Next Article in Journal
Endophytic Diversity in Vitis vinifera with Different Vineyard Managements and Vitis sylvestris Populations from Northern Italy: A Comparative Study of Culture-Dependent and Amplicon Sequencing Methods
Next Article in Special Issue
The Presence of Bacterial and Protozoan Pathogens in Wild Fallow Deer (Dama dama) from a Protected Area in Central Italy
Previous Article in Journal
Editorial for the Special Issue “Neurobiology of Invertebrates Inaccessible from Mammalian Studies”
Previous Article in Special Issue
Impacts of Urbanization and Habitat Characteristics on the Human Risk of West Nile Disease in the United States
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Biology
Volume 14
Issue 3
10.3390/biology14030292
biology-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Modulatory Effects of the Recombinant Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) Spike S1 Subunit Protein on the Phenotype of Camel Monocyte-Derived Macrophages

by
Jamal Hussen
1,*,
Abdullah I. A. Al-Mubarak
1,
Turke Shawaf
2,
Khulud Bukhari
1 and
Khaled R. Alkharsah
3
1
Department of Microbiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa 31982, Saudi Arabia
2
Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa 31982, Saudi Arabia
3
Department of Microbiology, College of Medicine, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University (IAU), Dammam 34212, Saudi Arabia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Biology 2025, 14(3), 292; https://doi.org/10.3390/biology14030292
Submission received: 4 February 2025 / Revised: 28 February 2025 / Accepted: 11 March 2025 / Published: 13 March 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Zoonotic Diseases)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Simple Summary

The current study represents the first report on the in vitro generation and polarization of monocyte-derived macrophages (MDMs) in camels and the impact of the MERS-CoV S1 protein on camel MDM phenotype. The results show a polarizing effect of the MERS-CoV S1 protein on camel MDM, turning it into an anti-inflammatory M2-like phenotype with enhanced phagocytosis activity.

Abstract

Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) is an emerging zoonotic pathogen with different pathogenesis in humans and camels. The mechanisms behind the higher tolerance of camels to MERS-CoV infection are still unknown. Monocytes are innate myeloid cells that are able, depending on the local stimulation in their microenvironment, to differentiate into different functional subtypes of macrophages with an impact on the adaptive immune response. Several in vitro protocols have been used to induce the differentiation of monocyte-derived macrophages (MDMs) in human and several veterinary species. Such protocols are not available for camel species. In the present study, monocytes were separated from camel blood and differentiated in vitro in the presence of different stimuli into MDM. Camel MDMs generated in the presence of a combined stimulation of monocytes with LPS and GM-CSF resulted in the development of an M1 macrophages phenotype with increased abundance of the antigen-presentation receptor MHCII molecules and a decreased expression of the scavenger receptor CD163. The expression pattern of the cell markers CD163, CD14, CD172a, CD44, and CD9 on MDM generated in the presence of the MERS-CoV S1 protein revealed similarity with M-CSF-induced MDM, suggesting the potential of the MERS-CoV S1 protein to induce an M2 macrophages phenotype. Similarly to the effect of M-CSF, MERS-CoV-S protein-induced MDMs showed enhanced phagocytosis activity compared to non-polarized or LPS/GM-CSF-polarized MDMs. Collectively, our study represents the first report on the in vitro generation of monocyte-derived macrophages (MDMs) in camels and the characterization of some phenotypic and functional properties of camel MDM under the effect of M1 and M2 polarizing stimuli. In addition, the results suggest a polarizing effect of the MERS-CoV S1 protein on camel MDMs, developing an M2-like phenotype with enhanced phagocytosis activity. To understand the clinical relevance of these in vitro findings on disease pathogenesis and camel immune response toward MERS-CoV infection, further studies are required.

1. Introduction

Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) is an emerging zoonotic pathogen responsible for the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) [1,2,3,4,5]. Dromedary camels are considered to be the main source of zoonotic MERS-CoV infection in humans [6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13]. Recent serologic studies revealed very high seroprevalence rates of MERS-CoV in camel populations from different areas of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula [14]. MERS-CoV infection, however, shows different pathogenesis in humans and camels. Infection in humans leads to severe respiratory disease usually associated with hospitalization or death, while infected camels show only mild respiratory symptoms [15].
The type II transmembrane glycoprotein CD26, also called dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4), is the functional receptor for MERS-CoV [16,17,18]. Different anatomical expressions of DPP4 have been found in the respiratory tracts of humans and camels [19]. In camels, DPP4 was only found on epithelial cells of the upper respiratory tract, while, in humans, it is expressed on the epithelium of the lower respiratory tract [19]. In addition, dromedary camels display the highest expression of DPP4 on blood monocytes [20,21], contrary to humans, where DPP4 is mainly found on lymphocytes [22]. Whether this different distribution of the DPP4 on immune cells reflects different roles for innate and adaptive immune mechanisms in MERS-CoV pathogenesis in the two species is still to be investigated.
Monocytes are short-lived innate myeloid cells that circulate in the blood and contribute to successful immune response through several effector functions [23,24]. In addition, monocytes are responsible for the replenishment of long-lived tissue macrophages upon leaving the bloodstream and migrating into the tissue [25]. Depending on local stimulation in their microenvironment, human and murine monocytes can differentiate into different functional subtypes of macrophages with different roles during the onset and resolution of the immune response [26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35]. The granulocyte–macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), which is a macrophage maturation-promoting cytokine especially produced by inflammatory T cells (Th1 and Th17) under inflammatory conditions, induces, in combination with pathogen-associated molecular patterns like bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS), the generation of classically activated inflammatory (M1) macrophages [36,37]. In contrast, the generation of alternatively activated anti-inflammatory (M2) macrophages can be induced by the macrophage colony-stimulating factor (M-CSF) together with the type 2 cytokine IL-4 [36,37]. Inflammatory M1 macrophages play a significant role in the early control of infection through the production of inflammatory mediators, including the inflammatory cytokines IL-12 and TNFa and the enzyme iNOS, which catalyzes the production of nitric oxide (NO) from L-arginine. On the other hand, M2 macrophages are mainly important during the late resolution phase of the infection, where they predominantly produce higher levels of anti-inflammatory cytokines such as IL-10 and anti-inflammatory enzymes like arginase-1, which mediates the conversion of arginine to ornithine [38,39].
The response of human monocyte-derived macrophages toward experimental in vitro infection with MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV was comparatively investigated [40]. Although only MERS-CoV was able to infect the cells, both viruses shared some similarity in the cytokine response, with comparable levels of TNF-a and interleukin (IL)-6, but lacked type 1 interferon response (IFN-α and IFN-β). The notably high expression levels of type 1 cytokines IL-12 and IFN-γ, together with the high expression of major histocompatibility complex (MHC) molecules and costimulatory molecules, indicate the higher potential of MERS-CoV to stimulate classically activated inflammatory M1 macrophages compared to SARS-CoV. The inflammatory nature of these cells is also confirmed by the high levels of monocyte and neutrophil chemoattractants (CXCL-10, CCL-2, CCL-3, CCL-5, and IL-8) [40]. Additionally, the potential of SARS-CoV-2 S-polarized human monocytes and macrophages to induce the differentiation of helper T cells toward the Th17 phenotype has been recently reported [41]. In camels, studies on the interaction of MERS-CoV with innate immune cells are still lacking. It is especially interesting to see whether the interaction of camel monocytes (express CD26) with the MERS-CoV S protein would impact their differentiation into polarized macrophages.
Although the immunophenotype of camel blood monocytes has been recently characterized [42], their in vitro differentiation into monocyte-derived macrophages (MDMs) and their polarization into distinct subtypes of camel MDM under the effect of different stimuli have not been investigated so far. Therefore, the present study aimed to analyze some phenotypic and functional properties of in vitro-generated and -polarized camel MDM. Additionally, the impact of the MERS-CoV S protein on the in vitro differentiation of camel MDM was investigated.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Animals and Sampling

Blood samples were collected from five healthy female dromedary camels of the Mojaheem breed (Camel Research Center of King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia). Blood samples were drawn into heparinized vacutainer tubes (Becton Dickinson, Heidelberg, Germany) from the jugular vein. The samples were kept on ice and delivered to the lab within one hour of collection. Cell separation from the collected blood samples was performed within two hours after sampling.

2.2. Reagents

Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) from E. coli serotype 0111:B4 (tlrl-eblps) was from Invivogen (Toulouse, France), diluted in endotoxin-free water to a stock concentration of 1 mg/mL, and stored in small aliquots at −20 °C. Recombinant bovine granulocyte–macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) and macrophage colony-stimulating factor (M-CSF) were from Kingfisher (Kingfisher Biotech, Inc., St Paul, MN, USA). Recombinant MERS-CoV (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus) Spike S1 Subunit Fc chimera protein was from R&D Systems, Inc. (Catalog Number: 10606-CV; Abingdon, UK). Human IgG conjugated with FITC was from Sigma (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA). The lymphocyte separation medium Lymphoprep™ was from STEMCELL Technologies (Vancouver, BC, Canada). The mouse monoclonal antibodies to CD14 (clone Tuk4), MHCII (clone TH81A5), CD163 (clone LND68A), CD172a (DH59b), and CD44 (clone LT41A) were from Kingfisher (Kingfisher Biotech, Inc., USA). Fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC)- and phycoerythrin (PE)-conjugated goat antibodies to mouse IgG1 and IgG2a were from Thermo Fisher Scientific (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA).

2.3. Isolation of Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells (PBMCs) from Camel Blood

Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from dromedary camels were isolated from buffy coat blood by density gradient centrifugation over Lymphoprep™ (STEMCELL Technologies, Vancouver, BC, Canada). Collected blood (20 mL) was diluted with 15 mL of phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), and the mixture was layered carefully (without mixing the blood and the Lymphoprep) on 15 mL of Lymphoprep™ in a 50 mL sterile falcon tube. The tubes were then centrifuged at 4 °C for 30 min at 800× g without break. After centrifugation, the PBMC-containing interphase was collected carefully using a 10 mL pipette, washed 3 times in PBS (400× g, 200× g, 100× g), and finally suspended in culture medium [43].

2.4. Binding of the Recombinant MERS-CoV S1 Protein on the Cell Surface of Camel Mononuclear Cells

The binding of the recombinant MERS-CoV S1 protein on the cell surface of camel mononuclear cells was evaluated by flow cytometry as previously described, with modifications [21,44]. Isolated camel PBMCs (1 × 106) in 100 µL cell-staining buffer (PBS containing 1% BSA and 0.1% sodium azide) were incubated with the recombinant MERS-CoV spike S1 subunit Fc chimera protein (1 µg/mL) for 30 min at 4 °C. After washing the cells with 150 µL of cell-staining buffer (300× g for 3 min at 4 °C), a polyclonal rabbit anti-human IgG labeled with FITC (DakoCytomation, Copenhagen, Denmark; Ref: F0202; diluted 1:200 in cell-staining buffer) was added to the cells for a further 15 min at 4 °C in the dark. To exclude the role of FC binding to FC receptors, a separate setup using human IgG conjugated with FITC was included. Finally, the cells were washed twice with 150 µL of cell-staining buffer (300× g for 3 min at 4 °C), resuspended in cell-staining buffer containing propidium iodide (PI), and analyzed by flow cytometry (Accuri C6 flow cytometer; BD Biosciences, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA).

2.5. Monocyte Isolation and In Vitro Differentiation into Macrophages

Camel monocytes were separated using plastic adhesion as previously described, with some modifications [45]. Separated camel PBMCs were allowed to adhere in 24-well culture plates (Nunc, Rochester, NY, USA) for 24 h at 37 °C and 5% CO2 in serum-free culture media (RPMI 1640, supplemented with 2mM L-glutamine and 5 mM HEPES, MOLEQULE-ON, New Lynn, Auckland, New Zealand). After incubation, the non-adherent lymphocytes were removed by washing with a fresh culture medium. Adherent monocytes were thereafter differentiated in the same plates for 5 days at 37 °C and 5% CO2 in RPMI 1640 supplemented with 2 mM L-glutamine, 5 mM HEPES, and 10% inactivated fetal bovine serum (all from MOLEQULE-ON, New Lynn, Auckland, New Zealand). For the generation of classically activated M1 monocyte-derived macrophages (MDMs), 1 µg/mL of LPS and 50 ng/mL GM-CSF were added to the culture medium. For the generation of alternatively activated M2 macrophages, 50 ng/mL of macrophage colony-stimulating factor (M-CSF) was added to the culture medium. Parallel setups were differentiated in the presence of 1 µg/mL of the recombinant MERS-CoV spike S1 subunit.
On day 6, macrophage detachment was induced non-enzymatically by incubating the cells in a cold EDTA-HBSS medium. For this, culture medium supernatant was collected on day 6 and stored at −20 °C, and 1 mL of cold HBSS containing 5 mmol/L EDTA was added to the wells. After incubation for 30 min on ice at 4 °C, complete macrophage detachment was achieved by mixing the well content using a pipette. Cell morphology (before detachment) and detachment were evaluated using inverted microscopy. Harvested macrophages were counted on the Accuri C6 flow cytometer (BD Biosciences) after the acquisition of 50 µL of the cell suspension.

2.6. Phenotypic Properties of Monocyte-Derived Macrophages

The expression level of cell surface markers was evaluated by flow cytometry after cell labeling with monoclonal antibodies in a two-staining step (indirect labeling). For this, 1 × 103 MDM was incubated in 96-well plates with monoclonal antibodies to the cell surface molecules CD163, MHCII, CD14, CD172a, CD9, CD44, CD18, and CD11a (Table 1) for 15 min at 4 °C on ice. After two washings (3 min at 300× g) in cell-staining buffer, secondary FITC-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG1 and PE-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG2a were added to the cells for 15 min at 4 °C on ice in the dark. Finally, the cells were washed with staining buffer, resuspended with 100 µL staining buffer, and analyzed by flow cytometry.

2.7. Phagocytosis Assay

The phagocytosis activity of camel MDMs was analyzed by flow cytometry after incubating the cells with heat-killed S. aureus bacteria (Pansorbin, Calbiochem, Merck, Nottingham, UK) labeled with a labeling kit (FITC, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions [46]. Camel MDMs (1 × 103 cells in 100 µL RPMI medium) were incubated with S. aureus-FITC (20 bacteria/cell) for 30 min at 37 °C and 5% CO2. After washing the plate with RPMI medium (300× g for 3 min), the cells were resuspended in 100 μL of PBS and analyzed by flow cytometry [47].

2.8. Statistical Analyses

Statistical analysis was performed using the software Prism (GraphPad software version 5, GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA). The comparison between the different types of monocyte-derived macrophages was performed using a one-factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Bonferroni’s multiple-comparison test. The results for each analyzed parameter were presented graphically as the means ± standard error of the mean (SEM). The results were considered statistically significant if the p-value was less than 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Binding of the Recombinant MERS-CoV S1 Protein on the Cell Surface of Camel Mononuclear Cells

Flow cytometric analysis of camel PBMC labeled with the recombinant MERS-CoV S1 Fc chimera protein in combination with an anti-human IgG-FITC antibody revealed selective binding of the recombinant protein to camel monocytes. With a mean fluorescent intensity (MFI) of 1261 ± standard error of the mean (SEM) of 74, camel blood monocytes showed a significantly (p < 0.05) higher fluorescence signal than lymphocytes (511 ± 34) (Figure 1A–C).

3.2. Generation of Camel Monocyte-Derived Macrophages

Separation of camel PBMCs using density gradient centrifugation yielded a high purity (95.2 ± 1.3%) of PBMCs with high cell vitality (97.3 ± 0.7%) as measured by flow cytometry after incubating the cells with propidium iodide (Figure 1A). Camel monocytes were separated from PBMCs by allowing them to adhere to the wells of cell culture plates and washing out non-adherent lymphocytes. The purity of the separated monocytes was determined based on their positive staining with CD14 antibodies and ranged between 82.6 and 89.1% (85.4 ± 3.7%) of the total cells. Figure 2 shows a comparison between freshly separated camel PBMC, day 1 adherent monocytes, and day 6 monocyte-derived macrophages (MDMs) in terms of their morphology under a light microscope (Figure 2A), their forward and side-scatter characteristics (Figure 2B), and the expression of the monocytic markers CD14 (Figure 2C), CD163 (Figure 2D), and MHCII (Figure 2E). The comparison between monocytes and day 6 MDMs revealed increased MHCII and CD163 expression on the MDMs compared to the monocytes, while the expression density of CD14 was comparable between the monocytes and MDMs (Figure 2C–E).
Additionally, Figure 3A shows what camel MDM looks like after 6 days of in vitro culture of camel monocytes in medium alone (un-polarized M0 macrophages), medium containing LPS and GM-CSF (LPS-MDM), medium containing M-CSF (M-CSF-MDM), or medium containing the recombinant MERS-CoV S1 protein (MERS-CoV-MDM). It can be seen that the different stimuli induced different changes in macrophage morphology. The cell size and granularity of MDMs were measured based on the forward-scatter (FSC) and side-scatter (SSC) values (Figure 3B). Only M-CSF, an M2 macrophage inducer, resulted in the generation of MDMs with higher granularity than other types of MDMs (p < 0.05) (Figure 3C). In comparison to M0 macrophages, the presence of either LPS/GM-CSF, M-CSF, or MERS-CoV S1 protein during differentiation induced a significant increase in MDM cell size, with the highest FSC values for M-CSF-generated MDMs (p < 0.05) (Figure 3D).

3.3. The Immunophenotype of In Vitro-Generated Camel Monocyte-Derived Macrophages

In comparison to non-polarized MDMs which were generated in culture medium without polarizing stimuli, MDMs generation in the presence of LPS and GM-CSF resulted in a significant decrease (three times lower than the control) in the expression level of CD163 (46,257 ± 4635 mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) vs. 152,027 ± 4843 MFI for non-polarized MDMs) (p < 0.05) (Figure 4A), while the expression level of MHCII was significantly (p < 0.05) higher on LPS/GM-CSF-polarized MDMs (25,078 ± 2840) than non-polarized MDMs (15,213 ± 1893) (Figure 4B). In contrast to this, the presence of M-CSF significantly (p < 0.05) increased the abundance of CD163 (252,067 ± 5387) compared to non-polarized macrophages (152,027 ± 4843 MFI) (Figure 4A). The expression level of MHCII, however, did not differ significantly (p > 0.05) between M-CSF-MDMs and non-polarized MDMs (Figure 4B). Similarly to the polarizing effect of M-CSF, the presence of the recombinant MERS-CoV S protein resulted in a significantly higher abundance of surface CD163 (202,636 ± 10,595) without changing the expression level of MHCII (18,474 ± 697) compared to non-polarized MDMs (Figure 4A,B).
The abundance of the LPS receptor CD14 (29,711 ± 2632 vs. 52,195 ± 3680 on control MDM) and the tetraspanin CD9 (56,069 ± 13,390 vs. 125,869 ± 33,943 on control MDM) was significantly lower in camel MDMs differentiated in the presence of LPS and GM-CSF. In contrast to this, MDMs differentiated in the presence of either M-CSF or MERS-CoV S showed a comparable abundance of both CD14 or CD9 molecules, which did not differ significantly (p > 0.05) from the expression levels on control MDMs (Figure 4C,D). The expression level of CD172a and CD11a did not differ significantly (p > 0.05) between the different groups of MDMs (Figure 4E,F). For the cell surface molecule CD44, a higher expression level was found on MDMs differentiated in the presence of either M-CSF or MERS-CoV S compared to non-polarized or LPS/GM-CSF-polarized MDMs (Figure 4G). The lowest expression of CD18 was found on LPS/GM-CSF-induced MDMs compared to other MDM types (Figure 4H).

3.4. Impact of MERS-CoV S1 Spike Protein on the Phagocytosis Activity of Camel MDMs

The mean percentage of phagocytic cells within the control MDM was 24.5 ± 1.3%. Camel MDMs generated in the presence of LPS and GM-CSF showed comparable (p > 0.05) phagocytosis activity, 25.9 ± 1.2%, to the control MDMs. M-CSF (31.2 ± 2.2% of total MDMs) and MERS-CoV S protein (31.4 ± 1.6% of total MDM) induced the differentiation of macrophages with higher phagocytosis activity (Figure 5A,B).

4. Discussion

In the present study, the differential binding of the MERS-CoV spike protein to camel mononuclear cells confirmed the selective binding of the virus to camel monocytes rather than lymphocytes and identified monocytes as the target cells for the interaction of MERS-CoV with the camel immune system. Although this binding pattern indicates higher expression of the MERS-CoV receptor on monocytes than lymphocytes, the confirmation of the presence of CD26 (DPP4) on camel monocytes requires the employment of anti-CD26 antibodies, highlighting the need for the development of camel-specific CD26 monoclonal antibodies.
Monocytes are circulating innate immune cells characterized by their plasticity and flexibility, able to differentiate into different functional subtypes depending on the polarizing signals in the tissue microenvironment [34,35]. For humans, mice, and several veterinary species, in vitro differentiation of monocytes into inflammatory or anti-inflammatory macrophage phenotypes has been investigated in several studies, and key polarizing stimuli were characterized [26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33]. Additionally, several alternative MDM polarizing stimuli were identified, including drugs, hormones, neuromodulators, and microbe-derived structures [48,49,50,51,52]. In dromedary camels, the in vitro generation of MDMs has not been investigated so far. The present study generated in vitro-differentiated monocyte-derived macrophages under different polarization stimuli and identified some phenotypic and functional properties. In addition, the impact of the MERS-CoV S protein on the in vitro differentiation of camel monocytes into macrophages was investigated.
Lipopolysaccharide (LPS), granulocyte–macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), interferon-gamma (IFNγ), IL-4, and macrophage colony-stimulating factors (M-CSF) are key polarizing stimuli that have been used for the in vitro generation of polarized pro-inflammatory (classically activated) M1 or anti-inflammatory (alternatively activated) M2 macrophages in several species [26,28,36,38,53,54,55]. In humans and some other species, M1- and M2-polarized macrophages can be identified based on several phenotypic and functional characteristics [38,56]. Antigen presentation receptor major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class II molecules [57,58] and the scavenger receptor CD163 [59] are considered cell surface markers for M1 and M2 macrophages, respectively. In the present study, the reduced expression of the scavenger receptor CD163 on camel MDMs generated in the presence of a combined stimulation of monocytes with LPS and GM-CSF indicated the development of an M1 macrophage phenotype. This was also supported by the increased abundance of MHCII molecules on the LPS/GM-CSF-induced MDMs.
The expression pattern of the cell markers CD163, CD14, CD172a, and CD9 on MDMs generated in the presence of the MERS-CoV S1 protein revealed similarity with M-CSF-induced MDMs, suggesting the potential of the MERS-CoV S1 protein to induce an M2 macrophage phenotype. This was also supported by the higher abundance of the hyaluronic acid receptor CD44 on MDMs differentiated in the presence of the MERS-CoV S1 protein or M-CSF. The upregulation of CD44 has been previously found to be associated with the activation of STAT3 in human monocytes, inducing their differentiation into M2-type macrophages [59]. To ensure that this modulating effect was specific to S protein binding and exclude the role of binding of the FC region to FC receptors in camel monocytes, we included an additional control, showing that fluorochrome-labeled human IgG antibodies did not bind to camel FC receptors in monocytes or lymphocytes (B cells).
Macrophages are specialized mononuclear phagocytic cells that effectively contribute to the ingestion and elimination of bacterial and fungal pathogens [60]. Studies in humans and mice have previously identified several functional differences between M1 and M2 macrophages [61]. Although the development of an M1 phenotype has been found to be associated with pro-inflammatory and antimicrobial functions [61,62,63], some studies have linked polarization toward an M2 phenotype with an enhanced phagocytosis capacity. The anti-inflammatory cytokines IL-4 and IL-10, for instance, stimulate the differentiation of human monocytes toward MDMs with enhanced phagocytosis capability compared to unstimulated cells [64,65,66]. In addition, a positive correlation has been found between phagocytosis activity and CD163 expression in human MDMs [67]. In the present study, M-CSF-induced and MERS-CoV-S protein-induced MDMs showed enhanced phagocytosis activity compared to non-polarized or LPS/GM-CSF-polarized MDMs. This indicates the similarity in phenotype and function between M-CSF-induced and MERS-CoV-S protein-induced MDMs and supports the M2-like phenotype of these MDMs. Alternatively activated M2 macrophages are known for their anti-inflammatory roles, contributing to tissue remodeling and wound healing during the late stages of viral infection [52]. In humans, MERS-CoV has the potential to replicate and establish a productive infection in macrophages, resulting in high pro-inflammatory responses (M1 phenotype) [40], while camelid (llama) alveolar macrophages have been found to be resistant to MERS-CoV replication and not able to induce pro-inflammatory cytokines upon interaction with MERS-CoV [68]. In addition, these llama macrophages were able to effectively capture and degrade viral particles [68]. Whether MERS-CoV-S protein-induced MDMs in camels and MERS-CoV-polarized alveolar macrophages in llamas functionally present the same macrophage subtype is still to be investigated in future studies. The observed enhancement of phagocytic activity in MERS-CoV-S protein-induced camel MDMs supports this theory.
Several studies have reported the capability of viral proteins to stimulate monocytes and induce macrophage polarization with diverse modulatory effects [52,69]. SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein induces innate memory in human monocytes [69] and monocyte polarization toward a pro-inflammatory functional subtype [40,41,42] via toll-like receptor (TLR) 4 signaling [70]. Severe cases of highly pathogenic human MERS-CoV infections have been associated with the excessive production of inflammatory cytokines, including IFN-γ, TNF-α, IL-15, and IL-17 [71]. Whether the lack of DPP-4 on monocytes/macrophages in humans could be linked to an uncontrolled pro-inflammatory response, contributing to disease severity, is still to be answered in further studies. The virus may use different receptors to interact with innate myeloid cells in humans (TLRs) and camels (DPP-4), leading to different early inflammatory responses. In addition, an association has been identified between the high human case fatality rate and the downregulation of both Th1 and Th2 immune responses [72]. Given their key role as antigen-presenting cells in the initiation and guidance of the adaptive immune response, the different expression of DPP-4 on monocytes/macrophages may contribute to the difference in disease pathogenesis in humans and camels.
Although the results of the present study provide insight into the role of monocyte and macrophage polarization in immune response to MERS-CoV, the identification of key mechanisms responsible for different disease pathogenesis in humans and camels requires further investigation, especially in relation to the role of other important innate (NK cells, dendritic cells, and γδ T cells) and adaptive (B cells and T cells) immune cells in the interaction with the virus.

5. Conclusions

The current study represents the first report on the in vitro generation and polarization of monocyte-derived macrophages (MDMs) in camels and the impact of the MERS-CoV S1 protein on camel MDM phenotype. Although the results suggest a polarizing effect of the MERS-CoV S1 protein on camel MDMs, transforming them into an M2-like phenotype with enhanced phagocytosis activity, these findings need confirmation in functional studies that identify the spectrum of produced M1 or M2 characteristic cytokines or the potential of these macrophages to polarize the T helper cells’ immune response. This highlights the need for the development of camel-specific anti-cytokine antibodies or the identification of cross-reactive antibodies with camel cytokines that can be used for cytokine detection by ELISA or intracellular immunofluorescence. In addition, the clinical relevance of these in vitro findings for disease pathogenesis and camel immune response toward MERS-CoV infection is still to be elucidated. Although the clinical relevance of the role of M2 macrophages in camels’ tolerance to MERS-CoV infection has not yet been proven using adequate in vitro and in vivo studies, the results of the present study strengthen the pivotal role of innate immune cells in the immune response to MERS-CoV. Given the role of macrophages in the biasing of specific T helper cells’ responses to vaccines, we believe that future research may investigate the use of immunomodulatory adjuvants to guide immune response against MERS-CoV vaccines toward the protective T helper immune response type.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.H. and K.R.A.; methodology, J.H. and K.B.; resources, A.I.A.A.-M. and T.S.; writing—original draft preparation, J.H., K.R.A., A.I.A.A.-M. and T.S.; writing—review and editing, J.H. and K.B.; supervision, A.I.A.A.-M.; and funding acquisition, J.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Deanship of Scientific Research, Vice Presidency for Graduate Studies and Scientific Research, King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia [KFU250122].

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia (KFU-REC-2023-SEP-ETHICS1372).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
MERS-CoVMiddle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus
MDMsMonocyte-derived macrophages
DPP-4Dipeptidyl peptidase-4
M-CSFMacrophage colony-stimulating factor
GM-CSFGranulocyte–macrophage colony-stimulating factor

References

  1. Gassen, N.C.; Niemeyer, D.; Muth, D.; Corman, V.M.; Martinelli, S.; Gassen, A.; Hafner, K.; Papies, J.; Mosbauer, K.; Zellner, A.; et al. SKP2 attenuates autophagy through Beclin1-ubiquitination and its inhibition reduces MERS-Coronavirus infection. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 5770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Drosten, C.; Meyer, B.; Muller, M.A.; Corman, V.M.; Al-Masri, M.; Hossain, R.; Madani, H.; Sieberg, A.; Bosch, B.J.; Lattwein, E.; et al. Transmission of MERS-coronavirus in household contacts. N. Engl. J. Med. 2014, 371, 828–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Inn, K.S.; Kim, Y.; Aigerim, A.; Park, U.; Hwang, E.S.; Choi, M.S.; Kim, Y.S.; Cho, N.H. Reduction of soluble dipeptidyl peptidase 4 levels in plasma of patients infected with Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus. Virology 2018, 518, 324–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Zaki, A.M.; van Boheemen, S.; Bestebroer, T.M.; Osterhaus, A.D.; Fouchier, R.A. Isolation of a novel coronavirus from a man with pneumonia in Saudi Arabia. N. Engl. J. Med. 2012, 367, 1814–1820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Min, C.K.; Cheon, S.; Ha, N.Y.; Sohn, K.M.; Kim, Y.; Aigerim, A.; Shin, H.M.; Choi, J.Y.; Inn, K.S.; Kim, J.H.; et al. Comparative and kinetic analysis of viral shedding and immunological responses in MERS patients representing a broad spectrum of disease severity. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 25359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Mok, C.K.P.; Zhu, A.; Zhao, J.; Lau, E.H.Y.; Wang, J.; Chen, Z.; Zhuang, Z.; Wang, Y.; Alshukairi, A.N.; Baharoon, S.A.; et al. T-cell responses to MERS coronavirus infection in people with occupational exposure to dromedary camels in Nigeria: An observational cohort study. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2020, 21, 385–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Adney, D.R.; van Doremalen, N.; Brown, V.R.; Bushmaker, T.; Scott, D.; de Wit, E.; Bowen, R.A.; Munster, V.J. Replication and shedding of MERS-CoV in upper respiratory tract of inoculated dromedary camels. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2014, 20, 1999–2005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Haagmans, B.L.; van den Brand, J.M.; Raj, V.S.; Volz, A.; Wohlsein, P.; Smits, S.L.; Schipper, D.; Bestebroer, T.M.; Okba, N.; Fux, R.; et al. An orthopoxvirus-based vaccine reduces virus excretion after MERS-CoV infection in dromedary camels. Science 2016, 351, 77–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Reusken, C.B.; Haagmans, B.L.; Muller, M.A.; Gutierrez, C.; Godeke, G.J.; Meyer, B.; Muth, D.; Raj, V.S.; Smits-De Vries, L.; Corman, V.M.; et al. Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus neutralising serum antibodies in dromedary camels: A comparative serological study. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2013, 13, 859–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Harcourt, J.L.; Rudoler, N.; Tamin, A.; Leshem, E.; Rasis, M.; Giladi, M.; Haynes, L.M. The prevalence of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) antibodies in dromedary camels in Israel. Zoonoses Public Health 2018, 65, 749–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gossner, C.; Danielson, N.; Gervelmeyer, A.; Berthe, F.; Faye, B.; Kaasik Aaslav, K.; Adlhoch, C.; Zeller, H.; Penttinen, P.; Coulombier, D. Human-Dromedary Camel Interactions and the Risk of Acquiring Zoonotic Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Infection. Zoonoses Public Health 2016, 63, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Reusken, C.; Haagmans, B.L.; Koopmans, M.P. Dromedary camels and Middle East respiratory syndrome: MERS coronavirus in the ‘ship of the desert’. Ned. Tijdschr. Geneeskd. 2014, 158, A7806. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  13. Reusken, C.B.; Farag, E.A.; Jonges, M.; Godeke, G.J.; El-Sayed, A.M.; Pas, S.D.; Raj, V.S.; Mohran, K.A.; Moussa, H.A.; Ghobashy, H.; et al. Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) RNA and neutralising antibodies in milk collected according to local customs from dromedary camels, Qatar, April 2014. Euro Surveill 2014, 19, 20829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Alharbi, N.K.; Ibrahim, O.H.; Alhafufi, A.; Kasem, S.; Aldowerij, A.; Albrahim, R.; Abu-Obaidah, A.; Alkarar, A.; Bayoumi, F.A.; Almansour, A.M.; et al. Challenge infection model for MERS-CoV based on naturally infected camels. Virol. J. 2020, 17, 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Al Sulayyim, H.J.; Khorshid, S.M.; Al Moummar, S.H. Demographic, clinical, and outcomes of confirmed cases of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) in Najran, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA); A retrospective record based study. J. Infect. Public Health 2020, 13, 1342–1346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Raj, V.S.; Mou, H.; Smits, S.L.; Dekkers, D.H.; Muller, M.A.; Dijkman, R.; Muth, D.; Demmers, J.A.; Zaki, A.; Fouchier, R.A.; et al. Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 is a functional receptor for the emerging human coronavirus-EMC. Nature 2013, 495, 251–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ohnuma, K.; Haagmans, B.L.; Hatano, R.; Raj, V.S.; Mou, H.; Iwata, S.; Dang, N.H.; Bosch, B.J.; Morimoto, C. Inhibition of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus infection by anti-CD26 monoclonal antibody. J. Virol. 2013, 87, 13892–13899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. van Doremalen, N.; Miazgowicz, K.L.; Milne-Price, S.; Bushmaker, T.; Robertson, S.; Scott, D.; Kinne, J.; McLellan, J.S.; Zhu, J.; Munster, V.J. Host species restriction of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus through its receptor, dipeptidyl peptidase 4. J. Virol. 2014, 88, 9220–9232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Widagdo, W.; Raj, V.S.; Schipper, D.; Kolijn, K.; van Leenders, G.J.; Bosch, B.J.; Bensaid, A.; Segales, J.; Baumgartner, W.; Osterhaus, A.D.; et al. Differential Expression of the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Receptor in the Upper Respiratory Tracts of Humans and Dromedary Camels. J. Virol. 2016, 90, 4838–4842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Al-Mubarak, A.I.A. Differential expression of the coronavirus (Mers-cov) Receptor, Dipeptidyl Peptidase 4, on normal and stimulated leukocytes of dromedary camels. J. Camel Pract. Res. 2018, 25, 249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Haverkamp, A.K.; Lehmbecker, A.; Spitzbarth, I.; Widagdo, W.; Haagmans, B.L.; Segales, J.; Vergara-Alert, J.; Bensaid, A.; van den Brand, J.M.A.; Osterhaus, A.; et al. Experimental infection of dromedaries with Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus is accompanied by massive ciliary loss and depletion of the cell surface receptor dipeptidyl peptidase 4. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 9778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Pierson, D.M.; Jones, D.; Muzzafar, T.; Kersh, M.J.; Challagundla, P.; Medeiros, L.J.; Jorgensen, J.L. Utility of CD26 in flow cytometric immunophenotyping of T-cell lymphomas in tissue and body fluid specimens. Cytom. B Clin. Cytom. 2008, 74, 341–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Hussen, J.; Schuberth, H.J. Heterogeneity of Bovine Peripheral Blood Monocytes. Front. Immunol. 2017, 8, 1875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Grandoni, F.; Scata, M.C.; Martucciello, A.; De Carlo, E.; De Matteis, G.; Hussen, J. Comprehensive phenotyping of peripheral blood monocytes in healthy bovine. Cytom. A 2022, 101, 122–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Trzebanski, S.; Jung, S. Plasticity of monocyte development and monocyte fates. Immunol. Lett. 2020, 227, 66–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Imrie, H.; Williams, D.J.L. Stimulation of bovine monocyte-derived macrophages with lipopolysaccharide, interferon-ɣ, Interleukin-4 or Interleukin-13 does not induce detectable changes in nitric oxide or arginase activity. BMC Vet. Res. 2019, 15, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Yang, J.; Zhang, L.; Yu, C.; Yang, X.F.; Wang, H. Monocyte and macrophage differentiation: Circulation inflammatory monocyte as biomarker for inflammatory diseases. Biomark. Res. 2014, 2, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ambarus, C.A.; Krausz, S.; van Eijk, M.; Hamann, J.; Radstake, T.R.; Reedquist, K.A.; Tak, P.P.; Baeten, D.L. Systematic validation of specific phenotypic markers for in vitro polarized human macrophages. J. Immunol. Methods 2012, 375, 196–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Duvel, A.; Frank, C.; Schnapper, A.; Schuberth, H.J.; Sipka, A. Classically or alternatively activated bovine monocyte-derived macrophages in vitro do not resemble CD163/Calprotectin biased macrophage populations in the teat. Innate Immun. 2012, 18, 886–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Thirunavukkarasu, S.; de Silva, K.; Begg, D.J.; Whittington, R.J.; Plain, K.M. Macrophage polarization in cattle experimentally exposed to Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis. Pathog. Dis. 2015, 73, ftv085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sipka, A.S.; Chandler, T.L.; Weichhart, T.; Schuberth, H.J.; Mann, S. Inhibition of mTOR in bovine monocyte derived macrophages and dendritic cells provides a potential mechanism for postpartum immune dysfunction in dairy cows. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 15084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Hussen, J.; Frank, C.; Duvel, A.; Koy, M.; Schuberth, H.J. The chemokine CCL5 induces selective migration of bovine classical monocytes and drives their differentiation into LPS-hyporesponsive macrophages in vitro. Dev. Comp. Immunol. 2014, 47, 169–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Carta, T.; Razzuoli, E.; Fruscione, F.; Zinellu, S.; Meloni, D.; Anfossi, A.; Chessa, B.; Dei Giudici, S.; Graham, S.P.; Oggiano, A.; et al. Comparative Phenotypic and Functional Analyses of the Effects of IL-10 or TGF-beta on Porcine Macrophages. Animals 2021, 11, 1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Jaguin, M.; Houlbert, N.; Fardel, O.; Lecureur, V. Polarization profiles of human M-CSF-generated macrophages and comparison of M1-markers in classically activated macrophages from GM-CSF and M-CSF origin. Cell Immunol. 2013, 281, 51–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Das, A.; Sinha, M.; Datta, S.; Abas, M.; Chaffee, S.; Sen, C.K.; Roy, S. Monocyte and macrophage plasticity in tissue repair and regeneration. Am. J. Pathol. 2015, 185, 2596–2606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Italiani, P.; Boraschi, D. From Monocytes to M1/M2 Macrophages: Phenotypical vs. Functional Differentiation. Front. Immunol. 2014, 5, 514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Emam, M.; Tabatabaei, S.; Sargolzaei, M.; Sharif, S.; Schenkel, F.; Mallard, B. The effect of host genetics on in vitro performance of bovine monocyte-derived macrophages. J. Dairy Sci. 2019, 102, 9107–9116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Qin, H.; Holdbrooks, A.T.; Liu, Y.; Reynolds, S.L.; Yanagisawa, L.L.; Benveniste, E.N. SOCS3 deficiency promotes M1 macrophage polarization and inflammation. J. Immunol. 2012, 189, 3439–3448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Gordon, S.; Martinez, F.O. Alternative activation of macrophages: Mechanism and functions. Immunity 2010, 32, 593–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zhou, J.; Chu, H.; Li, C.; Wong, B.H.; Cheng, Z.S.; Poon, V.K.; Sun, T.; Lau, C.C.; Wong, K.K.; Chan, J.Y.; et al. Active replication of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus and aberrant induction of inflammatory cytokines and chemokines in human macrophages: Implications for pathogenesis. J. Infect. Dis. 2014, 209, 1331–1342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Karwaciak, I.; Salkowska, A.; Karas, K.; Dastych, J.; Ratajewski, M. Nucleocapsid and Spike Proteins of the Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 Induce IL6 in Monocytes and Macrophages-Potential Implications for Cytokine Storm Syndrome. Vaccines 2021, 9, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Hussen, J.; Shawaf, T.; Al-Mubarak, A.I.A.; Al Humam, N.A.; Almathen, F.; Schuberth, H.J. Dromedary camel CD14(high) MHCII(high) monocytes display inflammatory properties and are reduced in newborn camel calves. BMC Vet. Res. 2020, 16, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Hussen, J.; Duvel, A.; Koy, M.; Schuberth, H.J. Inflammasome activation in bovine monocytes by extracellular ATP does not require the purinergic receptor P2X7. Dev. Comp. Immunol. 2012, 38, 312–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Yuan, Y.; Qi, J.; Peng, R.; Li, C.; Lu, G.; Yan, J.; Wang, Q.; Gao, G.F. Molecular Basis of Binding between Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus and CD26 from Seven Bat Species. J. Virol. 2020, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Rao Muvva, J.; Parasa, V.R.; Lerm, M.; Svensson, M.; Brighenti, S. Polarization of Human Monocyte-Derived Cells with Vitamin D Promotes Control of Mycobacterium tuberculosis Infection. Front. Immunol. 2019, 10, 3157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Silva, V.M.; Souza, M.T.; Blagitz, M.G.; Souza, F.N.; Batista, C.F.; Alves, A.J.; Fernandes, A.C.C.; Sanchez, E.M.R.; Ordinola-Ramirez, C.M.; da Costa, L.; et al. Milk lymphocyte profile and macrophage functions: New insights into the immunity of the mammary gland in quarters infected with Corynebacterium bovis. BMC Vet. Res. 2021, 17, 282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hussen, J.; Al-Sukruwah, M.A. The Impact of the Animal Housing System on Immune Cell Composition and Function in the Blood of Dromedary Camels. Animals 2022, 12, 317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. de Las Casas-Engel, M.; Corbi, A.L. Serotonin modulation of macrophage polarization: Inflammation and beyond. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 2014, 824, 89–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Enright, S.; Werstuck, G.H. Investigating the Effects of Sex Hormones on Macrophage Polarization. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25, 951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Wang, L.; Lu, Q.; Gao, W.; Yu, S. Recent advancement on development of drug-induced macrophage polarization in control of human diseases. Life Sci. 2021, 284, 119914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Neumann, A.; Happonen, L.; Karlsson, C.; Bahnan, W.; Frick, I.M.; Bjorck, L. Streptococcal protein SIC activates monocytes and induces inflammation. iScience 2021, 24, 102339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Yu, S.; Ge, H.; Li, S.; Qiu, H.J. Modulation of Macrophage Polarization by Viruses: Turning Off/On Host Antiviral Responses. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 839585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Lescoat, A.; Ballerie, A.; Augagneur, Y.; Morzadec, C.; Vernhet, L.; Fardel, O.; Jego, P.; Jouneau, S.; Lecureur, V. Distinct Properties of Human M-CSF and GM-CSF Monocyte-Derived Macrophages to Simulate Pathological Lung Conditions In Vitro: Application to Systemic and Inflammatory Disorders with Pulmonary Involvement. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Zhou, D.; Huang, C.; Lin, Z.; Zhan, S.; Kong, L.; Fang, C.; Li, J. Macrophage polarization and function with emphasis on the evolving roles of coordinated regulation of cellular signaling pathways. Cell Signal 2014, 26, 192–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Murray, P.J.; Allen, J.E.; Biswas, S.K.; Fisher, E.A.; Gilroy, D.W.; Goerdt, S.; Gordon, S.; Hamilton, J.A.; Ivashkiv, L.B.; Lawrence, T.; et al. Macrophage activation and polarization: Nomenclature and experimental guidelines. Immunity 2014, 41, 14–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Zheng, X.F.; Hong, Y.X.; Feng, G.J.; Zhang, G.F.; Rogers, H.; Lewis, M.A.; Williams, D.W.; Xia, Z.F.; Song, B.; Wei, X.Q. Lipopolysaccharide-induced M2 to M1 macrophage transformation for IL-12p70 production is blocked by Candida albicans mediated up-regulation of EBI3 expression. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e63967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Haloul, M.; Oliveira, E.R.A.; Kader, M.; Wells, J.Z.; Tominello, T.R.; El Andaloussi, A.; Yates, C.C.; Ismail, N. mTORC1-mediated polarization of M1 macrophages and their accumulation in the liver correlate with immunopathology in fatal ehrlichiosis. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 14050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Beatty, G.L.; Chiorean, E.G.; Fishman, M.P.; Saboury, B.; Teitelbaum, U.R.; Sun, W.; Huhn, R.D.; Song, W.; Li, D.; Sharp, L.L.; et al. CD40 agonists alter tumor stroma and show efficacy against pancreatic carcinoma in mice and humans. Science 2011, 331, 1612–1616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kim, H.; Cha, J.; Jang, M.; Kim, P. Hyaluronic acid-based extracellular matrix triggers spontaneous M2-like polarity of monocyte/macrophage. Biomater. Sci. 2019, 7, 2264–2271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Murray, P.J.; Wynn, T.A. Protective and pathogenic functions of macrophage subsets. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2011, 11, 723–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Tarique, A.A.; Logan, J.; Thomas, E.; Holt, P.G.; Sly, P.D.; Fantino, E. Phenotypic, functional, and plasticity features of classical and alternatively activated human macrophages. Am. J. Respir. Cell Mol. Biol. 2015, 53, 676–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Lam, R.S.; O’Brien-Simpson, N.M.; Holden, J.A.; Lenzo, J.C.; Fong, S.B.; Reynolds, E.C. Unprimed, M1 and M2 Macrophages Differentially Interact with Porphyromonas gingivalis. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0158629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Atri, C.; Guerfali, F.Z.; Laouini, D. Role of Human Macrophage Polarization in Inflammation during Infectious Diseases. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 1801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Lingnau, M.; Hoflich, C.; Volk, H.D.; Sabat, R.; Docke, W.D. Interleukin-10 enhances the CD14-dependent phagocytosis of bacteria and apoptotic cells by human monocytes. Hum. Immunol. 2007, 68, 730–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Gratchev, A.; Kzhyshkowska, J.; Utikal, J.; Goerdt, S. Interleukin-4 and dexamethasone counterregulate extracellular matrix remodelling and phagocytosis in type-2 macrophages. Scand. J. Immunol. 2005, 61, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Teles, R.M.; Krutzik, S.R.; Ochoa, M.T.; Oliveira, R.B.; Sarno, E.N.; Modlin, R.L. Interleukin-4 regulates the expression of CD209 and subsequent uptake of Mycobacterium leprae by Schwann cells in human leprosy. Infect. Immun. 2010, 78, 4634–4643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Schulz, D.; Severin, Y.; Zanotelli, V.R.T.; Bodenmiller, B. In-Depth Characterization of Monocyte-Derived Macrophages using a Mass Cytometry-Based Phagocytosis Assay. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 1925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Rodon, J.; Sachse, M.; Te, N.; Segales, J.; Bensaid, A.; Risco, C.; Vergara-Alert, J. Middle East respiratory coronavirus (MERS-CoV) internalized by llama alveolar macrophages does not result in virus replication or induction of pro-inflammatory cytokines. Microbes Infect. 2024, 26, 105252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Urban, P.; Italiani, P.; Boraschi, D.; Gioria, S. The SARS-CoV-2 Nucleoprotein Induces Innate Memory in Human Monocytes. Front. Immunol. 2022, 13, 963627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Shirato, K.; Kizaki, T. SARS-CoV-2 spike protein S1 subunit induces pro-inflammatory responses via toll-like receptor 4 signaling in murine and human macrophages. Heliyon 2021, 7, e06187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Mahallawi, W.H.; Khabour, O.F.; Zhang, Q.; Makhdoum, H.M.; Suliman, B.A. MERS-CoV infection in humans is associated with a pro-inflammatory Th1 and Th17 cytokine profile. Cytokine 2018, 104, 8–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Alosaimi, B.; Hamed, M.E.; Naeem, A.; Alsharef, A.A.; AlQahtani, S.Y.; AlDosari, K.M.; Alamri, A.A.; Al-Eisa, K.; Khojah, T.; Assiri, A.M.; et al. MERS-CoV infection is associated with downregulation of genes encoding Th1 and Th2 cytokines/chemokines and elevated inflammatory innate immune response in the lower respiratory tract. Cytokine 2020, 126, 154895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Biology 14 00292 g001
Figure 1. Binding of camel PBMC to the MERS-CoV S1 protein. (A) Flow cytometric analysis of camel PBMC labeled with the recombinant MERS-CoV S1 Fc chimera protein in combination with an anti-human IgG-FITC antibody. After excluding dead cells (based on staining with propidium iodide) and cell duplets (based on SSC-A and SSC-H), gates were set on lymphocytes (Ls) and monocytes (Ms) based on their FSC and side-scatter properties. (B) The binding of gated lymphocytes and monocytes to the isotype control (red line), human IgG-FITC (black line), and MERS-CoV S1 (blue line) is shown in the form of histograms. (C) Mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) of MERS-CoV S1 binding is presented for both cell types (* indicates significant differences; p < 0.05; n = 3 animals).
Figure 1. Binding of camel PBMC to the MERS-CoV S1 protein. (A) Flow cytometric analysis of camel PBMC labeled with the recombinant MERS-CoV S1 Fc chimera protein in combination with an anti-human IgG-FITC antibody. After excluding dead cells (based on staining with propidium iodide) and cell duplets (based on SSC-A and SSC-H), gates were set on lymphocytes (Ls) and monocytes (Ms) based on their FSC and side-scatter properties. (B) The binding of gated lymphocytes and monocytes to the isotype control (red line), human IgG-FITC (black line), and MERS-CoV S1 (blue line) is shown in the form of histograms. (C) Mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) of MERS-CoV S1 binding is presented for both cell types (* indicates significant differences; p < 0.05; n = 3 animals).
Biology 14 00292 g001
Biology 14 00292 g002
Figure 2. Separated camel PBMC, day 1 adherent monocytes, and day 6 monocyte-derived macrophages (MDMs) were compared in terms of their morphology under a light microscope (A), their forward and side-scatter characteristics (B), and the expression of the monocytic markers CD14 (C), CD163 (D), and MHCII (E). The expression density of the cell markers is shown as histograms of specific antibody binding (blue line) in comparison to the isotype control (red lines) after gating on the corresponding cell type. The results represent different datasets obtained from different antibody isotype combinations.
Figure 2. Separated camel PBMC, day 1 adherent monocytes, and day 6 monocyte-derived macrophages (MDMs) were compared in terms of their morphology under a light microscope (A), their forward and side-scatter characteristics (B), and the expression of the monocytic markers CD14 (C), CD163 (D), and MHCII (E). The expression density of the cell markers is shown as histograms of specific antibody binding (blue line) in comparison to the isotype control (red lines) after gating on the corresponding cell type. The results represent different datasets obtained from different antibody isotype combinations.
Biology 14 00292 g002
Biology 14 00292 g003
Figure 3. (A) Microscopic analysis of the cell morphology of camel MDMs differentiated for 6 days in medium alone (Black), in medium containing LPS and GM-CSF (Blue), in medium containing M-CSF (Red), or in medium containing the recombinant MERS-CoV S1 protein (Green). (B) MDM cell size and granularity were measured by flow cytometric analysis of forward-scatter (FSC) and side-scatter (SSC) properties. (C) Mean SSC and (D) FSC values were calculated and are presented above for the different MDM types (* indicates significant differences; p < 0.05; n = 5 animals).
Figure 3. (A) Microscopic analysis of the cell morphology of camel MDMs differentiated for 6 days in medium alone (Black), in medium containing LPS and GM-CSF (Blue), in medium containing M-CSF (Red), or in medium containing the recombinant MERS-CoV S1 protein (Green). (B) MDM cell size and granularity were measured by flow cytometric analysis of forward-scatter (FSC) and side-scatter (SSC) properties. (C) Mean SSC and (D) FSC values were calculated and are presented above for the different MDM types (* indicates significant differences; p < 0.05; n = 5 animals).
Biology 14 00292 g003
Biology 14 00292 g004
Figure 4. The phenotypic analysis of in vitro-generated camel monocyte-derived macrophages. Camel MDM differentiated for 6 days in medium alone (black), in medium containing LPS and GM-CSF (Blue), in medium containing M-CSF (Red), or in medium containing the recombinant MERS-CoV S1 protein (Green) were labeled with cell marker antibodies and analyzed by flow cytometry. The expression density of CD163 (A), MHCII (B), CD14 (C), CD9 (D), CD172a (E), CD11a (F), CD44 (G), and CD18 (H) is presented as the mean fluorescence intensity for different types of MDMs (* indicates significant differences; p < 0.05).
Figure 4. The phenotypic analysis of in vitro-generated camel monocyte-derived macrophages. Camel MDM differentiated for 6 days in medium alone (black), in medium containing LPS and GM-CSF (Blue), in medium containing M-CSF (Red), or in medium containing the recombinant MERS-CoV S1 protein (Green) were labeled with cell marker antibodies and analyzed by flow cytometry. The expression density of CD163 (A), MHCII (B), CD14 (C), CD9 (D), CD172a (E), CD11a (F), CD44 (G), and CD18 (H) is presented as the mean fluorescence intensity for different types of MDMs (* indicates significant differences; p < 0.05).
Biology 14 00292 g004
Biology 14 00292 g005
Figure 5. The phagocytosis activity of camel MDMs. Camel MDMs differentiated for 6 days in medium alone (Black), in medium containing LPS and GM-CSF (Blue), in medium containing M-CSF (Red), or in medium containing the recombinant MERS-CoV S1 protein (Green) were incubated with FITC-labeled Staphylococcus aureus. (A) Phagocytic cells were identified based on their increased fluorescence in the FITC channel and (B) their percentages were calculated and are hereby presented graphically for different types of MDMs (* indicates significant differences; p < 0.05; n = 4 animals).
Figure 5. The phagocytosis activity of camel MDMs. Camel MDMs differentiated for 6 days in medium alone (Black), in medium containing LPS and GM-CSF (Blue), in medium containing M-CSF (Red), or in medium containing the recombinant MERS-CoV S1 protein (Green) were incubated with FITC-labeled Staphylococcus aureus. (A) Phagocytic cells were identified based on their increased fluorescence in the FITC channel and (B) their percentages were calculated and are hereby presented graphically for different types of MDMs (* indicates significant differences; p < 0.05; n = 4 animals).
Biology 14 00292 g005
Table 1. List of antibodies.
Table 1. List of antibodies.
AntigenAntibody CloneLabelingSourceIsotype
CD14CAM36A-KingfisherMouse IgG1
CD163LND68A-KingfisherMouse IgG1
MHCIITH81A5-KingfisherMouse IgG2a
CD172aDH59b-KingfisherMouse IgG1
CD9LT86A-KingfisherMouse IgG2a
CD11aHUH73A-KingfisherMouse IgG1
CD44LT41A-KingfisherMouse IgG2a
CD186.7FITCBDMouse IgG2a
Human IgGpolyFITCDakoCytomationRabbit IgG
Mouse IgG1polyFITCThermofisherGoat IgG
Mouse IgG2apolyPEThermofisherGoat IgG
MHC: major histocompatibility complex; FITC: fluorescein isothiocyanate; PE: phycoerythrin; and poly: polyclonal.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hussen, J.; Al-Mubarak, A.I.A.; Shawaf, T.; Bukhari, K.; Alkharsah, K.R. Modulatory Effects of the Recombinant Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) Spike S1 Subunit Protein on the Phenotype of Camel Monocyte-Derived Macrophages. Biology 2025, 14, 292. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology14030292

AMA Style

Hussen J, Al-Mubarak AIA, Shawaf T, Bukhari K, Alkharsah KR. Modulatory Effects of the Recombinant Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) Spike S1 Subunit Protein on the Phenotype of Camel Monocyte-Derived Macrophages. Biology. 2025; 14(3):292. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology14030292

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hussen, Jamal, Abdullah I. A. Al-Mubarak, Turke Shawaf, Khulud Bukhari, and Khaled R. Alkharsah. 2025. "Modulatory Effects of the Recombinant Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) Spike S1 Subunit Protein on the Phenotype of Camel Monocyte-Derived Macrophages" Biology 14, no. 3: 292. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology14030292

APA Style

Hussen, J., Al-Mubarak, A. I. A., Shawaf, T., Bukhari, K., & Alkharsah, K. R. (2025). Modulatory Effects of the Recombinant Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) Spike S1 Subunit Protein on the Phenotype of Camel Monocyte-Derived Macrophages. Biology, 14(3), 292. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology14030292

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop