RESUMO
GPR15 is a G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) proposed to play a role in mucosal immunity that also serves as a major entry cofactor for HIV-2 and simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV). To discover novel endogenous GPR15 ligands, we screened a hemofiltrate (HF)-derived peptide library for inhibitors of GPR15-mediated SIV infection. Our approach identified a C-terminal fragment of cystatin C (CysC95-146) that specifically inhibits GPR15-dependent HIV-1, HIV-2, and SIV infection. In contrast, GPR15L, the chemokine ligand of GPR15, failed to inhibit virus infection. We found that cystatin C fragments preventing GPR15-mediated viral entry do not interfere with GPR15L signaling and are generated by proteases activated at sites of inflammation. The antiretroviral activity of CysC95-146 was confirmed in primary CD4+ T cells and is conserved in simian hosts of SIV infection. Thus, we identified a potent endogenous inhibitor of GPR15-mediated HIV and SIV infection that does not interfere with the physiological function of this GPCR.
Assuntos
Cistatina C/genética , Infecções por HIV/genética , Receptores Acoplados a Proteínas G/genética , Receptores de Peptídeos/genética , Síndrome de Imunodeficiência Adquirida dos Símios/genética , Animais , Infecções por HIV/patologia , Infecções por HIV/virologia , HIV-1/genética , HIV-1/patogenicidade , Humanos , Receptores Virais/genética , Transdução de Sinais/genética , Síndrome de Imunodeficiência Adquirida dos Símios/patologia , Síndrome de Imunodeficiência Adquirida dos Símios/virologia , Vírus da Imunodeficiência Símia/genética , Vírus da Imunodeficiência Símia/patogenicidade , Linfócitos T/metabolismo , Linfócitos T/virologia , Internalização do VírusRESUMO
Phototoxic side effects of pharmaceutical and cosmetic products are of increasing concern for patients, dermatologists and the chemical industry. Moreover, the need of new chemicals and drugs puts pressure on pre-clinical test methods for side effects, especially interactive adverse-effects with UV-light. So, the predictive potential of different established test methods, which are used regularly in our departments in order to detect the phototoxic potential of chemicals, were analyzed. Namely the fibroblast 3T3 test, the photo hen's egg test, a guinea pig test for measuring acute photoreactions, and a modified Local Lymph Node Assay, the Integrated Model for the Differentiation of Skin Reactions. Various agents with different photoreactive potential were tested: quinolones like Bay y 3118, ciprofloxacin, enoxacin, lomefloxacin, moxifloxacin, ofloxacin, sparfloxacin, as well as promethazine, chlorpromazine, 8-methoxypsoralen and olaquindox serving as control. Special emphasis was taken to evaluate the capability of the employed test procedures to predict phototoxic side effects in patients. Following our results, both in vitro assays were useful tools to detect photoirritancy while the photoallergic potentials of tested compounds were exclusively detected by an in vivo assay. As long as no in vitro model for photoallergy is available, the UV-IMDS should be considered to evaluate photoallergic properties of a supposed photoreactive agent.