Abstract
Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication of joint arthroplasty surgery typified by biofilm formation. Currently, mechanisms whereby biofilms persist and evade immune-mediated clearance in immune competent patients remain largely ill-defined. Therefore, the current study characterized leukocyte infiltrates and inflammatory mediator expression in tissues from patients with PJI compared to aseptic loosening. CD33+HLA-DR−CD66b+CD14−/low granulocytic myeloid-derived suppressor cells (G-MDSCs) were the predominant leukocyte population at sites of human PJI compared to aseptic tissues. MDSCs inhibit T cell proliferation, which coincided with reduced T cells in PJIs compared to aseptic tissues. IL-10, IL-6, and CXCL1 were significantly elevated in PJI tissues and have been implicated in MDSC inhibitory activity, expansion, and recruitment, respectively, which may account for their preferential increase in PJIs. This bias towards G-MDSC accumulation during human PJI could account for the chronicity of these infections by preventing the pro-inflammatory, antimicrobial actions of immune effector cells.
Keywords: Staphylococci, biofilm, prosthetic joint infection, myeloid-derived suppressor cells, neutrophils
INTRODUCTION
Joint replacement surgeries are often life-changing for millions of people each year, providing pain relief and restored function, which translates into improved mobility and quality of life. The number of total knee and total hip arthroplasty (TKA and THA, respectively) surgeries has continued to increase over the past decade, with numbers projected to reach 572,000 THAs and 3.48 million TKAs by 20301; 2. Although most surgeries are successful, some patients experience device failure that requires additional surgery. Reasons for aseptic failure include, loosening of the implant at the bone-cement interface, wear, implant malposition, dislocation, instability, or materials fatigue1. Devices may also fail following prosthetic joint infection (PJI), a complication that can cause sustained disability and increased health care costs attributable to prolonged antibiotic treatment and multiple surgeries3. The average one-year incidence of PJI is estimated at 0.25–1% for primary THA and 0.4–2% for primary TKA4; 5; however, the infection rate following revision surgery is even higher (i.e. 3.2–5.6% for both THA and TKAs)6. Currently, the gold-standard for PJI treatment is a two-stage exchange, consisting of irrigation and debridement with complete resection of the infected prosthetic and any surrounding cement before an antibiotic-impregnated cement spacer is inserted and a new device is placed 6–12 weeks later7. Unfortunately, this approach is associated with less than 50% likelihood of permanent infection eradication8, and new treatment strategies are needed.
Most PJIs are thought to occur by hardware contamination from skin microflora during surgical insertion or peri-operatively, despite extensive antiseptic precautions3. The underlying pathogenesis of PJI involves the formation of biofilm that not only protects the pathogen from the host immune response, but also makes the diagnosis and management of PJI with traditional antimicrobials and surgical debridement or prosthesis removal challenging9. Biofilms are a structured aggregate of bacterial cells encased in a self-produced matrix and are adherent to both biotic and abiotic surfaces10. Indeed, PJIs are often associated with chronic osteomyelitis, reflecting biofilm growth on a native surface3; 11. The biofilm matrix, composed of exopolysaccharides, proteins, techoic acids, lipids and eDNA12, forms a barrier that is relatively impervious to invasion by phagocytic cells13–15, while planktonic bacteria that lack this protection are susceptible to phagocyte killing16. Additionally, it is thought that the existence of slow-growing or dormant cells within the biofilm (i.e. persisters), presence of bacterial subpopulations with different phenotypic levels of antibiotic resistance and gene expression, and stress responses to hostile environmental conditions also contribute to biofilm resistance16; 17. Collectively, the reduced effectiveness of antibiotics and the ability to skew the host immune response toward an anti-inflammatory, pro-fibrotic state, contributes to the chronicity and recurrence of biofilm-related infections15; 18–22.
Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) and coagulase-negative Staphylococci are the leading causes of PJI associated with THA and TKA23. The significant disease burden associated with PJIs and increasing antimicrobial resistance among common PJI pathogens, including Staphylococci, highlights the importance of investigating alternative treatment paradigms to augment immune-mediated clearance. In the current study, we have compared leukocyte infiltrates and inflammatory mediator production profiles in tissues recovered from patients following aseptic revision TKA or THA as well as PJIs caused by distinct gram-positive pathogens. Here we report that CD33+HLA-DR− myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) are increased in PJI concomitant with reduced T cells relative to aseptic revisions, and have identified that the majority of these cells are CD66b+ granulocytic-MDSCs (G-MDSCs). In contrast, the primary granulocytic infiltrate into aseptic implant-associated tissues was CD66b+ neutrophils. Based on previous functional analyses in corresponding animal models20–22, the increase in MDSCs associated with human PJI could contribute to the chronicity of implant-associated biofilm infections by preventing the proinflammatory, antimicrobial actions of immune effector cells.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Periprosthetic tissue procurement
This study summarizes a Level 3 Case-control study. Informed consent was obtained from eligible patients undergoing arthroplasty revision surgery for infectious (PJI) or aseptic complications during their pre-surgical visit, following prior approval by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC). Organisms associated with PJIs were identified by the Clinical Microbiology Laboratory at UNMC and samples that were negative for bacterial growth using standard protocols were classified as aseptic. Excess tissues were procured during the surgical procedure as previously described22. Because the approved IRB protocol was restricted to the collection of excess tissue only, information regarding the length of infection, comorbidities, and antibiotic treatment of patients was not available.
Flow cytometry
Immediately following excision, excess tissues were placed in isotonic saline and processed for FACS analysis as previously described22. Cells were stained with anti-human CD66b-FITC (BioLegend, San Diego, CA), CD14-PE, CD16-APC, CD33-PE-Cy5, HLA-DR-PE-Cy7, CD45-eFluor450, and CD3ε-APC-Cy7 (BD Biosciences, San Diego, CA and eBioscience). Dead cells were excluded using a Live/Dead Fixable Blue Dead Cell Stain Kit (Life Technologies, Eugene, OR) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Analysis was performed using BD FACSDiva software. Single cells were gated from the total events using FSC-A vs. FSC-H, followed by exclusion of dead cells. Live, CD45+ leukocytes were separated into granulocytes or non-granulocytes based on SSC-AhighCD66b+. Non-granulocyte populations were identified using a series of gates to avoid duplicate counting. First, CD3+ T cells were gated, followed by HLA-DR+ cells from the non-T cell population to determine the abundance of monocyte populations expressing CD14 and CD16. Although CD11b is often used to identify MDSC populations, our goal was to broadly identify T cells, MDSCs, neutrophils, and monocytes, all of which express CD11b, making this marker less informative to discriminate between these cell types. In addition, both G-MDSCs and neutrophils express CD11b, which does not facilitate the delineation of these populations. Results are presented as the percentage of live cells, unless otherwise noted.
Multianalyte microbead array
Inflammatory mediator expression in aseptic versus PJI tissues was assessed using a human 41-plex microbead array (MILLIPLEX; Millipore, Billerica, MA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions, which included: EGF, FGF-2, Flt-3L, G-CSF, GM-CSF, IFN-α2, IFN-γ, IL-1α, IL-1β, IL-1rα, IL-2, IL-3, IL-4, IL-5, IL-6, IL-7, IL-8, IL-9, IL-10, IL-12p40, IL-12p70, IL-13, IL-15, IL-17, CX3CL1, CCL2, CCL3, CCL4, CCL5, CCL7, CCL11, CCL22, CXCL1, CXCL10, sCD40L, TGF-α, TNF-α, TNF-β, PDGF-AA, PDGF AB BB, and VEGF. Results were analyzed using a Bio-Plex Workstation (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA) and normalized to total protein to account for differences in tissue size. The level of sensitivity for most analytes was 3.2 pg/ml. When reporting values, the number of samples presented for some cytokines varied because they fell below the limit of detection. When this occurred, samples were omitted rather than reporting them as zeroes, which could artificially bias the results. No other data were excluded from analysis to reflect the biological variability between patient specimens.
ELISA
IL-10 levels in tissue homogenates associated with aseptic revisions or PJI were quantitated by a sandwich ELISA (BioLegend, San Diego, CA, USA). Results were normalized to the total amount of protein to account for differences in tissue sampling size. The lower limit of detection for the assay was 3.9 pg/ml.
Statistics
Significant differences between aseptic and infected samples were determined by an unpaired two-tailed Student t-test using GraphPad Prism version 6 (La Jolla, CA). For all analyses, p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS
PJI is a debilitating complication of arthroplasty and as the number of arthroplasties continues to increase annually, it is expected that the infection rate will concur1; 9. To determine whether PJIs are biased towards immunosuppressive responses to account for infection persistence in immune competent patients, leukocyte infiltrates and inflammatory mediator expression profiles were compared in patients with PJI versus aseptic revisions. The majority (~70%) of tissues obtained for this study were from patients undergoing revision surgery for presumed aseptic complications, as determined during a pre-operative visit (Table 1). The remaining 30% of consented patients presented with suspected infection associated with the implanted device, which was confirmed following post-operative culture. Of the 9 infected samples, 6 were Staphylococcal species (methicillin-resistant and –susceptible S. aureus, coagulase-negative Staphylococcus, and S. lugdunensis), 2 were Streptococci (Groups B and C) and one was attributed to Actinobacteria (Corynebacterium diptheriae).
Table 1.
Summary of aseptic and infected tissues analyzed in this study from patients undergoing total knee or total hip arthroplasty revision surgery.
| Age | Gender | Ethnicity | Revision Type | Diagnosis/Reason for Revision Surgery | Pathogen |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 55 | M | Caucasian | Hip | Aseptic; Mechanical failure | |
| 74 | M | Caucasian | Hip | Aseptic; Mechanical loosening | |
| 61 | F | Caucasian | Hip | Aseptic; Mechanical loosening | |
| 58 | F | Caucasian | Knee | Aseptic; Failed device | |
| 61 | F | African-American | Hip | Aseptic; Failed device | |
| 73 | F | Caucasian | Hip | Infected | S. lugdunensis |
| 73 | F | Caucasian | Hip | Aseptic; Mechanical loosening | |
| 74 | M | Caucasian | Knee | Aseptic; Mechanical loosening | |
| 83 | F | Caucasian | Hip | Aseptic; Mechanical loosening | |
| 56 | F | Caucasian | Knee | Aseptic; Failed device | |
| 86 | F | Caucasian | Hip | Infected | Group B Streptococcus |
| 79 | F | Caucasian | Knee | Infected | C. diptheriae |
| 54 | F | Caucasian | Knee | Infected | Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus |
| 58 | F | Caucasian | Knee | Infected | S. aureus |
| NA* | NA | NA | Knee | Infected | Group C Streptococcus |
| 76 | F | Caucasian | Knee | Aseptic; Mechanical loosening | |
| 67 | M | Caucasian | Knee | Aseptic; Knee pain, stiffness | |
| 64 | F | Caucasian | Knee | Aseptic; Mechanical loosening, stiffness | |
| 61 | M | Caucasian | Knee | Infected | Methicillin-resistant S. aureus |
| 64 | M | Caucasian | Knee | Aseptic; Mechanical loosening | |
| 61 | M | African-American | Hip | Aseptic; Mechanical loosening | |
| 80 | M | Caucasian | Hip | Aseptic; Mechanical loosening | |
| 64 | M | Caucasian | Knee | Infected | Methicillin-susceptible S. aureus |
| 51 | M | Caucasian | Knee | Aseptic; Mechanical loosening | |
| 75 | M | Caucasian | Knee | Aseptic; Instability | |
| 80 | M | Caucasian | Knee | Infected | Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus |
| 76 | M | Caucasian | Knee | Aseptic; Mechanical loosening | |
| 63 | F | Caucasian | Knee | Aseptic; Mechanical loosening | |
| 67 | M | Caucasian | Knee | Aseptic; Mechanical loosening |
NA; not available
Representative images of aseptic and infected tissues recovered during arthroplasty revision surgery demonstrate the disparities in gross appearance of these two cohorts (Fig 1A). There were no differences in the percentages of live cells recovered from either aseptic or infected explanted tissues; however, CD45+ leukocyte infiltrates were significantly increased in PJIs, indicating their active accumulation in response to signals at the site of biofilm infection (Fig 1B). MDSC infiltrates (CD33+HLA-DR−) were significantly increased during PJI compared to aseptic tissues (Fig 2A). In humans, two MDSC subsets have been described, namely CD33+HLA-DR−CD66b−CD14+ monocytic-MDSCs (M-MDSCs) and CD33+HLA-DR−CD66b+CD14−/low granulocytic-MDSCs (G-MDSCs)24. This distinction between G- and M-MDSCs was observed in both infected and aseptic tissues isolated from knee and hip prostheses (Fig 2B and C, respectively). CD33+HLA-DR− MDSCs (Fig 2A) were gated using CD66b and CD14, resulting in two distinct cell populations represented by CD66b+CD14low G-MDSCs (Fig 2B) and CD66b−CD14+ M-MDSCs (Fig 2C). Quantitation of these populations expressed as a percentage of MDSCs revealed a significant increase in G-MDSC infiltrates in PJI tissues compared to aseptic (Fig 2B), whereas no differences in M-MDSCs were observed (Fig 2C). After gating on CD66b+SSC-Ahigh cells from the total live population, the CD33+HLA-DR− MDSC population was excluded, resulting in the percentage of non-MDSC granulocytes, or neutrophils, in implant-associated tissues. This strategy revealed that the percentage of neutrophils was not different in PJI patients compared to aseptic revisions (Fig 2D).
Figure 1. CD45+ leukocyte infiltrates are increased in response to PJI.
Tissues surrounding human aseptic and infected knee and hip prostheses were analyzed by flow cytometry. (A) Gross appearance of tissue from a single aseptic revision and a coagulase-negative Staphylococcal-infected knee prostheses, which are representative of each tissue collected for this study. (B) Quantitation of live cells recovered from implant-associated tissues, and the percentage of those cells expressing CD45 are presented as the mean ± SEM of all tissues examined (* p < 0.05; unpaired Student t-test).
Figure 2. Tissues from PJIs display increased numbers of CD33+HLA-DR− G-MDSCs.
Tissues surrounding human aseptic and infected knee and hip prostheses were analyzed by flow cytometry. Results were calculated after gating on live cells and contour plots depict an individual aseptic and infected sample that are representative of all tissues collected. Quantitation of (A) CD33+HLA-DR− MDSCs, (B) CD66b+ G-MDSCs, (C) CD14+ M-MDSCs, and (D) neutrophils of total CD66b+SSC-Ahigh non-MDSC granulocytes that represent the mean ± SEM of all tissues collected (** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001; **** p < 0.0001; unpaired Student t-test).
MDSCs are recognized for their suppression of T cell proliferation and activation, in part, through arginine depletion from the extracellular milieu25; 26. Since G-MDSCs were more abundant in PJIs, we next determined whether this would translate to reduced T cell numbers at the site of infection. Approximately 15% of live cells isolated from aseptic tissues were CD3+CD45+; and while T cell infiltrates were decreased in infected tissues, this did not reach statistical significance (Fig 3). Unfortunately, the number of MDSCs recovered from implant-associated tissues was not sufficient to perform proliferation assays and assess suppressive properties.
Figure 3. PJI tissues have reduced T cell infiltrates compared to aseptic revisions.
Tissues collected during knee and hip arthroplasty revisions were analyzed by flow cytometry and gated on live cells. (A) Contour plots of CD3 and CD45 staining are shown from an individual aseptic and infected sample that are representative of all tissues collected. (B) Quantitation of CD3+CD45+ cells that represent the mean ± SEM of all tissues collected.
Distinct monocyte populations can be identified in human blood, which migrate to sites of infection in response to chemokine signals; however, the frequency of monocyte infiltrates in human periprosthetic tissues has not yet been examined. Human monocytes can be divided into three populations based on their relative surface expression of the LPS co-receptor CD14 and the FCγIII receptor CD1627. Classical monocytes (CD14+CD16−) account for the majority of the total monocyte population, while CD14+CD16+ intermediate monocytes and CD14−CD16+ non-classical monocytes are less abundant27. To identify these different monocyte subsets associated with human arthroplasty revisions, we gated on HLA-DR+ cells that were non-granulocytes and non-T cells (Fig 4A) before differentiation of CD14 and CD16 surface expression. The exclusion of both cell types was important, as T cell populations have been reported to express HLA-DR28, and granulocytes express CD1629. This strategy allowed us to specifically identify monocyte subsets in implant-associated tissues, where no differences were observed in either the percentage of HLA-DR+ cells infiltrating aseptic and infected tissues (Fig 4A) or classical, intermediate, or non-classical monocyte infiltrates during PJI (Fig 4B, C, and D, respectively).
Figure 4. MHC class II+ cells and monocyte infiltrates are similar between aseptic and PJI-associated tissues.
Soft tissues collected during revisions of knee and hip arthroplasties were analyzed by flow cytometry. Results were calculated after gating on live cells and removing granulocyte and T cell populations from the analysis. Contour plots of HLA-DR vs. FSC-A, followed by CD14 vs. CD16 expression of HLA-DR+ cells are shown from an individual aseptic and infected sample that are representative of all tissues analyzed. (A) HLA-DR+ cells, (B) CD14+CD16− classical monocytes, (C) CD14+CD16+ intermediate monocytes and (D) CD14lowCD16+ non-classical monocytes presented as the mean ± SEM of all tissues collected.
To better understand the inflammatory milieu that may dictate patterns of leukocyte invasion in aseptic versus PJI tissues, we evaluated clarified supernatants from homogenized explanted tissues for a panel of 41 human cytokines and chemokines. Of the mediators examined, only IL-10, IL-6 and CXCL1 were significantly increased in PJI tissues compared to aseptic revisions (Fig 5A–C, respectively). However, CXCL8 (Fig 5D), CCL7 (Fig 5E), and TGF-α (Fig 5F) were slightly elevated during infection, whereas VEGF (Fig 5G), and Flt-3L (Fig 5H) were lower than in aseptic tissues. Differential IL-10, IL-6, and CXCL1 expression and G-MDSC infiltrates between PJI and aseptic tissues may prove to be useful to diagnose human PJIs and assess responsiveness to treatment.
Figure 5. Differential cytokine and chemokine expression is observed between aseptic and PJI tissues.
Quantitation of (A) IL-10 (B) IL-6, (C) CXCL1, (D) CXCL8, (E) CCL7, (F) TGF-α, (G)VEGF, and (H) Flt-3L expression in aseptic and PJI tissues. Results were normalized to the amount of total protein to correct for differences in tissue size and are expressed as the mean ± SEM of all tissues examined (** p < 0.01; unpaired Student t-test).
DISCUSSION
S. aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci are the primary etiologic agents of human PJIs, accounting for approximately 50–60% of cases1. Indeed, of the nine PJIs examined in our study, six were Staphylococcal species (~66%, Table 1). The mode of infection is not known in many cases; however, the majority of PJIs are thought to occur during surgery, originating from skin commensals3. The anterior nares of 20–30% of the general population and 2–6% of orthopedic patients in the US are colonized by methicillin-susceptible and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MSSA and MRSA, respectively)5, and preoperative colonization by S. aureus strains is associated with a 2–9 times greater risk of surgical site infection during orthopedic surgery compared to patients who are not colonized30; 31. This has resulted in increased screening for S. aureus carriage to ensure that patients undergo decolonization regimens before their surgeries in an attempt to minimize infection risk32. While S. aureus is recognized as a common cause of healthcare-associated infections, other less virulent coagulase-negative species are also implicated in PJI. S. epidermidis is the most frequently identified member of this group and causes PJI primarily through its ability to adhere to prosthetic materials and form a biofilm33; 34. S. lugdunensis was recovered from one PJI in this study (Table 1), and is another coagulase-negative staphylococcal species capable of eliciting severe systemic and local infections similar to those caused by S. aureus, including PJI35. Gram-positive cocci are responsible for the majority of hip and knee PJIs; and although largely attributed to staphylococci, streptococci account for < 10% of cases1. In the current study, Group B and C Streptococcus were identified in two out of the nine PJIs examined (Table 1). Streptococcal infections are typically acute in nature, and most patients have one or more comorbidities that may have contributed to joint arthroplasty infection36. Other anaerobic bacteria have been reported in PJIs, including Corynebacterium diptheriae, a member of Actinomyces known to cause monomicrobial infections. However, these occurrences are rare as most anaerobes are present as part of a polymicrobial infection1.
Since the immune status of PJIs remains relatively underexplored, the objective of the current study was to identify differences in immune cell infiltrates and inflammatory mediator production associated with aseptic or infected explanted tissues from human subjects following post-arthroplasty revision surgery. A secondary outcome was to substantiate changes in human specimens with recent findings in our mouse model of S. aureus orthopedic biofilm infection20–22. This report is the first to identify the preferential accumulation of CD33+HLA-DR− G-MDSCs in human PJI tissues relative to aseptic samples. This affords translational relevance to our recent findings in a mouse model of S. aureus orthopedic implant infection, where MDSCs represented the primary infiltrate and played a critical role in transforming the local milieu toward an anti-inflammatory environment that favored biofilm persistence20–22. Subsequent to our initial reports, others have documented MDSC infiltrates in mouse models of S. aureus infection37; 38. Neutrophils are a critical anti-bacterial effector population; however, in human PJIs neutrophil influx was unchanged compared to aseptic tissues. The failure to augment neutrophil accumulation during infection is likely attributed to the expanded MDSC population associated with PJIs that are CD66b+ G-MDSCs, and thus could be neutrophil precursors that have become arrested in an immature, immunosuppressive state. The exact combination and sequence of infection-derived factors that regulate MDSC mobilization, proliferation, and differentiation are not understood; however, it appears that in both humans and mice an infection-induced signal arrests granulocyte precursors in an immature G-MDSC state.
MDSCs are known for their ability to augment arginase-1 (Arg-1) expression25; 26 and arginine depletion from the environment by Arg-1 results in defective TCR signaling through inhibiting CD3ζ expression, cell cycle, and cytokine production25. In the current study, a trend toward reduced CD3+ T cells was associated with PJI compared to aseptic revisions, which agrees with the preferential accumulation of G-MDSCs in PJI tissues. Previously, we have found few T cell infiltrates associated with different mouse models of S. aureus biofilm infection13; 22; 39, which corroborates the findings in human PJIs. However, in this study, limited cell numbers prevented analysis of G-MDSC suppressive properties.
Interestingly, there was no enhanced recruitment of HLA-DR+ cells or apparent upregulation of HLA-DR expression in response to PJI. HLA-DR is a major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class II surface receptor that is critical for initiating a signaling cascade to activate adaptive immunity. In the current study, no differences in classical, intermediate, or non-classical monocyte populations were observed between human aseptic and infected post-arthroplasty revision tissues. The lack of HLA-DR up-regulation and monocyte recruitment to human PJIs concomitant with increased MDSCs suggests that signals originating from the site of infection induce an immunosuppressive environment that prevents sufficient activation of antimicrobial effector mechanisms, thereby promoting bacterial persistence. This is supported by the observation that IL-10 levels are significantly increased in patents with PJI compared to aseptic loosening. IL-10 is an anti-inflammatory cytokine known for its role in controlling inflammatory responses, including inhibiting T cell activation and programming macrophages toward an anti-inflammatory phenotype40; 41. Recent studies from our laboratory with a mouse model of S. aureus orthopedic implant infection have shown that IL-10 production by MDSCs is one mechanism used to promote biofilm persistence21. These observations align with elevated IL-10 expression in human PJI; however, it remains unclear how much IL-10 is produced by MDSCs versus the other cell types present during infection. Although IL-6 is significantly increased during human PJI and is classically considered an inflammatory cytokine, it can also induce MDSC expansion26; 42. Furthermore, CXCL1 was significantly increased in human PJI tissues and has been reported to induce MDSC recruitment43, suggesting that it could play a role in G-MDSC influx into implant-associated tissues.
It is important to note that despite the variety of bacterial species responsible for PJI that were identified in this study, the overall immune profile of infected implant-associated tissues was similar. Namely, G-MDSC infiltrates were increased in all infected samples, whereas no changes in neutrophils or monocyte populations were observed. Based on previous functional analyses in corresponding animal models20–22, the increase in MDSCs could be a mechanism to control the initial inflammatory response to bacteria and inadvertently set the stage for biofilms to form and persist on these devices for protracted periods.
In conclusion, this analysis of tissues from patients undergoing revision surgeries for PJI has revealed the preferential accumulation of inhibitory G-MDSCs concomitant with the failure to augment phagocytic effector cells (i.e. neutrophils and monocytes) compared to aseptic revisions. Elucidating the mechanisms whereby bacterial biofilms evade protective immunity could lead to novel immune-mediated approaches to facilitate PJI clearance in combination with conventional antibiotics. This becomes increasingly important as the rates of joint replacement surgery continue to rise along with the incidence of infection and the economic burden placed on both patients and the healthcare system.
Supplementary Material
Clinical Significance.
Animal models of PJI have revealed a critical role for MDSCs and IL-10 in promoting infection persistence; however, whether this population is prevalent during human PJI and across distinct bacterial pathogens remains unknown. This study has identified that granulocytic-MDSC infiltrates are unique to human PJIs caused by distinct bacteria, which are not associated with aseptic loosening of prosthetic joints. Better defining the immune status of human PJIs could lead to novel immune-mediated approaches to facilitate PJI clearance in combination with conventional antibiotics.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health (P01 AI083211 Project 4 to T.K.) and Pfizer, Inc. (T.K.). Neither funding source had any role in experimental design or interpretation of the results reported in this study. The authors thank Dana Schwarz and Dillon Ellis for their roles in identifying subjects for the study and obtaining informed consent and Amy Aldrich for technical assistance. The authors also thank the study participants for providing tissue specimens for the study. T.K. received compensation for participating in speaking activities with Pfizer, Inc., who provided funding for this study. Pfizer also provided T.K. with a drug that was tested in research unrelated to this study.
Footnotes
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, CEH, DV, and TK; Methodology, CEH, DV, JO, CWH, KLG; Investigation, CEH, DV, JO; Writing – Original Draft, CEH; Writing – Review & Editing, CEH, DV, JO, CWH, KLG, and TK; Funding Acquisition, TK; Resources, CWH and KLG; Supervision, TK. All authors have reviewed and approved the manuscript.
The other authors have no commercial or other associations to report that might pose a conflict of interest for this study.
References
- 1.Tande AJ, Patel R. Prosthetic joint infection. Clinical microbiology reviews. 2014;27:302–345. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00111-13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Kurtz SM, Ong KL, Schmier J, et al. Future clinical and economic impact of revision total hip and knee arthroplasty. The Journal of bone and joint surgery American. 2007;89(Suppl 3):144–151. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.G.00587. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Zimmerli W, Trampuz A, Ochsner PE. Prosthetic-joint infections. The New England journal of medicine. 2004;351:1645–1654. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra040181. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Peersman G, Laskin R, Davis J, et al. Infection in total knee replacement: a retrospective review of 6489 total knee replacements. Clinical orthopaedics and related research. 2001:15–23. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Blom AW, Taylor AH, Pattison G, et al. Infection after total hip arthroplasty. The Avon experience. The Journal of bone and joint surgery British volume. 2003;85:956–959. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.85b7.14095. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Montanaro L, Speziale P, Campoccia D, et al. Scenery of Staphylococcus implant infections in orthopedics. Future microbiology. 2011;6:1329–1349. doi: 10.2217/fmb.11.117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Parvizi J, Zmistowski B, Adeli B. Periprosthetic joint infection: treatment options. Orthopedics. 2010;33:659. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20100722-42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Fehring TK, Odum SM, Berend KR, et al. Failure of irrigation and debridement for early postoperative periprosthetic infection. Clinical orthopaedics and related research. 2013;471:250–257. doi: 10.1007/s11999-012-2373-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Del Pozo JL, Patel R. Clinical practice. Infection associated with prosthetic joints. The New England journal of medicine. 2009;361:787–794. doi: 10.1056/NEJMcp0905029. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Gbejuade HO, Lovering AM, Webb JC. The role of microbial biofilms in prosthetic joint infections. Acta orthopaedica. 2015;86:147–158. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2014.966290. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Lew DP, Waldvogel FA. Osteomyelitis. Lancet. 2004;364:369–379. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16727-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Arciola CR, Hansch GM, Visai L, et al. Interactions of staphylococci with osteoblasts and phagocytes in the pathogenesis of implant-associated osteomyelitis. The International journal of artificial organs. 2012;35:713–726. doi: 10.5301/ijao.5000158. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Thurlow LR, Hanke ML, Fritz T, et al. Staphylococcus aureus biofilms prevent macrophage phagocytosis and attenuate inflammation in vivo. Journal of immunology. 2011;186:6585–6596. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1002794. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Scherr TD, Hanke ML, Huang O, et al. Staphylococcus aureus Biofilms Induce Macrophage Dysfunction Through Leukocidin AB and Alpha-Toxin. mBio. 2015;6 doi: 10.1128/mBio.01021-15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Scherr TD, Heim CE, Morrison JM, et al. Hiding in Plain Sight: Interplay between Staphylococcal Biofilms and Host Immunity. Frontiers in immunology. 2014;5:37. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2014.00037. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Costerton JW, Stewart PS, Greenberg EP. Bacterial biofilms: a common cause of persistent infections. Science. 1999;284:1318–1322. doi: 10.1126/science.284.5418.1318. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Gries CM, Kielian T. Staphylococcal Biofilms and Immune Polarization During Prosthetic Joint Infection. The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 2016 doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-16-00636. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Hanke ML, Kielian T. Deciphering mechanisms of staphylococcal biofilm evasion of host immunity. Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology. 2012;2:62. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2012.00062. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Hanke ML, Angle A, Kielian T. MyD88-dependent signaling influences fibrosis and alternative macrophage activation during Staphylococcus aureus biofilm infection. PloS one. 2012;7:e42476. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0042476. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Heim CE, Vidlak D, Scherr TD, et al. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells contribute to Staphylococcus aureus orthopedic biofilm infection. Journal of immunology. 2014;192:3778–3792. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1303408. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Heim CE, Vidlak D, Kielian T. Interleukin-10 production by myeloid-derived suppressor cells contributes to bacterial persistence during Staphylococcus aureus orthopedic biofilm infection. Journal of leukocyte biology. 2015;98:1003–1013. doi: 10.1189/jlb.4VMA0315-125RR. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Heim CE, Vidlak D, Scherr TD, et al. IL-12 promotes myeloid-derived suppressor cell recruitment and bacterial persistence during Staphylococcus aureus orthopedic implant infection. Journal of immunology. 2015;194:3861–3872. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1402689. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Teterycz D, Ferry T, Lew D, et al. Outcome of orthopedic implant infections due to different staphylococci. Int J Infect Dis. 2010;14:e913–918. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2010.05.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Talmadge JE, Gabrilovich DI. History of myeloid-derived suppressor cells. Nature reviews Cancer. 2013;13:739–752. doi: 10.1038/nrc3581. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Zhu X, Pribis JP, Rodriguez PC, et al. The central role of arginine catabolism in T-cell dysfunction and increased susceptibility to infection after physical injury. Ann Surg. 2014;259:171–178. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31828611f8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Gabrilovich DI, Nagaraj S. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells as regulators of the immune system. Nature reviews Immunology. 2009;9:162–174. doi: 10.1038/nri2506. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Mukherjee R, Kanti Barman P, Kumar Thatoi P, et al. Non-Classical monocytes display inflammatory features: Validation in Sepsis and Systemic Lupus Erythematous. Scientific reports. 2015;5:13886. doi: 10.1038/srep13886. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Salgado FJ, Lojo J, Fernandez-Alonso CM, et al. Interleukin-dependent modulation of HLA-DR expression on CD4and CD8 activated T cells. Immunology and cell biology. 2002;80:138–147. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1711.2002.01055.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Pillay J, Kamp VM, van Hoffen E, et al. A subset of neutrophils in human systemic inflammation inhibits T cell responses through Mac-1. The Journal of clinical investigation. 2012;122:327–336. doi: 10.1172/JCI57990. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Alegre ML, Chen L, David MZ, et al. Impact of Staphylococcus aureus USA300 Colonization and Skin Infections on Systemic Immune Responses in Humans. Journal of immunology. 2016;197:1118–1126. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1600549. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Kumar N, David MZ, Boyle-Vavra S, et al. High Staphylococcus aureus colonization prevalence among patients with skin and soft tissue infections and controls in an urban emergency department. Journal of clinical microbiology. 2015;53:810–815. doi: 10.1128/JCM.03221-14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Rao N, Cannella B, Crossett LS, et al. A preoperative decolonization protocol for staphylococcus aureus prevents orthopaedic infections. Clinical orthopaedics and related research. 2008;466:1343–1348. doi: 10.1007/s11999-008-0225-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Fey PD, Olson ME. Current concepts in biofilm formation of Staphylococcus epidermidis. Future microbiology. 2010;5:917–933. doi: 10.2217/fmb.10.56. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Vuong C, Durr M, Carmody AB, et al. Regulated expression of pathogen-associated molecular pattern molecules in Staphylococcus epidermidis: quorum-sensing determines pro-inflammatory capacity and production of phenol-soluble modulins. Cellular microbiology. 2004;6:753–759. doi: 10.1111/j.1462-5822.2004.00401.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Sampathkumar P, Osmon DR, Cockerill FR., 3rd Prosthetic joint infection due to Staphylococcus lugdunensis. Mayo Clinic proceedings. 2000;75:511–512. doi: 10.4065/75.5.511. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Sendi P, Christensson B, Uckay I, et al. Group B streptococcus in prosthetic hip and knee joint-associated infections. The Journal of hospital infection. 2011;79:64–69. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2011.04.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Skabytska Y, Wolbing F, Gunther C, et al. Cutaneous innate immune sensing of Toll-like receptor 2–6 ligands suppresses T cell immunity by inducing myeloid-derived suppressor cells. Immunity. 2014;41:762–775. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2014.10.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Tebartz C, Horst SA, Sparwasser T, et al. A major role for myeloid-derived suppressor cells and a minor role for regulatory T cells in immunosuppression during Staphylococcus aureus infection. Journal of immunology. 2015;194:1100–1111. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1400196. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Hanke ML, Heim CE, Angle A, et al. Targeting macrophage activation for the prevention and treatment of Staphylococcus aureus biofilm infections. Journal of immunology. 2013;190:2159–2168. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1202348. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Ip WKE, Hoshi N, Shouval DS, et al. Anti-inflammatory effect of IL-10 mediated by metabolic reprogramming of macrophages. Science. 2017;356:513–519. doi: 10.1126/science.aal3535. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Ouyang W, Rutz S, Crellin NK, et al. Regulation and functions of the IL-10 family of cytokines in inflammation and disease. Annual review of immunology. 2011;29:71–109. doi: 10.1146/annurev-immunol-031210-101312. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Bunt SK, Yang L, Sinha P, et al. Reduced inflammation in the tumor microenvironment delays the accumulation of myeloid-derived suppressor cells and limits tumor progression. Cancer research. 2007;67:10019–10026. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-2354. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Katoh H, Wang D, Daikoku T, et al. CXCR2-expressing myeloid-derived suppressor cells are essential to promote colitis-associated tumorigenesis. Cancer cell. 2013;24:631–644. doi: 10.1016/j.ccr.2013.10.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.





