Abstract

Peristaltic movement of the intestine propels food down the length of the gastrointestinal tract to promote nutrient absorption. Interactions between intestinal macrophages and the enteric nervous system regulate gastrointestinal motility, yet we have an incomplete understanding of the molecular mediators of this crosstalk. Here we identify complement component 1q (C1q) as a macrophage product that regulates gut motility. Macrophages were the predominant source of C1q in the mouse intestine and most extraintestinal tissues. Although C1q mediates complement-mediated killing of bacteria in the bloodstream, we found that C1q was not essential for immune defense of the intestine. Instead, C1q-expressing macrophages were located in the intestinal submucosal and myenteric plexuses where they closely associated with enteric neurons and expressed surface markers characteristic of nerve-adjacent macrophages in other tissues. Mice with a macrophage-specific deletion of C1qa showed changes in enteric neuronal gene expression, increased neurogenic activity of peristalsis, and accelerated intestinal transit. Our findings identify C1q as a key regulator of gastrointestinal motility and provide enhanced insight into the crosstalk between macrophages and the enteric nervous system.

Data availability

16S rRNA gene sequencing data (Figure 3D) and RNA sequencing data (Figure 6A and B; Figure 1 - figure supplement 1; Figure 6 - figure supplement 3) are available from the Sequence Read Archive under BioProject ID PRJNA793870. All mouse strains used are available commercially.

The following data sets were generated
The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Mihir Pendse

    Department of Immunology, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Haley De Selle

    Department of Immunology, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Nguyen Vo

    Department of Immunology, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Gabriella Quinn

    Department of Immunology, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Chaitanya Dende

    Department of Immunology, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Yun Li

    Department of Immunology, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Cristine N Salinas

    Department of Immunology, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Tarun Srinivasan

    Department of Immunology, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Daniel C Propheter

    Department of Immunology, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Alexander A Crofts

    Department of Immunology, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0811-9199
  11. Eugene Koo

    Department of Immunology, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Brian Hassell

    Department of Immunology, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Kelly A Ruhn

    Department of Immunology, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Prithvi Raj

    Department of Immunology, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Yuuki Obata

    Department of Immunology, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    For correspondence
    yuuki.obata@utsouthwestern.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5461-3521
  16. Lora V Hooper

    Department of Immunology, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    For correspondence
    lora.hooper@utsouthwestern.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2759-4641

Funding

National Institutes of Health (R01 DK070855)

  • Lora V Hooper

Welch Foundation Grant (I-1874)

  • Lora V Hooper

Howard Hughes Medical Institute (N/A)

  • Lora V Hooper

National Institutes of Health (T32 AI005284)

  • Mihir Pendse

National Institutes of Health (T32 AI005284)

  • Alexander A Crofts

National Institutes of Health (F32 DK132913)

  • Alexander A Crofts

National Institutes of Health (F31 DK126391)

  • Eugene Koo

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

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 (protocol #2015-101212) of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.

Copyright

© 2023, Pendse 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

  • 3,642
    views
  • 549
    downloads
  • 11
    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. Mihir Pendse
  2. Haley De Selle
  3. Nguyen Vo
  4. Gabriella Quinn
  5. Chaitanya Dende
  6. Yun Li
  7. Cristine N Salinas
  8. Tarun Srinivasan
  9. Daniel C Propheter
  10. Alexander A Crofts
  11. Eugene Koo
  12. Brian Hassell
  13. Kelly A Ruhn
  14. Prithvi Raj
  15. Yuuki Obata
  16. Lora V Hooper
(2023)
Macrophages regulate gastrointestinal motility through complement component 1q
eLife 12:e78558.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.78558

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.78558

Further reading

    1. Immunology and Inflammation
    Somen K Mistri, Brianna M Hilton ... Jonathan E Boyson
    Research Article

    During thymic development, most γδ T cells acquire innate-like characteristics that are critical for their function in tumor surveillance, infectious disease, and tissue repair. The mechanisms, however, that regulate γδ T cell developmental programming remain unclear. Recently, we demonstrated that the SLAM/SAP signaling pathway regulates the development and function of multiple innate-like γδ T cell subsets. Here, we used a single-cell proteogenomics approach to identify SAP-dependent developmental checkpoints and to define the SAP-dependent γδ TCR repertoire in mice. SAP deficiency resulted in both a significant loss of an immature Gzma+Blk+Etv5+Tox2+ γδT17 precursor population and a significant increase in Cd4+Cd8+Rorc+Ptcra+Rag1+ thymic γδ T cells. SAP-dependent diversion of embryonic day 17 thymic γδ T cell clonotypes into the αβ T cell developmental pathway was associated with a decreased frequency of mature clonotypes in neonatal thymus, and an altered γδ TCR repertoire in the periphery. Finally, we identify TRGV4/TRAV13-4(DV7)-expressing T cells as a novel, SAP-dependent Vγ4 γδT1 subset. Together, the data support a model in which SAP-dependent γδ/αβ T cell lineage commitment regulates γδ T cell developmental programming and shapes the γδ TCR repertoire.

    1. Immunology and Inflammation
    Jasmine Rowell, Ching-In Lau ... Tessa Crompton
    Research Article

    Here, we sequenced rearranged TCRβ and TCRα chain sequences in CD4+CD8+ double positive (DP), CD4+CD8- single positive (SP4) and CD4-CD8+ (SP8) thymocyte populations from the foetus and young adult mouse. We found that life-stage had a greater impact on TCRβ and TCRα gene segment usage than cell-type. Foetal repertoires showed bias towards 3’TRAV and 5’TRAJ rearrangements in all populations, whereas adult repertoires used more 5’TRAV gene segments, suggesting that progressive TCRα rearrangements occur less frequently in foetal DP cells. When we synchronised young adult DP thymocyte differentiation by hydrocortisone treatment the new recovering DP thymocyte population showed more foetal-like 3’TRAV and 5’TRAJ gene segment usage. In foetus we identified less influence of MHC-restriction on α-chain and β-chain combinatorial VxJ usage and CDR1xCDR2 (V region) usage in SP compared to adult, indicating weaker impact of MHC-restriction on the foetal TCR repertoire. The foetal TCRβ repertoire was less diverse, less evenly distributed, with fewer non-template insertions, and all foetal populations contained more clonotypic expansions than adult. The differences between the foetal and adult thymus TCR repertoires are consistent with the foetal thymus producing αβT-cells with properties and functions that are distinct from adult T-cells: their repertoire is less governed by MHC-restriction, with preference for particular gene segment usage, less diverse with more clonotypic expansions, and more closely encoded by genomic sequence.