OF
THE
JOURNAL IMMUNOLOGY
BRIEF REVIEWS Signal Regulatory Proteins in the Immune System Ellen M. van Beek,* Fiona Cochrane,† A. Neil Barclay,† and Timo K. van den Berg1* Signal regulatory proteins (SIRPs) constitute a family of transmembrane glycoproteins with extracellular Ig-like domains. Several SIRP family members have thus far been identified on myeloid and other cells in man, mouse, rat, and cattle. In the present study, we provide a description of the SIRP multigene family, including a number of previously undescribed SIRP genes, based on the complete genome sequences of various mammalian and bird species. We discuss this information in the context of the known immunological properties of the individual SIRP family members. Our analysis reveals SIRPs as a diverse multigene family of immune receptors, which includes inhibitory SIRP␣, activating SIRP, nonsignaling SIRP␥, and soluble SIRP␦ members. For each species, there appears to be a single inhibitory SIRP␣ member that, upon interaction with the “self” ligand CD47, controls “homeostatic” innate immune effector functions, such as host cell phagocytosis. The activating SIRP proteins show considerable variability in structure and number across species and do not bind CD47. Thus the SIRP family is a rapidly evolving gene family with important roles in immune regulation. The Journal of Immunology, 2005, 175: 7781–7787.
are typically composed of a single V-set and two C1-set IgSF domains, which, when compared with other members of the IgSF, display a particularly close structural relationship to rearranging AgRs (TCR and BCR). Based on these similarities, we have previously proposed an evolutionary relationship between AgRs and SIRPs (6). Moreover, it appears that the putative primordial AgR that formed the target for the critical transposition event (7) that led to the appearance, ⬃500 million years ago, of rearranging AgRs and thus adaptive immunity was possibly a SIRP-like molecule. Insight into the functional properties of SIRPs may provide clues about the innate origins of the adaptive immune system. As with many members of the other “paired receptors” mentioned above, SIRPs possess the potential to signal through cytoplasmic tails that contain either ITIMs (8) or transmembrane regions that have positively charged residues that allow an association with adaptor proteins, such as DAP12/KARAP, containing ITAMs (9). The biochemically characterized SIRP members
he signal regulatory protein (SIRP2; CD172 and SHPS) family belongs to an increasing number of families of membrane proteins involved in the regulation of leukocyte function. More especially, the SIRPs belong to a group of receptors that have members with closely related extracellular regions but different cytoplasmic regions giving contrasting types of signals—the “paired receptors” that are particularly common on NK cells but also present on many myeloid cells. These “paired receptors” include the killer Ig-like receptors, paired Ig-like receptor, Ly49, CD94/NKG2A, Ig-like transcript, dendritic cell immunoreceptor, and CD200R families (1– 4). Some of these families have C-type lectin domains in their extracellular regions (e.g., Ly49 and CD94), but the most common domain type in the paired receptors and indeed all leukocyte membrane proteins is the Ig superfamily domain (IgSF) (5). The SIRPs are expressed mainly by immune cells and more especially myeloid cells. Their extracellular regions
To date, three distinct human SIRP family members have been characterized at the protein level (for structural features of SIRP family members, see Fig. 1A). The first and best characterized member of this SIRP family, SIRP␣ (also known as SHPS-1, BIT, MFR, CD172a, or p84), was originally identified in rat cells by its association with cytoplasmic tyrosine phosphatase Src homology region 2 domain-containing phosphatase (SHP)-2 (8) and was later shown to exist in other mammals, including humans, mice, and cattle (10 –12). Two other SIRP family genes, SIRP1 (CD172b) and SIRP␥ (CD172g), have been described in humans (11, 13–15). SIRP␥ was originally described as SIRP2 (14), but as outlined in the accompanying letter, we believe the name SIRP␥ is more suitable. In the mouse, two SIRP members (SIRP1 and SIRP2), which can both associate and signal via DAP12, have been characterized (16, 17). The SIRP1 was previously termed mouse SIRP. However, protein sequences with similarity to the reported SIRPs are present in the genomes, and the availability of the complete genome sequences of various species and extensive expressed sequence tag (EST) data now permit characterization of the complete SIRP family in humans and other species. The hypothesis is that proteins related to the known SIRPs will have evolved by gene duplication and have related functions as already shown for SIRP␥, which has the same ligand (i.e., CD47)
*Department of Molecular Cell Biology and Immunology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; and †Sir William Dunn School of Pathology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
1 Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Timo K. van den Berg, VU University Medical Center, P.O. Box 7057, 1007 MB Amsterdam, The Netherlands. E-mail address:
[email protected]
Received for publication July 13, 2005. Accepted for publication September 26, 2005.
2 Abbreviations used in this paper: SIRP, signal regulatory protein; IgSF, Ig superfamily domain; SHP, Src homology region 2 domain-containing phosphatase; EST, expressed sequence tag; m, murine; DC, dendritic cell; r, rat; g, chicken.
T
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact. Copyright © 2005 by The American Association of Immunologists, Inc.
0022-1767/05/$02.00
7782
BRIEF REVIEW: SIGNAL REGULATORY PROTEINS IN THE IMMUNE SYSTEM
FIGURE 1. The SIRP family in man (Homo sapiens), chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes), rat (Rattus norvegicus), mouse (Mus musculus), and chicken (Gallus gallus). A, Schematic structures of SIRP family members. The existence of some SIRP proteins, including human SIRP␣, SIRP1 and SIRP␥, rat SIRP␣, mouse SIRP␣, SIRP1, and SIRP2, is supported by direct biochemical evidence (see text for details), whereas that of the others is based on prediction. The gray and white circles represent V- and C1-set Ig domains, respectively. The Ymarked black and white squares represent ITIM and ITAM tyrosine residues, respectively. The positively charged lysine residues of the transmembrane regions of the SIRP members, which mediate or are proposed to mediate, an association with DAP12 are indicated with a “⫹”. In case of SIRP1, mSIRP1, and mSIRP2, an interaction with DAP12 is supported by direct evidence (16, 17, 38, 40) (具www.ub. uni-heidelberg.de/archiv/4817典); for the other SIRP members, it is proposed based on the presence and position of the transmembrane lysine residue. B, Genomic organization of the SIRP family. See supplementary Fig. 1 for database accession numbers and amino acid sequences.
as SIRP␣ (13, 15). Clearly, understanding the full range of genes in the SIRP family is essential for understanding its significance in the immune system. Novel genes related to the SIRPs were identified on the basis of sequence similarity and/or by systematic analysis of the regions of the genome where the known SIRP genes were present or regions syntenic to these in other species. Similarity searches were performed using the Basic Local Alignment Search Tool/ Sequence Search and Alignment by Hashing algorithms in National Center for Biotechnology Information or Ensembl databases using the complete or partial sequences of known SIRPs. IgSF domains can often show considerable divergence even between species orthologs (the extracellular region of human CD4 shows only 53% amino acid sequence identity with its mouse counterpart) while unrelated domains may show ⬃20% identity as residues key for the domain fold are conserved (5). Therefore, a cutoff of 30% amino acid identity was used to search and identify related genes (see below).
The SIRP genes in humans and other primates
The genes of the three identified SIRPs in human, SIRP␣, SIRP1, and SIRP␥, are clustered on chromosome 20p13 (Fig. 1B). Adjacent to the known human SIRP genes on chromosome 20, we have identified two additional SIRP genes and a pseudogene. Based on their structural properties, we termed these novel SIRP molecules, SIRP2, SIRP3p (for the pseudogene), and SIRP␦ (Fig. 1A) (for nomenclature of the SIRP family, see the accompanying Brief Review). These novel SIRP family members are clearly more divergent than the three previously known SIRP molecules. In fact, SIRP␣, SIRP1, and SIRP␥ appear to form a subgroup that evolved relatively recently before the bifurcation of chimpanzee and man (see below). SIRP2 appears to encode a cell surface receptor composed of two extracellular IgSF V-type domains and, in analogy to SIRP1, a transmembrane region with a positively charged residue, suggesting a putative association with the adaptor
The Journal of Immunology
protein DAP12. Consistent with this, SIRP2 is expressed by cells of the monocyte-macrophage lineage (as determined by PCR and analysis of EST data), and there is alternative splicing of the extracellular IgSF domains (E. M. Van Beek et al., unpublished observations). SIRP3p has an unusual extracellular region, with three NH2-terminal C1-type IgSF domains and two membrane proximal V-type IgSF domains. The human SIRP3p appears to be a pseudogene, but its orthologs in rodents (i.e., rat (r)SIRP3 and murine (m)SIRP3) appear functional (see below). Although gene prediction programs identify an open reading frame, there is no evidence (from, for example, EST) for expression. SIRP␦ encodes a putatively secreted molecule with a single V-type IgSF domain. EST evidence suggests that SIRP␦ may be expressed by sperm cells and in respiratory tissue (T. K. van den Berg, unpublished observations). The human SIRP gene cluster is flanked by the dynorphin precursor (pDyn) gene, and this orientation is conserved in all species investigated where a SIRP cluster is found in a syntenic position in the genome. Outside the 20p13 SIRP cluster, we have not detected any other active human SIRP genes, apart from an intronless SIRP␣ gene (92% overall nucleotide identity) on chromosome 22, which probably represents a retrotransposon (Fig. 1A). Although this SIRP␣-like gene has an open reading frame, the lack of evidence for transcription strongly suggests it to be a pseudogene (termed SIRP␣2p). In the chimpanzee, the productive SIRP␣ gene is localized in a syntenic position on chromosome 23 while, the SIRP␣ like gene within the chimpanzee SIRP-gene cluster is most probably a pseudogene. This illustrates the difficulty in assigning specific species homologues and reflects how, as with many other “paired receptors,” these genes have been subject to extensive duplication, divergence, and loss. Furthermore, it seems possible that the chimpanzee SIRP1 does not contain a V-type Iglike domain, but the latter could also be a sequencing error or a mistake of the gene prediction algorithm. Because expression data are lacking, as yet only genomic information has been used for the chimpanzee, and thus SIRP genes and their products are exclusively predicted here by gene prediction programs. One of the more important implications from the above is that there is only a single human SIRP␣ family member, suggesting indirectly that most of the additional human SIRP␣ sequences reported (11) probably represent polymorphic variants. In fact, our own findings (A. Van Elsas and T. K. van den Berg, unpublished observations) suggest that the most frequent SIRP␣ allotypes in the human population are represented by the two deposited SIRP␣1 and SIRP␣2/BIT sequences (SIRP␣1 (National Center for Biotechnology Information Entrez protein accession no. CAA71403) and SIRP␣2/BIT (protein accession no. NP_542970)). The SIRP genes in rodents
In rodents, two clusters of SIRP genes are present (Fig. 1B). The SIRP␣ ortholog and rat and mouse SIRP3 (i.e., the orthologs of the human SIRP3p pseudogene) are in the first cluster (cluster I). Interestingly, these rSIRP3 and mSIRP3 represent functional genes and not a pseudogene as in humans. Both have a C1-C1-C1-TM-Cyt structure and represent the only family member that lacks a typical V-set IgSF domain. However, in the rodent SIRP3 genes and primate SIRP3 pseudogene, there is evidence for the remains of two V-like sequences located between the third C1 domain exon and the TM region-
7783
encoding exon, suggesting that perhaps in early mammals there was a SIRP family member with a C1-C1-C1-V-V-TM-Cyt structure. Despite the low sequence similarity (⬃23%) between the C1-set domains of SIRP3 and the C1-set domains of, for example, SIRP␣, a distant relationship can still be seen. It seems that a putative primordial SIRP3 arose by an incomplete duplication of the two tandem C1-set domains as present in the SIRP␣, SIRP1, and SIRP␥ subgroup genes. As compared with primates and chicken, the organization of SIRP genes in the rodent genome appears special in two aspects. Firstly, the rodent cluster I is uniquely flanked by the IL-1␣ and -1 genes, which is likewise the result of multiple translocations. Furthermore, there is a second cluster of SIRP genes (cluster II), which is located on corresponding regions of the rat chromosome 2q23 and mouse chromosome 3A1. Cluster II shows a relatively high degree of divergence among mice and rats. In mice, but not in rats, there is a SIRP member (SIRP1) representing the SIRP molecule described by Hayashi et al. (16). It is clear that this mSIRP1 is closely related to members of the primate SIRP␣-SIRP1-SIRP␥ subgroup as well as to the mouse SIRP␣ (all identities ⬃55%), but because the homologies among the members of the primate subgroup are considerably higher (⬃75%), they probably arose later (i.e., independently), and thus mSIRP1 cannot be considered a direct ortholog of any of these. However, because it contains the typical transmembrane lysine residue and can also associate with and signal via DAP12 (16), it may serve a function analogous to the primate SIRP1. The rodent rSIRP1, rSIRP2, rSIRP4, and mSIRP2 molecules, i.e., with variable numbers of only V-set IgSF domains and a transmembrane region with a charged lysine, are not particularly related to the primate SIRP2, which within the context of the whole SIRP family appears rather divergent. A phylogenetic tree for the individual V-like domains strongly suggests that the various SIRP members from cluster II arose independently in the rat and mouse lineage by either single or tandem V-like domain exon duplication events (Fig. 2). All this appears consistent with the translocation of a cluster I-derived SIRP␣- or SIRP1-like founder gene giving rise to cluster II. SIRP genes in other species and the evolution of SIRPs
SIRP genes are broadly found among mammals and are not restricted to primates and rodents. We have also found SIRPs in dog (Canis familiaris), cow (Bos taurus) (10), pig (Sus scrofa), horse (Equus caballus), and the gray short-tailed opossum (Monodelphis domestica), a marsupial mammal. The full SIRP repertoire in these species can be described in detail once their genome sequences and expression data have become available, and this may provide further insight into the evolution of SIRPs in mammals. Considering the evolutionary relationship of SIRPs with AgRs, which has previously led us to propose a common nonrearranging SIRP-like predecessor in early vertebrates (6), it was of interest to know whether nonmammalian vertebrates such as birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish encode SIRP family members. The availability of the chicken, xenopus, zebrafish, and fugu (pufferfish) genome sequences provided a means to explore this. In chicken, we found three family members, termed chicken (g)SIRP␣, gSIRP␥, and gSIRP␦, which are encoded in a position syntenic to the mammalian cluster I. These chicken SIRP-like molecules are not obvious orthologs of the primate
7784
BRIEF REVIEW: SIGNAL REGULATORY PROTEINS IN THE IMMUNE SYSTEM
FIGURE 2. Phylogenetic analysis of SIRP family members in human (no prefix), chimpanzee (c), rat (r), mouse (m), and chicken (g), using predicted protein sequences. A, Phylogram of the V domains of the SIRP family members. B, Phylogram of the C1 domains of the SIRP family members. See Fig. 1 and the text for SIRP terminology.
SIRP␣, SIRP␥, or SIRP␦ genes but may still serve analogous functions. The presence of SIRPs with a V-C1-C1 structure as well as a gene with ITIMs (i.e., gSIRP␣) suggests that these comprise perhaps the original ingredients of a primordial SIRP. Of interest, our extensive searches have not provided evidence for the presence of typical SIRP family members in other major phylogenetic groups, including amphibians, fish, and invertebrates. Our analysis included the complete (draft) genome sequences of zebrafish (Danio rerio), Torafugu pufferfish (Takifugu rubripes), spotted green pufferfish (Tetraodon nigroviridis), clawed toad (Xenopus tropicalis), fruit fly (Drosophila melanogaster), mosquito (Anopheles gambiae), and helminth (Caenorhabditis elegans). The closest homologues of SIRPs that can be found by basic local alignment search tool searches in for instance the complete genomes of zebrafish and fugu are either AgR chains or members of the novel immune type receptor families (18) (at ⬃20 –30% identity), which clearly represent related but distinct IgSF families. This apparent lack of SIRPs
in the other major vertebrate groups (i.e., amphibians and fish) is perhaps surprising considering the previously suggested relationship between SIRPs and AgRs that predicted an ancient SIRP-like molecule in early (jawed) vertebrates (6). It seems likely that SIRP family members did indeed exist in early vertebrates and continued to exist in birds and mammals but were lost at some point(s) during fish and amphibian evolution or that they arose later. Clearly, it is more difficult to trace the evolution of proteins such as these as they are diverging very rapidly compared with, for example, cytosolic enzymes where phylogenetic analysis is simpler, and also it is likely that there has been extensive duplication and gene loss within the species making direct orthologs difficult to identify (see discussion above on mouse SIRP1 and primate SIRPs). The functions of SIRP family members in immunity
The biochemically characterized SIRPs are all expressed by cells of the immune system with SIRP␣ also expressed on neurons
The Journal of Immunology Table I.
7785
Immunological properties of characterized human SIRP family members SIRP␣
Ligand Signaling motifs Signaling proteins Function
a a
CD47 Four ITIMs; two proline-rich regions SHP-1, SHP-2, Jak2, Csk, Pyk2, Grb2, FyB/SLAP-130, SKAP55hom Negative regulation of host cell phagocytosis/clearance; Regulation of inflammatory mediator production
SIRP1
SIRP␥
Unknown Lys in TM region DAP12
CD47 Nonea Nonea
Promotion of phagocytosis?b
Mediates antigen presentation and T cell proliferation
The cytoplasmic tail of SIRP␥ comprises four amino acids with no known signaling motifs or interactions. The positive effect on phagocytosis is based on studies with the mouse mSIRP1, which also associates with DAP12 and may serve an analogous function.
(19, 20) (the relevant properties of human SIRPs are summarized in Table I). SIRP␣ is relatively ubiquitously expressed on myeloid cells, including macrophages, granulocytes, myeloid dendritic cells (DCs), mast cells, and their precursors, including hemopoietic stem cells (19 –21). CD47, a broadly expressed transmembrane glycoprotein with a single Ig-like domain and five membrane spanning regions, functions as a cellular ligand for SIRP␣ (21, 22) with binding mediated through the NH2terminal V-like domain of SIRP␣ (23). CD47 can itself signal, and hence, engagement can potentially give two-way signaling (24). The cytoplasmic region of SIRP␣ contains four ITIMs, which upon ligand binding become phosphorylated, and mediate recruitment and activation of the tyrosine phosphatases SHP-1 and SHP-2 (8, 11, 25). SHP-1 and SHP-2 can, in turn, dephosphorylate specific protein substrates and thereby regulate cellular functions, generally in a negative fashion. Probably the best documented role of SIRP␣ is its inhibitory role in the phagocytosis of host cells by macrophages (26). In particular, the ligation of SIRP␣ on macrophages by CD47 expressed on the host target cell generates an inhibitory signal mediated by SHP-1 that negatively regulates phagocytosis. The role of SIRP␣ in host cell phagocytosis is supported by in vivo studies with target cells from CD47-deficient mice (27, 28), as well as by using macrophages from SIRP␣-mutant mice (26, 27). Mice that lack the SIRP␣ cytoplasmic domain are thrombocytopenic, which apparently results from an increased rate of clearance of circulating platelets (26, 27). Recent evidence also implies SIRP␣ in the clearance of aged erythrocytes (29). This strongly suggests that SIRP␣ acts to detect signals provided by “self,” in this case CD47 on host cells, to negatively control innate immune effector function against these cells. This is analogous to the “self” signals provided by MHC class I molecules to NK cells via Ig-like or Ly49 receptors. Another example of negative regulation through SIRP␣ is the inhibition of LPS-induced TNF-␣ production in macrophages (30). However, the role of SIRP␣ may be more complex than previously anticipated, and the molecule may not only provide negative signals. For instance, we have shown recently that engagement of SIRP␣ by CD47 in macrophages can promote the production of NO via the SIRP␣-associated Janus kinase (JAK2), suggesting that SIRP␣ can also activate certain effector functions (31). Finally, there is the potential for a variety of other components, which can also bind to SIRP␣, to regulate its signaling. These include the tyrosine kinases CSK and PYK2 and the adaptor molecules Grb2, FyB/SLAP-130, and SKAP55hom (11, 12, 25, 32). In fact, apart from the ITIMs, the SIRP␣ cytoplasmic tail contains two proline-rich regions that may form a docking site for the
SH3 domains in some of these proteins. Thus, SIRP␣ does not only function as a typical inhibitory receptor but may also act as a scaffold for a variety of other signaling molecules at the plasma membrane. Apart from the above, reported evidence suggests that SIRP␣-CD47 interactions play a role in macrophage fusion to form multinucleated cells in vitro (33, 34). It remains to be established whether the SIRP␣-CD47 interaction is also relevant for osteoclast fusion and multinucleated giant cell formation in vivo. In addition to the regulatory functions in macrophages, interactions between CD47 on T cells and SIRP␣ on DCs have been shown to regulate, in a bidirectional fashion, DC and T cell activation. Furthermore, it seems that SIRP␣ provides signals that can modulate DC maturation (35). The contributions of the different signals are difficult to discern as these in vitro studies with human cells did not really clarify whether the effects observed were the result of agonistic or antagonistic action of the reagents used. Apart from this, it will be interesting to investigate more directly the possible role of SIRP␣ in adaptive immunity. Finally, SIRP␣ appears to control myeloid cell migration. Studies using SIRP␣-mutant mice provide evidence for a role of SIRP␣ in the emigration of Langerhans cells from the skin (36). Furthermore, interactions of SIRP␣ on monocytes or granulocytes with CD47 on endothelial or epithelial cells are important for transendothelial or epithelial migration (37–39). Collectively, these findings picture SIRP␣ as a versatile regulator of myeloid cell function. SIRP1 was reported originally by Kharitonenkov et al. (11) in humans and is expressed on myeloid cells, including monocytes, granulocytes, and DCs (40 – 43). Interestingly, SIRP1, although closely related to SIRP␣, does not appear to bind CD47 and lacks cytoplasmic ITIMs or any other recognizable cytosolic motifs for signaling. Instead, SIRP1 contains a transmembrane region with a positively charged lysine residue that mediates association with DAP12, an adaptor protein that carries an ITAM (41, 43). Phosphorylation of the DAP12 ITAM mediates recruitment of the protein tyrosine kinase Syk and consequent activation of the MAPK pathway that regulates various functions (9, 41, 43, 44). Triggering of the murine SIRP1 receptor, for instance, which also complexes with DAP12, promotes phagocytosis in macrophages (16). This indicates that mSIRP1 acts as an activating SIRP family member. Further evidence for the rapid evolution of this family of proteins is given by the differences in SIRP1 sequences from different mouse strains (16).
7786
BRIEF REVIEW: SIGNAL REGULATORY PROTEINS IN THE IMMUNE SYSTEM
SIRP␥, the third member of the human SIRP family, is expressed on T cells and activated NK cells (13–15). It can bind CD47, albeit with 10-fold lower affinity as compared with SIRP␣ (13). Moreover, SIRP␥-CD47 interaction mediates cell-cell adhesion and supports APC-T cell contact, enhancing Ag presentation, the consequent T cell proliferation, and cytokine secretion (15). It seems unlikely that SIRP␥ itself generates intracellular signals because it does not have any recognizable signaling motifs. Instead, SIRP␥ may trigger signaling of CD47 in APCs. Concluding remarks
The SIRP family comprises multiple genes in mammals and birds. Similar to what is seen in various related families of leukocyte receptors, the genome includes SIRP family members with either inhibitory or activating signaling potential. Of interest, for each species analyzed, we have found only a single, relatively well-conserved, inhibitory SIRP␣ receptor member, which is consistent with a homeostatic function. Indeed, SIRP␣ is capable of recognizing “self” in the form of the broadly expressed surface marker CD47, and this negatively controls effector functions of innate immune cells, such as macrophages. It also seems possible that SIRP␣-CD47 interactions regulate the induction of adaptive immune responses, but clearly more in vivo investigation is desired in this area. In contrast to the single SIRP␣, multiple SIRP-like molecules with putative activating potential appear to be present in the various species. For some SIRP-like members, which may associate with and signal via the adaptor molecule DAP12, there is evidence that they can trigger activation and phagocytosis in myeloid cells. The strong diversification, which has led to significant differences in SIRP composition, even among closely related species such as mouse and rat, is more in line with a function in host defense, perhaps even involving direct pathogen recognition. If so, the SIRP repertoire may have been shaped by the continuous molecular battle between host and pathogens. It is noteworthy in this context that essentially all poxviruses encode a homologue of CD47 termed vCD47. It seems feasible that vCD47 has, at least at some point during evolution, mediated poxvirus immune evasion by negative regulation of myeloid cell function via SIRP␣. Of interest, very recent evidence indicates indeed that the myxoma virus vCD47 protein (also known as M128L), which is expressed on the surface of infected cells, is required for the production of a lethal infection in its natural host (i.e., the rabbit) and, at the same time, contributes to the suppression of macrophage activation (45). Although this study did not provide direct evidence for an interaction between vCD47 and SIRP␣, it is clearly consistent with a possible role of vCD47-SIRP␣ interactions in virus-mediated immune evasion. Inversely, the generation of activating SIRP variants by duplication from SIRP␣, particularly if they acquired a certain degree of specificity toward the viral CD47 molecule, would likewise have provided the host with a selective advantage. The precedent for this type of reaction has been shown with the Ly49 system. This family of NKpaired receptors in mice has extracellular lectin-like domains, and like SIRPs have forms with intracellular ITIMs (for inhibitory genes) such as Ly49I or associate with DAP12 (for activatory genes) such as Ly49H. These particular proteins bind the m157 viral product from mouse CMV and determine the susceptibility of mice toward virus infection
(46, 47). It will clearly be of interest to further explore the interactions of SIRP family members with poxvirus vCD47 and other ligands expressed by pathogens. Note added in proof. Recent evidence suggests that apoptosis of cells can be accompanied by a down-regulation of (functional) CD47 expression (48). As a result, the apoptotic cells will no longer provide an inhibitory signal for phagocytosis via SIRP␣ which will facilitate their uptake by macrophages. CD47 may thus act as a “viability” or “don’t eat me” signal to the phagocyte.
Acknowledgments We thank Georg Kraal for critically reading the manuscript.
References 1. Borges, L., and D. Cosman. 2000. LIRs/ILTs/MIRs, inhibitory and stimulatory Igsuperfamily receptors expressed in myeloid and lymphoid cells. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev. 11: 209 –217. 2. Kanazawa, N., K. Tashiro, and Y. Miyachi. 2004. Signaling and immune regulatory role of the dendritic cell immunoreceptor (DCIR) family lectins: DCIR, DCAR, dectin-2 and BDCA-2. Immunobiology 209: 179 –190. 3. Lanier, L. L. 2005. NK cell recognition. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 23: 225–274. 4. Wright, G. J., H. Cherwinski, M. Foster-Cuevas, G. Brooke, M. J. Puklavec, M. Bigler, Y. Song, M. Jenmalm, D. Gorman, T. McClanahan, et al. 2003. Characterization of the CD200 receptor family in mice and humans and their interactions with CD200. J. Immunol. 171: 3034 –3046. 5. Barclay, A. N. 2003. Membrane proteins with immunoglobulin-like domains: a master superfamily of interaction molecules. Semin. Immunol. 15: 215–223. 6. van den Berg, T. K., J. A. Yoder, and G. W. Litman. 2004. On the origins of adaptive immunity: innate immune receptors join the tale. Trends Immunol. 25: 11–16. 7. Agrawal, A., Q. M. Eastman, and D. G. Schatz. 1998. Transposition mediated by RAG1 and RAG2 and its implications for the evolution of the immune system. Nature 394: 744 –751. 8. Fujioka, Y., T. Matozaki, T. Noguchi, A. Iwamatsu, T. Yamao, N. Takahashi, M. Tsuda, T. Takada, and M. Kasuga. 1996. A novel membrane glycoprotein, SHPS-1, that binds the SH2-domain-containing protein tyrosine phosphatase SHP-2 in response to mitogens and cell adhesion. Mol. Cell Biol. 16: 6887– 6899. 9. Lanier, L. L., and A. B. Bakker. 2000. The ITAM-bearing transmembrane adaptor DAP12 in lymphoid and myeloid cell function. Immunol. Today 21: 611– 614. 10. Brooke, G. P., K. R. Parsons, and C. J. Howard. 1998. Cloning of two members of the SIRP ␣ family of protein tyrosine phosphatase binding proteins in cattle that are expressed on monocytes and a subpopulation of dendritic cells and which mediate binding to CD4 T cells. Eur. J. Immunol. 28: 1–11. 11. Kharitonenkov, A., Z. Chen, I. Sures, H. Wang, J. Schilling, and A. Ullrich. 1997. A family of proteins that inhibit signalling through tyrosine kinase receptors. Nature 386: 181–186. 12. Veillette, A., E. Thibaudeau, and S. Latour. 1998. High expression of inhibitory receptor SHPS-1 and its association with protein-tyrosine phosphatase SHP-1 in macrophages. J. Biol. Chem. 273: 22719 –22728. 13. Brooke, G., J. D. Holbrook, M. H. Brown, and A. N. Barclay. 2004. Human lymphocytes interact directly with CD47 through a novel member of the signal regulatory protein (SIRP) family. J. Immunol. 173: 2562–2570. 14. Ichigotani, Y., S. Matsuda, K. Machida, K. Oshima, T. Iwamoto, K. Yamaki, T. Hayakawa, and M. Hamaguchi. 2000. Molecular cloning of a novel human gene (SIRP-B2) which encodes a new member of the SIRP/SHPS-1 protein family. J. Hum. Genet. 45: 378 –382. 15. Piccio, L., W. Vermi, K. S. Boles, A. Fuchs, C. A. Strader, F. Facchetti, M. Cella, and M. Colonna. 2005. Adhesion of human T cells to antigen-presenting cells through SIRP2-CD47 interaction costimulates T cell proliferation. Blood 105: 2421–2427. 16. Hayashi, A., H. Ohnishi, H. Okazawa, S. Nakazawa, H. Ikeda, S. Motegi, N. Aoki, S. Kimura, M. Mikuni, and T. Matozaki. 2004. Positive regulation of phagocytosis by SIRP and its signaling mechanism in macrophages. J. Biol. Chem. 279: 29450 –29460. 17. Spannagel, R., G. Fricker, and R. Zawatzky. 2005. Klonierung und Charakterisierung von signal regulatory protein  in prima¨ren Macrophagen der Maus. Doctoral dissertation, Ruprecht-Karls-University, Heidelberg, Germany. 18. Yoder, J. A., R. T. Litman, M. G. Mueller, S. Desai, K. P. Dobrinski, J. S. Montgomery, M. P. Buzzeo, T. Ota, C. T. Amemiya, N. S. Trede, et al. 2004. Resolution of the novel immune-type receptor gene cluster in zebrafish. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101: 15706 –15711. 19. Adams, S., L. J. van der Laan, E. Vernon-Wilson, C. Renardel de Lavalette, E. A. Dopp, C. D. Dijkstra, D. L. Simmons, and T. K. van den Berg. 1998. Signalregulatory protein is selectively expressed by myeloid and neuronal cells. J. Immunol. 161: 1853–1859. 20. van den Nieuwenhof, I. M., C. Renardel de Lavalette, N. Diaz, I. van Die, and T. K. van den Berg. 2001. Differential galactosylation of neuronal and haematopoietic signal regulatory protein ␣ determines its cellular binding-specificity. J. Cell Sci. 114: 1321–1329. 21. Seiffert, M., C. Cant, Z. Chen, I. Rappold, W. Brugger, L. Kanz, E. J. Brown, A. Ullrich, and H. J. Buhring. 1999. Human signal-regulatory protein is expressed on normal, but not on subsets of leukemic myeloid cells and mediates cellular adhesion involving its counterreceptor CD47. Blood 94: 3633–3643.
The Journal of Immunology 22. Jiang, P., C. F. Lagenaur, and V. Narayanan. 1999. Integrin-associated protein is a ligand for the P84 neural adhesion molecule. J. Biol. Chem. 274: 559 –562. 23. Vernon-Wilson, E. F., W. J. Kee, A. C. Willis, A. N. Barclay, D. L. Simmons, and M. H. Brown. 2000. CD47 is a ligand for rat macrophage membrane signal regulatory protein SIRP (OX41) and human SIRP␣ 1. Eur. J. Immunol. 30: 2130 –2137. 24. Brown, E. J., and W. A. Frazier. 2001. Integrin-associated protein (CD47) and its ligands. Trends Cell Biol. 11: 130 –135. 25. Timms, J. F., K. Carlberg, H. Gu, H. Chen, S. Kamatkar, M. J. Nadler, L. R. Rohrschneider, and B. G. Neel. 1998. Identification of major binding proteins and substrates for the SH2-containing protein tyrosine phosphatase SHP-1 in macrophages. Mol. Cell Biol. 18: 3838 –3850. 26. Yamao, T., T. Noguchi, O. Takeuchi, U. Nishiyama, H. Morita, T. Hagiwara, H. Akahori, T. Kato, K. Inagaki, H. Okazawa, et al. 2002. Negative regulation of platelet clearance and of the macrophage phagocytic response by the transmembrane glycoprotein SHPS-1. J. Biol. Chem. 277: 39833–39839. 27. Inagaki, K., T. Yamao, T. Noguchi, T. Matozaki, K. Fukunaga, T. Takada, T. Hosooka, S. Akira, and M. Kasuga. 2000. SHPS-1 regulates integrin-mediated cytoskeletal reorganization and cell motility. EMBO J. 19: 6721– 6731. 28. Oldenborg, P. A., A. Zheleznyak, Y. F. Fang, C. F. Lagenaur, H. D. Gresham, and F. P. Lindberg. 2000. Role of CD47 as a marker of self on red blood cells. Science 288: 2051–2054. 29. Ishikawa-Sekigami, T., Y. Kaneko, H. Okazawa, T. Tomizawa, J. Okajo, Y. Saito, C. Okuzawa, M. Sugawara-Yokoo, U. Nishiyama, H. Ohnishi, et al. 2005. SHPS-1 promotes the survival of circulating erythrocytes through inhibition of phagocytosis by splenic macrophages. Blood. In press. 30. Smith, R. E., V. Patel, S. D. Seatter, M. R. Deehan, M. H. Brown, G. P. Brooke, H. S. Goodridge, C. J. Howard, K. P. Rigley, W. Harnett, and M. M. Harnett. 2003. A novel MyD-1 (SIRP-1␣) signaling pathway that inhibits LPS-induced TNF-␣ production by monocytes. Blood 102: 2532–2540. 31. Alblas, J., H. Honing, C. R. De Lavalette, M. H. Brown, C. D. Dijkstra, and T. K. van den Berg. 2005. Signal regulatory protein ␣ ligation induces macrophage nitric oxide production through JAK/. Mol. Cell Biol. 25: 7181–7192. 32. Stofega, M. R., L. S. Argetsinger, H. Wang, A. Ullrich, and C. Carter-Su. 2000. Negative regulation of growth hormone receptor/JAK2 signaling by signal regulatory protein ␣. J. Biol. Chem. 275: 28222–28229. 33. Han, X., H. Sterling, Y. Chen, C. Saginario, E. J. Brown, W. A. Frazier, F. P. Lindberg, and A. Vignery. 2000. CD47, a ligand for the macrophage fusion receptor, participates in macrophage multinucleation. J. Biol. Chem. 275: 37984 –37992. 34. Saginario, C., H. Sterling, C. Beckers, R. Kobayashi, M. Solimena, E. Ullu, and A. Vignery. 1998. MFR, a putative receptor mediating the fusion of macrophages. Mol. Cell Biol. 18: 6213– 6223. 35. Latour, S., H. Tanaka, C. Demeure, V. Mateo, M. Rubio, E. J. Brown, C. Maliszewski, F. P. Lindberg, A. Oldenborg, A. Ullrich, et al. 2001. Bidirectional negative regulation of human T and dendritic cells by CD47 and its cognate receptor signal-regulator protein ␣: down-regulation of IL-12 responsiveness and inhibition of dendritic cell activation. J. Immunol. 167: 2547–2554.
7787 36. Fukunaga, A., H. Nagai, T. Noguchi, H. Okazawa, T. Matozaki, X. Yu, C. F. Lagenaur, N. Honma, M. Ichihashi, M. Kasuga, et al. 2004. Src homology 2 domain-containing protein tyrosine phosphatase substrate 1 regulates the migration of Langerhans cells from the epidermis to draining lymph nodes. J. Immunol. 172: 4091– 4099. 37. Cooper, D., F. P. Lindberg, J. R. Gamble, E. J. Brown, and M. A. Vadas. 1995. Transendothelial migration of neutrophils involves integrin-associated protein (CD47). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 92: 3978 –3982. 38. de Vries, H. E., J. J. Hendriks, H. Honing, C. R. De Lavalette, S. M. van der Pol, E. Hooijberg, C. D. Dijkstra, and T. K. van den Berg. 2002. Signal-regulatory protein ␣-CD47 interactions are required for the transmigration of monocytes across cerebral endothelium. J. Immunol. 168: 5832–5839. 39. Liu, Y., H. J. Buhring, K. Zen, S. L. Burst, F. J. Schnell, I. R. Williams, and C. A. Parkos. 2002. Signal regulatory protein (SIRP␣), a cellular ligand for CD47, regulates neutrophil transmigration. J. Biol. Chem. 277: 10028 –10036. 40. Liu, Y., I. Soto, Q. Tong, A. Chin, H. J. Buhring, T. Wu, K. Zen, and C. A. Parkos. 2005. SIRP1 is expressed as a disulfide linked homodimer in leukocytes and positively regulates neutrophil transepithelial migration. J. Biol. Chem. 280: 36132–36140. 41. Dietrich, J., M. Cella, M. Seiffert, H. J. Buhring, and M. Colonna. 2000. Cutting edge: signal-regulatory protein 1 is a DAP12-associated activating receptor expressed in myeloid cells. J. Immunol. 164: 9 –12. 42. Seiffert, M., P. Brossart, C. Cant, M. Cella, M. Colonna, W. Brugger, L. Kanz, A. Ullrich, and H. J. Buhring. 2001. Signal-regulatory protein ␣ (SIRP␣) but not SIRP is involved in T cell activation, binds to CD47 with high affinity, and is expressed on immature CD34⫹CD38⫺ hematopoietic cells. Blood 97: 2741–2749. 43. Tomasello, E., C. Cant, H. J. Buhring, F. Vely, P. Andre, M. Seiffert, A. Ullrich, and E. Vivier. 2000. Association of signal-regulatory proteins  with KARAP/DAP-12. Eur. J. Immunol. 30: 2147–2156. 44. Lanier, L. L., B. C. Corliss, J. Wu, C. Leong, and J. H. Phillips. 1998. Immunoreceptor DAP12 bearing a tyrosine-based activation motif is involved in activating NK cells. Nature 391: 703–707. 45. Cameron, C. M., J. W. Barrett, M. Mann, A. Lucas, and G. McFadden. 2005. Myxoma virus M128L is expressed as a cell surface CD47-like virulence factor that contributes to the down-regulation of macrophage activation in vivo. Virology 337: 55– 67. 46. Arase, H., E. S. Mocarski, A. E. Campbell, A. B. Hill, and L. L. Lanier. 2002. Direct recognition of cytomegalovirus by activating and inhibitory NK cell receptors. Science 296: 1323–1326. 47. Smith, H. R., J. W. Heusel, I. K. Mehta, S. Kim, B. G. Dorner, O. V. Naidenko, K. Iizuka, H. Furukawa, D. L. Beckman, J. T. Pingel, et al. 2002. Recognition of a virus-encoded ligand by a natural killer cell activation receptor. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99: 8826 – 8831. 48. Gardai, S. J., K. A. McPhillips, S. C. Frasch, W. J. Janssen, A. Starefeldt, J. E. MurphyUllrich, D. L. Bratton, P. A. Oldenborg, M. Michalak, and P. M. Henson. 2005. Cell-surface calreticulin initiates clearance of viable or apoptotic cells through transactivation of LRP in the phagocyte. Cell 123: 321–334.
