No abstract

In order to properly interpret receptor inhibition experiments, the precise receptor specificities of the employed antagonists are of crucial importance. Lately, a great number of agonists for various formyl peptide receptors have been identified using a selection of antagonists. However, some confusion exists as to the precise receptor specificities of many of these antagonists. We have investigated the effects of formyl peptide receptor family antagonists on the neutrophil response induced by agonists for the formyl peptide receptor (FPR) and the formyl peptide receptor like 1 (FPRL1). To determine FPR- and FPRL1-specific interactions, these antagonists should not be used at used at concentrations above 10 microM. Signaling through FPR was inhibited by low concentrations of the antagonists cyclosporin H, Boc-MLF (also termed Boc-1), and Boc-FLFLFL (also termed Boc-2), while higher concentrations also partly inhibited the signaling through FPRL1. The antagonist WRWWWW (WRW(4)) specifically inhibited the signaling through FPRL1 at low concentrations but at high concentrations also partly the signaling through FPR. Based on the difference in potency of cyclosporin H and the two Boc-peptides, we suggest using cyclosporin H as a specific inhibitor for FPR. To specifically inhibit the FPRL1 response the antagonist WRW(4) should be used.

SUMMARYNeutrophil chemotaxis has been shown to be regulated by two different signalling pathways that allow strong chemoattractants, such as bacterial-derived formylated peptides, to dominate over endogenous attractants, such as interleukin-8 (IL-8). Here we show that triggering of the formyl peptide receptor (FPR) with f-Met-Leu-Phe (fMLF) substantially reduced the neutrophil superoxide production induced by activation of the CXC receptors with IL-8. When the order of agonists was reversed, the cells were primed in their response to fMLF, suggesting that the signalling hierarchy between strong, so-called end-type (i.e. fMLF) and weak or intermediatetype (i.e. IL-8) chemoattractants, is also operating during activation of the NADPH-oxidase. The same result was obtained when fMLF was replaced with the hexapeptide, WKYMVM, specific for the formyl peptide-like receptor 1 (FPRL1). There were additional differences between the agonist receptor pairs fMLF/FPR, WKYMVM/FPRL1 and IL-8/CXCR. In contrast to FPR and FPRL1, no reserve pool of CXCR was present in subcellular granules and it was impossible to prime the oxidative response transduced through CXCR by the addition of priming agents such as tumour necrosis factor-a and platelet-activating factor. Moreover, the cytoskeleton-disrupting substance, cytochalasin B, had no effect either on IL-8-triggered oxidase activation or on CXCR reactivation. A pertussis toxin-sensitive G-protein is involved in signalling mediated through both FPR and CXCR, and the signalling cascades include a transient intracellular calcium increase, as well as downstream p38 MAPK and phosphoinositide 3-kinase activation. The data presented in this study provide support for two different signalling pathways to the neutrophil NADPH-oxidase, used by ligand binding to FPR/FPRL1 or CXCR, respectively.

Serum amyloid A (SAA) is one of the acute-phase reactants, a group of plasma proteins that increases immensely in concentration during microbial infections and inflammatory conditions, and a close relationship between SAA levels and disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been observed. RA is an inflammatory disease, where neutrophils play important roles, and SAA is thought to participate in the inflammatory reaction by being a neutrophil chemoattractant and inducer of proinflammatory cytokines. The biological effects of SAA are reportedly mediated mainly through formyl peptide receptor like-1 (FPRL1), a G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) belonging to the formyl peptide receptor family. Here, we confirmed the affinity of SAA for FPRL1 by showing that stably transfected HL-60 cells expressing FPRL1 were activated by SAA and that the response was inhibited by the use of the FPRL1-specific antagonist WRWWWW (WRW4). We also show that SAA activates the neutrophil NADPH-oxidase and that a reserve pool of receptors is present in storage organelles mobilized by priming agents such as TNF-alpha and LPS from Gram-negative bacteria. The induced activity was inhibited by pertussis toxin, indicating the involvement of a GPCR. However, based on FPRL1-specific desensitization and use of FPRL1 antagonist WRW4, we found the SAA-mediated effects in neutrophils to be independent of FPRL1. Based on these findings, we conclude that SAA signaling in neutrophils is mediated through a GPCR, distinct from FPRL1. Future identification and characterization of the SAA receptor could lead to development of novel, therapeutic targets for treatment of RA.

No abstract