Differential response induced by LPS and MPLA in immunocompetent and septic individuals

Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and monophosphoryl lipid A (MPLA) induce, overall, similar transcriptional profiles in healthy individuals, although LPS has been shown to more potently induce pro-inflammatory cytokines. We explore herein whether MPLA could be considered as a synthetic replacement of LPS in...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inClinical immunology (Orlando, Fla.) Vol. 226; p. 108714
Main Authors Albert Vega, Chloé, Karakike, Eleni, Bartolo, François, Mouton, William, Cerrato, Elisabeth, Brengel-Pesce, Karen, Giamarellos-Bourboulis, Evangelos J., Mallet, François, Trouillet-Assant, Sophie
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States Elsevier Inc 01.05.2021
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and monophosphoryl lipid A (MPLA) induce, overall, similar transcriptional profiles in healthy individuals, although LPS has been shown to more potently induce pro-inflammatory cytokines. We explore herein whether MPLA could be considered as a synthetic replacement of LPS in immune functional assays to study anergy of immune cells in septic patients. Ex vivo whole blood stimulation with MPLA revealed a lower induction of the TNFα secreted protein in 20 septic patients (SP) compared to 10 healthy volunteers (HV), in agreement with monocyte anergy. Principal component analysis of the 93-gene molecular response to MPLA and LPS stimulation found that the main variability was driven by stimulation in HV and by pathophysiology in SP. MPLA was a stronger inducer of the HLA family genes than LPS in both populations, arguing for divergent signalling pathways downstream of TLR-4. In addition, MPLA appeared to present a more informative stratification potential within the septic population.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
ObjectType-News-3
content type line 23
ISSN:1521-6616
1521-7035
DOI:10.1016/j.clim.2021.108714