Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:15:48.182Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bioinformatic analysis of eosinophil activity and its implications for model and target species

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2019

C.J. Jenvey*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal, Plant and Soil Sciences, Agribio Centre for Agribioscience, School of Life Sciences, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia
D. Alenizi
Affiliation:
Department of Animal, Plant and Soil Sciences, Agribio Centre for Agribioscience, School of Life Sciences, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia
F. Almasi
Affiliation:
Department of Animal, Plant and Soil Sciences, Agribio Centre for Agribioscience, School of Life Sciences, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia
C. Cairns
Affiliation:
Department of Animal, Plant and Soil Sciences, Agribio Centre for Agribioscience, School of Life Sciences, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia
A. Holmes
Affiliation:
Department of Animal, Plant and Soil Sciences, Agribio Centre for Agribioscience, School of Life Sciences, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia
S. Sloan
Affiliation:
Department of Animal, Plant and Soil Sciences, Agribio Centre for Agribioscience, School of Life Sciences, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia
M.J. Stear
Affiliation:
Department of Animal, Plant and Soil Sciences, Agribio Centre for Agribioscience, School of Life Sciences, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia
*
Author for correspondence: C.J. Jenvey, E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Eosinophils are important immune cells that have been implicated in resistance to gastrointestinal nematode (GIN) infections in both naturally and experimentally infected sheep. Proteins of particular importance appear to be IgA-Fc alpha receptor (FcαRI), C-C chemokine receptor type 3 (CCR3), proteoglycan 3 (PRG3, major basic protein 2) and EPX (eosinophil peroxidase). We used known human nucleotide sequences to search the ruminant genomes, followed by translation to protein and sequence alignments to visualize differences between sequences and species. Where a sequence was retrieved for cow, but not for sheep and goat, this was used additionally as a reference sequence. In this review, we show that eosinophil function varies among host species. Consequently, investigations into the mechanisms of ruminant immune responses to GIN should be conducted using the natural host. Specifically, we address differences in protein sequence and structure for eosinophil proteins.

Type
Review Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2019. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

Host immune responses to gastrointestinal nematodes (GINs) are dominated by a Th2 immune response; involving antibodies and immune cells, such as immunoglobulin A (IgA), IgE, mast cells and eosinophils. In particular, ruminants naturally and experimentally infected with GIN demonstrate an increase in blood and tissue eosinophilia, implying that eosinophils may be an important mediator of host immune responses to GIN. However, both phenotypic and bioinformatic evidence suggest that eosinophil activity against GIN may differ between hosts (Urban et al., Reference Urban, Katona, Paul and Finkelman1991; Henderson and Stear, Reference Henderson and Stear2006). Bioinformatic analyses on eosinophil-associated proteins were used to explore whether differences in resistance to GIN among species were genetic in origin. Specifically, we addressed differences in protein sequence and structure for eosinophil proteins. These proteins included IgA and its receptor, FcαRI, interleukin (IL)-5 and its receptor, IL-5Rα, eotaxin and its receptor, CCR3, major basic protein (MBP, PRG3) and eosinophil peroxidase (EPX). We used known human nucleotide sequences to search the ruminant genomes (Bos taurus, cow; Ovis aries, sheep; Capra hircus, goat), retrieved sequences (Supplementary Table 1), followed by translation to protein and sequence alignments to visualize differences between sequences and species.

Eosinophils and GIN infections

Eosinophils are a sub-type of granulocyte, along with mast cells, neutrophils and basophils. Following proliferation of eosinophil precursors from the bone marrow, eosinophils traffic to sites of infection and are activated. Once activated, eosinophils undergo degranulation, releasing cytotoxic proteins from secondary granules to protect the host against foreign pathogens. Eosinophils are also involved in immune homoeostasis and immunity (Rothenberg and Hogan, Reference Rothenberg and Hogan2006; Weller and Spencer, Reference Weller and Spencer2017). Eosinophils are found in both blood and tissue, however the gastrointestinal tract contains the largest reservoir of eosinophils in the body (Zuo and Rothenberg, Reference Zuo and Rothenberg2007) and only tissue eosinophils degranulate (Blanchard and Rothenberg, Reference Blanchard and Rothenberg2009). The ability of eosinophils to defend the host against parasitic helminths is suggested by the ability of eosinophils to mediate antibody- (or complement-) dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC) in vitro and in vivo (Giacomin et al., Reference Giacomin, Gordon, Botto, Daha, Sanderson, Taylor and Dent2008; Huang et al., Reference Huang, Gebreselassie, Gagliardo, Ruyechan, Luber, Lee, Lee and Appleton2015), increased numbers of eosinophils during helminth infections, as well as degranulation in close proximity to helminths in vivo (Rothenberg and Hogan, Reference Rothenberg and Hogan2006).

Eosinophils are not only important for GIN infections of humans and mice, but also of ruminants. In particular, GIN infections ravage sheep and goat populations in temperate regions of the world, and in Australia can cost sheep producers up to $500 million per year largely in lost productivity (Lane et al., Reference Lane, Jubb, Shephard, Webb-Ware and Fordyce2015). In particular, Teladorsagia circumcincta, Haemonchus contortus and Trichostrongylus colubriformis are the dominant GIN-infecting small ruminants (Roeber et al., Reference Roeber, Jex and Gasser2013). The typical immune response to GIN is dominated by Th2 immune responses, namely the production of antibodies such as IgG, IgE and IgA, as well as involvement of mast cells and eosinophils, the details of which have previously been covered by a number of reviews (Maizels and Yazdanbakhsh, Reference Maizels and Yazdanbakhsh2003; Anthony et al., Reference Anthony, Rutitzky, Urban, Stadecker and Gause2007; McRae et al., Reference McRae, Stear, Good and Keane2015; Motran et al., Reference Motran, Silvane, Chiapello, Theumer, Ambrosio, Volpini, Celias and Cervi2018). Previous research using experimentally and naturally infected sheep have indicated that eosinophils may play an important role in resistance to infection. Investigations into sheep immune responses to T. circumcincta (Gruner et al., Reference Gruner, Mandonnet, Bouix, Khang, Cabaret, Hoste, Kerboeuf and Barnouin1994; Stear et al., Reference Stear, Bishop, Doligalska, Duncan, Holmes, Irvine, McCririe, McKellar, Sinski and Murray1995, Reference Stear, Henderson, Kerr, McKellar, Mitchell, Seeley and Bishop2002; Henderson and Stear, Reference Henderson and Stear2006; Beraldi et al., Reference Beraldi, Craig, Bishop, Hopkins and Pemberton2008), H. contortus (Rainbird et al., Reference Rainbird, Macmillan and Meeusen1998; Gill et al., Reference Gill, Altmann, Cross and Husband2000; Balic et al., Reference Balic, Cunningham and Meeusen2006; Terefe et al., Reference Terefe, Griesz, Prevot, Bergeaud, Dorchies, Brunel, Francois, Fourquaux and Jacquiet2007, Reference Terefe, Lacroux, Prévot, Grisez, Bergeaud, Bleuart, Dorchies, Foucras and Jacquiet2009) and T. colubriformis (Dawkins et al., Reference Dawkins, Windon and Eagleson1989; Rothwell et al., Reference Rothwell, Windon, Horsburgh and Anderson1993; Amarante et al., Reference Amarante, Rocha and Bricarello2007) have all demonstrated increases in eosinophils in resistant animals, resistant breeds and/or in sheep selectively bred for resistance. In addition, differences in numbers of eosinophils and susceptibility to infection have also been observed in goats (Bambou et al., Reference Bambou, Larcher, Cei, Dumoulin and Mandonnet2013; Basripuzi et al., Reference Basripuzi, Salisi, Isa, Busin, Cairns, Jenvey and Stear2018).

Such findings imply that eosinophils are important cells in ruminant responses to GIN infections. Phenotypic and bioinformatic evidence suggests that there are differences in immune responses to GIN between species. A recent review by Weller and Spencer (Reference Weller and Spencer2017) discussed a number of unresolved issues when comparing mouse and human eosinophils, namely whether the formation and secretion of eosinophil cytokines is regulated by common mechanisms. In addition, a review by Behm and Ovington (Reference Behm and Ovington2000) highlighted that IL-5 and eosinophils have different impacts on different helminth infections. Conversely, a review by Meeusen and Balic (Reference Meeusen and Balic2000) suggests that the presence of IL-5 independent eosinophil populations within tissue and peripheral blood may play a role in unnatural nematode-mouse models by increasing resistance to primary infections, and enhancing the development of specific immunity upon subsequent infections. Ultimately, although a number of in vitro studies investigating the mechanisms by which eosinophils cause helminth death have been demonstrated, it is not yet clear whether these same mechanisms also occur in vivo (Motran et al., Reference Motran, Silvane, Chiapello, Theumer, Ambrosio, Volpini, Celias and Cervi2018). Recent updates to the human, mouse, cow, sheep and goat genomes have provided insights into the possible mechanisms of eosinophil function, which can be used to direct functional studies into the mechanisms of eosinophils during GIN infections of ruminants.

The IgA receptor, FcαRI, may be dysfunctional in goats

Immunoglobulin A (IgA) is an antibody that plays a crucial role in the immune function of mucus membranes. TGF-β, together with IL-5, is responsible for class-switching of B lymphocytes into IgA-producing plasma cells (Coffman et al., Reference Coffman, Lebman and Shrader1989; Sonoda et al., Reference Sonoda, Matsumoto, Hitoshi, Ishii, Sugimoto, Araki, Tominaga, Yamaguchi and Takatsu1989). This local production of IgA is termed secretory IgA and is the predominant form of IgA in mucosal secretions (van Egmond et al., Reference van Egmond, Damen, van Spriel, Vidarsson, van Garderen and van de Winkel2001; Bakema and van Egmond, Reference Balic, Cunningham and Meeusen2011). Considering the importance of IgA in the protection of mucus membranes, it is unsurprising that studies investigating immune responses to parasitic infections have found associations between IgA and parasite-induced eosinophilia (Muraki et al., Reference Muraki, Gleich and Kita2011). IgA has been demonstrated to be associated with nematode fecundity and peripheral eosinophils, and therefore resistance to helminth infection in sheep (Gill et al., Reference Gill, Gray, Watson and Husband1993; Henderson and Stear, Reference Henderson and Stear2006; Halliday et al., Reference Halliday, Routledge, Smith, Matthews and Smmith2007; Hernández et al., Reference Hernández, Hernández, Stear, Conde-Felipe, Rodríguez, Piedrafita and González2016; Fairlie-Clarke et al., Reference Fairlie-Clarke, Kaseja, Sotomaior, Brady, Moore and Stear2019). The lack of an effective IgA response has also been implicated in increased susceptibility to parasite infection in goats (Basripuzi et al., Reference Basripuzi, Salisi, Isa, Busin, Cairns, Jenvey and Stear2018). Additionally, in vitro studies have indicated that parasite-induced eosinophil cytolysis may be dependent upon IgA binding to its receptor (Ueki et al., Reference Ueki, Melo, Ghiran, Spencer, Dvorak and Weller2013).

IgA exists as a monomer of two identical heavy chains and two identical light chains, but can form a dimer (secretory IgA) stabilized by disulphide bonds and a joining (J) chain (Woof and Russell, Reference Woof and Russell2011). In ruminants, most IgA in serum derives from mucosal surfaces and is largely dimeric (Scicchitano et al., Reference Scicchitano, Sheldrake and Husband1986). The FcαRI (CD89) is a transmembrane receptor and due to heavy glycosylation, eosinophil FcαRI is heavier (70–100 kDa) compared to macrophage and neutrophil FcαRI (55–75 kDa) (van Egmond et al., Reference van Egmond, Damen, van Spriel, Vidarsson, van Garderen and van de Winkel2001). FcαRI comprises a ligand-binding alpha chain, which consists of two extracellular Ig-like domains, a transmembrane domain, and a short cytoplasmic tail. Due to the lack of signalling motifs, FcαRI must associate with the FcRγ chain for signalling and function (van Egmond et al., Reference van Egmond, Damen, van Spriel, Vidarsson, van Garderen and van de Winkel2001).

Molecular modelling of the eosinophil IgA receptor indicates that it may be dysfunctional in goats (Basripuzi et al., Reference Basripuzi, Salisi, Isa, Busin, Cairns, Jenvey and Stear2018). Structural modelling of the IgA receptor indicated that the sheep and human receptors had similar structures. However, the goat receptor had a different conformation, with the C-terminus being bent away from the main body of the protein and lacked an alpha helix within the transmembrane domain (approximately 20 amino acids) (Fig. 1). Although the sheep and goat sequences showed high sequence identity (96%), the sheep and goat sequences showed only 55 and 54% sequence identity with the human protein. Additionally, a difference of only three amino acids was observed within the binding domain (EC1) and no differences were observed within the transmembrane domain. This seems to indicate that the loss of secondary structure within the transmembrane domain is most likely a consequence of sequence differences outside of this domain. As yet, no mouse homologue of FcαRI has been identified (van Egmond et al., Reference van Egmond, Damen, van Spriel, Vidarsson, van Garderen and van de Winkel2001; Decot et al., Reference Decot, Woerly, Loyens, Loiseau, Quatannens, Capron and Dombrowicz2005), thus if eosinophils and IgA interact to control nematodes through ADCC, mice may not be appropriate models for studying eosinophil activity against nematodes infecting humans and ruminants.

Fig. 1. The goat IgA receptor, FcαRI, may be dysfunctional in goats. Homology modelling of human, P24071.1 (A); sheep, XM_027976143.1 (B) and goat, XM_018059931.1 (C) IgA receptors revealed that human and sheep receptors have a similar conformation, however, the goat receptor has a C-terminus that is bent away from the main body of the protein and lacked an alpha helix within the transmembrane domain (blue).

Differences in eosinophil responsiveness are not due to IL-5 and IL-5Rα

IL-5 is a growth factor and chemoattractant of eosinophils and is involved in the recruitment, activation, degranulation and survival of eosinophils (Lopez et al., Reference Lopez, Sanderson, Gamble, Campbell, Young and Vadas1988; Horie et al., Reference Horie, Gleich and Kita1996; Fulkerson et al., Reference Fulkerson, Schollaert, Bouffi and Rothenberg2014; Sippel et al., Reference Sippel, Pierlot, Renault, Groenen and Strasser2018). IL-5 is an important cytokine in the differentiation and activation of anti-parasitic eosinophil responses and has been specifically targeted in mice to demonstrate the in vivo role of eosinophils in helminth infections, as discussed in previous reviews (Huang and Appleton, Reference Huang and Appleton2016; Meeusen and Balic, Reference Meeusen and Balic2000). However, the reagents and knock-out models used in these rodent studies are generally not available or suitable for large animal experimentation. Several studies have shown that mice vaccinated with recombinant cytokines can induce autoantibodies that specifically cancel out the activity of the native cytokine in vivo (Dalum et al., Reference Dalum, Butler, Jensen, Hindersson, Steinaa, Waterston, Grell, Feldmann, Elsner and Mouritsen1999; Hertz, et al., Reference Hertz, Mahalingam, Dalum, Klysner, Mattes, Neisig, Mouritsen, Foster and Gautam2001; Richard et al., Reference Richard, Grencis, Humphreys, Renauld and Van Snick2000). This approach may provide an alternative for the in vivo study of immune responses in large animals.

IL-5 acts on target cells by binding to its receptor, IL-5R, which consists of an α and a β subunit, however the α subunit is specific to IL-5R only (McBrien and Menzies-Gow, Reference McBrien and Menzies-Gow2017). IL-5 is a dimeric glycoprotein with a four-helix bundle motif. In complex, IL-5 forms a homodimer which is sandwiched by the IL-5Rα. Binding of IL-5 to the receptor alpha subunit results in recruitment of the β subunit to the receptor (Tavernier et al., Reference Tavernier, Devos, Cornelis, Tuypens, Van der Heyden, Fiers and Plaetinck1991; Kusano et al., Reference Kusano, Kukimoto-Niino, Hino, Ohsawa, Ikutani, Takaki, Sakamoto, Hara-Yokoyama, Shirouzu, Takatsu and Yokoyama2012). The human and mouse cDNA code for proteins of 134 and 133 amino acids in length, respectively, and have 70% amino acid sequence identity (Yamaguchi, Reference Yamaguchi1994).

Molecular modelling indicates that it is unlikely that IL-5 and its receptor are responsible for differences in eosinophil responses between sheep and goats. For IL-5, the predicted protein sequences were identical between sheep and goat, while for IL-5Rα, the predicted protein sequences differed in 6 out of the 432 amino acids. All of these differences occurred in the first 42 amino acids of the protein, which included within the 15–34 amino acids that aligned with the signal peptide for human IL-5Rα, as well as within a region lacking secondary structure. This indicates that the observed sequence differences are unlikely to result in a dysfunctional IL-5 and IL-5R.

The eotaxin receptor, CCR3, contains a frameshift mutation in goats

Eotaxin is a chemoattractant cytokine which is important for promoting eosinophil recruitment and degranulation (Garcia-Zepeda et al., Reference Garcia-Zepeda, Rothenberg, Ownbey, Celestin, Leder and Luster1996; Davoine and Lacy, Reference Davoine and Lacy2014), and has been shown to be important for eosinophil recruitment during helminth infections (Rothenberg et al., Reference Rothenberg, MacLean, Pearlman, Luster and Leder1997; Mochizuki et al., Reference Mochizuki, Bartels, Mallet, Christophers and Schröder1998; Ruth et al., Reference Ruth, Lukacs, Warmington, Polak, Burdick, Kunkel, Strieter and Chensue1998; Culley et al., Reference Culley, Brown, Conroy, Sabroe, Pritchard and Williams2000; Simons et al., Reference Simons, Rothenberg and Lawrence2005). Eotaxin belongs to the CC chemokine family, which is distinguished by two cysteines immediately adjacent to the N terminus. Eotaxin has been determined to be in equilibrium between a monomer and a dimer at near physiological pH, however, functional eotaxin is present as a monomer (Crump et al., Reference Crump, Rajarathnam, Kim, Clark-Lewis and Sykes1998). It exhibits a chemokine-like fold consisting of three anti-parallel β-strands with an overlying α-helix (Crump et al., Reference Crump, Rajarathnam, Kim, Clark-Lewis and Sykes1998). There are three molecules of Eotaxin, CCL11 (Eotaxin-1), CCL24 (Eotaxin-2) and CCL26 (Eotaxin-3); however, Eotaxin-1 is the dominant isoform. The highest levels of Eotaxin-1 are found in the GI system and can be produced by a variety of cells (Kitaura et al., Reference Kitaura, Nakajima, Imai, Harada, Combadiere, Tiffany, Murphy and Yoshie1996; Ying et al., Reference Ying, Robinson, Meng, Barata, McEuen, Buckley, Walls, Askenase and Kay1999). Eotaxin-1 is important for the release of eosinophil precursors from the bone marrow (Palframan et al., Reference Palframan, Collins, Williams and Rankin1998) and is activated by Th2 cytokines (Mochizuki et al., Reference Mochizuki, Bartels, Mallet, Christophers and Schröder1998) and inhibited by Th1 cytokines (Miyamasu et al., Reference Miyamasu, Yamaguchi, Nakajima, Misaki, Morita, Matsushima, Yamamoto and Hirai1999; Fukuda et al., Reference Fukuda, Yamada, Fujitsu, Kumagai and Nishida2002). Eotaxin-2 is synthesized and released by mucosal epithelial cells and macrophages, while Eotaxin-3 is produced by epithelial and endothelial cells (Kitaura et al., Reference Kitaura, Suzuki, Imai, Takagi, Suzuki, Nakajima, Hirai, Nomiyama and Yoshie1999; Shinkai et al., Reference Shinkai, Yoshisue, Koike, Shoji, Nakagawa, Saito, Takeda, Imabeppu, Kato, Hanai, Anazawa, Kuga and Nishi1999; Dulkys et al., Reference Dulkys, Schramm, Kimmig, Knöß, Weyergraf, Kapp and Elsner2001). Eotaxin-2 and Eotaxin-3 can also recruit eosinophils, but at later stages of infection (>24 h) (Ying et al., Reference Ying, Robinson, Meng, Barata, McEuen, Buckley, Walls, Askenase and Kay1999; Rosenwasser et al., Reference Rosenwasser, Zimmermann, Hershey, Foster and Rothenberg2003; Kalomenidis et al., Reference Kalomenidis, Stathopoulos, Barnette, Guo, Peebles, Blackwell and Light2005; Schratl et al., Reference Schratl, Sturm, Royer, Sturm, Lippe, Peskar and Heinemann2006).

All Eotaxin isoforms are associated with a single receptor, CCR3, however the receptor binds to the different isoforms with different affinities (Kitaura et al., Reference Kitaura, Suzuki, Imai, Takagi, Suzuki, Nakajima, Hirai, Nomiyama and Yoshie1999). CCR3 is very abundant in eosinophils (approximately 40–400 × 103 receptors per cell), but is also expressed at lower levels in basophils, mast cells and a subset of Th2 lymphocytes (Sallusto et al., Reference Sallusto, Mackay and Lanzavecchia1997; Uguccioni et al., Reference Uguccioni, Mackay, Ochensberger, Loetscher, Rhis, LaRosa, Rao, Ponath, Baggiolini and Dahinden1997; Romagnani et al., Reference Romagnani, De Paulis, Beltrame, Annunziato, Dente, Maggi, Romagnani and Marone1999). CCR3 also binds to other non-eosinophil selective CC chemokines, but with lower affinity compared to Eotaxin-1 (Ponath et al., Reference Ponath, Qin, Post, Wang, Wu, Gerard, Newman, Gerard and Mackay1996; Baggiolini et al., Reference Baggiolini, Dewald and Moser1997; Sabroe et al., Reference Sabroe, Hartnell, Jopling, Bel, Ponath, Pease, Collins and Williams1999). CCR3 is a G-protein-coupled receptor of 335 amino acids in length and shares 63 and 51% sequence homology with CCR1 and CCR2, respectively (Daugherty et al., Reference Daugherty, Siciliano, DeMartino, Malkowitz, Sirotina and Springer1996). The CCR3 gene codes for four cysteine residues, one in each of the extracellular domains, and a serine/threonine-rich cytoplasmic tail, all of which are highly conserved features of chemokine receptors (Ponath et al., Reference Ponath, Qin, Post, Wang, Wu, Gerard, Newman, Gerard and Mackay1996). Uniquely, CCR3 contains a cluster of negatively charged amino acids distal to the transmembrane helix IV in the second extracellular loop (Daugherty et al., Reference Daugherty, Siciliano, DeMartino, Malkowitz, Sirotina and Springer1996).

Molecular modelling of the Eotaxin receptor, CCR3, indicates that it may be dysfunctional in goats. The sheep and goat CCR3 protein sequences differed by only two amino acids. The two sheep protein sequences were identical except for two substitutions. The two goat sequences were derived from the goat genome sequence and the other from mRNA extracted from the liver of an Osmanabadi goat. The goat genome sequence contained a frameshift deletion on chromosome 22 at 52,155,650, which corresponded to amino acid 330 of the CCR3 protein (Fig. 2). This deletion was not present in the mRNA; therefore, it is possible that this deletion is merely a sequencing artefact. Additionally, both goat sequences contain two amino acid substitutions in relation to the sheep sequences. However, it is unlikely that these substitutions would be the cause of any dysfunction, as the same amino acids are present in the same positions in the human CCR3 protein sequence. In any case, more research is necessary to establish if the potential frameshift mutation is polymorphic in goats and whether or not it may contribute to differences in eosinophil responsiveness between relatively resistant and susceptible goat breeds.

Fig. 2. Eotaxin receptor, CCR3, may be dysfunctional in goats. Homology modelling revealed that the two sheep sequences [Q9N0M0 (B), W5PXW1 (C)] were identical except for two substitutions and all substitutions were at the C-terminal end of the sequence. The two goat sequences [JO419941.2 (A), LOC5316646 (D)] contained two substitutions compared to the sheep sequences. In addition, the goat genome sequence contained a frameshift deletion, corresponding to amino acid 330 (pink). Substitutions are colour coded by the following: aa 354 (blue), aa 356 (red), aa 357 (green) and aa 358 (orange).

MBP-2 is the only MBP molecule present in ruminants

MBP-1 is an abundant granule protein of human eosinophils. Its homologue, MBP-2, is unique to eosinophils (Acharya and Ackerman, Reference Acharya and Ackerman2014). MBP is localized within the crystalline core of the eosinophil and is an important mediator of eosinophil function (Gleich and Adolphson, Reference Gleich, Adolphson and Dixon1986; Kita, Reference Kita2011). MBP is highly basic, which results in the binding of MBP to cell membranes. Cytotoxic mechanisms of MBP involve surface interchange to increase cell membrane permeability and interrupting tissue enzyme activity (Ackerman et al., Reference Ackerman, Gleich, Loegering, Richardson and Butterworth1985; Gleich and Adolphson, Reference Gleich, Adolphson and Dixon1986; Swaminathan et al., Reference Swaminathan, Weaver, Loegering, Checkel, Leonidas, Gleich and Acharya2001). MBP has been demonstrated to be toxic against Schistosoma mansoni by disrupting the cell membrane via the binding of heparin (Butterworth et al., Reference Butterworth, Wassom, Gleich, Loegering and David1979), as well as being important in the control of Litomosoides sigmodontis in mice (Specht et al., Reference Specht, Saeftel, Arndt, Endl, Dubben, Lee, Lee and Hoerauf2006). Structurally, MBP is most like C-type lectins, except that it lacks a calcium binding site, and instead binds selectively to heparin and heparin sulphate, glycosaminoglycans and chondroitin sulphate B (Swaminathan et al., Reference Swaminathan, Myszka, Katsamba, Ohnuki, Gleich and Acharya2005; Wagner et al., Reference Wagner, Ohnuki, Parsawar, Gleich and Nelson2007). Human MBP-1 is 222 amino acids long, consisting of a signalling peptide, pro-peptide and two chains (Swaminathan et al., Reference Swaminathan, Weaver, Loegering, Checkel, Leonidas, Gleich and Acharya2001). It has been suggested that the pro-peptide protects the eosinophil from MBP during transport from the Golgi apparatus to the crystalline core by masking the mature domain, as well as by blocking glycosylated binding sites to inactivate the protein (Swaminathan et al., Reference Swaminathan, Weaver, Loegering, Checkel, Leonidas, Gleich and Acharya2001). The mature domain is highly basic and is the region where carbohydrate recognition occurs. There is a 66% amino acid sequence identity between MBP-1 and MBP-2, with MBP-2 being less basic. MBP-2 contains 10 cysteine residues, eight of which are conserved in MBP-1, including those cysteines that are involved in disulphide bridges. The conservation of these disulphide bridges is consistent with other C-type lectins and is thought to be important for tertiary structure and function (Wagner et al., Reference Wagner, Ohnuki, Parsawar, Gleich and Nelson2007).

Sequence searches of MBP indicate that only MBP-2 is detectable in ruminant genomes; it may function similarly to MBP-1. A total of three sequences for sheep (XM_027979083.1, XM_027979084.1 and XM_02797908.1), two sequences for goats (XM_018058941.1 and XM_018058942) and one sequence for cows (NM_001098471.1) were retrieved. Of the two human MBP sequences, the ruminant sequences were most similar to MBP-2 (55–58% homology). Homology between the sheep sequences was between 72 and 79%, while homology between the goat sequences was 79%. The highest homology was observed between sheep sequence XM_027979084.1 and goat sequence XM_018058941.1, with 95%, which implies a recent divergence and that sheep and goats may have multiple MBP loci. Typical features of C-type lectins and MBP were conserved in the ruminant sequences, including the C-type lectin fold, disulphide-bonded cysteines, and the heparin binding sites. Despite higher homology between human MBP-2 and the ruminant sequences (Fig. 3), theoretical isoelectric point (pI) calculations for the ruminant sequences were most similar to the pI for human MBP-1, with the pI of all ruminant sequences being within 26% of the pI human MBP-1, compared to within 61% of the pI of MBP-2 (Table 1). It is possible that in the absence of MBP-1, ruminant MBP-2 may function as MBP-1, being more cytotoxic and abundant. Functional assays are required to determine if this hypothesis is in fact the case.

Fig. 3. Major basic protein 2 is the only MBP molecule in ruminants. Homology modelling of MBP-1 and MBP-2 C-type lectin fold revealed high structural similarities between human MBP-2 and ruminant MBP-2 molecules, however, theoretical isoelectric point (pI) computation suggests that ruminant MBP-2 molecules may function similarly to human MBP-1. Amino acids used to calculate theoretical pI are as follows: aspartic acid (green), glutamic acid (orange), histidine (yellow), cysteine (red), tyrosine (pink), lysine (aqua) and arginine (blue). Molecules are presented in the order of percentage of sequence identity to human MBP-1, CR450311.1 (A) (highest to lowest): human MBP-2, NM_006093.4 (B); sheep XM_027979083.1 (C); sheep XM_027979084.1 (D); goat XM_018058941.1 (E); cow NM_001098471.1 (F); sheep XM_027979081.1 (G) and goat XM_018058942 (H).

Table 1. Theoretical isoelectric point (pI) of sequences for MBP molecules from humans, cows, sheep and goats

Amino acid sequences were entered into the ExPASy Bioinformatics Resource Portal Compute pI/MW Tool (https://web.expasy.org/compute_pi/) for estimating average theoretical pI based upon the pK values of amino acids described in Bjellqvist et al. (Reference Bjellqvist, Hughes, Pasquali, Paquet, Ravier, Sanchez, Frutiger and Hochstrasser1993) and Bjellqvist et al. (Reference Bjellqvist, Basse, Olsen and Celis1994). The pK values in these studies were defined by examining polypeptide migration between pH 4.5 and 7.3; therefore, predictions for proteins outside of this pH range (cow NM_001098471.1, sheep XM_027979084.1, goat XM_018058941.1) may not be accurate.

Goat EPX lacks a nitrosylated tyrosine

Similar to MBP-2, eosinophil peroxidase (EPX) is unique to eosinophils and is the most abundant cationic protein within the matrix of the specific granule of the eosinophil (Acharya and Ackerman, Reference Acharya and Ackerman2014). Human EPX is 715 AA long, located on chromosome 17. It is structurally similar to myeloperoxidase (MPO), which is present in neutrophil-specific granules (Loughran et al., Reference Loughran, O'Connor, Ó’Fágáin and O'Connell2008). EPX uses hydrogen peroxide to produce toxic reactive oxygen species, such as hypohalous acids, and is capable of killing parasites, including S. mansoni (Auriault et al., Reference Auriault, Capron and Capron1982), Toxoplasma gondii (Locksley et al., Reference Locksley, Wilson and Klebanoff1982) and L. sigmodontis (Specht et al., Reference Specht, Saeftel, Arndt, Endl, Dubben, Lee, Lee and Hoerauf2006). In addition to eosinophils, mast cells also play a role in parasitic infections. High concentrations of EPX have been demonstrated to result in mast cell lysis. Mast cell lysis is followed by the binding of EPX to mast cell granules to form a complex, which results in the retention of secretory activity on mast cells (Henderson et al., Reference Henderson, Chi and Klebanoff1980). In addition, a study by Metzler et al. (Reference Metzler, Fuchs, Nauseef, Reumaux, Roesler, Schulze, Wahn, Papayannopoulos and Zychlinsky2011) demonstrated donors that were deficient in MPO failed to form neutrophil extracellular traps (NET), indicating that MPO is essential for NET formation. Based on this evidence, it is possible that EPX could be involved in eosinophil extracellular trap (EET) formation, which would implicate eosinophils in the direct control of parasitic infections.

EPX is structurally distinct from the other granule proteins, being a two-chain (55-kDa heavy chain and 12.5-kDa light chain) haemoprotein, although EPX is highly cationic, much like MBP-1 and eosinophil cationic protein. A feature of EPX is that it post-translationally modifies itself via the nitrosylation of a specific tyrosine residue (Tyr-488) during synthesis and packaging of the granule proteins into the developing eosinophil (Ulrich et al., Reference Ulrich, Petre, Youhnovski, Prömm, Schirle, Schumm, Pero, Doyle, Checkel, Kita, Thiyagarajan, Acharya, Schmid-Grendelmeier, Simon, Schwarz, Tsutsui, Shimokawa, Bellon, Lee, Przybylski and Döring2008). Tyr-488 has also been shown to be surface exposed, which may assist in the production of reactive oxygen species by EPX. Other granule proteins are also nitrosylated by EPX, but it is unclear whether this is important in protection of the host against helminths.

Molecular modelling of EPX indicates that this protein may be dysfunctional in goats. Based on searches using the human (NM_000502.6) and bovine (XM_024980582.1) EPX sequences, no annotated sequences were retrieved from either the sheep or goat genomes. However, short sequences that matched the reference, but not annotated with an associated gene, were retrieved and re-aligned to the reference. The sheep sequence contained one single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), while the goat sequence contained two SNP, one of which was in the same location as in the sheep sequence. The sheep and goat sequences were 90.3% homologous, with homology of sheep and goat to the cow sequence being 84.9 and 82.9%, respectively. The cow, sheep and goat sequences all contained MPO-like protein domains, all of which were conserved except for single-residue substitutions within each domain. In addition to the MPO-like domains, the cow and sheep sequences also contained a tryptic peptide fragment, which was conserved in all ruminant sequences except for a single substitution (alignment to human sequence; Arg483 to His483). Of note, the nitrosylated tyrosine was not conserved in the goat sequence and was substituted for a cysteine (Fig. 4). The nitrosylated tyrosine is important for EPX-mediated activities, including the post-translational nitration of eosinophil secondary granule proteins, which in turn, may influence inflammatory responses. The importance of a nitrosylated tyrosine in GIN infections of ruminants has not yet been established; however, the absence of this residue may be responsible for the relative susceptibility of goats to GIN infection. Functional studies are required to determine whether the SNP identified in the sheep and goat sequences may be sequencing error rather than true SNP, as well as to confirm the importance of the nitrosylated tyrosine in resistance and susceptibility to GIN infection.

Fig. 4. Eosinophil peroxidase may be dysfunctional in goats. Homology modelling EPX heavy chain revealed goat EPX does not contain a tyrosine involved which is involved in post-translational modification of eosinophil granule proteins during eosinophil maturation in human eosinophils. The nitrated tyrosine (green) in the human, NM_000502.6 (A); cow, XM_024980582.1 (B) and sheep, contig. AMGL01017333.1 (C) sequences have been replaced by a cysteine (red) in the goat, contig. LWLT01000022.1 (D) sequence.

Directions for future research

Phenotypic and bioinformatic analyses, in combination, are valuable in assessing differences in immune responses between species in order to better direct the design of functional studies. Some eosinophil proteins may be at least partly responsible for the susceptibility of certain ruminant species to GINs. In particular, sequence variation in the IgA receptor, FcαRI, the Eotaxin receptor, CCR3 and EPX may contribute to the susceptibility of goats to GIN infection. The different conformation of goat FcαRI, as compared to sheep and human, indicates that it is unlikely that it would be fully effective in antigen-dependent cellular cytotoxicity processes, which have been shown to be important for some helminth infections (Huang et al., Reference Huang, Gebreselassie, Gagliardo, Ruyechan, Luber, Lee, Lee and Appleton2015). In addition, goat CCR3 may contain a frameshift mutation, which would in turn affect the role of Eotaxin-1 in eosinophil recruitment and degranulation. Goat EPX lacks a nitrosylated tyrosine. In humans, the nitrosylated tyrosine in EPX is important for the post-translational modification of EDGPs during eosinophil maturation. Goat EPX may not be involved in this process. Finally, although MBP-1 is the most abundant and important cationic protein in human eosinophils, it has no orthologue in ruminant genomes. MBP-2 appears to be the only MBP molecule present in ruminants and it may function similarly to human MBP-1. Future research should focus on functional studies to confirm these findings and should involve the extraction of these proteins from the host of interest, followed by sequencing, crystallography and in vitro assays to assess the overall importance of these proteins to the susceptibility of ruminants to GIN.

Perhaps the clearest finding of this review is that bioinformatic analyses indicate that the function of specific eosinophil proteins may vary among host species. Therefore, functional studies of eosinophil activity should be performed in the target species. Extrapolations from one species to another need to be interpreted with great care.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031182019001768

Conflict of interest

None.

References

Acharya, KR and Ackerman, SJ (2014) Eosinophil granule proteins: form and function. The Journal of Biological Chemistry 289, 1740617415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ackerman, SJ, Gleich, GJ, Loegering, DA, Richardson, BA and Butterworth, AE (1985) Comparative toxicity of purified human eosinophil granule cationic proteins for schistosomula of Schistosoma mansoni. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 34, 735745.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Amarante, AFT, Rocha, RA and Bricarello, PA (2007) Relationship of intestinal histology with the resistance to Trichostrongylus colubriformis infection in three breeds of sheep. Pesquisa Veterinária Brasileira 27, 4348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anthony, RM, Rutitzky, LI, Urban, JF, Stadecker, MJ and Gause, WC (2007) Protective immune mechanisms in helminth infection. Nature Reviews Immunology 7, 975987.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Auriault, C, Capron, M and Capron, A (1982) Activation of rat and human eosinophils by soluble factor(s) released by Schistosoma mansoni schistosomula. Cellular Immunology 66, 5969.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baggiolini, M, Dewald, B and Moser, B (1997) Human chemokines: an update. Annual Review of Immunology 15, 675705.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bakema, JE and van Egmond, M (2011) The human immunoglobulin A Fc receptor FcαRI: a multifaceted regulator of mucosal immunity. Mucosal Immunology 4, 612.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Balic, A, Cunningham, CP and Meeusen, ENT (2006) Eosinophil interactions with Haemonchus contortus larvae in the ovine gastrointestinal tract. Parasite Immunology 28, 107115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bambou, JC, Larcher, T, Cei, W, Dumoulin, PJ and Mandonnet, N (2013) Effect of experimental infection with Haemonchus contortus on parasitological and local cellular responses in resistant and susceptible young Creole goats. BioMed Research International 2013, 9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Basripuzi, NH, Salisi, MS, Isa, NMM, Busin, V, Cairns, C, Jenvey, C and Stear, MJ (2018) Boer goats appear to lack a functional IgA and eosinophil response against natural nematode infection. Veterinary Parasitology 264, 1825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behm, CA and Ovington, KS (2000) The role of eosinophils in parasitic helminth infections: insights from genetically modified mice. Parasitology Today 16, 202209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beraldi, D, Craig, BH, Bishop, SC, Hopkins, J and Pemberton, JM (2008) Phenotypic analysis of host–parasite interactions in lambs infected with Teladorsagia circumcincta. International Journal for Parasitology 38, 15671577.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bjellqvist, B, Hughes, GJ, Pasquali, C, Paquet, N, Ravier, F, Sanchez, J-C, Frutiger, S and Hochstrasser, D (1993) The focusing positions of polypeptides in immobilized pH gradients can be predicted from their amino acid sequences. Electrophoresis 14, 10231031.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bjellqvist, B, Basse, B, Olsen, E and Celis, JE (1994) Reference points for comparisons of two-dimensional maps of proteins from different human cell types defined in a pH scale where isoelectric points correlate with polypeptide compositions. Electrophoresis 15, 529539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanchard, C and Rothenberg, ME (2009) Chapter 3 Biology of the eosinophil. In Alt FW (ed.), Advances in Immunology, vol. 101. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 81121.Google Scholar
Butterworth, AE, Wassom, DL, Gleich, GJ, Loegering, DA and David, JR (1979) Damage to Schistosomula of Schistosoma mansoni induced directly by eosinophil major basic protein. The Journal of Immunology 122, 221229.Google ScholarPubMed
Coffman, RL, Lebman, DA and Shrader, B (1989) Transforming growth factor beta specifically enhances IgA production by lipopolysaccharide-stimulated murine B lymphocytes. The Journal of Experimental Medicine 170, 10391044.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crump, MP, Rajarathnam, K, Kim, K-S, Clark-Lewis, I and Sykes, BD (1998) Solution structure of Eotaxin, a chemokine that selectively recruits eosinophils in allergic inflammation. The Journal of Biological Chemistry 28, 2247122479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culley, FJ, Brown, A, Conroy, DM, Sabroe, I, Pritchard, DI and Williams, TJ (2000) Eotaxin is specifically cleaved by hookworm metalloproteases preventing its action in vitro and in vivo. The Journal of Immunology 165, 64476453.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dalum, I, Butler, DM, Jensen, MR, Hindersson, P, Steinaa, L, Waterston, AM, Grell, SN, Feldmann, M, Elsner, HI and Mouritsen, S (1999) Therapeutic antibodies elicited by immunization against TNF-α. Nature Biotechnology 17, 666669.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daugherty, BL, Siciliano, SJ, DeMartino, JA, Malkowitz, L, Sirotina, A and Springer, MS (1996) Cloning, expression, and characterization of the human eosinophil eotaxin receptor. The Journal of Experimental Medicine 183, 23492354.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davoine, F and Lacy, P (2014) Eosinophil cytokines, chemokines, and growth factors: emerging roles in immunity. Frontiers in Immunology 5, 570.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawkins, H, Windon, R and Eagleson, G (1989) Eosinophil responsiveness in sheep selected for high and low responsiveness to Trichostrongylus colubriformis. International Journal for Parasitology 19, 199205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Decot, V, Woerly, G, Loyens, M, Loiseau, S, Quatannens, B, Capron, M and Dombrowicz, D (2005) Heterogeneity of expression of IgA receptors by human, mouse, and rat eosinophils. The Journal of Immunology 174, 628635.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dulkys, Y, Schramm, G, Kimmig, D, Knöß, S, Weyergraf, A, Kapp, A and Elsner, J (2001) Detection of mRNA for Eotaxin-2 and Eotaxin-3 in human dermal fibroblasts and their distinct activation profile on human eosinophils. Journal of Investigative Dermatology 116, 498505.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fairlie-Clarke, K, Kaseja, K, Sotomaior, C, Brady, N, Moore, K and Stear, M (2019) Salivary IgA: a biomarker for resistance to Teladorsagia circumcincta and a new estimated breeding value. Veterinary Parasitology 269, 1620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fukuda, K, Yamada, N, Fujitsu, Y, Kumagai, N and Nishida, T (2002) Inhibition of eotaxin expression in human corneal fibroblasts by interferon-γ. International Archives of Allergy and Immunology 129, 138144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fulkerson, PC, Schollaert, KL, Bouffi, C and Rothenberg, ME (2014) IL-5 triggers a cooperative cytokine network that promotes eosinophil precursor maturation. Journal of Immunology 193, 40434052.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garcia-Zepeda, EA, Rothenberg, ME, Ownbey, RT, Celestin, J, Leder, P and Luster, AD (1996) Human eotaxin is a specific chemoattractant for eosinophil cells and provides a new mechanism to explain tissue eosinophilia. Nature Medicine 2, 449456.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giacomin, PR, Gordon, DL, Botto, M, Daha, MR, Sanderson, SD, Taylor, SM and Dent, LA (2008) The role of complement in innate, adaptive and eosinophil-dependent immunity to the nematode Nippostrongylus brasiliensis. Molecular Immunology 45, 446455.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gill, HS, Gray, GD, Watson, DL and Husband, AJ (1993) Isotype-specific antibody responses to Haemonchus contortus in genetically resistant sheep. Parasite Immunology 15, 6167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gill, HS, Altmann, K, Cross, ML and Husband, AJ (2000) Induction of T helper 1- and T helper 2-type immune responses during Haemonchus contortus infection in sheep. Immunology 99, 458463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleich, GJ and Adolphson, CR (1986) The eosinophilic leukocyte: structure and function. In Dixon, FJ (ed.), Advances in Immunology, vol. 39. Orlando: Academic Press, pp. 177253.Google Scholar
Gruner, L, Mandonnet, N, Bouix, J, Khang, JVT, Cabaret, J, Hoste, H, Kerboeuf, D and Barnouin, J (1994) Worm population characteristics and pathological changes in lambs after a single or trickle infection with Teladorsagia circumcincta. International Journal for Parasitology 24, 347356.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halliday, A, Routledge, C, Smith, S, Matthews, J and Smmith, W (2007) Parasite loss and inhibited development of Teladorsagia circumcincta in relation to the kinetics of the local IgA response in sheep. Parasite Immunology 29, 425434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, NG and Stear, MJ (2006) Eosinophil and IgA responses in sheep infected with Teladorsagia circumcincta. Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology 112, 6266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henderson, WR, Chi, EY and Klebanoff, SJ (1980) Eosinophil peroxidase-induced mast cell secretion. The Journal of Experimental Medicine 152, 265279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hernández, JN, Hernández, A, Stear, MJ, Conde-Felipe, M, Rodríguez, E, Piedrafita, D and González, JF (2016) Potential role for mucosal IgA in modulating Haemonchus contortus adult worm infection in sheep. Veterinary Parasitology 223, 153158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hertz, M, Mahalingam, S, Dalum, I, Klysner, S, Mattes, J, Neisig, A, Mouritsen, S, Foster, PS and Gautam, A (2001) Active vaccination against IL-5 bypasses immunological tolerance and ameliorates experimental asthma. The Journal of Immunology 167, 37923799.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horie, S, Gleich, GJ and Kita, H (1996) Cytokines directly induce degranulation and superoxide production from human eosinophils. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 98, 371381.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huang, L and Appleton, JA (2016) Eosinophils in helminth infection: defenders and dupes. Trends in Parasitology 32, 798807.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huang, L, Gebreselassie, NG, Gagliardo, LF, Ruyechan, MC, Luber, KL, Lee, NA, Lee, JJ and Appleton, JA (2015) Eosinophils mediate protective immunity against secondary nematode infection. The Journal of Immunology 194, 283290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kalomenidis, I, Stathopoulos, GT, Barnette, R, Guo, Y, Peebles, RS, Blackwell, TS and Light, RW (2005) Eotaxin-3 and interleukin-5 pleural fluid levels are associated with pleural fluid eosinophilia in post-coronary artery bypass grafting pleural effusions. Chest 127, 20942100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kita, H (2011) Eosinophils: multifaceted biological properties and roles in health and disease. Immunological Reviews 242, 161177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kitaura, M, Nakajima, T, Imai, T, Harada, S, Combadiere, C, Tiffany, HL, Murphy, PM and Yoshie, O (1996) Molecular cloning of human eotaxin, an eosinophil-selective CC chemokine, and identification of a specific eosinophil eotaxin receptor, CC chemokine receptor 3. The Journal of Biological Chemistry 217, 77257730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitaura, M, Suzuki, N, Imai, T, Takagi, S, Suzuki, R, Nakajima, T, Hirai, K, Nomiyama, H and Yoshie, O (1999) Molecular cloning of a novel human CC chemokine (eotaxin-3) that is a functional ligand of CC chemokine receptor 3. The Journal of Biological Chemistry 274, 2797527980.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kusano, S, Kukimoto-Niino, M, Hino, N, Ohsawa, N, Ikutani, M, Takaki, S, Sakamoto, K, Hara-Yokoyama, M, Shirouzu, M, Takatsu, K and Yokoyama, S (2012) Structural basis of interleukin-5 dimer recognition by its α receptor. Protein Science 21, 850864.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lane, J., Jubb, T., Shephard, R., Webb-Ware, J. and Fordyce, G. (2015). Priority list of endemic diseases for the red meat industries. Report No. B.AHE.0010. Meat and Livestock Australia Limited, North Sydney.Google Scholar
Locksley, RM, Wilson, CB and Klebanoff, SJ (1982) Role for endogenous and acquired peroxidase in the toxoplasmacidal activity of murine and human mononuclear phagocytes. The Journal of Clinical Investigation 69, 10991111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lopez, AF, Sanderson, CJ, Gamble, JR, Campbell, HD, Young, IG and Vadas, MA (1988) Recombinant human interleukin 5 is a selective activator of human eosinophil function. The Journal of Experimental Medicine 167, 219224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loughran, NB, O'Connor, B, Ó’Fágáin, C and O'Connell, MJ (2008) The phylogeny of the mammalian heme peroxidases and the evolution of their diverse functions. BMC Evolutionary Biology 8, 101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maizels, RM and Yazdanbakhsh, M (2003) Immune regulation by helminth parasites: cellular and molecular mechanisms. Nature Reviews Immunology 3, 733744.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McBrien, C and Menzies-Gow, A (2017) The biology of eosinophils and their role in asthma. Frontiers in Medicine 4, 93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McRae, KM, Stear, MJ, Good, B and Keane, OM (2015) The host immune response to gastrointestinal nematode infection in sheep. Parasite Immunology 37, 605613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meeusen, ENT and Balic, A (2000) Do eosinophils have a role in the killing of helminth parasites? Parasitology Today 16, 95101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Metzler, KD, Fuchs, TA, Nauseef, WM, Reumaux, D, Roesler, J, Schulze, I, Wahn, V, Papayannopoulos, V and Zychlinsky, A (2011) Myeloperoxidase is required for neutrophil extracellular trap formation: implications for innate immunity. Blood 117, 953959.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miyamasu, M, Yamaguchi, M, Nakajima, T, Misaki, Y, Morita, Y, Matsushima, K, Yamamoto, K and Hirai, K (1999) Th1-derived cytokine IFN-γ is a potent inhibitor of eotaxin synthesis in vitro. International Immunology 11, 10011004.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mochizuki, M, Bartels, J, Mallet, AI, Christophers, E and Schröder, J-M (1998) IL-4 induces eotaxin: a possible mechanism of selective eosinophil recruitment in helminth infection and atopy. The Journal of Immunology 160, 6068.Google ScholarPubMed
Motran, CC, Silvane, L, Chiapello, LS, Theumer, MG, Ambrosio, LF, Volpini, X, Celias, DP and Cervi, L (2018) Helminth infections: recognition and modulation of the immune response by innate immune cells. Frontiers in Immunology 9, 12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muraki, M, Gleich, GJ and Kita, H (2011) Antigen-specific IgG and IgA, but not IgE, activate the effector functions of eosinophils in the presence of antigen. International Archives of Allergy and Immunology 154, 119127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palframan, RT, Collins, PD, Williams, TJ and Rankin, SM (1998) Eotaxin induces a rapid release of eosinophils and their progenitors from the bone marrow. Blood 91, 22402248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ponath, PD, Qin, S, Post, TW, Wang, J, Wu, L, Gerard, NP, Newman, W, Gerard, C and Mackay, CR (1996) Molecular cloning and characterization of a human eotaxin receptor expressed selectively on eosinophils. The Journal of Experimental Medicine 183, 24372448.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rainbird, M, Macmillan, D and Meeusen, E (1998) Eosinophil-mediated killing of Haemonchus contortus larvae: effect of eosinophil activation and role of antibody, complement and interleukin-5. Parasite Immunology 20, 93103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richard, M, Grencis, RK, Humphreys, NE, Renauld, J-C and Van Snick, J (2000) Anti-IL-9 vaccination prevents worm expulsion and blood eosinophilia in Trichuris muris-infected mice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 97, 767772.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roeber, F, Jex, AR and Gasser, RB (2013) Impact of gastrointestinal parasitic nematodes of sheep, and the role of advanced molecular tools for exploring epidemiology and drug resistance – an Australian perspective. Parasites & Vectors 6, 153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Romagnani, P, De Paulis, A, Beltrame, C, Annunziato, F, Dente, V, Maggi, E, Romagnani, S and Marone, G (1999) Tryptase-chymase double-positive human mast cells express the eotaxin receptor CCR3 and are attracted by CCR3-binding chemokines. The American Journal of Pathology 155, 11951204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenwasser, LJ, Zimmermann, N, Hershey, GK, Foster, PS and Rothenberg, ME (2003) Chemokines in asthma: cooperative interaction between chemokines and IL-13. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 111, 227242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothenberg, ME and Hogan, SP (2006) The eosinophil. Annual Review of Immunology 24, 147174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rothenberg, ME, MacLean, JA, Pearlman, E, Luster, AD and Leder, P (1997) Targeted disruption of the chemokine eotaxin partially reduces antigen-induced tissue eosinophilia. The Journal of Experimental Medicine 185, 785790.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rothwell, TLW, Windon, RG, Horsburgh, BA and Anderson, BH (1993) Relationship between eosinophilia and responsiveness to infection with Trichostrongylus colubriformis in sheep. International Journal for Parasitology 23, 203211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruth, JH, Lukacs, NW, Warmington, KS, Polak, TJ, Burdick, M, Kunkel, SL, Strieter, RM and Chensue, SW (1998) Expression and participation of eotaxin during mycobacterial (type 1) and schistosomal (type 2) antigen-elicited granuloma formation. The Journal of Immunology 161, 42764282.Google ScholarPubMed
Sabroe, I, Hartnell, A, Jopling, LA, Bel, S, Ponath, PD, Pease, JE, Collins, PD and Williams, TJ (1999) Differential regulation of eosinophil chemokine signaling via CCR3 And non-CCR3 pathways. The Journal of Immunology 162, 29462955.Google ScholarPubMed
Sallusto, F, Mackay, CR and Lanzavecchia, A (1997) Selective expression of the eotaxin receptor CCR3 by human T helper 2 cells. Science 277, 20052007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schratl, P, Sturm, EM, Royer, JF, Sturm, GJ, Lippe, IT, Peskar, BA and Heinemann, A (2006) Hierarchy of eosinophil chemoattractants: role of p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase. European Journal of Immunology 36, 24012409.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scicchitano, R, Sheldrake, R and Husband, A (1986) Origin of immunoglobulins in respiratory tract secretion and saliva of sheep. Immunology 58, 315321.Google ScholarPubMed
Shinkai, A, Yoshisue, H, Koike, M, Shoji, E, Nakagawa, S, Saito, A, Takeda, T, Imabeppu, S, Kato, Y, Hanai, N, Anazawa, H, Kuga, T and Nishi, T (1999) A novel human CC chemokine, eotaxin-3, which is expressed in IL-4-stimulated vascular endothelial cells, exhibits potent activity toward eosinophils. The Journal of Immunology 163, 16021610.Google ScholarPubMed
Simons, JE, Rothenberg, ME and Lawrence, RA (2005) Eotaxin-1-regulated eosinophils have a critical role in innate immunity against experimental Brugia malayi infection. European Journal of Immunology 35, 189197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sippel, V, Pierlot, GM, Renault, B, Groenen, PMA and Strasser, DS (2018) Activation of IL5R and CRTH2 on human eosinophils elicit a similar molecular response and reveal a synergistic effect. European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine 5, 111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sonoda, E, Matsumoto, R, Hitoshi, Y, Ishii, T, Sugimoto, M, Araki, S, Tominaga, A, Yamaguchi, N and Takatsu, K (1989) Transforming growth factor beta induces IgA production and acts additively with interleukin 5 for IgA production. The Journal of Experimental Medicine 170, 14151420.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Specht, S, Saeftel, M, Arndt, M, Endl, E, Dubben, B, Lee, NA, Lee, JJ and Hoerauf, A (2006) Lack of eosinophil peroxidase or major basic protein impairs defense against murine filarial infection. Infection and Immunity 74, 52365243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stear, MJ, Bishop, SC, Doligalska, M, Duncan, JL, Holmes, PH, Irvine, J, McCririe, L, McKellar, QA, Sinski, E and Murray, M (1995) Regulation of egg production, worm burden, worm length and worm fecundity by host responses in sheep infected with Ostertagia circumcincta. Parasite Immunology 17, 643652.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stear, MJ, Henderson, NG, Kerr, A, McKellar, QA, Mitchell, S, Seeley, C and Bishop, SC (2002) Eosinophilia as a marker of resistance to Teladorsagia circumcincta in Scottish Blackface lambs. Parasitology 124, 553560.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swaminathan, GJ, Weaver, AJ, Loegering, DA, Checkel, JL, Leonidas, DD, Gleich, GJ and Acharya, KR (2001) Crystal structure of the eosinophil major basic protein at 1.8 Å: an atypical lectin with a paradigm shift in specificity. Journal of Biological Chemistry 276, 2619726203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swaminathan, GJ, Myszka, DG, Katsamba, PS, Ohnuki, LE, Gleich, GJ and Acharya, KR (2005) Eosinophil-granule major basic protein, a C-type lectin, binds heparin. Biochemistry 44, 1415214158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tavernier, J, Devos, R, Cornelis, S, Tuypens, T, Van der Heyden, J, Fiers, W and Plaetinck, G (1991) A human high affinity interleukin-5 receptor (IL5R) is composed of an IL5-specific α chain and a β chain shared with the receptor for GM-CSF. Cell 66, 11751184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terefe, G, Griesz, C, Prevot, F, Bergeaud, J-P, Dorchies, P, Brunel, J-C, Francois, D, Fourquaux, I and Jacquiet, P (2007) In vitro pre-exposure of Haemonchus contortus L3 to blood eosinophils reduces their establishment potential in sheep. Veterinary Research 38, 647654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terefe, G, Lacroux, C, Prévot, F, Grisez, C, Bergeaud, JP, Bleuart, C, Dorchies, P, Foucras, G and Jacquiet, P (2009) Eosinophils in Haemonchus contortus-infected resistant and susceptible breeds of sheep: abomasal tissue recruitment and in vitro functional state. Veterinary Parasitology 165, 161164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ueki, S, Melo, RCN, Ghiran, I, Spencer, LA, Dvorak, AM and Weller, PF (2013) Eosinophil extracellular DNA trap cell death mediates lytic release of free secretion-competent eosinophil granules in humans. Blood 121, 20742083.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Uguccioni, M, Mackay, CR, Ochensberger, B, Loetscher, P, Rhis, S, LaRosa, GJ, Rao, P, Ponath, PD, Baggiolini, M and Dahinden, CA (1997) High expression of the chemokine receptor CCR3 in human blood basophils: role in activation by eotaxin, MCP-4, and other chemokines. The Journal of Clinical Investigation 100, 11371143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ulrich, M, Petre, A, Youhnovski, N, Prömm, F, Schirle, M, Schumm, M, Pero, RS, Doyle, A, Checkel, J, Kita, H, Thiyagarajan, N, Acharya, KR, Schmid-Grendelmeier, P, Simon, H-U, Schwarz, H, Tsutsui, M, Shimokawa, H, Bellon, G, Lee, JJ, Przybylski, M and Döring, G (2008) Post-translational tyrosine nitration of eosinophil granule toxins mediated by eosinophil peroxidase. The Journal of Biological Chemistry 283, 2862928640.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Urban, JF Jr, Katona, IM, Paul, WE and Finkelman, FD (1991) Interleukin 4 is important in protective immunity to a gastrointestinal nematode infection in mice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 88, 55135517.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Egmond, M, Damen, CA, van Spriel, AB, Vidarsson, G, van Garderen, E and van de Winkel, JGJ (2001) IgA and the IgA Fc receptor. Trends in Immunology 22, 205211.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wagner, LA, Ohnuki, LE, Parsawar, K, Gleich, GJ and Nelson, CC (2007) Human eosinophil major basic protein 2: location of disulfide bonds and free sulfhydryl groups. The Protein Journal 26, 1318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weller, PF and Spencer, LA (2017) Functions of tissue-resident eosinophils. Nature Reviews Immunology 17, 746.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woof, JM and Russell, MW (2011) Structure and function relationships in IgA. Mucosal Immunology 4, 590.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yamaguchi, Y (1994) Interleukin-5. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho 21, 12871293.Google ScholarPubMed
Ying, S, Robinson, DS, Meng, Q, Barata, LT, McEuen, AR, Buckley, MG, Walls, AF, Askenase, PW and Kay, AB (1999) C-C chemokines in allergen-induced late-phase cutaneous responses in atopic subjects: association of eotaxin with early 6-hour eosinophils, and of eotaxin-2 and monocyte chemoattractant protein-4 with the later 24-hour tissue eosinophilia, and relationship to basophils and other C-C chemokines (monocyte chemoattractant protein-3 and RANTES). The Journal of Immunology 163, 39763984.Google Scholar
Zuo, L and Rothenberg, ME (2007) Gastrointestinal eosinophilia. Immunology and Allergy Clinics of North America 27, 443455.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Fig. 1. The goat IgA receptor, FcαRI, may be dysfunctional in goats. Homology modelling of human, P24071.1 (A); sheep, XM_027976143.1 (B) and goat, XM_018059931.1 (C) IgA receptors revealed that human and sheep receptors have a similar conformation, however, the goat receptor has a C-terminus that is bent away from the main body of the protein and lacked an alpha helix within the transmembrane domain (blue).

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Eotaxin receptor, CCR3, may be dysfunctional in goats. Homology modelling revealed that the two sheep sequences [Q9N0M0 (B), W5PXW1 (C)] were identical except for two substitutions and all substitutions were at the C-terminal end of the sequence. The two goat sequences [JO419941.2 (A), LOC5316646 (D)] contained two substitutions compared to the sheep sequences. In addition, the goat genome sequence contained a frameshift deletion, corresponding to amino acid 330 (pink). Substitutions are colour coded by the following: aa 354 (blue), aa 356 (red), aa 357 (green) and aa 358 (orange).

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Major basic protein 2 is the only MBP molecule in ruminants. Homology modelling of MBP-1 and MBP-2 C-type lectin fold revealed high structural similarities between human MBP-2 and ruminant MBP-2 molecules, however, theoretical isoelectric point (pI) computation suggests that ruminant MBP-2 molecules may function similarly to human MBP-1. Amino acids used to calculate theoretical pI are as follows: aspartic acid (green), glutamic acid (orange), histidine (yellow), cysteine (red), tyrosine (pink), lysine (aqua) and arginine (blue). Molecules are presented in the order of percentage of sequence identity to human MBP-1, CR450311.1 (A) (highest to lowest): human MBP-2, NM_006093.4 (B); sheep XM_027979083.1 (C); sheep XM_027979084.1 (D); goat XM_018058941.1 (E); cow NM_001098471.1 (F); sheep XM_027979081.1 (G) and goat XM_018058942 (H).

Figure 3

Table 1. Theoretical isoelectric point (pI) of sequences for MBP molecules from humans, cows, sheep and goats

Figure 4

Fig. 4. Eosinophil peroxidase may be dysfunctional in goats. Homology modelling EPX heavy chain revealed goat EPX does not contain a tyrosine involved which is involved in post-translational modification of eosinophil granule proteins during eosinophil maturation in human eosinophils. The nitrated tyrosine (green) in the human, NM_000502.6 (A); cow, XM_024980582.1 (B) and sheep, contig. AMGL01017333.1 (C) sequences have been replaced by a cysteine (red) in the goat, contig. LWLT01000022.1 (D) sequence.

Supplementary material: File

Jenvey et al. supplementary material

Table S1

Download Jenvey et al. supplementary material(File)
File 30.5 KB