Skip to main content
PMC home page
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2020 Jun 19;15(6):e0233773. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233773

Differential immunomodulation of porcine bone marrow derived dendritic cells by E. coli Nissle 1917 and β-glucans

Mirelle Geervliet 1, Laura C P Lute 1, Christine A Jansen 2, Victor P M G Rutten 2,3, Huub F J Savelkoul 1, Edwin Tijhaar 1,*
Editor: Jagadeesh Bayry4
PMCID: PMC7304589  PMID: 32559198

Abstract

In early life and around weaning, pigs are at risk of developing infectious diseases which compromise animal welfare and have major economic consequences for the pig industry. A promising strategy to enhance resistance against infectious diseases is immunomodulation by feed additives. To assess the immune stimulating potential of feed additives in vitro, bone marrow-derived dendritic cells were used. These cells play a central role in the innate and adaptive immune system and are the first cells encountered by antigens that pass the epithelial barrier. Two different feed additives were tested on dendritic cells cultured from fresh and cryopreserved bone marrow cells; a widely used commercial feed additive based on yeast-derived β-glucans and the gram-negative probiotic strain E. coli Nissle 1917. E. coli Nissle 1917, but not β-glucans, induced a dose-dependent upregulation of the cell maturation marker CD80/86, whereas both feed additives induced a dose-dependent production of pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines, including TNFα, IL-1β, IL-6 and IL-10. Furthermore, E. coli Nissle 1917 consistently induced higher levels of cytokine production than β-glucans. These immunomodulatory responses could be assessed by fresh as well as cryopreserved in vitro cultured porcine bone marrow-derived dendritic cells. Taken together, these results demonstrate that both β-glucans and E. coli Nissle 1917 are able to enhance dendritic cell maturation, but in a differential manner. A more mature dendritic cell phenotype could contribute to a more efficient response to infections. Moreover, both fresh and cryopreserved bone marrow-derived dendritic cells can be used as in vitro pre-screening tools which enable an evidence based prediction of the potential immune stimulating effects of different feed additives.

Introduction

Infectious diseases impact pig health and greatly impair animal welfare and efficiency of nutrient use, and thus animal performance [1]. To enhance resistance against infectious diseases, immunomodulation by feed additives may be a strategy to strengthen the pigs’ immune competence. Feed additives that possess immune enhancing activity could prime cells of the immune system to respond more efficiently to infections. An important group of cells are professional antigen-presenting cells (APCs) like macrophages and dendritic cells (DCs). In particular, DCs are the key players in the initiation, differentiation and regulation of immune responses. In the gut, DCs sense and sample antigens from the gut luminal environment. Depending on the type of antigen encountered, DCs maturate and migrate towards the Mesenteric Lymph Node (MLN) where they interact with T- and B- cells [2, 3]. This makes DCs an important target for immunomodulatory approaches, including modulation by feed additives.

DCs identify conserved microbial molecules through pattern recognition receptors (PRRs), an interaction that may induce DC maturation and which is characterized by the upregulation of maturation markers (e.g. MHC-II, CD80 and CD86) [4]. In addition to these phenotypic changes, DC maturation results in the production of cytokines (e.g. TNFα, IL-1β, IL-6, IL-10 and IL-12) which play a key role in the development of both the innate and adaptive immune responses. As such, the DC maturation stage and the cytokine production profile direct immune responses. These markers and cytokines are therefore valuable parameters for the assessment of immunomodulatory effects of feed additives. Generation of porcine DCs to study these effects in vitro have only been reported in a small number of publications [5–7]. These DCs are generated from bone marrow (stem-) cells (BMDCs) or blood derived monocytes (MoDCs), and cultured in the presence of granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) which is crucial for differentiation into immature DCs [8].

The first aim of this study was to assess immunomodulatory properties of two feed additives that differ in mode of action using in vitro cultured porcine BMDCs; yeast-derived β-glucans (MacroGard®) and the Gram-negative probiotic E. coli Nissle 1917 (EcN). MacroGard® is derived from the yeast cell wall of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, that contains a minimum of 60% β-1,3/1,6-glucans. β-Glucans are one of the most abundant forms of polysaccharides found inside the cell wall of bacteria, fungi (including yeast), and plants. They interact with receptors present on the cell surface of APCs, the primary receptor being Dectin-1 [9]. Especially β-glucans derived from fungi and yeast, which consist of a [1,3]-β-linked backbone with small numbers of [1,6]-β-linked side chains, are known for their immune stimulating effects [10–12]. Moreover, β-glucans exist in particulate and soluble forms, which can influence their immunomodulatory capacity. Particulate β-glucans induce stronger immune responses than soluble β-glucans by clustering of Dectin-1 receptors [13, 14]. The immune stimulating effects of particulate yeast-derived β-glucans and its use as a feed additive for pigs, makes MacroGard® a promising candidate for immunomodulation. Another promising candidate is EcN, a versatile Gram-negative probiotic strain with immunomodulating properties [15, 16]. Studies in humans and mice showed that EcN can interact with different receptors on APCs, the major receptor being Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4). Crosslinking of these receptors on APCs enable the upregulation of cell maturation markers and production of cytokines [17]. Despite its use as a probiotic in humans for over a century, far less is currently known about the immune stimulating effects of EcN in pigs [18–20].

The second aim of this study was to compare porcine BMDCs derived from fresh (frhBMDCs) and cryopreserved (cryoBMDCs) bone marrow cells in their ability to assess the immunomodulatory properties of the selected feed additives as cryoBMDCs offer practical advantages (e.g. storage). This study shows that β-glucans and EcN induce differential immunomodulatory effects in frhBMDCs and cryoBMDCs with regard to DC maturation and cytokine production. These results indicate that BMDCs can be used as a tool for large scale in vitro screening of feed additives with immunomodulatory potential.

Materials and methods

Ethics statement

This animal experiment was conducted in accordance with the Dutch animal experimental and ethical requirements and the project license application was approved by the Dutch Central Authority for Scientific Procedures on Animals (CCD) (Permit Number: AVD104002016515). The protocol of the experiment was approved by the Animal Care and Use committee of Wageningen University & Research (Wageningen, The Netherlands) (Protocol Number: 2016.W-0045.001). Pigs were euthanized with Euthasol® followed by exsanguination. Euthanasia was performed according to Good Veterinary Practice (GVP), and all efforts were made to minimize suffering.

Generation and stimulation of BMDCs

Bone marrow was obtained from the tibia, femur and ribs of 4–6 weeks old Topigs Norsvin pigs as described previously [21]. Briefly, bones were flushed with RPMI 1640 Medium (with GlutaMAX™ supplement, Gibco™, MA, USA), containing 10% fetal calf serum (FCS, Gibco™), 1% L-Glutamine (Gibco™), 1% Penicillin Streptomycin (Pen/Strep, Gibco™) and 0.2% Normocin™ (InvivoGen, San Diego, CA), hereafter referred to as cell culture medium. Subsequently, bone marrow cells were either immediately used for frhBMDC culture or frozen overnight in FCS containing 10% Dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO, EMSURE®) at -80°C using Mr Frosty™ freezing containers (ThermoFisher Scientific™, Waltham, MA, USA). The following day, frozen bone marrow cells were stored in liquid nitrogen until further use. FrhBMDCs were cultured in a Corning® Costar® TC treated 96-well flat-bottom plate (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) containing 1·105 cells/well in 200μl cell culture medium. For the cryoBMDCs culture, bone marrow cells were first thawed and quickly diluted (10 times) in cell culture medium and centrifuged at 200g for 6 minutes to remove DMSO. Subsequently, bone marrow cells were washed and cultured in a Corning® Costar® TC treated 96-well flat-bottom plate containing 1·105 cells/well in 200μl cell culture medium. For differentiation into immature BMDC (iBMDC), 20 ng/mL of recombinant porcine granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor (rpGMCSF, R&D systems, Minneapolis, MN, USA) was added to the cell culture medium. In the first experiment (Figs 3 and 4) 25μl of cell culture medium (containing GM-CSF) was added on day 3 and on day 5, and differentiated iBMDC were stimulated on day 6 with various concentrations of LPS (10–0.001 μg/mL) for 24 hours. In the second experiment (Figs 5 and 6) 50μl of cell culture medium (containing GM-CSF) was added on day 3 and the iBMDC were stimulated with various concentrations of LPS (10–0.001 μg/mL), β-glucans (50 μg/mL– 1.563 μg/mL) or EcN (ratio 1:100–1:0.8) on day 4 for 24 hours. The morphology of the BMDCs was assessed every day by microscopy using the EVOS® FL Cell Imaging System (ThermoFisher Scientific™).

Fig 3. FrhBMDCs and cryoBMDCs upregulate the maturation marker CD80/86 in a dose-dependent manner upon LPS stimulation.

Fig 3

Open in a new tab

(A) FrhBMDCs and cryoBMDCs (obtained from the same animal, n = 1) were stimulated with different concentrations of LPS or unstimulated using cell culture medium (negative control; Ctrl). After 24 hours, the expression (MFI) of the maturation marker CD80/86 was measured using Flow Cytometry. The data are shown as the means ± the standard error of the mean (SEM) of three technical replicates. A one-way ANOVA with a Dunnett’s post hoc test was performed, comparing multiple groups to the untreated cells (control): *** = P<0.001, **P<0.01 and * P<0.05. (B) Representative contour plots of CD80/86 expression on LPS stimulated frhBMDCs and cryoBMDCs. The contour plots are based on forward scatter (y-axis) and CD80/86 expression (x-axis). Two different concentrations of LPS (10 μg/mL; blue and 0.01 μg/mL; red) and cell culture medium (negative control; green) are presented in this figure.

Fig 4. FrhBMDCs and cryoBMDCs are able to produce cytokines in a dose-dependent manner upon LPS stimulation.

Fig 4

Open in a new tab

Immature frhBMDCs and cryoBMDCs (obtained from the same animal, n = 1) were stimulated with LPS or unstimulated using cell culture medium (negative control; Ctrl) for 24 hours. Levels of (A) IL-1β, (B) IL-10, (C) IL-6 and (D) TNFα were measured by ProcartaPlex. Note the different scales for cytokine production on the y-axis.

Fig 5. E. coli Nissle 1917 (EcN), but not β-glucans, efficiently enhances the expression of CD80/86.

Fig 5

Open in a new tab

(A) Expression levels of CD80/86 on immature frhBMDCs and cryoBMDCs upon stimulation with the highest concentration of E. coli Nissle 1917 (red), β-glucans (green) and LPS (blue). Unstimulated cells using cell culture medium are represented by the orange histogram (negative control; Ctrl). The histograms are represented in a staggered offset format. (B) Immature frhBMDCs and (C) cryoBMDCs (obtained from the same animal) were stimulated with different concentrations of E. coli Nissle 1917, β-glucans or LPS. Unstimulated cells are represented by the white bars (negative control; Ctrl). After 24 hours, the upregulation of the maturation marker CD80/86 was measured using flow cytometry (n = 4 animals). Note the different scales for cytokine production on the y-axis. Data is presented as fold change to compensate for individual variation by dividing the MFI of stimulated BMDCs with the MFI of unstimulated BMDCs (Ctrl) of each animal. The data are shown as the means ± the standard error of the mean (SEM) of 4 animals. A one-way ANOVA with a Dunnett’s post hoc test was performed, comparing multiple groups to the untreated cells (control): *** = P<0.001, **P<0.01 and * P<0.05.

Fig 6. E. coli Nissle 1917 (EcN) and β-glucans are able to induce a dose-dependent cytokine production.

Fig 6

Open in a new tab

Immature frhBMDCs (black) and cryoBMDCs (blue) (obtained from the same animal) were stimulated with EcN, β-glucans or LPS, or unstimulated using cell culture medium (negative control; Ctrl) for 24 hours. Levels of (A) IL-1β, (B) IL-10, (C) IL-6 and (D) TNFα were measured by ProcartaPlex (n = 4 animals). Note the different scales for cytokine production on the Y-axis. The data are shown as the means ± the standard error of the mean (SEM) of 4 animals. A one-way ANOVA with a Dunnett’s post hoc test was performed, comparing multiple groups to the untreated cells (control): *** = P<0.001, **P<0.01 and * P<0.05.

Feed additives

For this study, the feed additives MacroGard® and E. coli Nissle 1917 were selected. MacroGard® (kindly provided by Orffa Additives B.V., Werkendam, The Netherlands) contains particulate β-1,3/1,6- glucans (minimum of 60% purity) derived from the yeast cell wall of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Other components include mannose (approximately 40% of the cell dry mass) and chitin (approximately 2% of the cell wall dry mass). The second feed additive is the Gram-negative probiotic strain E. coli Nissle 1917 (EcN, kindly provided by Ardeypharm, GmbH, Herdecke, Germany). In addition, lipopolysaccharide (LPS) from Escherichia coli (serotype O55:B5/L2880, Sigma-Aldrich) was selected as the positive control for this study. MacroGard® was diluted in milli-Q water containing 0.03M Sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and heated at 70°C for 2.5 hours. Subsequently, the suspension was aliquoted and stored at -20°C until use. To prevent large aggregates, the MacroGard® suspension was pushed ten times through a 0.8 x 50mm syringe-needle (Microlance™ 3) and ten times through a 0.5 x 16mm syringe-needle (Microlance™ 3) just before every experiment. To determine possible endotoxin contamination present in the β-glucan preparation an EndoZyme® test kit, which contains re-combinant factor C, was purchased from Hyglos (Hyglos GmbH, Bernried am Starnberger See, Germany) and performed according to the manufacturer’s recommendations. In addition, HEK-293 cells expressing human TLR4 and harbouring a pNIFTY construct (Invivogen, Toulouse, France) were used for the measurement of LPS induced NFκB activation after 24 hours. Both assays showed no evidence for endotoxin contamination (less than 0.06 endotoxin units or EU per mL) in 0.1g of the β-glucan preparation (S1 Fig).

The probiotic strain EcN was grown overnight under aeration to stationary phase at 37°C in Lysogeny Broth (LB) medium. The bacteria were recovered by centrifugation (4000 g for 1 minute) and washed three times in RPMI 1640 Medium (with GlutaMAX™ supplement, Gibco™, MA, USA) without additional supplements, hereinafter referred to as plain cell culture medium. After washing, bacteria were resuspended at 1·109 colony forming units (CFU)/mL in plain cell culture medium and added in different concentrations to a 96-well cell culture plate as previously described. After 1 hour of incubation at 37°C, the 96-well plate was centrifuged at 300 g for 3 minutes and washed with plain cell culture medium. Subsequently, plain cell culture medium containing 100 μg/mL Gentamicin (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) was added and incubated for 1 hour at 37°C to kill extracellular bacteria. After another washing step, cell culture medium containing 50 μg/mL Gentamicin was added to prevent bacterial growth during overnight incubation (24 hours). Porcine BMDCs were stimulated with either LPS, β-glucans, EcN or cell culture medium (negative control) as described in section ‘Generation and stimulation of BMDCs’. Cell culture supernatants were collected after 24 hours and stored at -80°C until measurement.

