TNFR1 Absence Is Not Crucial for Different Types of Cell Reaction to TNF: A Study of the TNFR1-Knockout Cell Model
Alina A. Alshevskaya,
Julia A. Lopatnikova,
Julia V. Zhukova,
Olga Y. Perik-Zavodskaia,
Saleh Alrhmoun,
Irina A. Obleukhova,
Anna K. Matveeva,
Darya A. Savenkova,
Ilnaz R. Imatdinov,
Dmitry V. Yudkin,
Sergey V. Sennikov
Affiliations
Alina A. Alshevskaya
Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education I.M. Sechenov, First Moscow State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, 119435 Moscow, Russia
Julia A. Lopatnikova
Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education I.M. Sechenov, First Moscow State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, 119435 Moscow, Russia
Julia V. Zhukova
Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education I.M. Sechenov, First Moscow State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, 119435 Moscow, Russia
Olga Y. Perik-Zavodskaia
Federal State Budgetary Scientific Institution, “Research Institute of Fundamental and Clinical Immunology” (RIFCI), 630099 Novosibirsk, Russia
Saleh Alrhmoun
Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education I.M. Sechenov, First Moscow State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, 119435 Moscow, Russia
Irina A. Obleukhova
Federal State Budgetary Scientific Institution, “Research Institute of Fundamental and Clinical Immunology” (RIFCI), 630099 Novosibirsk, Russia
Anna K. Matveeva
Genome Research Department, State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology “Vector”, Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and Human Well-Being (FBRI SRC VB “Vector”, Rospotrebnadzor), 630559 Koltsovo, Russia
Darya A. Savenkova
Genome Research Department, State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology “Vector”, Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and Human Well-Being (FBRI SRC VB “Vector”, Rospotrebnadzor), 630559 Koltsovo, Russia
Ilnaz R. Imatdinov
Genome Research Department, State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology “Vector”, Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and Human Well-Being (FBRI SRC VB “Vector”, Rospotrebnadzor), 630559 Koltsovo, Russia
Dmitry V. Yudkin
Genome Research Department, State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology “Vector”, Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and Human Well-Being (FBRI SRC VB “Vector”, Rospotrebnadzor), 630559 Koltsovo, Russia
Sergey V. Sennikov
Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education I.M. Sechenov, First Moscow State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, 119435 Moscow, Russia
Background: One of the mechanisms regulating the biological activity of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) in cells is the co-expression of TNFR1/TNFR2 receptors. A model with a differential level of receptor expression is required to evaluate the contribution of these mechanisms. Aim: The development of a cellular model to compare the effects of TNF on cells depending on the presence of both receptors and TNFR2 alone. Methods: TNFR1 absence modifications of ZR-75/1 and K-562 cell lines were obtained by TNFR1 knockout. The presence of deletions was confirmed by Sanger sequencing, and the absence of cell membrane receptor expression was confirmed by flow cytometry. The dose-dependent effect of TNF on intact and knockout cells was comparatively evaluated by the effect on the cell cycle, the type of cell death, and the profile of expressed genes. Results: Knockout of TNFR1 resulted in a redistribution of TNFR2 receptors with an increased proportion of TNFR2+ cells in both lines and a multidirectional change in the density of expression in the lines (increased in K562 and decreased in ZR75/1). The presence of a large number of cells with high TNFR2 density in the absence of TNFR1 in the K562 cells was associated with greater sensitivity to TNF-stimulating doses and increased proliferation but did not result in a significant change in cell death parameters. A twofold increase in TNFR2+ cell distribution in this cell line at a reduced expression density in ZR75/1 cells was associated with a change in sensitivity to low cytokine concentrations in terms of proliferation; an overall increase in cell death, most pronounced at standard stimulating concentrations; and increased expression of the lymphocyte-activation gene groups, host–pathogen interaction, and innate immunity. Conclusions: The absence of TNFR1 leads to different variants of compensatory redistribution of TNFR2 in cellular models, which affects the type of cell response and the threshold level of sensitivity. The directionality of cytokine action modulation and sensitivity to TNF levels depends not only on the fraction of cells expressing TNFR2 but also on the density of expression.