CCR5 is a chemokine receptor expressed by T cells and macrophages, which also functions as the principal coreceptor for macrophage (M)-tropic strains of HIV-1. To understand the molecular basis of the binding of chemokines and HIV-1 to CCR5, we developed a number of mAbs that inhibit the various interactions of CCR5, and mapped the binding sites of these mAbs using a panel of CCR5/CCR2b chimeras. One mAb termed 2D7 completely blocked the binding and chemotaxis of the three natural chemokine ligands of CCR5, RANTES (regulated on activation normal T cell expressed and secreted), macrophage inflammatory protein (MIP)-1α, and MIP-1β, to CCR5 transfectants. This mAb was a genuine antagonist of CCR5, since it failed to stimulate an increase in intracellular calcium concentration in the CCR5 transfectants, but blocked calcium responses elicited by RANTES, MIP-1α, or MIP-1β. This mAb inhibited most of the RANTES and MIP-1α chemotactic responses of activated T cells, but not of monocytes, suggesting differential usage of chemokine receptors by these two cell types. The 2D7 binding site mapped to the second extracellular loop of CCR5, whereas a group of mAbs that failed to block chemokine binding all mapped to the NH2-terminal region of CCR5. Efficient inhibition of an M-tropic HIV-1–derived envelope glycoprotein gp120 binding to CCR5 could be achieved with mAbs recognizing either the second extracellular loop or the NH2-terminal region, although the former showed superior inhibition. Additionally, 2D7 efficiently blocked the infectivity of several M-tropic and dual-tropic HIV-1 strains in vitro. These results suggest a complicated pattern of HIV-1 gp120 binding to different regions of CCR5, but a relatively simple pattern for chemokine binding. We conclude that the second extracellular loop of CCR5 is an ideal target site for the development of inhibitors of either chemokine or HIV-1 binding to CCR5.

BackgroundToll‐like receptor 3 (TLR3) was originally identified as the receptor for viral RNA and represents a major host antiviral defense mechanism. TLR3 may also recognize extracellular RNA (exRNA) released from injured tissues under certain stress conditions. However, a role for exRNA and TLR3 in the pathogenesis of myocardial ischemic injury has not been tested. This study examined the role of exRNA and TLR3 signaling in myocardial infarction (MI), apoptosis, inflammation, and cardiac dysfunction during ischemia‐reperfusion (I/R) injury.Methods and ResultsWild‐type (WT), TLR3−/−, Trif−/−, and interferon (IFN) α/β receptor‐1 deficient (IFNAR1−/−) mice were subjected to 45 minutes of coronary artery occlusion and 24 hours of reperfusion. Compared with WT, TLR3−/− or Trif−/− mice had smaller MI and better preserved cardiac function. Surprisingly, unlike TLR(2/4)‐MyD88 signaling, lack of TLR3‐Trif signaling had no impact on myocardial cytokines or neutrophil recruitment after I/R, but myocardial apoptosis was significantly attenuated in Trif−/− mice. Deletion of the downstream IFNAR1 had no effect on infarct size. Importantly, hypoxia and I/R led to release of RNA including microRNA from injured cardiomyocytes and ischemic heart, respectively. Necrotic cardiomyocytes induced a robust and dose‐dependent cytokine response in cultured cardiomyocytes, which was markedly reduced by RNase but not DNase, and partially blocked in TLR3‐deficient cardiomyocytes. In vivo, RNase administration reduced serum RNA level, attenuated myocardial cytokine production, leukocytes infiltration and apoptosis, and conferred cardiac protection against I/R injury.ConclusionTLR3‐Trif signaling represents an injurious pathway during I/R. Extracellular RNA released during I/R may contribute to myocardial inflammation and infarction.