Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Nov 6;15(11):e0241861. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241861

Lipopolysaccharide triggers different transcriptional signatures in taurine and indicine cattle macrophages: Reactive oxygen species and potential outcomes to the development of immune response to infections

Raquel Morais de Paiva Daibert 1,#, Carlos Alberto Oliveira de Biagi Junior 2,, Felipe de Oliveira Vieira 1,, Marcos Vinicius Gualberto Barbosa da Silva 3,, Eugenio Damaceno Hottz 1,, Mariana Brandi Mendonça Pinheiro 1,, Daniele Ribeiro de Lima Reis Faza 3,, Hyago Passe Pereira 1,, Marta Fonseca Martins 3,, Humberto de Mello Brandão 3,, Marco Antônio Machado 3,#, Wanessa Araújo Carvalho 3,*
Editor: Gordon Langsley4
PMCID: PMC7647108  PMID: 33156842

Abstract

Macrophages are classified upon activation as classical activated M1 and M2 anti-inflammatory regulatory populations. This macrophage polarization is well characterized in humans and mice, but M1/M2 profile in cattle has been far less explored. Bos primigenius taurus (taurine) and Bos primigenius indicus (indicine) cattle display contrasting levels of resistance to infection and parasitic diseases such as C57BL/6J and Balb/c murine experimental models of parasite infection outcomes based on genetic background. Thus, we investigated the differential gene expression profile of unstimulated and LPS stimulated monocyte-derived macrophages (MDMs) from Holstein (taurine) and Gir (indicine) breeds using RNA sequencing methodology. For unstimulated MDMs, the contrast between Holstein and Gir breeds identified 163 Differentially Expressed Genes (DEGs) highlighting the higher expression of C-C chemokine receptor type five (CCR5) and BOLA-DQ genes in Gir animals. LPS-stimulated MDMs from Gir and Holstein animals displayed 1,257 DEGs enriched for cell adhesion and inflammatory responses. Gir MDMs cells displayed a higher expression of M1 related genes like Nitric Oxide Synthase 2 (NOS2), Toll like receptor 4 (TLR4), Nuclear factor NF-kappa-B 2 (NFKB2) in addition to higher levels of transcripts for proinflammatory cytokines, chemokines, complement factors and the acute phase protein Serum Amyloid A (SAA). We also showed that gene expression of inflammatory M1 population markers, complement and SAA genes was higher in Gir in buffy coat peripheral cells in addition to nitric oxide concentration in MDMs supernatant and animal serum. Co-expression analyses revealed that Holstein and Gir animals showed different transcriptional signatures in the MDMs response to LPS that impact on cell cycle regulation, leukocyte migration and extracellular matrix organization biological processes. Overall, the results suggest that Gir animals show a natural propensity to generate a more pronounced M1 inflammatory response than Holstein, which might account for a faster immune response favouring resistance to many infection diseases.

Introduction

The modern domestic cattle is composed by two distinct subspecies, Bos primigenius taurus (taurine cattle) and Bos primigenius indicus (indicine cattle), originated from European and Asian continent, respectively [1]. These subspecies show many differences in morphophysiological and genetic parameters [2, 3] which influence infection and parasitic diseases outcome in bovine cattle [35]. Even within subspecies, breeds show differences in the amount and response of immune cells as well as inflammatory mediators production [69]. In this context, researchers have highlighted the genomic background impact on in vivo proinflammatory innate immune, metabolic and endocrine responses to bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS) between two taurine breeds [10]. LPS is the main cell wall component of Gram-negative bacteria that triggers the production and release of endogen mediators including platelet-activating factors and thromboxanes, reactive oxygen species as nitric oxide, interleukin-1 (IL-1), IL-6 and tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) from monocytes/macrophages of host vertebrate species [11, 12]. LPS activates cellular responses by association to TLR4 membrane receptor and CD14 co-receptor through recruiting adaptor molecules and culminating in activation of proinflammatory transcription factors [13]. The inflammatory innate immune response is mainly mediated by monocytes, macrophages and neutrophils which recognize pathogen-associated molecular patterns, such as LPS. These cells will phagocyte and kill pathogens and simultaneously coordinate T helper and memory immune response development by synthesizing inflammatory mediators and cytokines [14].

Bovine monocytes and macrophages show divergent subpopulations which seems to have common characteristics with humans and murine models [15]. Macrophages subpopulations are characterized as proinflammatory, classically activated M1 and anti-inflammatory, regulatory M2 populations [16]. The M1/M2 macrophage polarization nomenclature was introduced in the year 2000, based on the propensity of C57BL/6J macrophages to be more easily activated to produce NO (M1 polarized) than Balb/c mice (M2 polarized) [17] which mediate differences in susceptibility to a variety of infection diseases [18]. The macrophage polarization phenotypes have been well characterized in humans and mice, but M1/M2 macrophage profiling in cattle has been far less explored. Since taurine and indicine cattle breeds show different levels of resistance to infection and parasitic diseases, we hypothesized that these phenotypes may be related to specific macrophage activation pathways associated to type 1 and 2 immune response in cattle. Therefore, the aim of this study was to check if the MDMs from taurine (Holstein) and indicine (Gir) breeds could exhibit different transcriptional signatures triggered by LPS stimulation that might affect innate immune activation influencing the outcome of parasitism and infection in cattle.

Materials and methods

Animals

Indicine (Gir; n = 6) and taurine (Holstein; n = 6) animals aged from 6 to 12 months old were produced at Embrapa Dairy Cattle Research Centre experimental station in Coronel Pacheco, Brazil. All animals were healthy, vaccinated accordingly, kept stabled and ad libitum fed for three months prior to sample collection in order to certify they were free from any chemical agent, infections and parasitic diseases that could interfere with the trials. All animals were housed to be used in further research after this experimental trial was finished. The experimental design was approved by Embrapa Dairy Cattle Research Centre Ethics Committee filed under CEUA 5578010817.

Blood collection and differentiation of bovine monocyte-derived macrophages (MDMs) in vitro

Peripheral blood was individually collected to obtain monocytes which were in vitro differentiated into macrophages as already described elsewhere with minor adjustments in the original protocol [19]. Fetal bovine serum (FBS) was used to avoid interference in the cellular differentiation caused by individual biochemical components present in autologous serum. Briefly, leukoplatelet layer was separated from 60ml of peripheral blood samples by centrifugation at 300 xg for 10 min, followed by suspension in 5ml of phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). The mononuclear cells were separated by hydrophilic density polysaccharide gradient 1,077 g/ml Ficoll (GE Healthcare, Chicago, USA) by centrifugation at 400xg for 40 minutes at room temperature. The mononuclear cells layer was suspended in RPMI-1640 medium (Sigma-Aldrich, Saint Louis, USA) supplemented with inactivated 10% FBS (LGC Biotecnologia, Cotia, Brazil), 2 mM L-glutamine (Sigma-Aldrich, Saint Louis, USA), 10 mM sodium pyruvate (Sigma-Aldrich, Saint Louis, USA), non-essential amino acid solution 1% MEM (Sigma-Aldrich, Saint Louis, USA) and 1% antibiotic antimycotic solution (Sigma-Aldrich, Saint Louis, USA). Adherent cells were differentiated into macrophages at cell chambers with 5% CO2 at 37°C for 11 days, as already described in literature [19].

In vitro characterization of bovine macrophage differentiation from monocytes

Bovine macrophage differentiation from adherent mononuclear cells were characterized by morphological changes followed by light microscopy (Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany) and cell immunophenotyping. Flow cytometry was used to quantify CD14 and CD11b expression on mononuclear cell surface and evaluate adherent cell differentiation at 24h and 11 days of cell culture. For that, adherent cells were collected with cell dissociation solution non-enzymatic (Sigma-Aldrich, Saint Louis, USA) as described by the manufacturer’s recommendations. The viable cell count was performed by Trypan blue exclusion test [20]. A total of 2x105 cells were isolated and each sample marked with anti-CD-14-FITC (Bio-Rad, Hercules, USA) and anti-CD11b-FITC (Bio-Rad, Hercules, USA) antibodies individually. Mouse IgG1 and IgG2 (Bio-Rad, Hercules, USA) were used as isotype controls according to manufacturer's recommendations. After incubation with detection antibodies for 30 min, cells were washed with PBS (Sigma-Aldrich, Saint Louis, USA) and acquired with FacsVerse cytometer (BD Biosciences, Franklin, USA). FlowJo software (Tree Star Inc., Ashland, USA) was used to quantify the percentage of mononuclear cells expressing CD11b and CD14 on 24 hours and 11 days of cell culture differentiation. Statistical analyses were performed by GraphPad Prism software version 5.0 for Windows (GraphPad Software Inc, San Diego, USA), adopting significance of P<0.05.

Bovine MDM LPS stimulation, library preparation and RNA sequencing

After 11 days of in vitro cell differentiation, taurine (Holstein; n = 6) and indicine (Gir; n = 6) MDMs were individually incubated for 48h with 100 ng/ml LPS from Escherichia coli O111:B4 (Sigma-Aldrich, Saint Louis, USA). For the negative control without stimulation, only culture medium was used. The total RNA from cells was extracted with RNeasy Micro kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) according to manufacturer’s instructions. RNA samples were quantified with Nanodrop 1000 (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, USA) spectrophotometer and integrity evaluated by Bioanalyzer using RNA 6000 Pico kit (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, USA) according to manufacturer’s instructions.

TruSeq Stranded mRNA Sample Preparation Kit (Illumina, San Diego, USA) was used to generate cDNA libraries from samples that showed a minimum of 100 ng total RNA and RNA integrity number (RIN) over 7,00. RNA sequencing was performed in 16 MDM samples using the HiSeq 2500 DNA sequencer (Illumina, San Diego, USA) using the HiSeq SBS Kit v4 (Illumina, San Diego, USA), according to manufacturer's recommendations for gene expression profiling experiments focusing a quick snapshot of highly expressed genes. Unstimulated (n = 8) and LPS treated MDM (n = 8) RNA samples in which half were from Gir and half from Holstein animals were sequenced generating a depth of 10 million 100 bp paired-end reads per sample. NGS data were deposited at GEO repository (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo) on query GSE147813.

The quality of RNA sequencing reads was verified with FastQC software v0.11.7 (https://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc/). After that, reads were mapped to the bovine reference genome ARS-UCD1.2 from Ensembl database (Bos_taurus.ARS-UCD1.2.dna.toplevel.fa.gz). Spliced Transcripts Alignment were accomplished using the Spliced Transcripts Alignment to a Reference (STAR) software v.2.6.0c [21] using the annotation archive from the same database (Bos_taurus.ARS-UCD1.2.101.gtf.gz). Only exclusively mapped reads were considered for MDMs transcriptome analysis. Estimation of transcript abundance was accomplished with HTSeq-count software v0.10.0 [22].

Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) and enrichment analysis

The contrast of transcript abundance between Holstein and Gir breeds for each unstimulated and LPS treated MDMs was performed by the EdgeR package version 3.8 [23] and R version 3.5.0 (http://www.R-project.org). Briefly, gene counts for each contrast was submitted to an initial filtering step, including genes with at least one count per million (CPM) in at least four libraries. The differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were considered statistically significant when false discovery rate (FDR) was <0.05 and Log of fold change (LogFC) were ≥1 in paired comparison. An interactive Venn diagram viewer (Jvenn, http://jvenn.toulouse.inra.fr/app/index.html) [24] was used to determine shared expression data between breeds and stimuli. Heatmaps were elaborated for breed contrasts using the Heatmapper software (http://www2.heatmapper.ca/expression/).

The Database for Annotation, Visualization and Integrated Discovery version 6.8 (DAVID, http://david.abcc.ncifcrf.gov/) [25] was used for DEGs functional annotations, for obtaining official gene symbols and for ontology analyses (GO) of DEGs (LogFC≥1; CPM>1; FDR<0.05).

Co-expression analysis using Regulatory Impact Factors (RIF) and Partial Correlation and Information Theory (PCIT)

The transcript abundance counting tables was used as input to CeTF [26, 27] package in R to run the co-expression of bovine Transcription Factors using RIF [28] and PCIT [29] analyses. This package was also used to obtain the ontologies related to Biological Processes from the Gene Ontology database [30, 31] associated to the bovine key transcription factors (KeyTF) [32] and DEGs in context of metabolic pathways. The Cytoscape software [33] was used to visualize and manipulate the interaction among DEGs, KeyTF and enriched biological process networks. The Diffany plugin [34] was used to infer differential molecular networks between Holstein and Gir MDMs stimulated with LPS.

Quantitative real-time-PCR (RT-qPCR)

The RT-qPCR was performed to validate RNA-Seq data analyses in addition to investigate the buffy coat cells gene expression involved in the immune response of animals used in the trial. RNA samples were extracted from both MDMs and peripheral buffy coat from Holstein (n = 6) and Gir (n = 6) samples. RNA extraction from unstimulated and LPS treated MDMs from Gir (n = 4 per stimulus) and Holstein (n = 4 per stimulus) animals was performed with RNeasy Micro kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The buffy coat cells were obtained from each animal by peripheral blood centrifugation (300xg). The white cell layer was removed followed by ACK (Ammonium-Chloride-Potassium) red cell lysis and RNA extraction using the SV Total RNA Isolation System (Promega, Madison, USA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The total RNA extracted was quantified by the Nanodrop 1000 Spectrophotometer (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, USA) and its integrity was evaluated by Bioanalyzer with RNA 6000 Pico kit (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, USA). Samples were submitted to cDNA synthesis by SuperScript IV First-Strand Synthesis System kit (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, USA), according to manufacturer's instructions.

RT-qPCR assays were performed with PowerUp SYBR Green Master Mix (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, USA), according to the manufacturer instructions, using the 7500 Fast Real-Time PCR System (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, USA). Gene amplification targets were selected after RNA sequencing analysis based on DEGs enriched for immunological process and M1/M2 population biomarkers. Primers sequences were obtained using Primer Express v.3.0 software (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, California, EUA) and described in the S1 Table. The RT-qPCR efficiency stablished for all gene targets ranged from 95–105%. Ribosomal Protein Lateral Stalk Subunit P0 (RPLP0) and Ubiquitin genes were used as reference based on expression stability calculated according to GeNORM procedure [35]. Average of Ct values from targets and reference genes were calculated for each sample using ABI Real Time PCR 7500 software v2.3 (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, USA). Statistical analyses were performed using the SigmaPlot 11.0 (Systat Software Inc., San Jose, USA) to test the equality between relative gene expression variation means from breeds and treatments. We adopted P<0.05 as significant threshold for the differences resulted from experimental contrasts. The graphical representation was performed by GraphPad Prism software version 5.0 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, USA).

Nitric oxide (NO) dosage

The NO production was indirectly detected in MDMs culture supernatants and serum from Holstein and Gir samples by quantifying the NO breakdown product nitrite using Griess method [36]. Briefly, nitrite was quantified by reaction with 0.5% sulfanilamide (Sigma-Aldrich, S0251) and 0.05% N-(1-Naphthyl)-ethylenediamine dihydrochloride (Sigma-Aldrich, N-9125). A standard curve was prepared by serial dilution of sodium nitrite (Sigma-Aldrich, S2252). The absorbances of Griess reactions were determined by SpectraMax microplate reader (Molecular Devices, San Jose, USA), using 595nm for each sample in duplicate. Means and standard deviation (SD) of Nitrite concentration (μM) were calculated for each sample by linear regression curves and used for statistical analyses performed by SigmaPlot version 11.0 (Systat Software Inc., San Jose, USA) adopting P<0.05 as significance threshold. Graphic representation was obtained by GraphPad Prism version 5.0 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, USA).

Results and discussion

Bovine monocyte-derived macrophages (MDMs), LPS treatment and RNA sequencing

Regarding the MDM production, instead of using autologous serum [19], which contains cytokines and chemokines that vary individually and might affect macrophage activation phenotype, FBS was added to cell culture to assure assay standardization during MDM differentiation. Monocytes are the main adherent cells present in peripheral blood and express less CD14 and more CD11b receptors on cellular plasmatic membrane (CD14LOWCD11bHIGH) while macrophages show the opposite expression pattern (CD14HIGHCD11bLOW) [37, 38]. For human and murine species, MDM shows low CD14 expression, which is increased after days of in vitro differentiation [39]. Corroborating these findings, our flow cytometry analysis of bovine adherent mononuclear cells showed an increase of CD14 receptor expression whereas CD11b decreased after 11 days of cell differentiation (P = 0.015; Fig 1A and 1B). Indeed, the bovine adherent mononuclear cells, characterized as monocytes (CD14LOWCD11bHIGH), displayed morphological microscopic changes on days 1, 5, 8 and 11 of differentiation (Fig 1C) showing irregular spreading and elongation compatible to macrophage traits [19, 40]. Once bovine MDM (CD14HIGHCD11bLOW) was obtained from Holstein (taurine) and Gir (indicine) blood samples, LPS was used to access the in vitro inflammatory immune response pattern displayed by these cattle breeds, using RNA sequencing.

Fig 1. In vitro differentiation of bovine monocytes (CD11bhiCD14low) into macrophages (CD11b lowCD14hi) characterized by flow cytometry and light microscopy.

Fig 1

(A) Percentage of mononuclear cells expressing CD11b (black boxes) and CD14 (gray boxes) receptors on cellular membrane on days 2 and 11 after in vitro macrophage differentiation (n = 6; average ± SD; *P = 0.015). (B) Representative overlapped histograms displaying fluorescence intensity on FITC channel unstained cells (NM; black line) and individual acquired CD11b FITC and CD14 FITC stained cells on day 2 (green line) and day11 (pink line) after monocyte isolation and differentiation into macrophages. (C) Typical photos of bovine monocyte differentiation into macrophages taken by optical microscopy showing its original magnification (x10 or x40) and the number of days in cell culture (1, 5, 8 and 11 days). White arrows indicate cells with adherence to the flasks at day 5; cells spreading and acquiring primary shape of macrophage at day 8; and final differentiation into macrophage at day 11 showing elongation and spreading patterns.

The quality control of the sequenced reads showed Phred scores over 32, sequence length around 100 base pairs (bp), total of reads over 10 million per sample, and percentage of deduplicated reads around 46% (Table 1). The average number of reads mapped to reference genome ARS-UCD1.2 per sample (R1+R2) was 9.68±0.96 million depth, and the average percentage of uniquely mapped reads of 90.67%±1,20 (S1 Fig). NGS representativeness also showed a similar number of transcripts detected for each treatment in both breeds (CPM>1.0; S1 Fig). Overall, these results indicate that RNA sequences generated displayed high-quality scores and levels of redundancy ensuring that read abundance was not affected by biases during the library construction. Our experiments used a low depth [41] but enough to display a high coverage, which allowed to access the major genes involved in LPS response in Gir and Holstein breeds.

Table 1. Quantity and quality of RNA sequence reads obtained from Gir and Holstein MDMs.

Treatment Breed Total sequences Phred Quality Score Sequences remaining if deduplicated (% ± SD)
LPS Gir 10,385,461 ± 839,114 > 32 44,74 ± 1,76
LPS Holstein 10,894,776 ± 1,322,852 > 32 46,01 ± 2,88
Unstimulated Gir 10,627,817 ± 1,235,564 > 32 46,76 ± 2,09
Unstimulated Holstein 10,773,240 ± 381,359 > 32 47,94 ± 1,94

Total number and quality evaluated by FastQC v0.11.7 software from in vitro unstimulated and LPS treated (100ng/ml) MDMs of Holstein and Gir cattle breeds.

Breed-specific bovine MDM transcriptional signatures and its impact on inflammation development for Gir and Holstein cattle

In order to access the in vitro major key process triggered by LPS in MDMs from Gir and Holstein animals, four different contrasts were used to generate lists of Differentially Expressed Genes (DEGs): (i) unstimulated and LPS treated MDMs within the same breed–Holstein (S2 Table) and Gir (S3 Table); (ii) unstimulated and LPS treated MDMs from Gir and Holstein (S4 Table) and (iii) LPS treated MDMs from Holstein and Gir breeds (S5 Table). Although MDMs were obtained under the same cell culture parameters, different numbers of DEGs were found in each analysed contrast, especially the ones that compare Gir and Holstein samples (Fig 2A). A total of 955 exclusive DEGs were found in the contrast between LPS treated MDMs from Holstein and Gir breeds, which accounted for 96.4% of the total unique genes in each contrast (Fig 2B). These results suggest that Gir MDMs are more responsive to LPS in comparison to Holstein samples and this might account for different outcome of inflammatory response among these breeds.

Fig 2. Overview of transcription data from MDMs of Holstein and Gir breeds.

Fig 2

(A) Summary of numbers of upregulated and downregulated genes (FDR<0.05, LogFC≥1) determined by amounts of evaluated transcripts (CPM>1) between in vitro unstimulated and LPS (100 ng/ml) treated MDMs from Holstein (n = 4) and Gir (n = 4) MDMs. “#” denotes unrated contrasts. (B) Venn diagram showing DEGs (FDR<0.05, LogFC≥1) shared among all evaluated contrasts. Green diagram: unstimulated versus LPS treated Gir MDMs. Blue diagram: unstimulated cells versus LPS treated Holstein MDMs. Pink diagram: LPS treated Holstein versus Gir MDMs. Yellow diagram: unstimulated cells Holstein versus Gir MDMs. The graphic bars show the total number of DEGs for each contrast in the Venn diagram followed by numbers of specific genes in each contrast or shared between two, three or four contrasts.

The Heatmap of RNA sequencing data showed different patterns of gene expression according to the bovine genetic background and MDM stimulus (Fig 3). In order to access the major biological processes that mediated the different gene expression patterns, DEGs were enriched for all analysed contrasts (S6S9 Tables). DEGs enrichment analysis of unstimulated MDMs from Holstein and Gir returned no biological process showing FDR≤0.05 (S6 Table) although indicated putative differences in immune response development (P = 0.001 and FDR = 1.99). Gir MDMs showed higher expression of Bovine Leukocyte Antigen (BOLA) family (BOLA-DQ A2, logFC = -6.9 and P = 3.80E-10; BOLA-DQA5, logFC = -6.2 and P = 7.68E-08; BOLA-DQB, logFC = -3.5 and P = 0.0006; Fig 3A; S4 Table) and C-C chemokine receptor type 5 (CCR5; logFC = -1.9 and P = 0.0006; Fig 3A; S4 Table). Interestingly, BoLA receptor family mediate antigen presentation to T-lymphocytes and its variant alleles has been linked to differences in resistance to many disease, including mastitis caused by gram negative bacteria [4244]. The CCR5 receptor acts on leucocyte recruitment to inflammation site [45] and, coupled with BOLA, might influence differential outcomes of immune response in each bovine breed. DEGs enrichment from the contrast between unstimulated and LPS treated Holstein MDMs did not display biological processes showing FDR≤0.05 (S7 Table) although genes involved in inflammatory response triggered by LPS were differentially expressed. It is noteworthy that Nitric Oxide Synthase 2 (NOS2) was not found as DEG in contrasts between Holstein treated MDMs although the Negative Regulator of Reactive Oxygen Species (NRROS) was upregulated in LPS stimulus (logFC = -1.5 and P = 7.65E-05; S2 and S7 Tables). On the other hand, unstimulated vs LPS treated Gir MDMs displayed various DEGs enriched for chemokine-mediated signalling pathway (P = 1,32E-09 and FDR = 2,20E-06), cellular response to tumour necrosis factor (P = 2,45E-09 and FDR = 4,08E-06), cell chemotaxis (P = 2,84E-09 and FDR = 4,73E-06) and cellular response to interleukin-1 (IL-1; P = 5,13E-07 and FDR = 8,54E-04), along with additional biological processes (S8 Table). Unstimulated Gir MDMs showed higher levels of transcripts for MHC and CCR5 in relation to Holstein animals, in addition to various DEGs enriched for biological process in unstimulated vs LPS treated Gir MDMs. This fact might account for a faster response against pathogens favouring resistance to diseases in indicine animals.

Fig 3. In vitro stimulated MDMs transcriptional profile of Holstein and Gir breeds.

Fig 3

Heatmap of RNA sequencing data characterized as row-wise Z scores in CPM. Heatmap Z-scores were calculated for each row (each gene) and each column (each sample) and plotted according to the normalized expression values. (A) Unstimulated MDMs from Holstein (n = 4) and Gir (n = 4) breeds displayed 139 DEGs (FDR<0.05, LogFC≥1) related to biological processes of antigen processing and presentation via MHC class II, immune response and G1/S transition of mitotic cell cycle and (B) LPS stimulated MDMs from Holstein (n = 4) and Gir (n = 4) breeds displayed 920 total DEGs (FDR<0.05, LogFC≥1) related to biological processes of inflammatory response, regulation of cell proliferation and cell chemotaxis. The main DEGs were highlighted according to the enriched biological processes (P<0.05 and FDR≤0.05). H1, H2, H3, H5: Holstein samples; G2, G5, G6, G7: Gir samples.

When we compare the transcriptome data from Holstein and Gir LPS activated MDMs, the differences on gene expression were augmented which culminated in very distinct transcriptional signatures (Fig 3B). Gene expression of Toll-like receptor (TLR4, logFC = -1.08 and P = 0.002) and Nuclear factor-κB (NFκB, logFC = -0.80 and P = 0.020) were higher in LPS stimulated MDMs from Gir than Holstein animals (S5 Table). Taking a deep look into the signalling pathways triggered by LPS, the Nuclear factor NF-kappa-B (NFκB) activation occurs, among other ways, through recognition of LPS by TLR4. The TLR4 and their co-receptor CD14 activate recruit adaptors molecules [46] which increase the complement 3 (C3) receptor expression [47] and culminate in Myeloid Differentiation primary response 88 (MyD88) and NFκB activation. The complement factor 3 (C3, logFC = -1.28574 and P = 0.04) was also highly expressed in Gir LPS stimulated MDMs (Fig 3B; S5 Table) which could be involved in the indicine resistance to tick infestations and babesiosis [48], mastitis [49, 50] and heat stress [51]. The MyD88 dependent pathway activates NFκB and the pro-inflammatory cytokines production, promoting the recruitment and activation of Interleukin-1 Receptor Associated Kinases 1, 2 and 4 (IRAK1, IRAK2 and IRAK4), while the independent pathway of this molecule, via TIR-domain-containing adapter-inducing interferon-β (TRIF) induces type 1 IFNs [52]. It is noteworthy that IRAK2 (logFC = -0.97 and P = 0.018) was found upregulated in Gir LPS treated MDMs when compared to Holstein (S5 Table). These cascades result in many inflammation mediators biosynthesis, such as TNFα and IL-6 [53] that are associated to acute phase response which controls innate and adaptive immune response development. In addition, Gir MDMs also express more transcripts for the acute phase protein Serum Amyloid A 2 and 3 (SAA2 and SAA3; logFC = -7.01, P = 3.30E-07 and logFC = -1.78, P = 1.59E-06, respectively). The transcription factor NFκB can also be activated via nucleotide-binding oligomerization domain-like receptors (NOD-like receptors), independently of TLR [54]. The TLR signalling pathway and NOD-like receptor-associated inflammasome activation are required for active IL-1β secretion, which binds to its receptor IL-1R1 after caspase cleavage and activates NFκB [55]. The IL1RN gene encodes an IL-1 receptor antagonist protein (IL-1R1), which competes with IL-1 and inhibits the IL-1α e IL-1β synthesis [56]. These cytokines are endogenous pyrogen that control the inflammation development through modulation of cell surveillance, increasing expression of adhesion molecules and inducing secretion of acute phase proteins [5762]. Interestingly, our results showed that IL1RN (logFC = -3.15 and P = 0.002), IL1RL (logFC = -6.02 and P = 4.19E-11), IL36 (logFC = -1.51 and P = 1.39E-05), NOD2 (logFC = -0.99 and P = 0.021) and NFκB2 (NFKB2; logFC = -1.04 and P = 0.002) genes were highly expressed in Gir LPS stimulated MDMs (Fig 3B; S5 Table). Since these genes regulate tightly the cell activation and fate, DEG enrichment analysis of LPS treated MDMs from Holstein and Gir displayed many biological processes associated to cell division and replication (S9 Table). In this way, Gir MDMs appear to have a natural tendency to generate more pro-inflammatory immune response through increased activation and recruitment of leukocyte to the site of inflammation. Thus, it is reasonable to suggest more detailed studies in order to take a deeper look in the signalling pathways that underly phenotypes of inflammatory response regarding LPS activation in bovine macrophages and its influence on the outcome of inflammatory immune response to bacterial infections.

Co-expression analysis

Although transcription factors (TF) play a central regulatory role in cell biology, the detection of their expression in RNA sequence analyses is limited due to their low, and often sparse, expression. The partial correlation and information theory approach (PCIT) [63] and the regulatory impact factor (RIF) metric were used to identify key transcription factors (KeyTF) from gene expression data [26, 27, 29]. The gene co-expression analysis, performed by Bioconductor package CeTF [26, 27] calculated RIF1, which captures TF showing differential connectivity to DEGs found in contrast between breeds, and RIF2, that focuses on TF showing evidence as predictors of change in abundance of genes with differential expression between breeds (S10 Table). CeTF analysis of LPS treated MDMs displaying all DEGs associated to KeyTF for each bovine breed were plotted in the Cystoscape software and then overlapped by Diffany plugin [34] to highlight genes that were exclusive enriched for biological processed according to each bovine breed (Fig 4). Co-expression networks of Holstein and Gir LPS stimulated MDM revealed various genes detected in genome wide association studies that aim to improve genomic breeding indices (Fig 5 and S11 Table), e.g., milk production [6468], clinical and subclinical mastitis [6972], puberty [68, 7375], feed efficiency [76], adaptation to ecologic conditions [7779] and cellular and humoral immune responses [49, 8082]. The biological process enrichment after co-expression analysis also stood out the importance of leukocyte migration and extracellular matrix organization, both controlled by chemokines and cytokines produced by macrophages in inflammation triggered by LPS in Gir and Holstein MDMs. Interestingly, a recent genome wide association study listed the top 10 SNPs that explain 5.05% of B. bovis infection level additive genetic variance and identified 42 candidate genes involved in chemokine signalling, extracellular matrix organization and NO production biological mechanisms that might underlie B. bovis resistance in cattle [83].

Fig 4. Meaningful gene-gene associations in co-expression networks of LPS stimulated MDM from Holstein and Gir breeds emphasizing ontology-based differential frameworks enrichment analysis.

Fig 4

Network displaying differential interactions among DEGs of MDMs in Holstein (n = 4) and Gir (n = 4) breeds after co-expression analysis using CeTF and Diffany Cytoscape plugin. Red edges indicate decreased connections in Gir network compared to Holstein LPS stimulated MDMs after 48 hours. Green edges indicate increased connections in Gir network compared to Holstein MDMs in the same condition. Gray hexagonal nodes indicate key transcriptional factors (KeyTF) obtained after PCIT/RIF analysis in CeTF (Bioconductor package). Circular red nodes indicate up-regulated genes while blue nodes indicate downregulated genes found in comparison of MDMs from Holstein and Gir breeds stimulated with LPS and enriched after PCIT/RIF analysis. Lighter and darker hues, as well as the size of the circle, are associated to representativeness of gene expression in the analyses. Genes that displayed unique interaction with KeyTF are highlight by thicker edges. The key ontologies related to Biological Processes differently enriched for Holstein and Gir breeds after co-expression analyses are highlight in grey boxes. LM: Leukocyte Migration; CR: Cell Cycle Regulation; EMO: Extracellular Matrix Organization; Intersect: Genes enriched for more than one process highlighted by co-expression analysis. Genes not related to any Biological process but detected in RIF/PCIT/Dyffany analyses were grouped in the middle of the figure. All statistical analyses were performed according to software and plugin default parameters and significance thresholds were P<0.001 and FDR<0.05.

Fig 5. Differential systemic inflammatory responses in Holstein and Gir cattle.

Fig 5

(A-G) Gene expression of inflammatory molecules from Holstein and Gir buffy coat cells by RT-qPCR. All data were shown as target genes ΔCt average ± SD. *** P<0.001, T-test. (H) Nitrite concentration in serum from Holstein and Gir breeds in homeostatic conditions free of pathogens and drug treatment for three months. Data are shown as concentration average ± SD for each group. T-test was used for comparisons between breeds (*P<0.05).

Differential expression of proinflammatory genes in buffy coat cells and LPS treated MDMs from Holstein and Gir cattle and their influence on NO production

Literature findings, especially in murine experimental models represented by C57BL/6 and BALB/c mice, showed that M1 macrophages display a proinflammatory phenotype associated to pathogen-killing abilities while M2 macrophages promote cell proliferation and tissue repair [84]. The macrophage polarization phenotypes have been well characterized in humans and mice influencing on the outcome of infections and parasitic diseases. Unfortunately, M1/M2 macrophage profiling in cattle has been far less explored, mainly for taurine and indicine cattle which are two bovine subspecies that share a common ancestor [85] and display different levels of resistance to infections and parasitic diseases [3, 5, 86]. In order to evaluate if Gir (indicine breed) are committed to a more pro inflammatory status than Holstein animals (taurine breed), the expression of genes associated to M1/M2 phenotypes of inflammatory outcomes such as Ornithine Aminotransferase (OAT), NRROS, IL-10, TLR4 was evaluated in buffy coat cells from both breeds. The gene expression of complement factors 1 and 3 (C1 and C3) and the acute phase protein SAA were also evaluated since these molecules are responsible for inflammation amplification [87, 88] and were constantly observed in MDMs transcriptome analysis. The RT-qPCR results from buffy coat cells indicate that all analysed genes were less expressed in Holstein than in Gir samples (Fig 5A–5G; P<0.001). The same genes evaluated in buffy coat cells were also used to validate the MDMs RNA sequencing data (S2A–S2J Fig). The expression of these genes and the ones related to inflammatory signalling pathways such as NOS2, Interleukin 1 Receptor Associated Kinase 1 (IRAK1), factor nuclear kappa B (NFKB2) matched to the transcriptome analysis, except for IL10 which was not found as DEG at any contrast in RNA sequencing although differently expressed in RT-qPCR (S2A–S2J Fig).

The NOS2 enzyme has an active role in the reactive oxygen species production (ROS) and nitric oxide synthesis pathway induced by LPS [89]. ROS produced by phagocytes are essential for host defense against bacterial and fungal infections [90]. In many cases, resistance of C57BL/6 mice is due to the microbicidal effect of nitric oxide (NO) produced by macrophages in response to interferon-γ (IFN-γ) and tumour necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), mainly secreted by Th1 cells and macrophages, respectively. On the other hand, BALB/c mice are usually partially able to give rise to efficient Th1 lymphocytes and does not control certain infections [18]. Our results indicate that higher expression of NOS2 gene (S5 Table) was related to the increased NO production in unstimulated MDMs culture supernatant and serum from Gir animals when compared to Holstein (Fig 5H and S2K Fig). It is noteworthy that recently publications indicated that genetic background of the bovine breed affects 77% of phenotypic NO production of MDMs in response to Escherichia coli (E. coli), in vitro [91, 92]. Indeed, NO production and release seems to mediate resistance to many bovine infections, especially for Mycobacterium bovis, Babesia bovis and E. coli in bovine hosts [83, 92, 93]. Conversely, excessive ROS can cause collateral tissue damage during inflammatory processes and therefore is tightly regulated [90]. Gir buffy coat cells also showed an increased gene expression of the Negative Regulator of ROS (NRROS; Fig 5C), which is the main mechanism that regulates reactive oxygen species production [90]. Gir MDMs also showed higher gene expression of NOD2 and FAS (S5 Table), both related to cellular death process in the presence of larger amounts of NO [94]. In sum, the observed resistance to various infections in bovine could be associated with this increased ROS production and macrophages microbicidal activity during their homeostatic and inflammatory state, similarly as found in the C57BL/6 murine model. However, there might be differences in response patterns performed by bovine and murine macrophages since M2 markers, such as genes OAT and IL-10, were also increased in the Gir buffy coat (Fig 6A and 6B). Thus, additional specific cellular activation assays should be performed to more accurately understand the development of M1 and M2 response in the bovine breeds and its influence on the outcome of immune response. These might provide insights into the immunological regulation of LPS triggered immune response in cattle, as well as reveal the potential to include immune response traits in genomic selection panels to decrease the occurrence of disease and improve animal health.

Fig 6.

Fig 6

Conclusions

In summary, this study investigated the LPS effect on differential gene expression associated with divergent MDMs phenotypic profiles in Holstein and Gir bovine breeds. Our results showed that these animals differently express genes possibly associated with divergent macrophage polarization. The extracellular matrix organization, leukocyte migration and cell cycle were the most affected biological processes. Differences in macrophage activation between taurine and indicine cattle might be useful to improve animal breeding programs through the use of genomic selection focused to decrease the occurrence of diseases and improve animal health. In addition, our results might help to open new windows to the development of novel technologies to pathogens control as new functional drugs, vaccines and adjuvants based on the bovine genotypic and phenotype profile.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. MDMs transcripts mapped data and mRNA representativeness.

Percentage of reads mapped to ARS-UCD1.2 bovine reference genome. (A) Reads mapped for each breed and treatment (unstimulated and LPS); (B) Total number of transcripts detected and categorized according to average of in vitro gene expression levels (CPM, counts per million) in unstimulated and LPS treated MDMs from Holstein ang Gir breeds.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. RNA sequencing validation and nitrite dosage at supernatant of unstimulated and LPS treated MDMs.

(A-J) RT-qPCR of unstimulated and LPS-treated MDMs from Holstein (n = 4) and Gir (n = 4) bovine breeds. Data shown as average ± SD of three replicates for each animal. T-test was used for comparisons between breeds and one-way analysis of variance between different stimuli into the same breed. *P<0.05, **P<0.01, ***P<0.001. (K) Levels of nitrite at unstimulated and LPS (10ng/ml) treated MDM cell culture supernatant from Holstein and Gir breeds after 48hours of stimulation. Data shown as concentration average ± SD for each group. T-test was used for comparisons between breeds (*P<0.05) and one-way analysis variance between different stimuli within the same breed.

(TIF)

S1 Table. Primer sequences used in RT-qPCR analyses.

Gene symbol, name and primer sequence of all primers designed for RT-qPCR analyses. RPLP0 and Ubiquitin used as reference genes (lowest values of average expression stability M according to GeNORM). Tm: melting temperature; Fwd: forward primer; Rev: reverse primer.

(PDF)

S2 Table. List of DEGs from unstimulated vs LPS treated Holstein MDMs.

Differential expression was performed on RNA sequencing data from unstimulated and LPS (100ng/ml) treated MDMs from Holstein breed. Genes that showed statistical differences in contrast (LogFC≥1; CPM>1; FDR<0.05) are shown.

(PDF)

S3 Table. List of DEGs from unstimulated vs LPS treated Gir MDMs.

Differential expression was performed on RNA sequencing data from unstimulated and LPS (100ng/ml) treated MDMs from Gir breed Genes that showed statistical differences in contrast (LogFC≥1; CPM>1; FDR<0.05) are shown.

(PDF)

S4 Table. List of DEGs from Holstein vs Gir contrast for unstimulated MDMs.

Differential expression was performed on RNA sequencing data from unstimulated MDMs between Holstein and Gir breeds. genes that showed statistical differences in contrast (LogFC≥1; CPM>1; FDR<0.05) are shown.

(PDF)

S5 Table. List of DEGs from Holstein vs Gir contrast for LPS treated MDMs.

Differential expression was performed on RNA sequencing data from LPS treated (100 ng/ml) MDMs between Holstein and Gir breeds. Genes that showed statistical differences in contrast (LogFC≥1; CPM>1; FDR<0.05) are shown.

(PDF)

S6 Table. DEG enrichment analysis of Holstein vs Gir unstimulated MDMs.

DEG enrichment analysis performed by DAVID with data from unstimulated MDMs from Holstein versus Gir animals, showing biological processes and associated genes with statistical significance (P value and FDR). The “Count” column shows the number of enriched genes for each process.

(PDF)

S7 Table. DEG enrichment analysis of unstimulated vs LPS treated MDMs from Holstein breed.

DEG enrichment analysis performed by DAVID with data from unstimulated versus LPS treated MDMs from Holstein breed, showing biological processes and associated genes with statistical significance (P value and FDR). The “Count” column shows the number of enriched genes for each process.

(PDF)

S8 Table. DEG enrichment analysis of unstimulated vs LPS treated MDMs from Gir breed.

DEG enrichment analysis performed by DAVID with data from unstimulated versus LPS treated MDMs from Gir breed, showing biological processes and associated genes with statistical significance (P value and FDR). The “Count” column shows the number of enriched genes for each process.

(PDF)

S9 Table. DEG enrichment analysis of Holstein vs Gir LPS treated MDMs.

DEG enrichment analysis performed by DAVID with data from LPS treated MDMs from Holstein versus Gir animals, showing biological processes and associated genes with statistical significance (P value and FDR). The “Count” column shows the number of enriched genes for each process.

(PDF)

S10 Table. Bovine key transcription factors (TF) resulting from co-expression analysis of LPS treated MDMs from Gir and Holstein breeds.

Table showing key transcription factors (KeyTF) displaying the scores for RIF1: TF that are consistently most differentially co-expressed with the highly abundant and highly DEGs in Gir and Holstein MDMs; RIF2: TF with the most altered ability to predict the abundance of DEGs in Gir and Holstein MDMs. The frequencies for each KeyTF were calculated for Holstein and Gir MDM stimulated with LPS. The differential frequencies were also calculated for each KeyTF in order to infer their importance on MDM response to LPS treatment for each Holstein and Gir breeds.

(PDF)

S11 Table. List of DEGs from bovine MDMs that directly interacts to unique key transcription factors which are related to genome wide association studies.

CeTF co-expression analysis of LPS treated MDMs displayed all DEGs associated to KeyTF for each bovine breed. Overlap of co-expression networks in the Cystoscape software with Diffany plugin revealed genes found in genome wide association studies that make one unique connection to KeyTF.

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

We thank our colleagues Klinger de Souza, Geovane Gonçalves de Souza and Michelle de Souza Muniz from Embrapa who provided essential assistance in animal management and sample collection. We also thank the students Ana Flávia Silva Heleno, Mariana Barbosa Pereira and Thiago de Almeida Oliveira for laboratory assistance during the cell culture assays.

Data Availability

All RNA sequence datafiles are available from the GEO repository database (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo; accession number GSE 147813) open for public access.

Funding Statement

This research was supported by grants from the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq; WAC 471864/2013-7 and MAM 472578/2013-8; http://www.cnpq.br). RMPD was supported by Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES; HMB, MAM and WAC grant from 8888.159607/2017-1; https://www.capes.gov.br) and National Institute of Science and Technology - Animal Science (INCT-CA; 372348/2019-0; http://inct.cnpq.br).

References

  • 1.Possehl GL. Harappan civilization: a recent perspective. 2nd ed New Delhi: American Institute of Indian Studies and Oxford & IBH Pub; 1993. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ahmad SF, Panigrahi M, Ali A, Dar RR, Narayanan K, Bhushan B. Evaluation of two bovine SNP genotyping arrays for breed clustering and stratification analysis in well-known taurine and indicine breeds. Anim Biotechnol. 2019; 1–8. 10.1080/10495398.2019.1578227 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Glass EJ, Crutchley S, Jensen K. Living with the enemy or uninvited guests: Functional genomics approaches to investigating host resistance or tolerance traits to a protozoan parasite, Theileria annulata, in cattle. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2012;148: 178–189. 10.1016/j.vetimm.2012.03.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Franzin AM, Maruyama SR, Garcia GR, Oliveira RP, Ribeiro JM, Bishop R, et al. Immune and biochemical responses in skin differ between bovine hosts genetically susceptible and resistant to the cattle tick Rhipicephalus microplus. Parasit Vectors. 2017;10: 51 10.1186/s13071-016-1945-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Courtin D, Berthier D, Thevenon S, Dayo GK, Garcia A, Bucheton B. Host genetics in African trypanosomiasis. Infect Genet Evol. 2008;8: 229–238. 10.1016/j.meegid.2008.02.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Blecha F, Boyles SL, Riley JG. Shipping suppresses lymphocyte blastogenic responses in Angus and Brahman X Angus feeder calves. J Anim Sci. 1984;59: 576–583. 10.2527/jas1984.593576x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Bannerman DD, Kauf ACW, Paape MJ, Springer HR, Goff JP. Comparison of Holstein and Jersey Innate Immune Responses to Escherichia coli Intramammary Infection. J Dairy Sci. 2008;91: 2225–2235. 10.3168/jds.2008-1013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Benjamin AL, Green BB, Crooker BA, McKay SD, Kerr DE. Differential responsiveness of Holstein and Angus dermal fibroblasts to LPS challenge occurs without major differences in the methylome. BMC Genomics. 2016;17: 258 10.1186/s12864-016-2565-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.May K, Scheper C, Brügemann K, Yin T, Strube C, Korkuć P, et al. Genome-wide associations and functional gene analyses for endoparasite resistance in an endangered population of native German Black Pied cattle. BMC Genomics. 2019;20: 277 10.1186/s12864-019-5659-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Boam GC, Weber WJ, Benjamin A, Kahl S, Allen Bridges G, Elsasser TH, et al. Effect of bovine genotype on innate immune response of heifers to repeated lipopolysaccharide (LPS) administration. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2019;215: 109914 10.1016/j.vetimm.2019.109914 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Schletter J, Heine H, Ulmer AJ, Rietschel ET. Molecular mechanisms of endotoxin activity. Arch Microbiol. 1995;164: 383–389. 10.1007/BF02529735 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Freudenberg MA, Keppler D, Galanos C. Requirement for Lipopolysaccharide-Responsive Macrophages in Galactosamine-Induced Sensitization to Endotoxin. Infect Immun. 1986;51: 891–895. 10.1128/IAI.51.3.891-895.1986 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Park BS, Lee J-O. Recognition of lipopolysaccharide pattern by TLR4 complexes. Exp & Mol Med. 2013;45: 45 10.1038/emm.2013.97 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Duque GA, Descoteaux A. Macrophage cytokines: Involvement in immunity and infectious diseases. Front Immunol. 2014;5 10.3389/fimmu.2014.00005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ziegler-Heitbrock L. Reprint of: Monocyte subsets in man and other species. Cell Immunol. 2014;291: 11–15. 10.1016/j.cellimm.2014.06.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Mosser DM, Edwards JP. Exploring the full spectrum of macrophage activation David. Nat Rev Immunol. 2008;8: 958–969. 10.1038/nri2448 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Mills CD, Kincaid K, Alt JM, Heilman MJ, Hill AM. M-1/M-2 Macrophages and the Th1/Th2 Paradigm. J Immunol. 2000;164: 6166–6173. 10.4049/jimmunol.164.12.6166 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Santos JL, Andrade AA, Dias AAM, Bonjardim CA, Reis LFL, Teixeira SMR, et al. Differential sensitivity of C57BL/6 (M-1) and BALB/c (M-2) macrophages to the stimuli of IFN-γ/LPS for the production of NO: Correlation with iNOS mRNA and protein expression. J Interf Cytokine Res. 2006;26: 682–688. 10.1089/jir.2006.26.682 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Saldarriaga OA, Velásquez JI, Ossa JE, Rugeles MT. Standardization of Bovine Macrophage Monolayers and Isolation and Culture of Trypanosomes. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2003;98: 269–271. 10.1590/s0074-02762003000200017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Strober W. Trypan Blue Exclusion Test of Cell Viability. Curr Protoc Immunol. 2015;111: A3.B.1–A3.B.3. 10.1002/0471142735.ima03bs111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Dobin A, Davis CA, Schlesinger F, Drenkow J, Zaleski C, Jha S, et al. STAR: ultrafast universal RNA-seq aligner. Bioinformatics. 2012/10/25. 2013;29: 15–21. 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts635 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Anders S, Pyl PT, Huber W. HTSeq—a Python framework to work with high-throughput sequencing data. Bioinformatics. 2014/09/25. 2015;31: 166–169. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu638 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Robinson MD, McCarthy DJ, Smyth GK. edgeR: a Bioconductor package for differential expression analysis of digital gene expression data. Bioinformatics. 2009/11/11. 2010;26: 139–140. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp616 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Bardou P, Mariette J, Escudié F, Djemiel C, Klopp C. Jvenn: An interactive Venn diagram viewer. BMC Bioinformatics. 2014;15 10.1186/1471-2105-15-15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Huang DW, Sherman BT, Lempicki RA. Systematic and integrative analysis of large gene lists using DAVID bioinformatics resources. Nat Protoc. 2009;4: 44–57. 10.1038/nprot.2008.211 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Bioconductor—CeTF (development version). [cited 13 Feb 2020]. Available: https://bioconductor.org/packages/devel/bioc/html/CeTF.html
  • 27.de Biagi CAO, Nociti RP, Funicheli BO, de Cássia Ruy P, Ximenez JPB, Silva WA. CeTF: an R package to Coexpression for Transcription Factors using Regulatory Impact Factors (RIF) and Partial Correlation and Information (PCIT) analysis. bioRxiv. 2020; 2020.03.30.015784. 10.1101/2020.03.30.015784 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Reverter A, Hudson NJ, Nagaraj SH, Pérez-Enciso M, Dalrymple BP. Regulatory impact factors: unraveling the transcriptional regulation of complex traits from expression data. Bioinformatics. 2010;26: 896–904. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq051 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Reverter A, Chan EKF. Combining partial correlation and an information theory approach to the reversed engineering of gene co-expression networks. Bioinformatics. 2008;24: 2491–2497. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btn482 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Ashburner M, Ball CA, Blake JA, Botstein D, Butler H, Cherry JM, et al. Gene Ontology: tool for the unification of biology. Nat Genet. 2000;25: 25–29. 10.1038/75556 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.The Gene Ontology Consortium. The Gene Ontology Resource: 20 years and still GOing strong. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47: D330–D338. 10.1093/nar/gky1055 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.de Souza MM, Zerlotini A, Geistlinger L, Tizioto PC, Taylor JF, Rocha MIP, et al. A comprehensive manually-curated compendium of bovine transcription factors. Sci Rep. 2018;8: 13747 10.1038/s41598-018-32146-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Shannon P, Markiel A, Ozier O, Baliga NS, Wang JT, Ramage D, et al. Cytoscape: a software environment for integrated models of biomolecular interaction networks. Genome Res. 2003;13: 2498–2504. 10.1101/gr.1239303 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Van Landeghem S, Van Parys T, Dubois M, Inzé D, Van de Peer Y. Diffany: an ontology-driven framework to infer, visualise and analyse differential molecular networks. BMC Bioinformatics. 2016;17: 18 10.1186/s12859-015-0863-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Vandesompele J, De Preter K, Pattyn F, Poppe B, Van Roy N, De Paepe A, et al. Accurate normalization of real-time quantitative RT-PCR data by geometric averaging of multiple internal control genes. Genome Biol. 2002;3: RESEARCH0034. 10.1186/gb-2002-3-7-research0034 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Weissman BA, Gross SS. Measurement of NO and NO Synthase. Curr Protoc Neurosci. 1998;5: 713.1–7.13.22. 10.1002/0471142301.ns0713s05 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Johnson WD, Mei B, Cohn ZA. The separation, long-term cultivation, and maturation of the human monocyte. J Exp Med. 1977;146: 1613–1626. 10.1084/jem.146.6.1613 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Simmons DL, Tan S, Tenen DG, Nicholson-Weller A, Seed B. Monocyte antigen CD14 is a phospholipid anchored membrane protein. Blood. 1989;73: 284–289. 10.1182/blood.V73.1.284.284 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Hussen J, Schuberth HJ. Heterogeneity of bovine peripheral blood monocytes. Front Immunol. 2017;8: 1–9. 10.3389/fimmu.2017.00001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.McWhorter FY, Wang T, Nguyen P, Chung T, Liu WF. Modulation of macrophage phenotype by cell shape. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110: 17253–17258. 10.1073/pnas.1308887110 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Tarazona S, García-Alcalde F, Dopazo J, Ferrer A, Conesa A. Differential expression in RNA-seq: a matter of depth. Genome Res. 2011;21: 2213–2223. 10.1101/gr.124321.111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Jensen K, Paxton E, Waddington D, Talbot R, Darghouth MA, Glass EJ. Differences in the transcriptional responses induced by Theileria annulata infection in bovine monocytes derived from resistant and susceptible cattle breeds. Int J Parasitol. 2008;38: 313–325. 10.1016/j.ijpara.2007.08.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Bohórquez MD, Ordoñez D, Suárez CF, Vicente B, Vieira C, López-Abán J, et al. Major Histocompatibility Complex Class II (DRB3) Genetic Diversity in Spanish Morucha and Colombian Normande Cattle Compared to Taurine and Zebu Populations. Frontiers in Genetics. 2020. p. 1293 Available: https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fgene.2019.01293 10.3389/fgene.2019.01293 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.TAKESHIMA S-N AIDA Y. Structure, function and disease susceptibility of the bovine major histocompatibility complex. Anim Sci J. 2006;77: 138–150. 10.1111/j.1740-0929.2006.00332.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Proudfoot AEI, Handel TM, Johnson Z, Lau EK, LiWang P, Clark-Lewis I, et al. Glycosaminoglycan binding and oligomerization are essential for the in vivo activity of certain chemokines. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100: 1885–1890. 10.1073/pnas.0334864100 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Płóciennikowska A, Hromada-Judycka A, Borzęcka K, Kwiatkowska K. Co-operation of TLR4 and raft proteins in LPS-induced pro-inflammatory signaling. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2015;72: 557–581. 10.1007/s00018-014-1762-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Kagan JC, Medzhitov R. Phosphoinositide-Mediated Adaptor Recruitment Controls Toll-like Receptor Signaling. Cell. 2006;125: 943–955. 10.1016/j.cell.2006.03.047 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Wambura PN, Gwakisa PS, Silayo RS, Rugaimukamu EA. Breed-associated resistance to tick infestation in Bos indicus and their crosses with Bos taurus. Vet Parasitol. 1998;77: 63–70. 10.1016/s0304-4017(97)00229-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Thompson-Crispi KA, Sargolzaei M, Ventura R, Abo-Ismail M, Miglior F, Schenkel F, et al. A genome-wide association study of immune response traits in Canadian Holstein cattle. BMC Genomics. 2014;15: 559 10.1186/1471-2164-15-559 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Rainard P. The complement in milk and defense of the bovine mammary gland against infections. Vet Res. 2003;34: 647–670. 10.1051/vetres:2003025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Bagath M, Krishnan G, Devaraj C, Rashamol VP, Pragna P, Lees AM, et al. The impact of heat stress on the immune system in dairy cattle: A review. Res Vet Sci. 2019;126: 94–102. 10.1016/j.rvsc.2019.08.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Zanoni I, Ostuni R, Marek LR, Barresi S, Barbalat R, Barton GM, et al. CD14 controls the LPS-induced endocytosis of toll-like receptor 4. Cell. 2011;147: 868–880. 10.1016/j.cell.2011.09.051 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Tanimura N, Saitoh S, Matsumoto F, Akashi-Takamura S, Miyake K. Roles for LPS-dependent interaction and relocation of TLR4 and TRAM in TRIF-signaling. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2008;368: 94–99. 10.1016/j.bbrc.2008.01.061 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Shaw MH, Reimer T, Kim YG, Nuñez G. NOD-like receptors (NLRs): bona fide intracellular microbial sensors. Current Opinion in Immunology. 2008. pp. 377–382. 10.1016/j.coi.2008.06.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Wertz IE, Dixit VM. Signaling to NF-kappaB: regulation by ubiquitination. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2010;2: 1–19. 10.1101/cshperspect.a003350 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Weber A, Wasiliew P, Kracht M. Interleukin-1 (IL-1) pathway. Science Signaling. 2010. 10.1126/scisignal.3105cm1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Murrieta-Coxca JM, Rodríguez-Martínez S, Cancino-Diaz ME, Markert UR, Favaro RR, Morales-Prieto DM. IL-36 cytokines: Regulators of inflammatory responses and their emerging role in immunology of reproduction. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20: 1–24. 10.3390/ijms20071649 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Spinello A, Vecile E, Abbate A, Dobrina A, Magistrato A. How Can Interleukin-1 Receptor Antagonist Modulate Distinct Cell Death Pathways? J Chem Inf Model. 2019;59: 351–359. 10.1021/acs.jcim.8b00565 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Cohen I, Rider P, Carmi Y, Braiman A, Dotan S, White MR, et al. Differential release of chromatin-bound IL-1α discriminates between necrotic and apoptotic cell death by the ability to induce sterile inflammation. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2010;107: 2574 LP– 2579. 10.1073/pnas.0915018107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Kaneko N, Kurata M, Yamamoto T, Morikawa S, Masumoto J. The role of interleukin-1 in general pathology. Inflamm Regen. 2019;39: 12 10.1186/s41232-019-0101-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Sack GH. Serum amyloid A–a review. Mol Med. 2018;24: 46 10.1186/s10020-018-0047-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Sahoo M, Ceballos-Olvera I, Barrio L, Re F. Role of the Inflammasome, IL-1β, and IL-18 in Bacterial Infections. ScientificWorldJournal. 2011;11: 2037–2050. 10.1100/2011/212680 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Watson-Haigh NS, Kadarmideen HN, Reverter A. PCIT: an R package for weighted gene co-expression networks based on partial correlation and information theory approaches. Bioinformatics. 2010;26: 411–413. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp674 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Kusza S, Cziszter LT, Ilie DE, Sauer M, Padeanu I, Gavojdian D. Kompetitive Allele Specific PCR (KASPTM) genotyping of 48 polymorphisms at different caprine loci in French Alpine and Saanen goat breeds and their association with milk composition. Loor J, editor. PeerJ. 2018;6: e4416 10.7717/peerj.4416 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Cohen-Zinder M, Seroussi E, Larkin DM, Loor JJ, Everts-van der Wind A, Lee J-H, et al. Identification of a missense mutation in the bovine ABCG2 gene with a major effect on the QTL on chromosome 6 affecting milk yield and composition in Holstein cattle. Genome Res. 2005;15: 936–944. 10.1101/gr.3806705 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Sheehy PA, Riley LG, Raadsma HW, Williamson P, Wynn PC. A functional genomics approach to evaluate candidate genes located in a QTL interval for milk production traits on BTA6. Anim Genet. 2009;40: 492–498. 10.1111/j.1365-2052.2009.01862.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Bissonnette N. Short communication: Genetic association of variations in the osteopontin gene (SPP1) with lactation persistency in dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci. 2018;101: 456–461. 10.3168/jds.2017-13129 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Cole JB, Wiggans GR, Ma L, Sonstegard TS, Lawlor TJ, Crooker BA, et al. Genome-wide association analysis of thirty one production, health, reproduction and body conformation traits in contemporary U.S. Holstein cows. BMC Genomics. 2011;12: 408 10.1186/1471-2164-12-408 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Tiezzi F, Parker-Gaddis KL, Cole JB, Clay JS, Maltecca C. A Genome-Wide Association Study for Clinical Mastitis in First Parity US Holstein Cows Using Single-Step Approach and Genomic Matrix Re-Weighting Procedure. PLoS One. 2015;10: e0114919 10.1371/journal.pone.0114919 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Sadek K, Saleh E, Ayoub M. Selective, reliable blood and milk bio-markers for diagnosing clinical and subclinical bovine mastitis. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2017;49: 431–437. 10.1007/s11250-016-1190-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Sharifi S, Pakdel A, Ebrahimi M, Reecy JM, Fazeli Farsani S, Ebrahimie E. Integration of machine learning and meta-analysis identifies the transcriptomic bio-signature of mastitis disease in cattle. PLoS One. 2018;13: e0191227 10.1371/journal.pone.0191227 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Weller MMDCA, Fonseca I, Sbardella AP, Pinto ISB, Viccini LF, Brandão HM, et al. Isolated perfused udder model for transcriptome analysis in response to Streptococcus agalactiae. J Dairy Res. 2019/08/27. 2019;86: 307–314. 10.1017/S0022029919000451 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Melo TP, Fortes MRS, Fernandes Junior GA, Albuquerque LG, Carvalheiro R. RAPID COMMUNICATION: Multi-breed validation study unraveled genomic regions associated with puberty traits segregating across tropically adapted breeds1. J Anim Sci. 2019;97: 3027–3033. 10.1093/jas/skz121 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Abdollahi-Arpanahi R, Carvalho MR, Ribeiro ES, Peñagaricano F. Association of lipid-related genes implicated in conceptus elongation with female fertility traits in dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci. 2019;102: 10020–10029. 10.3168/jds.2019-17068 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Olsen HG, Hayes BJ, Kent MP, Nome T, Svendsen M, Lien S. A genome wide association study for QTL affecting direct and maternal effects of stillbirth and dystocia in cattle. Anim Genet. 2010;41: 273–280. 10.1111/j.1365-2052.2009.01998.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Abo-Ismail MK, Lansink N, Akanno E, Karisa BK, Crowley JJ, Moore SS, et al. Development and validation of a small SNP panel for feed efficiency in beef cattle. J Anim Sci. 2018;96: 375–397. 10.1093/jas/sky020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Edea Z, Dadi H, Kim S-W, Park J-H, Shin G-H, Dessie T, et al. Linkage disequilibrium and genomic scan to detect selective loci in cattle populations adapted to different ecological conditions in Ethiopia. J Anim Breed Genet = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie. 2014;131: 358–366. 10.1111/jbg.12083 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Freebern E, Santos DJA, Fang L, Jiang J, Parker Gaddis KL, Liu GE, et al. GWAS and fine-mapping of livability and six disease traits in Holstein cattle. BMC Genomics. 2020;21: 41 10.1186/s12864-020-6461-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Hayashi K-G, Ushizawa K, Hosoe M, Takahashi T. Differential genome-wide gene expression profiling of bovine largest and second-largest follicles: identification of genes associated with growth of dominant follicles. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2010;8: 11 10.1186/1477-7827-8-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Young R, Bush SJ, Lefevre L, McCulloch MEB, Lisowski ZM, Muriuki C, et al. Species-Specific Transcriptional Regulation of Genes Involved in Nitric Oxide Production and Arginine Metabolism in Macrophages. ImmunoHorizons. 2018;2: 27–37. 10.4049/immunohorizons.1700073 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Qualls JE, Subramanian C, Rafi W, Smith AM, Balouzian L, DeFreitas AA, et al. Sustained generation of nitric oxide and control of mycobacterial infection requires argininosuccinate synthase 1. Cell Host Microbe. 2012;12: 313–323. 10.1016/j.chom.2012.07.012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Bassoy EY, Towne JE, Gabay C. Regulation and function of interleukin-36 cytokines. Immunol Rev. 2018;281: 169–178. 10.1111/imr.12610 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Cavani L, Braz CU, Giglioti R, Okino CH, Gulias-Gomes CC, Caetano AR, et al. Genomic Study of Babesia bovis Infection Level and Its Association With Tick Count in Hereford and Braford Cattle. Frontiers in Immunology. 2020. p. 1905 Available: https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fimmu.2020.01905 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Nathan CF, Murray HW, Wlebe IE, Rubin BY. Identification of interferon-γ, as the lymphokine that activates human macrophage oxidative metabolism and antimicrobial activity. J Exp Med. 1983;158: 670–689. 10.1084/jem.158.3.670 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Achilli A, Olivieri A, Pellecchia M, Uboldi C, Colli L, Al-Zahery N, et al. Mitochondrial genomes of extinct aurochs survive in domestic cattle. Curr Biol. 2008;18: R157–R158. 10.1016/j.cub.2008.01.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Tabor AE, Ali A, Rehman G, Garcia GR, Zangirolamo AF, Malardo T, et al. Cattle Tick Rhipicephalus microplus-host interface: A review of resistant and susceptible host responses. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology. Frontiers Media S.A.; 2017. 10.3389/fcimb.2017.00506 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Nesargikar P, Spiller B, Chavez R. The complement system: History, pathways, cascade and inhibitors. Eur J Microbiol Immunol. 2012;2: 103–111. 10.1556/EuJMI.2.2012.2.2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Uhlar CM, Whitehead AS. Serum amyloid A, the major vertebrate acute-phase reactant. Eur J Biochem. 1999;265: 501–523. 10.1046/j.1432-1327.1999.00657.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Nussler AK, Billiar TR, Liu ZZ, Morris SM. Coinduction of nitric oxide synthase and argininosuccinate synthetase in a murine macrophage cell line. Implications for regulation of nitric oxide production. J Biol Chem. 1994;269: 1257–61. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7507106 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Noubade R, Wong K, Ota N, Rutz S, Eidenschenk C, Valdez PA, et al. NRROS negatively regulates reactive oxygen species during host defence and autoimmunity. Nature. 2014;509: 235–239. 10.1038/nature13152 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Emam M, Tabatabaei S, Sargolzaei M, Sharif S, Schenkel F, Mallard B. The effect of host genetics on in vitro performance of bovine monocyte-derived macrophages. J Dairy Sci. 2019;102: 9107–9116. 10.3168/jds.2018-15960 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Emam M, Cánovas A, Islas-Trejo A, Fonseca P, Medrano J, Mallard B. Transcriptomic Profiles of Monocyte-Derived Macrophages in Response to Escherichia coli is Associated with the Host Genetics. Sci Rep. 2020;10. 10.1038/s41598-019-57089-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Finlay EK, Berry DP, Wickham B, Gormley EP, Bradley DG. A Genome Wide Association Scan of Bovine Tuberculosis Susceptibility in Holstein-Friesian Dairy Cattle. PLoS One. 2012;7: e30545 Available: 10.1371/journal.pone.0030545 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Zumsteg U, Frigerio S, Holländer GA. Nitric oxide production and Fas surface expression mediate two independent pathways of cytokine-induced murine β-cell damage. Diabetes. 2000;49: 39–47. 10.2337/diabetes.49.1.39 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Gordon Langsley

26 May 2020

PONE-D-20-11705

Lipopolysaccharide triggers different transcriptional signatures in taurine and indicine cattle macrophages: reactive oxygen species and potential outcomes to the development of immune response to infections

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wanessa Araujo Carvalho,

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 asked 2 external reviewers to examine your submission and their comments are attached and their recommendations are somewhere between minor and major recommendations. One reviewer was an expert bioinformatician, while the other a specialist in bovine infections, so they raise different points that have to be addressed. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 10 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're 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.

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). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Gordon Langsley

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

2. In your Methods section, please state the volume of the blood samples collected for use in your study.

3. In your Methods section, please include a comment about the state of the animals following this research. Were they euthanized or housed for use in further research? If any animals were sacrificed by the authors, please include the method of euthanasia and describe any efforts that were undertaken to reduce animal suffering.

4. We note that you are reporting an analysis of a microarray, next-generation sequencing, or deep sequencing data set. PLOS requires that authors comply with field-specific standards for preparation, recording, and deposition of data in repositories appropriate to their field. Please upload these data to a stable, public repository (such as ArrayExpress, Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO), DNA Data Bank of Japan (DDBJ), NCBI GenBank, NCBI Sequence Read Archive, or EMBL Nucleotide Sequence Database (ENA)). In your revised cover letter, please provide the relevant accession numbers that may be used to access these data. For a full list of recommended repositories, see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-omics or http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-sequencing.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: 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: From indicine and taurine

bovine blood samples, the authors induce macrophages from monocytes. The macrophages are then treated with (and without) lipopolysaccharide, followed by RNA-Seq. Using conventional software, differential genes are detected and compared between species and between treated and untreated samples. Further, RT-qPCR is performed for a selection of target genes.

From this, the authors find distinct differences in the immune responses between indicine and taurine. The topic is timely and interesting findings are presented.

I find it difficult to understand exactly how the RNA sequencing results and the qPCR validations relate to each other. Figure 6 shows a number of genes not appearing in Figure 3, suggesting to me that the authors are validating a set of genes based on their a priori knowledge, rather than confirming the results obtained from the RNA-Seq? This may of course not be a problem in itself as long as the authors clearly state and justify this.

More importantly, assuming that the genes from Figure 6 are not hidden somewhere in Figure 3 (and just not mentioned by name), there should be a thorough comparison between the RNA-Seq and the qPCR results. Calling DGE genes is a fairly arbitrary process depending on the specific threshold levels applied, so it would be naive to expect an exact correspondence between DGE genes and qPCR results. But it is essential to know if these different experimental approaches are in direct contrast to each other. Besides this, the expression levels, fold-change and FDR values should be presented as supplementary material.

In fairness, the authors state (line 465) that some findings are from "different experimental strategies". But this nevertheless gives the reader a sense of cherry picking results that fit conventional wisdom within the field.

Figure 6: It is unclear to me why these genes are suddenly tested in duffy blood? Why not use the MDM results from FigS2? (line 374 in the main text refers to FigS2 as "RNA sequencing" but it appears to be RT-qPCR results as well, which is also stated in its legend). And why are the same genes not tested (or presented) for both duffy and MDM?

Figure 3: It is not clear to me what the Z-scores reflect. Are they calculated between gir and holstein samples, or within each sample? Intuitively I would expect that green/positive scores meant up-regulated, but on line 508 it is stated that NOS2, C3, IL36β and CCL24 are generally up-regulated in gir. Yet, only CCL24 appears to be 'green' in gir (so behaving opposite of the 3 other genes in any case - does "Most of the DEGs for inflammatory response biological process" then mean 3 out of 4?). A clearer explanation of this figure - and the specific procedure behind it - should be provided.

To my knowledge, the RNA input material does exceed the recommendations for the TruSeq kit used in the study, yet it would be comforting to know the level of sequence redundancy between reads, ensuring that read abundance is not affected by biases during the library build. The samtools and picard software suites have tools to mark duplicate reads.

Table 1 shows that the similar sequencing efforts between samples result in roughly even numbers of detected transcripts. Importantly, this does not reveal if the samples are exhausted, i.e. if deeper sequencing would result in a significantly higher number of detected transcripts. To test if a plateau of detected transcripts is reached would require a downsizing of the read data and subsequent re-analysis of such subsets. As this study aims to characterize major/general differences between the species, such a test is most likely not essential in this case. Yet, it would suit the manuscript of the authors briefly acknowledged this issue.

lines 330-2: "It is also worth noting that activation of neutrophil

degranulation pathways was detected in both breeds (S2 and S3 Tables), however

showing different significances (taurine P=6.69E-04; indicine P= 0.01) suggesting a

differential role of these cells in the biological responses of these breeds."

Without knowing exactly how these p-values are produced (they are likely dependent on values derived from the entire pool of genes and not just the subset of genes being tested), these relatively subtle differences cannot form the basis for such speculations on different biological.

The manuscript will need a language revision. On the first page of the introduction I found the following examples:

"which reflects in variable response"

"related with"

"stimulates 40 host cells as monocytes/macrophages"

"biding"

"not capable to reproduce"

Reviewer #2: The study of Carvalho et al., investigates the differential responses of Hostein (bos Taurus) and Gir (bos indicus) monocytes derived macrophages (MDMs) stimulated with LPS. The authors used RNAseq approaches, all procedures and step of analysis are well documented. The results showed a breed difference, suggesting a possibly divergent macrophages polarization (like the M1/M2 balance, well described in human and mice). I found the results sound and worthy of publication. I have the following specific comments/questions for the authors.

Major:

_ 4 biological replicates per group were used for the RNAseq. Why not n=6/group like for some other analysis in the manuscript?

_ The UMD3.1.S4 genome was published in 2014. A new assembly version is available since 2018, under the name ARS-UCD1.2. Why not using the most recent version?

_ The foldChange (FC) values considered by the authors were equal or superior to 1. This is not very stringent. Publication commonly used FC cut-off >1.5 or 2. Is the analysis still robust with a higher cut-off?

_ The numbers of biological replicates (n=X) is lacking in the legend of figures 4, 5, 6 and S2.

_ line 195 “RPLO and Ubiquitin were selected as housekeeping genes”. To meet the MIQE guidelines and publish qPCR data, authors should use at least 3 housekeeping genes for all experiments, even though then have tested 4 or 5 before selecting 2. Please include another housekeeping gene.

_ Can the authors comment on the inter-individual variability among Holstein and Gir. Is it equivalent? Is it possible to show individual data, and median +/- interquartile range on the figures.(FigS2 for instance)

_ Figure 3: the color code Green/Red is not visible by color blind people. Blue/orange or Blue/red are common colorblind-friendly palette.

_ Figure 5 is interesting but gene names are not readable. Can the authors add a table with the 70 genes which showed an unique direct interaction to key transcription factors, and highlight the 22 which are associated to mastitis resistance.

_ Lines 330-332 and 494-496: The authors have seeing the neutrophil degranulation pathways in both breeds, with different significances. They concluded that neutrophil could play a differential role in Holstein and Gir. I do not agree with this conclusion. If the granuloctes pathway is significantly found in the two groups, a higher p-value in one group does not mean a higher implication of this pathway. The authors suggest a stronger role for neutrophils in Holstein (lines 494-495), but in the S2 and S3 Tables, more genes are present in the Gir RNAseq data (19 genes in the data set /480 genes in the pathway) than in Holstein’s (11/480).

Minor:

_ Data are not fully available because the authors are using them to work on another project and have to respect intellectual property restrictions. For the reviewing process, RNA sequence data are supposed to be available from GEO repository, but I could not find the number 147813 on the GEO website.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gds/?term=147813

_ The authors used alternatively three different names for the animals: bos Taurus/bos indicus; or taurine/indicine; or Holstein/Gir. I would suggest to use the same terminology in the manuscript. For instance the first time Holstein (Bos Taurus) and Gir (bos indicus); and then “Holstein” and “Gir” in the rest of the manuscript and for the figures. I have the feeling that taurine and indicine are less obvious for the general audience but I may be wrong. My point is please use the same terminology everywhere in the article.

_ Line 195 “4 housekeeping genes”, but 5 are listed into brackets. Please correct.

_ Quality of figure 2 should be improved (too many pixels).

_ Figure 5: “ECM” is not defined in the legend.

_ Figure S1: what is “MNP1” in orange in the CD14 histogram?

**********

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: Yes: Tobias Mourier

Reviewer #2: Yes: Aude Remot

[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.]

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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Nov 6;15(11):e0241861. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241861.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


23 Sep 2020

Reviewers’ Comments and Authors Response

Paper number: PONE-D-20-11705

Paper title: Lipopolysaccharide triggers different transcriptional signatures in taurine and indicine cattle macrophages: reactive oxygen species and potential outcomes to the development of immune response to infections

Authors: Raquel M. P. Daibert, Carlos A. O. Biagi Junior, Felipe O. Vieira, Marcos V.G.B. Silva, Eugenio D. Hottz, Mariana B.M. Pinheiro, Daniele R.L.R. Faza, Hyago P. Pereira, Marta F. Martins, Humberto M. Brandão, Marco A. Machado, Wanessa A. Carvalho

The authors would like to thank the area editor and the reviewers for their precious time and invaluable comments. We have carefully addressed all the comments. The corresponding changes and refinements made in the revised manuscript are summarized below.

EDITOR’S COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS

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

Author: We prepared a better revision to meet Plos One style requirement according to the suggestions above. Some modifications in the manuscript text were made in order to make it clearer and easier for the readers to understand, including merging the results and discussion sections.

2. In your Methods section, please state the volume of the blood samples collected for use in your study.

Author: The volume of blood samples collected to be used in our study was 60ml per animal. This information was added to the Methods section (Lines 83-4).

3. In your Methods section, please include a comment about the state of the animals following this research. Were they euthanized or housed for use in further research? If any animals were sacrificed by the authors, please include the method of euthanasia and describe any efforts that were undertaken to reduce animal suffering.

Author: All animals were housed to be used in additional research after our experimental trial finished. This statement was included in the Methods section “Animals”.

4. We note that you are reporting an analysis of a microarray, next-generation sequencing, or deep sequencing data set. PLOS requires that authors comply with field-specific standards for preparation, recording, and deposition of data in repositories appropriate to their field. Please upload these data to a stable, public repository (such as ArrayExpress, Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO), DNA Data Bank of Japan (DDBJ), NCBI GenBank, NCBI Sequence Read Archive, or EMBL Nucleotide Sequence Database (ENA)). In your revised cover letter, please provide the relevant accession numbers that may be used to access these data. For a full list of recommended repositories, see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-omics or http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-sequencing.

Author: We apologize for our misunderstanding in providing the accession number and token for GEO repository only at the manuscript submission system, but not in the last cover letter. Actually, after revision of the manuscript we changed the access policy for all RNA sequence datafiles, which are now available from the GEO repository database (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo; accession number GSE 147813) open for public access.

REVIEWERS' COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS

Reviewer #1: From indicine and taurine bovine blood samples, the authors induce macrophages from monocytes. The macrophages are then treated with (and without) lipopolysaccharide, followed by RNA-Seq. Using conventional software, differential genes are detected and compared between species and between treated and untreated samples. Further, RT-qPCR is performed for a selection of target genes. From this, the authors find distinct differences in the immune responses between indicine and taurine. The topic is timely and interesting findings are presented.

1.1. I find it difficult to understand exactly how the RNA sequencing results and the qPCR validations relate to each other. Figure 6 shows a number of genes not appearing in Figure 3, suggesting to me that the authors are validating a set of genes based on their a priori knowledge, rather than confirming the results obtained from the RNA-Seq? This may of course not be a problem in itself as long as the authors clearly state and justify this.

More importantly, assuming that the genes from Figure 6 are not hidden somewhere in Figure 3 (and just not mentioned by name), there should be a thorough comparison between the RNA-Seq and the qPCR results. Calling DGE genes is a fairly arbitrary process depending on the specific threshold levels applied, so it would be naive to expect an exact correspondence between DGE genes and qPCR results. But it is essential to know if these different experimental approaches are in direct contrast to each other. Besides this, the expression levels, fold-change and FDR values should be presented as supplementary material.

AUTHOR: All the previous data were reanalysed using the newest bovine genome assembly (ARS-UCD1.2 submitted by USDA/ARS on April 2018) as suggested by other reviewer. The new alignment resulted in a higher number of DEGs in all contrasts although the enrichment continues to point to the same major biological processes. The global conclusion of the article did not alter, suggesting that Gir (indicine cattle) shows a natural propensity to generate a M1 profile inflammatory immune response displaying increased activation efficiency of antigen presentation pathways, oxygen reactive production and leukocyte activation and recruitment. Some modifications in the manuscript text were made in order to make it clearer and easier for the readers to understand, including merging the results and discussion sections. We also added a short explanation of how we have chosen target genes for validation of RNA sequencing and evaluation of buffy coat inflammatory responses. Briefly, the genes used in RT-qPCR to validate RNA sequencing results were chosen after enrichment analysis of DGE found between LPS treated and untreated monocytes differentiated to macrophages (MDMs) from Holstein and Gir animals. Since “immune response” and “inflammatory immune response” were both enriched in DGE found between taurine and indicine MDMs (S6 and S9 Tables), genes were selected when they exhibited a key role in the differentiation of macrophage phenotype (M1 and M2), in cell activation status and LPS triggered innate immune response. For buffy coat cells we selected genes related to complement and acute phase proteins since they mediate inflammation development and were also produced by monocytes and macrophages. They were highlighted in the co-expression analysis (Fig 4 and S11 Table).

Regarding the gene expression levels, fold-change and FDR values from RNA sequencing analysis, a complementary material in this new version of the manuscript was supplied (S2-5 Tables). Indeed, RNA sequence data is also available from the GEO repository (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo, accession number GSE147813).

1.2. In fairness, the authors state (line 465) that some findings are from "different experimental strategies". But this nevertheless gives the reader a sense of cherry picking results that fit conventional wisdom within the field.

AUTHOR: The term “different experimental strategies” was removed. We revised the manuscript text and hope that this kind of written did not happen in this new version.

1.3. Figure 6: It is unclear to me why these genes are suddenly tested in buffy blood? Why not use the MDM results from FigS2? (line 374 in the main text refers to FigS2 as "RNA sequencing" but it appears to be RT-qPCR results as well, which is also stated in its legend). And why are the same genes not tested (or presented) for both buffy and MDM?

AUTHOR: We tested the buffy coat cells in order to establish an association of in vitro MDM transcriptomes to the peripheral immune response which were preferentially displayed by Holstein and Gir breeds under homeostatic conditions. To validate RNA sequencing data, we tested genes that are considered classical markers for M1 and M2 macrophages phenotype (NOS2, NRROS, IL10, OAT) and important for MDM activation of pro inflammatory status (TLR4, IRAK2, NFKB2, GATA-3, BMPR1, ENGL3, C3). Since our RNA sequencing results pointed to a more prominent M1 macrophage phenotype in the Gir (indicine breed), we investigated if it might be involved in differences that mediate development of divergent patterns of systemic immune response. By using buffy coat cells to access the levels of transcripts for molecules that are involved with inflammatory and innate immune responses, we observed that Holstein (taurine breed) displayed lower expression of all selected genes, especially the ones involved in production of oxygen reactive species and complement. This emphasized the hypothesis that taurine animals might have a compromised innate immune response that might influence T helper development responses when compared to indicine animals. Nevertheless, our team realize that additional experiments must be done in order to validate this information. Various literature references were cited in the manuscript discussion in order to support this information. We also did a nitrite dosage in the serum of all animals involved in the experiment and showed that taurine animals showed lower levels of this molecule which might implicate in impairment of Th1 responses and higher susceptibility to infection and parasite diseases, also discussed along the manuscript. So, we did not test the same genes for macrophage and buffy coat since we were trying to answer different questions that corroborate the unique hypothesis that Holstein and Gir bovine breeds may show different immune responses due to the macrophage transcriptional signatures. We hope that this new version of the manuscript is better written in order to promote a clearer interpretation of our hypothesis and results.

1.4. Figure 3: It is not clear to me what the Z-scores reflect. Are they calculated between gir and holstein samples, or within each sample? Intuitively I would expect that green/positive scores meant up-regulated, but on line 508 it is stated that NOS2, C3, IL36β and CCL24 are generally up-regulated in gir. Yet, only CCL24 appears to be 'green' in gir (so behaving opposite of the 3 other genes in any case - does "Most of the DEGs for inflammatory response biological process" then mean 3 out of 4?). A clearer explanation of this figure - and the specific procedure behind it - should be provided.

Author: We did apply changes in colour and realized that we forgot to cluster the columns (sample information) in the Figure 3. That’s why it was behaving as the opposite of mentioned in the previous manuscript. In the heatmap, Z-scores were calculated for each row (each gene) and each column (each sample) and plotted accordingly to the normalized expression values. This consists in subtracting the mean and dividing by the standard deviation, which is a step after clustering the data that only affects the graphical look and improves the colour visualization.

1.5. To my knowledge, the RNA input material does exceed the recommendations for the TruSeq kit used in the study, yet it would be comforting to know the level of sequence redundancy between reads, ensuring that read abundance is not affected by biases during the library build. The samtools and picard software suites have tools to mark duplicate reads.

Author: We are sorry for not clearly showed these results in the older version of the manuscript. Now, we carefully described all the data regarding the RNA sequencing and data analysis both at “Materials and methods” (Lines 128-147) and “Results and discussion” (Lines 258-272) sections. Indeed, the duplicated sequences was evaluated in FastQC software, in which Picard tool are used as a plugin to calculate Sequence Duplication Levels (https://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc/). This information is showed in Table 1. The software STAR (Gingeras, T.R. & Dobin, A. Mapping RNA-seq Reads with STAR, Curr Protoc Bioinformatics 51: 11.14.1–11.14.19, 2015, doi: 10.1002/0471250953.bi1114s51) was used to eliminate bias resulted from the alignment of more complex RNA sequence arrangements, such as chimeric and circular RNA. STAR software also aligns spliced sequences of any length with moderate error rates providing scalability for emerging sequencing technologies. If is there any issue that we have not noticed in these analyses, please, let us know.

1.6. Table 1 shows that the similar sequencing efforts between samples result in roughly even numbers of detected transcripts. Importantly, this does not reveal if the samples are exhausted, i.e. if deeper sequencing would result in a significantly higher number of detected transcripts. To test if a plateau of detected transcripts is reached would require a downsizing of the read data and subsequent re-analysis of such subsets. As this study aims to characterize major/general differences between the species, such a test is most likely not essential in this case. Yet, it would suit the manuscript of the authors briefly acknowledged this issue.

Author: We appreciated your comment and addressed this issue at Lines 267-68 of the corrected manuscript. Indeed, the software HT seq count and STAR, both used to analyse RNA sequences, ignore reads that are common between contrasts. Anyway, thanks a lot for the comment. We will use the suggested strategy for future analyses using deeper sequencing data.

1.7. Lines 330-2: "It is also worth noting that activation of neutrophil

degranulation pathways was detected in both breeds (S2 and S3 Tables), however showing different significances (taurine P=6.69E-04; indicine P= 0.01) suggesting a differential role of these cells in the biological responses of these breeds." Without knowing exactly how these p-values are produced (they are likely dependent on values derived from the entire pool of genes and not just the subset of genes being tested), these relatively subtle differences cannot form the basis for such speculations on different biological.

AUTHOR: We agreed and deleted the entire sentence.

1.8. The manuscript will need a language revision. On the first page of the introduction I found the following examples:

"which reflects in variable response"

"related with"

"stimulates 40 host cells as monocytes/macrophages"

"biding"

"not capable to reproduce"

AUTHOR: Some language expressions are common for Portuguese speakers but are not accepted for English version. We apologize for grammatical errors and we have made a comprehensive revision in this new version of the manuscript. Thanks a lot for pointing out this issue showing examples.

Reviewer #2: The study of Carvalho et al., investigates the differential responses of Holstein (Bos taurus) and Gir (Bos indicus) monocytes derived macrophages (MDMs) stimulated with LPS. The authors used RNAseq approaches, all procedures and step of analysis are well documented. The results showed a breed difference, suggesting a possibly divergent macrophages polarization (like the M1/M2 balance, well described in human and mice). I found the results sound and worthy of publication. I have the following specific comments/questions for the authors.

Major comments and questions:

2.1. 4 biological replicates per group were used for the RNAseq. Why not n=6/group like for some other analysis in the manuscript?

AUTHOR: We had problems in RNA sample quality that did not reach the minimal parameters required for sequencing such as minimum of 100ng total RNA and RNA integrity number (RIN) higher than 7.00 as suggested by Agilent and literature findings. For a clearer understanding of that, we altered the description of samples sequenced in the Methods section (lines 128- 138).

2.2. The UMD3.1.S4 genome was published in 2014. A new assembly version is available since 2018, under the name ARS-UCD1.2. Why not using the most recent version?

AUTHOR: We really appreciated the suggestion and apologize for using an older genome. With your suggestion, we made improvements in our script analysis, which is now updated. We also did a comparative analysis of Ensembl annotation and found a greater number of DEGs under the newer bovine genome assembly (ARS-UCD1.2). Besides that, the enrichment analysis of DEGs indicated similar biological processes highlighted in the former version of the manuscript such as immune response, cell adhesion and division. The immune response processes enriched by DAVID software also displayed high correspondence between DEGs found in UMD3.1.S4 and ARS-UCD1.2 genome which had no impact on the manuscript conclusions after this new alignment.

2.3. The foldChange (FC) values considered by the authors were equal or superior to 1. This is not very stringent. Publication commonly used FC cut-off >1.5 or 2. Is the analysis still robust with a higher cut-off?

AUTHOR: We apologize for this issue and corrected this information throughout the manuscript text. The threshold values of logFC>1 or <1 and FDR < 0,5 were used to consider a gene upregulated or downregulated, which means a cut off >2.

2.4. The numbers of biological replicates (n=X) is lacking in the legend of figures 4, 5, 6 and S2.

AUTHOR: Thanks for noticing that. The legends are now corrected.

2.5. Line 195 “RPLO and Ubiquitin were selected as housekeeping genes”. To meet the MIQE guidelines and publish qPCR data, authors should use at least 3 housekeeping genes for all experiments, even though then have tested 4 or 5 before selecting 2. Please include another housekeeping gene.

AUTHOR: Literature findings did not show any deep study for reference genes in bovine animals, especially in MDMs cells. So, we selected four most cited reference genes found on Pubmed database that used qPCR data to support biological information in bovine. GENorm algorithm calculated gene-stability classified according to M values for RPLP0, Ubiquitin, GAPDH and 18 S ribosomal RNA (Vandesompele, J. et al. 2002. Accurate normalization of real-time quantitative RT-PCR data by geometric averaging of multiple internal control genes. Genome Biol 3, research0034.1. https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2002-3-7-research0034). RPLP0 (M= 0.4) and Ubiquitin (M=0.33) were the two most stable genes based on M values (S1 Table). The Glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase oxidase (GAPDH) may not be a good choice to be used as a third reference gene because it has been implicated in several non-metabolic processes, including initiation of apoptosis and endoplasmic reticulum to Golgi vesicle shuttling, both triggered by LPS recognition by macrophages (Tarze A. et al. 2007. GAPDH, a novel regulator of the pro-apoptotic mitochondrial membrane permeabilization. Oncogene. 26 (18): 2606–20. doi:10.1038/sj.onc.1210074). The 18 S ribosomal RNA gene showed the highest M value (0.47), which is not recommended for the qPCR analysis in our experiments. These findings added to the fact that we had limited cDNA amount to test additional reference genes made us decide to use the two most stable genes for RT-qPCR analysis. The optimal number and choice of reference genes were experimentally determined accordingly to recommendations of MIQE guidelines (Stephen A Bustin et al. The MIQE Guidelines: Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments, Clinical Chemistry, Volume 55, Issue 4, 1 April 2009, Pages 611–622, https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2008.112797). It is relevant to mention that all contrasts involving comparison between MDMs transcripts from taurine and indicine breeds in RNA sequencing data showed gene expression match evaluated by RTqPCR. Indeed, the nitric oxide (NO) production detected by quantifying the NO breakdown of the final product nitrite also corroborate the NOS2 and NRROS supposed enzyme activity evaluated by gene expression results from both RNA sequencing and qPCR of MDMs Holstein and Gir cattle samples (Figs6 and S2; S2-5 Tables). In this case, we understand that it might be acceptable the use of two reference genes for qRTPCR assays in our research since their choice was experimentally determined and the methodology was better described in this new version of the manuscript (Lines 194-210).

2.6.Can the authors comment on the inter-individual variability among Holstein and Gir. Is it equivalent? Is it possible to show individual data, and median +/- interquartile range on the figures.(FigS2 for instance)

AUTHOR: The Gir and Holstein are genetically improved breeds for milk production and show trait consistence required by the breeders associations in Brazil. Dairy cattle industry also uses extensive reproductive and genomic strategies which helps accelerating the genetic progress of the herds. The animals chosen for our research were selected from herds participating in the Holstein and Gir breeding programs coordinated by Embrapa Dairy Cattle. To make it clearer, we have changed all RT-qPCR Figures 5 and S2 in order to show individual data and median +/- interquartile range in each breed.

2.7. Figure 3: the color code Green/Red is not visible by color blind people. Blue/orange or Blue/red are common colorblind-friendly palette.

AUTHOR: Thanks a lot for the suggestion. The colours were changed to blue and yellow, also differentiated by colour-blind readers. Unfortunately, in the Figure 5, the green/red edges were not changed because they were generated by the Diffany plugin default and therefore could not be altered by the user. But we understand that this will not affect the interpretation results from colour-blind readers.

2.8. Figure 5 is interesting but gene names are not readable. Can the authors add a table with the 70 genes which showed an unique direct interaction to key transcription factors, and highlight the 22 which are associated to mastitis resistance.

AUTHOR: In this new version of the manuscript, after the alignment done using the ARS-UCD1.2 newest bovine genome assembly, the numbers of genes that showed an unique direct interaction to key transcription factors increased to 82. We have made a new manual annotation of these genes and highlighted 22 that have been associated to milk production and quality, mastitis susceptibility, fertility, adaptation to ecologic conditions besides of cellular and humoral immune response in whole genome association studies (S11 Table). The macrophages are plastic cells that control not only the inflammatory immune response development but also metabolic pathways associated to lipid and carbohydrate metabolism (Reviewed at Jan Van den Bossche et al. 2017. Macrophage Immunometabolism: Where Are We (Going)? Trends Immunol Jun;38(6):395-406. doi: 10.1016/j.it.2017.03.001 and Murphy, M.P. 2019. Rerouting metabolism to activate macrophages. Nat Immunol 20, 1097–1099. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41590-019-0455-5). Thus, we used genome wide association studies found in the literature to infer about traits related to the macrophage activity in bovine animals and its influence on the outcome of inflammatory and metabolic responses in cattle. In this new version of the manuscript we have also considered in vitro studies with fewer animals, but now we refined the analysis using population studies, which might account for a more accurate interpretation.

2.9. Lines 330-332 and 494-496: The authors have seeing the neutrophil degranulation pathways in both breeds, with different significances. They concluded that neutrophil could play a differential role in Holstein and Gir. I do not agree with this conclusion. If the granuloctes pathway is significantly found in the two groups, a higher p-value in one group does not mean a higher implication of this pathway. The authors suggest a stronger role for neutrophils in Holstein (lines 494-495), but in the S2 and S3 Tables, more genes are present in the Gir RNAseq data (19 genes in the data set /480 genes in the pathway) than in Holstein’s (11/480).

AUTHOR: We agreed and deleted the sentences related to such strong inferences.

Minor comments and questions:

2.10. Data are not fully available because the authors are using them to work on another project and have to respect intellectual property restrictions. For the reviewing process, RNA sequence data are supposed to be available from GEO repository, but I could not find the number 147813 on the GEO website.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gds/?term=147813

Author: We apologize for our misunderstanding in providing the accession number and token for GEO repository only at the manuscript submission system, but not in the cover letter. Actually, after revision of the manuscript we changed the access policy for all RNA sequence datafiles, which are now available from the GEO repository database (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo; accession number GSE 147813) open for public access.

2.11. The authors used alternatively three different names for the animals: bos Taurus/bos indicus; or taurine/indicine; or Holstein/Gir. I would suggest to use the same terminology in the manuscript. For instance the first time Holstein (Bos Taurus) and Gir (bos indicus); and then “Holstein” and “Gir” in the rest of the manuscript and for the figures. I have the feeling that taurine and indicine are less obvious for the general audience but I may be wrong. My point is please use the same terminology everywhere in the article.

AUTHOR: We have standardized this terminology as suggested.

2.12. Line 195 “4 housekeeping genes”, but 5 are listed into brackets. Please correct.

AUTHOR: We corrected this error and deleted NADPH that was not used in our experiment.

2.13. Quality of figure 2 should be improved (too many pixels).

AUTHOR: We performed the quality improvement of all figures of the manuscript according PACE software, as indicated by Plos One submission platform.

2.14. Figure 5: “ECM” is not defined in the legend.

AUTHOR: “ECM” was used as abbreviation of “Extracellular Matrix”. In this new version of the manuscript, after the alignment of our RNA sequences to the newest bovine genome assembly, the biological process related to “Extracellular Matrix” is still highlighted in co-expression analyses. We have corrected the legend of the figure and use “EMO” as abbreviation of the biological process “Extracellular Matrix Organization”.

2.15. Figure S1: what is “MNP1” in orange in the CD14 histogram?

AUTHOR: This figure was renamed as Fig 1 in order to make the data clearer to readers. The first step in flow cytometry analysis is often make gates that are used to distinguish populations of cells based on their forward and side scatter properties. Forward and side scatter give an estimation of the size and granularity of the cells respectively, although this can depend on several factors of the sample. Distinguishing populations of cells can be relatively straight forward when there is only one type of cell, but it can be more complex for samples where there are multiple cell types. “NMP1” is an abbreviation of “No Marked Population 1” used to separate mononuclear cells from debris and other possible cell contaminants on day 2 of analysis. Since the Figure was chosen as a representation of the flow cytometry assays, we changed the image 1B using the same terminology and gates for both histograms. The bar chart (Fig1A) represents the calculation of % FITC positive cell in all events counted in the gate of mononuclear cells.

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: Yes: Tobias Mourier

Reviewer #2: Yes: Aude Remot

Corresponding author: Yes: Wanessa A. Carvalho

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf

Decision Letter 1

Gordon Langsley

22 Oct 2020

Lipopolysaccharide triggers different transcriptional signatures in taurine and indicine cattle macrophages: reactive oxygen species and potential outcomes to the development of immune response to infections

PONE-D-20-11705R1

Dear Dr. Wanessa Araujo Carvalho,

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

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. 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 help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- 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.

Kind regards,

Gordon Langsley

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

**********

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

**********

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

Reviewer #2: 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

**********

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

**********

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: I thank the authors for the revised version of the manuscript and the new analysis. All my comments were addressed and I do not have any further question. I endorse the manuscript for publication.

**********

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: Yes: Aude Remot

Acceptance letter

Gordon Langsley

27 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-11705R1

Lipopolysaccharide triggers different transcriptional signatures in taurine and indicine cattle macrophages: reactive oxygen species and potential outcomes to the development of immune response to infections

Dear Dr. Carvalho:

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. Gordon Langsley

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. MDMs transcripts mapped data and mRNA representativeness.

    Percentage of reads mapped to ARS-UCD1.2 bovine reference genome. (A) Reads mapped for each breed and treatment (unstimulated and LPS); (B) Total number of transcripts detected and categorized according to average of in vitro gene expression levels (CPM, counts per million) in unstimulated and LPS treated MDMs from Holstein ang Gir breeds.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. RNA sequencing validation and nitrite dosage at supernatant of unstimulated and LPS treated MDMs.

    (A-J) RT-qPCR of unstimulated and LPS-treated MDMs from Holstein (n = 4) and Gir (n = 4) bovine breeds. Data shown as average ± SD of three replicates for each animal. T-test was used for comparisons between breeds and one-way analysis of variance between different stimuli into the same breed. *P<0.05, **P<0.01, ***P<0.001. (K) Levels of nitrite at unstimulated and LPS (10ng/ml) treated MDM cell culture supernatant from Holstein and Gir breeds after 48hours of stimulation. Data shown as concentration average ± SD for each group. T-test was used for comparisons between breeds (*P<0.05) and one-way analysis variance between different stimuli within the same breed.

    (TIF)

    S1 Table. Primer sequences used in RT-qPCR analyses.

    Gene symbol, name and primer sequence of all primers designed for RT-qPCR analyses. RPLP0 and Ubiquitin used as reference genes (lowest values of average expression stability M according to GeNORM). Tm: melting temperature; Fwd: forward primer; Rev: reverse primer.

    (PDF)

    S2 Table. List of DEGs from unstimulated vs LPS treated Holstein MDMs.

    Differential expression was performed on RNA sequencing data from unstimulated and LPS (100ng/ml) treated MDMs from Holstein breed. Genes that showed statistical differences in contrast (LogFC≥1; CPM>1; FDR<0.05) are shown.

    (PDF)

    S3 Table. List of DEGs from unstimulated vs LPS treated Gir MDMs.

    Differential expression was performed on RNA sequencing data from unstimulated and LPS (100ng/ml) treated MDMs from Gir breed Genes that showed statistical differences in contrast (LogFC≥1; CPM>1; FDR<0.05) are shown.

    (PDF)

    S4 Table. List of DEGs from Holstein vs Gir contrast for unstimulated MDMs.

    Differential expression was performed on RNA sequencing data from unstimulated MDMs between Holstein and Gir breeds. genes that showed statistical differences in contrast (LogFC≥1; CPM>1; FDR<0.05) are shown.

    (PDF)

    S5 Table. List of DEGs from Holstein vs Gir contrast for LPS treated MDMs.

    Differential expression was performed on RNA sequencing data from LPS treated (100 ng/ml) MDMs between Holstein and Gir breeds. Genes that showed statistical differences in contrast (LogFC≥1; CPM>1; FDR<0.05) are shown.

    (PDF)

    S6 Table. DEG enrichment analysis of Holstein vs Gir unstimulated MDMs.

    DEG enrichment analysis performed by DAVID with data from unstimulated MDMs from Holstein versus Gir animals, showing biological processes and associated genes with statistical significance (P value and FDR). The “Count” column shows the number of enriched genes for each process.

    (PDF)

    S7 Table. DEG enrichment analysis of unstimulated vs LPS treated MDMs from Holstein breed.

    DEG enrichment analysis performed by DAVID with data from unstimulated versus LPS treated MDMs from Holstein breed, showing biological processes and associated genes with statistical significance (P value and FDR). The “Count” column shows the number of enriched genes for each process.

    (PDF)

    S8 Table. DEG enrichment analysis of unstimulated vs LPS treated MDMs from Gir breed.

    DEG enrichment analysis performed by DAVID with data from unstimulated versus LPS treated MDMs from Gir breed, showing biological processes and associated genes with statistical significance (P value and FDR). The “Count” column shows the number of enriched genes for each process.

    (PDF)

    S9 Table. DEG enrichment analysis of Holstein vs Gir LPS treated MDMs.

    DEG enrichment analysis performed by DAVID with data from LPS treated MDMs from Holstein versus Gir animals, showing biological processes and associated genes with statistical significance (P value and FDR). The “Count” column shows the number of enriched genes for each process.

    (PDF)

    S10 Table. Bovine key transcription factors (TF) resulting from co-expression analysis of LPS treated MDMs from Gir and Holstein breeds.

    Table showing key transcription factors (KeyTF) displaying the scores for RIF1: TF that are consistently most differentially co-expressed with the highly abundant and highly DEGs in Gir and Holstein MDMs; RIF2: TF with the most altered ability to predict the abundance of DEGs in Gir and Holstein MDMs. The frequencies for each KeyTF were calculated for Holstein and Gir MDM stimulated with LPS. The differential frequencies were also calculated for each KeyTF in order to infer their importance on MDM response to LPS treatment for each Holstein and Gir breeds.

    (PDF)

    S11 Table. List of DEGs from bovine MDMs that directly interacts to unique key transcription factors which are related to genome wide association studies.

    CeTF co-expression analysis of LPS treated MDMs displayed all DEGs associated to KeyTF for each bovine breed. Overlap of co-expression networks in the Cystoscape software with Diffany plugin revealed genes found in genome wide association studies that make one unique connection to KeyTF.

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf

    Data Availability Statement

    All RNA sequence datafiles are available from the GEO repository database (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo; accession number GSE 147813) open for public access.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES