SEARCH:   Advanced

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Rights and Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Jabs, W. J. Articles by Kreft, B. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Jabs, W. J. Articles by Kreft, B. Related Collections Chemokines, Cytokines, and Interleukins Social Bookmarking                   What's this?  Previous Article  |  Table of Contents  |  Next Article  Blood, 1 March 2002, Vol. 99, No. 5, pp. 1512-1516 CHEMOKINES Inhibition of macrophage inflammatory protein-1 production by Epstein-Barr virus Wolfram J. Jabs, Hans J. Wagner, Susanne Maurmann, Holger Hennig, and Burkhard Kreft From the First Department of Medicine and Institute of Immunology and Transfusion Medicine, University of Lübeck School of Medicine, Lübeck, Germany; and the Center for Gene and Cell Therapy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX.     Abstract Top Abstract Introduction Materials and methods Results Discussion References Infection with Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) exerts substantially immunomodulating activities in vitro and in vivo. In this context, EBV-induced chemokine production and the influence of EBV on this highly redundant system of inflammatory proteins have hardly been investigated. This study analyzed the production of interleukin-8, RANTES, monocyte chemotactic protein-1, and macrophage inflammatory protein-1 (MIP-1) on EBV infection of peripheral blood mononuclear cells from immune EBV-seropositive (EBV+) and noninfected EBV-seronegative (EBV) individuals. EBV failed to induce the production of MIP-1 in EBV+ as well as EBV individuals, whereas the other chemokines studied were readily expressed. Moreover, EBV completely down-regulated lipopolysaccharide (LPS)- and phytohemagglutinin-induced MIP-1 production up to 4 hours after induction. Reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) analysis of EBV- and LPS-stimulated cultures revealed that EBV inhibited MIP-1 production on the transcriptional level. This effect was abolished by addition of antiglycoprotein (gp)350/220, a monoclonal antibody against EBV's major envelope glycoprotein, which mediates binding of the virus to the EBV receptor, CD21. However, recombinant gp350/220 protein alone did not inhibit the LPS-induced MIP-1 production, indicating that infection of the target cell is indispensable for this effect. In summary, we demonstrate a new immunomodulating activity of EBV on the chemokine system that probably helps the virus to evade the host's immune system favoring lifelong infection. (Blood. 2002;99:1512-1516) © 2002 by The American Society of Hematology.     Introduction Top Abstract Introduction Materials and methods Results Discussion References Chemokines are important mediators of the immune system with primarily chemotactic properties. By recruiting phagocytes as well as lymphocytes to extranodal sites of inflammation, chemokines connect unspecific with specific compartments of the immune system and therefore play a pivotal role in developing a rapid, focused, and effective immune response (for a review, see Rollins1). Chemokines are classified as C, CC, CXC, or CX3C chemokines on the basis of the arrangement of 1 or 2 N-terminal cysteine residues.2 CXC and CC chemokines consist of multiple 8- to 10-kd proteins each with overlapping, but to some extent, opposite actions.3 CXC chemokines, such as interleukin-8 (IL-8), almost exclusively act on neutrophils, whereas chemokines of the CC group, such as RANTES (regulated on activation normal T cell expressed and secreted), monocyte chemotactic protein-1 (MCP-1), or macrophage inflammatory protein-1 (MIP-1) have a broader spectrum of action predominantly attracting monocytes, macrophages, lymphocytes, and natural killer (NK) cells.3 CC chemokines, especially MIP-1, proved to be key elements in the development of antiviral immunity.4 Besides promotion of coxsackievirus B3-induced myocarditis, MIP-1 is indispensable for viral clearance in influenza virus-induced pneumonitis in vivo.5 Moreover, MIP-1 is critical for protection against murine cytomegalovirus infection in vivo through recruitment of NK cells and accompanied interferon gamma (IFN-) production.6 Together with MIP-1 and RANTES, MIP-1 was identified as one of the major human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-suppressive factors secreted by CD8+ T cells.7 Further actions of MIP-1 comprise the modulation of macrophage functions, such as stimulation of tumor necrosis factor  (TNF-) production,8 the preferential chemotaxis of CD8+ T cells4 as well as the inhibition of hematopoietic stem cell proliferation.1 Another indication of its important role in antiviral defense derives from Kaposi sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (KSHV). KSHV integrated into its genome homologues of human MIP-1 that are assumed to counteract some functions of the human homologue.9,10 An MIP-1 homologue encoded by other human herpesviruses, including Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), has not been described yet. However, the rhesus macaque rhadinovirus, which seems to be the homologue to KSHV, as well as human molluscum contagiosum poxvirus also encode for viral CC chemokines, the latter one acting as an antagonist on human chemokine receptor CCR8.11,12 Epstein-Barr virus is a human herpesvirus with a selective tropism for B lymphocytes and is associated with certain human malignancies.13 Lifelong EBV infection is established in the long-living compartment of resting memory B cells.14 Reactivation is presumably achieved by infected B cells, which intermittently recirculate to secondary lymphoid tissues.14 The cellular and subcellular events of EBV reactivation are only poorly understood. However, suppression of local immunity by immunomodulating strategies, such as expression of viral IL-10,15 down-regulation of TNF- production,16 or inhibition of IFN- secretion through open reading frame BARF1 product,17 are helpful bystander mechanisms of the virus to evade the host's cellular immunity. Little is known about the influence of EBV on the chemokine system. Multiple chemokines are likely to be involved in the course of infectious mononucleosis (IM) causing the typical polymorphous cellular infiltrate.13,18 In this study, we define the chemokine production of noninfected EBV-seronegative (EBV) and immune EBV-seropositive (EBV+) individuals in response to in vitro EBV infection. T cells were removed in certain experiments to determine the influence of memory T cells on selective chemokine production.     Materials and methods Top Abstract Introduction Materials and methods Results Discussion References Preparation of infectious B95-8 virus Infectious EB virions were obtained as described elsewhere in detail.19 In brief, the marmoset cell line B95-8 was cultivated for 10 days in a humidified atmosphere containing 5% CO2 without changing the culture medium. Cells and medium were then frozen at 20°C for 2 hours to release intracellular virus particles. Afterward, cell suspension was filtrated twice through a sterile 0.45-µm filter, aliquoted in 1.5-mL portions and stored at 80°C. Virus preparation was repeatedly shown to be free of mycoplasma contamination. Using quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR),20 it was determined that the preparation contained approximately 3.5 × 105 EBV genome equivalents (geq)/mL. Cell preparation and EBV serology Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from buffy coats or from heparinized whole blood of healthy volunteers were isolated by standard density centrifugation (Ficoll Separation Solution; Biochrom, Berlin, Germany). After 2 wash steps in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS, pH 7.2) cells were resuspended in RPMI 1640 medium (Biochrom) supplemented with L-glutamine 2 mM, penicillin 100 U/mL, streptomycin 100 µg/mL (Gibco BRL, Karlsruhe, Germany), and 10% heat-inactivated fetal calf serum (Gibco BRL). T-cell depletion of PBMCs from 19 EBV+ and 11 EBV blood donors followed exactly the same protocol as described before.21 The EBV serostatus was determined using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for IgG antibodies against Epstein-Barr nuclear antigen 1 (EBNA-1) and for IgG and IgM antibodies against EBV early antigen (Biotest, Dreieich, Germany),22 as already done previously.19,21 Culture conditions Cells were stimulated in 24-well flat bottom plates (Nunc, Roskilde, Denmark) at a concentration of 2 × 106 cells/mL. Total volume was 1 mL/well. Cells were cultured in a humidified atmosphere containing 5% CO2 for 48 hours unless otherwise mentioned. The EBV preparation was used in a 1:5 dilution (ie, 200 µL for each stimulation, corresponding to a concentration of 7 × 104 geq/mL). Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) derived from Escherichia coli (Sigma, Deisenkirchen, Germany) was used at a final concentration of 10 ng/mL. Phytohemagglutinin (PHA; Sigma) was used at a concentration of 1 ng/mL. Anti-EBNA1 (EBNA.OT1x) and neutralizing anti-gp350/220 (EBV.OT6) antibodies (kindly provided by J. Middeldorp, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) were used at a concentration of 100 µg/mL.23,24 J. Middeldorp also provided truncated gp350/220 protein that lacks the transmembrane domain. It was expressed in Chinese hamster ovary cells and purified by immunoaffinity and anion-exchange chromatography as described elsewhere in detail.24 The C-terminal membrane anchor is necessary for virus budding and capsulation through the cell membrane but has no binding activity for the EBV receptor, CD21.25 The N-terminal part of the EBNA1 protein, p72 (provided by W. Hinderer, Biotest), originally served as a capture antigen for anti-EBNA1 ELISA.22 It was used as a control antigen in our experiments. Both the recombinant gp350/220 and the p72 protein were used at a concentration of 100 µg/mL. Chemokine determination Commercially available ELISA systems were used for chemokine quantification. ELISA performance followed exactly the manufacturer's recommendations. Test kits for MIP-1 and RANTES were purchased from R & D Systems (Minneapolis, MN), for MCP-1 from Biosource International (Camarillo, CA), and for IL-8 from Bender Medsystems (Vienna, Austria). RNA extraction and complementary DNA synthesis Total RNA was extracted from 2 × 106 PBMCs using the RNeasy Mini Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany). RNA was eluted in 40 µL distilled RNAse free water. For reverse transcription (RT), 18 µL total RNA was incubated with 2 µL random hexamers (Gibco; 50 ng/mL) for 10 minutes at 70°C. Afterward, complementary DNA (cDNA) synthesis was performed in a final volume of 40 µL for 1 hour at 37°C using Superscript II RT (Gibco). Real-time PCR assay A quantitative real-time RT-PCR assay was established for MIP-1 messenger RNA (mRNA) detection using the TaqMan technology. Primer and probe for MIP-1 were designed by means of Primer Express software (Applied Biosystems, Weiterstadt, Germany). The underlying sequence for MIP-1 cDNA was obtained from GenBank database, accession number AF043339. Sequences read as follows (5' 3'): forward primer CAT CAC TTg CTg CTg ACA Cg, reverse primer TgT ggA ATC TgC Cgg gAg, probe VIC-CgA CCg CCT gCT gCT TCA gCT ACA-TAMRA with VIC and TAMRA representing the reporter and quencher dye, respectively. The -actin gene coamplification was used for relative quantification using a primer/probe set purchased from PE Applied Biosystems (TaqMan -actin Control Reagents). Master mix for MIP-1 and -actin determination comprised 25 µL TaqMan Universal Mastermix (Applied Biosystems), 1.5 µL of each forward and reverse primer (10 µM) for MIP-1 or 1.0 µL (3 µM) for -actin, 1.0 µL of probe (10 µM) for MIP-1 or 1.0 µL (2 µM) for -actin, and 2 µL cDNA. Distilled water was added for a final volume of 50 µL. RNA without RT was run in parallel with each sample. Cycler conditions were 10 minutes at 95°C followed by 40 cycles consisting of 15 seconds at 95°C and 1 minute at 60°C. Threshold values were calculated as the upper 10-fold SD of the background fluorescence signal measured over all cycles defined by the baseline. The baseline was set manually from cycle 3 to the cycle before the exponential increase of the first PCR kinetics was to be observed. The threshold cycle (Ct), which is inversely proportional to the starting copy numbers26 and is defined as the PCR cycle at which the reporter fluorescence signal exceeds the threshold value of the respective analysis, was used for quantification. MIP-1 expression levels were calculated in relation to -actin expression and calibrated against values derived from respective unstimulated controls. According to the ABI Prism User Bulletin no. 2, the following term was used to express the relative amounts of mRNA (Ct calculation): where Ct MIPx as well as Ct Actinx refer to the Ct values for MIP-1 and -actin of the respective samples and Ct MIPcalibr as well as Ct Actincalibr refer to the Ct values of the calibrator, that is, the unstimulated control. Statistical analysis Values in Table 1 represent individual differences between the respective stimulated and unstimulated samples. Differences are given as mean ± SD. Graphs always show mean ± SD of different numbers of experiments, as indicated in the figure legends. For comparison between the individual groups, the Mann Whitney U test and, where applicable, the Wilcoxon test for related samples were used. A P < .05 was considered to be significant.                                View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 1. Chemokine production in response to EBV stimulation of PBMCs before and after removal of T cells from EBV and EBV+ healthy adults     Results Top Abstract Introduction Materials and methods Results Discussion References Chemokine induction by EBV The PBMC cultures of 11 EBV as well as of 19 EBV+ healthy adults were investigated for EBV-induced chemokine secretion following a 48-hour infection. Synthesis of IL-8 as a representative CXC chemokine was examined as well as of RANTES, MCP-1, and MIP-1 as main CC chemokines involved in early inflammation. To eliminate the probable influence of memory T cells on selective chemokine production, cultures were analyzed before and after T-cell depletion. Table 1 shows induced production of IL-8 after stimulation with EBV, which was significantly higher in EBV+ than in EBV individuals. This difference between EBV+ and EBV donors was also seen after T-cell depletion. Because removal of T cells significantly decreased IL-8 secretion in EBV+ adults, it is likely that memory T cells were the main source of IL-8 in this setting. Production of RANTES before and after T-cell depletion exhibited no significant differences between EBV+ and EBV donors. The significantly lower production of RANTES after T-cell depletion indicates that T lymphocytes were the main producers of RANTES on EBV induction. MCP-1 production showed an inverse secretion pattern seen for RANTES with the highest amounts of MCP-1 found after the removal of T cells. This is in accordance with monocytes being a major source of MCP-1 in the peripheral blood. In contrast to these chemokines, MIP-1 secretion of EBV+ and EBV individuals remained undetectable before as well as after T-cell depletion (Table 1). Inhibition of MIP-1 expression The lack of MIP-1 production became more apparent in relation to LPS- and PHA-induction as depicted in Figure 1. LPS and PHA induced MIP-1 and MCP-1 production after 48 hours of stimulation. On the other hand, EBV only induced MCP-1 production at a level comparable to LPS- or PHA-stimulated amounts, whereas MIP-1 levels remained unchanged. When EBV-stimulated cultures were coincubated with LPS or PHA, production of MIP-1 was almost completely down-regulated (Figure 1). View larger version (19K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. Production of MIP-1 and MCP-1 on EBV infection and LPS or PHA costimulation. PBMC cultures were incubated with EBV (strain B95-8, diluted 1:5) for 48 hours. LPS (10 ng/mL) or PHA (1 µg/mL), respectively, were also used as stimulants, either alone or in combination with EBV. MIP-1 (A) and MCP-1 (B) were quantified in culture supernatants by means of ELISA. Shown are mean ± SD of 8 individuals. P values refer to the figure bars combined by the dotted ends of the given lines. Addition of EBV up to 4 hours after the onset of LPS stimulation still inhibited MIP-1 secretion (Figure 2). However, addition of EBV at a later time point had only a marginal effect on MIP-1 secretion. Transcriptional analysis by real-time quantitative TaqMan PCR revealed an endogenous expression of MIP-1 mRNA in unstimulated PBMC controls, which was significantly increased by LPS stimulation. Incubation with EBV reduced the amount of LPS-induced MIP-1 mRNA approximately to levels observed for unstimulated cells (Figure 3). View larger version (30K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 2. Kinetics of MIP- production in LPS- and EBV-costimulated PBMC cultures. Cultures were stimulated with LPS (10 ng/mL); EBV (B95-8; 1:5 dilution) was added at the indicated time points. Shown are mean ± SD of 3 individuals. P values refer to the figure bars combined by the dotted ends of the given lines. View larger version (12K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 3. Expression of MIP-1 mRNA on EBV infection and LPS costimulation. Same experiment settings were used as described in Figure 1. RNA detection and quantification was performed using RT and real-time TaqMan PCR technology. Quantification of MIP-1 mRNA was based on expression relative to the coamplified amount of -actin mRNA. Values are expressed in arbitrary units and represent multiplicities of the respective unstimulated controls. Shown are mean ± SD of 7 individuals. P values refer to the figure bars combined by the dotted ends of the given line. To further investigate the mechanism of MIP-1 inhibition by EBV, monoclonal antibodies against EBV's major envelope glycoprotein gp350/220 as well as against the EBNA1 antigen were used. With respect to anti-gp350/220 antibodies, cocultivation together with LPS- and EBV-treated cultures led to an almost complete reversal of EBV's inhibiting effect on MIP-1 production (Figure 4). Anti-EBNA1 antibodies, on the other hand, had no effect. When the truncated form of recombinant gp350/220 protein was used instead of whole EB virions, LPS-induced MIP-1 expression was not inhibited (Figure 5). This also held true for the N-terminal part of the EBNA1 protein, p72. View larger version (19K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 4. Influence of gp350/220 antibody on the production of MIP-1 on EBV infection and LPS costimulation. PBMC cultures were costimulated with EBV (diluted 1:5) and LPS (10 ng/mL) for 48 hours, either in the presence of neutralizing anti-gp350/220 antibodies (100 µg/mL) or not. As a control, anti-EBNA1 antibodies (100 µg/mL) were used in the same way. Shown are mean ± SD of 7 individuals. P values refer to the figure bars combined by the dotted ends of the given lines. View larger version (18K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 5. Recombinant gp350/220 protein does not inhibit LPS-induced MIP-1 production. Costimulation of PBMC cultures with EBV (1:5 dilution) and LPS (10 ng/mL) was compared to cultures stimulated with LPS and a recombinant gp350/220 protein lacking the C-terminal membrane anchor (100 µg/mL). Stimulation with the N-terminal EBNA1 protein, p72 (100 µg/mL), was performed as a control experiment. MIP-1 concentrations were again determined after 48 hours of stimulation. Shown are mean ± SD of 5 individuals. P values refer to the figure bars combined by the dotted ends of the given line.     Discussion Top Abstract Introduction Materials and methods Results Discussion References Primary infection with EBV is tightly controlled in the immunocompetent host mainly due to a large expanding compartment of EBV-specific CD8+ cytotoxic T lymphocytes.27 Tonsils affected by IM are, in contrast, characterized by a more polymorphous cellular infiltrate indicating the efforts of the immune system to get the infection under control.13,18 Chemokines are likely to play a key role in initiating and maintaining this mixed cellularity consisting of granulocytes, lymphocytes, macrophages, and NK cells. Indeed, mRNA transcripts for MIP-1, RANTES, IFN--inducible protein-10, and monokine induced by IFN- were detected in EBV-infected tonsils of patients with IM.28 Furthermore, tissue specimens of patients with morbus Hodgkin,29,30 posttransplantation lymphoproliferative disorders (PTLDs),28,31 nasopharynx carcinoma (NPC),32 or EBV-induced hemophagocytic syndrome (HPS)33 showed expression of different CC and CXC chemokines partially including IL-8, MCP-1, MIP-1, and RANTES. However, only for NPC and HPS was the production of protein described. Interestingly, a selective expression of CC chemokines has been observed for influenza virus infection in vitro, probably explaining the mononuclear infiltrate in influenza virus-induced airway inflammation.34 Apart from these studies, the chemokine system to date has hardly been investigated in the context of EBV infection. Interestingly, most data on chemokine expression and EBV infection derive from in vivo studies, whereas in vitro studies are pending. This is the first study that systematically addressed the question of chemokine induction by EBV. We show significant secretion of IL-8, as well as of RANTES and MCP-1, on EBV challenge. Differences between EBV+ and EBV individuals were likely due to the presence of primed T cells, because removal of T cells abrogated any differences between those 2 populations. As expected, IL-8 and RANTES were predominantly of T-cell origin, whereas MCP-1 was primarily derived from monocytes.1 Because the production of CC as well as of CXC chemokines was readily observed after stimulation with EBV, it came to us as a surprise that MIP-1 secretion was not found. This situation is comparable to the cytokine system, in which EBV is able to induce several proinflammatory cytokines, apart from TNF-.35 Similar to the down-regulation of TNF- production by EBV,16 we showed in this study that EBV also inhibits LPS- and PHA-induced MIP-1 expression of human PBMCs. Because MIP-1 is a strong inductor of TNF- in human monocytes,8 it seems possible that TNF- inhibition by EBV is mediated through blockage of MIP-1 production. The effect of EBV on LPS-induced MIP-1 synthesis was time dependent and only effective up to 4 hours after addition of LPS. The quantitative analysis of mRNA production proved that EBV inhibits MIP-1 expression on the transcriptional level. The results we found in PBMCs are inconsistent with findings for neutrophils, which were reported to express and secrete MIP-1 on EBV stimulation.36 However, the neutrophils used in the study by McColl and colleagues36 may have been prestimulated by hypotonic lysis of erythrocytes. Like others, we were not able to confirm any MIP-1 expression in pure neutrophil preparations after challenge with Newcastle disease, Sendai, or EB viruses37 (also our unpublished observations, May 2001). Recent studies have already supposed a direct influence of gp350/220 on cytokine production of monocytes and neutrophils.35,36 Therefore, we examined the role of gp350/220 on MIP-1 production more in detail. Addition of anti-gp350/220 antibodies to PBMC cultures completely abolished the inhibiting effect of EBV on MIP-1 production, suggesting that this effect was specific for EBV. Recombinant gp350/220 protein alone was insufficient to block the LPS-induced MIP-1 expression. These results exclude a direct interaction of gp350/220 with its target cell alone being responsible for inhibition of MIP-1 expression, but emphasize that infection is necessary to achieve inhibition of MIP-1 production. A possible reason EBV blocked MIP-1 expression is that EBV can also infect human monocytes, as was shown recently.38 In that study, infection of monocytes was permissive for replication and resulted in a significantly reduced phagocytic activity. Because monocytes are the main producer cells of MIP-1,1 inhibition of its production by EBV, therefore, might occur in monocytes. This becomes more evident when looking at B lymphocytes, the actual targets for EBV. B-cell infection and establishment of latency by EBV seems to be contradictory to the inhibition of MIP-1 production in that latently infected tumor cells from T/NK cell lymphoma and Burkitt lymphoma,31 or EBV-transformed B-cell lines39 express MIP-1 mRNA, although protein secretion has not been proven for these cell types. Nevertheless, it is tempting to speculate that for EBV a comparable situation emerged as it did for HIV-1. In fact it was shown that the HIV-1-encoded tat protein down-regulated the expression of MIP-1 in activated T cells by overexpression of a transcription factor crucial for MIP-1 expression in monocytes, termed MIP-1 nuclear protein 1 (MNP-1).40,41 Whether changes in levels of MNP-1 or MNP-2 contribute to the effect of EBV on MIP-1 expression has to be elucidated. In summary, we demonstrated that EBV down-regulates MIP-1 expression of human PBMCs, like EBV does for TNF- as well.16 Our experiments defined another intriguing immunomodulatory activity of EBV, which probably is of advantage for the virus to persist in the host for life.     Acknowledgments We are indebted to the help of Jaap Middeldorp, Amsterdam, Netherlands, who provided the monoclonal antibodies against EBNA1 and gp350/220 proteins as well as the recombinant gp350/220 protein. We would further like to thank Walter Hinderer, formerly of Biotest, Dreieich, Germany, who helped us with the recombinant p72 protein of EBNA1. We kindly appreciate the excellent laboratory performance of Annette Willemsen and Maren Behrensen as well as the helpful comments of Luis Guembes Hidalgo, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada in preparing the manuscript.     Footnotes Submitted September 24, 2001; accepted October 24, 2001. Supported in part by grant 800/B3 from the 2000 National Government Research Found of the University of Lübeck. The ABI PRISM 7700 Sequence Detection System used in this study was sponsored by "Lübeck-Hilfe für Krebskranke Kinder," "Schleswig-Holstein Krebshilfe," and "Possehl-Stiftung." The publication costs of this article were defrayed in part by page charge payment. Therefore, and solely to indicate this fact, this article is hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. section 1734. Reprints: Wolfram J. Jabs, First Department of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, University of Lübeck School of Medicine, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538 Lübeck, Germany; e-mail: wjabs{at}gmx.de.     References Top Abstract Introduction Materials and methods Results Discussion References 1. Rollins BJ. Chemokines. Blood. 1997;90:909-928[Free Full Text]. 2. Mantovani A. The chemokine system: redundancy for robust outputs. Immunol Today. 1999;20:254-257[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 3. Zlotnik A, Yoshie O. Chemokines: a new classification system and their role in immunity. Immunity. 2000;12:121-127[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 4. Price DA, Klenerman P, Booth BL, Phillips RE, Sewell AK. Cytotoxic T lymphocytes, chemokines and antiviral immunity. Immunol Today. 1999;20:212-216[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 5. Cook DN, Beck MA, Coffman TM, et al. Requirement of MIP-1 for an inflammatory response to viral infection. Science. 1995;269:1583-1585[Abstract/Free Full Text]. 6. Salazar-Mather TP, Hamilton TA, Biron CA. A chemokine-to-cytokine-to-chemokine cascade critical in antiviral defense. J Clin Invest. 2000;105:985-993[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 7. Cocchi F, DeVico AL, Garzino-Demo A, Arya SK, Gallo RC, Lusso P. Identification of RANTES, MIP-1, and MIP-1 as the major HIV-suppressive factors produced by CD8+ T cells. Science. 1995;270:1811-1815[Abstract/Free Full Text]. 8. Fahey TJ III, Tracey KJ, Tekamp-Olson P, et al. Macrophage inflammatory protein 1 modulates macrophage function. J Immunol. 1992;148:2764-2769[Abstract]. 9. Moore PS, Boshoff C, Weiss RA, Chang Y. Molecular mimicry of human cytokine and cytokine response pathway genes by KSHV. Science. 1996;274:1739-1744[Abstract/Free Full Text]. 10. Dairaghi DJ, Fan RA, McMaster BE, Hanley MR, Schall TJ. HHV8-encoded vMIP-I selectively engages chemokine receptor CCR8: agonist and antagonist profiles of viral chemokines. J Biol Chem. 1999;274:21569-21574[Abstract/Free Full Text]. 11. Searles RP, Bergquam EP, Axthelm MK, Wong SW. Sequence and genomic analysis of a rhesus macaque rhadinovirus with similarity to Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus/human herpesvirus 8. J Virol. 1999;73:3040-3053[Abstract/Free Full Text]. 12. Luttichau HR, Gerstoft J, Schwartz TW. MC148 encoded by human molluscum contagiosum poxvirus is an antagonist for human but not murine CCR8. J Leukoc Biol. 2001;70:277-282[Abstract/Free Full Text]. 13. Rickinson AB, Kieff E. Epstein-Barr virus. In: Knipe DM,Howley PM, eds. Fields' Virology. Vol 2. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001:2575-2627. 14. Thorley-Lawson DA, Babcock GJ. A model for persistent infection with Epstein-Barr virus: the stealth virus of human B cells. Life Sci. 1999;65:1433-1453[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 15. Swaminathan S, Kieff E. The role of BCRF1/vIL-10 in the life cycle of Epstein-Barr virus. In: McFadden G, ed. Viroceptors, Virokines, and Related Immune Modulators Encoded by DNA Viruses. Austin, TX: Landes; 1994:111-132. 16. Gosselin J, Menezes J, D'Addario M, et al. Inhibition of tumor necrosis factor-alpha transcription by Epstein-Barr virus. Eur J Immunol. 1991;21:203-208[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 17. Cohen JI, Lekstrom K. Epstein-Barr virus BARF1 protein is dispensable for B-cell transformation and inhibits alpha interferon secretion from mononuclear cells. J Virol. 1999;73:7627-7632[Abstract/Free Full Text]. 18. Anagnostopoulos I, Hummel M, Kreschel C, Stein H. Morphology, immunophenotype, and distribution of latently and/or productively Epstein-Barr virus-infected cells in acute infectious mononucleosis: implications for the interindividual infection route of Epstein-Barr virus. Blood. 1995;85:744-750[Abstract/Free Full Text]. 19. Jabs WJ, Paulsen M, Wagner HJ, Kirchner H, Klüter H. Analysis of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) receptor CD21 on peripheral B lymphocytes of long-term EBV adults. Clin Exp Immunol. 1999;116:468-473[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 20. Jabs WJ, Hennig H, Kittel M, et al. Normalized quantification by real-time PCR of Epstein-Barr virus load in patients at risk for posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorders. J Clin Microbiol. 2001;39:564-569[Abstract/Free Full Text]. 21. Jabs WJ, Wagner HJ, Schlenke P, Kirchner H. The primary and memory immune response to Epstein-Barr virus infection in vitro is characterized by a divergent production of interleukin (IL)-1/IL-6 and IL-10. Scand J Immunol. 2000;52:304-308[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 22. Gorgievski-Hrisoho M, Hinderer W, Nebel-Schickel H, et al. Serodiagnosis of infectious mononucleosis by using recombinant Epstein-Barr virus antigens and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay technology. J Clin Microbiol. 1990;28:2305-2311[Abstract/Free Full Text]. 23. Chen MR, Middeldorp JM, Hayward SD. Separation of the complex DNA binding domain of EBNA-1 into DNA recognition and dimerization subdomains of novel structure. J Virol. 1993;67:4875-4885[Abstract/Free Full Text]. 24. Hessing M, van Schijndel HB, van Grunsven WM, Wolf H, Middeldorp JM. Purification and quantification of recombinant Epstein-Barr viral glycoproteins gp350/220 from Chinese hamster ovary cells. J Chromatogr. 1992;599:267-272[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 25. Kieff E, Rickinson AB. Epstein-Barr virus and its replication. In: Knipe DM,Howley PM, eds. Fields' Virology. Vol 2. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001:2511-2573. 26. Heid CA, Stevens J, Livak KJ, Williams PM. Real time quantitative PCR. Genome Res. 1996;6:986-994[Abstract/Free Full Text]. 27. Khanna R, Scott SR. Role of cytotoxic T lymphocytes in Epstein-Barr virus-associated diseases. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2000;54:19-48[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 28. Setsuda J, Teruya-Feldstein J, Harris NL, et al. Interleukin-18, interferon-, IP-10, and Mig expression in Epstein-Barr virus-induced infectious mononucleosis and posttransplant lymphoproliferative disease. Am J Pathol. 1999;155:257-265[Abstract/Free Full Text]. 29. Teruya-Feldstein J, Jaffe ES, Burd PR, Kingma DW, Setsuda JE, Tosato G. Differential chemokine expression in tissue involved by Hodgkin's disease: direct correlation of eotaxin expression and tissue eosinophilia. Blood. 1999;93:2463-2470[Abstract/Free Full Text]. 30. Teruya-Feldstein J, Tosato G, Jaffe ES. The role of chemokines in Hodgkin's disease. Leuk Lymphoma. 2000;38:363-371[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 31. Teruya-Feldstein J, Jaffe ES, Burd PR, et al. The role of Mig, the monokine induced by interferon-, and IP-10, the interferon -inducible protein-10, in tissue necrosis and vascular damage associated with Epstein-Barr virus-positive lymphoproliferative disease. Blood. 1997;90:4099-4105[Abstract/Free Full Text]. 32. Tang KF, Tan SY, Chan SH, et al. A distinct expression of CC chemokines by macrophages in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: implication for the intense tumor infiltration by T lymphocytes and macrophages. Hum Pathol. 2001;32:42-49[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 33. Teruya-Feldstein J, Setsuda J, Yao X, et al. MIP-1 expression in tissues from patients with hemophagocytic syndrome. Lab Invest. 1999;79:1583-1590[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 34. Sprenger H, Meyer RG, Kaufmann A, Bussfeld D, Rischkowsky E, Gemsa D. Selective induction of monocyte and not neutrophil-attracting chemokines after influenza A virus infection. J Exp Med. 1996;184:1191-1196[Abstract/Free Full Text]. 35. Gosselin J, Flamand L, D'Addario M, Hiscott J, Menezes J. Infection of peripheral blood mononuclear cells by herpes simplex and Epstein-Barr viruses: differential induction of interleukin 6 and tumor necrosis factor-alpha. J Clin Invest. 1992;89:1849-1856. 36. McColl SR, Roberge CJ, Larochelle B, Gosselin J. EBV induces the production and release of IL-8 and macrophage inflammatory protein-1 alpha in human neutrophils. J Immunol. 1997;159:6164-6168[Abstract]. 37. von der Ohe M, Altstaedt J, Gross U, Rink L. Human neutrophils produce macrophage inflammatory protein-1beta but not type I interferons in response to viral stimulation. J Interferon Cytokine Res. 2001;21:241-247[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 38. Savard M, Bélanger C, Tardif M, Gourde P, Flamand L, Gosselin J. Infection of primary human monocytes by Epstein-Barr virus. J Virol. 2000;74:2612-2619[Abstract/Free Full Text]. 39. Sharma V, Knobloch TJ, Benjamin D. Differential expression of cytokine genes in HIV-1 tat transfected T and B cell lines. Biochem Biophys Res Comm. 1995;208:704-713[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 40. Ritter LM, Bryans M, Abdo O, Sharma V, Wilkie NM. MIP1 nuclear protein (MNP), a novel transcription factor expressed in hematopoietic cells that is crucial for transcription of the human MIP-1 gene. Mol Cell Biol. 1995;15:3110-3118[Abstract]. 41. Sharma V, Xu M, Ritter LM, Wilkie NM. HIV tat induces the expression of a new hematopoietic cell-specific transcription factor and downregulates MIP-1 gene expression in activated T cells. Biochem Biophys Res Comm. 1996;223:526-533[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. © 2002 by The American Society of Hematology.   CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this? This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted