Macrophages and CD4 T-cells in rheumatoid arthritis and their modulation by JAK inhibitors

Background: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory arthritis that causes significant morbidity and mortality and has no cure. Although early treatment strategies and biologic therapies such as TNFα blocking antibodies have revolutionised treatment, there still remains considerable unmet need. JAK kinase inhibitors, which target multiple inflammatory cytokines, have shown efficacy in treating RA although their exact mechanism of action remains to be determined. Stratified medicine promises to deliver the right drug to the right patient at the right time by using predictive ‘omic biomarkers discovered using bioinformatic and “Big Data” techniques. Therefore, knowledge across the realms of clinical rheumatology, applied immunology, bioinformatics and data science is required to realise this goal. Aim: To use bioinformatic tools to analyse the transcriptome of CD14 macrophages derived from patients with inflammatory arthritis and define a JAK/STAT signature. Thereafter to investigate the role of JAK inhibition on inflammatory cytokine production in a macrophage cell contact activation assay. Finally, to investigate JAK inhibition, following RA synovial fluid stimulation of monocytes. Methods and Results: Using bioinformatic software such as limma from the Bioconductor repository, I determined that there was a JAK/STAT signature in synovial CD14 macrophages from patients with RA and this differed from psoriatic arthritis samples. JAK inhibition using a JAK1/3 inhibitor tofacitinib reduced TNFα production when macrophages were cell contact activated by cytokine stimulated CD4 T-cells. Other pro-inflammatory cytokines such as IL-6 and chemokines such as IP-10 were also reduced. RA synovial fluid failed to stimulate monocytes to phosphorylate STAT1, 3 or 6 but CD4 T-cells activated STAT3 with this stimulus. RNA sequencing of synovial fluid stimulated CD4 T-cells showed an upregulation of SOCS3, BCL6 and SBNO2, a gene associated with RA but with unknown function and tofacitinib reversed this. Conclusion: These studies demonstrate that tofacitinib is effective at reducing inflammatory mediator production in a macrophage cell contact assay and also affects soluble factor mediated stimulation of CD4 T-cells. This suggests that the effectiveness of JAK inhibition is due to inhibition of multiple cytokine pathways such as IL-6, IL-15 and interferon. RNA sequencing is a useful tool to identify non-coding RNA transcripts that are associated with synovial fluid stimulation and JAK inhibition but these require further validation. SBNO2, a gene that is associated with RA, may be biomarker of tofacitinib treatment but requires further investigation and validation in wider disease cohorts.

Comparison of the modes of action of Apremilast and Roflumilast

The phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) family are cAMP specific phosphodiesterases that play an important role in the inflammatory response and is the major PDE type found in inflammatory cells. A significant number of PDE4 specific inhibitors have been developed and are currently being investigated for use as therapeutic agents. Apremilast, a small molecule inhibitor of PDE 4 is in development for chronic inflammatory disorders and has shown promise for the treatment of psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis as well as other inflammatory diseases. It has been found to be safe and well tolerated in humans and in March 2014 it was approved by the US food and drug administration for the treatment of adult patients with active psoriatic arthritis. The only other PDE4 inhibitor on the market is Roflumilast and it is used for treatment of respiratory disease. Roflumilast is approved in the EU for the treatment of COPD and was recently approved in the US for treatment to reduce the risk of COPD exacerbations. Roflumilast is also a selective PDE4 inhibitor, administered as an oral tablet once daily, and is thought to act by increasing cAMP within lung cells. As both (Apremilast and Roflumilast) compounds selectively inhibit PDE4 but are targeted at different diseases, there is a need for a clear understanding of their mechanism of action (MOA). Differences and similarity of MOA should be defined for the purposes of labelling, for communication to the scientific community, physicians, and patients, and for an extension of utility to other diseases and therapeutic areas. In order to obtain a complete comparative picture of the MOA of both inhibitors, additional molecular and cellular biology studies are required to more fully elucidate the signalling mediators downstream of PDE4 inhibition which result in alterations in pro- and anti-inflammatory gene expression. My studies were conducted to directly compare Apremilast with Roflumilast, in order to substantiate the differences observed in the molecular and cellular effects of these compounds, and to search for other possible differentiating effects. Therefore the main aim of this thesis was to utilise cutting-edge biochemical techniques to discover whether Apremilast and Roflumilast work with different modes of action. In the first part of my thesis I used novel genetically encoded FRET based cAMP sensors targeted to different intracellular compartments, in order to monitor cAMP levels within specific microdomains of cells as a consequence of challenge with Apremilast and Roflumilast, which revealed that Apremilast and Roflumilast do regulate different pools of cAMP in cells. In the second part of my thesis I focussed on assessing whether Apremilast and Roflumilast cause differential effects on the PKA phosphorylation state of proteins in cells. I used various biochemical techniques (Western blotting, Substrate kinase arrays and Reverse Phase Protein array and found that Apremilast and Roflumilast do lead to differential PKA substrate phosphorylation. For example I found that Apremilast increases the phosphorylation of Ribosomal Protein S6 at Ser240/244 and Fyn Y530 in the S6 Ribosomal pathway of Rheumatoid Arthritis Synovial fibroblast and HEK293 cells, whereas Roflumilast does not. This data suggests that Apremilast has distinct biological effects from that of Roflumilast and could represent a new therapeutic role for Apremilast in other diseases. In the final part of my thesis, Phage display technology was employed in order to identify any novel binding motifs that associate with PDE4 and to identify sequences that were differentially regulated by the inhibitors in an attempt to find binding motifs that may exist in previously characterised signalling proteins. Petide array technology was then used to confirm binding of specific peptide sequences or motifs. Results showed that Apremilast and Roflumilast can either enhance or decrease the binding of PDE4A4 to specific peptide sequences or motifs that are found in a variety of proteins in the human proteome, most interestingly Ubiquitin-related proteins. The data from this chapter is preliminary but may be used in the discovery of novel binding partners for PDE4 or to provide a new role for PDE inhibition in disease. Therefore the work in this thesis provides a unique snapshot of the complexity of the cAMP signalling system and is the first to directly compare action of the two approved PDE4 inhibitors in a detailed way.