Flow cytometry

To assess the expression of cell maturation markers upon stimulation with LPS, β-glucans or EcN, wells with cultured BMDCs were incubated in FACS buffer (Mg2+ and Ca2+ free PBS (Lonza, Basel, Switzerland) containing 0.5% BSA fraction V (Roche, Basel, Switzerland), 2.0 mM EDTA (Merck, Kenalworth, NJ, USA) and FCS (Gibco™) at 37°C for 30 minutes to facilitate the detachment of DCs. Surface marker expression was determined using fluorochrome-conjugated monoclonal antibodies specific for CD172a (PE Mouse Anti-Pig Monocyte/Granulocyte, clone 74-22-15 BD Biosciences Cat# 561499, RRID:AB_10694894) diluted 1:320 in FACS buffer [22], SLA Class-II (porcine equivalent of MHC-II) (SLA Class-II DR: FITC, clone 2E9/13, Thermo Fisher Scientific Cat# MA5-16490, RRID:AB_2538001) diluted 1:160 in FACS buffer [23] and APC conjugated human CD152 (CTLA-4) murine Ig fusion protein diluted 1:320 in FACS buffer (Ancell, Bayport, MN) to detect CD80 and CD86 [24–26]. Before measuring, DNA-binding 7-AAD (BD Bioscience) was added to discriminate viable from dead cells. Matching fluorescent compensation controls Rat IgG2b κ FITC (eB149/10H5, eBioscience™, Rat IgG2a κ PE (RTK2758, BioLegend) and Armenian Hamster IgG APC (HTK888, BioLegend) were included by adding the–to the specific fluorochrome corresponding–compensation Abs to compensation beads (Ultracomp eBeads™, ThermoFisher Scientific™). In addition, unstained BMDCs were measured to detect autofluorescence. Thereafter, cells were resuspended in 100μl FACS buffer (1:50) and DNA-binding 7-AAD (BD Bioscience) was added to discriminate viable from dead cells. Subsequently, all cell suspensions were acquired (average of 10.000 events) on a BD FACS Canto II (BD Biosciences) and analysed using the FlowJo™ software (BD-Biosciences). Median Fluorescence Intensity (MFI) values were calculated for the CD172a+/high CD80/86+ and SLA Class-II+ population (Fig 2, panel 6) to determine the expression of SLA Class-II and CD80/86 proteins on stimulated BMDCs relative to unstimulated BMDCs (negative control). Phenotypic identification of DCs by flow cytometry was initially performed by using forward scatter (cell size) (to exclude debris and red blood cells), side scatter (cell granularity) and by identifying single- and viable cells. In accordance with previous studies, DCs were further identified by high expression levels of the myeloid cell marker CD172a (CD172a+/high) and high expression levels of CD80/86+ and SLA Class-II+ (Fig 2 and S2 Fig) [5, 25]. Cells expressing intermediate levels of CD172a (CD172a+/medium) were excluded from the analysis based on the lack of CD80/86 and SLA Class-II co-expression (S3 Fig). This lack of CD80/86 and SLA Class-II co-expression was even observed after LPS stimulation [27]).

Fig 2. Phenotype of freshly cultured porcine mononuclear phagocytes.

Fig 2

Open in a new tab

Gating strategy following multicolour flow cytometry staining using Abs against CD172a, SLA Class-II and CD80/86. Cells showing high forward scatter (FSC-A) and side scatter (SSC-A) profiles were gated, followed by the selection of single cells (FSC-W/H and SSC-W/H) and viable cells (SSC-A/7-AAD). Among these cells, BMDCs were defined as the CD172a+/high cells (SSC-A/CD172a) expressing SLA Class-II and CD80/86.

Cytokine measurement

Porcine BMDCs were stimulated with either LPS, β-glucans or EcN as mentioned above. Subsequently, cell culture supernatants were collected after 24 hours and stored at -80°C until measurement. The levels of different cytokines (IFN-α, IFN-γ, IL-1β, IL-4, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-12p40 and TNFα) were measured in the supernatants of BMDC cultures (pg/mL) by using the bead-based Porcine Procartaplex assay™ according to the manufacturer’s recommended protocols (ThermoFisher Scientific™) and read on a BioPlex® machine (Bio-Rad). Best-fit standard curves for each analyte were established by Bio-plex manager software (Version 3).

Statistical analysis

Statistical differences were tested by a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with a Dunnett’s post hoc test, comparing multiple groups to the untreated cells (control). Data represented as fold-change was transformed for statistical analysis using the logarithm of the raw data. A P-value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Data is represented as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM). Significant differences were indicated by asterisks, respectively; *** = P<0.001, **P<0.01 and * P<0.05. GraphPad Prism 5 software (GraphPad, US) was used for all statistical analyses. Clustering of immunological data (surface marker expression and cytokine production) and stimulation conditions of frhBMDC and cryoBMDC was done by principal component analysis (PCA) using R statistical software (Version 3.5.2).

Results

1. Generation of porcine BMDCs

Stimulation of bone marrow cells with recombinant porcine GM-CSF (rpGM-CSF) generated cells with dendritic cell like morphology (Fig 1) characterized by dendrites; membrane extensions that could be observed from day 3 onwards [27]. Cells which were highly positive for the myeloid cell marker CD172a (CD172a+/high) expressed relatively high levels of CD80/86 and SLA Class-II (Fig 2). Cells expressing intermediate levels of CD172a (CD172a+/medium) expressed low levels of CD80/86 and SLA Class-II co-expression and were excluded from the analysis (S3 Fig). Cells cultured from fresh bone marrow cells contained on average lower percentages of CD172a+/high cells in comparison to cells cultured from cryopreserved bone marrow cells (24% and 62%, respectively). The percentage of viable cells was similar between the frhBMDCs and cryoBMDCs cultures (>90% viable cells).

Fig 1. Morphology of in vitro cultured frhBMDCs and cryoBMDCs.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

Microscopic analysis of rpGM-CSF stimulated bone marrow cells differentiated into immature BMDCs at day 6 of the culture. Examples of BMDCs (approximately 15–30 μm in size) are indicated by arrowheads.

2. Porcine BMDCs upregulate the maturation markers CD80/86 and produce several DC signature cytokines upon stimulation with LPS

After generation and phenotyping of porcine BMDCs, their ability to upregulate maturation markers (CD80/86 and SLA Class-II) as well as cytokine production were determined. Upon stimulation with LPS, frhBMDCs and cryoBMDCs showed increased expression (MFI) of the co-stimulatory marker CD80/86 in a dose-dependent manner (Fig 3). Despite differences in the basal CD80/86 expression levels between frhBMDCs and cryoBMDCs (MFI of 753 and 1165, respectively), their ability to upregulate CD80/86 upon stimulation with LPS (e.g. 10 μg/mL) is similar (stimulation index (SI) of 3.6 and 4.3, respectively). In addition, LPS induced SLA Class-II upregulation (S4 Fig), but this was less consistent between different concentrations and experiments in comparison to CD80/86. The percentages of CD80/86 positive or SLA Class-II positive cells remained constant upon stimulation [27]. Subsequently, the production of several cytokines secreted by BMDC upon stimulation was analysed, including IL-1β, IL-6, IL-10, TNFα, IL-4, IL-8, IL-12p40, IFN-α and IFN-γ. Similar to the expression of CD80/86, levels of the cytokines IL-1β, IL-6, IL-10, and TNFα increased upon LPS stimulation in a dose-dependent manner (Fig 4). No or inconsistent effects of LPS were observed for the induction of cytokines IL-4, IL-8, IL-12p40, IFN-α and IFN-γ [27]. Moreover, similar levels of cytokines were produced by cryoBMDCs upon LPS stimulation. However, LPS stimulated cryoBMDCs produced lower amounts of IL-10 and higher amounts of TNFα in comparison to frhBMDCs.

3. E. coli Nissle 1917, but not β-glucans, efficiently enhanced the expression of the maturation marker CD80/86 on frhBMDCs and cryoBMDCs

Subsequent to the analysis of LPS stimulated BMDCs (control), two feed additives (β-glucans and EcN) were tested to assess their immunomodulatory properties in vitro on frhBMDCs and cryoBMDCs. Upon stimulation with EcN, but not β-glucans, the maturation marker CD80/86 was clearly upregulated on both types of BMDCs (Fig 5A–5C). These results also demonstrate that less than one bacterium per DC was required for significant upregulation of CD80/86 in both frhBMDCs and cryoBMDCs. Interestingly, these relatively low numbers of EcN bacteria elicited a much stronger response compared to the maximum response that could be obtained with LPS. Despite the dose-dependent upregulation of CD80/86 on LPS stimulated frhBMDCs, LPS induced upregulation of CD80/86 on cryoBMDCs did not reach significance. Unexpectedly, SLA Class-II was neither upregulated by the feed additives nor by the control (LPS) (S5 Fig). Unstimulated frhBMDCs and cryoBMDCs showed similar median fluorescence intensities assessing the co-stimulatory marker CD80/86 (MFI of 1600 and 2200, respectively). Furthermore, EcN stimulated frhBMDCs and cryoBMDCs showed similar basal levels of CD80/86 expressed in median fluorescent intensity (MFI of 1807 and 1581, respectively). However, EcN stimulated cryoBMDCs showed a higher SI in comparison to EcN stimulated frhBMDCs (SI of 2.3 and 3.1, respectively).

4. FrhBMDCs and cryoBMDCs produce cytokines upon stimulation with E. coli Nissle 1917 and β-glucans

Subsequent to the analysis of surface expression of BMDC maturation markers upon stimulation with EcN and β-glucans, cell culture supernatant was collected and tested for the presence of the cytokines IL-1β, IL-6, IL-10 and TNFα. A clear dose-dependent induction of all cytokines was seen for both β-glucans and EcN (Figs 5 and 6). In comparison to β-glucans and LPS, EcN induced much stronger cytokine responses in frhBMDCs and cryoBMDCs. Despite the fact that both types of BMDCs responded in a similar fashion, cryopreservation affected the amount of cytokines produced by these cells. In general, cryopreserved BMDCs were less able to produce cytokines upon stimulation with EcN but produced more cytokines when stimulated with β-glucans. For example, cryopreservation resulted in an impaired IL-10 response by BMDC upon stimulation with EcN (Fig 5C). In contrast, β-glucans was shown to enhance the IL-10 production of BMDC from cryopreserved origin.

5. Clustering by principal component analysis

To investigate and visualize the variation and patterns of our dataset in a single figure, results obtained from the various immunological analyses were used to conduct a two-dimensional principal component analysis (PCA) (Fig 7). The PCA indicates the amount of variation retained by each principal component (PC1 scores on the x-axis and PC2 scores on the y-axis). For the frhBMDC culture, the amount of variation explained by PC1 and PC2 is 66.5% and 13.3% respectively. For the cryoBMDC culture, the amount of variation explained by PC1 and PC2 is 39.1% and 22.2% respectively. In other words, 79.8% (in frhBMDC cultures) and 61.3% (in cryoBMDC cultures) of all variance of immune responses in vitro could be explained by only 2 principal components. Fig 7 includes all in vitro measured immune parameters (CD80/86 expression and IL-1β, IL-6, IL-10 and TNFα levels) from stimulated frhBMDCs and cryoBMDCs. Data points (single measurements) are enveloped by treatment. For both frhBMDC and cryoBMDC, a distinct grouping of immune parameters can be observed for each stimulus. Most of these groups overlap, but consistently the enveloped data points of the EcN group stands out for both frhBMDCs and cryoBMDCs.

Fig 7. PCA grouped by stimulation conditions of frhBMDC and cryoBMDC cultures.

Fig 7

Open in a new tab

The PCA includes data from different animals (n = 4), different treatment concentrations and technical replicates per stimulation condition (enveloped) that were analysed by flow cytometry and cytokine analysis. Each dot represents a single measurement. The principle components (PC1 and PC2) indicate the amount of variation which can be explained by the model. The PCA plots exhibit the measured immunological parameters, indicated by arrows (CD80/86 expression and cytokine levels; IL-1β, IL-6, IL-10 and TNFα). The length of the arrows approximates the variance of the variables, whereas the angels between them approximate their correlations.

Discussion

Immunomodulation by feed additives offers suitable options to enhance immune competence, thereby contributing to the maintenance of animal health and well-being. Feed additives that possess immune stimulating activity could induce maturation of cells of the immune system, resulting in a more efficient response to microbial infections. Mature APCs express high levels of the co-stimulatory molecules CD80/86 and are therefore more likely to reach the threshold for T-cell activation. In addition, the production of cytokines by these APCs can also contribute to the development of a more effective immune response against the presented antigen. To date, the effects of feed additives on the immune system are not completely understood and tools to assess these effects in pigs are limited. Especially DCs are of interest, as they are known to interact directly with antigens present in the intestinal luminal content, thereby directing adaptive immune responses [2]. These intestinal DCs are considered to be the target for β-glucan and probiotic activity but are not easily accessible for in vitro studies. However, DCs can be generated in vitro from more accessible precursor cells, like blood derived monocytes or bone marrow cells [25]. In this study, cultured BMDCs were used to investigate the immunomodulatory effects of β-glucans and EcN in vitro, using the expression of DC maturation markers (SLA Class-II and CD80/86) and production of cytokines as read-out parameters. We observed a dose-dependent production of the cytokines TNFα, IL-1β, IL-6 and IL-10 upon stimulation with β-glucans and EcN. In comparison to other in vitro studies using DCs, a similar spectrum of cytokines was produced upon stimulation [7, 17]. In contrast, Sonck et al. detected a much higher amount of IL-1β and lower amounts of IL-10 after stimulation of porcine MoDCs with yeast-derived β-glucans, indicating a different responsiveness of both types of DCs. This is supported by the observation that yeast-derived β-glucans did not upregulate the maturation marker CD80/86 on our BMDCs, while it did on porcine MoDCs. On the other hand, these porcine MoDC did not upregulate CD80/86 after stimulation with LPS, while these markers were upregulated in a dose-dependent manner by this stimulus in our BMDCs (Fig 5) [7]. Moreover, the feed additives were not able to enhance SLA Class-II (S5 Fig). A comparison between porcine BMDC and porcine MoDC demonstrated differences in their SLA Class-II expression in which, in line with our results, porcine BMDCs were not able to upregulate SLA Class-II upon stimulation with LPS [5]. A possible explanation for the inability of β-glucans to enhance DC maturation marker expression on BMDCs is the absence of specific β-glucans receptors such as Dectin-1, as it is currently unknown which cell types are expressing Dectin-1. The primary receptor for β-glucans, Dectin-1, is present in porcine intestinal tissues and on porcine MoDCs, but this has not been examined for porcine BMDCs [7, 28]. The cytokine production could also be a consequence β-glucan binding to other potential receptors, such as complement receptor 3 (CR3), lactosylceramide and scavenger receptors [29].

Previous studies used porcine Monocyte-derived Dendritic Cells (MoDC) to study in vitro effects of immunomodulatory feed additives [7, 30], as MoDC cultures are well established and contain a relatively homogenous population of DCs, whereas BMDC cultures are heterogeneous [31]. However, MoDC cultures require fresh monocyte isolation from blood, as monocytes are known to be sensitive to freezing [32]. This will introduce time-to-time and animal-to-animal variation which may greatly impair reproducible comparison of immunomodulatory feed additives tested in vitro at different time points. A large stock of cryopreserved aliquots of bone marrow cells from a single animal would greatly facilitate such in vitro research. Human MoDCs differentiated from cryopreserved monocytes expressed lower levels of maturation markers (CD40, CD80, CD83 and CD86) and showed to have an altered cytokine response upon stimulation [33, 34] In contrast, Hayden and co-workers demonstrated that the properties of MoDCs derived from cryopreserved monocytes were equivalent to MoDCs generated from freshly isolated human monocytes [35]. In this study, frhBMDCs were compared to cryoBMDCs in their ability to upregulate maturation markers and produce cytokines upon stimulation with different feed additives which use different signalling pathways, including yeast-derived β-glucans and the probiotic strain E. coli Nissle 1917 (EcN). We demonstrated that cryopreservation of bone marrow cells resulted in elevated expression levels of the maturation marker CD80/86 on differentiated BMDCs and somewhat increased the production of IL-6 and IL-10 by unstimulated DCs. This indicates that cryopreservation of bone marrow cells leads to partially maturated BMDCs, characterised by enhanced expression of cell maturation markers and altered cytokine production by unstimulated cells as also observed in other studies [36, 37]. Cryopreservation also resulted in an increased animal-to-animal variation (Fig 6). However, cryopreservation did not have profound effects on the dose-dependent induction of CD80/86 nor on the production of cytokines upon stimulation with LPS, β-glucans and EcN (Figs 4 and 6), making these cells also suitable for the assessment of the immunomodulatory effects of feed compounds.

The PCA (Fig 7) demonstrates the overlap between the immune responses to LPS and β-glucans exposure, while stimulation with EcN reveals clearly distinct grouping or responsiveness. This is in line with our previous results (Figs 5 and 6), in which EcN showed to be the most potent immunostimulator, inducing a much stronger upregulation of CD80/86 and production of cytokines. These results suggest that stimulation with EcN contributes other (stimulatory) factors in comparison to LPS or β-glucans. The relatively strong response to EcN in comparison to LPS could be explained by the fact that EcN has a greater number of microbe associated molecular patterns (MAMPs) that can bind to pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) on DC [38]. Moreover, cryoBMDCs stimulated with EcN resulted in a homogeneous and separate cluster from the other conditions, albeit these stimulation conditions resulted in more variation compared to frhBMDCs. Fig 7 also demonstrates that all in vitro immune responses show a clear positive correlation upon stimulation (all arrows point in the same direction) and each response contributes equally to this variation (arrows are of equal length). For cryoBMDCs, the CD80/86 expression and production of IL-10 cluster appeared more independently from each other as compared to the other cytokines while retaining their positive correlation (arrows pointing in the same direction but at a right angle). In addition, the TNFα pro-inflammatory response appears to be independently regulated from the anti-inflammatory IL-10 response, although both responses were shown to be correlated in other literature [39].

In summary, this study demonstrates that yeast-derived β-glucans (MacroGard®) and EcN are both able to enhance DC maturation, but in a differential manner. A more mature DC phenotype could contribute to a more efficient response to infections. However, in vivo studies are required to verify these results. In addition, this study shows that BMDCs originating from fresh or cryopreserved cultured porcine bone marrow cells can both be used as an in vitro pre-screening tool to allow a more evidence-based pre-selection of promising immune modulators for validation in in vivo studies in pigs.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. β-glucans does not contain LPS and does not induce hTLR4 mediated NF-κB activation.

(A) 100 μg/mL β-glucans (MacroGard®) was tested for LPS contamination using a recombinant factor C LAL assay preparation. A 5 EU spiked control was included (n = 1). (B) Different concentrations (1 mg/mL– 0.1 μg/mL) of commercial β-glucans (MacroGard®) and LPS (100 pg/mL) were tested for their NF-κB activation via hTLR4 (n = 3).

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file. (230.3KB, tif)
S2 Fig. Phenotype of cryopreserved cultured porcine mononuclear phagocytes.

Gating strategy following multicolour flow cytometry staining using Abs against CD172a, SLA Class-II and CD80/86. Cells showing high forward scatter (FSC-A) and side scatter (SSC-A) profiles were gated, followed by the selection of single cells (FSC-W/H and SSC-W/H) and viable cells (SSC-A/7-AAD). Among these cells, BMDCs were defined as the CD172a+/high cells (SSC-A/CD172a) expressing SLA Class-II and CD80/86.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file. (820.5KB, tif)
S3 Fig. Phenotype of CD172a+/- (intermediate) cell population.

Gating strategy of (A) frhBMDCs and (B) cryoBMDCs following multicolour flow cytometry staining using Abs against CD172a, SLA Class-II and CD80/86. The CD172a+/- (intermediate) cell population (SSC-A/CD172a) does not express SLA Class-II and CD80/86 in both frhBMDC and cryoBMDC cell cultures.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file. (790.4KB, tif)
S4 Fig. FrhBMDCs and cryoBMDCs upregulate SLA Class-II in a dose-dependent manner upon stimulation with LPS.

(A) FrhBMDCs and cryoBMDCs (obtained from the same animal, n = 1) were stimulated with different concentrations of LPS or unstimulated using cell culture medium (negative control; Ctrl). After 24 hours, the expression (MFI) of the maturation markers SLA Class-II were measured using Flow Cytometry. The data are shown as the means ± the standard error of the mean (SEM) of three technical replicates. A one-way ANOVA with a Dunnett’s post hoc test was performed, comparing multiple groups to the untreated cells (control): *** = P<0.001, **P<0.01 and * P<0.05. (B) Representative contour plots of SLA Class-II expression on LPS stimulated frhBMDCs and cryoBMDCs. The contour plots are based on forward scatter (y-axis) and SLA Class-II expression (x-axis). The highest concentration of LPS (10 μg/mL) and cell culture medium (negative control; blue) are presented in this figure.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file. (902.9KB, tif)
S5 Fig. SLA Class-II is not upregulated upon stimulation with EcN, β-glucans or LPS.

Immature (A) frhBMDCs and (B) cryoBMDCs (obtained from the same animal) were stimulated with different concentrations of E. coli Nissle 1917, β-glucans or LPS. Unstimulated cells are represented by the white bars (negative control; Ctrl). After 24 hours, the upregulation of SLA Class-II was measured using Flow Cytometry (n = 4 animals). Relative fold change was calculated by dividing the MFI of stimulated BMDC/MFI of unstimulated BMDC (Ctrl) of each animal. The data are shown as the means ± the standard error of the mean (SEM) of 4 animals. A one-way ANOVA with a Dunnett’s post hoc test was performed, comparing multiple groups to the untreated cells (control): *** = P<0.001, **P<0.01 and * P<0.05.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file. (669.6KB, tif)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank H.J.A. (Hugo) de Vries (WUR) and Dr. ir. H.K. (Henk) Parmentier (WUR) for their valuable contribution to the PCA plots.

Data Availability

All data and files related to the manuscript will be available from 4TUCentre for Research (Wageningen University). DOI: 10.4121/uuid:f27e43c4-ab38-41a2-be4d-c0753855b508.

Funding Statement

This research was funded by The Dutch Research Council (NWO) and Vereniging Diervoeders Nederland (VDN). The award was received by H.F.J. (Huub) Savelkoul (grant number: 868.15.033, NWO Top Sector Project). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. URL: https://www.nwo.nl/en.

References

  • 1.VanderWaal K, Deen J. Global trends in infectious diseases of swine. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2018;115(45):11495–500. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Stagg AJ. Dendritic Cells in Gut Inflammation. Frontiers in immunology. 2018;9:2883 10.3389/fimmu.2018.02883 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Steinman RM, Hemmi H. Dendritic cells: translating innate to adaptive immunity. From Innate Immunity to Immunological Memory: Springer; 2006. p. 17–58. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.van Altena SEC, Meijer B, Savelkoul HFJ. Maturation of the Immune Response. In: Vohr H-W, editor. Encyclopedia of Immunotoxicology. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2005. p. 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Carrasco CP, Rigden RC, Schaffner R, Gerber H, Neuhaus V, Inumaru S, et al. Porcine dendritic cells generated in vitro: morphological, phenotypic and functional properties. Immunology. 2001;104(2):175–84. 10.1046/j.1365-2567.2001.01299.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Facci MR, Auray G, Buchanan R, Van Kessel J, Thompson DR, Mackenzie‐Dyck S, et al. A comparison between isolated blood dendritic cells and monocyte‐derived dendritic cells in pigs. Immunology. 2010;129(3):396–405. 10.1111/j.1365-2567.2009.03192.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Sonck E, Devriendt B, Goddeeris B, Cox E. Varying effects of different β-glucans on the maturation of porcine monocyte-derived dendritic cells. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2011;18(9):1441–6. 10.1128/CVI.00080-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Summerfield A, Auray G, Ricklin M. Comparative dendritic cell biology of veterinary mammals. Annu Rev Anim Biosci. 2015;3(1):533–57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Taylor PR, Tsoni SV, Willment JA, Dennehy KM, Rosas M, Findon H, et al. Dectin-1 is required for β-glucan recognition and control of fungal infection. Nature immunology. 2007;8(1):31 10.1038/ni1408 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Volman JJ, Ramakers JD, Plat J. Dietary modulation of immune function by β-glucans. Physiology & behavior. 2008;94(2):276–84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Vetvicka V, Vannucci L, Sima P. The Effects of β-Glucan on Pig Growth and Immunity. The open biochemistry journal. 2014;8:89 10.2174/1874091X01408010089 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Stier H, Ebbeskotte V, Gruenwald J. Immune-modulatory effects of dietary Yeast Beta-1, 3/1, 6-D-glucan. Nutrition journal. 2014;13(1):38. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Batbayar S, Lee DH, Kim HW. Immunomodulation of fungal β-glucan in host defense signaling by dectin-1. Biomolecules & therapeutics. 2012;20(5):433. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Goodridge HS, Reyes CN, Becker CA, Katsumoto TR, Ma J, Wolf AJ, et al. Activation of the innate immune receptor Dectin-1 upon formation of a ‘phagocytic synapse’. Nature. 2011;472(7344):471–5. 10.1038/nature10071 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Sonnenborn U, Schulze J. The non-pathogenic Escherichia coli strain Nissle 1917–features of a versatile probiotic. Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease. 2009;21(3–4):122–58. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Wassenaar TM. Insights from 100 years of research with probiotic E. coli. European Journal of Microbiology and Immunology. 2016;6(3):147–61. 10.1556/1886.2016.00029 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Adam E, Delbrassinne L, Bouillot C, Reynders V, Mailleux AC, Muraille E, et al. Probiotic Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 activates DC and prevents house dust mite allergy through a TLR4‐dependent pathway. European journal of immunology. 2010;40(7):1995–2005. 10.1002/eji.200939913 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Vlasova AN, Shao L, Kandasamy S, Fischer DD, Rauf A, Langel SN, et al. Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 protects gnotobiotic pigs against human rotavirus by modulating pDC and NK‐cell responses. European journal of immunology. 2016;46(10):2426–37. 10.1002/eji.201646498 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Duncker SC, Lorentz A, Schroeder B, Breves G, Bischoff SC. Effect of orally administered probiotic E. coli strain Nissle 1917 on intestinal mucosal immune cells of healthy young pigs. Veterinary immunology and immunopathology. 2006;111(3):239–50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Kandasamy S, Vlasova AN, Fischer D, Kumar A, Chattha KS, Rauf A, et al. Differential effects of Escherichia coli Nissle and Lactobacillus rhamnosus strain GG on human rotavirus binding, infection, and B cell immunity. The Journal of Immunology. 2016;196(4):1780–9. 10.4049/jimmunol.1501705 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Summerfield A, McCullough KC. Porcine bone marrow myeloid cells: phenotype and adhesion molecule expression. Journal of leukocyte biology. 1997;62(2):176–85. 10.1002/jlb.62.2.176 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Blecha F, Kielian T, McVey D, Lunney J, Walker K, Stokes C, et al. Workshop studies on monoclonal antibodies reactive against porcine myeloid cells. Veterinary immunology and immunopathology. 1994;43(1–3):269–72. 10.1016/0165-2427(94)90147-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Bullido R, Doménech N, Alvarez B, Alonso F, Babín M, Ezquerra A, et al. Characterization of five monoclonal antibodies specific for swine class II major histocompatibility antigens and crossreactivity studies with leukocytes of domestic animals. Developmental & Comparative Immunology. 1997;21(3):311–22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Piriou-Guzylack L, Salmon H. Membrane markers of the immune cells in swine: an update. Veterinary research. 2008;39(6):1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Summerfield A, McCullough KC. The porcine dendritic cell family. Developmental & Comparative Immunology. 2009;33(3):299–309. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Vreman S, Auray G, Savelkoul HF, Rebel A, Summerfield A, Stockhofe-Zurwieden N. Neonatal porcine blood derived dendritic cell subsets show activation after TLR2 or TLR9 stimulation. Developmental & Comparative Immunology. 2018;84:361–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Geervliet M, Lute LCP, Jansen CA, Rutten VPMG, Savelkoul HFJ, Tijhaar EJ. Differential immunomodulation of porcine bone marrow derived dendritic cells by E. coli Nissle 1917 and β-glucans. Wageningen University, 4TUCentre for Research Data. 2020; 10.4121/uuid:f27e43c4-ab38-41a2-be4d-c0753855b508 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Sonck E, Stuyven E, Goddeeris B, Cox E. Identification of the porcine C-type lectin dectin-1. Veterinary immunology and immunopathology. 2009;130(1–2):131–4. 10.1016/j.vetimm.2009.01.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Brown GD, Gordon S. Immune recognition of fungal β-glucans. Cellular microbiology. 2005;7(4):471–9. 10.1111/j.1462-5822.2005.00505.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Tsukida K, Takahashi T, Iida H, Kanmani P, Suda Y, Nochi T, et al. Immunoregulatory effects triggered by immunobiotic Lactobacillus jensenii TL2937 strain involve efficient phagocytosis in porcine antigen presenting cells. BMC immunology. 2016;17(1):21 10.1186/s12865-016-0160-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Helft J, Böttcher J, Chakravarty P, Zelenay S, Huotari J, Schraml BU, et al. GM-CSF mouse bone marrow cultures comprise a heterogeneous population of CD11c+ MHCII+ macrophages and dendritic cells. Immunity. 2015;42(6):1197–211. 10.1016/j.immuni.2015.05.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Pardali E, Schmitz T, Borgscheiper A, Iking J, Stegger L, Waltenberger J. Cryopreservation of primary human monocytes does not negatively affect their functionality or their ability to be labelled with radionuclides: basis for molecular imaging and cell therapy. EJNMMI research. 2016;6(1):77 10.1186/s13550-016-0232-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Silveira GF, Wowk PF, Machado AMB, dos Santos CND, Bordignon J. Immature dendritic cells generated from cryopreserved human monocytes show impaired ability to respond to LPS and to induce allogeneic lymphocyte proliferation. PloS one. 2013;8(7):e71291 10.1371/journal.pone.0071291 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Meijerink M, Ulluwishewa D, Anderson RC, Wells JM. Cryopreservation of monocytes or differentiated immature DCs leads to an altered cytokine response to TLR agonists and microbial stimulation. Journal of immunological methods. 2011;373(1–2):136–42. 10.1016/j.jim.2011.08.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Hayden H, Friedl J, Dettke M, Sachet M, Hassler M, Dubsky P, et al. Cryopreservation of monocytes is superior to cryopreservation of immature or semi-mature dendritic cells for dendritic cell-based immunotherapy. Journal of Immunotherapy. 2009;32(6):638–54. 10.1097/CJI.0b013e3181a5bc13 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Dudek AM, Martin S, Garg AD, Agostinis P. Immature, semi-mature, and fully mature dendritic cells: toward a DC-cancer cells interface that augments anticancer immunity. Frontiers in immunology. 2013;4:438 10.3389/fimmu.2013.00438 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.John J, Hutchinson J, Dalgleish A, Pandha H. Cryopreservation of immature monocyte-derived dendritic cells results in enhanced cell maturation but reduced endocytic activity and efficiency of adenoviral transduction. Journal of immunological methods. 2003;272(1–2):35–48. 10.1016/s0022-1759(02)00430-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Matsuura M. Structural modifications of bacterial lipopolysaccharide that facilitate gram-negative bacteria evasion of host innate immunity. Frontiers in immunology. 2013;4:109 10.3389/fimmu.2013.00109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Shin D-I, Banning U, Kim Y-M, Verheyen J, Hannen M, Bönig H, et al. Interleukin 10 inhibits TNF-alpha production in human monocytes independently of interleukin 12 and interleukin 1 beta. Immunological investigations. 1999;28(2–3):165–75. 10.3109/08820139909061145 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Miquel Vall-llosera Camps

18 Feb 2020

PONE-D-19-28012

Differential immunomodulation of porcine bone marrow derived dendritic cells by E. coli Nissle 1917 and β-glucans

PLOS ONE

Dear Mrs Geervliet,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

I would like to sincerely apologise for the delay you have incurred with your submission. It has been exceptionally difficult to secure reviewers to evaluate your study. We have now received three completed reviews; their comments are available below.

Reviewer#1 and #3 have raised some concerns about the study that need to be addressed in a revision. Both reviewers have noted that a clearer rationale for your study should be provided. Please revise the manuscript to address all the reviewer's comments in a point-by-point response in order to ensure it is meeting the journal's publication criteria. Please note that the revised manuscript will need to undergo further review, we thus cannot at this point anticipate the outcome of the evaluation process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Apr 02 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Miquel Vall-llosera Camps

Associate Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. To comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements, please provide methods of sacrifice in the Methods section of your manuscript.

3. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Authors describe an experiment designed study the possible immunomodulating effects of EcN and betaglucans on dendritic cells. It is in principle a study worth publishing with interesting results. There are however a few points to be resolved before publication. In the introduction it remains unclear what exactly is meant by immunomodulation and what the authors expect from it in terms of animal health. As is, it is very vague. For instance, do the authors aim for higher titers, stronger inflammatory responses etc., and would that lead to better health?

Also, the results obtained should be discussed in the light of the above. It is currently not clear from the discussion what the results actually mean for the animals.

The other important point is that the information about betaglucans is too summary. There are many different types and sources of betaglucans, and different properties and immunomodulating effects have been ascribed to them e.g. soluble vs particulate etc. This should be at least briefly be mentioned in the introduction. Furthermore, it is not described what type of betaglucan was used (soluble? DP?) and what the other 40% consists of.

Reviewer #2: I this study, authors assess the immunomodulatory potential of E. coli Nissle 1917 and β-glucans in vitro using porcine bone marrow-derived dendritic cell. The finding of this study are interesting, demonstrated that both β-glucans and E. coli Nissle 1917 were able to enhance dendritic cell maturation, but in a differential manner. In my opinion the manuscript is well structured and well written with minor topographical errors. I recommend to accept this paper.

Reviewer #3: This is a methodologically sound study describing the effects of foodstuffs, based on a strain of E. coli and Beta-glucans, for their effects on dendritic cells (DC), as modeled by DC derived in vitro from bone marrow cells. I presume that it the commercial use of these particular materials that has led to their selection for this study but this isn't very explicit. There is a sound rationale for focusing on DC in this sort of analysis but a major limitation of this sort of study is that it is unclear what sort of DC is relevant, what defines a 'good' response in DC and what are the circumstances in which these responses can be induced in the intestine in vivo. Perhaps these issues could be touched upon the manuscript.

I would make the following addition minor comments and suggestions:

- What was the control for the CD152-Ig staining reagent?

- How Were MFI values calculated ? Was the MFI for the control staining subtracted?

- It would be good to show example FACS plots for the relevant markers in stimulated cells in the main body of the paper (so the reader can get an idea of how the MFI values shown in graphs were derived.

- Figure legends should consistently state the number of replicates/independent experiments. It is recognised that the nature of work on pigs mean that replication will be limited - but it needs to be explicit.

- There are some minor typos etc:'rpm' instead of 'g' (L153); lack of superscript (L119); Figure S4 is not referred to in the text; the figure panels in S2 are not explained in the legend; what is FCM (L307)?

- Clarify what 'remains to be detected' (L399) means? There is no data? Ambiguous data? Conflicting data?

- What does 'appeared' (L266) mean?

- The values of the PCA analysis is unclear. It isn't really explained or described in the Results section ( there is some attempt to address this belatedly in Discussion) and it feels a bit of an afterthought.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Jun 19;15(6):e0233773. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233773.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

2 Apr 2020

Dear editor,

We would like to thank you and the reviewers for the valuable comments on our manuscript entitled “Differential immunomodulation of porcine bone marrow derived dendritic cells by E. coli Nissle 1917 and β-glucans” by Mirelle Geervliet1, Laura C.P. Lute1, Christine A. Jansen2, Victor P.M.G. Rutten2,3, Huub F.J. Savelkoul1, Edwin Tijhaar1*.

We have carefully read the comments that were presented and we resubmitted our paper including revisions. Please note that the line numbers (in yellow) correspond to the line numbers in the revised document.

Below we give a detailed point-by-point reply regarding the comments and we adapted the manuscript accordingly.

ACADEMIC EDITOR SPECIFIC COMMENTS:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at:

- http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf

- http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Authors response: we have adopted the requirements according to your suggestions in the revised manuscript. The file names are adjusted according to the PLOSONE requirements.

2. To comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements, please provide methods of sacrifice in the Methods section of your manuscript.

Authors response: The methods of sacrifice is now included in the Methods section (Ethics statement) of the manuscript (Lines 129 – 130).

3. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

Authors response: We removed the phrase ‘data not shown’ from the manuscript and referred to the public repository accordingly.

4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

Authors response: Thank you for this information. We have now obtained the requested repository information and DOI number. We removed the phrase ‘data not shown’ from the manuscript and referred to the public repository in lines 223, 254, 257 and 288. Therefore no changes regarding our data availability statement.

REVIEWER COMMENTS:

Reviewer #1: Authors describe an experiment designed study the possible immunomodulating effects of EcN and betaglucans on dendritic cells. It is in principle a study worth publishing with interesting results. There are however a few points to be resolved before publication.

• In the introduction it remains unclear what exactly is meant by immunomodulation and what the authors expect from it in terms of animal health. As is, it is very vague. For instance, do the authors aim for higher titers, stronger inflammatory responses etc., and would that lead to better health?

Authors response: We reformulated the text in the introduction (Lines 50 - 59) and discussion (Lines 404 - 409 and Lines 481 - 483) to make clear what we mean with ‘immunomodulation’; a more primed/mature state of the immune system that may contribute to a better resistance against (bacterial and viral) infections. In addition, we explain how maturation of DCs could benefit this (Lines 59 - 61). What it could mean in terms of animal health is addressed at the end of the abstract (Lines 38 - 39) and at the end of the discussion (Lines 481 - 483).

• Also, the results obtained should be discussed in the light of the above. It is currently not clear from the discussion what the results actually mean for the animals.

Authors response: As mentioned above, at the end of the abstract (Lines 38 - 40) and at the end of the discussion (Lines 481 - 483) it is better explained what the results of this study could mean for animal health.

• The other important point is that the information about betaglucans is too summary. There are many different types and sources of betaglucans, and different properties and immunomodulating effects have been ascribed to them e.g. soluble vs particulate etc. This should be at least briefly be mentioned in the introduction.

Authors response: This is indeed important to address in this article. We added additional lines about the different types and properties of betaglucans (with references) in the introduction (Lines 77 - 87).

• Furthermore, it is not described what type of betaglucan was used (soluble? DP?) and what the other 40% consists of.

Authors response: The type of betaglucans used (particulate/structure) and the composition of MacroGard® (percentage), including the non-betaglucan part, is now described in Lines 77 - 78 and Lines 160 - 163.

Reviewer #3: This is a methodologically sound study describing the effects of foodstuffs, based on a strain of E. coli and Beta-glucans, for their effects on dendritic cells (DC), as modeled by DC derived in vitro from bone marrow cells.

• I presume that it the commercial use of these particular materials that has led to their selection for this study but this isn't very explicit.

Authors response: The promising immunomodulatory properties of MacroGard (yeast-derived and particulate beta-glucans) and its commercial use in pig feed has led to the selection of this type of beta-glucans. This is now clarified in the introduction with references (lines 81 – 87). EcN is known as a versatile probiotic interacting with cells of the immune system including antigen presenting cells such as DCs. Despite its (commercial) use over 100 years in humans there is only limited information of its immunomodulatory effect in pigs (Lines 87 – 93), prompting us to examine its effect on porcine DCs.

• There is a sound rationale for focusing on DC in this sort of analysis but a major limitation of this sort of study is that it is unclear what sort of DC is relevant, what defines a 'good' response in DC and what are the circumstances in which these responses can be induced in the intestine in vivo. Perhaps these issues could be touched upon the manuscript.

Authors response: These are indeed valid points to add to the discussion. There are different types of DCs which possess different characteristic and functions based on their location and maturation status. Intestinal DCs are considered to be the target for β-glucan and probiotic activity in vivo, but are not easily accessible for in vitro studies. We have now added a more extensive explanation on this point (Lines 411 – 414). It is indeed difficult to define what is a ‘good’ DC response. Higher expression levels of the co-stimulatory molecules CD80/86 on antigen presenting cells implies that these cells are more likely to reach the required threshold for T-cell activation. In addition, the production of cytokines by the antigen presenting cells can also contribute to the development of a more effective immune response against the presented antigen (Lines 404 - 409). The circumstances in which these responses can be induced in the intestine in vivo is briefly mentioned in Lines 59 - 61 and Lines 411-412. We realize what limitations in vitro studies can have for the situation in vivo. We consider this in vitro model as a valuable method to pre-screen putative feed additives, and to select the more promising ones that will then have to be validated in vivo. This is now indicated in Lines 481 – 483.

I would make the following addition minor comments and suggestions:

• What was the control for the CD152-Ig staining reagent?

Authors response: Thank you for this question. Different controls have been used in this study. Firstly, single color stains for setting the compensation have been described in the Materials and Methods section of the manuscript. Secondly, we used unstained cells to detect possible autofluorescence. We noticed that this control accidently was missing in the manuscript, but is now included in Line 208. Because of the limited number of colors used (FITC, PE and APC) with very different emission wavelengths we did not include FMO controls. Retrospectively, the FMO control could have been included. Nonetheless, we are confident about the specific staining of the CTLA4Ig Fusion Protein as it is widely used and accepted in in vitro and in vivo studies in pigs and our CD80/86 staining/expression is in line with what has been described in other literature. We have added now added additional references (see references (1-3) below). In addition, Figure S2 shows that cells that express SLA Class-II also express CD80/86 as expected. Cells that do not express SLA Class-II do not express CD80/86 and thus no unspecific binding occurs.

• How were MFI values calculated? Was the MFI for the control staining subtracted?

Authors response: The MFI values were calculated for the CD172a+/high CD80/86+ and SLA Class-II+ population (Figure 2, panel 6). A new and more clear explanation is added in the Materials and Methods section (Lines 212 - 213). In addition, we adjusted the gating of the SLA Class-II/CD80/86 double positive population to make it more clear for the reader how the MFI was actually calculated (Figure 2, panel 6). The MFI of the control is not subtracted. The MFI of the control is indicated by the white bar in Figure 3, 4, 5 and 6 (and S4 and S5 Figure).

• It would be good to show example FACS plots for the relevant markers in stimulated cells in the main body of the paper (so the reader can get an idea of how the MFI values shown in graphs were derived.

Authors response: Thank you for this suggestion. We agreed that this addition will indeed add value to the manuscript. We added representative plots for the marker CD80/86 (Figure 5, panel A). In addition, we adjusted Figure 3 in order to show the effect of different concentrations of LPS. Both adjustments to the figure will help to better understand how the MFI values in the graphs were derived.

• Figure legends should consistently state the number of replicates/independent experiments. It is recognised that the nature of work on pigs mean that replication will be limited - but it needs to be explicit.

Authors response: We agree with this notion. The figure legends have been reviewed again and the number of replicates were now added when missing (Figure 3, 4, 7 and S4 Figure).

• There are some minor typos etc:'rpm' instead of 'g' (L153); lack of superscript (L119); Figure S4 is not referred to in the text; the figure panels in S2 are not explained in the legend; what is FCM (L307)?

Authors response: Thank you for noticing these typos. They are now corrected:

- Line 179: ‘rpm’ adjusted to ‘g’

- Line 142: Superscript is now included

- Figure S4: All Figures are referred to now.

- Figure S2: The figure panels are now explained in the legend.

- Line 192: With FCM I meant Flow Cytometry. As this abbreviation is not commonly used and to avoid confusion it has now been spelled out everywhere in the paper.

• Clarify what 'remains to be detected' (L399) means? There is no data? Ambiguous data? Conflicting data?

Authors response: To date, there is no data available. Line 399 (now Lines 432 - 434) has been re-written to clarify this.

• What does 'appeared' (L266) mean?

Authors response: The word ‘appeared’ is not used correctly in this context (too ambiguous). The word appeared has been removed.

• The values of the PCA analysis is unclear. It isn't really explained or described in the Results section (there is some attempt to address this belatedly in Discussion) and it feels a bit of an afterthought.

Authors response: Thank you for the comment. The reason to conduct the principal component analysis (PCA) was to analyse the grouping of these responses of frhBMDCs and cryoBMDCs to different stimulation conditions. We now explain the value of the PCA plot as these values are described and explained more extensively in the results section. The paragraph (Lines 368 - 386) has been re-written. In addition, the legend of Figure 7 has been re-written. To connect the PCA with the previous results, we have now clarified the added value of conducting such an analysis in Lines 368 – 372.

AUTHOR COMMENTS:

We made some minor changes which were detected during the review process.

• In the article we used ‘Macrogard’ and ‘MacroGard’. The latter brand name is the correct one and we adjusted this throughout the article.

• In the article we used ‘mean fluorescent intensity’ this should be ‘median fluorescent intensity’.We adjusted this throughout the article.

• The figure legenda’s and the order of the figures are adjusted according to the PLOSONE’s style requirements.

Looking forward to your decision.

With kind regards and on behalf of the authors,

Mirelle Geervliet

Cell Biology and Immunology Group

Wageningen University

P.O. Box 338

6700 AH Wageningen

The Netherlands

E-mail: geervlietmirelle@gmail.com

Telephone number: +3161657994

References:

1. Piriou-Guzylack L, Salmon H. Membrane markers of the immune cells in swine: an update. Veterinary research. 2008;39(6):1.

2. Summerfield A, McCullough KC. The porcine dendritic cell family. Developmental & Comparative Immunology. 2009;33(3):299-309.

3. Vreman S, Auray G, Savelkoul HF, Rebel A, Summerfield A, Stockhofe-Zurwieden N. Neonatal porcine blood derived dendritic cell subsets show activation after TLR2 or TLR9 stimulation. Developmental & Comparative Immunology. 2018;84:361-70.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file. (44KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Jagadeesh Bayry

13 May 2020

Differential immunomodulation of porcine bone marrow derived dendritic cells by E. coli Nissle 1917 and β-glucans

PONE-D-19-28012R1

Dear Dr. Geervliet,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Jagadeesh Bayry, DVM, PhD, HDR

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: Authors have made all suggested changes and improved the manuscript as required. I recommend the editorial board to accept this paper.

Reviewer #3: I made several comments and suggestions on the original submission. I am satisfied that the authors have taken these comments on board and made changes to the manuscript accordingly.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Acceptance letter

Jagadeesh Bayry

10 Jun 2020

PONE-D-19-28012R1

Differential immunomodulation of porcine bone marrow derived dendritic cells by E. coli Nissle 1917 and β-glucans

Dear Dr. Geervliet:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Jagadeesh Bayry

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. β-glucans does not contain LPS and does not induce hTLR4 mediated NF-κB activation.

    (A) 100 μg/mL β-glucans (MacroGard®) was tested for LPS contamination using a recombinant factor C LAL assay preparation. A 5 EU spiked control was included (n = 1). (B) Different concentrations (1 mg/mL– 0.1 μg/mL) of commercial β-glucans (MacroGard®) and LPS (100 pg/mL) were tested for their NF-κB activation via hTLR4 (n = 3).

    (TIF)

    Click here for additional data file. (230.3KB, tif)
    S2 Fig. Phenotype of cryopreserved cultured porcine mononuclear phagocytes.

    Gating strategy following multicolour flow cytometry staining using Abs against CD172a, SLA Class-II and CD80/86. Cells showing high forward scatter (FSC-A) and side scatter (SSC-A) profiles were gated, followed by the selection of single cells (FSC-W/H and SSC-W/H) and viable cells (SSC-A/7-AAD). Among these cells, BMDCs were defined as the CD172a+/high cells (SSC-A/CD172a) expressing SLA Class-II and CD80/86.

    (TIF)

    Click here for additional data file. (820.5KB, tif)
    S3 Fig. Phenotype of CD172a+/- (intermediate) cell population.

    Gating strategy of (A) frhBMDCs and (B) cryoBMDCs following multicolour flow cytometry staining using Abs against CD172a, SLA Class-II and CD80/86. The CD172a+/- (intermediate) cell population (SSC-A/CD172a) does not express SLA Class-II and CD80/86 in both frhBMDC and cryoBMDC cell cultures.

    (TIF)

    Click here for additional data file. (790.4KB, tif)
    S4 Fig. FrhBMDCs and cryoBMDCs upregulate SLA Class-II in a dose-dependent manner upon stimulation with LPS.

    (A) FrhBMDCs and cryoBMDCs (obtained from the same animal, n = 1) were stimulated with different concentrations of LPS or unstimulated using cell culture medium (negative control; Ctrl). After 24 hours, the expression (MFI) of the maturation markers SLA Class-II were measured using Flow Cytometry. The data are shown as the means ± the standard error of the mean (SEM) of three technical replicates. A one-way ANOVA with a Dunnett’s post hoc test was performed, comparing multiple groups to the untreated cells (control): *** = P<0.001, **P<0.01 and * P<0.05. (B) Representative contour plots of SLA Class-II expression on LPS stimulated frhBMDCs and cryoBMDCs. The contour plots are based on forward scatter (y-axis) and SLA Class-II expression (x-axis). The highest concentration of LPS (10 μg/mL) and cell culture medium (negative control; blue) are presented in this figure.

    (TIF)

    Click here for additional data file. (902.9KB, tif)
    S5 Fig. SLA Class-II is not upregulated upon stimulation with EcN, β-glucans or LPS.

    Immature (A) frhBMDCs and (B) cryoBMDCs (obtained from the same animal) were stimulated with different concentrations of E. coli Nissle 1917, β-glucans or LPS. Unstimulated cells are represented by the white bars (negative control; Ctrl). After 24 hours, the upregulation of SLA Class-II was measured using Flow Cytometry (n = 4 animals). Relative fold change was calculated by dividing the MFI of stimulated BMDC/MFI of unstimulated BMDC (Ctrl) of each animal. The data are shown as the means ± the standard error of the mean (SEM) of 4 animals. A one-way ANOVA with a Dunnett’s post hoc test was performed, comparing multiple groups to the untreated cells (control): *** = P<0.001, **P<0.01 and * P<0.05.

    (TIF)

    Click here for additional data file. (669.6KB, tif)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (44KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All data and files related to the manuscript will be available from 4TUCentre for Research (Wageningen University). DOI: 10.4121/uuid:f27e43c4-ab38-41a2-be4d-c0753855b508.

    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES