Abstract
Prolonged exposure to microbial products, e.g. lipopolysaccharide (LPS), can induce a form of innate immune memory that blunts subsequent responses to unrelated pathogens (“LPS tolerance”). Sepsis, which continues to have a high mortality rate, is a dysregulated, systemic immune response to disseminated infection. In some patients, this results in a period of immunosuppression (“immunoparalysis”)1 with reduced inflammatory cytokine output2, increased secondary infection3, and increased risk of organ failure and mortality4. LPS tolerance recapitulates several key features of sepsis-associated immunosuppression5. Although various epigenetic changes have been observed in tolerized macrophages6–8, the molecular basis for tolerance, immunoparalysis, and other forms of innate immune memory has remained unclear. Here, we performed a screen for tolerance-associated microRNAs (miRNAs) and identified miR-221/222 as regulators of the functional reprogramming of macrophages during LPS tolerization. Prolonged stimulation with LPS in mice leads to Increased expression of miR-221/222, which regulates brahma-related gene 1 (Brg1) causing transcriptional silencing of a subset of inflammatory genes that depend on SWI/SNF- (SWItch/Sucrose Non-Fermentable) and STAT- (signal transducer and activator of transcription) mediated chromatin remodeling, and promotes tolerance. In sepsis patients, increased miR-221/222 expression correlates with immunoparalysis and increased organ damage. Hence our results show that specific microRNAs can regulate macrophage tolerization and may serve as biomarkers of immunoparalysis and poor prognosis in sepsis patients.
LPS tolerance is an immunosuppressive form of innate immune memory that can be modeled in vitro by prolonged treatment of bone-marrow derived macrophages (BMDMs) with LPS (Extended Data Fig. 1a). As a result of this functional reprogramming of macrophages a majority of LPS-induced genes are transcriptionally silenced, i.e. tolerized, and fail to be expressed upon re-stimulation7,9 (Extended Data Fig. 1b). Using this in vitro model (Extended Data Fig. 1c–e) we identified miRNAs with expression patterns correlating with tolerance (Fig. 1a). We validated these findings using qPCR (Extended Data Fig. 1f–g) and found that several miRNAs are differentially expressed during tolerance but not during an acute LPS response. Levels of miR-222, in particular, increased late during the LPS response (Extended Data Fig. 1g), and correlated with tolerance induction (Fig. 1b). miR-222 was also upregulated to a lesser extent with prolonged tumor necrosis factor (TNF) or interleukin-1β (IL-1β stimulation (Extended Data Fig. 1h), which have been shown to weakly induce innate immune tolerance10,11. Pre-treatment of BMDMs with interferon gamma (IFNγ), which inhibits LPS tolerance8, prevented LPS-induced upregulation of miR-222 (Extended Data Fig. 1i). Although miR-221 is processed from the same primary transcript as miR-22212, mature levels of miR-221 and of miR-222 do not always correlate (Extended Data Fig. 2a–c). Given that miR-221 is not responsive to LPS (Extended Data Fig. 2a) or IFNγ (Extended Data Fig. 2d) in BMDMs, we focused on miR-222 in BMDM experiments.
BMDMs were transfected with a miR-222 mimic and stimulated with LPS to determine if miR-222 induced reprogramming independently of other tolerogenic factors (Extended Data Fig. 2e). Overexpression of miR-222 inhibited expression of several inflammatory mediators at the protein (Fig. 1c), mRNA (Extended Data Fig. 2f), and primary transcript level (Extended Data Fig. 2g). Conversely, antagonization of miR-222 resulted in increased inflammatory gene expression, even during a naïve LPS response. This effect was relatively mild early after stimulation (data not shown), likely due to low basal miR-222 expression, but increased in magnitude at later time points (Fig. 1d). To test the effect of miR-222 on tolerance, BMDMs were transduced with a miR-222 antagonist and tolerized in vitro. Antagonization of miR-222 reduced the duration and magnitude of suppression of LPS-response genes (Fig. 1e). In some cases, tolerized cells with antagonized miR-222 produced as much IL-6 or IL-12p40 in response to LPS as non-tolerized cells (Fig. 1f).
In contrast to other genes, Tnf was suppressed at the mRNA, but not primary transcript level (Extended Data Fig. 2f–g), suggesting miR-222 regulates Tnf through a mechanism distinct from other tolerized genes. Indeed, the Tnf UTR has a predicted binding site for miR-222 (Extended Data Fig. 3a). Luciferase reporter assays (Extended Data Fig. 3b) and CRISPR deletions of the predicted binding site (Extended Data Fig. 3c–g) confirmed that Tnf is a miR-222 target. However, post-transcriptional effects of miR-222 on TNF expression do not contribute to the effects of miR-222 on other genes, as TNF neutralization did not recapitulate the effects of miR-222 overexpression (Extended Data Fig. 3h–i).
Intact Tnf transcription suggested miR-222 does not alter TLR4 signaling. Indeed, miR-222 overexpression did not affect LPS-induced IκBα degradation (Extended Data Fig. 4a–c). We therefore filtered computational predictions for miR-222 targets that were expressed in macrophages, did not affect Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) signaling, and decreased in expression late in the LPS response (between 8-24 hours of LPS stimulation; Extended Data Table 1). This approach identified Brg1 (Smarca4) as the most likely target affected by miR-222 during LPS tolerance. BRG1, a catalytic subunit of the SWI/SNF (BAF) complex, evicts Polycomb repressive complexes in an ATP-dependent manner, promoting chromatin accessibility and allowing for transcription factor recruitment to specific binding sites13. Notably, BRG1 is recruited to the promoters of late LPS response genes, which require SWI/SNF activity for their transcription14.
The predicted miR-222:Brg1 binding site is evolutionarily conserved (Extended Data Fig. 4d), and RNA levels of Brg1 and miR-222 during the LPS response were inversely correlated (Extended Data Fig. 4e). Artificial modulation of miR-222 caused an inverse effect on Brg1 mRNA and protein levels (Extended Data Fig. 4f–h). To confirm that this was due to direct targeting, the Brg1 UTR was cloned into a luciferase reporter. miR-222 dose-dependently suppressed luciferase activity resulting from co-transfection, but only if the miR-222 binding site in the Brg1 UTR was intact (Extended Data Fig. 4i). The effect of miR-222 overexpression on genes previously identified as being SWI/SNF-dependent in macrophages15 was compared. Overexpression of miR-222 preferentially suppressed expression of SWI/SNF-dependent genes (Fig. 2a and Extended Data Fig. 4j). Furthermore, BRG1 recruitment to inflammatory gene promoters was reduced after miR-222 overexpression (Fig. 2b). Histone H3 acetylation, which occurs downstream14 of BRG1 activity, was also reduced (Extended Data Fig. 4k). In contrast, histone H4 acetylation at these promoters, which occurs prior to BRG1 recruitment16,17, was unaffected (Extended Data Fig. 4l). Finally, CRISPR-Cas9 disruption of the miR-222 binding site in the Brg1 UTR in RAW cells (Extended Data Fig. 4m) prevented miR-222-mediated suppression of some SWI/SNF-dependent genes (Extended Data Fig. 4n).
To characterize the biological role of miR-222, we generated an animal knockout model. However, miR-221 and miR-222 are encoded in the same transcript; are induced by LPS in certain cell types (Extended Data Fig. 2b–c); have similar seed sequences (Extended Data Fig. 5a); have substantial overlap in predicted mRNA targets (Extended Data Fig 5b); and are both predicted to bind to the same target site in the Brg1 UTR (Extended Data Fig. 5c). Furthermore, like miR-222, overexpression of miR-221 downregulates Brg1 levels (Extended Data Fig. 5d) and has downstream effects on inflammatory gene expression (Extended Data Fig. 5e). Therefore, we targeted both miRNAs for deletion18 (Extended Data Fig. 5f–h). We then used qPCR and RNA-sequencing to characterize the LPS response in miR-221/222 knockout macrophages (Fig. 2c). Although the increase in Brg1 expression in peritoneal macrophages from knockout mice was modest compared to in vitro experiments, miR-221/222 knockout cells expressed higher levels of many Brg1-dependent genes, as well as Tnf (Extended Data Fig. 5i–j). Interestingly, some Brg1-dependent genes were more affected by miR-221/222 knockout than others (for instance, comparing Il6 and Nos2 in Extended Data Fig. 5j), suggesting differential sensitivity to changes in BRG1 levels.
To better understand the mechanisms of altered gene expression in cells lacking miR-221/222 (Extended Data Fig. 5k), we analyzed the promoters of affected genes to identify common regulatory features. Although we obtained similar results in multiple analyses of affected gene subsets (Extended Data Fig. 6a–f), we limited our main analysis to those LPS genes that are most suppressed in tolerized wildtype cells (358 genes/1036 genes responsive to LPS; Fig. 2d). Roughly half of these genes were expressed at higher levels in tolerized knockout cells compared to tolerized wildtype cells (“de-repressed” genes, Fig. 2e), and roughly half were unaffected (“unaffected” genes, Fig. 2f). The promoters of de-repressed genes were enriched for IRF and STAT1/STAT2 binding motifs (Fig. 2e), whereas those of unaffected genes were enriched for E2F and EGR family motifs (Fig. 2f). An analysis of predicted downstream functions of the de-repressed genes subset found an enrichment for IFN-response genes (Fig. 2e), and LPS-induced expression of many of these genes is reduced in Ifnar knockout cells19. This implies that many of these genes are a part of the late LPS response, transcribed as a result of STAT activation by autocrine/paracrine signaling by IFN generated from the initial LPS stimulation.
To determine whether the predicted binding motifs were utilized during the LPS response, we analyzed transcription factor occupancy using published ChIP-seq data20–23. Interferon regulatory factor 1 (IRF1) and IRF8 were found to be selectively pre-associated with de-repressed gene promoters (Fig. 2g and Extended Data Fig. 6g). However, STAT1 and STAT2 were recruited specifically to the promoters of de-repressed genes only after LPS stimulation (Fig. 2g). Other transcription factors, such as NF-κB, were not differentially recruited (Extended Data Fig. 6h). Furthermore, in cells with deletion or mutation of Irf1 or Irf8, respectively24, cytokine-induced H3K27 (histone H3, lysine 27) acetylation, a marker of active transcription, was diminished at the promoters of de-repressed genes, whereas deletion of Stat125 almost completely abolished cytokine-induced H3K27 acetylation at these genes (Fig. 2h). Consistent with this analysis, STAT2 recruitment was significantly higher at the promoters of de-repressed genes in tolerized miR-221/222 knockout cells after restimulation (Fig. 2i). Furthermore, Stat1 mRNA levels are higher in miR-221/222 knockout cells and in cells in which Brg1 is overexpressed (Extended Data Fig. 7i-j). Therefore, miR-221/222 perturbs SWI/SNF promoter recruitment, leading to repression of STAT activity at inflammatory gene promoters. As BRG1 and STAT transcription factors work cooperatively only at certain gene promoters to allow IFN- and cytokine-induced gene transcription26,27, miR-221/222 may limit expression of specific genes (Fig. 2i).
We next examined miR-221/222 activity utilizing a model of sterile inflammatory shock induced by high-dose LPS injection. In this system, changes that decrease inflammation increase survival: therefore, we used this model mainly to determine whether the anti-inflammatory effects of miR-221/222 we observe in vitro also occur in vivo. After LPS injection, levels of miR-221 and miR-222 in circulating immune cells were elevated (Fig. 3a). To determine whether this is physiologically relevant, LPS tolerance was induced in wildtype and miR-221/222 knockout littermates by administering two sublethal doses of LPS prior to a lethal LPS dose: this regimen induces sufficient tolerance to prevent lethality in wildtype mice (Extended Data Fig. 7a–b). Although miR-221/222 knockout mice were also protected from lethality, the miR-221/222 knockout mice exhibited more symptoms of septic shock (Extended Data Fig. 7c), indicating decreased anti-inflammatory effects in the knockouts. To test whether miR-221/222 contributes to survival under more extreme conditions, we utilized a model of septic shock in which tolerance is only partially protective against lethality (Extended Data Fig. 7d–e). In this model, absence of miR-221/222 decreased median time (from 36.5 to 20.5 hours) and likelihood of septic shock survival over a 72-hour period (Fig. 3b).
Although LPS-induced septic shock is used to study acute inflammation in vivo, this model does not recapitulate sepsis in patients, or necessarily predict the effect of inflammatory regulators on patient outcome. Therefore, to study the role of miR-221/222 in a model that better reflects the systemic innate response to pathogen challenge, we utilized a Salmonella enterica Typhimurium (S. Typhimurium) infection model. First, we performed in vitro assays using green fluorescent protein (GFP)-expressing S. Typhimurium infection of BMDMs. BMDMs from miR-221/222 knockout mice exhibited increased GFP per cell early after infection (Extended Data Fig. 7f–h). At later time points, this difference was not observed (Extended Data Fig. 7h), suggesting that despite increased phagocytosis, miR-221/222 knockout cells are more efficient at suppressing intracellular replication and/or survival. We confirmed this finding by lysing BMDMs and comparing bacterial colony-forming unit (CFU) recovery at early and late time points after infection (Extended Data Fig. 7i). To test miR-221/222 effects in vivo, wildtype and knockout mice were injected intraperitoneally with the same strain of S. Typhimurium. 2 days post-infection, fewer bacterial CFUs were recovered from the liver and spleen of miR-221/222 knockout animals (Fig. 3c). In addition, miR-221/222 knockout animals exhibited increased survival time (Fig. 3d), suggesting that loss of miR-221/222 confers resistance to bacterial replication and/or dissemination. These findings suggest that miR-221/222 broadly suppress inflammation and innate immune function. During early stages of sepsis miR-221/222 expression may be protective by limiting excessive inflammatory cytokine production that contributes to septic shock. Conversely, miR-221/222 appears to contribute to immunoparalysis, and increased miR-221/222 expression may enhance lethality at later stages of sepsis (Fig. 3e).
Because it is unclear which models most accurately resemble patient conditions, we next examined miR-221/222 expression in human disease. Consistent with results from murine cells, miR-221 and miR-222 are both upregulated in response to prolonged LPS stimulation of a human monocyte-like cell line, whereas only miR-222 is upregulated by LPS in this cell line after PMA-induced differentiation to a macrophage-like cell type (Extended Data Fig. 8a–b). Next we analyzed miR-221/222 expression in three patient cohorts. In the first cohort (Extended Data Fig. 8c), we quantified miR-221 and miR-222 levels in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from 10 sequential intensive care unit (ICU) patients who met sepsis criteria28 within 4 hours of ICU admission. Compared to PBMCs from healthy donors, miR-221 and miR-222, but not several other inflammation-associated miRNAs, were significantly higher in the ICU patient samples (Fig. 4a). Expression levels were then examined in a second patient cohort with acute decompensated liver disease and clinical suspicion of infection (Extended Data Fig. 8d). Patients with organ failure, defined by the chronic liver failure-sequential organ failure assessment (CLIF-SOFA), had significantly higher miR-222 levels than patients without (Fig. 4b). Levels of miR-221 correlated with miR-222 levels (Extended Data Fig. 8f), but were not increased to statistically significant levels (Fig. 4c). Levels of miR-222 in this cohort inversely correlated with BRG1 expression levels (Fig. 4d). In a set of matched PBMC and serum samples, miR-222 and TNF levels also inversely correlated (Fig. 4e). Finally, the inverse correlation between miR-222 and BRG1 was also observed in CD14+ monocytes sorted from the PBMC population of a third clinical cohort (Fig. 4f and Extended Data Fig. 8e), confirming changes in myeloid cell miR-222 and BRG1 levels.
Unlike generalized inflammatory markers, miR-222 elevation correlates specifically with severe sepsis. miR-222 levels do not correlate with inflammatory markers such as CRP or white blood cell count, but showed a significant correlation with organ damage markers including creatinine and the model for end-stage liver disease score (Extended Data Fig. 8g–j). Hence, miR-222 expression may be a useful biomarker for discriminating patients who are undergoing septicemia-induced immunoparalysis and are, therefore, predisposed to organ failure and mortality.
In summary, the data presented in this report establish a model in which miR-221/222 restricts chromatin remodeling and silences transcription to enforce innate immune tolerance. Upon prolonged innate immune signaling, increased expression of miR-221/222 reduces BRG1 expression. The resulting changes in SWI/SNF complex levels, or composition, leads to selective expression of only those LPS-response genes with the most favorable chromatin states. The fact that significant changes in gene expression result from modest miR-221/222 dependent changes in BRG1 expression is consistent with previous reports that mutation or deletion of a single allele of SWI/SNF subunit is sufficient to confer strong phenotypic effects29,30. Hence, by fine-tuning the levels of BRG1, miR-221/222 can prevent prolonged expression of STAT-dependent inflammatory genes in macrophages, thereby leading to tolerance or innate immunoparalysis (Extended Data Fig. 9). In contrast, robust activation of STAT1, for example by co-stimulation with IFNγ can block8 or even reverse31,32 LPS tolerance and innate immunoparalysis. Consistent with such a role for STAT1, treatment with IFNγ has been shown to improve outcomes in sepsis33.
Although LPS tolerance promotes survival in murine models of sterile shock, sepsis patients likely succumb to primary or secondary1 infections due to immunosuppression as a result of functional reprogramming of myeloid cells. Thus, paradoxically, the same innate immunoparalysis that is protective in the murine LPS-shock model would be responsible for organ damage and mortality in human sepsis patients. We identify miR-222/221 as a mediator of tolerance and show that miR-221/222 expression may distinguish organ failure patients at high risk of mortality from those with infection alone. Thus, monitoring of miR-221/222 or related bio-markers may help clinicians to stratify sepsis patients into groups who would benefit from pro-inflammatory immunotherapies versus those who might be helped by classical anti-inflammatory treatments.
Methods
Cell culture
RAW 264.7 cells (ATCC TIB-7) were cultured in DMEM supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum. 293FT cells (Invitrogen R7007) and L-929 cells (ATCC CCL-1) were cultured in DMEM supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum. Cells were purchased from vendor and tested for mycoplasma contamination prior to use (no further authentication of line identity was performed). L-cell conditioned medium (LCM) was generated by filter-sterilizing the supernatant of L-929 cells that were allowed to grow for one week in culture. Primary BMDMs were generated by isolation and culture of mouse bone marrow in complete RPMI supplemented with 20% LCM for up to 12 days. Immortalization of BMDMs was performed as described34 by inoculation with the J2 retrovirus. For cell stimulations, 10 ng/ml LPS (Sigma L8274), 10 ng/ml recombinant human TNF (R&D Systems 210-TA), 100 ng/ml recombinant mouse IL-1β (R&D Systems 401-ML-005), 100 ng/ml recombinant mouse IFNγ (BD Pharmingen 554587), 10 pg/ml recombinant mouse IL-10 (eBioScience 88-7104-ST), 10 μM dexamethasone (Sigma D402), and 0.01 μM estrogen (Sigma E2758) were used unless otherwise indicated. For tolerization experiments, BMDMs were stimulated with 10 ng/ml LPS for 15 hours (or as indicated), washed 5 times with 1× PBS, then allowed to rest for 2 hours in LPS-free complete medium supplemented with 20% LCM. BMDMs were then stimulated with 1 μg/ml LPS for 4 hours (for qPCR) or 12 hours (for ELISA), or as indicated.
miRNA microarray
Samples were treated as described, rinsed with 1× PBS, lysed in TRIzol, and sent to a commercial microRNA array profiling service (Exiqon). As part of the service, samples were labeled using the miRCURY Hy3/Hy5 Power labeling kit and hybridized on the miRCURY LNA Array (v.11.0 hsa, mmu and rno). All capture probes for the control spike-in oligonucleotides produced signals in the expected range. The quantified signals (background corrected) were normalized using the global Lowess (LOcally WEighted Scatterplot Smoothing) regression algorithm, and a list of differentially expressed miRNAs was returned.
miRNA mimic and antagonist oligonucleotides
Pre-miR miRNA precursors (Ambion AM17100) and Anti-miR miRNA inhibitors (Ambion AM17000) were transfected into BMDMs to modulate miRNA function in short term experiments. Part numbers for oligonucleotides are as follows: For overexpression experiments, Pre-miR Negative Control #1 (Invitrogen AM17110), miR-222-3p (PM11376), miR-221-3p (PM10337); for antagonization experiments, Anti-miR miRNA Negative Control #1 (Ambion AM17010), miR-222-3p (AM11376), miR-221-3p (AM10337). To optimize transfection conditions, the FAM Dye-Labeled Pre-miR Negative Control #1 (Invitrogen AM17121) oligonucleotide was used. Transfection of 50,000 BMDMs per well of a 12-well plate with 6 μl Lipofectamine and 0.1 nmol oligonucleotide diluted in 200 μl of Opti-MEM (total) was found to provide transfection of >80% of cells (as measured by flow cytometry), and these conditions were used for all further experiments in BMDMs. Medium was replaced with complete RPMI containing 20% LCM after 4 hours to minimize cytotoxicity. Cells were allowed to recover for 24-48 hours before stimulation.
Production of virus and BMDM transduction
Plasmids for miRNA overexpression (GeneCopoeia CmiR0001-MR01, MmiR3289-MR01, or MmiR3434-MR01) or antagonization (GeneCopoeia CmiR-AN0001-AM03 or HmiR-AN0399-AM03) were transfected into 293FT cells with the Lenti-Pac HIV Expression Packaging Kit (GeneCopoeia HPK-LVTR-20) or Lenti-Pac FIV Expression Packaging Kit (GeneCopoeia FPK-LVTR-20) to generate viral particles. BMDMs were inoculated by spin infection in 6-well plates in the presence of 6 μg/ml polybrene (Sigma H9268). Following spin inoculation, viral supernatant was immediately replaced with complete RPMI supplemented with 20% LCM. Cells were allowed to recover overnight. For primary BMDMs, plating for inoculation was generally performed on day 5 of differentiation. The first spin infection was performed on day 6, second spin infection (if necessary) was performed on day 7, and plating for experiments was performed on day 8.
ELISA
BMDMs were plated at 50,000 cells/well, and cytokine concentrations in cell supernatants were measured using the BD OptEIA Mouse IL-6 ELISA Set (BD 555240), BD OptEIA Mouse IL-12 (p40) ELISA Set (BD 555165), or BD OptEIA Mouse TNF (Mono/Mono) ELISA Set (BD 555268) according to manufacturer instructions.
RNA extraction, RT, and qPCR
Total RNA was extracted from samples using TRIzol reagent (Invitrogen 15596018). For reverse transcription of and detection of miRNAs, the Universal cDNA Synthesis Kit (Exiqon 203301) and locked nucleic acid primers (Exiqon) were used. For other genes, approximately 1 μg of RNA was reverse transcribed with SuperScript III (Invitrogen 18080085). qPCR was then performed with VeriQuest Fast SYBR (Affymetrix 75675). The amplified transcripts were quantified using the comparative Ct method.
Computational prediction of miRNA binding sites
miR-222 binding sites were predicted using the PITA algorithm35 (http://genie.weizmann.ac.il/pubs/mir07/mir07_prediction.html) or MicroCosm Targets program (which utilizes the miRanda algorithm; http://www.ebi.ac.uk/enright-srv/microcosm/htdocs/targets/v5/) as indicated in the text. MicroCosm Targets Version 5 was used to search for targets for mmu-miR-22236. UTRs and miRNA sequence were manually input to the PITA algorithm, and default search settings were utilized. All predictions were re-verified with their respective programs on Dec 5, 2013.
Construction of reporter vectors and luciferase reporter assays
The Brg1 UTR was amplified from IMAGE clone 30533489 (Open Biosystems MMM1013-9498346) and cloned into the pMIR-Report (Ambion AM5795) multiple cloning site using HindIII and SpeI restriction sites. The Tnf UTR was amplified from cDNA generated from BMDMs stimulated with LPS for 1 hour, and inserted into the pMIR-Report vector as performed for the Brg1 UTR. Reporter plasmids were transfected into 293FT cells along with a Renilla luciferase reporter (used to normalize for transfection efficiency). After 24 hours, Firefly and Renilla luciferase activity was quantified using the Dual-Luciferase Reporter Assay (Promega E1980).
CRISPR
The CRISPR design tool (crispr.mit.edu) was used to design guide RNAs for cloning into the PX458 (Addgene 48138) and PX459 (Addgene 48139) Cas9/sgRNA expression plasmids37 to generate plasmids to target identified miR-222 binding sites for deletion. Cells were transiently transfected with empty vector or targeting vectors. After 24 hours, transfected cells were selected by 48 hours of puromycin treatment (PX459) or by sorting for GFP positive (PX458) cells. Limiting dilution was performed to isolate clonal cell lines. Clones were screened for appropriate deletion by PCR. Deletion of targeted regions was confirmed by sequencing when necessary. Gene expression was compared between lines with successful deletion, unsuccessful deletion, and lines generated by transfected with expression plasmids that lacked a Cas9 targeting sequence.
For deletion of the miR-222 binding site in the Tnf UTR, the following guide sequences were used:
Combination 1:
TCAGCGTTATTAAGACAATT GGG
ATTACAGTCACGGCTCCCGT GGG
Combination 2:
TTGTCTTAATAACGCTGATT TGG
ATTTCTCTCAATGACCCGTA GGG
For deletion of the miR-222 binding site in the Brg1 UTR, the following guide sequences were used:
Combination 1:
GGAGTAGCCCTTAGCAGTGA TGG
ACCAGATGTAGTTTCGAACT TGG
Intracellular staining for flow cytometry
Cells were rinsed and fixed for 15-30 minutes at room temperature in 4% paraformaldehyde. Cells were rinsed and permeabilized by resuspension in 5% saponin for 10-20 minutes at room temperature. Either anti-IκBα (L35A5, Cell Signaling 4814), anti-Brg1 (H88, Santa Cruz sc-10768), or Rabbit mAb IgG Isotype Control (Cell Signaling 3900) was added, and cells were incubated for an additional 20 minutes at room temperature. Cells were rinsed and re-suspended in saponin with 1:300 dilution of fluorochrome conjugated secondary antibody (Alexa Fluor 488 Donkey Anti-Rabbit IgG, Invitrogen A21206; Alexa Fluor 546 Goat Anti-Rabbit IgG, Invitrogen A11010; or Alexa Fluor 546 Donkey Anti-Mouse IgG, Invitrogen A10036). After incubation at room temperature for 20 minutes, cells were rinsed, re-suspended in PBS, and analyzed on a BD LSRII flow cytometer.
Chromatin immunoprecipitation
Cells from a 15 cm plate were fixed by incubation in 1% formaldehyde for 5 minutes, rinsed, and lysed by incubation for 5 minutes on ice in buffer L1 (50 mM Tris at pH 9, 2 mM EDTA, 0.1% NP-40, 10% glycerol, with protease inhibitors). Nuclei were spun down and re-suspended in 500 μl buffer L2 (50 mM Tris at pH 8, 0.1% sodium dodecyl sulfate, and 5 mM EDTA). Sonication was performed in a Bioruptor, using 10 cycles of 30 seconds each. Immunoprecipitation was performed using 20 μl magnetic protein A beads and 5 μg anti-acetyl-histone H4 (Lys5; Millipore 07-327), 2 μg Brg1 (H-88; Santa Cruz sc-10768), or 5 μg acetyl-histone H3 (Millipore 06-599) per 50 μl of chromatin in a 500 ul volume. After overnight rotation at 4 C, supernatant was isolated. DNA was recovered from the supernatant by adding 20 μl of 5 M NaCl, 50 μl of 10% SDS, and 5 μl of proteinase K, shaking for 2 hours at 60 degrees (unbound fraction). Beads were washed 3× in high salt buffer (20 mM Tris at pH 8.0, 0.1% SDS, 1% NP-40, 2 mM EDTA, and 0.5 M NaCl), and 3× in TE. DNA was eluted from beads by re-suspending beads in 100 μl elution buffer and shaking for 2 hours at 60 degrees (bound fraction). Bound and unbound fractions were heated to 95 C for 10 minutes. DNA was purified from fractions using the Qiagen PCR Purification Kit (28104). To check for promoter binding, qPCR was performed using DNA from the bound and unbound fractions. Bound/unbound ratios were normalized to alpha-crystallin ratios, as this should represent a silent gene.
Amaxa nucleofection
BMDMs were nucleofected with 2 ug of plasmid DNA using the Amaxa Mouse Macrophage Nucleofector Kit (VPA-1009), in conjunction with the Amaxa Nucleofector II Device, according to the manufacturer-optimized protocol.
Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium infection
For these experiments, a GFP-expressing Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium strain (SL1344) was used. S. Typhimurium cultures were grown in LB supplemented with 100 ug/ml carbenicillin and 30 ug/ml streptomycin. Overnight cultures were diluted and allowed to grow for an additional hour before use to ensure bacteria were in log growth phase. OD 600 readings were correlated to previously determined CFU values and used to quantify number of bacteria present in culture. BMDMs were infected by inoculation of DMEM growth medium (containing only streptomycin) with bacteria at a multiplicity of infection of 50. Plates were spun at 800 rcf for 5 minutes at 4 C. BMDMs were incubated for 30 minutes at 37 degrees. Cells were washed 3 times, then incubated in medium containing gentamycin (100 ug/ml for incubations of 2 hours or less, 12 ug/ml for longer incubations). BMDMs were subsequently analyzed for GFP content by flow cytometry, or lysed in water to allow for plating of lysate dilutions on LB agar plates containing carbenicillin to determine bacterial CFU counts.
Mice
For BMDM generation, female C57Bl/6J mice, 7-10 weeks of age, were used unless otherwise noted. For tolerance and septic shock experiments, male C57Bl/6J mice, 6-10 weeks of age, were used. LPS (E. coli O55:B5; Sigma L2880) and D-(+)-Galactosamine hydrochloride (Sigma G0500) were re-suspended in sterile PBS and filter sterilized prior to intraperitoneal injection. For in vivo infection experiments, mice were given intraperitoneal injections of 1×10^7 CFU/kg of a GFP-expressing Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium strain (SL1344) suspended in PBS. Mice were maintained under specific pathogen-free conditions in animal facilities at Columbia University Medical Center. All animal experiments were carried out with the approval of the Columbia University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, and in compliance with regulations and guidelines set forth by Columbia University.
Generation of knockout mice
miR-221/222 knockout mice were generated at the Columbia University Transgenic Mouse facility. In brief, KV1 (129B6 hybrid) ES cells were electroporated with the linearized targeting construct discussed in Extended Data Fig. 6. After positive and negative selection, clonal cell lines were screened by PCR for proper integration of the construct. Positive lines were expanded, blastocyst injection was performed, and germline transmission was confirmed. miR-221/222 knockout mice were backcrossed to the C57Bl/6 background 5-8 times prior to experimental use.
Peritoneal macrophage isolation
5 ml of cold PBS was injected into the peritoneal cavity of euthanized mice. Peritoneum was gently massaged. Fluid was collected, and process was repeated. Cell suspension was spun down, and cells were plated at 500,000 cells per well in 12-well plates. Macrophages allowed to adhere overnight. Non-adherent cells rinsed off with PBS washes.
Thioglycollate elicitation of peritoneal macrophages
3% thioglycollate was sterilized and aged for at least 2 months. 1 ml of thioglycolate preparation was injected into the peritoneal cavity of each mouse 5 days prior to the isolation of macrophages (as described above).
Monocyte isolation
Bones were isolated from wildtype C57Bl6/J mice. Marrow was retrieved by crushing. Monocytes were purified using the EasySep Mouse Monocyte Isolation Kit.
RNA-sequencing
RNA-sequencing was performed by the JP Sulzberger Columbia Genome Center. Poly-A pull-down was used to enrich mRNAs from total RNA samples (200ng-1ug per sample, RIN>8 required). Libraries were prepared using the Illumina TruSeq RNA prep kit. Libraries were then sequenced using Illumina HiSeq2000. Multiplexed and pooled samples were sequenced to a depth of 24-34×106 reads per sample as 100 bp single end reads. RTA (Illumina) was used for base calling, and bcl2fastq (version 1.8.4) was used for converting BCL to fastq format, coupled with adaptor trimming. Reads were mapped to a reference genome (Mouse: UCSC/mm9) using Tophat (version 2.1.0) with 4 mismatches (–read-mismatches = 4) and 10 maximum multiple hits (–max-multihits = 10). To tackle the mapping issue of reads that are from exon-exon junctions, Tophat infers novel exon-exon junctions ab initio, and combines them with junctions from known mRNA sequences (refgenes) as the reference annotation. The relative abundance (aka expression level) of genes and splice isoforms were estimated using cufflinks (version 2.0.2) with default settings.
ChIP-sequencing analysis
Track data of genes of interest were loaded into Galaxy38 (usegalaxy.org) using the UCSC table browser and mouse mm10 genome. Using Galaxy, previously published ChIP-seq data was then aligned to the mouse mm10 genome using the HISAT program (Galaxy Version 2.03) with default settings. BamCoverage (Galaxy Version 2.3.6.0) was then used to generate a coverage bigwig file, using default settings to scale to the size of the mm9 mouse genome. ComputeMatrix (Galaxy Version 2.3.6.0) and plotHeatmap (Galaxy Version 2.3.6.0) were then used to compare TF occupancy at gene promoters, using the TSS as the reference point.
Dataset references
ChIP-seq data was analyzed from the following: GSE5612320 (IRF1, IRF8, STAT1, STAT2); GSE6734321 (IRF3); GSE3610422 (IRF2, IRF4, NF-kB subunits); ERA319838 (IRF5); GSE6269723 (IRF7); GSE7788624 (IRF mutants); GSE3837925 (STAT1 knockout).
Patient sample selection and processing (Fig. 4a)
We selected 10 consecutive patients newly admitted to a medical or surgical ICU who had the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and a known or suspected infection39. Patients were excluded from the study if they had an ICU admission or bacteremia within the previous 30 days. After obtaining informed consent from the patient or a surrogate, whole blood was drawn within 4 hours of ICU admission. PBMCs were isolated from whole blood of healthy human volunteers or buffy coat isolates from ICU patients meeting sepsis criteria by centrifugation on a Ficoll cushion. RNA was isolated with the miRNeasy micro kit (Qiagen 217084) and reverse transcribed as described above. Experiments were performed with approval of the Institutional Review Board at Columbia University and in accordance with regulations and guidelines set forth by the university.
Patient sample selection and processing (Fig. 4b–f)
Additional patient cohorts were obtained from hospitalized patients with acute decompensation of chronic liver disease and suspected bacterial infection. Baseline characteristics and outcome of patients with decompensated liver disease in the absence or presence of multiple organ failure syndrome (according to the EASL CLIF-C criteria for Acute-on-chronic Liver Failure40) are given in Extended Data Fig. 8. Clinical scores such as model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores, bacterial culture count, protein analysis, blood count and serum levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), creatinine were obtained from routine laboratory analysis. The determination of serum concentration of TNF was performed by ELISA.
The isolation and characterization of human immune cells and the use of clinical data was approved by the internal review board (Ethics committee of the Jena University Hospital, no. 3683-02/3). The study conformed to the ethical guidelines of the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki, and patients granted written informed consent prior to inclusion.
Statistics and sample collection
Students t-tests were performed using the T.TEST function in Microsoft Excel. All other statistical tests were performed using Prism software. Unless otherwise stated, two-sided tests were performed. For samples using cell lines and cells isolated from inbred mice, the Students t-test was often used. The distributional requirements for the test are assumptions. This means for instance, under the assumption of normal-distributed residuals, the t-test is an exact test, however given a non-normal distribution of cell line data, the test is not anymore exact but approximative. For patient samples, nonparametric tests were used to avoid the assumption of a normal distribution. In all figures, error bars represent S.E.M. unless otherwise indicated. Standard deviations and S.E.M. were calculated for each group of data and used to estimate variation (S.E.M. values are shown as error bars in most experiments). Variation generally appears similar between groups being compared. All experiments were replicated in the laboratory at least 2 times. Unless otherwise indicated, in experiments utilizing primary cells, n represents number of experiments performed with separate cell isolations; in experiments utilizing immortalized cells or cell lines, n represents the number of experiments performed using separate cell populations. Systematic randomization and blinding were not performed. Samples were excluded from the analysis if they were identified as outliers using the Grubbs' test, also called the ESD method (extreme studentized deviate).
For animal LPS shock studies, appropriate sample size was estimated based on an outcome variable of survival time, measured in hours. An estimate was based on using a one-tailed Student's t-test to determine statistical significance. Control animals were expected to succumb within 62 hours. Knockout animals were expected to become moribund 52 hours after LPS injection at the latest. Therefore, the minimal effect size was estimated to be 10 hours. Based on literature and experiments previously performed by our lab, we anticipated a standard deviation of 10 hours. Taking into account a power of 80% and alpha of 0.05, we calculated a sample size of 10 mice per genotype.
Data accessibility
RNA-sequencing data that support the findings of this study have been deposited in GEO with the accession code GSE89918 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/).
Extended Data
Extended Data Table 1.
Predicted Target | Algorithm Score | P-Value | % Decrease |
---|---|---|---|
Mesdc1 | 16.1968 | 3.86E 09 | 31.83 |
Nfyb | 16.5309 | 8.58E-07 | 31.90 |
Nfyb | 16.027 | 8.58E-07 | 31.90 |
Sntb1 | 15.4316 | 2.95E-06 | 25.70 |
Smarca4 | 17.4905 | 4.57E-06 | 22.64 |
Dclre1a | 15.2548 | 8.64E-06 | 22.67 |
Nudt5 | 16.5017 | 2.21E-05 | 82.49 |
Tpbg | 16.3439 | 3.79E-05 | 75.81 |
Ptx3 | 15.9272 | 4.03E-05 | 50.04 |
Apaf1 | 15.3191 | 9.59E-05 | 39.79 |
Atp1a1 | 17.6386 | 9.74E-05 | 50.18 |
Pdhb | 15.579 | 1.55E-04 | 26.18 |
Uchl1 | 15.4257 | 4.72E-04 | 20.26 |
Dhx9 | 16.4603 | 8.57E-04 | 96.82 |
Tsc2 | 20.1182 | 8.93E-04 | 40.97 |
Stmn1 | 16.5573 | 1.11E-03 | 82.55 |
Stmn1 | 16.009 | 1.11E-03 | 82.55 |
Ogfr | 16.0031 | 1.13E-03 | 21.35 |
Ogfr | 16.0031 | 1.13E-03 | 21.35 |
Ddx52 | 15.8837 | 1.30E-03 | 22.54 |
Zfp462 | 15.3834 | 1.55E-03 | 20.92 |
Sap30 | 17.1462 | 2.13E-03 | 37.05 |
Mad2l2 | 16.0031 | 2.22E-03 | 37.34 |
Idh2 | 15.8888 | 2.87E-03 | 47.13 |
ll19 | 17.0841 | 3.61E-03 | 53.02 |
Slc28a1 | 15.7179 | 4.02E-03 | 97.33 |
Tsc2 | 18.4316 | 4.61E-03 | 40.97 |
Capn7 | 15.7361 | 4.74E-03 | 24.89 |
Aldh2 | 15.5459 | 5.13E-03 | 23.55 |
Agpat2 | 18.2641 | 5.42E-03 | 40.86 |
Kcnh2 | 16.7713 | 5.47E-03 | 32.31 |
Cdca3 | 15.5835 | 5.53E-03 | 47.93 |
Plaur | 15.7368 | 5.98E-03 | 57.51 |
Agpat2 | 18.1381 | 6.13E-03 | 40.86 |
Nfkbil1 | 17.832 | 6.74E-03 | 22.93 |
Slc23a3 | 17.9463 | 7.38E-03 | 96.59 |
Zyx | 15.3325 | 7.52E-03 | 27.10 |
Nudt12 | 15.3316 | 7.53E-03 | 47.39 |
Nfkb1 | 15.676 | 7.54E-03 | 67.70 |
Nnt | 15.7463 | 7.66E-03 | 30.32 |
Lcp1 | 16.0977 | 7.72E-03 | 45.12 |
Lrg1 | 15.3173 | 7.73E-03 | 22.69 |
Grip1 | 17.8508 | 8.09E-03 | 22.34 |
Golga1 | 15.2869 | 8.15E-03 | 28.15 |
Mapk6 | 15.3013 | 9.89E-03 | 36.07 |
Smarca4 | 17.4953 | 1.14E-02 | 22.64 |
Camp | 15.6238 | 1.43E-02 | 39.31 |
Slc25a11 | 15.3352 | 1.46E-02 | 59.66 |
Sult1a1 | 15.2729 | 1.60E-02 | 31.32 |
4930544G11Rik | 17.1192 | 1.64E-02 | 24.04 |
Cish | 17.0804 | 1.70E-02 | 26.38 |
Pdcd10 | 15.3459 | 1.88E-02 | 63.49 |
Slc23a3 | 16.9058 | 2.01E-02 | 96.59 |
Qdpr | 16.4511 | 2.06E-02 | 50.84 |
Pabpc1 | 16.86 | 2.10E-02 | 65.55 |
Cacnb2 | 16.0474 | 2.12E-02 | 34.44 |
Ddhd1 | 16.8345 | 2.15E-02 | 89.58 |
Dbnl | 16.7678 | 2.29E-02 | 29.83 |
Ddhd1 | 16.696 | 2.45E-02 | 89.58 |
Rtn1 | 16.6889 | 2.47E-02 | 33.46 |
Exosc5 | 16.6889 | 2.47E-02 | 22.56 |
Fignl1 | 16.64 | 2.59E-02 | 23.59 |
2610020O08Rik | 16.527 | 2.88E-02 | 21.06 |
Tnfsf11 | 16.4951 | 2.97E-02 | 22.56 |
Atox1 | 16.4786 | 3.02E-02 | 21.37 |
Fntb | 16.3904 | 3.28E-02 | 26.90 |
4933402D24Rik | 16.3904 | 3.28E-02 | 21.47 |
Olfr110 | 16.3782 | 3.32E-02 | 30.81 |
Mrpl3 | 15.4861 | 3.34E-02 | 63.03 |
Azi2 | 16.3295 | 3.47E-02 | 27.88 |
Tnks | 16.326 | 3.48E-02 | 25.84 |
Fkbp9 | 15.872 | 3.58E-02 | 60.69 |
S100a4 | 16.2317 | 3.80E-02 | 78.00 |
Dtymk | 16.2317 | 3.80E-02 | 20.44 |
Ppp1r14d | 16.1174 | 3.82E-02 | 80.53 |
H47 | 16.2002 | 3.92E-02 | 24.67 |
Mrg2 | 16.1772 | 4.00E-02 | 32.25 |
Rpl27a | 16.0727 | 4.41E-02 | 24.60 |
Impa2 | 16.0513 | 4.50E-02 | 66.38 |
Smarca4 | 16.0312 | 4.59E-02 | 22.64 |
Mad2l2 | 16.0031 | 4.71E-02 | 37.34 |
Cd33 | 15.9762 | 4.83E-02 | 46.63 |
miR-222 targets predicted by the MicroCosm program were filtered based on their expression in macrophages. Only targets that decreased in expression from 8–24 hours of LPS stimulation (column 4) were considered (using microarray data generated for a prior study42). Results were then sorted by p-value (generated by the microCosm program). Brg1 (Smarca4) is highlighted in bold red font. (Note: multiple listings for a target indicate that more than one site prediction for that gene was made by the MicroCosm program.)
Acknowledgments
We thank Dr. Michael McManus (UCSF) for generously providing us with a targeting construct used in the generation of miR-221/222 knockout mice. Supported by grants R21-AI116082 and R37-AI33443 to SG from the National Institutes of Health.
Footnotes
Author contributions: JJS performed the majority of the experiments and writing of the manuscript. RB performed the microRNA microarray experiment. GM performed experiments on patient samples. TB, SD, and DEF assisted with experimental design and collected patient samples for the human portions of this study. MSH assisted with experimental design and the writing of the manuscript. SG conceived of the study, provided guidance with experimental design, and writing of the manuscript.
RNA-seq data is deposited in the GEO database.
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Main Text References
- 1.Hotchkiss RS, Monneret G, Payen D. Sepsis-induced immunosuppression: from cellular dysfunctions to immunotherapy. Nat Rev Immunol. 2013;13:862–874. doi: 10.1038/nri3552. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Ertel W, et al. Downregulation of proinflammatory cytokine release in whole blood from septic patients. Blood. 1995;85:1341–1347. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Otto GP, et al. The late phase of sepsis is characterized by an increased microbiological burden and death rate. Crit Care. 2011;15:R183. doi: 10.1186/cc10332. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Boomer JS, et al. Immunosuppression in patients who die of sepsis and multiple organ failure. JAMA. 2011;306:2594–2605. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.1829. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Cavaillon JM, Adib-Conquy M. Bench-to-bedside review: endotoxin tolerance as a model of leukocyte reprogramming in sepsis. Crit Care. 2006;10:233. doi: 10.1186/cc5055. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Saeed S, et al. Epigenetic programming of monocyte-to-macrophage differentiation and trained innate immunity. Science. 2014;345:1251086. doi: 10.1126/science.1251086. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Foster SL, Hargreaves DC, Medzhitov R. Gene-specific control of inflammation by TLR-induced chromatin modifications. Nature. 2007;447:972–978. doi: 10.1038/nature05836. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Chen J, Ivashkiv LB. IFN-gamma abrogates endotoxin tolerance by facilitating Toll-like receptor-induced chromatin remodeling. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107:19438–19443. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1007816107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Mages J, Dietrich H, Lang R. A genome-wide analysis of LPS tolerance in macrophages. Immunobiology. 2007;212:723–737. doi: 10.1016/j.imbio.2007.09.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Fraker DL, Stovroff MC, Merino MJ, Norton JA. Tolerance to tumor necrosis factor in rats and the relationship to endotoxin tolerance and toxicity. J Exp Med. 1988;168:95–105. doi: 10.1084/jem.168.1.95. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Cavaillon J-M, P C, Fitting C. Endotoxin tolerance is not a LPS-specific phenomenon: partial mimicry with IL-1, IL-10 and TGFβ. Journal of Endotoxin Research. 1994:21–29. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Di Leva G, et al. MicroRNA cluster 221-222 and estrogen receptor alpha interactions in breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102:706–721. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djq102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Stanton BZ, et al. Smarca4 ATPase mutations disrupt direct eviction of PRC1 from chromatin. Nat Genet. 2017;49:282–288. doi: 10.1038/ng.3735. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Ramirez-Carrozzi VR, et al. Selective and antagonistic functions of SWI/SNF and Mi-2beta nucleosome remodeling complexes during an inflammatory response. Genes Dev. 2006;20:282–296. doi: 10.1101/gad.1383206. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Ramirez-Carrozzi VR, et al. A unifying model for the selective regulation of inducible transcription by CpG islands and nucleosome remodeling. Cell. 2009;138:114–128. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2009.04.020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Saccani S, Pantano S, Natoli G. Two waves of nuclear factor kappaB recruitment to target promoters. J Exp Med. 2001;193:1351–1359. doi: 10.1084/jem.193.12.1351. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Agalioti T, Chen G, Thanos D. Deciphering the transcriptional histone acetylation code for a human gene. Cell. 2002;111:381–392. doi: 10.1016/s0092-8674(02)01077-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Park CY, et al. A resource for the conditional ablation of microRNAs in the mouse. Cell Rep. 2012;1:385–391. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2012.02.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Ourthiague DR, et al. Limited specificity of IRF3 and ISGF3 in the transcriptional innate-immune response to double-stranded RNA. J Leukoc Biol. 2015;98:119–128. doi: 10.1189/jlb.4A1014-483RR. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Mancino A, et al. A dual cis-regulatory code links IRF8 to constitutive and inducible gene expression in macrophages. Genes Dev. 2015;29:394–408. doi: 10.1101/gad.257592.114. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Tong AJ, et al. A Stringent Systems Approach Uncovers Gene-Specific Mechanisms Regulating Inflammation. Cell. 2016;165:165–179. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2016.01.020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Garber M, et al. A high-throughput chromatin immunoprecipitation approach reveals principles of dynamic gene regulation in mammals. Mol Cell. 2012;47:810–822. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2012.07.030. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Cohen M, et al. Chronic exposure to TGFbeta1 regulates myeloid cell inflammatory response in an IRF7-dependent manner. EMBO J. 2014;33:2906–2921. doi: 10.15252/embj.201489293. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Langlais D, Barreiro LB, Gros P. The macrophage IRF8/IRF1 regulome is required for protection against infections and is associated with chronic inflammation. J Exp Med. 2016;213:585–603. doi: 10.1084/jem.20151764. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Ostuni R, et al. Latent enhancers activated by stimulation in differentiated cells. Cell. 2013;152:157–171. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2012.12.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Huang M, et al. Chromatin-remodelling factor BRG1 selectively activates a subset of interferon-alpha-inducible genes. Nat Cell Biol. 2002;4:774–781. doi: 10.1038/ncb855. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Ni Z, et al. Apical role for BRG1 in cytokine-induced promoter assembly. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102:14611–14616. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0503070102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Levy MM, et al. SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS International Sepsis Definitions Conference. Intensive Care Med. 2001;29:530–538. doi: 10.1007/s00134-003-1662-x. 2003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Kadoch C, et al. Proteomic and bioinformatic analysis of mammalian SWI/SNF complexes identifies extensive roles in human malignancy. Nat Genet. 2013;45:592–601. doi: 10.1038/ng.2628. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Bultman S, et al. A Brg1 null mutation in the mouse reveals functional differences among mammalian SWI/SNF complexes. Mol Cell. 2000;6:1287–1295. doi: 10.1016/s1097-2765(00)00127-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Cheng SC, et al. Broad defects in the energy metabolism of leukocytes underlie immunoparalysis in sepsis. Nat Immunol. 2016;17:406–413. doi: 10.1038/ni.3398. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Leentjens J, et al. Reversal of immunoparalysis in humans in vivo: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized pilot study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2012;186:838–845. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201204-0645OC. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Docke WD, et al. Monocyte deactivation in septic patients: restoration by IFN-gamma treatment. Nat Med. 1997;3:678–681. doi: 10.1038/nm0697-678. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Roberson SM, Walker WS. Immortalization of cloned mouse splenic macrophages with a retrovirus containing the v-raf/mil and v-myc oncogenes. Cell Immunol. 1988;116:341–351. doi: 10.1016/0008-8749(88)90236-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Kertesz M, Iovino N, Unnerstall U, Gaul U, Segal E. The role of site accessibility in microRNA target recognition. Nat Genet. 2007;39:1278–1284. doi: 10.1038/ng2135. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Griffiths-Jones S, Grocock RJ, van Dongen S, Bateman A, Enright AJ. miRBase: microRNA sequences, targets and gene nomenclature. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006;34:D140–144. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkj112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Ran FA, et al. Genome engineering using the CRISPR-Cas9 system. Nat Protoc. 2013;8:2281–2308. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2013.143. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Afgan E, et al. The Galaxy platform for accessible, reproducible and collaborative biomedical analyses: 2016 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44:W3–W10. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkw343. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Bone RC, et al. Definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies in sepsis. The ACCP/SCCM Consensus Conference Committee. American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine. Chest. 1992;101:1644–1655. doi: 10.1378/chest.101.6.1644. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Moreau R, et al. Acute-on-chronic liver failure is a distinct syndrome that develops in patients with acute decompensation of cirrhosis. Gastroenterology. 2013;144:1426–1437. 1437 e1421–1429. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2013.02.042. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Zambelli F, Pesole G, Pavesi G. Pscan: finding over-represented transcription factor binding site motifs in sequences from co-regulated or co-expressed genes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009;37:W247–252. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkp464. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Rao P, et al. IkappaBbeta acts to inhibit and activate gene expression during the inflammatory response. Nature. 2010;466:1115–1119. doi: 10.1038/nature09283. [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.
Data Availability Statement
RNA-sequencing data that support the findings of this study have been deposited in GEO with the accession code GSE89918 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/).