Characterization of epitopes of human monoclonal antibodies against cytomegalovirus glycoprotein B for neutralization and antibody-dependent phagocytosis.

As congenital cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections are the leading non-genetic cause of sensorineural hearing loss and significant neurological disabilities in children, the development of CMV vaccines should be given the highest public health priority. Although MF59-adjuvanted glycoprotein B (gB) vaccine (gB/MF59) is safe and immunogenic, its efficacy in terms of protection from natural infection was around 50 % in clinical trials. Although gB/MF59 induced high antibody titers, anti-gB antibodies contributed little to the neutralization of infection. Recent studies have found that non-neutralizing functions, including antibody-dependent phagocytosis of virions and virus-infected cells, are likely to play important roles in pathogenesis and vaccine design. Previously, we isolated human monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) that reacted with the trimeric form of gB ectodomain and found that preferential epitopes for neutralization were present on Domains (Doms) I and II of gB, while there were abundant non-neutralizing antibodies targeting Dom IV. In this study, we analyzed the phagocytosis activities of these MAbs and found the following: 1) MAbs effective for phagocytosis of the virions targeted Doms I and II, 2) the MAbs effective for phagocytosis of the virions and those of virus-infected cells were generally distinct, and 3) the antibody-dependent phagocytosis showed little correlation with neutralizing activities. Taking account of the frequency and levels of neutralization and phagocytosis, incorporation of the epitopes on Doms I and II into developing vaccines is considered desirable for the prevention of viremia.

Effect of Progranulin on Proliferation and Differentiation of Neural Stem/Progenitor Cells after Oxygen/Glucose Deprivation.

We previously demonstrated that sivelestat, a selective neutrophil elastase inhibitor, attenuates the cleavage of progranulin (PGRN) and ischemia-induced cell injury in the brain. To obtain further insight into the role of PGRN, in the present study we evaluated the direct effects of sivelestat and recombinant PGRN (rPGRN) on the proliferation and differentiation of neural stem cells in cultures of neural stem/progenitor cells (NS/PC) under the ischemic condition in vitro. We demonstrated that oxygen/glucose deprivation (OGD)-induced cell proliferation of NS/PC was increased by rPGRN treatment. In addition, this increase was accompanied by increased phosphorylation of Akt and GSK-3ß (Ser9) after OGD. But none of these responses occurred by treatment with sivelestat. Therefore, activation of the Akt/GSK-3ß pathway could well be involved in this proliferative effect of rPGRN. Although OGD and reoxygenation-induced changes in the differentiation of NS/PC into neurons or astrocytes was not affected by treatment with rPGRN or sivelestat, it is noteworthy that rPGRN enhanced neurite outgrowth of ß3-tubulin-positive neurons that had differentiated from the NS/PC. These findings suggest that enhancement of proliferation of endogenous NS/PC and neurite outgrowth of differentiated neurons from NS/PC by PGRN could be useful for a new therapeutic approach for cerebral ischemia.

Single CpG site methylation controls estrogen receptor gene transcription and correlates with hormone therapy resistance.

Hormone therapy is the most effective treatment for patients with estrogen receptor α-positive breast cancers. However, although resistance occurs during treatment in some cases and often reflects changed estrogen receptor α status, the relationship between changes in estrogen receptor α expression and resistance to therapy are poorly understood. In this study, we identified a mechanism for altered estrogen receptor α expression during disease progression and acquired hormone therapy resistance in aromatase inhibitor-resistant breast cancer cell lines. Subsequently, we investigated promoter switching and DNA methylation status of the estrogen receptor α promoter, and found marked changes of methylation at a single CpG site (CpG4) in resistant cells. In addition, luciferase reporter assays showed reduced transcriptional activity from this methylated CpG site. This CpG region was also completely conserved among species, suggesting that it acts as a methylation-sensitive Ets-2 transcription factor binding site, as confirmed using chromatin immunoprecipitation assays. In estrogen receptor α-positive tumors, CpG4 methylation levels were inversely correlated with estrogen receptor α expression status, suggesting that single CpG site plays an important role in the regulation of estrogen receptor α transcription.

Different epigenetic mechanisms of ERα implicated in the fate of fulvestrant-resistant breast cancer.

Approximately 70% of breast cancers express estrogen receptor α (ERα), which plays critical roles in breast cancer development. Fulvestrant has been effectively used to treat ERα-positive breast cancer, although resistance remains a critical problem. To elucidate the mechanism of resistance to fulvestrant, we established fulvestrant-resistant cell-lines named MFR (MCF-7 derived fulvestrant resistance) and TFR (T-47D derived fulvestrant resistance) from the ERα-positive luminal breast cancer cell lines MCF-7 and T-47D, respectively. Both fulvestrant-resistant cell lines lost sensitivity to estrogen and anti-estrogens. We observed diminished ERα expression at both the protein and mRNA levels. To address the mechanism of gene expression regulation, we examined epigenetic alteration, especially the DNA methylation level of ERα gene promoters. MFR cells displayed high methylation levels upstream of the ERα gene, whereas no change in DNA methylation was observed in TFR cells. Hence, we examined the gene expression plasticity of ERα, as there are differences in its reversibility following fulvestrant withdrawal. ERα gene expression was not restored in MFR cells, and alternative intracellular phosphorylation signals were activated. By contrast, TFR cells exhibited plasticity of ERα gene expression and ERα-dependent growth; moreover, these cells were resensitized to estrogen and anti-estrogens. The difference in epigenetic regulation among individual cells might explain the difference in the plasticity of ERα expression. We also identified an MFR cell-activating HER/Src-Akt/MAPK pathway; thus, the specific inhibitors effectively blocked MFR cell growth. This finding implies the presence of multiple fulvestrant resistance mechanisms and suggests that the optimal therapies differ among individual tumors as a result of differing epigenetic mechanisms regulating ERα gene expression.

Variation in use of estrogen receptor-α gene promoters in breast cancer compared by quantification of promoter-specific messenger RNA.

INTRODUCTION: Estrogen receptor (ER)-α expression offers a critical characterization of breast cancer, but risk of recurrence is difficult to predict using only ERα status. The ERα gene has at least 6 transcription start sites, 6 distinct first exons, and probably 6 promoters. To examine whether these promoters have differential effects in breast cancer, we quantified expression of promoter-specific ERα messenger RNA (mRNA), using real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and statistical assessment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We examined variations in the use of breast cancer cell lines and 43 ERα positive (ERα(+)) breast cancer tissue samples by quantifying promoter-specific mRNA of ERα with real-time PCR analysis using primers and probes specially designed for this study. Moreover, we correlated the results of quantified the promoter-specific mRNA with mRNA of total ERα and related them to clinicopathological factors statistically. We also examined multiregression analyses for promoter-specific mRNAs of ERα. RESULT: We found the promoters to be used at almost similar ratios among ERα(+) breast cancer cell lines and ERα(+) breast cancer tissues. Clinicopathological variations were associated with identical ERα promoter choices. When we examined the contribution of mRNA from 3 promoters in breast cancer tissues to total ERα using multiple regression analysis, we found that only promoter A showed a significant (P < .05) transcript coefficient. CONCLUSION: Our findings imply that the use of ERα promoters as prognostic biomarkers is unfeasible. However, our results suggest that promoter usage of ERα may contribute to its expression in normal development and differentiation of individual or carcinogenesis of breast cancer.