Advertisement

Molecular Medicine

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 1002–1010 | Cite as

Intravenous Immunoglobulin with Enhanced Polyspecificity Improves Survival in Experimental Sepsis and Aseptic Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndromes

  • Iglika Djoumerska-Alexieva
  • Lubka Roumenina
  • Anastas Pashov
  • Jordan Dimitrov
  • Maya Hadzhieva
  • Sandro Lindig
  • Elisaveta Voynova
  • Petya Dimitrova
  • Nina Ivanovska
  • Clemens Bockmeyer
  • Zvetanka Stefanova
  • Catherine Fitting
  • Markus Bläss
  • Ralf Claus
  • Stephan von Gunten
  • Srini Kaveri
  • Jean-Marc Cavaillon
  • Michael Bauer
  • Tchavdar Vassilev
Research Article

Abstract

Sepsis is a major cause for death worldwide. Numerous interventional trials with agents neutralizing single proinflammatory mediators have failed to improve survival in sepsis and aseptic systemic inflammatory response syndromes. This failure could be explained by the widespread gene expression dysregulation known as “genomic storm” in these patients. A multifunctional polyspecific therapeutic agent might be needed to thwart the effects of this storm. Licensed pooled intravenous immunoglobulin preparations seemed to be a promising candidate, but they have also failed in their present form to prevent sepsis-related death. We report here the protective effect of a single dose of intravenous immunoglobulin preparations with additionally enhanced polyspecificity in three models of sepsis and aseptic systemic inflammation. The modification of the pooled immunoglobulin G molecules by exposure to ferrous ions resulted in their newly acquired ability to bind some proinflammatory molecules, complement components and endogenous “danger” signals. The improved survival in endotoxemia was associated with serum levels of proinflammatory cytokines, diminished complement consumption and normalization of the coagulation time. We suggest that intravenous immunoglobulin preparations with additionally enhanced polyspecificity have a clinical potential in sepsis and related systemic inflammatory syndromes.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by grants from the Bulgarian-Swiss Research Programme (BSRP IZEBZO_142967), the Bulgarian National Science Fund (DFNI B02/29), the Pasteur Institute (ACIP A07-2012), the NATO Science for Peace Program (SfP 982158), and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF; grant 01EO1002) and grant 03Z2J521 (Meta-ZIK), both to the Centre for Sepsis Control and Care. We thank D Himsel for technical assistance.

The microarray data generated in this publication have been deposited in NCBI’s Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) and are accessible through the accession number GSE55964.

Supplementary material

10020_2015_21011002_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (3.4 mb)
Supplementary material, approximately 3.39 MB.

References

  1. 1.
    Angus DC, van der Poll T. (2013) Severe sepsis and septic shock. N. Engl. J. Med. 369:840–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cavaillon J-M, Adrie C (eds.). (c2009) Sepsis and Non-infectious Systemic Inflammation: From Biology to Critical Care. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH VerlagGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    The INIS Collaborative Group. (2011) Treatment of neonatal sepsis with intravenous immune globulin. N. Engl. J. Med. 365:1201–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rittirsch D, Flierl MA, Ward PA. (2008) Harmful molecular mechanisms in sepsis. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 8:776–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bouvet J, et al. (2001) Induction of natural auto-antibody activity following treatment of human immunoglobulin with dissociating agents. J. Autoimmun. 16:163–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Xiao W, et al. (2011) A genomic storm in critically injured humans. J. Exp. Med. 208:2581–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kazatchkine MD, Kaveri SV. (2001) Immunomodulation of autoimmune and inflammatory diseases with intravenous immune globulin. N. Engl. J. Med. 345:747–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lutz HU (ed.). (c2012) Naturally Occurring Antibodies (NAbs). New York: Springer Science+ Business Media; (Austin) TX: Landes Bioscience. pp. 267.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Laupland KB, Kirkpatrick AW, Delaney A. (2007) Polyclonal intravenous immunoglobulin for the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock in critically ill adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit. Care Med. 35:2686–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Soares MO, et al. (2012) An evaluation of the feasibility, cost and value of information of a multi-centre randomised controlled trial of intravenous immunoglobulin for sepsis (severe sepsis and septic shock): incorporating a systematic review, meta-analysis and value of information analysis. Health Technology Assessment. 16:1–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Werdan K, et al. (2007) Score-based immunoglobulin G therapy of patients with sepsis: the SBITS study. Crit. Care Med. 35:2693–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Djoumerska I, Tchorbanov A, Pashov A, Vassilev T. (2005) The autoreactivity of therapeutic intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) preparations depends on the fractionation methods used. Scand. J. Immunol. 61:357–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Djoumerska-Alexieva IK, et al. (2010) Exposure of IgG to an acidic environment results in molecular modifications and in enhanced protective activity in sepsis. FEBS J. 277:3039–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pavlovic S, et al. (2011) Intravenous immunoglobulins exposed to heme (heme IVIG) are more efficient than IVIG in attenuating autoimmune diabetes. Clin. Immunol. 138:162–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dimitrov JD, et al. (2006) Ferrous ions and reactive oxygen species increase antigen-binding and anti-inflammatory activities of immunoglobulin G. J. Biol. Chem. 281:439–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dimitrov J, et al. (2007) Antibodies use heme as a cofactor to extend their pathogen-eliminating activity and to acquire new effector functions. J. Biol. Chem. 282:26696–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McIntyre J, Wagenknecht D, Faulk W. (2006) Redox-reactive autoantibodies: detection and physiological relevance. Autoimmun. Rev. 5:76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Djoumerska-Alexieva IK, Dimitrov JD, Nacheva J, Kaveri SV, Vassilev TL. (2009) Protein destabilizing agents induce polyreactivity and enhanced immunomodulatory activity in IVIg preparations. Autoimmunity. 42:365–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hubbard WJ, et al. (2005) Cecal ligation and puncture. Shock. 24 Suppl 1:52–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Volman TJ, Hendriks T, Goris RJ. (2005) Zymosan-induced generalized inflammation: experimental studies into mechanisms leading to multiple organ dysfunction syndrome. Shock. 23:291–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ivanovska ND, et al. (2008) Properdin deficiency in murine models of nonseptic shock. J. Immunol. 180:6962–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Haeffner-Cavaillon N, Klein M, Dorrington KJ. (1979) Studies on the Fc gamma receptor of the murine macrophage-like cell line P388D1. I. The binding of homologous and heterologous immunoglobulin G1. J. Immunol. 123:1905–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ward PA, Gao H. (2009) Sepsis, complement and the dysregulated inflammatory response. J. Cell Mol. Med. 13:4154–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Markiewski MM, DeAngelis RA, Lambris JD. (2008) Complexity of complement activation in sepsis. J. Cell Mol. Med. 12:2245–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Xu J, et al. (2009) Extracellular histones are major mediators of death in sepsis. Nat. Med. 15:1318–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Basta M. (2008) Ambivalent effect of immunoglobulins on the complement system: activation versus inhibition. Mol. Immunol. 45:4073–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Basta M, Fries LF, Frank MM. (1991) High doses of intravenous Ig inhibit in vitro uptake of C4 fragments onto sensitized erythrocytes. Blood. 77:376–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Devran O, et al. (2012) C-reactive protein as a predictor of mortality in patients affected with severe sepsis in intensive care unit. Multidiscip. Respir. Med. 7:47–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tang BM, Huang SJ, McLean AS. (2010) Genome-wide transcription profiling of human sepsis: a systematic review. Crit. Care. 14:R237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Coutinho A, Avrameas S. (1992) Speculation on immunosomatics: potential diagnostic and therapeutic value of immune homeostasis concepts. Scand. J. Immunol. 36:527–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cavaillon JM, Adib-Conquy M. (2007) Determining the degree of immunodysregulation in sepsis. Contrib. Nephrol. 156:101–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sigounas G, Harindranath N, Donadel G, Notkins AL. (1994) Half-life of polyreactive antibodies. J. Clin. Immunol. 14:134–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Matzinger P. (2002) The danger model: a renewed sense of self. Science. 296:301–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Seong SY, Matzinger P. (2004) Hydrophobicity: an ancient damage-associated molecular pattern that initiates innate immune responses. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 4:469–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rauch PJ, et al. (2012) Innate response activator B cells protect against microbial sepsis. Science. 335:597–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Djoumerska-Alexieva I, Pashova S, Vassilev T, Pashov A. (2013) The protective effect of modified intravenous immunoglobulin in LPS sepsis model is associated with an increased IRA B cells response. Autoimmun. Rev. 12:653–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Seok J, et al. (2013) Genomic responses in mouse models poorly mimic human inflammatory diseases. PNAS. 110:3507–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Takao K, Miyakawa T. (2015) Genomic responses in mouse models greatly mimic human inflammatory diseases. PNAS. 112:1167–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2015

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, and provide a link to the Creative Commons license. You do not have permission under this license to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it.

The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

To view a copy of this license, visit (https://doi.org/creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Authors and Affiliations

  • Iglika Djoumerska-Alexieva
    • 1
  • Lubka Roumenina
    • 2
  • Anastas Pashov
    • 1
  • Jordan Dimitrov
    • 1
    • 2
  • Maya Hadzhieva
    • 1
  • Sandro Lindig
    • 3
  • Elisaveta Voynova
    • 4
  • Petya Dimitrova
    • 1
  • Nina Ivanovska
    • 1
  • Clemens Bockmeyer
    • 5
  • Zvetanka Stefanova
    • 1
  • Catherine Fitting
    • 6
  • Markus Bläss
    • 3
  • Ralf Claus
    • 3
  • Stephan von Gunten
    • 7
  • Srini Kaveri
    • 2
  • Jean-Marc Cavaillon
    • 6
  • Michael Bauer
    • 3
  • Tchavdar Vassilev
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Immunology, Steffan Angelov Institute of MicrobiologyBulgarian Academy of SciencesSofiaBulgaria
  2. 2.INSERM UMRS 1138Centre de Recherche des CordeliersParisFrance
  3. 3.Center for Sepsis Control and Care, University HospitalFriedrich Schiller UniversityJenaGermany
  4. 4.Laboratory of Immunogenetics, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Institutes of HealthBethesdaUSA
  5. 5.Institute of PathologyHannover Medical SchoolHannoverGermany
  6. 6.Cytokines and Inflammation UnitInstitut PasteurParisFrance
  7. 7.Institute of PharmacologyUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations