This Article Abstract Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Tada, H. Articles by Takada, H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Tada, H. Articles by Takada, H. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Proteolysis of ICAM-1 on Human Oral Epithelial Cells by Gingipains

¹ Department of Microbiology and Immunology and
² Department of Periodontics and Endodontics, Tohoku University Graduate School of Dentistry, 4-1 Seiryo-machi, Aoba-ku, Sendai 980-8575, Japan;
³ Division of Molecular Pathology, Department of Neuroscience and Immunology, Kumamoto University Graduate School of Medical Science, Kumamoto, Japan;
⁴ Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Institute of Molecular Biology, Jagiellonian University, Cracow, Poland; and
⁵ Department of Biochemistry, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA;

View larger version (29K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. Kinetics of ICAM-1 reduction on KB cells treated with purified gingipains. (A) KB cells were treated with the given concentrations of purified HRgpA, RgpB, and Kgp for the period indicated at 37°C. After being washed with PBS, the cells were stained with anti-ICAM-1 mAb or matched-isotype mAb and analyzed by flow cytometry. (B) Representative FACS profile of ICAM-1 expression on KB cells after treatment with 1 and 0.3 µmol/L HRgpA for 1 hr at 37°C. Isotype-matched IgG1 was used as a control. (C) KB cells were treated with the given concentrations of HLE for 1 hr at 37°C, and then stained with anti-ICAM-1 mAb or matched-isotype mAb and analyzed by flow cytometry. Representative findings of three independent experiments are expressed as the mean of the MFI (% of control). *P < 0.05 and **P < 0.01 vs. respective untreated cells at each time point.

View larger version (23K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 2. Proteolysis of ICAM-1 on KB cells by Rgp. (A) KB cells were fixed with 3% paraformaldehyde for 3 min at 4°C. After being washed with PBS, unfixed or fixed cells were incubated with 0.3 µmol/L HRgpA for 1 hr at 37°C, and then expression of ICAM-1 on KB cells was assessed by flow cytometry. Representative findings of three independent experiments are expressed as the mean ± SD of the MFI. **P < 0.01 vs. respective control. (B) Purified cell membrane of KB cells was untreated or treated with 0.3 µmol/L RgpB for the period indicated at 37°C, and then the expression of ICAM-1 was analyzed by Western blotting with anti-ICAM-1polyclonal Ab. (C) Purified cell membrane of KB was untreated (lane 1) or treated with 0.3 µmol/L RgpB for 1 hr without (lane 2) or with 3 µmol/L FPR-cmk (lane 3), and 3 µmol/L Z-FK-cmk (lane 4) pre-treatments for 10 min at room temperature. Then, the expression of ICAM-1 was analyzed by Western blotting with anti-ICAM-1polyclonal Ab. Molecular-mass markers (kDa) are shown on the left. Findings are representative of three independent experiments.

View larger version (20K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 3. Preferential reduction of ICAM-1 on oral epithelial cells by Rgp, and effect of serum on the ICAM-1 proteolysis. (A) KB cells were treated with or without 0.3 µmol/L HRgpA for 1 hr at 37°C. After being washed with PBS, cells were stained with anti-ICAM-1, CD29, CD48, CD49b, CD49e, CD58, CD13, and MHC class I or matched-isotype mAb and analyzed by flow cytometry. (B) KB cells were treated with 0.3 µmol/L HRgpA for 1 hr in the presence or absence of 3 µmol/L FPR-cmk or 3 µmol/L Z-FK-cmk, or treated with 1 µmol/L HRgpA for 1 hr in the presence or absence of the indicated concentrations of freshly isolated human serum. After a wash with PBS, the expression of ICAM-1 was analyzed by flow cytometry. Representative findings of three independent experiments are expressed as the mean of the MFI (% of control). *P < 0.05 and **P < 0.01 vs. respective control.

View larger version (12K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 4. Inhibition of ICAM-1-dependent PMN adhesion to oral epithelial cells by Rgp. (A) HSC-2 cells were pre-treated with or without 103 U/mL IFN- for 3 days at 37°C. Cells were then treated with or without 0.3 µmol/L RgpB for 30 min at 37°C. After cells were washed with PBS, the expression of ICAM-1 was analyzed by flow cytometry. Representative findings of three independent experiments are expressed as the means of the MFI. **P < 0.01 vs. respective control. HSC-2 cells (B) and primary oral (gingival) epithelial cells (C) were pre-treated with or without 103 U/mL IFN- for 3 days at 37°C. Cells were then treated with 0.3 µmol/L RgpB in the presence of 3 µmol/L FPR-cmk, anti-ICAM-1 mAb (10 µg/mL), or isotype-matched control IgG1 (10 µg/mL) for 30 min at 37°C. After the treatment, they were washed with warmed medium three times, and co-cultured with calcein-labeled PMNs (5 x 105 cells/well) for 30 min at 37°C. At the end of the incubation, non-adherent PMNs were washed away with warmed PBS three times, and adherent PMNs were evaluated by means of a spectrophotofluorometer. We used serial dilutions of calcein-labeled PMNs as a standard to calculate the number of adherent PMNs. Results are expressed as the number of adherent cells. Representative findings of three independent experiments are expressed as the mean ± SD of the binding of PMNs. **P < 0.01 vs. respective control.

Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 82, No. 10, 796-801 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/154405910308201007


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?