter har vi har tolkat detta som att immuns-varet skiftas mot ett mer cellulärt svar som potentiellt kan vara ett effektivare sätt att lokalt motverka stora bakteriemängder. Vi har även undersökt hur fagocytos påverkar denna balans.

31

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank:

My supervisor Prof. Kenneth Söderhäll, for letting me join the group as a PhD student, allowing me to test my own ideas and teaching me not to overdo things.

Hans Lindmark – ex-assistant supervisor for taking me onboard the Droso-phila project, for your enthusiasm, kindness and tennis games.

Lage Cerenius – assistant supervisor for constructive criticism and for inter-esting discussions about science, gardening, cats and much more.

Irene Söderhäll, for advice and computer support. The ‘lab-policeman’ Rag-nar Ajaxon, for invaluable technical assistance with equipment, bicycle re-pairs and updates on the train news. Anbar Kodabandeh, for sequencing and wonderful Iranian food. Stefan Gunnarsson at BSA for helping with micro-scopes and imaging. Marianne Andersson for administration. Olle Tottmar and Lage (again) for organizing the teaching.

All other former and present members of the department of Comparative Physiology, too many to mention – you know who you are. Thank you all so much for making the time in the lab fun and interesting, for friendship, inter-national dinners and pub-crawls with the ‘fishes’!

My ‘students’ Christoph and Mattias, thanks for all your work and for being so motivated.

All the people I have met at meetings and conferences during the years Thomas (Genau!), Carl Johan, Michael, Pia and Dan at UCMP, Ylva, Gun-nel, Anna, and Jenny from Stockholm University, Bok-Luel Lee thank you for welcoming me to your lab in Pusan, South-Korea, I had a great time!

The Wallenberg Consortium Nord and the Swedish Research Council for supporting this work financially and Anna-Maria Lundins stipendiefond of Smålands Nation for generous travel grants.

32

My friends outside the lab; Sara, Pauline, Ulla, Maria Stenqvist, Karl T. H., Malin, Anna, Jenny, Maria Ståhlberg, Carl B., Lukas, Robin, Sonny, Jeannette, Daniel, Sandra, Staffan – you all inspire me!

Jayne Buchanan, Bill Wallsgrove and Thomas – the greatest English teach-ers an au-pair could possibly find.

Filip for cheering endlessly, running the ground service tirelessly and for always being there for me

My brother Henrik for finding the funny no matter what life serves up and transportation between Uppsala-Örebro.... Sagån!

Last but not least I am indebted to my parents Märtha and Olle, who have always supported me whatever I have chosen to do.

33

References

Adams, M. D., Celniker, S. E., Holt, R. A., Evans, C. A., Gocayne, J. D., Amanati-des, P. G. et al. (2000). The genome sequence of Drosophila melanogaster. Sci-ence 287, 2185-2195.

Agaisse, H., Petersen, U. M., Boutros, M., Mathey-Prevot, B. And Perrimon, N. (2003). Signaling role of hemocytes in Drosophila JAK/STAT-dependent re-sponse to septic injury. Dev Cell 5, 441-450.

Agaisse, H. and Perrimon, N. (2004). The roles of JAK/STAT signaling in Droso-phila immune responses. Immunol Rev 198, 72-82.

Asgari, S., Zareie, R., Zhang, G. and Schmidt, O. (2003). Isolation and characteriza-tion of a novel venom protein from an endoparasitoid, Cotesia rubecula (Hym: Braconidae). Arch Insect Biochem Physiol 53, 92-100.

Ashida, M. and Brey, P. T. (1995). Role of the integument in insect defence: pro-phenol oxidase cascade in the cuticular matrix. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 92, 10698-10702.

Barillas-Mury, C., Han, Y. S., Seeley, D. and Kafatos, F. C. (1999). Anopheles gam-biae Ag-STAT, a new insect member of the STAT family, is activated in re-sponse to bacterial infection. EMBO J 18, 959-967.

Basset, A., Khush, R. S., Braun, A., Gardan, L., Boccard, F., Hoffmann, J. A. and Lemaitre, B. (2000). The phytopathogenic bacteria Erwinia carotovora infects Drosophila and activates an immune response. Proc Natl Acad Sci 97, 3376-3381.

Beschin, A., Bilej, M., Hanssens, F., Raymakers, J., Van Dyck, E., Revets, H., Brys, L., Gomez, J., De Baetselier, P. and Timmermans, M. (1998). Identification and cloning of a glucan- and lipopolysaccharide-binding protein from Eiseniafoetida earthworm involved in the activation of prophenoloxidase cascade. JBiol Chem 273, 24948-24954.

Binari, R. and Perrimon, N. (1994). Stripe-specific regulation of pair-rule genes by hopscotch, a putative Jak family tyrosine kinase in Drosophila. Genes Dev 8, 300-312.

Bischoff, V., Vignal, S., Boneca, I. G., Michel, T., Hoffmann, J. A. and Royet, J. (2004). Function of the Drosophila pattern-recognition receptor PGRP-SD in the detection of Gram-positive bacteria. Nat Immunol 5, 1175-1180.

Boutros, M., Agaisse, H. and Perrimon, N. (2002). Sequential activation of signaling pathways during innate immune responses in Drosophila. Dev Cell 3, 711-722.

Braun, A., Hoffmann, J. A. and Meister, M. (1998). Analysis of the Drosophila host defense in domino mutant larvae, which are devoid of hemocytes. Proc Natl Acad Sci 95, 14337-14342.

Brown, S., Hu, N. and Hombria, J. C. (2001). Identification of the first invertebrate interleukin JAK/STAT receptor, the Drosophila gene domeless. Curr Biol 11, 1700-1705.

Bulet, P., Dimarcq, J. L., Hetru, C., Lagueux, M, Charlet, M., Hegy, G., Van Dorsselaer, A. and Hoffmann, J. A. (1993). A novel inducible antibacterial pep-

34

tide of Drosophila carries an O- glycosylated substitution. J Biol Chem 268, 14893-14897.

Bulet, P., Hegy, G., Lambert, J., Van Dorsselaer, A., Hoffmann, J. A. and Hetru, C. (1995). Insect immunity: The inducible antibacterial peptide diptericin carries two O-glycans necessary for biological activity. Biochemistry 34, 7394-7400.

Bulet, P., Hetru, C., Dimarcq, J. L. and Hoffmann, D. (1999). Antimicrobial pep-tides in insects; structure and function. Dev Comp Immunol 23, 329-344.

Carlsson, A., Nyström, T., de Cock, H. and Bennich,H. (1998). Attacin – an insect immune protein – binds LPS and triggers the specific inhibition of bacterial outer-membrane protein synthesis. Microbiology 144, 2179-2188.

Carton, Y., Bouletreau, M., van Alphen, J. and van Lenteren, J. (1986). The Droso-phila parasitic wasps. In The Genetics and Biology of Drosophila . Ashburner, M., Carson, J. H. L., Thompson, J. N., ed. Academic Press, New York, p.347-394.

Charlet, M., Lagueux, M., Reichhart, J. M., Hoffmann, D., Braun, A. and Meister, M. (1996). Cloning of the gene encoding the antibacterial peptide drosocin in-volved in Drosophila immunity. Expression studies during the immune re-sponse. Eur J Biochem 241, 699-706.

Choe, K. M., Werner, T., Stöven, S., Hultmark, D. and Anderson, K. V. (2002). Requirement for a peptidoglycan recognition protein (PGRP) in Relish activa-tion and antibacterial immune responses in Drosophila. Science 296, 359-362.

Choi, J. Y., Whitten, M. M. A., Cho, M. Y., Lee, K. Y., Kim, M. S., Ratcliffe, N. A. and Lee, B. L. (2002). Calreticulin enriched as an early-stage encapsulation pro-tein in wax moth Galleria melonella larvae. Dev Comp Phys 26, 335-343.

Cornelis, G. R. and Van Gijsegem, F. (2000). Assembly and function of type III secretory systems. Annu Rev Microbiol 54, 735-774.

Crozatier, M., Ubeda, J-M., Vincent, A. and Meister, M. (2004). Cellular immune response to parasitization in Drosophila requires the EBF orthologue collier. PLoS Biol 2(89), e196.

Daffre, S., Kylsten, P., Samakovlis, C. and Hultmark, D. (1994). The lysozyme locus in Drosophila melanogaster: an expanded gene family adapted for expres-sion in the digestive tract. Mol Gen Genet 242, 152-162.

Darnell, J. E. (1997). STATs and gene regulation. Science 277, 1630-1635. De Gregorio, E., Spellman, P. T., Rubin, G. M. and Lemaitre, B. (2001). Genome-

wide analysis of the Drosophila immune response by oligonucleotide microar-rays. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98, 12590-12595.

De Gregorio, E., Han, S. J., Lee, W. J., Baek, M. J., Osaki, T., Kawabata, S., Lee, B. L., Iwanaga, S., Lemaitre,B. and Brey, P. T. (2002a). An immune-responsive serpin regulates the melanization cascade in Drosophila. Dev Cell 3, 581-592.

De Gregorio, E., Spellman, P. T., Tzou, P., Rubin, G. M. and Lemaitre, B. (2002b). The Toll and Imd pathways are the major regulators of the immune response in Drosophila. EMBO J 21, 2568-2579.

Dimarcq, J. L., Hoffmann, D., Meister, M., Bulet, P., Lanot, R., Reichhart, J. m. and Hoffmann, J. A. (1994). Characterization and transcriptional profiles of a Dro-sophila gene encoding an insect defensin. A study in insect immunity. Eur J Biochem 221, 201-209.

