Advertisement

α-Mangostin suppresses NLRP3 inflammasome activation via promoting autophagy in LPS-stimulated murine macrophages and protects against CLP-induced sepsis in mice

  • Yun Ge
  • Xin Xu
  • Qiqiang Liang
  • Yongshan Xu
  • Man HuangEmail author
Original Research Paper

Abstract

Background

The major mechanism of sepsis is immunosuppression caused by host response dysfunction. It has been found that α-Mangostin (α-M) is a potential candidate as a treatment for multiple inflammatory and immune disorders. To date, the role of α-M in host response during sepsis remains unexplored.

Methods and results

Herein, we examined the effect of α-M on macrophages-mediated host response in the presence of lipopolysaccharide (LPS), and the vital organ function, inflammatory response, and survival rate in septic mice. In murine peritoneal macrophages, α-M induced autophagy and then inhibited LPS-stimulated NLRP3 inflammasome activation, as well as interleukin-1β (IL-1β) production. Moreover, α-M improved phagocytosis and killing of macrophages, and increased M2 macrophages numbers after LPS stimulation. Furthermore, in vivo experiment suggested that α-M reduced serum levels of tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), interferon-γ (IFN-γ), IL-1β, alanine transaminase (ALT), aspartate transaminase (AST), and creatinine (Cr), whilst increased that of interleukin-10 (IL-10) in caecal ligation and puncture (CLP) mice.

Conclusion

Taken together, these findings showed that α-M-mediated macrophages autophagy contributed to NLRP3 inflammasome inactivation and α-M exerted organ protection in septic mice.

Keywords

α-Mangostin Sepsis Macrophages Autophagy NLRP3 inflammasome 

Notes

Author contributions

YG, MH guaranteed integrity of the entire study. YG designed the research, wrote the paper, analyzed the data. XX, QL,YX conducted experiments. MH contributed to revise the paper. All authors critically reviewed the manuscript for important intellectual content and approved the final version.

References

  1. 1.
    Shankar-Hari M, et al. Developing a new definition and assessing new clinical criteria for septic shock: for the third international consensus definitions for sepsis ans septic shock (sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315:775–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sartelli M, et al. Raising concerns about the sepsis-3 definitions. World J Emerg Surg. 2018;13:6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hotchkiss RS, et al. Sepsis and septic shock. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2016;2:16045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Angus DC, Van der Poll T. Severe sepsis and septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:840–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hotchkiss RS, Monneret G, Payen D. Sepsis-induced immunosuppression: from cellular dysfunctions to immunotherapy. Nat Rev Immunol. 2013;13:862–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Delano MJ, Ward PA. Sepsis-induced immune dysfunction: can immune therapies reduce mortality? J Clin Invest. 2016;126:23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cohen J, et al. Sepsis: a roadmap for future research. Lancet Infect Dis. 2015;15:581–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jensen IJ, Sjaastad FV, Griffith TS, Badovinac VP. Sepsis-induced T cell immunoparalysis: the ins and outs of impaired T cell immunity. J Immunol. 2018;200:1543–53.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Savelkoel J, Claushuis TAM, vanEngelen TSR, Scheres LJJ, Wiersinga WJ. Global impact of World Sepsis Day on digital awareness of sepsis: an evaluation using Google Trends. Crit Care. 2018;22:61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Anthony JL, Timothy RB, Matthew RR. Biology and metabolism of sepsis: innate immunity, bioenergetics, and autophagy. Surg Infect. 2016;17:286–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhang L, Ai YH, Tsung A. Clinical application: restoration of immune homeostasis by autophagy as a potential therapeutic target in sepsis (review). Exp Ther Med. 2016;12:1159–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sridhar S, Botbol Y, Macian F, Cuervo AM. Autophagy and disease: always two sides to a problem. J pathol. 2012;226:255–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Choi AM, Ryter SW, Levine B. Autophagy in human health and disease. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:651–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chen YQ, Klionsky DJ. The regulation of autophagy–unanswered questions. J Cell Sci. 2011;124:161–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Watanabe E, et al. Sepsis induces extensive autophagic vacuolization in hepatocytes: a clinical and laboratory-based study. Lab Invest. 2009;9:549–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ho J, et al. Autophagy in sepsis: degradation into exhaustion? Autophagy. 2016;12:1073–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chen G, Li Y, Wang W, Deng L. Bioactivity and pharmacological properties of α-mangostin from the mangosteen fruit: a review. Expert Opin Ther Pat. 2018;3:1–13.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Scolamiero G, Pazzini C, Bonafè F, Guarnieri C, Muscari C. Effects of α-mangostin on viability, growth and cohesion of multicellular spheroids derived from human breast cancer cell lines. Int J Med Sci. 2018;15:23–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liu T, et al. Alpha-mangostin attenuates diabetic nephropathy in association with suppression of acid sphingomyelianse and endoplasmic reticulum stress. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2018;496:394–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pan T, et al. Alpha-Mangostin suppresses interleukin-1β-induced apoptosis in rat chondrocytes by inhibiting the NF-κB signaling pathway and delays the progression of osteoarthritis in a rat model. Int Immunopharmacol. 2017;52:156–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pimchan T, Maensiri D, Eumkeb G. Synergy and mechanism of action of α-mangostin and ceftazidime against ceftazidime-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2017;65:285–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    You BH, et al. α-Mangostin ameliorates dextran sulfate sodium-induced colitis through inhibition of NF-κB and MAPK pathways. Int Immunopharmacol. 2017;49:212–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Franceschelli S, et al. A novel biological role of α-mangostin in modulating inflammatory response through the activation of SIRT-1 signaling pathway. J Cell Physiol. 2016;231:2439–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sivaranjani M, et al. In vitro activity of alpha-mangostin in killing and eradicating Staphylococcus epidermidis RP62A biofilms. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2017;101:3349–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chen ZL, et al. Transferrin-modified liposome promotes α-mangostin to penetrate the blood-brain barrier. Nanomedicine. 2016;12:421–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Catorce MN, et al. Alpha-mangostin attenuates brain inflammation induced by peripheral lipopolysaccharide administration in C57BL/6J mice. J Neuroimmunol. 2016;297:20–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Patil NK, Bohannon JK, Sherwood ER. Immunotherapy: a promising approach to reverse sepsis-induced immunosuppression. Pharmacol Res. 2016;111:688–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yadav H, Cartin-Ceba R. Balance between hyperinflammation and immunosuppression in sepsis. Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;37:42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fattahi F, Ward PA. Understanding immunosuppression after sepsis. Immunity. 2017;47:3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Venet F, Rimmelé T, Monneret G. Management of sepsis-induced immunosuppression. Crit Care Clin. 2018;34:97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cavaillon JM, Adib-Conquy M. Monocytes/macrophages and sepsis. Crit Care Med. 2005;33(Suppl):S506–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rabani R, et al. Mesenchymal stem cells enhance NOX2 dependent ROS production and bacterial killing in macrophages during sepsis. Eur Respir J. 2018;8:1702021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Liu Y, et al. Scutellarin Suppresses NLRP3 inflammasome activation in macrophages and protects mice against bacterial sepsis. Front Pharmacol. 2018;8:975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Xing L, et al. Role of M2 Macrophages in Sepsis-Induced Acute Kidney Injury. Shock. 2017;1:233–9.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Linch SN, Danielson ET, Kelly AM, Lee JJ, Gold JA. The effect of IL-5 on macrophages and PMNs in sepsis. Am J Resp Crit Care. 2009;179:A1024.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lu XJ, et al. LECT2 protects mice against bacterial sepsis by activating macrophages via the CD209a receptor. J Exp Med. 2013;210:5–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wang Y, et al. Alpha- mangostin, a polyphenolic xanthone derivative from mangosteen, attenuates beta-amyloid oligomers-induced neurotoxicity by inhibiting amyloid aggregation. Neuropharmacology. 2012;62:871–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jin L, Batra S, Jeyaseelan S. Deletion of Nlrp3 augments survival during polymicrobial sepsis by decreasing autophagy and enhancing phagocytosis. J Immunol. 2017;198:1253–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Long H, Xu B, Luo Y, Luo K. Artemisinin protects mice against burn sepsis through inhibiting NLRP3 inflammasome activation. Am J Emerg Med. 2016;34:772–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wu D, et al. Intermedin1-53 protects cardiac fibroblasts by inhibiting NLRP3 inflammasome activation during sepsis. Inflammation. 2018;41:505–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ohsumi Y. Historical landmarks of autophagy research. Cell Res. 2014;24:9–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Virgin HW, Levine B. Autophagy genes in immunity. Nat Immunol. 2009;10:461–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of General Intensive Care UnitThe Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of MedicineHangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations