IOVS Physiological Reviews
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ham, D.-I.
Right arrow Articles by Gery, I.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ham, D.-I.
Right arrow Articles by Gery, I.
(Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2002;43:2258-2263.)
© 2002 by The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc.

RPE65 Is Highly Uveitogenic in Rats

Don-Il Ham1,2, Susan Gentleman3, Chi-Chao Chan1, J. Hugh McDowell4, T. Michael Redmond3 and Igal Gery1

1 From the Laboratories of Immunology and 3 Retinal Cell and Molecular Biology, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland; the 2 Department of Ophthalmology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea; and the 4 Department of Ophthalmology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
PURPOSE. To examine the hypothesis that RPE65, a protein specific to the retinal pigment epithelium, is uveitogenic in rats.

METHODS. Rats of four inbred strains (Lewis, Brown Norway, Fischer, and SHR) were immunized with native or recombinant bovine RPE65, or with S-antigen (S-Ag), emulsified with complete Freund adjuvant, and treated simultaneously with killed Bordetella pertussis bacteria, as indicated. Development of ocular changes was examined and scored both clinically and histologically.

RESULTS. Lewis rats immunized with RPE65 showed development of acute and severe inflammatory eye disease that affected most ocular tissues. The minimum uveitogenic dose of RPE65 was similar to that of S-Ag (1 µg per rat), but the changes induced by RPE65 at higher dose ranges were less severe than those induced by S-Ag. Concurrent treatment of the RPE65-immunized rats with B. pertussis bacteria was not critical for disease induction, but enhanced dramatically the pathogenic reaction. Unlike the results with several other retinal proteins, no pinealitis was detected in rats immunized with RPE65. Fischer (F344) rats resembled Lewis rats in being similarly affected by RPE65 or S-Ag. In contrast, Brown Norway (BN) rats developed severe disease when immunized with RPE65, but showed minimal changes in response to S-Ag. SHR rats responded poorly to disease induced by RPE65, and S-Ag-induced disease failed to develop.

CONCLUSIONS. RPE65 is highly uveitogenic in rats, thus suggesting that this molecule could be involved in pathogenic autoimmunity in the human eye.


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
The complex process of vision uses a large battery of molecules that are unique to the corresponding eye tissues. A remarkable number of these ocular-specific molecules, most of which are proteins, have been found to be uveitogenic—that is, capable of initiating ocular inflammation when injected to susceptible experimental animals.1 2 3 So far, at least eight ocular-specific molecules have been reported to be immunopathogenic, a number greater by far than the numbers of immunopathogenic antigens identified in other organs in which autoimmune diseases can be induced, such as the brain, thyroid, or testes. The known uveitogenic proteins include S-antigen (S-Ag, arrestin), interphotoreceptor retinoid-binding protein (IRBP), rhodopsin, recoverin, phosducin, pigment epithelial polypeptide preparation (PEP-65), melanin-associated antigen, and tyrosinase related protein.4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 The inflammatory eye diseases induced by these proteins vary in the tissues mostly affected and have been designated accordingly: experimental autoimmune uveoretinitis (EAU); experimental autoimmune anterior uveitis (EAAU), also known as experimental melanin-induced uveitis (EMIU); and experimental autoimmune posterior uveitis (EAPU). These experimental diseases serve as models for uveitic conditions in humans, such as sympathetic ophthalmia, Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada syndrome, bird-shot chorioretinopathy, Behçet disease, and certain forms of anterior uveitis.1 2 3 The proteins used in most studies have been S-Ag and IRBP. Both molecules are highly uveitogenic in Lewis rats, inducing EAU at their lowest doses of 1 and 0.3 µg per rat, respectively;12 other known uveitogenic proteins have been found to be less potent.6 7 8 9 10 11

In this study we investigated the uveitogenic capacity of RPE65. RPE65 is a 61-kDa protein, specifically and abundantly expressed in the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) and associated preferentially with the microsomal membrane fraction of the RPE.13 14 15 RPE65 is highly conserved across vertebrates from human to salamander, and plays an essential role in vitamin A metabolism necessary for the synthesis of the visual pigment chromophore 11-cis retinal.16 17 18 19 Mutations of RPE65 were identified among patients with Leber congenital amaurosis, retinitis pigmentosa, and autosomal recessive childhood-onset severe retinal dystrophy.20 21 22 In view of its eye-specific expression, we hypothesized that RPE65 could be uveitogenic.

Our data showed that, indeed, RPE65 was a potent uveitogenic molecule, inducing EAU in Lewis rats at doses as low as 1 µg per rat. In addition to Lewis rats, RPE65 was found to be uveitogenic in three other inbred rat strains. RPE65-induced EAU was found to exhibit certain distinct clinical and histopathologic features. Unlike in rats immunized with several other retinal proteins, no pinealitis was detected in RPE65-immunized rats.


   Materials and Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Animals
Male Lewis, Brown Norway (BN), Fischer (F344), and SHR rats, approximately 8 weeks old, were supplied by Charles River (Raleigh, NC). All animal procedures were performed in adherence to the ARVO Statement for the Use of Animals in Ophthalmic and Vision Research.

Antigens
Native RPE65 was purified from the microsomal fraction of fresh bovine RPE, prepared as previously described15 and stored at -80°C until used. Thawed microsomes were pelleted at 100,000g for 30 minutes in an ultracentrifuge (TL-100; Beckman Instruments, Carlsbad, CA) at 4°C. They were then dispersed in 1 M acetic acid and incubated on ice for 30 minutes with occasional agitation. The suspension was centrifuged at 100,000g for 30 minutes, and the supernatant, containing RPE65, was dialyzed against phosphate-buffered saline containing 0.3% 3-([3-cholamidopropyl]dimethylammonio-2-hydroxy-1-propanesulfonate (CHAPS), 10 µM FeSO4, 1 mM tris(2-carboxyethyl)-phosphine hydrochloride (TCEP), and 1 Complete (EDTA-free) protease inhibitor tablet (Roche Molecular Biochemicals, Indianapolis, IN) per 50 mL, with three changes. The dialyzed protein was then concentrated with ultrafiltration units (Centricon 10; Millipore Corp., Bedford, MA). Protein concentration was determined by the method of Bradford.23

Recombinant RPE65 was prepared in an in vitro transcription-translation system (RTS 500; Roche Diagnostics GmBH, Mannheim, Germany). The coding sequence of bovine RPE65 was ligated into pIVEX2.4b, according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The RPE65-pIVEX plasmid was amplified in XL-1 Blue cells and isolated with a kit (Qiafilter Plasmid Midikit; Qiagen, Valencia, CA) at a final concentration of 1.9 µg/mL. The 5' and 3' sequences of the insert were verified with an automatic sequencer (CEQ 2000; Beckman Instruments). Expression of the plasmid was accomplished with the transcription-translation system. Plasmid DNA (10 µg) was used in a 1 mL volume of kit accompanying the transcription-translation system (RTS 500 Escherichia coli HY kit; Roche Diagnostics), reconstituted according to the manufacturer’s instructions, plus 10 µM FeSO4 in both chambers and 0.1% CHAPS in the reaction chamber. Incubation proceeded at 30°C for 23 hours, with a stirring speed of 120 rpm. The expressed protein (approximately 250 µg) was localized entirely in the 16,000g pellet of the reaction mixture and was evaluated by immunoblot analysis with an antibody against residues 150-164 of bovine RPE6524 (described later). The crude pellet, containing the expressed protein and insoluble components of the reaction volume, was taken up in 0.5 mL Tris-HCl (pH 7.4) and frozen.

Bovine S-Ag was prepared from PBS extracts bovine retinas that had been treated with ConA-sepharose, as described by Adler et al.25 The resulting unbound supernatant was then dialyzed against 10 volumes of 10 mM HEPES, 15 mM NaCl, 1 mM EDTA, 1 mM benzamidine (pH 7.0), with the buffer changed once. The S-Ag was prepared by the method of Palczewski et al.,26 with modifications described by Puig et al.27 The final elution from the heparin-agarose column was through a gradient from 10 mM HEPES, 15 mM NaCl (pH 7.0) 10 mM HEPES, and 750 mM NaCl (pH 7.0) and pooled based on the optical density profile at 278 nm. The resultant S-Ag was essentially homogeneous by sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE).

SDS Gel Electrophoresis and Immunoblotting
The purity of the antigenic preparations was tested using SDS gel electrophoresis and immunoblot analysis. Samples were loaded onto a polyacrylamide gel (8% to 25% gradient, Phastgel; Amersham Pharmacia Biotech, Uppsala, Sweden) for SDS gel electrophoresis, and silver staining was performed according to the manufacturer’s protocol. For immunoblot analysis, electrophoresed samples were transferred to membranes (Immobilon-P; Millipore Corp.) by heat, as described in the gel manufacturer’s manual (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech). The blots were developed by the rapid dry blot method described in the user’s guide for the membrane (Immobilon-P; Millipore). The primary antibody used was a rabbit antibody made to residues 150-164 of murine RPE65.24 The secondary antibody was a goat anti-rabbit alkaline phosphatase conjugate (Novagen, Madison, WI), detected colorimetrically with 5-bromo-4-chloro-3-indoyl phosphate/nitroblue tetrazolium (BCIP/NBT) phosphatase substrate (KPL, Gaithersburg, MD).

Immunization of Rats
Rats were immunized by a single injection of various amounts of antigen, as indicated, emulsified by sonication in complete Freund adjuvant (CFA) prepared by grinding killed Mycobacterium tuberculosis bacteria (Difco, Detroit, MI) in incomplete Freund adjuvant oils (Difco) to a concentration of 2.5 mg/mL. The emulsion, in a volume of 0.2 mL, was injected subcutaneously into the tail base. Killed Bordetella pertussis bacteria (lot 94; Michigan Department of Public Health, Lansing, MI) were injected intravenously, 1010 organisms per rat, concurrently with the antigen emulsion.

Evaluation of EAU
Clinical signs of EAU were monitored daily, and grading of disease severity was performed on a scale of 0 to 4, based on the intensity of the changes described in the Results section.5

Eyes and pineal glands were collected from rats killed at various intervals after immunization. Pineal glands were fixed in 4% formaldehyde, whereas eyes were fixed in 4% glutaraldehyde for 30 to 60 minutes before being transferred to 4% formaldehyde. Sections through the pupil and optic nerve were prepared and stained with hematoxylin-eosin by conventional methods. Histologic severity was scored on a scale of 0 to 4, according to the following system: 0.5, mild or minimal pars planitis; 1, pars planitis and focal retinitis with Dalen-Fuchs nodules; 2, lesion extending to the outer nuclear layer and in one fourth or more of the retinal section’s area; 3, lesion extending to the inner nuclear layer and in one half or more of the retinal section’s area; 4, full-thickness retinal damage.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
Discussion
 References
 
Purity of Antigenic Preparations
The native bovine RPE65 preparation was evaluated for homogeneity by silver-stained SDS gel (Fig. 1A) and immunoblot analysis with antibody against peptide 150-164 of murine RPE6524 (Fig. 1B) . Similar results were obtained with the acetic acid extract of the RPE microsomes (lane 1) and the neutralized preparation (lane 2). The major band, comprising more than 90% of the stained protein, was immunoreactive for RPE65. Minor smaller bands also showed RPE65 immunoreactivity, indicating some fragmentation of this protein. The identity of the recombinant protein was also evaluated and showed a strong band of RPE65 immunoreactivity (Fig. 1C) with more extensive fragmentation than in the microsomal extracts.



View larger version (42K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. Gel electrophoresis and immunoblot evaluation of RPE65 preparations. (A) Silver-stained gel of an RPE65 preparation from bovine RPE (lane 1: acetic acid extract; lane 2: neutralized and Fe-reconstituted acid extract). (B) Immunoblot of a duplicate to gel in (A). (C) Immunoblot of a recombinant RPE65 preparation. Molecular weight standards are to the left of (A) and (C).

 
Uveitogenic Capacity of RPE65
Groups of Lewis rats were injected with differing doses of RPE65, and the development of EAU was monitored by both clinical and histologic examinations. Additional groups of rats were immunized with S-Ag, at the same doses, to compare the uveitogenicity of RPE65 with that of S-Ag, a well-investigated molecule. Table 1 summarizes data of three repeated experiments and shows that RPE65 was a highly potent uveitogen, matching S-Ag in its capacity to induce EAU at the tested low doses of 1 or 3 µg per rat. A good correlation was observed between the clinical and histologic analyses. Immunization of Lewis rats with RPE65 without B. pertussis treatment induced EAU, but the severity was less than that in the B. pertussis-treated rats (Table 1) . A preparation of recombinant RPE65 resembled the native preparation in its uveitogenic capacity (Table 1) .


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1. Uveitogenicity of RPE65 in Lewis Rats

 
Clinical Features of RPE65-Induced EAU
Clinical changes were bilateral in all rats with RPE65-induced EAU, with very similar severity levels scored in both eyes. This feature differs from that in rats immunized with S-Ag, in which 9 of 30 diseased rats showed asymmetrical clinical EAU (score difference of >1.0), and unilateral disease observed in four of these animals. The disease onset range was similar in rats immunized with RPE65 and S-Ag (days 8–15 and 8–14 after immunization, respectively). The peak of clinical severity was observed in most rats on the second or third day after onset. The typical clinical changes in eyes with RPE65-induced EAU are shown in Figure 2B . These changes included engorgement of the iridic blood vessels, haziness of anterior chamber, inflammatory cellular deposits on the posterior corneal surface (keratic precipitates), hyphema, and decreased fundus light reflex. It is of note that RPE65 differed from S-Ag in usually producing intermediate levels of clinical changes, even at the higher doses of 10 µg or more. Thus, whereas all rats immunized with S-Ag at 30 µg showed clinical changes with the highest score of 4.0, the clinical changes in RPE65-immunized rats did not exceed 3.0, and mean scores were below 2.0. Moreover, intermediate scores of clinical changes were also observed in rats immunized with RPE65 at 100 µg (data not included in Table 1 ). The clinical changes induced by RPE65 subsided rapidly and disappeared within 3 to 9 days, markedly more rapidly than those in S-Ag-induced EAU.



View larger version (134K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 2. Clinical and histologic disease in eyes of rats immunized with RPE65. (A) A normal Lewis rat eye. (B) A Lewis rat eye 8 days after immunization with 10 µg RPE65, showing hyphema and cloudy anterior chamber. (C) Heavy inflammatory cellular infiltration in the anterior segment of a Lewis rat eye 10 days after immunization with 50 µg RPE65. (D) A Lewis rat eye 8 days after immunization with 30 µg RPE65. There were retinal edema (*) and cellular infiltration mainly in the vitreous. (E) Exudative retinal detachment and marked cellular infiltration in a Lewis rat eye 17 days after immunization with 3 µg RPE65. (F) Cellular accumulation around the RPE-Bruch membrane complex (arrow) in the eye shown in (E). (G) Pars planitis in a Lewis rat eye17 days after immunization with 30 µg RPE65. (H) Outer retinal atrophy in a Lewis rat eye 34 days after immunization with 30 µg RPE65. (I) A Dalen-Fuchs nodulelike lesion (*) and choroiditis in a Lewis rat eye 34 days after immunization with 30 µg RPE65. (J) Ocular inflammation of a BN rat eye 14 days after immunization with 30 µg RPE65, showing limbitis, pars planitis, retinitis, and retinal detachment. (K) Serous retinal detachment persists in a BN rat eye 21 days after immunization with 30 µg RPE65. (L) Disrupted RPE layer, scattered melanin pigment, and aggregation of inflammatory cells in a BN rat eye 21 days after immunization with 30 µg RPE65. Arrow: RPE layer. CB, ciliary body; CH, choroid; CO, cornea; LE, lens; SRS, subretinal space; VI, vitreous cavity. Hematoxylin and eosin; magnifications: (C, G, J) x100; (D, H, I, L) x200; (E, K) x25; (F) x400.

 
Histologic Features of RPE65-Induced Inflammation
The presence of histologic changes correlated well with the presence of clinical disease. The histopathology in eyes with EAU induced by RPE65 generally resembled that of S-Ag-induced EAU in that it showed most ocular tissues to be affected. In the early phase, inflammatory cells infiltrated the ciliary body, iris, and around blood vessels of the limbus (Fig. 2C) . Infiltrated cells accumulated in the anterior chamber and pars plana. They were both polymorphonuclear (PMN) and mononuclear leukocytes, with PMNs being the majority. At the same time, retinal blood vessels showed perivascular infiltration, and the retina became edematous (Fig. 2D) . Inflammatory cells were also present in the neural retina and vitreous. In the peak phase, infiltrated cells in the anterior chamber disappeared rapidly, and the anterior segment was relatively intact, but the retina usually showed extensive serous and exudative detachment (Fig. 2E) . Aggregates of inflammatory cells were observed in the choroid and subretinal space adjacent to the RPE (Fig. 2F) . A unique histologic characteristic of RPE65-induced disease was accumulation of inflammatory cells in the pars plana and anterior peripheral retina (Fig. 2G) . As the disease progressed, inflammatory cells gradually disappeared, and loss of the photoreceptor outer segment layer and outer nuclear layer was apparent (Fig. 2H) . It is noteworthy, however, that there was no total loss of inner retinal layers in rats immunized with RPE65, features often seen in EAU induced by S-Ag3 28 (observations not shown here). Eyes of rats immunized with RPE65 often showed focal accumulations of cells beneath the RPE layer, simulating the Dalen-Fuchs nodule (Fig. 2I) .

No pineal inflammation was detected in any of the rats immunized with RPE65 (Fig. 3B) . In contrast, six of the 30 Lewis rats immunized with S-Ag had pinealitis caused by mononuclear cell infiltration (Fig. 3A and Ref. 29 ).



View larger version (108K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 3. RPE65 did not induce pinealitis. Histologic sections of pineal glands from Lewis rats 19 days after immunization with 30 µg S-Ag (A) or 30 µg RPE65 (B). Multifocal infiltration was seen only in the pineal gland of the S-Ag immunized rat. The infiltration consisted predominantly of lymphocytes (inset, A). Inset in (B) shows the normal pineal tissue in higher magnification (panels, x50; insets, x630).

 
Uveitogenicity of RPE65 in Different Inbred Rat Strains
Groups of rats of the four inbred strains, with different major histocompatibility complex (MHC) haplotypes, were tested for susceptibility to EAU induced by RPE65 or S-Ag (Table 2) . Moderate to severe EAU was induced by RPE65 in all rats of the Lewis, BN, and F344 strains, whereas SHR rats showed only minimal disease. Lewis, BN, and F344 rats also showed development of EAU after immunization with S-Ag, but with remarkable differences in severity. Whereas Lewis and F344 had EAU with severity scores of 4.0, the BN rats showed only mild disease with this antigen, in contrast to the development of severe RPE65-induced EAU in these animals. Typical changes in eyes of BN rats immunized with RPE65 are shown in Figures 2J 2K and 2L . It is of interest that the pigmented RPE in BN rats made it easier to identify the disruption of this layer by the inflammatory process (Fig. 2L) . SHR rats did not respond to disease induced by S-Ag.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2. Susceptibility of Rats of Different Inbred Strains to EAU Induced by RPE65 or S-Ag

 

   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
References
 
In the present study, RPE65 was a potent uveitogenic molecule, inducing EAU in Lewis rats at the low dose of 1 µg per rat. This uveitogenic capacity resembled that of S-Ag (Table 1) and was only slightly lower than that of IRBP, a protein with the minimal uveitogenic dose of 0.3 µg per rat.5 12 The uveitogenicity of RPE65 exceeded that of all the other known retina-specific uveitogenic molecules, including rhodopsin, recoverin, phosducin, melanin-associated antigen, and tyrosinase-related proteins.6 7 8 9 10 11 The purity of the RPE65 preparation was demonstrated by SDS-PAGE and immunoblot assay, with a antibody specific against an RPE65 peptide, and the activity of a recombinant preparation further verified the uveitogenicity of this protein.

Our data suggest that RPE65 and the uveitogenic protein designated PEP-65 by Broekhuyse et al.9 30 are the same molecule. The molecular identity of PEP-65 was not determined by those investigators, however. In addition to their similarity in size, both proteins are extracted from the microsomal fraction of RPE. Another similarity between RPE65 and PEP-65 is that no pineal inflammation was detected in rats immunized with these two proteins. This observation is significant in view of the finding that pinealitis develops in rats immunized with at least three uveitogenic retinal antigens, S-Ag, IRBP, and recoverin.5 8 29 It is consistent with the absence of RPE65 in pineal gland in immunoblot assay.15

The ocular diseases described in the present study and that of Broekhuyse et al.9 differed in three aspects: (1) Pertussis toxin was essential for disease induction by PEP-65, even at the high dose of 100 µg per rat, whereas RPE65 induced EAU at 30 µg per rat with no pertussis treatment (Table 1) . (2) Marked differences were noted between the ocular inflammatory changes in the two studies: RPE65-induced disease was panuveitic, resembling S-Ag or IRBP in affecting most ocular tissues, whereas the disease induced by PEP-65, designated posterior uveitis, minimally affects the anterior segment or the retina.9 In addition, typical features of RPE65-induced disease included retinitis and retinal detachment with exudate in the subretinal space (Fig. 2 , SRS), features that are not reported to be common in PEP-65-induced uveitis.9 (3) Unlike the acute ocular inflammation in the present study in rats immunized with RPE65, with rapid regression of inflammation, the ocular inflammation induced by PEP-65 is characterized by its chronicity.9

It is conceivable that the differences between the ocular diseases induced by RPE65 and PEP-65 are mainly due to differences between the uveitogenic antigen-CFA emulsions used in the two studies. Thus, the CFA we used contained tubercle bacilli at a concentration of 2.5 mg/mL, which is higher than that in any known commercial preparations. In contrast, Broekhuyse et al.9 30 used a commercial preparation of an unspecified bacterial concentration. In addition, we prepared the immunizing emulsion by sonication, a procedure that was reported to enhance the immunopathogenicity of tissue-specific molecules substantially.31 32

Of particular interest are the observations concerning the uveitogenicity of RPE65 and S-Ag in different inbred strains of rats. Whereas Lewis and F344 rats were similarly susceptible to the two antigens, BN rats were highly susceptible to RPE65 but poorly affected by S-Ag (Table 2) . This observation with BN rats resembles our previous finding, that these rats are susceptible to EAU induced by IRBP, in contrast to their poor response to S-Ag.12 It is also noteworthy that BN rats are completely resistant to EAE induced by myelin basic protein (MBP).33 Our findings that BN rats were susceptible to EAU induced by RPE65 or IRBP suggest that the resistance to diseases induced by S-Ag or MBP is due to deficiencies in the T-cell repertoire, rather than to dominance of T helper 2 (Th2) cells in these rats.34 35 Unlike the other tested strains, SHR rats responded poorly to EAU induction by RPE65 and did not develop any disease when immunized with S-Ag.

The high uveitogenic capacity of RPE65 suggests that this protein could be involved in certain uveitic processes in which autoimmunity has been proposed to play a major pathogenic role.1 2 3 In addition, immune processes have been suggested to participate in the pathogenesis of conditions such as age-related macular degeneration (AMD),36 37 38 in which the RPE cell layer is a major target for the disease process. We are continuing to examine the possible participation of autoimmunity against RPE65 in the etiology of human eye diseases.


   Acknowledgements
 
The authors thank Paul Hargrave for support and critical reading of the manuscript, Barbara P. Vistica for excellent technical assistance, the National Eye Institute’s Histolab for preparation of tissue sections, and Shauna Everett and Ricardo Dreyfuss for digital microphotography.


   Footnotes
 
Supported by a grant from Research to Prevent Blindness to the Department of Ophthalmology, University of Florida.

Submitted for publication December 27, 2001; revised March 4, 2002; accepted March 15, 2002.

Commercial relationships policy: N.

The publication costs of this article were defrayed in part by page charge payment. This article must therefore be marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. §1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Corresponding author: Igal Gery, National Eye Institute, NIH, 10 Center Drive, Building 10, Room 10N112, Bethesda, MD 20892-1857; igery{at}helix.nih.gov.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Gery, I, Nussenblatt, RB, Chan, CC, et al (2002) Autoimmune diseases of the eye Theofilopoulos, AN Bona, CA eds. The Molecular Pathology of Autoimmune Diseases 2nd ed. ,978-998 Taylor & Francis New York.
  2. Nussenblatt, RB, Gery, I. (1996) Experimental autoimmune uveitis and its relationship to clinical ocular inflammatory disease J Autoimmunity 9,575-585[Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  3. Gery, I, Mochizuki, M, Nussenblatt, RB. (1986) Retinal specific antigens and immunopathogenic processes they provoke Osborne, N Chader, G eds. Progress in Retinal Research ,75-109
  4. Wacker, WB, Donoso, LA, Kalsow, CM, Yankeelov, JA, Jr, Organisciak, DT. (1977) Experimental allergic uveitis. Isolation, characterization, and localization of a soluble uveitogenic antigen from bovine retina J Immunol 119,1949-1958[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Gery, I, Wiggert, B, Redmond, TM, et al (1986) Uveoretinitis and pinealitis induced by immunization with interphotoreceptor retinoid-binding protein Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 27,1296-1300[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Schalken, JJ, Wilkens, HJ, van Vugt, AH, et al (1988) Rhodopsin-induced experimental autoimmune uveoretinitis: dose-dependent clinicopathological features Exp Eye Res 47,135-145[Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  7. Dua, HS, Lee, RH, Lolley, RN, et al (1992) Induction of experimental autoimmune uveitis by the retinal photoreceptor cell protein, phosducin Curr Eye Res 11,107-111
  8. Gery, I, Chanaud, NP, III, Anglade, E. (1994) Recoverin is highly uveitogenic in Lewis rats Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 35,3342-3345[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Broekhuyse, RM, Kuhlmann, ED, Winkens, HJ. (1992) Experimental autoimmune posterior uveitis accompanied by epithelioid cell accumulations (EAPU): a new type of experimental ocular disease induced by immunization with PEP-65, a pigment epithelial polypeptide preparation Exp Eye Res 55,819-829[Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  10. Broekhuyse, RM, Kuhlmann, ED, Winkens, HJ. (1992) Experimental autoimmune anterior uveitis.: II: dose-dependent induction and adoptive transfer using a melanin-bound antigen of the retinal pigment epithelium Exp Eye Res 55,401-411[Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  11. Yamaki, K, Kondo, I, Nakamura, H, Miyano, M, Konno, S, Sakuragi, S. (2000) Ocular and extraocular inflammation induced by immunization of tyrosinase related protein 1 and 2 in Lewis rats Exp Eye Res 71,361-369[Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  12. Fox, GM, Kuwabara, T, Wiggert, B, et al (1987) Experimental autoimmune uveoretinitis (EAU) induced by retinal interphotoreceptor retinoid-binding protein (IRBP): difference between EAU induced by IRBP and by S-antigen Clin Immunol Immunopathol 43,256-264[Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  13. Hamel, CP, Tsilou, E, Pfeffer, BA, Hooks, JJ, Detrick, B, Redmond, TM. (1993) Molecular cloning and expression of RPE65, a novel retinal pigment epithelium-specific microsomal protein that is post-transcriptionally regulated in vitro J Biol Chem 268,15751-15757[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Nicoletti, A, Wong, DJ, Kawase, K, et al (1995) Molecular characterization of the human gene encoding an abundant 61 kDa protein specific to the retinal pigment epithelium Hum Mol Genet 4,641-649[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Hamel, CP, Tsilou, E, Pfeffer, BA, Hooks, JJ, Detrick, B, Redmond, TM. (1993) A developmentally regulated microsomal protein specific for the pigment epithelium of the vertebrate retina J Neurosci Res 34,414-425[Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  16. Aguirre, GD, Baldwin, V, Pearce-Kelling, S, Narfstrom, K, Ray, K, Acland, GM. (1998) Congenital stationary night blindness in the dog: common mutation in the RPE65 gene indicates founder effect Mol Vis 4,23[Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  17. Manes, G, Leducq, R, Kucharczak, J, Pages, A, Schmitt-Bernard, CF, Hamel, CP. (1998) Rat messenger RNA for the retinal pigment epithelium-specific protein RPE65 gradually accumulates in two weeks from late embryonic days FEBS Lett 423,133-137[Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  18. Ma, J, Xu, L, Othersen, DK, Redmond, TM, Crouch, RK. (1998) Cloning and localization of RPE65 mRNA in salamander cone photoreceptor cells Biochem Biophys Acta 1443,255-261[Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  19. Redmond, TM, Yu, S, Lee, E, et al (1998) RPE65 is necessary for production of 11-cis-vitamin A in the retinal visual cycle Nat Genet 20,344-351[Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  20. Gu, SM, Thompson, DA, Srikumari, CR, et al (1997) Mutations in RPE65 cause autosomal recessive childhood-onset severe retinal dystrophy Nat Genet 17,194-197[Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  21. Morimura, H, Fishman, GA, Grover, SA, Fulton, AB, Berson, EL, Dryja, TP. (1998) Mutations in the RPE65 gene in patients with autosomal recessive retinitis pigmentosa or Leber congenital amaurosis Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95,3088-3093[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Thompson, DA, Gyurus, P, Fleischer, LL, et al (2000) Genetics and phenotypes of RPE65 mutations in inherited retinal degeneration Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 41,4293-4299[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Bradford, MM. (1976) A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein dye binding Anal Biochem 72,248-254[Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  24. Redmond, TM, Hamel, CP. (2000) Genetic analysis of RPE65: from human disease to mouse model Methods Enzymol 316,705-724[Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  25. Adler, AJ, Chader, GJ, Wiggert, B. (1990) Purification and assay of interphotoreceptor retinoid-binding protein from the eye Methods Enzymol 189,213-232[Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  26. Palczewski, K, Buczylko, J, Imami, NR, McDowell, JH, Hargrave, PA. (1991) Role of carboxyl-terminal region of arrestin in binding to phosphorylated rhodopsin J Biol Chem 266,15334-15339[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Puig, J, Arendt, A, Tomson, FL, et al (1995) Synthetic phosphopeptide from rhodopsin sequence induces retinal arrestin binding to photoactivated unphosphorylated rhodopsin FEBS Lett 362,185-188[Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  28. De Kozak, Y, Sakai, J, Thillaye, B, Faure, JP. (1981) S antigen-induced experimental autoimmune uveo-retinitis in rats Curr Eye Res 1,327-336[Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  29. Mochizuki, M, Charley, J, Kuwabara, T, Nussenblatt, RB, Gery, I. (1983) Involvement of the pineal gland in rats with experimental autoimmune uveitis Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 24,1333-1338[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Broekhuyse, RM, Huitinga, I, Kuhlmann, ED, Rooijen, NV, Winkens, HJ. (1997) Differential effect of macrophage depletion on two forms of experimental uveitis evoked by pigment epithelial membrane protein (EAPU), and by melanin-protein (EMIU) Exp Eye Res 65,841-848[Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  31. Maatta, JA, Eralinna, JP, Roytta, M, Salmi, AA, Hinkkanen, AE. (1996) Physical state of the neuroantigen in adjuvant emulsions determines encephalitogenic status in the BALB/c mouse J Immunol Methods 190,133-141[Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  32. Maatta, JA, Nygardas, PT, Hinkkanen, AE. (2000) Enhancement of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis severity by ultrasound emulsification of antigen/adjuvant in distinct strains of mice Scand J Immunol 51,87-90[Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  33. Levine, S, Sowinski, R. (1975) Allergic encephalomyelitis in the reputedly resistant Brown Norway strain of rats J Immunol 114,597-601[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Hirsch, F, Couderc, J, Sapin, C, Fournie, G, Druet, P. (1982) Polyclonal effect of HgCl2 in the rat, its possible role in an experimental autoimmune disease Eur J Immunol 12,620-625[Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  35. Saoudi, A, Kuhn, J, Huygen, K, et al (1993) TH2 activated cells prevent experimental autoimmune uveoretinitis, a TH1-dependent autoimmune disease Eur J Immunol 23,3096-3103[Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  36. Penfold, PL, Killingsworth, MC, Sarks, SH. (1985) Senile macular degeneration: the involvement of immunocompetent cells Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 223,69-76[Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  37. Hageman, GS, Luthert, PJ, Victor Chong, NH, et al (2001) An integrated hypothesis that considers drusen as biomarkers of immune-mediated processes at the RPE-Bruch’s membrane interface in aging and age-related macular degeneration Prog Retinal Eye Res 20,705-732[Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  38. Penfold, PL, Madigan, MC, Gillies, MC, Provis, JM. (2001) Immunological and aetiological aspects of macular degeneration Prog Retinal Eye Res 20,385-414[Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Immunol.Home page
Z. Li, B. Liu, A. Maminishkis, S. P. Mahesh, S. Yeh, J. Lew, W. K. Lim, H. N. Sen, G. Clarke, R. Buggage, et al.
Gene Expression Profiling in Autoimmune Noninfectious Uveitis Disease
J. Immunol., October 1, 2008; 181(7): 5147 - 5157.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Int ImmunolHome page
H. Takase, C.-R. Yu, R. M. Mahdi, D. C. Douek, G. B. DiRusso, F. M. Midgley, R. Dogra, G. Allende, E. Rosenkranz, A. Pugliese, et al.
Thymic expression of peripheral tissue antigens in humans: a remarkable variability among individuals
Int. Immunol., August 1, 2005; 17(8): 1131 - 1140.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 IOVSHome page
K. Narfstrom, M. L. Katz, R. Bragadottir, M. Seeliger, A. Boulanger, T. M. Redmond, L. Caro, C.-M. Lai, and P. E. Rakoczy
Functional and Structural Recovery of the Retina after Gene Therapy in the RPE65 Null Mutation Dog
Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., April 1, 2003; 44(4): 1663 - 1672.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ham, D.-I.
Right arrow Articles by Gery, I.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ham, D.-I.
Right arrow Articles by Gery, I.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS