Szempontok és adatok a szellemi világ néprajzának keresztény értelmezéséhez

A dolgozat állást foglal és érveket sorakoztat fel a keresztény világkép alapján való tudományos elemzés létjogosultsága mellett, s megfogalmaz néhány szempontot az ilyen irányú kutatásokhoz

Table_6_Microglia Responses to Pro-inflammatory Stimuli (LPS, IFNγ+TNFα) and Reprogramming by Resolving Cytokines (IL-4, IL-10).pdf

<p>Microglia respond to CNS injuries and diseases with complex reactions, often called “activation.” A pro-inflammatory phenotype (also called classical or M1 activation) lies at one extreme of the reactivity spectrum. There were several motivations for this study. First, bacterial endotoxin (lipopolysaccharide, LPS) is the most commonly used pro-inflammatory stimulus for microglia, both in vitro and in vivo; however, pro-inflammatory cytokines (e.g., IFNγ, TNFα) rather than LPS will be encountered with sterile CNS damage and disease. We lack direct comparisons of responses between LPS and such cytokines. Second, while transcriptional profiling is providing substantial data on microglial responses to LPS, these studies mainly use mouse cells and models, and there is increasing evidence that responses of rat microglia can differ. Third, the cytokine milieu is dynamic after acute CNS damage, and an important question in microglial biology is: How malleable are their responses? There are very few studies of effects of resolving cytokines, particularly for rat microglia, and much of the work has focused on pro-inflammatory outcomes. Here, we first exposed primary rat microglia to LPS or to IFNγ+TNFα (I+T) and compared hallmark functional (nitric oxide production, migration) and molecular responses (almost 100 genes), including surface receptors that can be considered part of the sensome. Protein changes for exemplary molecules were also quantified: ARG1, CD206/MRC1, COX-2, iNOS, and PYK2. Despite some similarities, there were notable differences in responses to LPS and I+T. For instance, LPS often evoked higher pro-inflammatory gene expression and also increased several anti-inflammatory genes. Second, we compared the ability of two anti-inflammatory, resolving cytokines (IL-4, IL-10), to counteract responses to LPS and I+T. IL-4 was more effective after I+T than after LPS, and IL-10 was surprisingly ineffective after either stimulus. These results should prove useful in modeling microglial reactivity in vitro; and comparing transcriptional responses to sterile CNS inflammation in vivo.</p

Table_3_Microglia Responses to Pro-inflammatory Stimuli (LPS, IFNγ+TNFα) and Reprogramming by Resolving Cytokines (IL-4, IL-10).pdf

<p>Microglia respond to CNS injuries and diseases with complex reactions, often called “activation.” A pro-inflammatory phenotype (also called classical or M1 activation) lies at one extreme of the reactivity spectrum. There were several motivations for this study. First, bacterial endotoxin (lipopolysaccharide, LPS) is the most commonly used pro-inflammatory stimulus for microglia, both in vitro and in vivo; however, pro-inflammatory cytokines (e.g., IFNγ, TNFα) rather than LPS will be encountered with sterile CNS damage and disease. We lack direct comparisons of responses between LPS and such cytokines. Second, while transcriptional profiling is providing substantial data on microglial responses to LPS, these studies mainly use mouse cells and models, and there is increasing evidence that responses of rat microglia can differ. Third, the cytokine milieu is dynamic after acute CNS damage, and an important question in microglial biology is: How malleable are their responses? There are very few studies of effects of resolving cytokines, particularly for rat microglia, and much of the work has focused on pro-inflammatory outcomes. Here, we first exposed primary rat microglia to LPS or to IFNγ+TNFα (I+T) and compared hallmark functional (nitric oxide production, migration) and molecular responses (almost 100 genes), including surface receptors that can be considered part of the sensome. Protein changes for exemplary molecules were also quantified: ARG1, CD206/MRC1, COX-2, iNOS, and PYK2. Despite some similarities, there were notable differences in responses to LPS and I+T. For instance, LPS often evoked higher pro-inflammatory gene expression and also increased several anti-inflammatory genes. Second, we compared the ability of two anti-inflammatory, resolving cytokines (IL-4, IL-10), to counteract responses to LPS and I+T. IL-4 was more effective after I+T than after LPS, and IL-10 was surprisingly ineffective after either stimulus. These results should prove useful in modeling microglial reactivity in vitro; and comparing transcriptional responses to sterile CNS inflammation in vivo.</p

Table_7_Microglia Responses to Pro-inflammatory Stimuli (LPS, IFNγ+TNFα) and Reprogramming by Resolving Cytokines (IL-4, IL-10).pdf

<p>Microglia respond to CNS injuries and diseases with complex reactions, often called “activation.” A pro-inflammatory phenotype (also called classical or M1 activation) lies at one extreme of the reactivity spectrum. There were several motivations for this study. First, bacterial endotoxin (lipopolysaccharide, LPS) is the most commonly used pro-inflammatory stimulus for microglia, both in vitro and in vivo; however, pro-inflammatory cytokines (e.g., IFNγ, TNFα) rather than LPS will be encountered with sterile CNS damage and disease. We lack direct comparisons of responses between LPS and such cytokines. Second, while transcriptional profiling is providing substantial data on microglial responses to LPS, these studies mainly use mouse cells and models, and there is increasing evidence that responses of rat microglia can differ. Third, the cytokine milieu is dynamic after acute CNS damage, and an important question in microglial biology is: How malleable are their responses? There are very few studies of effects of resolving cytokines, particularly for rat microglia, and much of the work has focused on pro-inflammatory outcomes. Here, we first exposed primary rat microglia to LPS or to IFNγ+TNFα (I+T) and compared hallmark functional (nitric oxide production, migration) and molecular responses (almost 100 genes), including surface receptors that can be considered part of the sensome. Protein changes for exemplary molecules were also quantified: ARG1, CD206/MRC1, COX-2, iNOS, and PYK2. Despite some similarities, there were notable differences in responses to LPS and I+T. For instance, LPS often evoked higher pro-inflammatory gene expression and also increased several anti-inflammatory genes. Second, we compared the ability of two anti-inflammatory, resolving cytokines (IL-4, IL-10), to counteract responses to LPS and I+T. IL-4 was more effective after I+T than after LPS, and IL-10 was surprisingly ineffective after either stimulus. These results should prove useful in modeling microglial reactivity in vitro; and comparing transcriptional responses to sterile CNS inflammation in vivo.</p

Image_1_Microglia Responses to Pro-inflammatory Stimuli (LPS, IFNγ+TNFα) and Reprogramming by Resolving Cytokines (IL-4, IL-10).pdf

<p>Microglia respond to CNS injuries and diseases with complex reactions, often called “activation.” A pro-inflammatory phenotype (also called classical or M1 activation) lies at one extreme of the reactivity spectrum. There were several motivations for this study. First, bacterial endotoxin (lipopolysaccharide, LPS) is the most commonly used pro-inflammatory stimulus for microglia, both in vitro and in vivo; however, pro-inflammatory cytokines (e.g., IFNγ, TNFα) rather than LPS will be encountered with sterile CNS damage and disease. We lack direct comparisons of responses between LPS and such cytokines. Second, while transcriptional profiling is providing substantial data on microglial responses to LPS, these studies mainly use mouse cells and models, and there is increasing evidence that responses of rat microglia can differ. Third, the cytokine milieu is dynamic after acute CNS damage, and an important question in microglial biology is: How malleable are their responses? There are very few studies of effects of resolving cytokines, particularly for rat microglia, and much of the work has focused on pro-inflammatory outcomes. Here, we first exposed primary rat microglia to LPS or to IFNγ+TNFα (I+T) and compared hallmark functional (nitric oxide production, migration) and molecular responses (almost 100 genes), including surface receptors that can be considered part of the sensome. Protein changes for exemplary molecules were also quantified: ARG1, CD206/MRC1, COX-2, iNOS, and PYK2. Despite some similarities, there were notable differences in responses to LPS and I+T. For instance, LPS often evoked higher pro-inflammatory gene expression and also increased several anti-inflammatory genes. Second, we compared the ability of two anti-inflammatory, resolving cytokines (IL-4, IL-10), to counteract responses to LPS and I+T. IL-4 was more effective after I+T than after LPS, and IL-10 was surprisingly ineffective after either stimulus. These results should prove useful in modeling microglial reactivity in vitro; and comparing transcriptional responses to sterile CNS inflammation in vivo.</p

Table_8_Microglia Responses to Pro-inflammatory Stimuli (LPS, IFNγ+TNFα) and Reprogramming by Resolving Cytokines (IL-4, IL-10).pdf

<p>Microglia respond to CNS injuries and diseases with complex reactions, often called “activation.” A pro-inflammatory phenotype (also called classical or M1 activation) lies at one extreme of the reactivity spectrum. There were several motivations for this study. First, bacterial endotoxin (lipopolysaccharide, LPS) is the most commonly used pro-inflammatory stimulus for microglia, both in vitro and in vivo; however, pro-inflammatory cytokines (e.g., IFNγ, TNFα) rather than LPS will be encountered with sterile CNS damage and disease. We lack direct comparisons of responses between LPS and such cytokines. Second, while transcriptional profiling is providing substantial data on microglial responses to LPS, these studies mainly use mouse cells and models, and there is increasing evidence that responses of rat microglia can differ. Third, the cytokine milieu is dynamic after acute CNS damage, and an important question in microglial biology is: How malleable are their responses? There are very few studies of effects of resolving cytokines, particularly for rat microglia, and much of the work has focused on pro-inflammatory outcomes. Here, we first exposed primary rat microglia to LPS or to IFNγ+TNFα (I+T) and compared hallmark functional (nitric oxide production, migration) and molecular responses (almost 100 genes), including surface receptors that can be considered part of the sensome. Protein changes for exemplary molecules were also quantified: ARG1, CD206/MRC1, COX-2, iNOS, and PYK2. Despite some similarities, there were notable differences in responses to LPS and I+T. For instance, LPS often evoked higher pro-inflammatory gene expression and also increased several anti-inflammatory genes. Second, we compared the ability of two anti-inflammatory, resolving cytokines (IL-4, IL-10), to counteract responses to LPS and I+T. IL-4 was more effective after I+T than after LPS, and IL-10 was surprisingly ineffective after either stimulus. These results should prove useful in modeling microglial reactivity in vitro; and comparing transcriptional responses to sterile CNS inflammation in vivo.</p

Image_2_Microglia Responses to Pro-inflammatory Stimuli (LPS, IFNγ+TNFα) and Reprogramming by Resolving Cytokines (IL-4, IL-10).pdf

<p>Microglia respond to CNS injuries and diseases with complex reactions, often called “activation.” A pro-inflammatory phenotype (also called classical or M1 activation) lies at one extreme of the reactivity spectrum. There were several motivations for this study. First, bacterial endotoxin (lipopolysaccharide, LPS) is the most commonly used pro-inflammatory stimulus for microglia, both in vitro and in vivo; however, pro-inflammatory cytokines (e.g., IFNγ, TNFα) rather than LPS will be encountered with sterile CNS damage and disease. We lack direct comparisons of responses between LPS and such cytokines. Second, while transcriptional profiling is providing substantial data on microglial responses to LPS, these studies mainly use mouse cells and models, and there is increasing evidence that responses of rat microglia can differ. Third, the cytokine milieu is dynamic after acute CNS damage, and an important question in microglial biology is: How malleable are their responses? There are very few studies of effects of resolving cytokines, particularly for rat microglia, and much of the work has focused on pro-inflammatory outcomes. Here, we first exposed primary rat microglia to LPS or to IFNγ+TNFα (I+T) and compared hallmark functional (nitric oxide production, migration) and molecular responses (almost 100 genes), including surface receptors that can be considered part of the sensome. Protein changes for exemplary molecules were also quantified: ARG1, CD206/MRC1, COX-2, iNOS, and PYK2. Despite some similarities, there were notable differences in responses to LPS and I+T. For instance, LPS often evoked higher pro-inflammatory gene expression and also increased several anti-inflammatory genes. Second, we compared the ability of two anti-inflammatory, resolving cytokines (IL-4, IL-10), to counteract responses to LPS and I+T. IL-4 was more effective after I+T than after LPS, and IL-10 was surprisingly ineffective after either stimulus. These results should prove useful in modeling microglial reactivity in vitro; and comparing transcriptional responses to sterile CNS inflammation in vivo.</p

Table_1_Microglia Responses to Pro-inflammatory Stimuli (LPS, IFNγ+TNFα) and Reprogramming by Resolving Cytokines (IL-4, IL-10).pdf

<p>Microglia respond to CNS injuries and diseases with complex reactions, often called “activation.” A pro-inflammatory phenotype (also called classical or M1 activation) lies at one extreme of the reactivity spectrum. There were several motivations for this study. First, bacterial endotoxin (lipopolysaccharide, LPS) is the most commonly used pro-inflammatory stimulus for microglia, both in vitro and in vivo; however, pro-inflammatory cytokines (e.g., IFNγ, TNFα) rather than LPS will be encountered with sterile CNS damage and disease. We lack direct comparisons of responses between LPS and such cytokines. Second, while transcriptional profiling is providing substantial data on microglial responses to LPS, these studies mainly use mouse cells and models, and there is increasing evidence that responses of rat microglia can differ. Third, the cytokine milieu is dynamic after acute CNS damage, and an important question in microglial biology is: How malleable are their responses? There are very few studies of effects of resolving cytokines, particularly for rat microglia, and much of the work has focused on pro-inflammatory outcomes. Here, we first exposed primary rat microglia to LPS or to IFNγ+TNFα (I+T) and compared hallmark functional (nitric oxide production, migration) and molecular responses (almost 100 genes), including surface receptors that can be considered part of the sensome. Protein changes for exemplary molecules were also quantified: ARG1, CD206/MRC1, COX-2, iNOS, and PYK2. Despite some similarities, there were notable differences in responses to LPS and I+T. For instance, LPS often evoked higher pro-inflammatory gene expression and also increased several anti-inflammatory genes. Second, we compared the ability of two anti-inflammatory, resolving cytokines (IL-4, IL-10), to counteract responses to LPS and I+T. IL-4 was more effective after I+T than after LPS, and IL-10 was surprisingly ineffective after either stimulus. These results should prove useful in modeling microglial reactivity in vitro; and comparing transcriptional responses to sterile CNS inflammation in vivo.</p

Additional file 3: of Responses of rat and mouse primary microglia to pro- and anti-inflammatory stimuli: molecular profiles, K+ channels and migration

Transcript expression of anti-inflammatory cytokines and their receptors. Rat and mouse microglia were unstimulated (CTL) or stimulated with IFN-γ and TNF-α (I + T), IL-4 or IL-10 for 24 h. mRNA counts for each gene were normalized to two housekeeping genes (described in Methods) and are shown as mean ± SEM (n = 4–6 individual cultures). *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; ****p < 0.0001 (PDF 380 kb

Table_2_Comparing Effects of Transforming Growth Factor β1 on Microglia From Rat and Mouse: Transcriptional Profiles and Potassium Channels.PDF

<p>The cytokine, transforming growth factor β1 (TGFβ1), is up-regulated after central nervous system (CNS) injuries or diseases involving microglial activation, and it has been proposed as a therapeutic agent for treating neuroinflammation. Microglia can produce and respond to TGFβ1. While rats and mice are commonly used for studying neuroinflammation, very few reports directly compare them. Such studies are important for improving pre-clinical studies and furthering translational progress in developing therapeutic interventions. After intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) in the rat striatum, the TGFβ1 receptor was highly expressed on microglia/macrophages within the hematoma. We recently found species similarities and differences in response to either a pro-inflammatory (interferon-γ, IFN-γ, +tumor necrosis factor, TNF-α) or anti-inflammatory interleukin-4 (IL-4) stimulus. Here, we assessed whether rat and mouse microglia differ in their responses to TGFβ1. Microglia were isolated from Sprague-Dawley rats and C57BL/6 mice and treated with TGFβ1. We quantified changes in expression of >50 genes, in their morphology, proliferation, apoptosis and in three potassium channels that are considered therapeutic targets. Many inflammatory mediators, immune receptors and modulators showed species similarities, but notable differences included that, for some genes, only one species responded (e.g., Il4r, Il10, Tgfbr2, colony-stimulating factor receptor (Csf1r), Itgam, suppressor of cytokine signaling 1 (Socs1), toll-like receptors 4 (Tlr4), P2rx7, P2ry12), and opposite responses were seen for others (Tgfb1, Myc, Ifngr1). In rat only, TGFβ1 affected microglial morphology and proliferation, but there was no apoptosis in either species. In both species, TGFβ1 dramatically increased Kv1.3 channel expression and current (no effects on Kir2.1). KCa3.1 showed opposite species responses: the current was low in unstimulated rat microglia and greatly increased by TGFβ1 but higher in control mouse cells and decreased by TGFβ1. Finally, we compared TGFβ1 and IL10 (often considered similar anti-inflammatory stimuli) and found many different responses in both species. Overall, the numerous species differences should be considered when characterizing neuroinflammation and microglial activation in vitro and in vivo, and when targeting potassium channels.</p