As the tissue macrophages of the CNS, microglia are critically involved in diseases of the CNS. However, it remains unknown what controls their maturation and activation under homeostatic conditions. We observed substantial contributions of the host microbiota to microglia homeostasis, as germ-free (GF) mice displayed global defects in microglia with altered cell proportions and an immature phenotype, leading to impaired innate immune responses. Temporal eradication of host microbiota severely changed microglia properties. Limited microbiota complexity also resulted in defective microglia. In contrast, recolonization with a complex microbiota partially restored microglia features. We determined that short-chain fatty acids (SCFA), microbiota-derived bacterial fermentation products, regulated microglia homeostasis. Accordingly, mice deficient for the SCFA receptor FFAR2 mirrored microglia defects found under GF conditions. These findings suggest that host bacteria vitally regulate microglia maturation and function, whereas microglia impairment can be rectified to some extent by complex microbiota.

Interferons (IFN) exert antiviral, immunomodulatory and cytostatic activities. IFN-α/β (type I IFN) and IFN-λ (type III IFN) bind distinct receptors, but regulate similar sets of genes and exhibit strikingly similar biological activities. We analyzed to what extent the IFN-α/β and IFN-λ systems overlap in vivo in terms of expression and response. We observed a certain degree of tissue specificity in the production of IFN-λ. In the brain, IFN-α/β was readily produced after infection with various RNA viruses, whereas expression of IFN-λ was low in this organ. In the liver, virus infection induced the expression of both IFN-α/β and IFN-λ genes. Plasmid electrotransfer-mediated in vivo expression of individual IFN genes allowed the tissue and cell specificities of the responses to systemic IFN-α/β and IFN-λ to be compared. The response to IFN-λ correlated with expression of the α subunit of the IFN-λ receptor (IL-28Rα). The IFN-λ response was prominent in the stomach, intestine and lungs, but very low in the central nervous system and spleen. At the cellular level, the response to IFN-λ in kidney and brain was restricted to epithelial cells. In contrast, the response to IFN-α/β was observed in various cell types in these organs, and was most prominent in endothelial cells. Thus, the IFN-λ system probably evolved to specifically protect epithelia. IFN-λ might contribute to the prevention of viral invasion through skin and mucosal surfaces.

No abstract

Type I and type III IFNs bind to different cell-surface receptors but induce identical signal transduction pathways, leading to the expression of antiviral host effector molecules. Despite the fact that type III IFN (IFN-λ) has been shown to predominantly act on mucosal organs, in vivo infection studies have failed to attribute a specific, nonredundant function. Instead, a predominant role of type I IFN was observed, which was explained by the ubiquitous expression of the type I IFN receptor. Here we comparatively analyzed the role of functional IFN-λ and type I IFN receptor signaling in the innate immune response to intestinal rotavirus infection in vivo, and determined viral replication and antiviral gene expression on the cellular level. We observed that both suckling and adult mice lacking functional receptors for IFN-λ were impaired in the control of oral rotavirus infection, whereas animals lacking functional receptors for type I IFN were similar to wild-type mice. Using Mx1 protein accumulation as marker for IFN responsiveness of individual cells, we demonstrate that intestinal epithelial cells, which are the prime target cells of rotavirus, strongly responded to IFN-λ but only marginally to type I IFN in vivo. Systemic treatment of suckling mice with IFN-λ repressed rotavirus replication in the gut, whereas treatment with type I IFN was not effective. These results are unique in identifying a critical role of IFN-λ in the epithelial antiviral host defense. IFNs play a critical role in the antimicrobial host defense. Whereas lymphocyte-derived type II IFN (also called IFN-γ) is associated with resistance against a broad range of intracellular microorganisms, type I and III IFN primarily mediate antiviral protection. IFN-α, IFN-β, and all other type I IFN family members use the same heterodimeric receptor complex (IFNAR) for signaling. Receptor engagement leads to activation of the Jak/STAT signaling pathway and expression of IFN-stimulated genes (ISG), which mediate the antiviral state (1). The type III IFN family consists of three members in humans, IFN-λ1, -λ2, and -λ3 that are also named IL29, IL28A, and IL28B, respectively, whereas mice only express IFN-λ2 and -λ3. Type III IFN are structurally different from type I IFN and bind to a distinct heterodimeric receptor (IL28R), consisting of the IL28Rα, also called IFN-λ receptor 1 (IFN-λR1), and the IL10Rβ chains (2-4). Type I and III IFN are both induced following stimulation of pattern recognition receptors of the innate immune system, such as Toll-like receptors and RIG-like helicases (5-7). IFN-λ-triggered signal transduction events and gene activation profiles are virtually indistinguishable from those of the type I IFN system (2,3,8,9). However, the type I and type III IFN systems differ strikingly with regard to the spectrum of responsive cell types. Whereas receptors for type I IFN seem to be present on most if not all nucleated cells, functional receptors for type III IFN are preferentially expressed on epithelial cells (10).Recent studies inves...

Type III IFNs (IFN-λ/IL-28/29) are cytokines with type I IFN-like antiviral activities, which remain poorly characterized. We herein show that most cell types expressed both types I and III IFNs after TLR stimulation or virus infection, whereas the ability of cells to respond to IFN-λ was restricted to a narrow subset of cells, including plasmacytoid dendritic cells and epithelial cells. To examine the role of type III IFN in antiviral defense, we generated IL-28Rα-deficient mice. These mice were indistinguishable from wild-type mice with respect to clearance of a panel of different viruses, whereas mice lacking the type I IFN receptor (IFNAR−/−) were significantly impaired. However, the strong antiviral activity evoked by treatment of mice with TLR3 or TLR9 agonists was significantly reduced in both IL-28RA−/− and IFNAR−/− mice. The type I IFN receptor system has been shown to mediate positive feedback on IFN-αβ expression, and we found that the type I IFN receptor system also mediates positive feedback on IFN-λ expression, whereas IL-28Rα signaling does not provide feedback on either type I or type III IFN expression in vivo. Finally, using bone-marrow chimeric mice we showed that TLR-activated antiviral defense requires expression of IL-28Rα only on nonhemopoietic cells. In this compartment, epithelial cells responded to IFN-λ and directly restricted virus replication. Our data suggest type III IFN to target a specific subset of cells and to contribute to the antiviral response evoked by TLRs.