Antibiotic-induced acceleration of type 1 diabetes alters maturation of innate intestinal immunity

  1. Xue-Song Zhang  Is a corresponding author
  2. Jackie Li
  3. Kimberly A Krautkramer
  4. Michelle Badri
  5. Thomas Battaglia
  6. Timothy C Borbet
  7. Hyunwook Koh
  8. Sandy Ng
  9. Rachel A Sibley
  10. Yuanyuan Li
  11. Wimal Pathmasiri
  12. Shawn Jindal
  13. Robin R Shields-Cutler
  14. Ben Hillmann
  15. Gabriel A Al-Ghalith
  16. Victoria E Ruiz
  17. Alexandra Livanos
  18. Angelique Wout
  19. Nabeetha Nagalingam
  20. Arlin B Rogers
  21. Susan Jenkins Sumner
  22. Dan Knights
  23. John M Denu
  24. Huilin Li  Is a corresponding author
  25. Kelly V Ruggles
  26. Richard Bonneau
  27. Anthony R Williamson
  28. Marcus Rauch
  29. Martin J Blaser  Is a corresponding author
  1. New York University Langone Medical Center, United States
  2. University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, United States
  3. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Public Health, United States
  4. University of Minnesota, United States
  5. Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson and Johnson, United Kingdom
  6. Tufts University, United States
  7. New York University, United States

Abstract

The early-life intestinal microbiota plays a key role in shaping host immune system development. We found that a single early-life antibiotic course (1PAT) accelerated type 1 diabetes (T1D) development in male NOD mice. The single course had deep and persistent effects on the intestinal microbiome, leading to altered cecal, hepatic, and serum metabolites. The exposure elicited sex-specific effects on chromatin states in the ileum and liver and perturbed ileal gene expression, altering normal maturational patterns. The global signature changes included specific genes controlling both innate and adaptive immunity. Microbiome analysis revealed four taxa each that potentially protect against or accelerate T1D onset, that were linked in a network model to specific differences in ileal gene expression. This simplified animal model reveals multiple potential pathways to understand pathogenesis by which early-life gut microbiome perturbations alter a global suite of intestinal responses, contributing to the accelerated and enhanced T1D development.

Data availability

RNA-Seq data that support the findings of this study have been deposited in ArrayExpress database (www.ebi.ac.uk/arrayexpress) with the accession code E-MTAB-6826 (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/arrayexpress/experiments/E-MTAB-6826). 16S rRNA data has been deposited in QIITA (https://qiita.ucsd.edu/) with the identifier 11242 (https://qiita.ucsd.edu/study/description/11242). Ileal NanoString data have been deposited in NCBI's Gene Expression Omnibus (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/) and are accessible through GEO Series accession number, GSE101721 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE10172). Shotgun metagenomics data have been deposited in the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/metagenomics/) under the accession number, PRJEB26585 (http://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/data/view/PRJEB26585).Metabolomics data have been deposited at the NIH Common Fund Metabolomics Workbench (www.metabolomicsworkbench.org; doi: 10.21228/M8C39R)

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Xue-Song Zhang

    Department of Medicine, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, United States
    For correspondence
    xuesong.zhang@nyumc.org
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5080-0098
  2. Jackie Li

    Department of Medicine, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1376-6692
  3. Kimberly A Krautkramer

    Department of Biomolecular Chemistry, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Michelle Badri

    Department of Medicine, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Thomas Battaglia

    Department of Medicine, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Timothy C Borbet

    Department of Medicine, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Hyunwook Koh

    Department of Population Health, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Sandy Ng

    Department of Medicine, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Rachel A Sibley

    Department of Medicine, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Yuanyuan Li

    Nutrition Research Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Public Health, Kannapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Wimal Pathmasiri

    Nutrition Research Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Public Health, Kannapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Shawn Jindal

    Department of Medicine, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Robin R Shields-Cutler

    BioTechnology Institute, Computer Science and Engineering, University of Minnesota, St Paul, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Ben Hillmann

    BioTechnology Institute, Computer Science and Engineering, University of Minnesota, St Paul, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Gabriel A Al-Ghalith

    BioTechnology Institute, Computer Science and Engineering, University of Minnesota, St Paul, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Victoria E Ruiz

    Department of Medicine, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Alexandra Livanos

    Department of Medicine, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Angelique Wout

    Janssen Prevention Center London, Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson and Johnson, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Nabeetha Nagalingam

    Janssen Prevention Center London, Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson and Johnson, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Arlin B Rogers

    Department of Biomedical Sciences, Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, Tufts University, North Grafton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  21. Susan Jenkins Sumner

    Nutrition Research Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Public Health, Kannapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  22. Dan Knights

    BioTechnology Institute, Computer Science and Engineering, University of Minnesota, St Paul, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  23. John M Denu

    Department of Biomolecular Chemistry, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  24. Huilin Li

    Department of Population Health, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, United States
    For correspondence
    Huilin.Li@nyumc.org
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  25. Kelly V Ruggles

    Department of Medicine, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  26. Richard Bonneau

    Center for Data Science, New York University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  27. Anthony R Williamson

    Janssen Prevention Center London, Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson and Johnson, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  28. Marcus Rauch

    Janssen Prevention Center London, Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson and Johnson, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  29. Martin J Blaser

    Department of Medicine, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, United States
    For correspondence
    Martin.Blaser@nyumc.org
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Funding

Janssen Labs London (15-A0-00-00-0039-29-01)

  • Martin J Blaser

Fondation Leducq (-33.17CVD01)

  • Martin J Blaser

National Institutes of Health (R01DK110014)

  • Huilin Li

National Institutes of Health (R37GM059785)

  • John M Denu

National Institutes of Health (5T35DK007421)

  • Sandy Ng
  • Rachel A Sibley

National Institutes of Health (F30DK108494)

  • Kimberly A Krautkramer

C & D fund

  • Martin J Blaser

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Lora V Hooper, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: This study was performed in strict accordance with the recommendations in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the National Institutes of Health. All of the animals were handled according to approved institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) protocols (160623) of the New York University Langone Medical Center.

Version history

  1. Received: April 24, 2018
  2. Accepted: July 12, 2018
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: July 24, 2018 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: July 25, 2018 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record published: August 9, 2018 (version 3)
  6. Version of Record updated: August 13, 2018 (version 4)

Copyright

© 2018, Zhang et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 5,229
    views
  • 786
    downloads
  • 74
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Xue-Song Zhang
  2. Jackie Li
  3. Kimberly A Krautkramer
  4. Michelle Badri
  5. Thomas Battaglia
  6. Timothy C Borbet
  7. Hyunwook Koh
  8. Sandy Ng
  9. Rachel A Sibley
  10. Yuanyuan Li
  11. Wimal Pathmasiri
  12. Shawn Jindal
  13. Robin R Shields-Cutler
  14. Ben Hillmann
  15. Gabriel A Al-Ghalith
  16. Victoria E Ruiz
  17. Alexandra Livanos
  18. Angelique Wout
  19. Nabeetha Nagalingam
  20. Arlin B Rogers
  21. Susan Jenkins Sumner
  22. Dan Knights
  23. John M Denu
  24. Huilin Li
  25. Kelly V Ruggles
  26. Richard Bonneau
  27. Anthony R Williamson
  28. Marcus Rauch
  29. Martin J Blaser
(2018)
Antibiotic-induced acceleration of type 1 diabetes alters maturation of innate intestinal immunity
eLife 7:e37816.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.37816

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.37816

Further reading

  1. A dose of antibiotics early in life may increase the risk of type 1 diabetes.

    1. Evolutionary Biology
    2. Immunology and Inflammation
    Mark S Lee, Peter J Tuohy ... Michael S Kuhns
    Research Advance

    CD4+ T cell activation is driven by five-module receptor complexes. The T cell receptor (TCR) is the receptor module that binds composite surfaces of peptide antigens embedded within MHCII molecules (pMHCII). It associates with three signaling modules (CD3γε, CD3δε, and CD3ζζ) to form TCR-CD3 complexes. CD4 is the coreceptor module. It reciprocally associates with TCR-CD3-pMHCII assemblies on the outside of a CD4+ T cells and with the Src kinase, LCK, on the inside. Previously, we reported that the CD4 transmembrane GGXXG and cytoplasmic juxtamembrane (C/F)CV+C motifs found in eutherian (placental mammal) CD4 have constituent residues that evolved under purifying selection (Lee et al., 2022). Expressing mutants of these motifs together in T cell hybridomas increased CD4-LCK association but reduced CD3ζ, ZAP70, and PLCγ1 phosphorylation levels, as well as IL-2 production, in response to agonist pMHCII. Because these mutants preferentially localized CD4-LCK pairs to non-raft membrane fractions, one explanation for our results was that they impaired proximal signaling by sequestering LCK away from TCR-CD3. An alternative hypothesis is that the mutations directly impacted signaling because the motifs normally play an LCK-independent role in signaling. The goal of this study was to discriminate between these possibilities. Using T cell hybridomas, our results indicate that: intracellular CD4-LCK interactions are not necessary for pMHCII-specific signal initiation; the GGXXG and (C/F)CV+C motifs are key determinants of CD4-mediated pMHCII-specific signal amplification; the GGXXG and (C/F)CV+C motifs exert their functions independently of direct CD4-LCK association. These data provide a mechanistic explanation for why residues within these motifs are under purifying selection in jawed vertebrates. The results are also important to consider for biomimetic engineering of synthetic receptors.