The Central Role and Possible Mechanisms of Bacterial DNAs in Sepsis Development

Cheng, Zhenxing; Abrams, Simon T.; Austin, James; Toh, Julien; Wang, Susan Siyu; Wang, Zhi; Yu, Qian; Yu, Weiping; Toh, Cheng Hock; Wang, Guozheng

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/7418342

Mediators of Inflammation

On this page

Abstract Introduction Conclusion Conflicts of Interest Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2020 | Article ID 7418342 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/7418342

The Central Role and Possible Mechanisms of Bacterial DNAs in Sepsis Development

Zhenxing Cheng,^1,2Simon T. Abrams,¹James Austin,¹Julien Toh,³Susan Siyu Wang,⁴Zhi Wang,²Qian Yu,²Weiping Yu,²Cheng Hock Toh,^1,5and Guozheng Wang^1,2

Academic Editor: Ronald Gladue

Received02 May 2020

Accepted20 Jul 2020

Published31 Aug 2020

Abstract

The pathological roles of bacterial DNA have been documented many decades ago. Bacterial DNAs are different from mammalian DNAs; the latter are heavily methylated. Mammalian cells have sensors such as TLR-9 to sense the DNAs with nonmethylated CpGs and distinguish them from host DNAs with methylated CpGs. Further investigation has identified many other types of DNA sensors distributed in a variety of cellular compartments. These sensors not only sense foreign DNAs, including bacterial and viral DNAs, but also sense damaged DNAs from the host cells. The major downstream signalling pathways includeTLR-9-MyD88-IKKa-IRF-7/NF-κB pathways to increase IFN/proinflammatory cytokine production, STING-TBK1-IRF3 pathway to increase IFN-beta, and AIM2-ASC-caspas-1 pathway to release IL-1beta. The major outcome is to activate host immune response by inducing cytokine production. In this review, we focus on the roles and potential mechanisms of DNA sensors and downstream pathways in sepsis. Although bacterial DNAs play important roles in sepsis development, bacterial DNAs alone are unable to cause severe disease nor lead to death. Priming animals with bacterial DNAs facilitate other pathological factors, such as LPS and other virulent factors, to induce severe disease and lethality. We also discuss compartmental distribution of DNA sensors and pathological significance as well as the transport of extracellular DNAs into cells. Understanding the roles of DNA sensors and signal pathways will pave the way for novel therapeutic strategies in many diseases, particularly in sepsis.

1. Introduction

Damage-associated molecular patterns (DMAPs), including extracellular histones and DNAs, neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) and other factors, mediate multiple organ injury and play key roles in critical illnesses, particularly in sepsis [1–3]. Extensive immune cell death often occurs in sepsis and becomes a major source of DMAPs [4, 5], but the underlying molecular mechanism is not clear. We found that bacterial DNAs play a major role in priming immune system and lead to extensive death of immune cells if a second hit appears. However, this is a neglected field because many reports on DNA sensors and signalling pathways mainly focus on cancer and viral infection [6–8]. Here, we will review the available literatures of DNA sensors and signalling pathways that are related to bacterial infection and sepsis.

During bacterial infections, bacterial DNA is released after bacterial breakdown and enters the circulation. The DNA in circulation can then be rapidly cleared by the spleen and the liver with a half-life (½) of approximately 4 minutes [9, 10]. However, if the bacterial infection cannot be controlled, large quantities of bacterial DNA could continuously enter the circulation and trigger severe immune responses [11–13]. Circulating DNA taken up by the spleen stimulates lymphocytes to release cytokines [14]. High levels of circulating bacterial DNAs have a direct association with the metrics of clinical severity, suggesting that bacterial DNA levels are highly reflective of bacterial load [15]. Bacterial DNA-triggered immune responses play important roles in the elimination of human pathogens [16–18].

2. Types of DNAs in Inflammation

CpG motifs in bacterial DNAs trigger B cell activation [11]. In eukaryotic DNA, CpG motifs have a high degree of methylation, which may allow the host to distinguish them from the bacterial DNA [19], which is largely unmethylated. Methylation of CpG residues blocks their capacity of stimulating immune responses [20]. Bacterial DNA has been demonstrated to stimulate natural killer (NK) cells to increase lytic activities and interferon γ (IFN-γ) production, stimulate lymphocytes to secrete interleukin 6 and 12 (IL-6, IL-12) as well as IFN-γ, stimulate macrophages to produce tumour necrosis factor α (TNF-α) [11, 12, 21–24], and activate neutrophils [25]. Elevated TNF-α promotes the development of shock, and elevated IFN-γ primes macrophage and natural killer (NK) cells to increase the toxicity of lipopolysaccharides (LPS) [23, 24, 26–28]. In the presence of DNA-binding proteins, such as HMGB1, which is a CpG-DNA-binding protein, B lymphocyte (B cells) activation is significantly enhanced either by bacterial DNA [29] or by a synthesized 6-base nucleotide motif of an unmethylated CpG dinucleotide flanked by 2 purines (5) and 2 pyrimidines (3). This nucleotide motif is present 20 times more in bacterial DNA than in vertebrate DNA [11, 30, 31]. The sequence specificity was demonstrated in direct DNA immunization using plasmid DNA carrying the necessary sequences for immune activation [32–34].

3. Receptors and Signal Pathways

Mammalian cells express a variety of DNA sensors as one of the first lines of defence against infection [35, 36]. TLR-9 is a major receptor that recognises bacterial DNA and signals in host cells [37]. The TLR family are pattern recognition receptors activated by diverse conserved components of pathogens called pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs). In vertebrates, strong selective pressure maintains the highly conservative TLR receptors’ recognition of and response to PAMPs [38]. TLR-9 receptors are expressed in many tissues including the spleen, where it is expressed most abundantly, and in many types of immune cells, including macrophages, lymphocytes, dendritic cells, natural killer cells, neutrophils, and other antigen-presenting cells [39]. UNC93B1 [40–42], PRAT4A [43, 44], and adaptor protein AP3 [45] transport TLR-9 from the endoplasmic reticulum to the endosome or the lysosome, where TLR-9 is matured after cleavage of its ectodomain by cathepsins [41, 46, 47]. Specific innate immune cells take up extracellular bacterial materials into endosomes and phagosomes, where the N-terminal domain of TLR-9 senses the unmethylated CpG DNA motifs [48, 49]. HMGB1 also forms complexes with TLR-9, and this causes translocation of TLR-9 to endosomes in response to CpG-DNA and CpG-oligodeoxynucleotides (CpG-ODN), which ultimately triggers cytokine responses [29]. CpG-DNA activates TLR-9 to generate signalling through myeloid differentiation primary response gene 88 (MyD88), which in turn enhance IFN expression and activate proinflammatory and antimicrobial signals via mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) and/or nuclear factor κB (NF-κB) pathways [50, 51]. However, different cell types may vary in downstream pathways, for instance, in plasmacytoid DCs, myddosome forms to activate IRF-7 and increase IFNα production [52]. In contrast, macrophages rarely produce type-1 IFN in response to TLR9 ligands unless using DOTAP as the transfection reagent to deliver CpG-DNA into the cells [53]. However, TLR-9 and TLR-4 crosstalk amplifies macrophage responses through activation of the c-Jun N-terminal kinases (JNKs) [54]. In lymphocytes, ligand-inducible high expression of TLR-9 was found in activated B lymphocytes [55]. DNA-containing antigen-triggered B cell responses rely on a TLR-9-dependent immune checkpoint [56].

Cyclic GMP-AMP synthase (cGAS), a cytosolic DNA sensor [57–59] also senses CpG DNA. However, cGAS recognises cytosolic double-stranded DNA in a sequence-independent manner and cannot distinguish microbial DNA from host DNA. cGAS-binding DNA produces cyclic GMP-AMP (cGAMP) to activate STING and signal via TBK1 and IFN regulatory factor (IRF)-3 to induce expression of type I IFN [60–62]. This signal also activates the NF-κB pathway to enhance inflammatory cytokine release, including TNF-α and IL-6, which mediate inflammatory and antimicrobial responses [63–68]. STING also activates stress and cell death pathways that lead to T cell [69] and B cell death [70]. In chicken cells, DEAD box polypeptide 41 (DDX41) is an important DNA sensor to induce IFN production, which also depends on the STING pathway [71]. These observations strongly suggest that signalling through the STING pathway is a very important response to both cytosolic viral and bacterial DNA and mediates IFN-dependent innate immunity [72]. A STING-independent DNA sensing pathway (SIDSP) has also been identified. For example, DNA damage response protein DNA-PK was reported recently as the primary sensor in the SIDSP, which mainly activates the pathway via HSPA8/HSC70 in humans but is absent from mouse cells [73].

Absent in melanoma 2 (AIM2), a protein with a N-terminal pyrin domain and a C-terminal HIN-200 domain, is an important component of the inflammasome [74, 75]. AIM2 senses cytoplasmic DNA to activate ASC (apoptosis-associated speck like protein) pyroprotosomes and caspase-1 to ultimately cause cell death [76–81]. LL37 peptide can neutralize cytosolic DNA and block AIM2-mediated inflammasome activation [82]. IFI16 is another member of the HIN family and binds viral DNA to regulate IL-1β maturation, but does not associate with ASC [83]. IFI16 is predominantly a nuclear protein which translocates to the cytosol to recognize DNA and induces IFN-β production. IFI16 also forms complexes with viral DNA in the nucleus, and these complexes translocate to the cytosol to trigger STING-dependent signalling [83–88]. Many other DNA sensors have been reported, including DNA-dependent activator of IFN-regulatory factor (DAI, also called Z-DNA binding protein-1, ZBP1) [89], leucine-rich repeat interacting protein-1 (Lrrfip1) [90], RNA polymerase III [91, 92], Ku70, and DExD/H box helicases (DHX9 and DHX36) [93]. DAI recognizes both the B-form and Z-form of cytosolic ds-DNA. LRRFIP1 induces IFN production via a β-catenin-dependent pathway [90], whilst RNA polymerase III transcribes DNA into 5-ppp RNA to activate RIG-1-STING pathway, which triggers IFN production [91, 92]. Ku70 acts as a cytosolic DNA sensor to promote type III IFN-λ1 production via activation of IRF1and IRF7 [94]. DHX36 detects CpG-A DNA using the DEAH domain to mediate IFN-α production via the MyD88-IRF7 pathway, whilst DHX9 senses CpG-B DNA using the DUF domain to increase TNF-α and IL-6 production via the MyD88-NF-κB pathway [93, 95, 96]. Recently, heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoprotein A2/B1 (hnRNP-A2B1) has been shown to recognise viral double-stranded DNA inside the cell nucleus but not the host DNA that is packed as nucleosomes. The hnRNP-A2B1-DNA complexes translocated into the cytosol induce IFN production via STING-dependent pathways [97]. The major pathways initiated by DNA sensors are summarized in Figure 1.

Figure 1

Compartmental distribution of DNA sensors and internalization of external DNAs. TLR-9 is the most important sensor for bacterial DNAs and is located on the membrane of endosomes and phagosomes. AIM2 binds to cytosol DNAs, which initiate the assembly of inflammasomes by activating ASC. Many other cytosolic DNA sensors have been identified, and most of them activate STING pathways, including cGAS, IFI16, DAI, Ku70, DHX9, DHX36, DHX41, and RNA Pol-III. LRRFIP1 is also a cytosolic DNA sensor but it mainly triggers the beta-catenin pathway. cGAS and IFI16 also exist in cell nuclei but cGAS binds to chromosome to enhance its stability whist nuclear cGAS and IFI16 plus hnRNP-A2B1-DNA can detect viral DNAs which enter nuclei and form complexes with DNAs. The complexes are exported to the cytosol to activate STING pathways. Most DNA sensors are situated inside cells, and the extracellular DNAs from virus, bacteria, or host cells enter cells by many different ways, including endocytosis and phagocytosis, or are facilitated by HMGB1-RAGE, cationic lipids, or OMVs. Viruses enter cells via different membrane proteins.

4. Compartmental Distribution of DNA Sensors

As mentioned above, each DNA sensor is located in a specific compartment (see Figure 1). TLR-9 exists in endosomes and phagosomes to detect DNAs that entered the cell via endocytosis or phagocytosis [53]. There are many cytosolic DNA sensors, including DAI, Ku70, RNA pol III, DHX9/36, and LRRFIP1, to detect cytosolic DNA. AIM2 is located in the inflammasome, hnRNP-A2B1 in nucleus, and IFI16 in the nuclear plasma. cGAS attached to the plasma membrane by N-terminal phosphoinositide-binding domain detects viral DNAs, whilst mutant cGAS in the cytosol mainly responds to host stress instead of viral DNAs [98]. In contrast, chromatin-bound cGAS inhibits DNA repair to increase genome stability and promotes cell death [99], indicating the importance of compartmentalisation of DNA sensor proteins.

DNA sensors distributed in a variety of cell compartments may play an important role in sensing bacterial and viral DNA that enter cells via different mechanisms so as to ensure swift recognition by the host. However, T and B cells, unlike macrophages, do not take up DNA which limits their response to bacterial DNAs, particularly high molecular weight DNA [100]. When DNA is physically linked to hen egg lysozyme (HEL), the resulting complex was efficiently taken up by B cells in the experimental setting [100]. In bacterial infections, besides endocytosis, many other factors, such as HMGB1-RAGE [101], cationic lipids [102], and outer membrane vesicles (OMVs) [103], may facilitate bacterial DNA uptake by host cells and trigger DNA sensors and downstream signal pathways.

5. STING Plays a Central Role in Both Exogenous and Endogenous DNA Sensing

DNA-sensing receptor cyclic GMP–AMP synthase (cGAS) activating the STING pathway plays a central role in sensing and responding to cytosolic DNA from both exogenous and endogenous sources. Endogenous nuclear DNA damage caused by ionizing radiation, oxidative stress, drugs, telomere shortening, chromosome mis-segregation, mitochondrial damage, and viral/bacterial infection all lead to accumulation of DNA in the cytosol [104]. Once the DNA is exposed to the cGAS sensor, cGAS forms dimers and synthesizes cyclic guanosine monophosphate-adenosine monophosphate (cGAMP). The cGAMP acts as a second messenger to activate STING on the ER surface, which ultimately activates IRF3 and NF-κB through the kinases TBK1 and IKK, respectively, so as to increase expression of the cytokines including IFN and TNF-α [73, 104, 105] (see Figure 2). On the other hand, STING can also mediate IFI16 degradation by reducing type I interferon production [106]. Many other factors, such as cyclic di-nucleotides from intracellular pathogens, DHX41, RNA Pol-III, DAI, or IFI16, also activate STING pathway (Figure 1) and initiate different responses mediated by IRF3, NF-κB, STAT6 [107], and autophagy [108] pathways (Figure 2). Therefore, the cGAS-STING pathway is an important regulator of free DNA resulting from infection, inflammation, or cancer [104, 109, 110].

Activation of the STING pathway not only causes cytokine release, but also induces apoptosis in immune cells, including in T and B lymphocytes [111], myeloid lineage cells, and in nonimmune cells, such as hepatocytes [112, 113] and cardiomyocytes [114], and in cancer cells [70, 110, 115]. STING pathway-induced apoptosis involves ER stress and Bak/Bax-mediated macropores in the mitochondrial outer membrane or leakage of lysosomal content into the cytosol [69, 114, 116]. Recent reports demonstrate that STING signalling plays an important role in the induction of necrosis via the synergistic effect between IFN and TNF-α pathways [118; 119].

6. Syngeneic Effects with Other Toxic Factors

Although bacterial CpG DNA triggers an immune response via DNA sensors, incubation of cells with the bacterial DNA or injection of DNA into mice is not sufficient to cause cell or animal death [117]. CpG DNA motifs were reported as sensitizing agents for lipopolysaccharide-induced toxic shock in animal models [117]. CpG-DNA and LPS can act synergistically to induce inflammatory cytokines and nitric oxide release, and to increase cell-surface DNA binding and internalisation in monocytes and macrophages [118–122]. CpG DNA and LPS synergistically induce TNF-α production via activation of NF-κB [120, 123]. High doses of D-galactosamine is lethal in animal models [124], whilst lower doses (nonlethal) are used to sensitize animals [125]. In sensitized mice, CpG DNA or LPS is able to induce acute liver injury via the mitochondrial apoptotic pathway involving TLR pattern recognition receptors [126–128]. Galactosamine-induced sensitization also contributes to endotoxin-induced immune response and lethality [129, 130].

7. Roles of Bacterial DNAs in Disease

Bacterial infection causes variety of diseases with different mechanisms and manifestations. The majority of bacteria do not enter host cells, but releases DNAs which are transported into cells via endocytosis or phagocytosis to meet TLR-9 receptor [37]. Some bacteria could enter host cells and release DNAs directly into cytosol to trigger cytosolic DNA sensors [131].

It was reported that bacterial DNA could cause septic shock via induction of high levels of TNF-α [132]. However, no confirmatory report has since been published. In general, bacterial DNA causes a variety of immune responses, but no lethal effects, although blocking TLR-9 reduces bacterial load, inflammation, and mortality in mouse poly-microbial sepsis [133]. Kukoamine B, a novel dual inhibitor of LPS and CpG-DNA, has been reported to be effective in treating animals with sepsis [134]. Intratracheal admission of synthetic CpG-ODNs leads to acute lung inflammation and injury with systemic inflammatory response via activation of TLR-9 [135, 136]. Bacterial DNA induces pulmonary damage via TLR-9, and suppressing CpG-ODNs and TLR-9 could significantly reduce inflammation in the mouse lungs [137, 138]. The same effect has also been reported in cardiac injury and malfunction caused by bacterial DNA [10].

On the other hand, synthetic oligonucleotides have also been used as modulators of inflammation and immune response [139]. Single-stranded DNA containing CpG motifs have also been shown to induce innate immune responses, including production of poly-reactive immunoglobulin and the production of T helper 1 (TH1)-type as well as release of proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines [140] and to activate B lymphocytes [11]. The innate immune responses are able to increase host resistance to a wide range of pathogenic bacteria, viruses, and parasites, and therefore, CpG-ODNs have been tried with vaccines to enhance immunity [141]. When mice are exposed to bacterial DNA before hemorrhagic shock, the systemic inflammation and gut barrier loss via an IFN-γ-dependent route are strongly aggravated [142]. CpG ODNs has also been shown to stimulate protective innate immunity, enhance the complement system, protect immune cells, increase secretion of antibacterial antibody, and enhance phagocytosis against intracerebral E. coli K1 infection, pulmonary Klebsiella, or Staphylococcus aureus infections [143–148]. These observations indicate that there are both harmful and beneficial effects of bacterial DNA.

8. Potential Diagnostic and Therapeutic Strategy and Reagents

DNase, particularly DNase 1, has been used directly in many animal models to digest extracellular DNAs, including DNAs in dead bacteria and neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) [149–151]. It is very likely that DNase 1 will be used clinically in the near future [152]. The other strategy is to target the sensors of bacterial DNAs and downstream pathways, mainly the TLR-9 and cGAS-STING pathways. As mentioned above, targeting TLR-9 improves the outcomes of mouse sepsis [133]. Targeting the TLR-9-MyD88 pathway is also used to regulate adaptive immune responses [153], but the majority of studies were focused on cancer [154]. Many drugs targeting TLR-9 and other TLRs are under clinical trials, mainly for cancer therapy [153, 155]. However, targeting TLRs has demonstrated a great potential in sepsis management and infection control, as well as optimisation of vaccine efficacy [156, 157]. STING-knockout mice developed less severe acute pancreatitis than wild type mice, whilst STING agonists cause more severe acute pancreatitis [158]. However, the STING ligand, c-di-GMP, can improve vaccination results for metastatic breast cancer [159]. Recently, the STING pathway has become much more attractive in targeting both inflammation and cancer [160]. STING agonists also reduce the burden of pancreatic cancer in mouse models [161]. As such, many STING pathway agonists and antagonists have been developed [162–164]. Although the science behind this pathway is becoming clearer, successful development of medication targeting this pathway appears a long way off.

Since the major outcome of DNA priming is the production of IFN-γ and TNF-α, which are the key cytokines of the generalized Shwartzman reaction [27], reports have been accumulated that demonstrate the roles of IFN-γ and its receptors in animal models of sepsis and endotoxemia. IFN-γ-sensitized mice are more susceptible to LPS-induced mortality [23, 27, 165]. Thus, IFN-γ-/- mice showed a significant reduction in infection-induced splenic cell apoptosis [166]. Moreover, IFN-γ receptor-deficient mice gain resistance to LPS-induced septic shock [167]. Anti-IFN-γ has also been demonstrated to have protective effects in animal models [168, 169]. However, no successful clinical trials on sepsis have been reported yet, although some clinical trials on the roles of anti-IFN-γ in sepsis-induced immune dysfunction are nearing completion. There is no evidence to demonstrate whether blocking the pathway of IFN-γ production, such as using DNase 1, would be a better choice.

9. Conclusion

The roles of different DNAs and sensors are still a major area of scientific research. How these sensors and pathways are coordinated to function in different types of cells still needs further clarification. Moreover, the cross-talk between the inflammatory pathways and the cell proliferation or death pathways has been shown to be very important in elucidating the pathological mechanisms in the development of diseases. In sepsis, there is a big gap between bacterial DNA priming and immune cell death and subsequently disease development, although it is known that the priming process is very important. Thus, more work needs to be done both in vitro and in vivo to elucidate the signalling pathways and to identify the targets. Sepsis is a common disease with an unacceptable mortality rate, but no specific therapy is yet available. Clarification of the roles and molecular mechanisms of bacterial DNAs in development of sepsis may lead to the creation of new therapies to increase the survival of patients with sepsis.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial interest.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the British Heart Foundation (PG/14/19/30751 and PG/16/65/32313) and Scholarships from China Scholarship Council (CSC: 20160609156) and the Southeast University (YBJJ1740) to Zhenxing Cheng.

