Interorgan Molecular Communication Strategies of “Local” and “Systemic” Innate Immune Responses in Mosquito Anopheles stephensi
Mosquitoes that transmit many deadly infectious diseases also need to keep fighting against many microbial infections. Constitutive expression of multiple antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) in almost all body tissues is believed to facilitate the effective management of these local infections. When any i...
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2018-02-01
|
Series: | Frontiers in Immunology |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fimmu.2018.00148/full |
id |
doaj-fd2dba76f049401e898a13724256fa28 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-fd2dba76f049401e898a13724256fa282020-11-25T00:21:48ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Immunology1664-32242018-02-01910.3389/fimmu.2018.00148320655Interorgan Molecular Communication Strategies of “Local” and “Systemic” Innate Immune Responses in Mosquito Anopheles stephensiTanwee Das De0Tanwee Das De1Punita Sharma2Tina Thomas3Deepak Singla4Sanjay Tevatiya5Seena Kumari6Charu Chauhan7Jyoti Rani8Vartika Srivastava9Ramandeep Kaur10Kailash C. Pandey11Rajnikant Dixit12Host-Parasite Interaction Biology Group, ICMR-National Institute of Malaria Research, New Delhi, IndiaDepartment of Biotechnology, Delhi Technological University, Shahbad Daulatpur, New Delhi, IndiaHost-Parasite Interaction Biology Group, ICMR-National Institute of Malaria Research, New Delhi, IndiaHost-Parasite Interaction Biology Group, ICMR-National Institute of Malaria Research, New Delhi, IndiaHost-Parasite Interaction Biology Group, ICMR-National Institute of Malaria Research, New Delhi, IndiaHost-Parasite Interaction Biology Group, ICMR-National Institute of Malaria Research, New Delhi, IndiaHost-Parasite Interaction Biology Group, ICMR-National Institute of Malaria Research, New Delhi, IndiaHost-Parasite Interaction Biology Group, ICMR-National Institute of Malaria Research, New Delhi, IndiaHost-Parasite Interaction Biology Group, ICMR-National Institute of Malaria Research, New Delhi, IndiaHost-Parasite Interaction Biology Group, ICMR-National Institute of Malaria Research, New Delhi, IndiaHost-Parasite Interaction Biology Group, ICMR-National Institute of Malaria Research, New Delhi, IndiaDepartment of Biochemistry, National Institute for Research in Environmental Health, Indian Council of Medical Research, Bhopal, IndiaHost-Parasite Interaction Biology Group, ICMR-National Institute of Malaria Research, New Delhi, IndiaMosquitoes that transmit many deadly infectious diseases also need to keep fighting against many microbial infections. Constitutive expression of multiple antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) in almost all body tissues is believed to facilitate the effective management of these local infections. When any infection breaches the local barrier, AMPs are induced rapidly in non-target tissues such as hemocytes (HCs) and establish their co-ordination with systemic immune effectors to clear off the body infection. But how interorgan immune communication is managed during local and systemic infections remain largely unknown. To understand this interorgan molecular relationship, we identified, extensively profiled and compared the expression of AMPs in three important mosquito tissues viz. midgut, fat body (FB), and HCs. dsRNA-mediated AMPs silencing suggests that mosquito tissues are able to manage an optimal expression of AMPs at the physiological level. We also examined the possible contribution of two important immune regulator genes relish (REL) and nitric oxide synthase, controlling AMPs expression in these tissues during local or systemic infections. We show that each tissue has a unique ability to respond to local/systemic challenges, but HCs are more specialized to recognize and discriminate-specific antigens than gut and FB. Our investigation also revealed that both REL and NO participate in the overall management of the interorgan immune responses, but at the same time each tissue also has its own ability to maintain the interorgan flow of signals. In our knowledge, this is the first large-scale study examining the interorgan immune relationship in the mosquito.http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fimmu.2018.00148/fullmosquitoinnate immunityantimicrobial peptidefat bodymidguthemocyte |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Tanwee Das De Tanwee Das De Punita Sharma Tina Thomas Deepak Singla Sanjay Tevatiya Seena Kumari Charu Chauhan Jyoti Rani Vartika Srivastava Ramandeep Kaur Kailash C. Pandey Rajnikant Dixit |
spellingShingle |
Tanwee Das De Tanwee Das De Punita Sharma Tina Thomas Deepak Singla Sanjay Tevatiya Seena Kumari Charu Chauhan Jyoti Rani Vartika Srivastava Ramandeep Kaur Kailash C. Pandey Rajnikant Dixit Interorgan Molecular Communication Strategies of “Local” and “Systemic” Innate Immune Responses in Mosquito Anopheles stephensi Frontiers in Immunology mosquito innate immunity antimicrobial peptide fat body midgut hemocyte |
author_facet |
Tanwee Das De Tanwee Das De Punita Sharma Tina Thomas Deepak Singla Sanjay Tevatiya Seena Kumari Charu Chauhan Jyoti Rani Vartika Srivastava Ramandeep Kaur Kailash C. Pandey Rajnikant Dixit |
author_sort |
Tanwee Das De |
title |
Interorgan Molecular Communication Strategies of “Local” and “Systemic” Innate Immune Responses in Mosquito Anopheles stephensi |
title_short |
Interorgan Molecular Communication Strategies of “Local” and “Systemic” Innate Immune Responses in Mosquito Anopheles stephensi |
title_full |
Interorgan Molecular Communication Strategies of “Local” and “Systemic” Innate Immune Responses in Mosquito Anopheles stephensi |
title_fullStr |
Interorgan Molecular Communication Strategies of “Local” and “Systemic” Innate Immune Responses in Mosquito Anopheles stephensi |
title_full_unstemmed |
Interorgan Molecular Communication Strategies of “Local” and “Systemic” Innate Immune Responses in Mosquito Anopheles stephensi |
title_sort |
interorgan molecular communication strategies of “local” and “systemic” innate immune responses in mosquito anopheles stephensi |
publisher |
Frontiers Media S.A. |
series |
Frontiers in Immunology |
issn |
1664-3224 |
publishDate |
2018-02-01 |
description |
Mosquitoes that transmit many deadly infectious diseases also need to keep fighting against many microbial infections. Constitutive expression of multiple antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) in almost all body tissues is believed to facilitate the effective management of these local infections. When any infection breaches the local barrier, AMPs are induced rapidly in non-target tissues such as hemocytes (HCs) and establish their co-ordination with systemic immune effectors to clear off the body infection. But how interorgan immune communication is managed during local and systemic infections remain largely unknown. To understand this interorgan molecular relationship, we identified, extensively profiled and compared the expression of AMPs in three important mosquito tissues viz. midgut, fat body (FB), and HCs. dsRNA-mediated AMPs silencing suggests that mosquito tissues are able to manage an optimal expression of AMPs at the physiological level. We also examined the possible contribution of two important immune regulator genes relish (REL) and nitric oxide synthase, controlling AMPs expression in these tissues during local or systemic infections. We show that each tissue has a unique ability to respond to local/systemic challenges, but HCs are more specialized to recognize and discriminate-specific antigens than gut and FB. Our investigation also revealed that both REL and NO participate in the overall management of the interorgan immune responses, but at the same time each tissue also has its own ability to maintain the interorgan flow of signals. In our knowledge, this is the first large-scale study examining the interorgan immune relationship in the mosquito. |
topic |
mosquito innate immunity antimicrobial peptide fat body midgut hemocyte |
url |
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fimmu.2018.00148/full |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT tanweedasde interorganmolecularcommunicationstrategiesoflocalandsystemicinnateimmuneresponsesinmosquitoanophelesstephensi AT tanweedasde interorganmolecularcommunicationstrategiesoflocalandsystemicinnateimmuneresponsesinmosquitoanophelesstephensi AT punitasharma interorganmolecularcommunicationstrategiesoflocalandsystemicinnateimmuneresponsesinmosquitoanophelesstephensi AT tinathomas interorganmolecularcommunicationstrategiesoflocalandsystemicinnateimmuneresponsesinmosquitoanophelesstephensi AT deepaksingla interorganmolecularcommunicationstrategiesoflocalandsystemicinnateimmuneresponsesinmosquitoanophelesstephensi AT sanjaytevatiya interorganmolecularcommunicationstrategiesoflocalandsystemicinnateimmuneresponsesinmosquitoanophelesstephensi AT seenakumari interorganmolecularcommunicationstrategiesoflocalandsystemicinnateimmuneresponsesinmosquitoanophelesstephensi AT charuchauhan interorganmolecularcommunicationstrategiesoflocalandsystemicinnateimmuneresponsesinmosquitoanophelesstephensi AT jyotirani interorganmolecularcommunicationstrategiesoflocalandsystemicinnateimmuneresponsesinmosquitoanophelesstephensi AT vartikasrivastava interorganmolecularcommunicationstrategiesoflocalandsystemicinnateimmuneresponsesinmosquitoanophelesstephensi AT ramandeepkaur interorganmolecularcommunicationstrategiesoflocalandsystemicinnateimmuneresponsesinmosquitoanophelesstephensi AT kailashcpandey interorganmolecularcommunicationstrategiesoflocalandsystemicinnateimmuneresponsesinmosquitoanophelesstephensi AT rajnikantdixit interorganmolecularcommunicationstrategiesoflocalandsystemicinnateimmuneresponsesinmosquitoanophelesstephensi |
_version_ |
1725360952069586944 |