Dimarcq, J. L., Imler, J. L., Lanot, R., Ezekowitz, R. A. B., Hoffmann, J. A., Jane-way, C. A. and Lagueux, M. (1997). Treatment of l(2)mbn Drosophila tumorous blood cells with the steroid hormone ecdysone amplifies the inducibility of an-timicrobial peptide gene expression. Insect Biochem Molec Biol 27, 877-886.

Ekengren, S. and Hultmark, D. (1999). Drosophila cecropin as an antifungal agent. Insect Biochem Molec Biol 29, 965-972.

35

Ekengren, S. and Hultmark, D. (2001). A family of Turandot-related genes in the humoral stress response of Drosophila. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 284, 998-1003.

Elrod-Erickson, M., Mishra, S. and Schneider, D. (2000). Interactions between the cellular and humoral immune responses in Drosophila. Current Biol 10, 781-784.

Fehlbaum, P., Bulet, P., Michaut, L., Lagueux, M., Broekaert, W. F., Hetru, C. and Hoffmann, J. A. (1994). Insect immunity: Septic injury of Drosophila induces synthesis of a potent antifungal peptide with sequence homology to plant anti-fungal peptides. J Biol Chem 269, 33159-33163.

Flajnik, M. F. and Du Pasquier, L. (2004). Evolution of innate and adaptive immu-nity: can we draw a line? Trends Immunol 25, 640-644.

Franc, N. C, Heitzler, P., Ezekowitz, R. A. and White, K. (1999). Requirement for croquemort in phagocytosis of apoptotic cells in Drosophila. Science 284, 1991-1994.

Fujimoto, K., Okino, N., Kawabata, S., Iwanaga, S. and Ohnishi, E. (1995). Nucleo-tide sequence of the cDNA encoding the proenzyme of phenol oxidase A1 of Drosophila melanogaster. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 92, 7769-7773.

Gateff, E. (1978). Malignant neoplasm of genetic origin in Drosophila melanogaster. Science 200, 1448-1459.

Gobert, V., Gottar, M., Matskevich, A., Rutschmann, S., Royet, J., Belvin, M., Hoffmann, J. and Ferrandon, D. (2003). Dual activation of the Drosophila Toll pathway by two pattern recognition receptors. Science 302, 2126-2130.

Goto, A., Kumagai, T., Kumagai, C., Hirose, J., Narita, H., Mori, H., Kadowaki, T., Beck, K. and Kitagawa, Y. (2001). A Drosophila haemocyte-specific protein, hemolectin, similar to human von Willebrand factor. Biochem J 359, 99-108.

Goto, A. Kadowaki, T. and Kitagawa, Y. (2003). Drosophila hemolectin gene is expressed in embryonic and larval hemocytes and its knock-down causes bleed-ing defects. Dev Biol 264, 582-591.

Gottar, M., Gobert, V., Michel, T., Belvin, M., Duyk, G., Hoffmann, J. A., Ferran-don, D. and Royet J. (2002). The Drosophila immune response against Gram-negative bacteria is mediated by a peptidoglycan recognition protein. Nature 416, 640-644.

Greenberg, S. and Grinstein, S. (2002). Phagocytosis and innate immunity. Curr Opin Immunol 14, 136-145.

Guina, T., Yi, E. C., Wang, H., Hackett, M. and Miller, S. I. (2000). A PhoP- regu-lated outer membrane protease of Salmonella enterica serovar typhimurium promotes resistance to -helical antimicrobial peptides. J Bacteriol 182, 4077-4086.

Guo, L., Lim, K. B., Gunn, J. S., Bainbridge, B., Daarveau, R. P., Hackett, M. and Miller, S. I. (1997). Regulation of lipidA modifications by Salmonella typhi-murium virulence genes phoP-phoQ. Science 276, 250-253.

Hall, M., Wang, R. G., Van Antwerpen, R., Sotterup-Jensen, L. and Söderhäll, K. (1999). The crayfish plasma clotting protein: a vitellogenin-related protein re-sponsible for clot formation in crustacean blood. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 96, 1965-1970.

Harrison, D. A., McCoon, P. E., Binari, R., Gilman, M. and Perrimon, N. (1998). Drosophila unpaired encodes a secreted protein that activates the JAK signaling pathway. Genes Dev 12, 3252-3263.

Hayakawa, Y. and Yazaki, K. (1997). Envelope protein of parasitic wasp symbiont virus, polyadnavirus, protects the wasp eggs from cellular immune response re-actions by the host insect. Eur J Biochem 246, 820-826.

36

Hornef, M. W., Wick, M. J, Rehn, M. and Normark, S. (2002). Bacterial strategies for overcoming host innate and adaptive immune responses. Nature Immunol 3, 1033-1040.

Hou, X. S., Melnick, M. B. And Perrimon, N. (1996). Marelle acts downstream of the Drosophila HOP/JAK kinase and encodes a protein similar to the mammal-ian STATs. Cell 84, 411-419.

Inohara, N. and Nunez, G. (2003). NODs: intracellular proteins involved in inflam-mation and apoptosis. Nat Rev Immunol 3, 371-382.

Irving, P., Troxler, L., Heuer, T. S., Belvin, M., Kopczynski, C., Reichhart, J. M., Hoffmann, J. A. and Hetru, C. (2001). A genome-wide analysis of immune re-sponses in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98, 15119-15124.

Islam, D., Brandholtz, L., Nilsson, J., Wigzell, H., Christensson, B., Agerberth, B. and Gudmundsson, G. H. (2001). Downregulation of bactericidal peptides in en-teric infections: a novel immune escape mechanism with bacterial DNA as a po-tential regulator. Nature Med 7, 180-185.

Iwanaga, S., Kawabata, S. and Muta, T. (1998). New types of clotting factors and defense molecules found in horseshoe crab hemolymph: their structures and functions. J Biochem (Tokyo) 123, 1-15.

Jacinto, A. and martin, P. (2001). Morphogenesis: unravelling the cell biology of hole closure. Curr Biol 11, R705-R707.

Janeway, C. A. Jr (1989). Approaching the asymptote? Evolution and revolution in immunology. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol. 54, 1-13.

Ji, D. and Kim, Y. (2004). An entomopathogenic bacterium, Xenorhabdus nemato-dophila, inhibits the expression of an antibacterial peptide, cecropin, of the beet armyworm, Spodoptera exigua. J Insect Phys 50, 489-496.

Jiang, H., Ma, C., Lu, Z. Q., and Kanost, M. R. (2004). -1,3-glucan recognition protein-2 ( GRP-2) from Manduca sexta: an acute-phase protein that binds -1,3-glucan and lipoteichoic acid to aggregate fungi and bacteria and stimulate prophenoloxidase activation. Insect Biochem Mol Biol 34, 89-100.

Johansson, K. C., Metzendorf, C. and Söderhäll, K. (2005). Microarray analysis of immune challenged Drosophila hemocytes. Exp Cell Res (in press)

Johansson, M. W., Lind, M. I., Holmblad, T., Thörnqvist, P. O. and Söderhäll, K. (1995). Peroxinectin, a novel cell adhesion protein from crayfish blood. Bio-chem Biophys Res Commun 216, 1079-1087.

Johansson, M. W. (1999). Cell adhesion molecules in invertebrate immunity. DevComp Immunol 23, 303-315.

Kaneko, T., Goldman, W. E., Mellroth, P., Steiner, H., Fukase, K., Kusumoto, S., Harley, W., Fox, A., Golenbock, D. and Silverman, N. (2004). Monomeric and polymeric Gram-negative peptidoglycan but not LPS stimulate the Drosophila IMD pathway. Immunity 20, 637-649.

Kang, D., Liu, G., Lundström, A., Gelius, E. and Steiner, H. (1998). A peptidogly-can recognition protein in innate immunity conserved from insects to humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 95, 10078-10082.

Khush, R. S., Leulier, F. and Lemaitre, B. (2001). Drosophila immunity: two paths to NF- B. Trends Immunol 22, 260-264.

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, J. W. (2000). Gram-negative bacteria-binding protein, a pattern recognition receptor for lipopolysaccharide and beta-1, 3-glucan that mediates the signaling for the induction of innate immune genes in Drosophila melanogaster cells. J Biol Chem 275, 32721-32727.

Kim, M. S., Byun, M. and Oh, B. H. (2003). Crystal structure of peptidoglycan rec-ognition protein LB from Drosophila melanogaster.

37

Kimbrell, D. A. and Beutler, B. (2001). The evolution and genetics of innate immu-nity. Nat Rev Genet 2, 256-267.

Korayem, A. M., Fabbri, M., Takahashi, K., Scherfer, C., Lindgren, M., Schmidt, O., Ueda, R., Dushay, M. S. and Theopold, U. (2004). A Drosophila salivary gland mucin is also expressed in immune tissues: evidence for function in co-agulation and the entrapment of bacteria. Insect Biochem Mol Biol 34, 1297-1304.

Kurtz, J. and Franz, K. (2003). Evidence for memory in invertebrate immunity. Nature 425, 37-38.

Kurucz, E., Zettervall, C. J., Sinka, R., Vilmos, P., Pivarcsi, A., Ekengren, S., Hegedüs, Z., Ando, I. and Hultmark, D. (2003). Hemese, a hemocyte-specific transmembrane protein, affects the cellular immune response in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100, 2622-2627.

Lagueux, M., Perrodou, E., Levashina, E. A., Capovilla, M. and Hoffmann, J. A. (2000). Constitutive expression of a complement-like protein in Toll and JAK gain-of-function mutants of Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 97, 11427-11432.

Lanot, R., Zachary, D., Holder, F and Meister, M. (2001). Postembryonic hemato-poiesis in Drosophila. Dev Biol 230, 243-257.

Lavine, M. D. and Strand, M. R. (2002) Insect hemocytes and their role in immu-nity. Insect Biochem Mol Biol 32, 1295-1309.

Lebestky, T., Jung, S. H. and Banerjee, U. (2003). A Serrate-expressing signaling center controls Drosophila hematopoiesis. Genes Dev 17, 348-353.

Leclerc, V. and Reichhart, J. M. (2004). The immune response of Drosophila melanogaster. Immunol Rev 198, 59-71.

Lee, S. Y. and Söderhäll, K. (2001). Characterization of a pattern recognition pro-tein, a masquerade-like protein, in the freshwater crayfish, Pacifastacus lenius-culus. J Immunol 166, 7319-7326.

Lee, M. H., Osaki, T., Lee, J. Y., Baek, M. J., Zhang, R., Park, J. W., Kawabata, S I., Söderhäll, K. and Lee, B. L. (2004). Peptidoglycan recognition proteins in-volved in 1, 3-beta-D-glucan-dependent activation system of insect. J Biol Chem. 279, 3218-3227.

Lemaître, B., Kromer-Metzger, E., Michaut, L., Nicolas, E., Meister, M., Georgel, P., Reichhart, J. A. and Hoffmann, J. A. (1995). A recessive mutation, immune deficiency (imd), defines two distinct control pathways in the Drosophila host defence. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 92, 946-959.

Lemaitre, B., Reichhart, J. M. and Hoffmann, J. (1997). Drosophila host defence: differential induction of antimicrobial peptide genes after infection by various classes of microorganisms. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 94, 14614-14619.

Leulier, F., Rodriguez, A., Khush, R. S., Abrams, J. M. and Lemaitre, B. (2000). The Drosophila caspase Dredd is required to resist Gram-negative bacterial in-fection. EMBO Rep 1, 353-358.

Leulier, F., Vidal, S., Saigo, K., Ueda, R. and Lemaitre, B. (2002). Inducible expres-sion of double stranded RNA reveals a role for dFADD in the regulation of the antibacterial response in Drosophila adults. Curr Biol 12, 996-1000.

Leulier, F., Parquet, C., Pili-Floury, S., Ryu, J. H., Caroff, M., Lee, W. J., Mengin-Lecreulx, D and Lemaitre, B. (2003). The Drosophila immune system detects bacteria through specific peptidoglycan recognition. Nat Immunol 4, 478-484.

Levashina, E. A., Ohresser, S., Bulet, P., Reichhart, J. M., Hetru, C. and Hoffmann, J. A. (1995). Metchnnikowin, a novel immune-inducible proline-rich peptide from Drosophila with antibacterial and antifungal properties. Eur J Biochem233, 694-700.

38

Levashina, E. A., Langley, E., Green, C., Gubb, D., Ashburner, M., Hoffmann, J. A. and Reichhart, J. M. (1999). Constitutive activation of toll-mediated antifungal defence in serpin-deficient Drosophila. Science 285, 1917-1919.

Levashina, E. A., Moita, L. F., Blandin, S., Vriend, G., Lagueux, M. and Kafatos, F. C. (2001). Conserved role of a complement-like protein in phagocytosis re-vealed by dsRNA knockout in cultured cells of the mosquito, Anopheles gam-biae. Cell 104, 709-718.

Ligoxygakis, P., Pelte, N., Hoffmann, J. A. and Reichhart, J. M. (2002a). Activation of Drosophila Toll during fungal infection by a blood serine protease. Science297, 114-116.

Ligoxygakis, P., Pelte, N., Ji, C., Leclerc, V., Duvic, B., Belvin, M., Jiang, H., Hoffmann, J. A. and Reichhart, J. M. (2002b). A serpin mutant links Toll activa-tion to melanization in the host defence of Drosophila. EMBO J 21, 6330-6337.

Lindmark, H., Johansson, K. C., Stöven, S., Hultmark, D., Engström, Y. and Söderhäll, K. (2001). Enteric bacteria counteract lipopolysaccharide induction of antimicrobial peptide genes in Drosophila. J Immunol 167, 6920-6923.

Little, T. J. and Kraaijveld, A. R. (2004). Ecological and evolutionary implications of immunological priming in invertebrates. Trends Ecol Evol 19, 58-60.

Luo, H., Hanratty, W. P. and Dearolf, C. R. (1995). An amino acid substitution in the Drosophila hopTum-1 Jak kinase causes leukemia-like hematopoietic de-fects. EMBO J 14, 1412-1420.

Ma, C. and Kanost, M. R. (2000). A beta-1, 3.glucan recognition protein from an insect, Manduca sexta, agglutinates microorganisms and activates the phenoloxidase cascade. J Biol Chem 275, 7505-7514.

Matzinger, P. (1994). Tolerance, danger and the extended family. Annu Rev Immu-nol 12, 991-1045.

Matzinger, P. (2002). The danger model: a renewed sense of self. Science 296, 301-305.

Mayer, W. E., Uinuk-Ool, T., Tichy, H., Gartland, L. A., Klein, J. and Cooper, M. D. (2002). Isolation and characterization of lymphocyte-like cells from a lam-prey. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99, 14350-14355.

Medzhitov, R. and Janeway, C. A. Jr. (1997). Innate immunity: the virtues of a non-clonal system of recognition. Cell 91, 295-298.

Medzhitov, R. and Janeway, C. A. Jr (1999). Innate immune induction of the adap-tive immune response. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant Biol 64, 429-435.

Meister, M. Blood cells of Drosophila: cell lineages and role in host defence. (2004). Curr Opin Immunol 16, 10-15.

Mellroth, P., Karlsson, J. and Steiner, H. (2003), A scavenger function for a Droso-phila peptidoglycan recognition protein. J Biol Chem 9, 7059-7064.

Michel, T., Reichhart, J. M., Hoffmann, J. A. and Royet, J. (2001). Drosophila Toll is activated by Gram-positive bacteria through a circulating peptidoglycan rec-ognition protein. Nature 414, 756-759.

Miller, M. B. and Bassler, B. L. (2001). Quorum sensing in bacteria. Annu Rev Mi-crobiol 55, 165-199.

Nappi, A. J., Vass, E., Frey, F. and Carton, Y. (1995). Superoxide anion generation in Drosophila during melanotic encapsulation of parasites. Eur J Cell Biol 68, 450-456.

Nappi, A. J., Vass, E., Frey, F. and Carton, Y. (2000). Nitric oxide involvement in Drosophila immunity. Nitric oxide 4, 423-430.

Nappi, A. J., Frey, F. and Carton, Y. (2004). Drosophila serpin 27A is a likely target for immune suppression of the blood cell-mediated melanotic encapsulation re-sponse. J Insect Physiol (in press).

39

Ochiai, M. and Ashida, M. (1988). Purification of a beta-1, 3-glucan recognition protein in the prophenoloxidase activating system from hemolymph of the silk-worm, Bombyx mori. J Biol Chem 263, 12056-12062.

Önfelt Tingvall, T., Roos, E. and Engström Y. (2001). The imd gene is required for local Cecropin expression in Drosophila barrier epithelia. EMBO Rep 2, 239-243.

Orth, K., Palmer, L. E., Bao, Z. Q., Stewart, S., Rudolph, A. E., Bliska, J. B. and Dixon, J. E. (1999). Inhibition of the mitogen activated protein kinase-kinase superfamily by a Yersinia effector. Science 285, 1920-1923.

Park, J. M., Brady, H., Ruocco, M. G., Sun, H., Williams, D., Lee, S. J., Kato, T. Jr., Richards, N., Chan, K., Mercurio, F., Karin, M. and Wasserman, S. A. (2004). Targeting of TAK 1 by the NF-kappa B protein Relish regulates the JNK-mediated immune response in Drosophila. Genes Dev 18, 584-594.

Pearson, A., Lux, A. and Krieger, M. (1995) Expression cloning of dSR-CI, a class C macrophage-specific scavenger receptor from Drosophila melanogaster. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 92, 4056-4060.

Pearson, A. M., Baksa, K., Rämet, M., Protas, M., McKee, M., Brown, D. and Eze-kowitz, R. A. (2003). Identification of cytoskeletal regulatory proteins required for efficient phagocytosis in Drosophila. Microbes Infect 5, 815-824.

Pili-Floury, S., Leulier, F., Takahashi, K., Saigo, K., Samain, E., Ueda, R. and Le-maitre, B. (2004). In vivo RNAi analysis reveals an unexpected role for GNBP1 in the defence against Gram-positive bacterial infection in Drosophila adults. JBiol Chem 279, 12848-12853.

Qui, P., Pan, P. C. and Govind, S. (1998). A role for the Drosophila Toll/Cactus pathway in larval hematopoiesis. Development 125, 1909-1920.

Ratcliffe, N. A. and Rowley, A. F. (1979). Role of hemocytes in defence against biological agents. In Insect Hemocytes. Gupta, A. P., ed. Cambridge University Press, p. 331-414.

Rämet, M., Pearson, A., Manfruelli, P., Li, X., Koziel, H., Gobel, V., Chung, E., Krieger, M. and Ezekowitz, R. A. (2001). Drosophila scavenger receptor CI is a pattern recognition receptor for bacteria. Immunity 15, 1027-1038.

Rämet, M., Manfruelli, P., Pearson, A., Mathey-Prevot, B. and Ezekowitz, R. A. (2002a). Functional genomic analysis of phagocytosis and identification of a Drosophila receptor for E. coli. Nature 416, 644-648.

Rämet, M., Lanot, R., Zachary, D. and Manfruelli, P. (2002b). JNK signaling path-way is required for efficient wound healing in Drosophila. Dev Biol 241, 145-156.

Rhen, M., Eriksson, S. and Petterson, S. (2000). Bacterial adaptation to host innate immunity responses. Curr Opin Microbiol 3, 60-64.

Roxström-Lindquist, K., Terenius, O. and Faye, I. (2004). Parasite-specific immune response in adult Drosophila melanogaster: a genomic study. EMBO Rep 5, 207-212.

Royet, J. (2004). Infectious non-self recognition in invertebrates: lessons from Dro-sophila and other insect models. Mol Immunol 41, 1063-1075.

Rubin, G. M., Yandell, M. D., Wortman, J. R., Gabor Miklos, G. L., Nelson, C. R., Hariharan, I. K. et al. (2000). Comparative genomics of the eukaryotes. Science 287, 2204-2215.

Samakovlis, C., Kimbrell, D. A., Kylsten, P., Engström, Å. and Hultmark, D. (1990). The immune response in Drosophila: pattern of cecropin expression and biological activity. EMBO J 9, 2969-2976.

40

Samakovlis, C., Kylsten, P., Kimbrell, D. A., Engström, Å. and Hultmark, D. (1991). The andropin gene and its product, a male-specific antibacterial peptide in Drosophila melanogaster. EMBO J 10, 163-169.

Scherfer, C., Karlsson, C., Loseva, O., Bidla, G., Goto, A., Havemann, J., Dushay, M. S. and Theopold, U. (2004). Isolation and characterization of hemolymph clotting factors in Drosophila melanogaster b a pullout method. Curr. Biol. 14, 625-629.

Shafer, W. M., Qu, X. D., Waring, A. J. and Lehrer, R. I. (1998). Modulation of Neisseria gonorrhoeae susceptibility to vertebrate antibacterial peptides due to a member of the resistance/ nodulation/ division efflux pump family. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 95, 1829-1833.

Silverman, N., Zhou, R., Erlich, R. L., Hunter, M., Bernstein, E., Schneider, D. and Maniatis, T. (2003). Immune activation of NF-kappa B and JNK requires Dro-sophila TAK1. J Biol Chem 278, 48928-48934.

Sorrentino, R. P., Carton, Y. and Govind, S. (2002). Cellular immune response to parasite infection in the Drosophila lymph gland is developmentally regulated. Dev Biol 243, 65-80.

Söderhäll, K. (1982). Prophenoloxidase activating system and melanization – a recognition mechanism of arthropods? A review. Dev Comp Phys 6, 601-611,

Söderhäll, K., Rögener, W., Söderhäll, I., Newton, R. P. and Ratcliffe, N. A. (1988). The properties and purification of a Blaberus craniifer plasma protein which enhances the activation of hemocyte prophenoloxidase by a 1, 3-glucan. InsectBiochem 18, 323-330.

Söderhäll, K., and Cerenius, L. (2004). The prophenoloxidase-activating system in invertebrates. Immun Rev 198, 116-126.

Sritunyalucksana, K., Wongsuebsantati, K., Johansson, M. W. and Söderhäll, K. (2001). Peroxinectin, a cell adhesive protein associated with the proPO system from the black tiger shrimp, Penaeus monodon. Dev Comp Phys 25, 353-363.

Stöven, S. Silverman, N., Junell, A., Hedengren-Olcott, M., Erturk, D., Engström, Y., Maniatis, T. and Hultmark, D. (2003). Caspase mediated processing of the Drosophila NK-kappa B factor Relish. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100, 5991-5996.

Sun, H., Bristow, B. N., Qu, G. and Wasserman, S. A. (2002). A heterotrimeric death domain complex in Toll signaling. Proc Natl Acad Sci 99, 12871-12876.

Takehana, A., Katsuyama, T., Yano, T., Oshima, Y., Takada, H., Aigaki, T. and Kurata, S. (2002). Overexpression of a pattern-recognition receptor, peptidogly-can-recognition protein-LE, activates IMD/Relish-mediated antibacterial de-fence and the prophenoloxidase cascade in Drosophila larvae. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99, 13705-13710.

Takehana, A., Yano, T., Mita, S., Kotani, A., Oshima, Y. and Kurata, S. (2004). Peptidoglycan recognition protein (PGRP)-LE and PGRP-LC act synergistically in Drosophila immunity. EMBO J 23, 4690-4700.

Telford, G., Wheeler, D., Williams, P., Tomkins, P.T., Appleby, P., Sewell, H., Stewart, G. S. A. B., Bycroft, B. W. and Pritchard, D. I. (1998). The Pseudomo-nas aeruginosa quorum-sensing signal molecule N-(3-Oxododecanoyl)-L-homoserine lactone has immunomodulatory activity. Infect Immun 66, 36-42.

Theopold, U., Li, D., Fabbri, M., Scherfer, C. and Schmidt, O. (2002) The coagula-tion of insect hemolymph. Cell Mol Life Sci 59, 363-372.

Theopold, U., Schmidt, O., Söderhäll, K. And Dushay, M. S. (2004). Coagulation in arthropods: defence, wound closure and healing. TRENDS Immunol 25, 289-294.

41

Tzou, P., Ohresser, S., Ferrandon, D., Capovilla, M., Reichhart, J. M., Lemaitre, B., Hoffmann, J. A. and Imler, J. L. (2000). Tissue-specific inducible expression of antimicrobial peptide genes in Drosophila surface epithelia. Immunity 13, 737-748.

Vidal, S., Khush, R. S., Leulier, F., Tzou, P., Nakamura, M. and Lemaitre, B. (2001). Mutations in the Drosophila dTAK1 gene reveal a conserved function for MAPKKKs in the control of rel/NF-kappaB-dependent innate immune re-sponses. Genes Dev 15, 1900-1912.

Wang, R., Liang, Z., Söderhäll, K. and Hall, M. (2001). cDNA cloning of a transglu-taminase from the freshwater crayfish. Fish and Shellfish Immun 11, 1-15.

Wang, M. C., Bohmann, D. and Jasper, H. (2003). JNK signaling confers tolerance to oxidative stress and extended life span in Drosophila. Dev Cell 5, 811-816.

Weber, A. N., Tauzig-Delamasure, S., Hoffmann, J. A., Lelievre, E., Gascan, H., Ray, K. P., Morse, M. A., Imler, J. L. and Gay, N. J. (2003). Binding of the Drosophila cytokine Spatzle to Toll is direct and establishes signaling. Nat Im-munol 4, 794-800.

Werner, T., Liu, G., Kang, D., Ekengren, S., Steiner, H. and Hultmark, D. (2000). A family of peptidoglycan recognition proteins in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 97, 13772-13777.

Werner, T., Borge-Renberg, K., Mellroth, P., Steiner, H. and Hultmark, D. (2003). Functional diversity of the Drosophila PGRP-LC gene cluster in the response to lipopolysaccharide and peptidoglycan. J Biol Chem 278, 26319-26322.

Wicker, C., Reichhart, J. M., Hoffmann, D., Hultmark, D., Samakovlis, C. and Hoffmann, J. A. (1990). Insect immunity: Characterization of a DrosophilacDNA encoding a novel member of the diptericin family of immune peptides. JBiol Chem 265, 22493-22498.

Williams, S. C., Patterson, E. K., Carty, N. L., Griswold, J. A., Hamood, A. N. and Rumbaugh, K. P. (2004). Pseudomonas aeruginosa autoinducer enters and func-tions in mammalian cells. J Bacteriol 186, 2281-2287.

Winans, S. C. and Bassler, B. L. (2002). Mob psychology. J Bacteriol 184, 873-883. Wurzner, R. (1999). Evasion of pathogens by avoiding recognition or eradication by

complement, in part via molecular mimicry. Mol Immunol 36, 249-260. Xavier, K. B. and Bassler, B. L. (2003). LuxS quorum sensing: more than just a

numbers game. Curr Opin Microbiol 6, 191-197. Yan, R., Small, S., Desplan, C., Dearolf, C. R. and Darnell, J. E. Jr. (1996). Identifi-

cation of a Stat gene that functions in Drosophila development. Cell, 84, 421-430.

Yoshida, H., Kinoshita, K. and Akira, M. (1996). Purification of a peptidoglycan recognition protein from hemolymph of the silkworm, Bombyx mori. J Biol Chem 271, 13854-13860.

Zang, R., Cho, H. Y., Kim, H. S., Ma, Y. G., Osaki, T., Kawabata, S., Söderhäll, K. and Lee, B. L. (2003). Characterization and properties of a 1, 3-beta-D-glucan pattern recognition protein of Tenebrio molitor larvae that is specifically de-graded by serine protease during prophenoloxidase activation. J Biol Chem 278, 42072-42079.

Zasloff, M. (2002). Antimicrobial peptides of multicellular organisms. Nature 415, 389-395.

Zeidler, M. P., Bach, E. A. and Perrimon, N. (2000). The roles of the Drosophila JAK/STAT pathway. Oncogene 19, 2598-2606.

Acta Universitatis UpsaliensisDigital Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala Dissertationsfrom the Faculty of Science and Technology 9

Editor: The Dean of the Faculty of Science and Technology

A doctoral dissertation from the Faculty of Science and Technology, Uppsala University, is usually a summary of a number of papers. A few copies of the complete dissertation are kept at major Swedish research libraries, while the summary alone is distributed internationally through the series Digital Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Science and Technology. (Prior to January, 2005, the series was published under the title "Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Science and Technology".)

Distribution: publications.uu.seurn:nbn:se:uu:diva-4772

ACTAUNIVERSITATIS

UPSALIENSISUPPSALA

2005