References

N. L. Denning, M. Aziz, S. D. Gurien, and P. Wang, “DAMPs and NETs in sepsis,” Frontiers in Immunology, vol. 10, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. C. Gruda, K. G. Ruggeberg, P. O'Sullivan et al., “Broad adsorption of sepsis-related PAMP and DAMP molecules, mycotoxins, and cytokines from whole blood using CytoSorb® sorbent porous polymer beads,” PLoS One, vol. 13, no. 1, article e0191676, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Eppensteiner, J. Kwun, U. Scheuermann et al., “Damage- and pathogen-associated molecular patterns play differential roles in late mortality after critical illness,” JCI Insight, vol. 4, no. 16, article e127925, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. S. Hotchkiss, S. B. Osmon, K. C. Chang, T. H. Wagner, C. M. Coopersmith, and I. E. Karl, “Accelerated lymphocyte death in sepsis occurs by both the death receptor and mitochondrial pathways,” The Journal of Immunology, vol. 174, no. 8, pp. 5110–5118, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Pinheiro da Silva and V. Nizet, “Cell death during sepsis: integration of disintegration in the inflammatory response to overwhelming infection,” Apoptosis, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 509–521, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Kwon and S. F. Bakhoum, “The cytosolic DNA-sensing cGAS-STING pathway in cancer,” Cancer Discovery, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 26–39, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Abe, Y. Marutani, and I. Shoji, “Cytosolic DNA-sensing immune response and viral infection,” Microbiology and Immunology, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 51–64, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. R. Paludan and A. G. Bowie, “Immune sensing of DNA,” Immunity, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 870–880, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Rumore, B. Muralidhar, M. Lin, C. Lai, and C. R. Steinman, “Haemodialysis as a model for studying endogenous plasma DNA: oligonucleosome-like structure and clearance,” Clinical and Experimental Immunology, vol. 90, no. 1, pp. 56–62, 1992.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Knuefermann, M. Schwederski, M. Velten et al., “Bacterial DNA induces myocardial inflammation and reduces cardiomyocyte contractility: role of toll-like receptor 9,” Cardiovascular Research, vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 26–35, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. M. Krieg, A. K. Yi, S. Matson et al., “CpG motifs in bacterial DNA trigger direct B-cell activation,” Nature, vol. 374, no. 6522, pp. 546–549, 1995.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. K. Yi, D. M. Klinman, T. L. Martin, S. Matson, and A. M. Krieg, “Rapid immune activation by CpG motifs in bacterial DNA. Systemic induction of IL-6 transcription through an antioxidant-sensitive pathway,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 157, no. 12, pp. 5394–5402, 1996.
View at: Google Scholar
G. S. Gilkeson, A. M. Pippen, and D. S. Pisetsky, “Induction of cross-reactive anti-dsDNA antibodies in preautoimmune NZB/NZW mice by immunization with bacterial DNA,” The Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol. 95, no. 3, pp. 1398–1402, 1995.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. M. Chused, A. D. Steinberg, and N. Talal, “The clearance and localization of nucleic acids by New Zealand and normal mice,” Clinical and Experimental Immunology, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 465–476, 1972.
View at: Google Scholar
S. J. Hackett, M. Guiver, J. Marsh et al., “Meningococcal bacterial DNA load at presentation correlates with disease severity,” Archives of Disease in Childhood, vol. 86, no. 1, pp. 44–46, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. E. Paul, R. A. Seder, and M. Plaut, “Lymphokine and Cytokine Production by FcεRI⁺ Cells,” Advances in Immunology, vol. 53, pp. 1–29, 1993.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Bohn, J. Heesemann, S. Ehlers, and I. B. Autenrieth, “Early gamma interferon mRNA expression is associated with resistance of mice against Yersinia enterocolitica,” Infection and Immunity, vol. 62, no. 7, pp. 3027–3032, 1994.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. P. Heinzel, M. D. Sadick, S. S. Mutha, and R. M. Locksley, “Production of interferon gamma, interleukin 2, interleukin 4, and interleukin 10 by CD4+ lymphocytes in vivo during healing and progressive murine leishmaniasis,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 88, no. 16, pp. 7011–7015, 1991.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Bird, “The essentials of DNA methylation,” Cell, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 5–8, 1992.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. J. Stacey, M. J. Sweet, and D. A. Hume, “Macrophages ingest and are activated by bacterial DNA,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 157, no. 5, pp. 2116–2122, 1996.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Yamamoto, T. Yamamoto, S. Shimada et al., “DNA from bacteria, but not from vertebrates, induces interferons, activates natural killer cells and inhibits tumor growth,” Microbiology and Immunology, vol. 36, no. 9, pp. 983–997, 1992.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. M. Klinman, A. K. Yi, S. L. Beaucage, J. Conover, and A. M. Krieg, “CpG motifs present in bacteria DNA rapidly induce lymphocytes to secrete interleukin 6, interleukin 12, and interferon gamma,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 93, no. 7, pp. 2879–2883, 1996.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. S. Cowdery, J. H. Chace, A. K. Yi, and A. M. Krieg, “Bacterial DNA induces NK cells to produce IFN-gamma in vivo and increases the toxicity of lipopolysaccharides,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 156, no. 12, pp. 4570–4575, 1996.
View at: Google Scholar
T. Sparwasser, T. Miethke, G. Lipford et al., “Macrophages sense pathogens via DNA motifs: induction of tumor necrosis factor-alpha-mediated shock,” European Journal of Immunology, vol. 27, no. 7, pp. 1671–1679, 1997.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. . S. Trevani, A. Chorny, G. Salamone et al., “Bacterial DNA activates human neutrophils by a CpG-independent pathway,” European Journal of Immunology, vol. 33, no. 11, pp. 3164–3174, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. J. Sweet, K. J. Stacey, D. K. Kakuda, D. Markovich, and D. A. Hume, “IFN-gamma primes macrophage responses to bacterial DNA,” Journal of Interferon & Cytokine Research, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 263–271, 1998.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Ozmen, M. Pericin, J. Hakimi et al., “Interleukin 12, interferon gamma, and tumor necrosis factor alpha are the key cytokines of the generalized Shwartzman reaction,” The Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol. 180, no. 3, pp. 907–915, 1994.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. D. Halpern, R. J. Kurlander, and D. S. Pisetsky, “Bacterial DNA induces murine interferon-gamma production by stimulation of interleukin-12 and tumor necrosis factor-alpha,” Cellular Immunology, vol. 167, no. 1, pp. 72–78, 1996.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Ivanov, A. M. Dragoi, X. Wang et al., “A novel role for HMGB1 in TLR9-mediated inflammatory responses to CpG-DNA,” Blood, vol. 110, no. 6, pp. 1970–1981, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. R. Cardon, C. Burge, D. A. Clayton, and S. Karlin, “Pervasive CpG suppression in animal mitochondrial genomes,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 91, no. 9, pp. 3799–3803, 1994.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Gruenbaum, H. Cedar, and A. Razin, “Restriction enzyme digestion of hemimethylated DNA,” Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 2509–2515, 1981.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Sato, M. Roman, H. Tighe et al., “Immunostimulatory DNA sequences necessary for effective intradermal gene immunization,” Science, vol. 273, no. 5273, pp. 352–354, 1996.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Raz, H. Tighe, Y. Sato et al., “Preferential induction of a Th1 immune response and inhibition of specific IgE antibody formation by plasmid DNA immunization,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 93, no. 10, pp. 5141–5145, 1996.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. M. Klinman, G. Yamshchikov, and Y. Ishigatsubo, “Contribution of CpG motifs to the immunogenicity of DNA vaccines,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 158, no. 8, pp. 3635–3639, 1997.
View at: Google Scholar
N. Semenova, M. Bosnjak, B. Markelc, K. Znidar, M. Cemazar, and L. Heller, “Multiple cytosolic DNA sensors bind plasmid DNA after transfection,” Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 47, no. 19, pp. 10235–10246, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Akira, S. Uematsu, and O. Takeuchi, “Pathogen recognition and innate immunity,” Cell, vol. 124, no. 4, pp. 783–801, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Hemmi, O. Takeuchi, T. Kawai et al., “A Toll-like receptor recognizes bacterial DNA,” Nature, vol. 408, no. 6813, pp. 740–745, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. C. Roach, G. Glusman, L. Rowen et al., “The evolution of vertebrate Toll-like receptors,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 102, no. 27, pp. 9577–9582, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Kawasaki and T. Kawai, “Toll-like receptor signaling pathways,” Frontiers in Immunology, vol. 5, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. M. Kim, M. M. Brinkmann, M. E. Paquet, and H. L. Ploegh, “UNC93B1 delivers nucleotide-sensing toll-like receptors to endolysosomes,” Nature, vol. 452, no. 7184, pp. 234–238, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Fukui, S. Saitoh, F. Matsumoto et al., “Unc93B1 biases Toll-like receptor responses to nucleic acid in dendritic cells toward DNA- but against RNA-sensing,” The Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol. 206, no. 6, pp. 1339–1350, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. L. Lee, J. E. Moon, J. H. Shu et al., “UNC93B1 mediates differential trafficking of endosomal TLRs,” eLife, vol. 2, article e00291, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Takahashi, T. Shibata, S. Akashi-Takamura et al., “A protein associated with Toll-like receptor (TLR) 4 (PRAT4A) is required for TLR-dependent immune responses,” The Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol. 204, no. 12, pp. 2963–2976, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Kiyokawa, S. Akashi-Takamura, T. Shibata et al., “A single base mutation in the PRAT4A gene reveals differential interaction of PRAT4A with Toll-like receptors,” International Immunology, vol. 20, no. 11, pp. 1407–1415, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Tomasello, K. Naciri, R. Chelbi et al., “Molecular dissection of plasmacytoid dendritic cell activation in vivo during a viral infection,” EMBO Journal, vol. 37, no. 19, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Park, M. M. Brinkmann, E. Spooner, C. C. Lee, Y. M. Kim, and H. L. Ploegh, “Proteolytic cleavage in an endolysosomal compartment is required for activation of Toll-like receptor 9,” Nature Immunology, vol. 9, no. 12, pp. 1407–1414, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Garcia-Cattaneo, F. X. Gobert, M. Muller et al., “Cleavage of Toll-like receptor 3 by cathepsins B and H is essential for signaling,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 109, no. 23, pp. 9053–9058, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. E. Peter, A. V. Kubarenko, A. N. R. Weber, and A. H. Dalpke, “Identification of an N-terminal recognition site in TLR9 that contributes to CpG-DNA-mediated receptor activation,” The Journal of Immunology, vol. 182, no. 12, pp. 7690–7697, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Onji, A. Kanno, S. Saitoh et al., “An essential role for the N-terminal fragment of Toll-like receptor 9 in DNA sensing,” Nature Communications, vol. 4, no. 1, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Bagchi, E. A. Herrup, H. S. Warren et al., “MyD88-dependent and MyD88-independent pathways in synergy, priming, and tolerance between TLR agonists,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 178, no. 2, pp. 1164–1171, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. C. Lin, Y. C. Lo, and H. Wu, “Helical assembly in the MyD88-IRAK4-IRAK2 complex in TLR/IL-1R signalling,” Nature, vol. 465, no. 7300, pp. 885–890, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Bao and Y. J. Liu, “Regulation of TLR7/9 signaling in plasmacytoid dendritic cells,” Protein & Cell, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 40–52, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Dalpke, J. Frank, M. Peter, and K. Heeg, “Activation of toll-like receptor 9 by DNA from different bacterial species,” Infection and Immunity, vol. 74, no. 2, pp. 940–946, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. De Nardo, C. M. De Nardo, T. Nguyen, J. A. Hamilton, and G. M. Scholz, “Signaling crosstalk during sequential TLR4 and TLR9 activation amplifies the inflammatory response of mouse macrophages,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 183, no. 12, pp. 8110–8118, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Bourke, D. Bosisio, J. Golay, N. Polentarutti, and A. Mantovani, “The toll-like receptor repertoire of human B lymphocytes: inducible and selective expression of TLR9 and TLR10 in normal and transformed cells,” Blood, vol. 102, no. 3, pp. 956–963, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. J. Sindhava, M. A. Oropallo, K. Moody et al., “A TLR9-dependent checkpoint governs B cell responses to DNA-containing antigens,” The Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol. 127, no. 5, pp. 1651–1663, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Sun, J. Wu, F. Du, X. Chen, and Z. J. Chen, “Cyclic GMP-AMP synthase is a cytosolic DNA sensor that activates the type I interferon pathway,” Science, vol. 339, no. 6121, pp. 786–791, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. L. Burdette, K. M. Monroe, K. Sotelo-Troha et al., “STING is a direct innate immune sensor of cyclic di-GMP,” Nature, vol. 478, no. 7370, pp. 515–518, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Ablasser and Z. J. Chen, “cGAS in action: expanding roles in immunity and inflammation,” Science, vol. 363, no. 6431, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Sui, M. Zhou, H. Imamichi et al., “STING is an essential mediator of the Ku70-mediated production of IFN-λ1 in response to exogenous DNA,” Science Signaling, vol. 10, no. 488, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Ishikawa and G. N. Barber, “STING is an endoplasmic reticulum adaptor that facilitates innate immune signalling,” Nature, vol. 455, pp. 674–678, 2008.
View at: Google Scholar
T. Abe and G. N. Barber, “Cytosolic-DNA-Mediated, STING-Dependent Proinflammatory Gene Induction Necessitates Canonical NF-κB Activation through TBK1,” Journal of Virology, vol. 88, no. 10, pp. 5328–5341, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Wu, Q. Wei, and J. Yu, “The cGAS/STING pathway: a sensor of senescence-associated DNA damage and trigger of inflammation in early age-related macular degeneration,” Clinical Interventions in Aging, vol. 14, pp. 1277–1283, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. J. Diner, D. L. Burdette, S. C. Wilson et al., “The innate immune DNA sensor cGAS produces a noncanonical cyclic dinucleotide that activates human STING,” Cell Reports, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 1355–1361, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Le Bert, A. R. Lam, S. S. Ho, Y. J. Shen, M. M. Liu, and S. Gasser, “STING-dependent cytosolic DNA sensor pathways regulate NKG2D ligand expression,” OncoImmunology, vol. 3, no. 6, article e29259, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. M. Parker, A. A. Murphy, and D. A. Leib, “Role of the DNA sensor STING in protection from lethal infection following corneal and intracerebral challenge with herpes simplex virus 1,” Journal of Virology, vol. 89, no. 21, pp. 11080–11091, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Hou, H. Liang, E. Rao et al., “Non-canonical NF-κB Antagonizes STING Sensor-Mediated DNA Sensing in Radiotherapy,” Immunity, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 490–503.e4, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Ahn, D. Gutman, S. Saijo, and G. N. Barber, “STING manifests self DNA-dependent inflammatory disease,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 109, no. 47, pp. 19386–19391, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Larkin, V. Ilyukha, M. Sorokin, A. Buzdin, E. Vannier, and A. Poltorak, “Cutting edge: activation of STING in T cells induces type I IFN responses and cell death,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 199, no. 2, pp. 397–402, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C.-H. A. Tang, J. A. Zundell, S. Ranatunga et al., “Agonist-mediated activation of STING induces apoptosis in malignant B cells,” Cancer Research, vol. 76, no. 8, pp. 2137–2152, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Cheng, Y. Liu, Y. Wang et al., “Chicken DNA virus sensor DDX41 activates IFN-β signaling pathway dependent on STING,” Developmental and Comparative Immunology, vol. 76, pp. 334–342, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Ishikawa, Z. Ma, and G. N. Barber, “STING regulates intracellular DNA-mediated, type I interferon-dependent innate immunity,” Nature, vol. 461, no. 7265, pp. 788–792, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Bai and F. Liu, “The cGAS-cGAMP-STING pathway: a molecular link between immunity and metabolism,” Diabetes, vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 1099–1108, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. E. A. Ludlow, R. W. Johnstone, and C. J. P. Clarke, “The HIN-200 family: more than interferon-inducible genes?” Experimental Cell Research, vol. 308, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. E. Warren, A. Armstrong, M. K. Hamilton et al., “Cutting edge: cytosolic bacterial DNA activates the inflammasome via Aim2,” The Journal of Immunology, vol. 185, no. 2, pp. 818–821, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Fernandes-Alnemri, J. W. Yu, P. Datta, J. Wu, and E. S. Alnemri, “AIM2 activates the inflammasome and cell death in response to cytoplasmic DNA,” Nature, vol. 458, no. 7237, pp. 509–513, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Hu, C. Jin, H. B. Li et al., “The DNA-sensing AIM2 inflammasome controls radiation-induced cell death and tissue injury,” Science, vol. 354, no. 6313, pp. 765–768, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. A. Muruve, V. Petrilli, A. K. Zaiss et al., “The inflammasome recognizes cytosolic microbial and host DNA and triggers an innate immune response,” Nature, vol. 452, no. 7183, pp. 103–107, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. L. Roberts, A. Idris, J. A. Dunn et al., “HIN-200 proteins regulate caspase activation in response to foreign cytoplasmic DNA,” Science, vol. 323, no. 5917, pp. 1057–1060, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Hornung, A. Ablasser, M. Charrel-Dennis et al., “AIM2 recognizes cytosolic dsDNA and forms a caspase-1-activating inflammasome with ASC,” Nature, vol. 458, no. 7237, pp. 514–518, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Burckstummer, C. Baumann, S. Bluml et al., “An orthogonal proteomic-genomic screen identifies AIM2 as a cytoplasmic DNA sensor for the inflammasome,” Nature Immunology, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 266–272, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. M. Kahlenberg and M. J. Kaplan, “Little peptide, big effects: the role of LL-37 in inflammation and autoimmune disease,” The Journal of Immunology, vol. 191, no. 10, pp. 4895–4901, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Unterholzner, S. E. Keating, M. Baran et al., “IFI16 is an innate immune sensor for intracellular DNA,” Nature Immunology, vol. 11, no. 11, pp. 997–1004, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Roy, A. Ghosh, B. Kumar, and B. Chandran, “IFI16, a nuclear innate immune DNA sensor, mediates epigenetic silencing of herpesvirus genomes by its association with H3K9 methyltransferases SUV39H1 and GLP,” Elife, vol. 8, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. A. Stratmann, S. R. Morrone, A. M. van Oijen, and J. Sohn, “The innate immune sensor IFI16 recognizes foreign DNA in the nucleus by scanning along the duplex,” eLife, vol. 4, article e11721, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Veeranki and D. Choubey, “Interferon-inducible p200-family protein IFI16, an innate immune sensor for cytosolic and nuclear double-stranded DNA: regulation of subcellular localization,” Molecular Immunology, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 567–571, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. F. Almine, C. A. O'Hare, G. Dunphy et al., “IFI16 and cGAS cooperate in the activation of STING during DNA sensing in human keratinocytes,” Nature Communications, vol. 8, no. 1, article 14392, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Dunphy, S. M. Flannery, J. F. Almine et al., “Non-canonical Activation of the DNA Sensing Adaptor STING by ATM and IFI16 Mediates NF-κB Signaling after Nuclear DNA Damage,” Molecular Cell, vol. 71, no. 5, pp. 745–760.e5, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Takaoka, Z. Wang, M. K. Choi et al., “DAI (DLM-1/ZBP1) is a cytosolic DNA sensor and an activator of innate immune response,” Nature, vol. 448, no. 7152, pp. 501–505, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Yang, H. An, X. Liu et al., “The cytosolic nucleic acid sensor LRRFIP1 mediates the production of type I interferon via a β-catenin-dependent pathway,” Nature Immunology, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 487–494, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Ablasser, F. Bauernfeind, G. Hartmann, E. Latz, K. A. Fitzgerald, and V. Hornung, “RIG-I-dependent sensing of poly(dA:dT) through the induction of an RNA polymerase III-transcribed RNA intermediate,” Nature Immunology, vol. 10, no. 10, pp. 1065–1072, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. H. Chiu, J. B. Macmillan, and Z. J. Chen, “RNA polymerase III detects cytosolic DNA and induces type I interferons through the RIG-I pathway,” Cell, vol. 138, no. 3, pp. 576–591, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Kim, S. Pazhoor, M. Bao et al., “Aspartate-glutamate-alanine-histidine box motif (DEAH)/RNA helicase A helicases sense microbial DNA in human plasmacytoid dendritic cells,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 107, no. 34, pp. 15181–15186, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Zhang, T. W. Brann, M. Zhou et al., “Cutting edge: Ku70 is a novel cytosolic DNA sensor that induces type III rather than type I IFN,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 186, no. 8, pp. 4541–4545, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Murakami, N. Morimoto, T. Kono, M. Sakai, and J. I. Hikima, “Molecular characterization and expression of the teleost cytosolic DNA sensor genes cGAS, LSm14A, DHX9, and DHX36 in Japanese medaka, Oryzias latipes,” Developmental & Comparative Immunology, vol. 99, article 103402, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Yoneyama, M. Kikuchi, K. Matsumoto et al., “Shared and unique functions of the DExD/H-box helicases RIG-I, MDA5, and LGP2 in antiviral innate immunity,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 175, no. 5, pp. 2851–2858, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Wang, M. Wen, and X. Cao, “Nuclear hnRNPA2B1 initiates and amplifies the innate immune response to DNA viruses,” Science, vol. 365, no. 6454, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. C. Barnett, J. M. Coronas-Serna, W. Zhou et al., “Phosphoinositide interactions position cGAS at the plasma membrane to ensure efficient distinction between self- and viral DNA,” Cell, vol. 176, no. 6, pp. 1432–1446.e11, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Jiang, X. Xue, S. Panda et al., “Chromatin-bound cGAS is an inhibitor of DNA repair and hence accelerates genome destabilization and cell death,” The EMBO Journal, vol. 38, no. 21, article e102718, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. L. Roberts, M. L. Turner, J. A. Dunn et al., “B cells do not take up bacterial DNA: an essential role for antigen in exposure of DNA to toll-like receptor-9,” Immunology and Cell Biology, vol. 89, no. 4, pp. 517–525, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Yang, H. Liu, Q. Zeng et al., “Inhibition of HMGB1/RAGE-mediated endocytosis by HMGB1 antagonist box A, anti-HMGB1 antibodies, and cholinergic agonists suppresses inflammation,” Molecular Medicine, vol. 25, no. 1, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. E. Hofland, L. Shephard, and S. M. Sullivan, “Formation of stable cationic lipid/DNA complexes for gene transfer,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 93, no. 14, pp. 7305–7309, 1996.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. J. Bitto, R. Chapman, S. Pidot et al., “Bacterial membrane vesicles transport their DNA cargo into host cells,” Scientific Reports, vol. 7, no. 1, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Li and Z. J. Chen, “The cGAS-cGAMP-STING pathway connects DNA damage to inflammation, senescence, and cancer,” The Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol. 215, no. 5, pp. 1287–1299, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Li, M. Yi, S. Qin, Y. Song, Q. Chu, and K. Wu, “The cGAS–cGAMP–STING pathway connects DNA damage to inflammation, senescence, and cancer,” Journal of Hematology & Oncology, vol. 12, no. 1, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Li, R. Wu, W. Guo et al., “STING-mediated IFI16 degradation negatively controls type I interferon production,” Cell Reports, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 1249–1260.e4, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Chen, H. Sun, F. You et al., “Activation of STAT6 by STING is critical for antiviral innate immunity,” Cell, vol. 147, no. 2, pp. 436–446, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Liu, H. Wu, C. Wang et al., “STING directly activates autophagy to tune the innate immune response,” Cell Death and Differentiation, vol. 26, no. 9, pp. 1735–1749, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Motwani, S. Pesiridis, and K. A. Fitzgerald, “DNA sensing by the cGAS–STING pathway in health and disease,” Nature Reviews. Genetics, vol. 20, no. 11, pp. 657–674, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Liu and W. Guan, “STING signaling promotes apoptosis, necrosis, and cell death: an overview and update,” Mediators of Inflammation, vol. 2018, Article ID 1202797, 4 pages, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Sze, S. M. Belgnaoui, D. Olagnier, R. Lin, J. Hiscott, and J. van Grevenynghe, “Host restriction factor SAMHD1 limits human T cell leukemia virus type 1 infection of monocytes via STING-mediated apoptosis,” Cell Host & Microbe, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 422–434, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. T. Qiao, C. Cui, L. Qing et al., “Activation of the STING-IRF3 pathway promotes hepatocyte inflammation, apoptosis and induces metabolic disorders in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease,” Metabolism, vol. 81, pp. 13–24, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Petrasek, A. Iracheta-Vellve, T. Csak et al., “STING-IRF3 pathway links endoplasmic reticulum stress with hepatocyte apoptosis in early alcoholic liver disease,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 110, no. 41, pp. 16544–16549, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Li, H. Zhou, H. Wu et al., “STING-IRF3 contributes to lipopolysaccharide-induced cardiac dysfunction, inflammation, apoptosis and pyroptosis by activating NLRP3,” Redox Biology, vol. 24, article 101215, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. M. Gaidt, T. S. Ebert, D. Chauhan et al., “The DNA inflammasome in human myeloid cells is initiated by a STING-cell death program upstream of NLRP3,” Cell, vol. 171, no. 5, pp. 1110–1124.e18, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. McArthur, L. W. Whitehead, J. M. Heddleston et al., “BAK/BAX macropores facilitate mitochondrial herniation and mtDNA efflux during apoptosis,” Science, vol. 359, no. 6378, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Cornelie, E. Wiel, N. Lund et al., “Cytosine-phosphate-guanine (CpG) motifs are sensitizing agents for lipopolysaccharide in toxic shock model,” Intensive Care Medicine, vol. 28, no. 9, pp. 1340–1347, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Hartmann and A. M. Krieg, “CpG DNA and LPS induce distinct patterns of activation in human monocytes,” Gene Therapy, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 893–903, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. J. Gao, V. Diesl, T. Wittmann et al., “Bacterial LPS and CpG DNA differentially induce gene expression profiles in mouse macrophages,” Journal of Endotoxin Research, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 237–243, 2003.
View at: Google Scholar
A. K. Yi, J. G. Yoon, S. C. Hong, T. W. Redford, and A. M. Krieg, “Lipopolysaccharide and CpG DNA synergize for tumor necrosis factor-α production through activation of NF-κB,” International Immunology, vol. 13, no. 11, pp. 1391–1404, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. J. Gao, E. G. Zuvanich, Q. Xue, D. L. Horn, R. Silverstein, and D. C. Morrison, “Cutting Edge: Bacterial DNA and LPS Act in Synergy in Inducing Nitric Oxide Production in RAW 264.7 Macrophages,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 163, no. 8, pp. 4095–4099, 1999.
View at: Google Scholar
S. L. McCoy, S. E. Kurtz, F. A. Hausman, D. R. Trune, R. M. Bennett, and S. H. Hefeneider, “Activation of RAW264.7 macrophages by bacterial DNA and lipopolysaccharide increases cell surface DNA binding and internalization,” The Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 279, no. 17, pp. 17217–17223, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. J. Gao, Q. Xue, C. J. Papasian, and D. C. Morrison, “Bacterial DNA and Lipopolysaccharide Induce Synergistic Production of TNF-α Through a Post-Transcriptional Mechanism,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 166, no. 11, pp. 6855–6860, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Silverstein, “D-galactosamine lethality model: scope and limitations,” Journal of Endotoxin Research, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 147–162, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. M. Alcorn, J. Fierer, and M. Chojkier, “The acute‐phase response protects mice from D‐galactosamine sensitization to endotoxin and tumor necrosis factor–α,” Hepatology, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 122–129, 1992.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. K. Yi, H. Yoon, J. E. Park, B. S. Kim, H. J. Kim, and A. Martinez-Hernandez, “CpG DNA-mediated induction of acute liver injury in D-galactosamine-sensitized mice: the mitochondrial apoptotic pathway-dependent death of hepatocytes,” The Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 281, no. 21, pp. 15001–15012, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Seki, “Toll-Like Receptor Ligand-Induced Liver Injury in D-Galactosamine-Sensitized Mice: Differences between TLR7/8 and TLR9 Ligands, Cytokine Patterns, and Cross-Tolerance Induction by TLR2 Ligand Pretreatment,” Journal of Immunology Research, vol. 2017, Article ID 9653793, 10 pages, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Zhang, N. Yang, S. Ni et al., “Pretreatment of lipopolysaccharide (LPS) ameliorates D-GalN/LPS induced acute liver failure through TLR4 signaling pathway,” International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Pathology, vol. 7, no. 10, pp. 6626–6634, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
M. A. Freudenberg, D. Keppler, and C. Galanos, “Requirement for lipopolysaccharide-responsive macrophages in galactosamine-induced sensitization to endotoxin,” Infection and Immunity, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 891–895, 1986.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Galanos, M. A. Freudenberg, and W. Reutter, “Galactosamine-induced sensitization to the lethal effects of endotoxin,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 76, no. 11, pp. 5939–5943, 1979.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Fernandes-Alnemri, J. W. Yu, C. Juliana et al., “The AIM2 inflammasome is critical for innate immunity to Francisella tularensis,” Nature Immunology, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 385–393, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Sparwasser, T. Miethke, G. Lipford et al., “Bacterial DNA causes septic shock,” Nature, vol. 386, no. 6623, pp. 336-337, 1997.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Plitas, B. M. Burt, H. M. Nguyen, Z. M. Bamboat, and R. P. DeMatteo, “Toll-like receptor 9 inhibition reduces mortality in polymicrobial sepsis,” The Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol. 205, no. 6, pp. 1277–1283, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Liu, X. Zheng, N. Wang et al., “Kukoamine B, a novel dual inhibitor of LPS and CpG DNA, is a potential candidate for sepsis treatment,” British Journal of Pharmacology, vol. 162, no. 6, pp. 1274–1290, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Tasaka, H. Kamata, K. Miyamoto et al., “Intratracheal synthetic CpG oligodeoxynucleotide causes acute lung injury with systemic inflammatory response,” Respiratory Research, vol. 10, no. 1, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Knuefermann, G. Baumgarten, A. Koch et al., “CpG oligonucleotide activates Toll-like receptor 9 and causes lung inflammation in vivo,” Respiratory Research, vol. 8, no. 1, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Yamada, K. J. Ishii, and D. M. Klinman, “Suppressive oligodeoxynucleotides inhibit CpG-induced inflammation of the mouse lung,” Critical Care Medicine, vol. 32, no. 10, pp. 2045–2049, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Itagaki, Y. Adibnia, S. Sun et al., “Bacterial DNA induces pulmonary damage via TLR-9 through cross-talk with neutrophils,” Shock, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 548–552, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Klinman, H. Shirota, D. Tross, T. Sato, and S. Klaschik, “Synthetic oligonucleotides as modulators of inflammation,” Journal of Leukocyte Biology, vol. 84, no. 4, pp. 958–964, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. M. Klinman, “Immunotherapeutic uses of CpG oligodeoxynucleotides,” Nature Reviews. Immunology, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 249–259, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Bode, G. Zhao, F. Steinhagen, T. Kinjo, and D. M. Klinman, “CpG DNA as a vaccine adjuvant,” Expert Review of Vaccines, vol. 10, pp. 499–511, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. D. Luyer, W. A. Buurman, M. Hadfoune et al., “Exposure to bacterial DNA before hemorrhagic shock strongly aggravates systemic inflammation and gut barrier loss via an IFN-gamma-dependent route,” Annals of Surgery, vol. 245, no. 5, pp. 795–802, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. C. Deng, T. A. Moore, M. W. Newstead, X. Zeng, A. M. Krieg, and T. J. Standiford, “CpG oligodeoxynucleotides stimulate protective innate immunity against pulmonary Klebsiella infection,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 173, no. 8, pp. 5148–5155, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Ribes, T. Meister, M. Ott et al., “Intraperitoneal prophylaxis with CpG oligodeoxynucleotides protects neutropenic mice against intracerebral Escherichia coli K1 infection,” Journal of Neuroinflammation, vol. 11, no. 1, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. H. Kim, J. Park, D. Kim et al., “Anti-Bacterial Effect of CpG-DNA Involves Enhancement of the Complement Systems,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences, vol. 20, no. 14, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. H. Kim, D. Kim, A. Gautam et al., “CpG-DNA exerts antibacterial effects by protecting immune cells and producing bacteria-reactive antibodies,” Scientific Reports, vol. 8, no. 1, article 16236, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. H. Kim, D. Kim, H. Lee et al., “CpG-DNA induces bacteria-reactive IgM enhancing phagocytic activity against Staphylococcus aureus infection,” BMB Reports, vol. 52, no. 11, pp. 635–640, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. M. Wu, J. Wang, B. Zhang, L. Fang, K. Xu, and R. Y. Liu, “CpG-ODN promotes phagocytosis and autophagy through JNK/P38 signal pathway in Staphylococcus aureus-stimulated macrophage,” Life Sciences, vol. 161, pp. 51–59, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. V. Villarreal, C. Jungfer, U. Obst, and T. Schwartz, “DNase I and Proteinase K eliminate DNA from injured or dead bacteria but not from living bacteria in microbial reference systems and natural drinking water biofilms for subsequent molecular biology analyses,” Journal of Microbiological Methods, vol. 94, no. 3, pp. 161–169, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. V. Tetz and G. V. Tetz, “Effect of extracellular DNA destruction by DNase I on characteristics of forming biofilms,” DNA and Cell Biology, vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 399–405, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. B. Lim, “DNases prevent clots formed by neutrophil extracellular traps,” Nature Reviews. Cardiology, vol. 15, no. 2, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. A. Keyel, “Dnases in health and disease,” Developmental Biology, vol. 429, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Huang and Y. Yang, “Targeting the TLR9-MyD88 pathway in the regulation of adaptive immune responses,” Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Targets, vol. 14, no. 8, pp. 787–796, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. M. Krieg, “Development of TLR9 agonists for cancer therapy,” The Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol. 117, no. 5, pp. 1184–1194, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. A. Anwar, M. Shah, J. Kim, and S. Choi, “Recent clinical trends in Toll-like receptor targeting therapeutics,” Medicinal Research Reviews, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 1053–1090, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. K. Dowling and A. Mansell, “Toll-like receptors: the swiss army knife of immunity and vaccine development,” Clinical & Translational Immunology, vol. 5, no. 5, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. van Duin, R. Medzhitov, and A. C. Shaw, “Triggering TLR signaling in vaccination,” Trends in Immunology, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 49–55, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Q. Zhao, Y. Wei, S. J. Pandol, L. Li, and A. Habtezion, “STING signaling promotes inflammation in experimental acute pancreatitis,” Gastroenterology, vol. 154, no. 6, pp. 1822–1835.e2, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Chandra, W. Quispe-Tintaya, A. Jahangir et al., “STING ligand c-di-GMP improves cancer vaccination against metastatic breast cancer,” Cancer Immunology Research, vol. 2, no. 9, pp. 901–910, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Sheridan, “Drug developers switch gears to inhibit STING,” Nature Biotechnology, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 199–201, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Jing, D. McAllister, E. P. Vonderhaar et al., “STING agonist inflames the pancreatic cancer immune microenvironment and reduces tumor burden in mouse models,” Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer, vol. 7, no. 1, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Feng, D. Liu, Z. Li, and J. Bian, “Bioactive modulators targeting STING adaptor in cGAS-STING pathway,” Drug Discovery Today, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 230–237, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Uggenti and Y. J. Crow, “Taking the STING out of inflammation,” Nature Reviews Rheumatology, vol. 14, no. 9, pp. 508-509, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Iurescia, D. Fioretti, and M. Rinaldi, “Targeting cytosolic nucleic acid-sensing pathways for cancer immunotherapies,” Frontiers in Immunology, vol. 9, p. 711, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Kawa, H. Tsutsui, R. Uchiyama et al., “IFN-γ is a master regulator of endotoxin shock syndrome in mice primed with heat-killed Propionibacterium acnes,” International Immunology, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 157–166, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Lacerda-Queiroz, N. Riteau, R. T. Eastman et al., “Mechanism of splenic cell death and host mortality in a Plasmodium yoelii malaria model,” Scientific Reports, vol. 7, no. 1, article 10438, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. D. Car, V. M. Eng, B. Schnyder et al., “Interferon gamma receptor deficient mice are resistant to endotoxic shock,” The Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol. 179, no. 5, pp. 1437–1444, 1994.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. P. Heinzel, “The role of IFN-gamma in the pathology of experimental endotoxemia,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 145, no. 9, pp. 2920–2924, 1990.
View at: Google Scholar
M. M. Zaman, K. Masuda, K. K. Nyati et al., “Arid5a exacerbates IFN-γ–mediated septic shock by stabilizing T-bet mRNA,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 113, no. 41, pp. 11543–11548, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2020 Zhenxing Cheng et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

890

Downloads

927

Citations