CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 204Neutrophil, Myeloperoxidase and Oxidative MechanismsRedox biology and oxidative stressBlood disorders and treatments

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

ROS induces NETosis by oxidizing DNA and initiating DNA repair

Open access
Azzouz, Dhia, Khan, Meraj A., Palaniyar, Nades·2021·Cell Death Discovery
DOI 10.1038/s41420-021-00491-3PMC PMC8128883
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Reactive oxygen species (ROS) are essential for neutrophil extracellular trap (NET) formation or NETosis. Nevertheless, how ROS induces NETosis is unknown. Neutrophil activation induces excess ROS production and a meaningless genome-wide transcription to facilitate chromatin decondensation. Here we show that the induction of NADPH oxidase-dependent NETosis leads to extensive DNA damage, and the subsequent translocation of proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA), a key DNA repair protein, stored in the cytoplasm into the nucleus. During the activation of NETosis (e.g., by phorbol myristate acetate, Escherichia coli LPS, Staphylococcus aureus (RN4220), or Pseudomonas aeruginosa ), preventing the DNA-repair-complex assembly leading to nick formation that decondenses chromatin causes the suppression of NETosis (e.g., by inhibitors to, or knockdown of, Apurinic endonuclease APE1, poly ADP ribose polymerase PARP, and DNA ligase). The remaining repair steps involving polymerase activity and PCNA interactions with DNA polymerases β/δ do not suppress agonist-induced NETosis. Therefore, excess ROS produced during neutrophil activation induces NETosis by inducing extensive DNA damage (e.g., oxidising guanine to 8-oxoguanine), and the subsequent DNA repair pathway, leading to chromatin decondensation.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41420-021-00491-3

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 PMA- and LPS-treated neutrophils generate increased levels of 8-oxoG. A Neutrophils were treated with PMA (25 nM) or LPS (5 μg/ml) and incubated for 240 min. Cells were stained for DNA (DAPI, blue) and 8-oxoG (purple). The images are representative of three independent experiments. Scale bar, 10 μm. B-C 8-oxoG levels following treatment with media (-ve control), PMA (25 nM) or LPS (5 μg/ml) were measured using an in-cell ELISA. LPS- and PMA-treated cells had significantly greater 8-oxoG levels compared to media treated cells (n = 6; *p < 0.05).
Fig. 1 PMA- and LPS-treated neutrophils generate increased levels of 8-oxoG. A Neutrophils were treated with PMA (25 nM) or LPS (5 μg/ml) and incubated for 240 min. Cells were stained for DNA (DAPI, blue) and 8-oxoG (purple). The images are representative of three independent experiments. Scale bar, 10 μm. B-C 8-oxoG levels following treatment with media (-ve control), PMA (25 nM) or LPS (5 μg/ml) were measured using an in-cell ELISA. LPS- and PMA-treated cells had significantly greater 8-oxoG levels compared to media treated cells (n = 6; *p < 0.05).CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 PCNA translocates into the nucleus/perinuclear regions following the induction of NETosis with PMA or LPS, and eventually decorates the NET DNA. A Neutrophils were treated with PMA (25 nM) or LPS (5 μg/ml) and incubated for 90 or 30 min, respectively. Cells were stained for DNA (DAPI, blue) and PCNA (red). B Neutrophils were treated with PMA (25 nM) or LPS (5 μg/ml) and incubated for 240 min. Cells were stained for DNA (DAPI, blue), PCNA (red) and MPO (green). The images are representative of three independent experiments. Scale bar, 10 μm.
Fig. 2 PCNA translocates into the nucleus/perinuclear regions following the induction of NETosis with PMA or LPS, and eventually decorates the NET DNA. A Neutrophils were treated with PMA (25 nM) or LPS (5 μg/ml) and incubated for 90 or 30 min, respectively. Cells were stained for DNA (DAPI, blue) and PCNA (red). B Neutrophils were treated with PMA (25 nM) or LPS (5 μg/ml) and incubated for 240 min. Cells were stained for DNA (DAPI, blue), PCNA (red) and MPO (green). The images are representative of three independent experiments. Scale bar, 10 μm.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 Inhibition of early steps, but not late steps, of DNA repair suppresses NETosis induced by PMA and LPS. A DNA release from neutrophils following media (-ve control) or PMA (25 nM) was measured using the SYTOX Green plate reader assay. Cells were preincubated with BER inhibitors (APE inh 1, CRT0044876 (125 μM); APE inh 2, APE1 Inhibitor III (50 μM); PARP1 inh 1, BSI201 (100 μM); PARP inh 2, PJ34 (50 μM); LIG inh, L189 (100 μM); Pol β inh, AM-TS23 (25 μM); PCNA:Pol δ inh, T2AA (25 μM) or Pol δ inh, Aphidicolin (50 μM)) for 1 h prior to PMA treatment (n = 3; *p < 0.05 compared to positive control). B Neutrophils were incubated with DNA repair inhibitors for 1 h then treated with PMA (25 nM), incubated for 240 min, and stained for DNA (DAPI, blue). The images are representative of three independent experiments. Scale bar, 10 μm. C Differentiated HL-60 neutrophils were pretreated with media, a scrambled siRNA, APE1, or PARP siRNA. Cells were then treated with PMA (150 nM) or LPS (15 μg/ml) for 6–8 h. NETosis levels were measured using the SYTOX Green plate reader assay. Western blots were used for verifying knockdown. The data are presented as mean ± SEM (n = 4; *p < 0.05 compared to the control with no inhibitors).
Fig. 3 Inhibition of early steps, but not late steps, of DNA repair suppresses NETosis induced by PMA and LPS. A DNA release from neutrophils following media (-ve control) or PMA (25 nM) was measured using the SYTOX Green plate reader assay. Cells were preincubated with BER inhibitors (APE inh 1, CRT0044876 (125 μM); APE inh 2, APE1 Inhibitor III (50 μM); PARP1 inh 1, BSI201 (100 μM); PARP inh 2, PJ34 (50 μM); LIG inh, L189 (100 μM); Pol β inh, AM-TS23 (25 μM); PCNA:Pol δ inh, T2AA (25 μM) or Pol δ inh, Aphidicolin (50 μM)) for 1 h prior to PMA treatment (n = 3; *p < 0.05 compared to positive control). B Neutrophils were incubated with DNA repair inhibitors for 1 h then treated with PMA (25 nM), incubated for 240 min, and stained for DNA (DAPI, blue). The images are representative of three independent experiments. Scale bar, 10 μm. C Differentiated HL-60 neutrophils were pretreated with media, a scrambled siRNA, APE1, or PARP siRNA. Cells were then treated with PMA (150 nM) or LPS (15 μg/ml) for 6–8 h. NETosis levels were measured using the SYTOX Green plate reader assay. Western blots were used for verifying knockdown. The data are presented as mean ± SEM (n = 4; *p < 0.05 compared to the control with no inhibitors).CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 4 Inhibition of early steps of BER suppresses NETosis induced by P. aeruginosa and S. aureus. A, C DNA release from neutrophils following media (-ve control), 20 MOI P. aeruginosa or 20 MOI S. aureus (RN4220) was measured using the SYTOX Green plate reader assay. Cells were preincubated with BER inhibitors (APE inh 1, CRT0044876 (125 μM); APE inh 2, APE1 Inhibitor III (50 μM); PARP1 inh 1, BSI201 (100 μM); PARP inh 12, PJ34 (50 μM) or LIG inh, L189 (100 μM)) for 1 h prior to bacterial treatment. The data are presented a mean ± SEM (n = 3; *p < 0.05 compared to the control with no inhibitors). B Neutrophils were incubated with DNA repair inhibitors, that inhibited NETosis, for 1 h then treated with 20 MOI P. aeruginosa and incubated for 240 min, and stained for DNA (DAPI, blue). The images are representative of three independent experiments. Scale bar, 10 μm.
Fig. 4 Inhibition of early steps of BER suppresses NETosis induced by P. aeruginosa and S. aureus. A, C DNA release from neutrophils following media (-ve control), 20 MOI P. aeruginosa or 20 MOI S. aureus (RN4220) was measured using the SYTOX Green plate reader assay. Cells were preincubated with BER inhibitors (APE inh 1, CRT0044876 (125 μM); APE inh 2, APE1 Inhibitor III (50 μM); PARP1 inh 1, BSI201 (100 μM); PARP inh 12, PJ34 (50 μM) or LIG inh, L189 (100 μM)) for 1 h prior to bacterial treatment. The data are presented a mean ± SEM (n = 3; *p < 0.05 compared to the control with no inhibitors). B Neutrophils were incubated with DNA repair inhibitors, that inhibited NETosis, for 1 h then treated with 20 MOI P. aeruginosa and incubated for 240 min, and stained for DNA (DAPI, blue). The images are representative of three independent experiments. Scale bar, 10 μm.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 5 Summary figure. Diagram showing the role of DNA damage repair during NETosis in the context of the other known components of the NETosis pathway.
Fig. 5 Summary figure. Diagram showing the role of DNA damage repair during NETosis in the context of the other known components of the NETosis pathway.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 35 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–204 of 204

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Azzouz, D., Khan, M. A., & Palaniyar, N.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Hospital for Sick Children (CA)
Corresponding author
Palaniyar, Nades
ORCID
Palaniyar, Nades
Venue
Cell Death Discovery
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2021-05-18
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
113-113
ISSN
2058-7716 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/s41420-021-00491-3
PMC
PMC8128883
OpenAlex
W3163218484
Cited by
202
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 37 · 2025: 61 · 2024: 50 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 4
FWCI
9.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Cell Death Discovery (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Cystic Fibrosis Canada (3180)
  • Gouvernement du Canada | Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (RGPIN436250-13)
  • Gouvernement du Canada | Canadian Institutes of Health Research (MOP-111012)
  • Hospital for Sick Children
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Neutrophil, Myeloperoxidase and Oxidative Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Redox biology and oxidative stress
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hematology › Blood disorders and treatments
Keywords
neutrophil extracellular traps, NETosis, reactive oxygen species, NADPH oxidase, DNA damage, DNA repair, chromatin decondensation, 8-oxoguanine, APE1, poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase, DNA ligase, neutrophil activation, DNA polymerase beta, DNA polymerase delta

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review