1
Lipopolysaccharide-mediated Reactive Oxygen Species andSignal Transduction in the Regulation of IL-1 Gene Expression
Running title: LPS-mediated ROS and signals in the regulation of proIL-1/IL-1
Hsien-Yeh Hsu1 and Meng-Hsuan Wen1
Faculty of Medical Technology, Institute of Biotechnology in Medicine,National Yang-Ming University1, 112, Taipei, TAIWAN
Address reprint requests and correspondence to:
Dr. Hsien-Yeh HsuFaculty of Medical TechnologyInstitute of Biotechnology in MedicineNational Yang-Ming University155 Li-Nong Street, Shih-PaiTaipei, TAIWAN
Tel. number: 011-886-2-2826-7252FAX number: 011-886-2-2826-4092Email: [email protected]
Copyright 2002 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.
JBC Papers in Press. Published on April 8, 2002 as Manuscript M111883200 by guest on July 30, 2019
http://ww
w.jbc.org/
Dow
nloaded from
by guest on July 30, 2019http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
by guest on July 30, 2019
http://ww
w.jbc.org/
Dow
nloaded from
2
1The abbreviations used are: LPS, lipopolysaccharide; ROS, reactive oxygen species; IL-1,
interleukin-1β; proIL-1, prointerleukin-1β; NAC, N-acetyl-cysteine; DPI, diphenyleneiodonium
chloride; MAPK, mitogen activated protein kinase; ERK, extracellular signal-regulated kinase;
JNK, c-JUN NH2-terminal protein kinase; p38, p38 mitogen activated protein kinase; PI 3-kinase,
phosphatidylinositol 3 kinase; PAK, p21 activated kinase; PTK, protein tyrosine kinase; PTP,
protein tyrosine phosphorylation; ICE, interleukin 1 converting enzyme
by guest on July 30, 2019http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
3
ABSTRACT
Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) stimulates macrophages to release inflammatory cytokines,
interleukin-1β (IL-1) and TNF. LPS-induced TNF suppresses scavenger receptor functions in
macrophages (van Lenten, B.J. and Fogelman, A.M. (1992) J. Immunol. 148, 112-116), which is
regulated by TNF-mediated protein kinases (Hsu, H.Y. and Twu, Y.C. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275,
41035-41048). To examine the molecular mechanism for LPS induction of IL-1 in macrophages, we
demonstrate that LPS quickly stimulated reactive oxygen species (ROS), and 3 h later induced
prointerleukin-1β (proIL-1, precursor of IL-1) production and IL-1 secretion. LPS stimulated proIL-
1 message/protein between 3 h and 10 h; however, there was a 40% reduction of proIL-1 in pre-
incubation of the antioxidant, N-acetyl-cysteine (NAC). Moreover, NAC moderated LPS-induced
IL-1 secretion partially via ICE. The maximal activity of LPS-induced ERK, JNK and p38 was 12-
fold (30 min), 5-fold (30 min) and 16-fold (15 min), respectively. In contrast, NAC reduced ERK
activity to 60% and decreased p38 activity to the basal level, but JNK activity was induced 2-fold.
Furthermore, the pharmacological antagonists LY294002, SB203580, curcumin, calphostin C and
PD98059 revealed the diverse roles of LPS-mediated protein kinases in proIL-1. On the other hand,
NAC and diphenyleneiodonium chloride partially inhibited LPS-induced Rac activity and protein
tyrosine kinase (PTK), indicating that LPS-mediated ROS and NADPH oxidase correspond to Rac
activation and IL-1 expression. Our findings establish for the first time that LPS-mediated PTK/PI-3
kinase/Rac/p38 pathways play a more important role than pathways of PTK/PKC/MEK/ERK and of
PTK/PI-3 kinase/Rac/JNK in the regulation of proIL-1/IL-1. The findings also further elucidate the
critical role of LPS-mediated ROS in signal transduction pathways. Our results suggest that
understanding LPS-transduced signals in IL-1 induction upon the antibacterial action of macrophages
should provide a therapeutic strategy for aberrant inflammatory responses leading to severe cellular
injury or concurrent multi-organ septic damage.
by guest on July 30, 2019http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
4
Lipopolysaccharide (LPS, or endotoxin) is a potent activator in the immune system. It
induces a variety of immune responses to severe infection (3-5), such as local inflammation, antibody
production, and septic shock . In addition, LPS is the major mediator of the high morbidity and
mortality rates characteristic of Gram-negative bacteria, i.e., endotoxic shock (3; 5). The
architecture of LPS consists of three separated “building blocks” : lipid A, an inner core region, and
the O-specific side chain. These separate building blocks have widely different compositions and
structures that are reflected in their biological activities (6). In early immune response for LPS,
macrophages, which are the major cellular targets for LPS action, play a central role in host defense
with physical and immune responses against bacterial infection (4). It is thought that LPS-induced
signal transmission requires binding to specific cellular receptors, including toll-like receptors (TLRs)
(5; 7-9). While bacterial products are binding to TLRs on macrophages, the cells are activated and
stimulate a wide spectrum of host defensive systems. This requires the activation of multiple
signaling molecules in transduction pathways, for example, protein tyrosine kinase (PTK), LPS
receptor-associated serine/threonine kinase, Ras, Raf-1, IκB kinase, MEK, mitogen-activated protein
kinases (MAPKs) (4; 10-16), etc. These molecules may converge or diverge, and often have “cross-
talk” properties, which make signaling networks complicated and with mutual influence.
Subsequently, the signals further transduce to downstream pathways and activate numerous
transcription factors, including AP-1, NF-κB (13), and ATF-2 (17). This in turn triggers a large
amount of genes encoded for inflammatory mediators and cytokines. These elicited cytokines are
believed to be responsible for cell proliferation, differentiation, immuno-regulation and cytotoxicity
for bacteria and bacterial products (6).
As it is known that LPS has multiple and different effects on macrophages, including the
induction of inflammatory cytokines such as IL-1, IL-6 and TNF (12; 15; 18; 19). Although IL-1
is a potent inflammatory cytokine with various biological activities regulating host defense and
immune responses (20), there has been less investigation of LPS induction of IL-1. In the process
of IL-1 maturation, a precursor molecule referred to as prointerleukin-1β (proIL-1) is produced in
the cytosol of macrophages. Originally, proIL-1 is a 31-34 kD non-active form of cytokine, until it
is cleavaged via an enzymatic procession into a 17 kD mature functional form by IL-1 converting
enzyme (ICE), or caspase 1 (21-24). After the ICE cleavage, the active IL-1 is released and
exhibits its diverse biological functions.
As growth factors or cytokines, LPS induces MAPKs, including extracellular signal-
regulated kinase (ERK), c-JUN NH2-terminal protein kinase (JNK), and p38 mitogen activated
protein kinase (p38). These play key roles in the LPS-mediated signal transduction between
by guest on July 30, 2019http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
5
extracellular membrane stimulation and the cytoplasmic response and nuclear activity of the
activation of the gene (11; 17). Specifically, ERK activation involves cytokine induction and
regulation during responses to bacterial products (25-27). In addition to responding to numerous
physiological and stress stimuli (28-31), JNK is considered to play roles in regulating the
expression of various stress-induced proteins and inflammatory cytokines (12;31). p38 is
activated in response to stress signals such as LPS, osmotic stress and pro-inflammatory cytokines
(14; 27; 32; 33). Previous studies have shown that the p38 pathway is critical for LPS-stimulated
cytokines release (25; 33), including IL-1 and TNF induction in monocytes (17). Moreover,
previous findings indicated that p38 activity could be regulated via Rho GTPase (Rac1) and PAK
(34; 35).
Reactive oxygen species (ROS) regulate multiple cellular functions such as DNA synthesis
(36), transcription factor activation (37), gene expression (38) and proliferation (39). The
induction of H2O2 can affect various gene expressions in macrophages ((40; 41) and this
manuscript). There are several indications that H2O2 may act as a cellular secondary messenger
(37; 42). H2O2 is considered to activate NF-κB (37), which regulates the expression of multiple
immune and inflammatory molecules. Therefore, for the cell immune system, H2O2 displays a
critical role in the host defense mechanism. Alternatively, the activation of ROS including H2O2
acts as a significant and adverse participant in abnormal inflammatory diseases. One of the
important sources of ROS in phagocytes, including macrophage, is NADPH oxidase activation
during phagocytosis (43). NADPH oxidase, which could be inhibited by diphenyleneiodonium
chloride (DPI), is a membrane-associated complex, which consists of a minimum of four proteins,
i.e., membrane-bound cytochrome b558, p47phox, p67phox and Rac2 in humans, or Rac1 in rodents
(43). Among these components, Rac is the most critical for a functional NADPH oxidase whose
activity is regulated by small GTP-binding proteins. In response to phagocytic stimuli, i.e., lipids,
soluble peptides and opsonized particulates, NADPH oxidase moves electrons from NADPH to
reduce O2 to O2.-. These superoxide free radicals are rapidly converted to H2O2 and O2 by cytosolic
superoxide dismutase (44; 45) and then sequentially to other products. Nevertheless, both the
mechanism for LPS induction ROS and the role of induced ROS in cytokine expression of
macrophages are still unclear.
To understand how ligation of LPS induces inflammatory cytokine IL-1 gene expression
in macrophages, we studied the molecular mechanism for LPS-mediated signal transduction
pathways for various protein kinases in the regulation of IL-1 gene expression. Here we
demonstrate for the first time that LPS regulation of proIL-1/IL-1 expression in macrophages
by guest on July 30, 2019http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
6
J774A.1 is partially mediated by NADPH oxidase-derived ROS, as well as by accompanying the
PTK/PI-3 kinase/Rac1/p38 pathway, but less by the PKC/MEK/ERK pathway and the PTK/PI-3
kinase/Rac1/JNK pathway.
by guest on July 30, 2019http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
7
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
Cell cultures---Murine macrophage J774A.1 cell (J774A.1) was obtained from ATCC
(Rockville, MD), propagated in RPMI 1640 medium supplemented with 10% heated-inactivated
fetal bovine serum (Hyclone Co., Logan, UT) and 2 mM L-glutamine (Life Technologies, Inc., MD)
and cultured in 37°C, 5% CO2 incubator, unless otherwise indicated.
Materials---Lipopolysaccharide (LPS, from E. coli 0111:B4), sodium orthovanadate,
phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride (PMSF), bovine serum albumin (fraction V), diphenyleneiodonium
chloride (DPI), N-acetyl-cysteine (NAC) and curcumin were purchased from Sigma Co. (St. Louis,
MO). Calcium Phosphate Transfection reagent was purchased from InVitrogen Co. (Carlsbad,
CA). Immobilon PVDF membrane was obtained from Millipore Inc. (Bedford, MA). DuPont
non-radioactive Western Blot Chemiluminescence Reagent, Renaissance was purchased from
DuPont NEN Research Products Co. (Boston, MA). REZOl C&T was from PROtech Technology
Co. (Taipei, Taiwan). GeneAmp RNA PCR kit for RT-PCR amplification was purchased from
Perkin Elmer Inc. (Branchburg, NJ). Growth factors and antibodies: Anti-IL-1β, 3ZD
monoclonal antibody (a gift from the NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA to Dr. H.-Y. Hsu), anti-rabbit IgG-
HRP, anti-mouse IgG-HRP and protein A/G plus-agarose were obtained from Santa Cruz
Biotechnology (Santa Cruz, CA); anti-phosphotyrosine, clone 4G10 (mouse monoclonal IgG2bκ)
was purchased from Upstate Biotechnology, Inc. (Lake Placid, NY). The CaspACE Assay
System, Fluorometric, was purchased from Promega Co. (Madison, WI). Kinase assay kits: the
p44/42 MAP Kinase Assay Kit, SAPK/JNK Assay Kit and p38 MAP Kinase Assay Kit were
purchased from Cell Signaling Technology (Beverly, MA). The Rac Activation Assay Kit was
purchased from Upstate Biotechnology, Inc. (Lake Placid, NY). Protein kinase inhibitors:
PD98059 was from Cell Signaling Technology; whereas calphostin C, and herbimycin A were from
Calbiochem-Novabiochem Corp. (La Jolla, CA), LY294002 and SB203580 were from Sigma Co.
Oligonucleotides: primers for proIL-1/IL-1, glyceraldehyde phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH)
were synthesized from local MD Bio. Inc. (Taipei, Taiwan). The dominant negative JNK
construct (DN-JNK) was a gift from Dr. Michael Karin (UCSD, San Diego, CA, USA) (46). The
dominant negative Rac1 construct (DN-Rac1) was a gift from Dr. S. Bagrodia (Cornell University,
Ithaca, NY, USA) (47).
Measurement of LPS-induced intracellular ROS---Intracellular ROS stimulated by LPS
was measured by detecting the fluorescent intensity of either 2’ , 7’ -dichlorofluorescein diacetate
by guest on July 30, 2019http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
8
(DCFH) or the improved analogue carboxyl-DCFH (CM-DCFH) (Molecular Probes, Inc., Eugene,
OR) oxidized product, DCF (or CM-DCF), as described (48). Briefly, 0.5-1.0 x 106 J774A.1
cells/ml grown in serum- and phenol red-free RPMI medium (starvation medium) for 24 h, were
pre-incubated with 2 µmol/L of CM-DCFH and NAC at 37°C for 30 min in the dark. To these
were added fresh starvation medium containing LPS for additional incubation at the indicated times.
The relative fluorescent intensity of fluorophore CM-DCF, which was formed by peroxide
oxidation of the non-fluorescent precursor, was detected at an excitation wavelength of 485 nm and
an emission wavelength of 530 nm with a fluorometer, Cytofluor 2300 (Millipore Inc., Bedford,
MA). In contrast, CM-DCFH with starvation medium was used as a blank control.
Measurement of LPS-induced NO---Cells were seeded in a 1x107/100 mm plate containing
6 ml media. After 24 h incubation, the media were replaced by FBS-free medium 1 h prior to LPS
treatment, and the conditioned media were collected at the indicated times. For assaying NO, 50
µl conditioned media of each sample was mixed with 50 µl Griess reagent I (GR I: 1%
sulfanilamide dissolved in 5% H3PO4) in a 96-well assay plate at room temperature for 10 min.
This was followed by addition of Griess reagent II (GR II: 0.1% (w/v) N-1-
naphthylethylenediamine) at room temperature in the dark for another 10 min. The absorbance of
reaction (wavelength at 550 nm) in each well was measured by an MRX microplate reader (Dynex
Tech. Inc., Chantilly, VA.). A standard calibration curve for NaNO2 was constructed, and
calculation of the relative absorbance unit for the NO concentration of each sample was as
described (19).
RNA Isolation, RT and PCR Amplification for detecting the expression of proIL-1/IL-1,
Analysis of ICE Activity, Western blot Analysis, Assay Activity of ERK, JNK, p38 and Enzyme-
Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) for measurement of IL-1---All methods and procedures
followed the previous descriptions (34).
Measurement of LPS-induced Rac activity---The measurement of LPS-induced Rac
activity was followed the manufacturer’ s instructions from Upstate Biotechnology, Inc. Briefly,
cells were starved for 18 h, and then pretreated with or without NAC for 30 min prior to LPS
stimulation. The whole cell lysates were collected at the indicated times and immediately
incubated with PAK-1 PBD agarose for immunoprecipitating active PAK-1/Rac-GTP complex.
Because the Rac-GTP is able to associate with PAK-1, the amount of activated form of Rac was
detected via mouse monoclonal IgG2b anti-Rac by Western blot analysis.
by guest on July 30, 2019http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
9
RESULTS
LPS-induced ROS in murine macrophage J774A.1 cells---To investigate LPS-induced ROS
in J774A.1 cells, detection of fluorescent oxidative product of CM-DCFH was used to examine cell
oxygen bursts (48). As shown in Fig. 1A, within several minutes, LPS (1 µg/ml) stimulation of
cells rapidly induced significant ROS, including more H2O2 production, when compared to that of
LPS-untreated control samples. Although, there was less, but still significant, H2O2 generation by
low doses of LPS (0.1 µg/ml) (data not shown). In contrast, pretreatment of NAC (10 mM), a
potent antioxidant, quickly reduced LPS-induced ROS release (Fig. 1A) in a dose-dependent
fashion (data not shown). The difference of LPS-induced ROS production in cells treated with or
without NAC continued for the longer testing period of up to 240 min (Fig. 1B). NAC
approximately attenuated 20% of H2O2 in cells at the steady state (Figs. 1A and 1B). Although, we
could not totally rule out the involvement of other ROS including superoxide anion (O2.-) (data not
shown). Since LPS induces NO (19; 49; 50), a member of the ROS superfamily which plays
multiple biological roles in macrophages, we extended our examination to measure LPS-induced
NO in our system. The cells were grown at various times in media with or without LPS, and the
released NO in conditioned media was measured. In the early stage of LPS stimulation, there was
no detectable NO released from the cells (Fig. 1C). After incubation of LPS for 7 h, cells
gradually produced NO at about 2 µM, and at 24 h the concentration of NO reached 22 µM. In
contrast, in cells co-incubated with NAC, LPS-induced NO reduced to 0.8 µM and 6.4 µM at 7 h
and 24 h, respectively (Fig. 1C).
LPS induction and the role of LPS-induced ROS in regulation of IL-1 gene expression: IL-1
secretion, proIL-1 protein production and IL-1/proIL-1 message induction as well as activation of
ICE---To detect the effect of LPS on inflammatory cytokine, IL-1 gene expression by macrophages,
we first used ELISA to quantitate mature IL-1 secretion in the conditioned medium of J774A.1 cells.
As shown in Fig. 2A, compared with untreated control cells, IL-1 secretion increased with a longer
LPS incubation time. For example, at 3 h and 24 h, the concentration of LPS-induced IL-1 was
about 5 pg/ml and 22 pg/ml, respectively. In contrast, there was less IL-1 released from NAC-
pretreated cells, i.e., 1 pg/ml (3 h) and 12 pg/ml (24 h), indicating that LPS-stimulated ROS
involves IL-1 secretion.
Next, we investigated whether the increased mature IL-1 was reflected by induction of a
precursor of IL-1, proIL-1 protein (molecular weight 34 kD) and of IL-1/proIL-1 message. A time
course study of LPS-induced proIL-1 protein was performed by Western blot assay. For 3-h LPS
by guest on July 30, 2019http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
10
stimulation, in the absence of NAC, a 21-fold increase of proIL-1 protein was detected as compared
with the un-stimulated cells, peaking at 8 h and about 24-fold relative to the control sample. After
12 h, proIL-1 protein decreased, gradually returning to the basal level at around 18 h and 24 h (Fig.
2B). To further examine the role of LPS-stimulated ROS in proIL-1 expression, proIL-1 protein
was determined via using cells pre-incubated with NAC followed by LPS treatment. As shown in
Fig. 2B, NAC blockage of LPS-stimulated ROS decreased LPS-induced proIL-1 protein about 35 %
of NAC-free cells between 3 h and 12 h. However, after 18 h, there was no difference in proIL-1
protein with or without NAC treatment.
Next, using RT-PCR, for 3-h LPS stimulation, proIL-1 mRNA increased more than 30-fold,
as compared with un-treated cells. Between 8-h and 12-h, LPS-induced proIL-1 mRNA gradually
reduced (Fig. 2C). After 18 h, the increased proIL-1 mRNA returned to the basal level. In
contrast, in cells pretreated with NAC, followed by LPS stimulation between 3 h and 8 h, there was
generally about 70% to 40% of proIL-1 mRNA, as compared with NAC-free, LPS-treated samples
(Fig. 2C). This indicated that NAC decreased LPS-induced proIL-1 mRNA. A similar
regulation of proIL-1 mRNA detected by Northern analyses was compatible to the message
detection by RT-PCR (data not shown).
Post-transcriptional regulation and processing of the proIL-1 protein into a mature IL-1
secretion via ICE has been well reported in various cells, including macrophages, as in our previous
reports (22; 23; 34; 51). Since incubation of macrophages with LPS induced proIL-1 protein
simultaneously increased IL-1 secretion in a time-dependent fashion (Figs. 2B versus 2A), we
initially examined whether LPS affects ICE activity during IL-1 secretion. As shown in Fig. 2D,
LPS increased ICE activity up to 2-fold between 3 h and 12 h, peaking at a 4-fold increase by 18 h,
and sequentially returning to the basal level at 24 h, as compared to the control cells. In contrast,
there was no difference in ICE activity in NAC-pretreated cells under LPS stimulation, as compared
to the control cells.
LPS induces MAPKs activity as well as the effect of LPS-induced ROS on MAPKs activity--
-To dissect LPS-mediated signal transduction pathways in the regulation of proIL-1 protein and IL-
1 secretion, we systematically dissected LPS-stimulated MAPKs including ERK, JNK and p38.
Furthermore, we examined the role of LPS-induced ROS in mediating the activity of MAPKs.
Incubation of cells with LPS led to phosphorylation of Elk-1, a transcriptional factor, indicating
LPS activation of ERK (Fig. 3A). The experiments for time course of LPS-induced ERK activity
were also conducted. As detected by Western blot analysis with an antibody that specifically
by guest on July 30, 2019http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
11
recognized the activated, serine 383-phosphorylated form of Elk-1 by activated ERK (52), a 4-fold
increase in ERK activity was detected at 15 min, reaching a maximum level of 12-fold at 30 min
and reducing to 6-fold after 60 min (Fig. 3A). In comparison, there was almost no ERK activity in
untreated control cells. To further examine whether LPS-induced ROS involves LPS mediation of
ERK activation, cells were pre-treated with NAC for 30 min prior to LPS incubation. Upon LPS
stimulation, ERK activity in NAC-pretreated cells increased by 2-fold (15 min) and 7-fold (30 min),
respectively, as compared to samples without LPS. The relatively lower ERK activity in NAC-
treated cells compared to that of NAC-free cells indicates that ROS is involved in the LPS-induced
ERK activity.
The inflammatory stress response of J774A.1 cells to LPS prompted us to investigate the
LPS-mediated JNK signaling pathway. Therefore, we examined whether LPS activates JNK in the
cells. Stimulation of cells with LPS leads to activation of JNK in a time-dependent fashion, as
determined by Western blot analysis via anti-phospho-c-Jun, which specifically recognizes the
activated serine 63-phosphorylated form of c-Jun (28; 53; 54). Upon 15-min LPS incubation of
cells, JNK activity gradually increased, with a maximum level of JNK activation at 30 min, about a
5-fold increase over that of untreated cells. Then after 60 min, it returned to the basal level (Fig.
3B). Moreover, experiments using NAC to study the effect of ROS on LPS-mediated JNK activity
were conducted. Surprisingly, JNK activity of NAC-treated cells is super-induced up to 9-fold at
both 15 min and 30 min, as compared with the control cells (Fig. 3B). The reason for induction of
higher JNK activity in NAC-treated cells than that of NAC-free cells (i.e., 9-fold versus 5-fold)
upon LPS stimulation is unclear and requires further investigation.
To explore additional LPS-mediated signal transduction pathways, we further examined
whether LPS induces p38 activity. This is another important member of the MAPK superfamily
related to inflammatory responses (32; 33). Upon LPS stimulation, the p38 activity gradually
increased, as detected by Western blot analysis with anti-phospho-ATF-2, an antibody that
specifically recognizes the activated threonine 71-phosphorylated form of ATF-2 (55) (Fig. 3C).
The result of time course study of LPS-induced p38 activity indicated that at around 15 min, the
activity of p38 in LPS-treated cells was approximately 15 times greater than those of the control
cells, and gradually decreased to about 10 and 8 times approximately at 60 min and 240 min,
respectively (Fig. 3C). In contrast, deprivation of LPS-induced ROS by pretreatment of cells with
NAC significantly reduced LPS-stimulated p38 activity to the basal level after about 30 min to 240
min, as compared to NAC-free cells (Fig. 3C). A quantitative analysis of LPS-induced ERK, JNK
and p38 activity to compare the MAPKs activity with and without NAC is summarized in Fig. 3D.
by guest on July 30, 2019http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
12
The role of LPS-induced protein kinases (PK) in the regulation of proIL-1 protein
expression---We demonstrated above that LPS stimulates a battery of MAPK activity, comparable
to other recent reports (15; 26; 27; 32; 33; 56). To further elucidate the role of various LPS-
induced PK-mediated signaling pathways in the regulation of proIL-1 protein expression, we
utilized certain specific pharmacological antagonists such as LY294002, SB203580, curcumin,
calphostin C, and PD98059 that inhibit the activation of PI-3 kinase, p38, JNK, PKC and MEK1,
respectively. The dose response for specific PK inhibitors was monitored by directly assaying
individual kinase activity, and the effective working concentrations of PK inhibitors were
determined (data not shown) as previously reported (34). Cells were pre-incubated with these PK
inhibitors for 1 h prior to stimulation of LPS, and proIL-1 protein expression in indicated samples
were analyzed by Western blotting with anti-IL-1 monoclonal antibody. ProIL-1 protein
expression was reduced to 15% by LY294002, to 20% by SB203580, to 50% by curcumin, and to
70% by either calphostin C or by PD98059, as compared with proIL-1 in LPS-stimulated cells (Fig.
4A).
Moreover, experiments for transient transfection of dominant negative JNK (DN-JNK),
dominant negative Rac1 (DN-Rac1) or dominant negative PI 3-kinase (DN-PI3K) into J774A.1
cells were conducted in order to further investigate the role of PI 3-kinase/Rac in LPS induction of
proIL-1. Results of Western blot analyses show that after LPS stimulation, there was about 30%
less proIL-1 protein in DN-JNK or DN-Rac1 transfected cells than that of control cells, and 40%
less proIL-1 protein in DN-PI3K transfected cells as compared with control cells (Fig. 4B, sample 2
versus samples 4, 6 and 8). In addition, pre-incubation of NAC in the dominant negative
transfectants synergistically reduced proIL-1 expression, except for DN-JNK transfectant.
Specifically, with NAC, there was 30% of the proIL-1 protein left in mock cells, and 20% of the
proIL-1 left in either DN-Rac1- transfected cells or DN-PI3K-transfected cells, respectively (Fig.
4B, sample 3 versus samples 7 and 9). However, there was 50% of the proIL-1 protein left in DN-
JNK transfected cells (Fig. 4B, sample 3 versus sample 5).
LPS-induced Rac activity and the role of ROS in Rac activation---It has been reported that
LPS induces Rac/NAPDH oxidase-dependent ROS formation (57-59). To further investigate the
potential upstream signaling molecules involving in LPS-mediated transducing networks, we
focused on the activity of a relevant molecule, Rac1. Upon LPS stimulation, Rac1 activity was
elevated 2.5- to 3-fold between 5 min and 60 min (Fig. 5, samples 2, 3 and 4 versus 1). In contrast,
blocking LPS-induced ROS via pre-incubation of NAC consequently reduced Rac1 activity by 40%,
by guest on July 30, 2019http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
13
as compared with untreated samples (Fig. 5, samples 2, 3 and 4 versus samples 6, 7 and 8).
Moreover, DPI, an NADPH oxidase effective inhibitor (60) significantly reduced LPS-triggered
Rac1 activation by 50% as compared with the samples without DPI-preincubation (Fig. 5, samples
2, 3 and 4 versus samples 10, 11 and 12).
LPS induces protein tyrosine phosphorylation (PTP) as well as the effect of LPS-induced
ROS and NADPH oxidase on PTP in J774A.1 cells---To elucidate the mechanism by which LPS
induces IL-1, the LPS-initiated upstream signal transduction pathway was examined. For this we
examined the LPS stimulation of PTP via performance of SDS-PAGE and Western blot analysis
with monoclonal anti-phosphotyrosine IgG (61). As shown in Fig. 6, incubation of J774A.1 cells
with LPS induced the appearance of many phosphotyrosyl proteins as compared to cells incubated
with media alone. For example, upon 15-min LPS stimulation of cells, some apparent tyrosine-
phosphorylated proteins of molecular weight (M.W.) 38, 42, 44, 52-75 and 100-120 kD (Fig. 6,
samples 1 versus 2) were observed. These phosphotyrosyl proteins were identified and
specifically immuno-reacted with anti-p38 IgG, anti- ERK IgG, anti-JNK IgG, anti-Lyn IgG and
anti-Src IgG, respectively (data not shown). In contrast, NAC and DPI were utilized to investigate
the influence of LPS-induced ROS and NADPH oxidase in the tyrosine phosphorylation of proteins.
Pretreatment of the cells with either NAC or DPI for 30 min prior to LPS stimulation resulted in a
decrease of LPS-induced tyrosine phosphorylation of various proteins (Fig. 6, sample 2 versus
samples 4 and 6), indicating the involvement of ROS in LPS-induced PTP.
by guest on July 30, 2019http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
14
DISCUSSION
LPS, a potent activator for macrophages, stimulates ROS such as H2O2 ((40) and this
manuscript), superoxides ((62), and data not shown) and NO ((49) and this manuscript) as well as
inducing a battery of signal transductions leading to gene expression (10-16; 26; 63). However,
the relationship among LPS-induced ROS and mediated various PK activation and regulation of the
inflammatory cytokine IL-1 is unclear. Here, we analyze and define the molecular mechanisms
for LPS-stimulated ROS production, signal transductions and PK activity in regulation of IL-1
expression.
Using the CM-DCFH fluorescent method, we demonstrate that LPS immediately induced
H2O2 in J774A.1 cells, but that pretreatment of cells with NAC effectively inhibited LPS-induced
H2O2 elevation. We also report here that LPS induced detectable NO production, which was
obviously much later than both proIL-1/IL-1 induction (7 h versus 3 h, Figs. 1 and 2) and MAPKs
activation (7 h versus 1 h, Figs. 1 and 3). Although, NO is an important reactive oxygen molecule
mediating response of LPS in macrophages (49). Our current findings suggest that LPS-induced
ROS, rather than NO, play a more significant role in the activation of MAPKs and regulation of
proIL-1/IL-1 in our system (see discussion below). However, we could not totally rule out effects
of NO or crosstalk among NO and other ROS in these reactions.
Initially, the data from studies of ICE activity, ELISA, Western blot analysis and RT-PCR
showed that LPS-triggered H2O2 played an important role in the induction of IL-1 gene. To
investigate further the molecular mechanism for ROS effects, we found evidence that ROS
participated in IL-1/proIL-1 expression involving multiple levels of regulation. Specifically, in
the presence or absence of antioxidant NAC, our results indicate LPS-induced ROS regulation of
IL-1 expression, probably at proIL-1 message (transcriptional), at proIL-1 protein production
(translational) and at the processing of proIL-1 to mature IL-1 releasing via modification of ICE
activity (post-translational). In addition to the antioxidation of NAC involving the elevation of
intracellular glutathione levels (38; 40; 64; 65), NAC is able to block the activation of JNK in
response to TNF (2) or IFN co-stimulation with TNF in macrophages (66). Nevertheless, the
mechanism for NAC reduction of LPS-induced ICE activity related to IL-1 secretion requires
further study.
LPS stimulation of MAPKs (ERK, JNK and p38) activity and activation of transcription
factors (AP-1, NF-κB and ATF-2) have previously been reported (25; 26; 67-69). In addition,
by guest on July 30, 2019http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
15
activation of MEK/ERK and p38 critical for LPS-induced cytokine production by
monocytes/macrophages have been documented (25; 26; 33). However, there is little discussion
of the molecular mechanism for LPS-mediated MAPKs in the regulation and expression of proIL-
1/IL-1. Here, we demonstrate for the first time that there were differences in the activation time
and in extent of activity for LPS-stimulated ERK, JNK and p38. Moreover, the effect of LPS-
induced ROS on the activity of specific MAPK was also diverse (Fig. 3). For example, NAC
blockage of LPS-induced ROS resulted in a decrease in ERK and p38 activity, but an increase in
JNK activity as compared to untreated cells. We summarize the effect of LPS-induced ROS on
the relative activity of LPS-induced MAPKs (Fig. 3D), which indicates that the existence of ROS
was more effective and important to p38 activity than either ERK or JNK activity in LPS-mediated
regulation of proIL-1/IL-1 expression. Nevertheless, when all of the three MAPK pathways were
activated simultaneously, a dramatic induction of IL-1 gene expression was observed, suggesting a
cooperative effect on regulation of IL-1 among these kinases (15). We further used various
pharmacological antagonists to PKs. It dissected the specific role of individual PK in the
regulation of proIL-1 expression (Fig. 4A). Additional studies of the use of dominant PK negative
transfectants verified that both further NAC and specific dominant negative PK synergistically
reduced LPS-induced proIL-1 protein expression (Fig. 4B). Although stimulation of a single PK
produced only a modest effect on proIL-1 protein, activation of each PK pathway was important for
complete induction of IL-1 gene expression.
Various studies have shown the activation of JNK and p38 were mediated via PI-3
kinase/Rac1/PAK signaling pathway (2; 47; 70). Rac1 is important to LPS-induced proIL-1 in at
least two aspects: first the role of Rac1 in NADPH oxidase assemble/function (71), and second its
role in PI-3 kinase/Rac1/PAK signaling pathway. Rac is known as an important component of
functional NADPH oxidase, which is localized at the plasma membrane or specific granule vesicle
membrane of phagocytes, and which produces O2.- upon phagocytosis processing (71). Because of
the DPI reduction of LPS-triggered Rac1 activation (Fig. 5B), our data implies that LPS activates
phagocytosis-related NADPH oxidase, which entangles Rac1 leading signals as the initial of ROS
(Fig. 7). Moreover, data on transient transfection of DN-Rac1 indicates partially reduced LPS-
mediated proIL-1 expression. Although, pre-incubation of NAC led to additional decreasing
proIL-1 (Fig. 4B), indicating the importance of Rac1 and/or NADPH oxidase and ROS in LPS-
induced proIL-1. Our finding of NADPH oxidase and Rac1 involving ROS production is
consistent with the recent report of Rac1-dependent ROS in LPS-mediated TNF secretion (58).
Indeed, our current results clearly demonstrate that the originality of LPS-induced ROS including
H2O2 as a secondary messenger is probably derived from NADPH oxidase, and less from LPS-
by guest on July 30, 2019http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
16
damaged mitochondria in the short term (data not shown), or via other molecule(s), but which, if
any, of these mediate signal transductions and regulate proIL-1 protein and IL-1 secretion.
Ligation of LPS quickly induces diverse phosphotyrosyl proteins, leading to activation of
various downstream molecules (27). Although, there is no evidence that the receptors including
TLRs have a functional tyrosine kinase domain. Since alteration of protein tyrosine
phosphorylation (PTP) is one of the most important signaling events leading to cellular responses
(6), and to further understand how LPS is coupled to the initiation of early signaling by inducing
various PTP resulting in upregulation of IL-1 gene expression, we initially examined and identified
the LPS-induced protein tyrosine phosphorylation, including MAPKs (ERK, JNK and p38) and the
Src family (Src and Lyn). Furthermore, we investigated LPS ligation, showing the relationships
among LPS-induced ROS and NADPH oxidase and observed alteration of PTP. The results of
antioxidant of ROS (NAC) or NADPH oxidase inhibitor (DPI) reducing LPS-induced tyrosine
kinase activation suggest that ROS indeed involves LPS-induced protein tyrosine phosphorylation.
In summary, we are the first to demonstrate that in macrophages the relationship among
NADPH oxidase-derived ROS, protein tyrosine phosphorylation and the role of ROS in the
regulation of IL-1 gene expression during LPS stimulation. Our results dissect the molecular
mechanism of LPS-induced ROS regulation of proIL-1 protein and IL-1 secretion. This regulation
is at multiple levels and involves LPS-mediated PTK, PK and MAPK activity. Although, LPS-
mediated cooperation of multiple MAPKs induces IL-1 gene expression, we show for the first time
that the LPS-induced PTK/Rac1/PI-3 kinase/p38 pathway plays a relatively more important role
than the pathways of PTK/PKC/MEK/ERK and of PTK/ Rac1/PI-3 kinase/JNK in the specific
cytokine regulation (Fig. 7). Thus, understanding how LPS-mediated signal transduction
pathways in IL-1 induction is responsible for macrophage antibacterial action, may provide
improved treatments for severe inflammatory responses leading to cellular injury, multi-organ
damage and concurrent sepsis.
Acknowledgments--- This work was supported by research grants of NSC 90-2321-B-010-005 (H.-
Y. Hsu) from the National Science Council, Taiwan, and NHRI-EX90-8937SL (H.-Y. Hsu) from
the National Health Research Institutes, Taiwan, and A-91-B-FA09-2-4 (H.-Y. Hsu), Program for
Promoting University Academic Excellence from the Ministry of Education, Taiwan. We
gratefully acknowledge the DN-JNK construct from Dr. M. Karin (UCSD, San Diego, CA, USA),
DN-Rac1 construct from Dr. S. Bagrodia (Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA), and the Anti-IL-
1β, 3ZD monoclonal antibody from the NIH (Bethesda, MD, USA).
by guest on July 30, 2019http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
17
FIGURE LEGENDS
Fig. 1. Effect of NAC on LPS-induced release of ROS and NO production. To detect release
of ROS, J774A.1 cells were pre-incubated with CM-DCFH (2 µM) and NAC (10 mM) for 30 min,
followed by substitution with medium containing LPS (1 µg/ml) for additional incubation for the
indicated times. The relative fluorescent intensity of fluorophore CM-DCF was then detected.
The data expressed is one of four representative experiments. LPS-induced release of ROS A.
over a short period between 0 and 15 min; B. over a long period between 0 and 240 min. C. To
detect LPS-induced NO production, cells (1x107/6 ml medium/100 mm plate) were stimulated with
LPS (0.1 µg/ml) and supernatants were collected after LPS stimulation at the time indicated, and
assayed for the NO concentration by the Griess method. The data is representative of three similar
experiments and expressed as mean ± S.E.
Fig. 2. Effect of LPS-induced ROS on LPS stimulation of proIL-1/IL-1 expression in
macrophage J774A.1 cells. A. Time course of LPS-induced IL-1 and inhibitory effect of NAC
on IL-1 secretion. Cells (1x107/6 ml medium) were stimulated with LPS (0.1 µg/ml) and the
supernatants were collected after stimulation at the time indicated. To analyze the effect of NAC
on LPS-induced IL-1 secretion, cells were incubated with NAC (10 mM) for 30 min prior to LPS
stimulation. Samples were assayed for the IL-1 content in an IL-1-specific ELISA, as described in
the Experimental Procedures section. The experiments were conducted three times and all data is
expressed as mean ± S.E. B. Time course and the effect of NAC on LPS-induced proIL-1 protein.
After cells were stimulated as described above for the indicated time interval, cell lysates were
analyzed by Western blotting with anti-IL-1 monoclonal antibody at a position of 34 kD for proIL-1.
ProIL-1 and β-actin (internal control for protein loading) are indicated as arrows on the right hand
side, and one of three experiments is presented (n = 3). C. Time course and the effect of NAC on
LPS-mediated proIL-1/IL-1 mRNA expression. Total RNA was isolated from treated or untreated
J774A.1 cells, as indicated. Ethidium bromide-stained agarose gel with proIL-1 at 563 bps and
normalized by comparison to RT-PCR of mRNA of glyceraldehyde phosphate dehydrogenase
(GADPH), a constitutively expressed gene at 450 bps. Arrows indicate RT-PCR products of
proIL-1 and GAPDH, respectively. The results shown are representative of three independent
experiments. Quantification of protein and mRNA expression was carried out by
PhosphorImager of each sample using ImageQuaNT software from Molecular Dynamics, which
is expressed as fold increase relative to the level of cells without LPS treatment (t = 0, activity of
control cells defined as 1). D. Time-dependent activation of LPS-induced ICE activity in J774A.1
by guest on July 30, 2019http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
18
cells. Followed by LPS and NAC treatments, cell extracts (90 µg of protein) were incubated in
the presence of the fluorescence ICE substrate Ac-YVAD-AMC (50 µM) for 1 h at 30°C. ICE
activity was measured fluormetrically after subtracting cleavage with excitation at 360 nm and
emission at 460 nm, as previously described (34). All values shown are means of triplicate values
± S.E.
Fig. 3. LPS-induced ROS regulation of multiple MAPKs activation. J774A.1 cells were
treated as described in Fig. 2. Then, activated ERK, JNK and p38 were immunoprecipitated from
cell lysates using specific antibodies. In vitro kinase assays were performed using the
immunoprecipitants as kinases, as previously described (34). Recombinant Elk-1 fusion protein,
c-Jun fusion protein and ATF-2 fusion protein were used as substrates for ERK, JNK and p38,
respectively. LPS-induced ERK (A), JNK (B) and p38 (C) activity were monitored by
phosphorylation of substrate. These were measured by quantitative immunoblotting with
phospho-Elk-1 (Ser383) antibody, phospho-c-Jun (Ser63) antibody and phospho-ATF-2 (Thr71)
antibody, respectively. Comparison and quantitative analysis of LPS-induced ERK, JNK and p38
activity are represented in histograms (D). The values shown are the mean ± S.E. of quadruplicate
determinations. All data of relative increased activity is expressed as comparison with untreated
J774A.1 cells, (i.e., t = 0, activity of control cells defined as 1). These figures are representative
of four such independent experiments.
Fig. 4. Effect of protein kinase inhibitors on LPS-induced proIL-1 expression and role of
ROS in LPS-induced proIL-1 protein of dominant-negative JNK, Rac1 or PI3 K-transfected
cells. A. Effect of inhibitor of PKC (calphostin C), of MEK1 (PD98059), of JNK (curcumin), of
p38 (SB203580), of PI-3 kinase (LY294002) and NAC on LPS-induced proIL-1 expression. This
was followed by cells pre-treated with calphostin C (12.64 nM) (sample 2), PD98059 (50 µM)
(sample 3), curcumin (10 µM) (sample 4), SB203580 (1 µM) (sample 5), LY294002 (50 µM)
(sample 6) for 1 h or NAC (10 mM) (sample 7) for 30 min. After this, the pre-treated cells were
then incubated with LPS (0.1 µg/ml) for an additional 8 h. After incubation, samples were
subjected to Western blot analysis of proIL-1, as previous described in Fig. 2. The indicated
arrows on the right hand side represent positions of proIL-1 and β-actin (an internal control). This
experiment is representative of three similar experiments. Histograms represent quantification of
proIL-1 of each sample. All data of relative quantity are expressed as comparisons with untreated
control cells (sample 1, and activity of control cells defined as 1). B. Role of ROS in LPS-
by guest on July 30, 2019http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
19
induced proIL-1 protein of dominant-negative JNK, Rac1 or PI3 K-transfected cells. J774A.1 was
transiently transfected with various dominant-negative constructs for 24 h, as described previously
(2; 34), then incubated with NAC prior to LPS-stimulation. ProIL-1 protein expression in cells
was analyzed with Western blotting as above A. The values shown are the mean ± S.E. of
triplicate determinations.
Fig. 5. The roles of LPS-induced ROS and NADPH oxidase in differential regulation of
LPS-mediated Rac1 activity. Cells were in the presence or absence of antioxidant (NAC, 10mM)
or NADPH oxidase inhibitor (DPI, 25 µM), followed by LPS stimulation at the indicated times.
The Rac1-GTP complex was immunoprecipitated from whole cell lysate by PAK-1 PBD as well as
active Rac1. Then, the immunoprecipitant was quantitatively measured, using the anti-Rac
antibody as described in the Experimental Procedures section or in the manufacturer’ s instructions.
The data of relative Rac1 activity is expressed as compared with untreated control cells (sample 1,
Rac1 activity is defined as 1). The mean ± S.E. of results from three replicate determinations and
a representative experiment is shown.
Fig. 6. LPS stimulation of protein tyrosine phosphorylation in J774A. 1 cells. Cells were
pretreated with NAC (10 mM) or DPI (25 µM) for 30 min prior to stimulation with or without LPS
(1 µg/ml). Briefly, Sample 1, un-stimulated control; sample 2, LPS 15 min; sample 3, NAC 30
min; sample 4, NAC 30 min sequentially with LPS 15 min; sample 5, DPI 30 min; sample 6, DPI
30 min sequentially with LPS 15 min. Cells were lysed and analyzed by Western blot with anti-
phosphotyrosine monoclonal antibody. The detailed method was as previously described (61).
The indicated bars on the left side represent molecular weight (kD), and those on the right hand
side represent some significant molecules, as discussed in text. The experiment is representative
of three similar experiments.
Fig. 7. The proposed model for LPS-mediated ROS and signal transduction pathways in
the regulation of proIL-1/IL-1 expression.
by guest on July 30, 2019http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
20
REFERENCES
1. Van Lenten, B.J. and Fogelman, A.M. (1992) J. Immunol. 148, 112-116
2. Hsu, H.Y. and Twu, Y.C. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 41035-41048
3. Mokuno, Y., Matsuguchi, T., Takano, M., Nishimura, H., Washizu, J., Ogawa, T., Takeuchi,
O., Akira, S., Nimura, Y., and Yoshikai, Y. (2000) J. Immunol. 165, 931-940
4. Weinstein, S.L., Gold, M.R., and DeFranco, A.L. (1991) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 88,
4148-4152
5. Fenton, M.J. and Golenbock, D.T. (1998) J. Leukoc. Biol. 64, 25-32
6. Henderson, B., Poole, S., and Wilson, M. (1996) Microbiol. Rev. 60, 316-341
7. Lin, Y., Lee, H., Berg, A.H., Lisanti, M.P., Shapiro, L., and Scherer, P.E. (2000) J. Biol.
Chem. 275, 24255-24263
8. Beutler, B. (2000) Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 3, 23-28
9. Yang, H., Young, D.W., Gusovsky, F., and Chow, J.C. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 20861-
20866
10. Ulevitch, R.J. and Tobias, P.S. (1995) Annu. Rev. Immunol. 13, 437-457
11. Geppert, T.D., Whitehurst, C.E., Thompson, P., and Beutler, B. (1994) Mol. Med. 1, 93-103
12. Reimann, T., Buscher, D., Hipskind, R.A., Krautwald, S., Lohmann-Matthes, M.L., and
Baccarini, M. (1994) J. Immunol. 153, 5740-5749
13. Shakhov, A.N., Collart, M.A., Vassalli, P., Nedospasov, S.A., and Jongeneel, C.V. (1990) J.
Exp. Med. 171, 35-47
14. Geng, Y., Valbracht, J., and Lotz, M. (1996) J. Clin. Invest. 98, 2425-2430
15. Zhu, W., Downey, J.S., Gu, J., Di Padova, F., Gram, H., and Han, J. (2000) J. Immunol. 164,
6349-6358
16. Sweet, M.J. and Hume, D.A. (1996) J. Leukoc. Biol. 60, 8-26
17. Gray, J.G., Chandra, G., Clay, W.C., Stinnett, S.W., Haneline, S.A., Lorenz, J.J., Patel, I.R.,
Wisely, G.B., Furdon, P.J., and Taylor, J.D. (1993) Mol. Cell. Biol. 13, 6678-6689
18. Loppnow, H. and Libby, P. (1990) J. Clin. Invest. 85, 731-738
19. Xaus, J., Comalada, M., Valledor, A.F., Lloberas, J., Lopez-Soriano, F., Argiles, J.M., Bogdan,
C., and Celada, A. (2000) Blood 95, 3823-3831
20. Loppnow, H., Werdan, K., Reuter, G., and Flad, H.D. (1998) Eur. Cytokine Netw. 9, 675-680
21. Schumann, R.R., Belka, C., Reuter, D., Lamping, N., Kirschning, C.J., Weber, J.R., and Pfeil,
D. (1998) Blood 91, 577-584
22. Cerretti, D.P., Kozlosky, C.J., Mosley, B., Nelson, N., Van Ness, K., Greenstreet, T.A., March,
C.J., Kronheim, S.R., Druck, T., and Cannizzaro, L.A. (1992) Science 256, 97-100
by guest on July 30, 2019http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
21
23. Thornberry, N.A., Bull, H.G., Calaycay, J.R., Chapman, K.T., Howard, A.D., Kostura, M.J.,
Miller, D.K., Molineaux, S.M., Weidner, J.R., and Aunins, J. (1992) Nature 356, 768-
774
24. Dinarello, C.A. (1997) Cytokine Growth Factor Rev. 8, 253-265
25. Carter, A.B., Monick, M.M., and Hunninghake, G.W. (1999) Am. J. Respir. Cell Mol. Biol.
20, 751-758
26. Scherle, P.A., Jones, E.A., Favata, M.F., Daulerio, A.J., Covington, M.B., Nurnberg, S.A.,
Magolda, R.L., and Tracks, J.M. (1998) J. Immunol. 161, 5681-5686
27. Raingeaud, J., Gupta, S., Rogers, J.S., Dickens, M., Han, J., Ulevitch, R.J., and Davis, R.J.
(1995) J. Biol. Chem. 270, 7420-7426
28. Pombo, C.M., Bonventre, J.V., Avruch, J., Woodgett, J.R., Kyriakis, J.M., and Force, T. (1994)
J. Biol. Chem. 269, 26546-26551
29. Devary, Y., Gottlieb, R.A., Lau, L.F., and Karin, M. (1991) Mol. Cell. Biol. 11, 2804-2811
30. Binetruy, B., Smeal, T., and Karin, M. (1991) Nature 351, 122-127
31. Hambleton, J., Weinstein, S.L., Lem, L., and DeFranco, A.L. (1996) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.
S. A. 93, 2774-2778
32. Han, J., Lee, J.D., Bibbs, L., and Ulevitch, R.J. (1994) Science 265, 808-811
33. Lee, J.C., Laydon, J.T., McDonnell, P.C., Gallagher, T.F., Kumar, S., Green, D., McNulty, D.,
Blumenthal, M.J., Heys, J.R., and Landvatter, S.W. (1994) Nature 372, 739-746
34. Hsu, H.Y., Chiu, S.L., Wen, M.H., Chen, K.Y., and Hua, K.F. (2001) J. Biol. Chem. 276,
28719-28730
35. Zhang, S., Han, J., Sells, M.A., Chernoff, J., Knaus, U.G., Ulevitch, R.J., and Bokoch, G.M.
(1995) J. Biol. Chem. 270, 23934-23936
36. Crawford, D., Zbinden, I., Moret, R., and Cerutti, P. (1988) Cancer Res. 48, 2132-2134
37. Schreck, R., Rieber, P., and Baeuerle, P.A. (1991) EMBO J. 10, 2247-2258
38. Lo, Y.Y. and Cruz, T.F. (1995) J. Biol. Chem. 270, 11727-11730
39. Murrell, G.A., Francis, M.J., and Bromley, L. (1990) Biochem. J. 265, 659-665
40. Hong, Y.H., Peng, H.B., La, F., V, and Liao, J.K. (1997) J. Immunol. 159, 2418-2423
41. Kaul, N., Gopalakrishna, R., Gundimeda, U., Choi, J., and Forman, H.J. (1998) Arch.
Biochem. Biophys. 350, 79-86
42. Fialkow, L., Chan, C.K., Rotin, D., Grinstein, S., and Downey, G.P. (1994) J. Biol. Chem.
269, 31234-31242
43. Bokoch, G.M. (1995) Trends Cell Biol. 5, 109-113
44. Finkel, T. (1999) J. Leukoc. Biol. 65, 337-340
by guest on July 30, 2019http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
22
45. Hanukoglu, I., Rapoport, R., Weiner, L., and Sklan, D. (1993) Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 305,
489-498
46. Li, Y.S., Shyy, J.Y., Li, S., Lee, J., Su, B., Karin, M., and Chien, S. (1996) Mol. Cell. Biol.
16, 5947-5954
47. Bagrodia, S., Derijard, B., Davis, R.J., and Cerione, R.A. (1995) J. Biol. Chem. 270, 27995-
27998
48. Wan, C.P., Myung, E., and Lau, B.H. (1993) J. Immunol. Methods 159, 131-138
49. Park, L.C., Zhang, H., Sheu, K.F., Calingasan, N.Y., Kristal, B.S., Lindsay, J.G., and Gibson,
G.E. (1999) J. Neurochem. 72, 1948-1958
50. Matsuno, R., Aramaki, Y., Arima, H., and Tsuchiya, S. (1997) Biochem. Biophys. Res.
Commun. 237, 601-605
51. Ghayur, T., Banerjee, S., Hugunin, M., Butler, D., Herzog, L., Carter, A., Quintal, L., Sekut, L.,
Talanian, R., Paskind, M., Wong, W., Kamen, R., Tracey, D., and Allen, H. (1997)
Nature 386, 619-623
52. Marais, R., Wynne, J., and Treisman, R. (1993) Cell 73, 381-393
53. Minden, A., Lin, A., Smeal, T., Derijard, B., Cobb, M., Davis, R., and Karin, M. (1994) Mol.
Cell. Biol. 14, 6683-6688
54. Kyriakis, J.M., Banerjee, P., Nikolakaki, E., Dai, T., Rubie, E.A., Ahmad, M.F., Avruch, J.,
and Woodgett, J.R. (1994) Nature 369, 156-160
55. Livingstone, C., Patel, G., and Jones, N. (1995) EMBO J. 14, 1785-1797
56. Han, J., Jiang, Y., Li, Z., Kravchenko, V.V., and Ulevitch, R.J. (1997) Nature 386, 296-299
57. Karlsson, A., Markfjall, M., Stromberg, N., and Dahlgren, C. (1995) Infect. Immun. 63 ,
4606-4612
58. Sanlioglu, S., Williams, C.M., Samavati, L., Butler, N.S., Wang, G., McCray, P.B.J., Ritchie,
T.C., Hunninghake, G.W., Zandi, E., and Engelhardt, J.F. (2001) J. Biol. Chem. 276,
30188-30198
59. Koay, M.A., Christman, J.W., Segal, B.H., Venkatakrishnan, A., Blackwell, T.R., Holland,
S.M., and Blackwell, T.S. (2001) Infect. Immun. 69, 5991-5996
60. O'Donnell, B.V., Tew, D.G., Jones, O.T., and England, P.J. (1993) Biochem. J. 290 ( Pt 1),
41-49
61. Hsu, H.Y., Hajjar, D.P., Khan, K.M., and Falcone, D.J. (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273, 1240-
1246
62. Wong, G.H. and Goeddel, D.V. (1988) Science 242, 941-944
63. Schletter, J., Heine, H., Ulmer, A.J., and Rietschel, E.T. (1995) Arch. Microbiol. 164, 383-
389
by guest on July 30, 2019http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
23
64. Boggs, S.E., McCormick, T.S., and Lapetina, E.G. (1998) Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun.
247, 229-233
65. Wong, G.H., Kaspar, R.L., and Vehar, G. (1996) EXS 77, 321-333
66. Chan, E.D., Winston, B.W., Uh, S.T., Wynes, M.W., Rose, D.M., and Riches, D.W. (1999) J.
Immunol. 162, 415-422
67. Hwang, D., Jang, B.C., Yu, G., and Boudreau, M. (1997) Biochem. Pharmacol. 54, 87-96
68. Karin, M. (1995) J. Biol. Chem. 270, 16483-16486
69. Manna, S.K. and Aggarwal, B.B. (1999) J. Immunol. 162, 1510-1518
70. Coso, O.A., Chiariello, M., Yu, J.C., Teramoto, H., Crespo, P., Xu, N., Miki, T., and Gutkind,
J.S. (1995) Cell 81, 1137-1146
71. DeLeo, F.R., Renee, J., McCormick, S., Nakamura, M., Apicella, M., Weiss, J.P., and Nauseef,
W.M. (1998) J. Clin. Invest. 101, 455-463
by guest on July 30, 2019http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
1.2
1.25
1.3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15Time (min)
Rel
ativ
e C
M-D
CF
Flu
ores
cent
Int
ensi
ty
ctr
1 ug/ml LPS
10 mM NAC
10 mM NAC+ 1 ug/ml LPS
A
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
1.2
1.25
1.3
1.35
1.4
0 60 120 180 240Time (min)
Rel
ativ
e C
M-D
CF
Flu
ores
cen
t In
ten
sity
ctr
1 ug/ml LPS
10 mM NAC
10 mM NAC+ 1 ug/ml LPS
B
Fig. 1
by guest on July 30, 2019http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24Time (h)
NO
con
cent
rati
on (u
M)
ctr
LPS
NAC
NAC+LPS
C
Fig. 1
by guest on July 30, 2019http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24Time (h)
IL-1
con
cent
rati
on (
pg/m
l) ctr
LPS
NAC
LPS+NAC
A
B
proIL-1 (34 kD)
-NAC (control) +NAC
LPS (h) 0 3 8 12 18 24 0 3 8 12 18 24
actin
Fold 1 21 24 14 2 1 1 7 10 7 2 1
C
LPS (h) 0 3 8 12 18 24 0 3 8 12 18 24
Fold 1 31 26 8 1 1 1 23 11 6 1 1
proIL-1 (563 bp)
-NAC (control) +NAC
GAPDH (450 bp)
Fig. 2
by guest on July 30, 2019http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
0
1
2
3
4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24Time (h)
Rel
ativ
e IC
E A
ctiv
ity
ctrLPSNACLPS+NAC
D
Fig. 2
by guest on July 30, 2019http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
Phospho-Elk-1
LPS (min) 0 15 30 60 0 15 30 60
+NACA
-NAC (control)
BLPS (min) 0 15 30 60 0 15 30 60
Phospho-c-Jun
+NAC-NAC (control)
C
Phospho-ATF-2
LPS (min) 0 15 30 60 240 0 15 30 60 240
+NAC-NAC (control)
02468
101214161820
0 15 30 60 0 15 30 60
Rel
ativ
e M
AP
Ks
acti
vity
ERK
JNK
p38
LPS without NAC LPS with NAC
Time (min)
D
Fig. 3
by guest on July 30, 2019http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
LPS + + + + + + +NAC - - - - - - +LY294002 - - - - - + -SB203580 - - - - + - -curcumin - - - + - - -PD98059 - - + - - - -calphostin C - + - - - - -
proIL-1
actin
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Rel
ativ
e pr
oIL
-1 p
rote
inA Sample 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Fig. 4
by guest on July 30, 2019http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Rel
ativ
e P
roIL
-1 P
rote
in
Sample 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
proIL-1
NAC - - + - + - + - +LPS - + + + + + + + +
Moc
kDN-JN
K
DN-R
ac1
DN-PI3
KB
Fig. 4
by guest on July 30, 2019http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Rel
ativ
e R
ac 1
Act
ivit
y
Rac 1
LPS (min) 0 5 15 60 0 5 15 60 0 5 15 60
control +NAC +DPI
Sample 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Fig. 5
by guest on July 30, 2019http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
LPS (min) 0 15 0 15 0 15
control NAC DPI
M.W. (kD)
205
126
89
50
33
28
52-75 kD
100-120 kD
38 kD
Sample 1 2 3 4 5 6
44 kD42 kD
Fig. 6
by guest on July 30, 2019http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
Fig. 7
Ligand (LPS)
JNK
PI-3 Kinase
proIL-1
membrane
IL-1
p38
c-Jun ATF-2Elk1
proIL-1 mRNA
nucleus
Protein tyrosine kinase
MEKK 1,2,3,4
MEK 3
PLCγ1
PKC
ERK1/ERK2
MEK 1
calphostin C
PD98059SB203580
TLR
LY294002DN-PI3K
curcuminDN-JNK
Rac1
PAK
DN-Rac 1
NADPHoxidase
ROS NAC
DPI
proIL-1/IL-1 DNA
ICE
Rac1
by guest on July 30, 2019http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
Hsien-Yeh Hsu and Meng-Hsuan Wenregulation of IL-1 gene expression
Lipopolysaccharide-mediated reactive oxygen species and signal transduction in the
published online April 8, 2002J. Biol. Chem.
10.1074/jbc.M111883200Access the most updated version of this article at doi:
Alerts:
When a correction for this article is posted•
When this article is cited•
to choose from all of JBC's e-mail alertsClick here
by guest on July 30, 2019http://w
ww
.jbc.org/D
ownloaded from
Additions and Corrections
Vol. 277 (2002) 22131–22139
Lipopolysaccharide-mediated reactive oxygen speciesand signal transduction in the regulation of inter-leukin-1 gene expression.
Hsien-Yeh Hsu and Meng-Hsuan Wen
Page 22134, Fig. 2A: The concentrations of IL-1 shown on thefigure are incorrect. The correct figure is shown below.
Page 22133: Under “Results,” in the first paragraph under“LPS Induction and the Role of LPS-induced ROS in Regulationof IL-1 Gene Expression: IL-1 Secretion, proIL-1 Protein Pro-duction, and IL-1/proIL-1 Message Induction as Well as Acti-vation of ICE,” the last two sentences, which originally state“For example, at 3 h and 24 h, the concentration of LPS-induced IL-1 was about 5 pg/ml and 22 pg/ml, respectively.”and “In contrast, there was less IL-1 released from NAC-pretreated cells, i.e. 1 pg/ml (3 h) and 12 pg/ml (24 h), indicatingthat LPS-stimulated ROS involves IL-1 secretion.’’ should bechanged to ‘‘50 pg/ml and 220 pg/ml” and “10 pg/ml (3 h) and120 pg/ml (24 h).” However, these errors do not affect theconclusions of this study.
FIG. 2
THE JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY Vol. 277, No. 36, Issue of September 6, p. 33530, 2002© 2002 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc. Printed in U.S.A.
We suggest that subscribers photocopy these corrections and insert the photocopies at the appropriateplaces where the article to be corrected originally appeared. Authors are urged to introduce thesecorrections into any reprints they distribute. Secondary (abstract) services are urged to carry notice ofthese corrections as prominently as they carried the original abstracts.
33530
Top Related