Multi-Omic blood analysis reveals differences in innate inflammatory sensitivity between species

David J. Gregory, Feifei Han, Peng Li, Marina Gritsenko, Jennifer Kyle, Frank E. Riley, Deborah Chavez, Vania Yotova, Renata H.M. Sindeaux, Mohamed B. F. Hawash, Fengyun Xu, Li-Yuan Hung, Douglas L. Hayden, Ron G. Tompkins, Robert E. Lanford, Lester Kobzik, Judith Hellman, Jonathan M. Jacobs, Luis B. Barreiro, Wenzhong Xiao, H. Shaw Warren
{"title":"Multi-Omic blood analysis reveals differences in innate inflammatory sensitivity between species","authors":"David J. Gregory, Feifei Han, Peng Li, Marina Gritsenko, Jennifer Kyle, Frank E. Riley, Deborah Chavez, Vania Yotova, Renata H.M. Sindeaux, Mohamed B. F. Hawash, Fengyun Xu, Li-Yuan Hung, Douglas L. Hayden, Ron G. Tompkins, Robert E. Lanford, Lester Kobzik, Judith Hellman, Jonathan M. Jacobs, Luis B. Barreiro, Wenzhong Xiao, H. Shaw Warren","doi":"10.1101/2023.11.30.23299243","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Vertebrates differ greatly in responses to pro-inflammatory agonists such as bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS), complicating use of animal models to study human sepsis or inflammatory disorders. We compared transcriptomes of resting and LPS-exposed blood from six LPS-sensitive species (rabbit, pig, sheep, cow, chimpanzee, human) and four LPS-resilient species (mice, rats, baboon, rhesus), as well as plasma proteomes and lipidomes. Unexpectedly, at baseline, sensitive species already had enhanced expression of LPS-responsive genes relative to resilient species. After LPS stimulation, maximally different genes in resilient species included genes that detoxify LPS, diminish bacterial growth, discriminate sepsis from SIRS, and play roles in autophagy and apoptosis. The findings reveal the molecular landscape of species differences in inflammation, and may inform better selection of species for pre-clinical models.","PeriodicalId":501527,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Allergy and Immunology","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Allergy and Immunology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.11.30.23299243","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Vertebrates differ greatly in responses to pro-inflammatory agonists such as bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS), complicating use of animal models to study human sepsis or inflammatory disorders. We compared transcriptomes of resting and LPS-exposed blood from six LPS-sensitive species (rabbit, pig, sheep, cow, chimpanzee, human) and four LPS-resilient species (mice, rats, baboon, rhesus), as well as plasma proteomes and lipidomes. Unexpectedly, at baseline, sensitive species already had enhanced expression of LPS-responsive genes relative to resilient species. After LPS stimulation, maximally different genes in resilient species included genes that detoxify LPS, diminish bacterial growth, discriminate sepsis from SIRS, and play roles in autophagy and apoptosis. The findings reveal the molecular landscape of species differences in inflammation, and may inform better selection of species for pre-clinical models.
多组学血液分析揭示了物种间先天炎症敏感性的差异
脊椎动物对细菌脂多糖(LPS)等促炎激动剂的反应差异很大,这使动物模型用于研究人类败血症或炎症性疾病的使用复杂化。我们比较了6种脂多糖敏感物种(兔、猪、羊、牛、黑猩猩、人类)和4种脂多糖弹性物种(小鼠、大鼠、狒狒、恒河猴)静息和暴露于脂多糖的血液的转录组,以及血浆蛋白质组和脂质组。出乎意料的是,在基线时,敏感物种相对于弹性物种已经增强了lps响应基因的表达。在LPS刺激后,弹性物种中最大程度不同的基因包括解毒LPS、抑制细菌生长、区分脓毒症和SIRS以及参与自噬和凋亡的基因。这些发现揭示了炎症中物种差异的分子格局,并可能为临床前模型的物种选择提供更好的信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信