* Blood-Brain Barrier Laboratory, Department of Pharmacology, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington,
Connecticut 06030; and Department of Neurosurgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut 06510
![]() |
Abstract |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
The chemokines monocyte chemoattractant
protein-1 (MCP-1) and macrophage inflammatory protein-1 (MIP-1
) aid in directing leukocytes to specific
locales within the brain and spinal cord during central
nervous system inflammation. However, it remains unclear how these chemokines exert their actions across a
vascular barrier, raising speculation that interaction
with endothelial cells might be required. Therefore, experiments were performed to determine whether binding domains for these chemokines exist along the outer
surface of brain microvessels, a feature that could potentially relay chemokine signals from brain to blood. Using a biotinylated chemokine binding assay with confocal microscopy and three-dimensional image reconstruction, spatially resolved binding sites for MCP-1
and MIP-
around human brain microvessels were revealed for the first time. Binding of labeled MCP-1 and MIP-1
could be inhibited by unlabeled homologous
but not heterologous chemokine, and was independent
of the presence of heparan sulfate, laminin, or collagen
in the subendothelial matrix. This is the first evidence of
specific and separate binding domains for MCP-1 and
MIP-1
on the parenchymal surface of microvessels,
and highlights the prospect that specific interactions of
chemokines with microvascular elements influence the
extent and course of central nervous system inflammation.
![]() |
Introduction |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
CHEMOKINES have garnered considerable attention
as critical mediators of inflammation (2, 3, 19).
Two chemokines thought to be of particular significance to central nervous system (CNS)1 inflammation
that accompanies autoimmune, demyelinating disease are
monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1) and macrophage inflammatory protein-1 (MIP-1
; reviewed in 21, 28, 37). Both direct the chemotaxis of monocytes and lymphocytes along concentration gradients in vitro (2, 3, 19)
and are synthesized by astrocytes (16, 20, 23) and microglia (14, 24) within the brain parenchyma. Since both these
glial cells extend processes that contact the abluminal surface of brain microvessels (1, 22, 48), it has been conjectured that glial-derived chemokines guide circulating leukocytes through endothelial junctions into the underlying
brain tissue, as depicted in recent reviews (26, 34). Consistent with this interpretation is the observation that MCP-1
expression by perivascular astrocytes correlates temporally and spatially with the appearance of perivascular infiltrates of antigen-independent mononuclear leukocytes
in an animal model of CNS inflammatory disease (12, 13).
Despite the mounting evidence for chemokine involvement in leukocyte extravasation from both CNS and peripheral vascular beds, a fundamental question remains unresolved: How do chemokines attract circulating leukocytes from which they are physically separated by a vascular barrier? This process is particularly hard to envisage in the CNS, where diffusion of chemokines from parenchymal sites to the vascular lumen would likely be restricted by the high-resistance tight junctions that characterize the endothelial cells forming the blood-brain barrier (5).
One hypothesis to explain chemokine action within the CNS is that chemokine signals are relayed across brain microvessels through specific interactions with endothelial cells and/or the subendothelial extracellular matrix. For example, chemokines might be transported across brain microvascular endothelium through a transcellular pathway, as has been postulated recently to occur in dermal microvessels (29). A requirement for such a mechanism would be the expression of chemokine binding sites along the abluminal microvessel surface, that facing the brain parenchyma. To date, the presence of such binding sites has not been explored in the CNS. Moreover, though adherence of chemokines to peripheral vasculature endothelial cells in culture and tissue sections has been indicated by radiolabeled binding studies (17, 25, 29, 38, 40, 41), this has reflected attachment to the apical or luminal endothelial surfaces only. No visual depiction of perivascular chemokine binding along the parenchymal face of intact microvessels has been confirmed in any organ system.
As greater understanding of chemokine-vascular interactions should yield important clues to the pathogenesis of
inflammatory disease, the objective of this study was to visualize and characterize MCP-1 and MIP-1 binding to
the surface of microvessels freshly isolated from human
brain. To accomplish this, high resolution confocal microscopy and three-dimensional image reconstruction were
performed, for the first time, to reveal the perivascular binding of these chemokines, and to delineate the cellular
and molecular binding domains. Results indicate that
there are specific and separate binding sites for both MCP-1
and MIP-1
along the abluminal surface of brain microvessels. Furthermore, these sites do not appear to be
coincident with perivascular macrophages or several major components of the peripheral subendothelial matrix, highlighting the prospect that may be associated with endothelial cells and/or a tightly apposed subendothelial element. The physiologic and pathophysiologic significance
of these chemokine binding sites is discussed.
![]() |
Materials and Methods |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Preparation of Microvessels
Human brain microvessels were derived from cortical tissue acquired from both temporal lobe biopsies and autopsies. Biopsies were obtained from patients undergoing surgery for the treatment of intractable seizures at the Yale-New Haven Hospital, and were resected from areas outside the epileptic foci. Autopsy tissue was acquired from the following sources: University of Miami and University of Maryland Brain and Tissue Banks for Developmental Disorders (through NICHC contracts NO1-HD-3-3199 and NO1-HD-1-3138, respectively), Harvard Brain Tissue Resource Center Bank (through PHS grant MH/NS 31862) and National Disease Research Interchange (Philadelphia, PA). Final diagnoses included respiratory distress and polytrauma, with no evidence of neurologic disease. Microvessels were prepared by a modification of a previously described method for the isolation of rat brain microvessels (10). In this case, enriched fractions of microvessels obtained by centrifugation through dextran were further purified by isopycnic sedimentation through Percoll (4). This method yielded a population of microvascular segments that retained their basement membranes.
Binding Experiments
Purified microvessels were reacted with either biotinylated recombinant
human (rh)MCP-1 or biotinylated rhMIP-1 (R&D Systems Inc.), and
subsequently with fluorescein-avidin according to the manufacturer's directions. All reactions were carried out at 4°C or room temperature to
lessen possible cellular uptake of chemokines or antibodies. For negative
controls, reactions were performed in the presence of anti-human MCP-1
and MIP-1
antibodies, or included the irrelevant biotinylated protein
soybean trypsin inhibitor (R&D Systems Inc.). As positive controls, peripheral blood monocytes (PBM), which contain receptors for both MCP-1
and MIP-1
(2, 3, 19, 35), were subjected to the identical conditions. Competition studies using a single chemokine were performed with constant
concentrations of either biotinylated rhMCP-1 or rhMIP-1
in the presence of increasing concentrations of unlabeled, homologous ligand
(rhMCP-1 or rhMIP-1
; both from PeproTech Inc.). Cross-competition studies between the two chemokines were conducted using a single concentration of either biotinylated rhMCP-1 or rhMIP-1
in the presence of
increasing concentrations of unlabeled, heterologous ligand. Relative
amounts of biotinylated MCP-1 and MIP-1
bound to microvessels were
quantified using a Zeiss LSM 410 confocal microscope equipped with an
argon-krypton laser (with emission at 488 and 568 nm). Microvessels were
observed with an Achromat 40×/1.3 NA, oil objective, under constant
conditions of aperture, pin-hole, brightness, and contrast. Images (512 × 512 pixels) were obtained and processed using Adobe Photoshop 3.0 software (Adobe Systems Inc.). To quantify the extent of labeled chemokine binding, values of mean pixel intensity were recorded from a total of 80 randomly chosen areas (192 pixels each) of microvessels from at least 10 samples. In analogous fashion, mean pixel intensities were also obtained
from microvessels incubated with biotinylated soybean trypsin inhibitor.
The average of the pixel values obtained from this negative control was
then subtracted from each of the 80 pixel intensities obtained from all the
different chemokine binding conditions so as to remove the contribution
of background noise. Corrected pixel intensities were then averaged, with
the resulting value representing the relative degree of specific chemokine binding along microvessels. Kd and Hill coefficient (n) values were determined using Sigma Plot software (Jandel Inc.) and using the following
equation: b = (bmax · xn)/(Kdn + xn), where b is indicated by pixel intensity values.
Combined Chemokine Localization/Immunofluorescence
After reacting isolated microvessels with biotinylated chemokines and fluorescein-avidin, as described above, or for the specific detection of chemokine receptors, microvessels were fixed in 4% (wt/vol) paraformaldehyde and seeded onto poly-L-lysine-coated glass coverslips. After blocking nonspecific binding by incubation with PBS containing 5% (vol/ vol) normal goat serum (GIBCO BRL), 1% (wt/vol) BSA (Sigma Chemical Co.), and 0.5% (vol/vol) Tween (Sigma Chemical Co.), microvessels were reacted with the different primary antibodies (monoclonal antilaminin [clone LAM-89, Sigma Chemical Co.], monoclonal anti-Factor VIII [clone F8/86, DAKO], monoclonal anti-CD68 [clone EBM11, DAKO], anti-collagen type IV collagen [Sigma Chemical Co.], and anti-heparan sulfate proteoglycan [Upstate Biotechnology]), and then exposed to rhodamine-conjugated goat anti-mouse antibody (Boehringer Mannheim Biochemicals). Monoclonal antibodies to chemokine receptors CCR1, CCR2, and CCR5 were all purchased from R&D Systems Inc., and samples reacted with these antibodies were subsequently visualized with fluorescein-conjugated goat anti-mouse antibody (Boehringer Mannheim Biochemicals). Negative control samples were processed similarly, except for the exclusion of primary antibody, while isotype control samples used similar Ig isotype, irrelevant antibody as a primary source. All samples were viewed with an Olympus IX70 inverted microscope (40× objective) to obtain simple, two-dimensional images, and a Zeiss LSM 410 confocal microscope (40×/1.3 oil objective) to acquire three-dimensional images. The latter were generated by taking a z-series of 1-µm-thick optical sections, usually 20-30, throughout the sample, and then reconstructing and editing the images using the three-dimensional reconstruction program VoxelView (Vital Images, Inc.).
Heparinase I Digestion
Freshly purified brain microvessels were incubated with type I heparinase (Sigma Chemical Co.; 50 U/ml in DME/F-12; GIBCO BRL) for 1 h at 37°C under constant, mild agitation. After this time, the reaction was terminated by dilution with DME/F-12 containing 10% calf serum (GIBCO BRL), and samples of the microvessels prepared for combined immunohistochemical detection of heparan sulfate and binding with biotinylated chemokines.
Statistical Analysis
To determine the significance of the effect of heparinase I treatment on chemokine binding, a one-way ANOVA was performed, followed by a Bonferroni multiple comparisons test.
![]() |
Results |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Expression of MCP-1 and MIP-1 Binding Sites on
Brain Microvessels
To visualize chemokine binding sites, isolated brain microvessels were reacted first with biotinylated MCP-1 or
biotinylated MIP-1, and subsequently with fluorescein-avidin (Fig. 1). The pattern of MCP-1 binding appears as a
near continuous sheath encapsulating the length of the
vessel fragment. In comparison, the binding of MIP-1
exhibits a discontinuous or punctate arrangement along the
microvascular segment. Control experiments, using concurrent exposure of microvessels to labeled chemokines
and antichemokine antibodies, revealed no such staining.
PBM, which express receptors for both MCP-1 and MIP-1
(2, 3, 19, 35), also demonstrated binding of both labeled
chemokines. No staining of PBM was obtained in the presence of antichemokine antibodies.
|
To better visualize the unique topologic distributions of
MCP-1 and MIP-1 binding sites, confocal images of microvessels were reconstructed to display both endothelial
cells and chemokine binding in three-dimensional space
(see Figs. 2 and 4). As clearly shown in Fig. 2, the sphere of
MCP-1 binding envelopes the endothelial cells in a relatively smooth and nearly continuous pattern. In striking
contrast, binding of MIP-1
appears clustered in discrete patches, periodically decorating the abluminal endothelial
surface in a punctate fashion.
|
|
Specificity of Chemokine Binding
As the binding patterns of biotinylated MCP-1 and biotinylated MIP-1 were clearly distinguishable, experiments were performed to confirm the presence of separate and specific binding sites for these chemokines along
the microvascular surface. Specifically, studies were conducted to determine whether binding of these labeled chemokines could be antagonized by increasing concentrations of unlabeled ligand. Fig. 3 unequivocally indicates
that such competition can be achieved for both MCP-1
and MIP-1
. Greater than 90% of the binding of both labeled chemokines could be inhibited by competition with
100-fold excess of the respective unlabeled chemokines.
Moreover, there was no cross-inhibition between these
two chemokines, i.e., unlabeled MCP-1 did not inhibit the
binding of labeled MIP-1
, or vice versa. Results from these
competition studies further underscore the premise of separate and specific binding sites for MCP-1 and MIP-1
along the abluminal surface of brain microvessels.
|
In addition to exhibiting homologous, but not heterologous, competition, the binding of both labeled chemokines
to perivascular domains was shown to be saturable (Fig.
4), with Kd values of ~2 nM for MCP-1 and ~0.5 nM for
MIP-1. Corresponding Hill coefficients were n = 6 and
n = 1.1 for MCP-1 and MIP-1
binding, respectively. Taken together with the qualitative depictions, these
quantitative data are consistent with the presence of a limited number of spatially and biochemically distinct, high-affinity binding sites for MCP-1 and MIP-1
along the parenchymal face of microvessels from brain.
Localization of MCP-1 and MIP-1 Binding Sites
To exclude the possibility that monocyte-derived perivascular macrophages were the source of chemokine binding sites, double-label fluorescence microscopy was
performed to resolve macrophage and MCP-1/MIP-1
distributions. It can be clearly seen in Fig. 5 that the binding patterns of both these chemokines and perivascular macrophages are completely distinguishable. Assessment
of colocalization of chemokine binding with other perivascular cell types, such as pericytes, mast cells, plasma cells,
and smooth muscle cells, which only showed very limited
distribution in these microvessels preparations, additionally revealed drastically dissimilar patterns (data not
shown). Lastly, as several chemokines have demonstrated affinity for proteoglycans and other extracellular matrix
components (11, 45, 47, 49, 50), we examined whether
MCP-1 and/or MIP-1
binding coincided with three major
constituents of the subendothelial matrix: heparan sulfate,
collagen type IV, and laminin. Fig. 5 indicates that binding
sites for MCP-1 and MIP-1
lie predominantly internal to
both heparan sulfate and collagen type IV domains, but
appear intermixed with that of laminin. Thus, it seems unlikely that binding to brain microvessels occurs principally via attachment to either collagen type IV or heparan sulfate. However, laminin may be associated in limited context with the binding of both these chemokines. This interpretation is consistent with a recent report describing
MCP-1 and MIP-1
induction of mast cell migration
across microporous filters coated with laminin, but not
with collagen type IV (46).
|
To further assure that chemokine binding to brain microvessels did not merely reflect attachment to heparan
sulfate, a glycosaminoglycan (GAG) to which many chemokines, including MCP-1 and MIP-1, have been reported to adhere (17, 25), binding experiments were also
performed on microvessels stripped of heparan sulfate by treatment with heparinase I. As shown in Fig. 6, such enzymatic treatment removed nearly all perivascular heparan
sulfate, as judged by immunofluorescence. Despite this,
neither MCP-1 nor MIP-1
binding to microvessels was
diminished. On the contrary, slightly heightened binding
of both chemokines was observed (Fig. 7). It was further
observed that microvessel binding of neither chemokine
could be blocked by coincubation with 1,000-fold excess of
either heparin or heparan sulfate (data not shown). Collectively, these data strongly argue against heparan sulfate, alone, being responsible for MCP-1 and MIP-1
binding to the abluminal surface of brain microvessels.
Similar experiments to gauge the effects of enzymatic removal of laminin and collagen (using cathepsins B and D,
and collagenase type IV, respectively) also indicated no
significant diminution in the binding of either chemokine
(data not shown).
|
|
Detection of MCP-1 and MIP-1 Receptors
Insofar as both kinetic and cytological data indicated that
both MCP-1 and MIP-1 were binding to high-affinity
sites that were closely associated with the endothelium, we
further assessed whether brain microvessels express receptors for these chemokines. These receptors, designated by
the abbreviation CCR, have been well documented in leukocytes, and their sequences cloned (35). CCR2 is considered the lone, specific receptor for MCP-1, while both CCR1
and CCR5 are the recognized receptors for MIP-1
. As indicated in Fig. 8, brain microvessels display immunoreactivity with specific antibodies to each of these receptors.
All three antibodies were similarly reactive with PBM
(data not shown), consistent with these cells' ability to
bind both chemokines (as visualized above). However, it is
important to note that microvascular staining with the antireceptor antibodies was not similar to that obtained with
anti-CD68 staining of perivascular macrophages (Fig. 5),
the latter clearly exhibiting immunoreactivity in discrete cellular domains that lie outside the immediate vascular
wall. In a contrary manner, antireceptor antibodies decorate the contour of microvessels in a more continuous
manner, and apparently bind to sites in close apposition to
the abluminal endothelial surface. Thus, antichemokine
receptor staining of microvessels may include, but is not
restricted to, perivascular macrophages.
|
![]() |
Discussion |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Specific binding of MCP-1 and MIP-1 to separate domains along the microvessel outer surface was determined
according to the following criteria. First, the distribution
patterns of MCP-1 and MIP-1
binding were remarkably
different from each other. Second, binding of labeled
MCP-1 and MIP-1
could each be inhibited nearly 95% by
100-fold excess of their unlabeled homologues, but not by
unlabeled derivatives of the other chemokine. Third, binding of both chemokines was saturable. Finally, neither
MCP-1 nor MIP-1
binding was observed to colocalize
with three major components of the basement membrane
or to be quantitatively dependent upon the presence of
these constituents, implying a lack of any significant chemokine trapping within the subendothelial matrix.
It is important to reemphasize that the chemokine binding sites visualized and characterized here reside strictly
on the abluminal surface of the microvessels. These results
are thus to be distinguished from descriptions of radiolabeled chemokine binding to the apical surface of cultured
endothelial cells, which represents the luminal microvascular surface in situ. In the latter case, chemokine binding has been demonstrated to be largely dependent upon the
presence of GAGs (17, 40, 41). Attachment of chemokines
to such GAGs is thought to serve the passive role of sequestering chemokines in the luminal space, raising their
effective concentration and, thus, their probability of encountering a chemokine receptor on a loosely tethered
leukocyte (17). In contrast to that observed in these previous reports, MCP-1 and MIP-1 binding to isolated brain
microvessels was not diminished as a result of enzymatic removal of perivascular heparan sulfate, a prominent
chemokine-binding GAG. As similar heparinase treatment to that performed here has been shown to completely antagonize the binding of numerous chemokines to
both cultured cells and isolated subendothelial matrix (11, 25), our findings infer that, at the very least, attachment to
heparan sulfate is not the sole mechanism underlying
MCP-1 and MIP-1
binding to human brain microvessels.
Of course, these chemokines might interact with GAGs
other than heparan sulfate present along the abluminal
surface of brain microvessels, and do so with varying affinities (49). However, the Kd values obtained here (
2.0 nM)
are significantly lower than those generally reported for
chemokine attachment to various GAGs, e.g., mid-nanomolar to low millimolar range (27). That enzymatic removal of both laminin and collagen was additionally unable to lessen the degree of MCP-1 and MIP-1
binding
sustains the concept that these perivascular chemokine
binding domains are more closely associated with integral elements of the brain microvasculature than with components of the subendothelial matrix. The additional lack of
coincidence between chemokine binding and the presence
of perivascular cells also eliminates these cells as being the
major target of chemokine binding.
What then might be the nature of these abluminal
chemokine binding sites? MCP-1 and MIP-1 binding may
reflect attachment to specific chemokine receptors on the
surface of endothelial cells. In this regard, the fluorescence
competition assays described here mirror those reported
for chemokine binding to cloned CCR1 and CCR2 receptors (31, 32), in that 100-fold excess of unlabeled ligand abrogated nearly 95% of labeled chemokine binding. That we were further able to detect immunostaining with antibodies to CCR1, CCR2, and CCR5 is yet additional support. Lastly, the estimated Kd values for both MCP-1 and
MIP-1
binding to brain microvessels are within the low
nanomolar range generally reported for these chemokines' binding to their respective receptors (reviewed in
27, 43). The relatively high degree of apparent cooperativity in MCP-1 binding, as indicated by a Hill coefficient of n = 6, may reflect cooperative interactions between high-affinity chemokine receptors and low-affinity extracellular matrix component(s) (17). Thus, our observations could be
the first evidence of expression of receptors for MCP-1
and MIP-1
on, or around, the abluminal surface of microvascular endothelium. In agreement with this contention, recent studies have indicated both expression and activity of chemokine receptors on cultured endothelial cells
(7, 8, 15), although no cytological distributions of these receptors were described.
Aside from binding to specific receptors on brain microvessels, MCP-1 and MIP-1 may also be engaging the
Duffy antigen receptor for chemokines (DARC), a promiscuous receptor that binds several chemokines (24) and
is expressed in endothelial cells (33). Consistent with this
possibility, Horuk et al. (18) demonstrated immunocytochemical staining of capillaries and postcapillary venules of human brain sections with an antibody to DARC. However, considering the different binding patterns for MCP-1
and MIP-1
reported here, and the noted lack of affinity
of MIP-1
for DARC (24), binding to DARC cannot be
the exclusive means by which both these chemokines associate with brain microvessels.
What could be the functional significance of these
perivascular chemokine binding domains? Middleton et al.
(29) presented evidence that another chemokine, interleukin 8, is transcytosed from the abluminal to the luminal
microvascular surface in skin, where it appears to reside
on the tips of endothelial microvilli. Such luminal "presentation" of bound chemokines is thought to provide the
proper context for efficient activation of leukocyte -integrins (2, 6, 44, 45). The binding sites described here might
represent domains to which the MCP-1 and MIP-1
initially dock, before transcytosis across the microvascular
endothelium of brain. MCP-1 and MIP-1
binding to brain
microvessels may additionally signal vascular permeability
changes through cytoskeletal reorganization, as has been
suggested most recently for interleukin 8 (9). Furthermore, binding to these abluminal sites may function to prevent these chemokines from being diluted within the
perivascular space and, thus, augment the intensity, prolong the duration, and/or influence the site of inflammatory reactions (11). While all these possibilities remain a
priori, the pleiotropic nature of chemokines (30, 43) is
consistent with these binding sites subserving several functions.
Are these perivascular chemokine binding sites restricted to, or enriched in, microvessels from brain? While this remains to be explored, the stringent requirements for maintaining an effective blood-brain barrier dictates that specialized mechanisms, possibly receptors, exist within brain microvessels for the purpose of efficiently communicating chemokine signals. In contrast, less restrictive vascular beds may simply allow tissue-derived chemokines to percolate through leaky endothelial junctions into the vascular lumen. That Randolph and Furie were not able to demonstrate significant binding of MCP-1, when this chemokine was applied to the basolateral (abluminal) surface of cultured monolayers of human umbilical vein endothelial cells (36), may, in part, reflect this phenotypic diversity. It may also be that specific endothelial chemokine binding sites are rapidly lost, or their membrane polarity altered, upon adaptation to culture conditions (39).
As the myriad of chemokine functions begins to resolve, so will their pathogenic role(s) in disease become more appreciated. In turn, this will lead to greater efforts to specifically antagonize chemokine action at sites of inflammation and infection. Heightened understanding of the interactions of chemokines with their binding sites on the vascular surface will be a significant step in this direction.
![]() |
Footnotes |
---|
Address correspondence to Joel S. Pachter, Ph.D., Blood-Brain Barrier Laboratory, Department of Pharmacology, University of Connecticut Health Center, 263 Farmington Ave., Farmington, CT 06030. Tel.: 860-679-3698. Fax: 860-679-3693. E-mail: pachter{at}sun.uchc.edu
Received for publication 22 September 1998 and in revised form 2 March 1999.
The authors wish to sincerely express their deep appreciation to Drs.
Carol Petito and H. Ronald Zielke, Co-directors of the Brain and Tissue
Banks For Developmental Disorders, at the University of Miami and the
University of Maryland, respectively, as well as to the support staff at all
institutions that provided tissue samples. A further debt of gratitude is offered to Mr. Frank Morgan and Ms. Susan Krueger, of the University of
Connecticut Center for Biomedical Imaging Technology, for their invaluable assistance in generating three-dimensional images and quantifying
chemokine binding, and to Drs. John Shanley and Diane Biegel for helpful discussions.
This work was supported by grants to J.S. Pachter from the National Institutes of Health, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, and the Alzheimer's Association.
![]() |
Abbreviations used in this paper |
---|
CNS, central nervous system;
DARC, Duffy antigen receptor for chemokines;
GAG, glycosaminoglycan;
MCP-1, monocyte chemoattractant protein-1;
MIP-1, macrophage inflammatory
protein-1
;
PBM, peripheral blood monocytes;
rh, recombinant human.
![]() |
References |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
1. | Abbott, N.J., P.A. Revest, and I.A. Romero. 1992. Astrocyte-endothelial interaction: physiology and pathology. Neuropathol. Appl. Neurobiol. 18: 424-433 |
2. | Adams, D.H., and A.R. Lloyd. 1997. Chemokines: leukocyte recruitment and activation cytokines. Lancet. 249: 490-495 . |
3. | Baggiolini, M., B. Dewald, and B. Moser. 1997. Human chemokines: an update. Ann. Rec. Immunol. 15: 675-705 . |
4. | Biegel, D., D.D. Spencer, and J.S. Pachter. 1995. Isolation and culture of human brain microvessel endothelial cells for the study of blood-brain barrier properties in vitro. Brain Res. 692: 183-189 |
5. | Bradbury, M.W., and S.L. Lightman. 1990. The blood-brain interface. Eye. 4: 249-254 |
6. | Butcher, E.C.. 1991. Leukocyte-endothelial cell recognition: three (or more) steps to specificity and diversity. Cell. 67: 1033-1036 |
7. |
Edinger, A.L.,
J.L. Mankowski,
B.J. Doranz,
B.J. Margulies,
B. Lee,
J. Rucker,
M. Sharron,
T. Hoffman,
J.F. Berson,
M.C. Zink, et al
.
1997.
CD4-dependent, CCR5-dependent infection of brain capillary endothelial cells by a neurovirulent simian immunodeficiency virus strain.
Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.
94:
14742-14747
|
8. | Feil, C., and H.G. Augustin. 1998. Endothelial cells differentially express functional CXC-chemokine receptor-4 (CXC-4/Fusin) under the control of autocrine activity and exogenous cytokines. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 247: 38-45 |
9. | Fukumoto, T., A. Matsukawa, T. Yoshimura, S. Edamitsu, S. Ohkawara, K. Takagi, and M. Yoshinaga. 1998. IL-8 is an essential mediator of the increased delayed-phase vascular permeability in LPS-induced rabbit pleurisy. J. Leukocyte Biol. 63: 584-590 [Abstract]. |
10. | Galea, E., C. Fernandez-Shaw, D. Triguero, and C. Estrada. 1991. Choline acetyltransferase activity associated with cerebral cortical microvessels does not originate in basal forebrain neurons. J. Cereb. Blood Flow Metab. 11: 875-878 |
11. |
Gilat, D.,
R. Hershkoviz,
A. Mekori,
I. Vlodavsky, and
O. Lider.
1994.
Regulation of adhesion of CD4+ T lymphocytes to intact or heparinase-treated subendothelial matrix by diffusible or anchored RANTES and
MIP-1![]() |
12. | Glabinski, A.R., M. Tani, S. Aras, M.H. Stoler, V.K. Tuohy, and R.M. Ransohoff. 1995. Regulation and function of central nervous system chemokines. Int. J. Dev. Neurosci. 13: 153-165 |
13. | Glabinski, A.R., M. Tani, V.K. Tuohy, R.J. Tuthill, and R.M. Ransohoff. 1995. Central nervous system chemokine mRNA accumulation follows initial leukocyte entry at the onset of acute murine experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis. Brain Behav. Immunol. 9: 315-330 |
14. | Gourmala, N.G., M. Buttini, S. Limonta, A. Sauter, and H.W. Bodeke. 1997. Differential and time-dependent expression of chemoattractant protein-1 mRNA by astrocytes and macrophages in rat brain: effects of ischemia and peripheral lipopolysaccharide administration. J. Neuroimmunol. 74: 35-44 |
15. |
Gupta, S.K.,
P.G. Lysko,
K. Pillarisetti,
E. Ohlstein, and
J.M. Stadel.
1998.
Chemokine receptors in human endothelial cells: functional expression
of CXCR4 and its transcriptional regulation by inflammatory cytokines.
J. Biol. Chem.
273:
4282-4287
|
16. |
Hayashi, M.,
Y. Luo,
J. Laning,
R.M. Streiter, and
M.E. Dorf.
1995.
Production and function of monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 and other
![]() |
17. | Hoogewerf, A., G.S.V. Kuschert, A.E.I. Proudfoot, F. Borlat, I. Clark-Lewis, C.A. Power, and T.N.C. Wells. 1997. Glycosaminoglycans mediate cell surface oligomerization of chemokines. Biochemistry. 36: 13570-13578 |
18. | Horuk, R., A. Martin, J. Hesselgesser, T. Hadley, Z.H. Lu, Z.X. Wang, and S.C. Peiper. 1996. The Duffy antigen receptor for chemokines: structural analysis and expression in brain. J. Leukocyte Biol. 59: 29-38 [Abstract]. |
19. | Howard, O.M.Z., A. Ben-Baruch, and J.J. Oppenheim. 1996. Chemokines: progress toward identifying molecular targets for therapeutic agents. Trends Biotech. 14: 7799-7804 . |
20. | Hurwitz, A.A., W.D. Lyman, and J.W. Berman. 1995. Tumor necrosis factor alpha and transforming growth factor beta upregulate expression of monocyte chemoattractant protein-1. J. Neuroimmunol. 57: 193-198 |
21. | Karpus, W.J., and R.M. Ransohoff. 1998. Chemokine regulation of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis: temporal and spatial expression patterns govern disease pathogenesis. J. Immunol. 16: 2667-2671 . |
22. | Lassmann, H., F. Zimprich, K. Vass, and W.F. Hickey. 1991. Microglial cells are a component of the perivascular glia limitans. J. Neurosci. Res. 28: 236-243 |
23. | Leung, S.Y., M.P. Wong, L.P. Chung, A.S. Chan, and S.T. Yuen. 1997. Monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 expression and macrophage infiltration in gliomas. Acta Neuropathol. 93: 518-527 |
24. |
Lu, Z.H.,
Z.H. Wang,
R. Hour,
J. Hesselgesser,
Y.C. Lou,
T.J. Hadley, and
S.C. Peiper.
1995.
The promiscuous chemokine binding profile of the
Duffy antigen/receptors for chemokines is primarily localized to sequences in the amino-terminal domain.
J. Biol. Chem.
270:
26239-26245
|
25. | Luster, A.D., S.M. Greenberg, and P. Leder. 1995. The IP-10 chemokine binds to a specific cell surface heparan sulfate site shared with platelet factor 4 and inhibits endothelial proliferation. J. Exp. Med. 182: 219-231 [Abstract]. |
26. | Martiney, J.A., C. Cuff, M. Litwak, J. Berman, and C.F. Brosnan. 1998. Cytokine-induced inflammation in the central nervous system revisited. Neurochem. Res. 23: 349-359 |
27. | McFadden, G., and D. Kelvin. 1997. New strategies for chemokine inhibition and modulation. Biochem. Pharmacol. 54: 1271-1280 |
28. | Merrill, J.E., and E.N. Benveniste. 1996. Cytokines in inflammatory brain lesions: helpful and harmful. Trends Neurosci. 19: 331-338 |
29. | Middleton, J., S. Neil, J. Wintle, I. Clark-Lewis, H. Moore, C. Lam, M. Auer, E. Hub, and A. Rot. 1997. Transcytosis and surface presentation of IL-8 by venular endothelial cells. Cell. 91: 385-395 |
30. | Miller, M.D., and M.S. Krangel. 1992. Biology and chemistry of the chemokines: a family of chemotactic and inflammatory cytokines. Crit. Rev. Immunol. 12: 17-46 |
31. |
Monteclaro, F.S., and
I.F. Charo.
1996.
The amino-terminal extracellular
domain of the MCP-1 receptor, but not the RANTES/MIP-1![]() |
32. | Offord, R.E., H.F. Gaertner, T.N.C. Wells, and A.E.I. Proudfoot. 1997. Synthesis and evaluation of fluorescent chemokines labeled at the amino terminal. Methods Enzymol. 287: 347-369 . |
33. | Peiper, S.C., Z.X. Wang, K. Neote, A.W. Martin, H.J. Showell, M.J. Conklyn, K. Ogborne, T.J. Hadley, Z.H. Lu, J. Hesselgesser, and R. Horuk. 1995. The Duffy antigen/receptor for chemokines (DARC) is expressed in endothelial cells of Duffy negative individuals who lack the erythrocyte receptor. J. Exp. Med. 181: 1311-1317 [Abstract]. |
34. | Perry, V.H., D.C. Anthony, and H.C. Brown. 1997. The blood-brain barrier and the inflammatory response. Mol. Med. Today. 3: 337-341 . |
35. | Premack, B.A., and T.J. Schall. 1996. Chemokine receptors: gateways to inflammation and infection. Nat. Med. 2: 1174-1178 |
36. | Randolph, G.J., and M. Furie. 1995. A soluble gradient of endogenous monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 promotes the transendothelial migration of monocytes in vitro. J. Immunol. 155: 3610-3618 [Abstract]. |
37. | Ransohoff, R.M.. 1997. Chemokines in neurologic disease models: correlation between chemokine expression patterns and inflammatory pathology. J. Leukocyte Biol. 62: 645-652 [Abstract]. |
38. | Rot, A.. 1992. Binding of neutrophil attractant/activation protein-1 (interleukin 8) to resident dermal cells. Cytokine. 4: 347-352 |
39. | Rot, A., E. Hub, J. Middleton, F. Pons, C. Rabeck, K. Thierer, J. Wintle, B. Wolff, M. Zsask, and D. Dukor. 1996. Some aspects of IL-8 pathophysiology III: chemokine interaction with endothelial cells. J. Leukocyte Biol. 59: 39-44 [Abstract]. |
40. | Ryback, M.E., M.A. Gimbrone Jr., P.F. Davies, and R.I. Handin. 1989. Interaction of platelet factor four with cultured vascular endothelial cells. Blood. 73: 1534-1539 [Abstract]. |
41. |
Schonbeck, U.,
E. Brandt,
F. Petersen,
H.-D. Flad, and
H. Loppnow.
1995.
IL-8 specifically binds to endothelial but not to smooth muscle cells.
J.
Immunol.
154:
2375-2383
|
42. | Deleted in proof. |
43. | Sozzani, S., M. Locati, D. Zhou, M. Rieppi, W. Luini, G. Lamorte, G. Bianchi, N. Polentarutti, P. Allavena, and A. Mantovani. 1995. Receptors, signal transduction, and spectrum of action of monocyte chemotactic protein-1 and related chemokines. J. Leukocyte Biol. 57: 788-794 [Abstract]. |
44. |
Tanaka, Y.,
D.H. Adams,
S. Hubscher,
H. Hirano,
U. Siebenlist, and
S. Shaw.
1993.
T-cell adhesion induced by proteoglycan-immobilized cytokine MIP-1![]() |
45. | Tanaka, Y., D.H. Adams, and S. Shaw. 1993. Regulation of leukocyte recruitment by proadhesive cytokines immobilized on endothelial proteoglycan. Curr. Top. Microbiol. Immunol. 184: 99-106 |
46. |
Taub, D.,
J. Dastych,
N. Inamura,
J. Upton,
D. Kelvin,
D. Metcalf, and
J. Oppenheim.
1995.
Bone marrow-derived murine mast cells migrate, but
do not degranulate, in response to chemokines.
J. Immunol.
154:
2393-2402
|
47. | Webb, L.M.C., M.U. Ehrengruber, I. Clark-Lewis, M. Baggliolini, and A. Rot. 1993. Binding to heparan sulfate or heparin enhances neutrophil responses to interleukin 8. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 90: 7158-7162 [Abstract]. |
48. | White, F.P., G.R. Dutton, and M.D. Norenberg. 1981. Microvessels isolated from rat brain: localization of astrocyte processes by immunohistochemical techniques. J. Neurochem. 36: 328-332 |
49. | Witt, D.P., and A.D. Lander. 1994. Differential binding of chemokines to glycosaminoglycan subpopulations. Curr. Biol. 4: 394-400 |
50. | Wuyts, A., P. Proost, W. Put, J.-P. Lenaerts, L. Paeman, and J. Van Damme. 1994. Leukocyte recruitment by monocyte chemotactic proteins (MCPs) secreted by human phagocytes. J. Immunol. Methods. 174: 237-247 |