What is the difference between teichoic and lipoteichoic acids

Although the pro-inflammatory properties of TAs have been established in vitro , it remains unclear how TAs affect immunomodulation in vivo.

In this study, we investigated the role of TA D-alanylation on L. For this, we compared the effect of L. We demonstrated that the majority of the L. Strikingly, not only pro-inflammatory immune responses were abolished in the absence of D-Ala substitution, but also anti-inflammatory responses, such as the L. With this study we provide insight in host-microbe interactions, by demonstrating the involvement of D-alanylation of TAs on the bacterial membrane in intestinal and systemic immunomodulation in healthy mice.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have the following interests: co-authors Peter A. Bron, Iris van Swam and M. There are no patents, products in development or marketed products to declare. The precise mechanisms by which different probiotics impact the mammalian immune system have yet to be discovered.

It is likely that extracellular bacterial factors play a pivotal role, as these molecules establish the first interactions between the bacteria and host cells [1] — [3]. For the lactic acid bacterium LAB Lactobaccilus plantarum WCFS1, a single colony isolate of the strain NCIM [4] , it has been demonstrated that its immunomodulatory properties in vitro depend on the presence of specific cell-envelope molecules [5] , [6].

Even subtle differences in the composition of these molecules can induce large differences in the host cell immune response [6] — [8]. The exact role of these molecules and the type of host response they generate in vivo remains to be identified. Teichoic acids are part of the gram-positive bacterial envelope and recognized as immunomodulating effector molecules [9] — [13].

LTA is attached in the cytoplasmic membrane through a glycolipid anchor [14] , [15]. Especially LTA has been recognized as one of the most immunomodulating cell wall components in gram-positive bacteria [9] — [13]. Although the potency differs between bacterial strains [10] , it has been demonstrated that LTA purified from L.

This response was dependent on D-alanyl substitution of the LTA backbone, its glycolipid anchor [16] , [17] , and interaction with the pattern recognition receptor Toll-like receptor-2 TLR-2 on host immune cells [11].

Moreover, purified L. Similar results have been obtained with an L. The latter mutant was able to normalize pathogenic innate and adaptive immune responses, resulting in regression of established colonic polyps in a mouse model [22]. These results support the general hypothesis that LTAs predominantly generate pro-inflammatory immune responses [9] — [13] and that the absence of functional LTAs in the bacterial membrane improve the bacterial anti-inflammatory capacity [11] , [18] — [22].

Although several specific LTA-induced pro-inflammatory immune effects have been demonstrated in vivo [21] , it remains unclear how LTAs influence immune cell populations in vivo. In the present study, we aimed to investigate the effects of L. For this, we compared the effects the probiotic strain L. The bacteria were administrated orally for 5 days, which is the period to develop an adaptive immune response [24] , [25].

Moreover, since L. We demonstrate that the distribution of not only pro-, but also anti-inflammatory T cell and DC populations is dependent on the functionality of the dltX-D -encoded system that D-alanylates TAs in the L.

Wild-type L. Subsequently the cells were incubated in triplicate with WT- L. Bone marrow cells were isolated and cultured as described by Lutz et al [27] , with minor modifications. On day 3, 10 ml was removed and replaced with complete medium. On day 5, 5 ml fresh medium was added. On day 8, the cells were either left unstimulated or stimulated with L. The animals were fed standard chow and water ad libitum. All animal experiments were performed after receiving approval of the institutional Animal Care Committee of the Groningen University.

All animals received animal care in compliance with the Dutch law on Experimental Animal Care. This bacterial load was chosen based on the protective effects of a D-Ala negative derivative strain of L. On day six, the mice were sacrificed by cervical dislocation, after which the intestine, spleen, and mesenteric lymph nodes were removed for further analysis.

Subsequently, a cell strainer was used to remove remaining clumps. The small and large intestine were cut in small pieces and rinsed three times in ice cold PBS. The cell suspensions were washed in ice cold PBS and a cell strainer was used to remove remaining clumps.

The interface was washed in ice cold PBS, counted and used for staining. Subsequently a cell strainer was used to remove remaining clumps. The cells were washed, counted, and used for staining.

Part of the cells of the spleen and MLN were ex vivo restimulated, the rest was left unstimulated. The interface was washed twice in ice-cold FACS buffer and used for staining. T cell stainings were performed on non-stimulated splenic, MLN, PP, and lamina propria cell suspensions.

Subsequently, the cells were incubated with a cocktail of primary antibodies for 30 minutes. The whole procedure was performed on ice. Analysis was performed using FlowJo 7. Dendritic cells were gated in the forward side scatter plot, based on size and granularity.

The expression of CD and CD80 within this DC population was determined based on samples stained with the isotype controls. Normal distribution of the data-sets was confirmed by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. The two-sided Students t-test was used to determine changes in immune cell populations after probiotic treatment in vivo.

A statistical trend was defined as 0. I am Tankeshwar Acharya. Blogging is my passion. I am working as an Asst. Acharya Tankeshwar Bacteriology , Microbiology for Beginners 2. Biochemical Tests. Laboratory Diagnosis of Bacterial Disease. Be the first to comment Do you have any queries? Acyl groups of the glycolipid anchor are also considered to be important for the immunomodulatory activity of LTA.

It was reported that L. Cytokine-inducing activity was altered by elimination of acyl groups from LTA extracted from L. Fatty acid residues i. Lines of evidence indicate that LTA is a cytokine-inducing factor of intestinal Gram-positive bacteria, and heterogeneous LTA structures are potentially a key factor in host immunomodulation. On the other hand, it was also reported that d -Ala substitutions of LTA GroP-repeating units [ 50 ] and the glycolipid anchor [ 81 ] are not important for the induction of cytokines.

The cytokine-inducing activity of defined structural elements of LTA has to be clarified. Details of the LTA recognition mechanism by the host will reveal the significance of LTA structural diversity in bacterial-host interactions. Recently, an LTA-deficient L. The parental L. When a viable LTA-deficient L. Administration of LTA-deficient mutant cells also facilitated the resolution of inflammation of the DSS-induced colitis.

It is suggested that the suppression of inflammation in mice inoculated with LTA-deficient L. However, the detailed mechanism of host-LTA interaction remains to be elucidated.

Noh et al. The difference in immunomodulatory effects between Lactobacillus spp. LTA and other pathogenic bacterial LTAs is interesting when we consider the structural characteristics of Lactobacillus spp. Thus, information on the LTA structure might provide a solution to the problem; for example, large numbers of hexoses and acyl groups in the glycolipid anchor and no aminosugar substitution in GroP-repeating units.

LTA is regarded as an important cell surface molecule of Gram-positive bacteria, with roles in bacterial physiology and bacterial interaction with the host. Data on the LTA chemical structure, extraction procedures, and LTA immunomodulatory activities are accumulating, and detailed physiological and biological roles of LTA are increasingly understood. On the other hand, numerous questions have been raised. For example, questions about how and why the LTA structural diversity is generated and about the significance of LTA structural diversity for bacterial physiology and host interactions.

Full knowledge of LTA chemical structures and biological activities has to be obtained before these questions can be answered. National Center for Biotechnology Information , U. Biosci Microbiota Food Health. Published online Jun 9. Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer.

Received Mar 1; Accepted May This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. Abstract Bacterial cell surface molecules are at the forefront of host-bacterium interactions. Keywords: lipoteichoic acid, repeating unit, glycolipid anchor, lactic acid bacteria, probiotics, Lactobacillus spp.

Open in a separate window. Overview of the Gram-positive cell surface architecture. Typical structures of wall-teichoic and lipoteichoic acids. Structures of lipoteichoic acids from Gram-positive bacteria. Bacterial species whose complete lipoteichoic acid structures are known. Table 2. Structures of lipoteichoic acids from Lactobacillus spp. Table 3. General architecture of lipoteichoic acids from beneficial probiotic lactic acid bacteria.

The biosynthesis and functionality of the cell-wall of lactic acid bacteria. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 76 : — The extracellular biology of the lactobacilli. Isolation and structure of ribitol phosphate derivatives teichoic acids from bacterial cell walls. J Chem Soc — Nucleotides and the bacterial cell wall. Nature : — Kelemen MV, Baddiley J. Structure of the intracellular glycerol teichoic acid from Lactobacillus casei A.

Biochem J 80 : — Araki Y, Ito E. Linkage units in cell walls of gram-positive bacteria. Crit Rev Microbiol 17 : — Structure and glycosylation of lipoteichoic acids in Bacillus strains. J Bacteriol : — Pleiotropic roles of polyglycerolphosphate synthase of lipoteichoic acid in growth of Staphylococcus aureus cells. Regulation of induced colonic inflammation by Lactobacillus acidophilus deficient in lipoteichoic acid.

Microbiology : — Comparative studies of lipoteichoic acids from several Bacillus strains. Fischer W. Physiology of lipoteichoic acids in bacteria. Adv Microb Physiol 29 : — Teichoic acids and membrane function in bacteria. Evidence that the cell wall of Bacillus subtilis is protonated during respiration. Gram-positive three-component antimicrobial peptide-sensing system.

Influence of wall teichoic acid on lysozyme resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. The major and minor wall teichoic acids prevent the sidewall localization of vegetative dl-endopeptidase LytF in Bacillus subtilis. Mol Microbiol 70 : — Synthesis of glycerol phosphate lipoteichoic acid in Staphylococcus aureus.

Chapot-Chartier MP. Interactions of the cell-wall glycopolymers of lactic acid bacteria with their bacteriophages. Front Microbiol 5 : Structural feature of the major but not cytokine-inducing molecular species of lipoteichoic acid.

J Biochem : — Eur J Immunol 32 : — Effect of alanine ester substitution and other structural features of lipoteichoic acids on their inhibitory activity against autolysins of Staphylococcus aureus. Lipoteichoic acids are important in contributing negative charge to the cell wall. Moreover, they act as receptor molecules for some gram-positive bacteriophages. Thus, this summarizes the difference between wall teichoic acid and lipoteichoic acid.

Brown, Stephanie, et al. National Library of Medicine, , Available here. Tankeshwar, Acharya. Samanthi Udayangani holds a B. Degree in Plant Science, M. Your email address will not be published.

Figure Wall Teichoic Acid. Figure Lipoteichoic Acid.