Strategies to discover regulatory circuits of the mammalian immune system - PubMed (original) (raw)
Review
Strategies to discover regulatory circuits of the mammalian immune system
Ido Amit et al. Nat Rev Immunol. 2011.
Abstract
Recent advances in technologies for genome- and proteome-scale measurements and perturbations promise to accelerate discovery in every aspect of biology and medicine. Although such rapid technological progress provides a tremendous opportunity, it also demands that we learn how to use these tools effectively. One application with great potential to enhance our understanding of biological systems is the unbiased reconstruction of genetic and molecular networks. Cells of the immune system provide a particularly useful model for developing and applying such approaches. Here, we review approaches for the reconstruction of signalling and transcriptional networks, with a focus on applications in the mammalian innate immune system.
Figures
Figure 1. Immune cell activation, cell states and network reconstruction
A. We first define the goal of network reconstruction with an abstract example of a simple circuit. When resting immune cells encounter a specific ligand (such as LPS, which signals through TLR4, or peptide–MHC, which signals through TCR), they make a transition from a resting to an activated state through a series of intermediate states (where a ‘state’ is defined by specific values of measurable parameters, such as transcript levels or phosphorylated proteins, that are reproducibly observed under certain experimental conditions at specific timepoints). Such state transitions occur as a result of a temporal cascade of signalling and transcriptional events. In this simplified example, protein A is initially modified (for example, by phosphorylation) in response to a ligand and induces transcription of gene B by binding to its promoter. Proteins B and A then form a complex that stimulates transcription of C, a key protein in the final activated state. The challenge of network reconstruction is to identify components A, B and C, their direct and indirect interactions and their roles in regulating the parameters that define each cellular state. This can be carried out using an experimental strategy as described in our studies of dendritic cells (DCs). B–D, Physiological examples of immune phenomena occurring at three timescales (from rapid to slow) that can be studied by network reconstruction: innate immune responses of DCs to pathogens (B), T cell responses to antigen (C) and haematopoeisis (D). B, Dendritic cell gene expression profiles can be measured in response to distinct ligands (such as lipopolysaccharide (LPS), double-stranded RNA (dsRNA), beta-glucan and phosphatidyl serine (PtdSer)). Each of the resulting four states of DCs has distinct effects on an individual’s innate and adaptive immune responses. Many additional states can be studied given the number of ligands affecting DCs. C, T cell polarization into specific states is a crucial decision point in the mammalian immune response, and is controlled by cytokines and other molecules that are present when T cells are activated by peptide–MHC complexes. D, Haematopoeisis is a well-studied developmental process in which haematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) develop into precursors (such as common lymphoid progenitors (CLPs) and common myeloid progenitors (CMPs)) that further develop into mature immune cells. Note that only a few cell types are shown for illustration.
Figure 2. Overview of the proposed network reconstruction strategy
Top, Four major steps in network reconstruction. Bottom, examples of technologies that could be used at each step.
Figure 3. Future clinical applications
Immune cells are isolated from patient blood or other tissues and studied ex vivo using global and focused profiling approaches (for example, as described in Figs.1 and 2 for studying the resting state or the responses to ligands and perturbations) to derive network models that help explain observed cellular states. If alterations in network behavior can be associated with particular disease phenotypes, then individual-specific network models will be helpful in the diagnosis, prognosis and selection of therapeutic interventions for immune disorders.
Similar articles
- Protein interaction networks in innate immunity.
Rebsamen M, Kandasamy RK, Superti-Furga G. Rebsamen M, et al. Trends Immunol. 2013 Dec;34(12):610-9. doi: 10.1016/j.it.2013.05.002. Epub 2013 Jul 2. Trends Immunol. 2013. PMID: 23827258 Review. - Network representations of immune system complexity.
Subramanian N, Torabi-Parizi P, Gottschalk RA, Germain RN, Dutta B. Subramanian N, et al. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Syst Biol Med. 2015 Jan-Feb;7(1):13-38. doi: 10.1002/wsbm.1288. Epub 2015 Jan 27. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Syst Biol Med. 2015. PMID: 25625853 Free PMC article. Review. - Dissecting innate immune responses with the tools of systems biology.
Smith KD, Bolouri H. Smith KD, et al. Curr Opin Immunol. 2005 Feb;17(1):49-54. doi: 10.1016/j.coi.2004.11.005. Curr Opin Immunol. 2005. PMID: 15653310 Review. - Toll-like receptor signaling and regulation of cytokine gene expression in the immune system.
Ozato K, Tsujimura H, Tamura T. Ozato K, et al. Biotechniques. 2002 Oct;Suppl:66-8, 70, 72 passim. Biotechniques. 2002. PMID: 12395929 Review. - Genomics and the immune system.
Pipkin ME, Monticelli S. Pipkin ME, et al. Immunology. 2008 May;124(1):23-32. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2567.2008.02818.x. Epub 2008 Feb 20. Immunology. 2008. PMID: 18298549 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
- Human Genes Involved in the Interaction between Host and Gut Microbiome: Regulation and Pathogenic Mechanisms.
Boccuto L, Tack J, Ianiro G, Abenavoli L, Scarpellini E. Boccuto L, et al. Genes (Basel). 2023 Mar 31;14(4):857. doi: 10.3390/genes14040857. Genes (Basel). 2023. PMID: 37107615 Free PMC article. Review. - Behavioural immune landscapes of inflammation.
Crainiciuc G, Palomino-Segura M, Molina-Moreno M, Sicilia J, Aragones DG, Li JLY, Madurga R, Adrover JM, Aroca-Crevillén A, Martin-Salamanca S, Del Valle AS, Castillo SD, Welch HCE, Soehnlein O, Graupera M, Sánchez-Cabo F, Zarbock A, Smithgall TE, Di Pilato M, Mempel TR, Tharaux PL, González SF, Ayuso-Sacido A, Ng LG, Calvo GF, González-Díaz I, Díaz-de-María F, Hidalgo A. Crainiciuc G, et al. Nature. 2022 Jan;601(7893):415-421. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04263-y. Epub 2022 Jan 5. Nature. 2022. PMID: 34987220 Free PMC article. - IRF1 governs the differential interferon-stimulated gene responses in human monocytes and macrophages by regulating chromatin accessibility.
Song R, Gao Y, Dozmorov I, Malladi V, Saha I, McDaniel MM, Parameswaran S, Liang C, Arana C, Zhang B, Wakeland B, Zhou J, Weirauch MT, Kottyan LC, Wakeland EK, Pasare C. Song R, et al. Cell Rep. 2021 Mar 23;34(12):108891. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2021.108891. Cell Rep. 2021. PMID: 33761354 Free PMC article. - Systems immunology: Integrating multi-omics data to infer regulatory networks and hidden drivers of immunity.
Yu J, Peng J, Chi H. Yu J, et al. Curr Opin Syst Biol. 2019 Jun;15:19-29. doi: 10.1016/j.coisb.2019.03.003. Epub 2019 Mar 12. Curr Opin Syst Biol. 2019. PMID: 32789283 Free PMC article. - Network Approaches for Dissecting the Immune System.
Hao Shi, Yan KK, Ding L, Qian C, Chi H, Yu J. Hao Shi, et al. iScience. 2020 Aug 21;23(8):101354. doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2020.101354. Epub 2020 Jul 10. iScience. 2020. PMID: 32717640 Free PMC article. Review.
References
- Haining WN, Wherry EJ. Integrating genomic signatures for immunologic discovery. Immunity. 2010;32:152–61. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
- U54 AI057159/AI/NIAID NIH HHS/United States
- HHMI/Howard Hughes Medical Institute/United States
- DP1 CA174427/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- DP2 OD002230/OD/NIH HHS/United States
- U01 AI074575/AI/NIAID NIH HHS/United States
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical