Demonstration of an interferon γ-dependent tumor surveillance system in immunocompetent mice

This study demonstrates that endogenously produced interferon γ (IFN-γ) forms the basis of a tumor surveillance system that controls development of both chemically induced and spontaneously arising tumors in mice. Compared with wild-type mice, mice lacking sensitivity to either IFN-γ (i.e., IFN-γ receptor-deficient mice) or all IFN family members (i.e., Stat1-deficient mice) developed tumors more rapidly and with greater frequency when challenged with different doses of the chemical carcinogen methylcholanthrene. In addition, IFN-γ-insensitive mice developed tumors more rapidly than wild-type mice when bred onto a background deficient in the p53 tumor-suppressor gene. IFN-γ-insensitive p53−/− mice also developed a broader spectrum of tumors compared with mice lacking p53 alone. Using tumor cells derived from methylcholanthrene-treated IFN-γ-insensitive mice, we found IFN-γ’s actions to be mediated at least partly through its direct effects on the tumor cell leading to enhanced tumor cell immunogenicity. The importance and generality of this system is evidenced by the finding that certain types of human tumors become selectively unresponsive to IFN-γ. Thus, IFN-γ forms the basis of an extrinsic tumor-suppressor mechanism in immunocompetent hosts.

Macrophage inflammatory protein-2: Chromosomal regulation in rat small intestinal epithelial cells

Nonpathogenic, resident bacteria participate in the pathogenesis of inflammation in the small intestine, but the molecular messages produced by such bacteria are unknown. Inflammatory responses involve the recruitment of specific leukocyte subsets. We, therefore, hypothesized that butyrate, a normal bacterial metabolite, may modulate chemokine secretion by epithelial cells, by amplifying their response to proinflammatory signals. We studied the expression of the chemokine, macrophage inflammatory protein-2 (MIP-2) by the rat small intestinal epithelial cell line, IEC-6. Cells were stimulated with lipopolysaccharide or with interleukin 1β (IL-1β) and incubated with sodium butyrate. Acetylation of histones was examined in Triton X acetic acid–urea gels by PAGE. Unstimulated IEC-6 cells did not secrete MIP-2. However, lipopolysaccharide and IL-1β induced MIP-2 expression. Butyrate enhanced MIP-2 secretion both in lipopolysaccharide-stimulated and IL-1β-stimulated enterocytes; but butyrate alone did not induce MIP-2 expression. Butyrate increased the acetylation of histones extracted from the nuclei of IEC-6 cells. Furthermore, acetylation of histones (induced by trichostatin A, a specific inhibitor of histone deacetylase) enhanced MIP-2 expression by cells stimulated with IL-1β. In conclusion, trichostatin A reproduced the effects of butyrate on MIP-2 secretion. Butyrate, therefore, increases MIP-2 secretion in stimulated cells by increasing histone acetylation. We speculate that butyrate carries information from bacteria to epithelial cells. Epithelial cells transduce this signal through histone deacetylase, modulating the secretion of chemokines.

Transgenic cattle produced by reverse-transcribed gene transfer in oocytes

A critical requirement for integration of retroviruses, other than HIV and possibly related lentiviruses, is the breakdown of the nuclear envelope during mitosis. Nuclear envelope breakdown occurs during mitotic M-phase, the envelope reforming immediately after cell division, thereby permitting the translocation of the retroviral preintegration complex into the nucleus and enabling integration to proceed. In the oocyte, during metaphase II (MII) of the second meiosis, the nuclear envelope is also absent and the oocyte remains in MII arrest for a much longer period of time compared with M-phase in a somatic cell. Pseudotyped replication-defective retroviral vector was injected into the perivitelline space of bovine oocytes during MII. We show that reverse-transcribed gene transfer can take place in an oocyte in MII arrest of meiosis, leading to production of offspring, the majority of which are transgenic. We discuss the implications of this mechanism both as a means of production of transgenic livestock and as a model for naturally occurring recursive transgenesis.