Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Minireviews
    • JVI Classic Spotlights
    • Archive
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JVI
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Virology
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Minireviews
    • JVI Classic Spotlights
    • Archive
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JVI
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Letter to the Editor

Reply to “Herpes Simplex Virus 1, Macrophages, and the Cornea”

Dhong Hyun Lee, Homayon Ghiasi
Richard M. Longnecker, Editor
Dhong Hyun Lee
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Homayon Ghiasi
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Richard M. Longnecker
Northwestern University
Roles: Editor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/JVI.01317-17
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

REPLY

In a letter to the editor regarding our report in the Journal of Virology (JVI) (1), several issues were raised by Daniel Carr, and our responses to his points are as follows.

(i) Dr. Carr, in support of his comments, cites papers by Tumpey et al. (2) and Thomas et al. (3). However, in those studies, the authors examined the effect of neutrophil depletion on ocular herpes simplex virus 1 (HSV-1) infection and showed that depletion of neutrophils did not alter CD4−, CD8−, B-cell, NK cell, or F4/80 macrophage populations. No direct comparison of macrophages versus neutrophils populations in untreated and infected mice was done. In various human eye diseases, such as dry eye and ocular graft-versus-host disease, neutrophils were detected on the surface of the cornea (tears) but not inside corneal tissues (4, 5). Similarly, in both BALB/c and C57BL/6 mice, GR-1+ cells were not significant infiltrates and were not correlated with inflammation after corneal transplantation (6).

Similar to our results (1), Dr. Carr, in his own paper that was cited in the letter to JVI (7), reported more macrophages in the naive infected mouse cornea (approximately 3,000 cells) than neutrophils (approximately 1,250 cells) on day 5 postinfection (p.i.). Also, in another paper, Dr. Carr's group reported similar numbers of macrophages and neutrophils in the corneas of infected mice on day 30 p.i. (8). Dr. Carr also showed that neutrophils become dominant infiltrates in the corneas of HSV-1-infected mice after day 10 p.i. (9). In their discussion, they indicated that macrophages may play an important role in the early stages of infection. However, in our abstract and introduction, we were talking about primary ocular infection, which generally refers to days 1 to 7 p.i. and when infectious virus can be detected in the eye by plaque assays of an eye swab sample.

Many independent studies have clearly demonstrated that eye disease, infiltrates in the eye, latency, and reactivation all are affected by the strain of mouse, strain of virus, dose of infection, and infection with or without corneal scarification. All of these factors are possible reasons that there is even variability in Dr. Carr's own published studies. Dr. Carr's group used corneal scarification in their reported studies with very-low-dose infection (7, 9), and previously he has shown that corneal scarification is required for detection of HSV-1 in the retinas of infected mice (10). Thus, the presence of the virus in the retina, trauma associated with corneal scarification, and the variability of corneal scarification from experiment to experiment could very well affect the type of infiltrates in the corneas of infected mice. Consequently, results obtained after corneal scarification, which is a very traumatic procedure and needs complete anesthesia to be performed, does not reflect natural infection compared to infection without scarification, as we have done.

(ii) The other issue that was raised is in respect to resident macrophages. Corneal macrophages are classified as CCR2− and CCR2+, and CCR2− macrophages can be considered resident macrophages and are not affected by monocytes, while CCR2+ macrophages occupied the cornea under both normal and disease conditions (11). Migratory infiltrates following infection or trauma enter the affected site, as was reported previously (12). Dr. Carr, in his letter, also indicated that the cornea is a “pristine structure,” and previously we have shown detection of infiltrates after infection and not before infection by using immunohistochemistry and not fluorescence-activated cell sorter analyses in BALB/c mice (13–17).

(iii) Dr. Carr also discusses his published study using an ICP0-null virus similar to a virus that was originally developed in the laboratory of the late Priscila Shaffer (18). In the letter to JVI regarding our paper, Dr. Carr advertised the superiority of the vaccine used in his flawed study that he is marketing as a human vaccine through a company of which the author is a board member and received stock options. He compared his highly attenuated virus in an HSV-1 vaccine study with a gD2 subunit vaccine as a control rather than using gD1 as a control or another attenuated HSV-1 strain, which defies scientific logic and raises some serious questions about their findings and claims. Why compare HSV-1 vaccine against gD2 vaccine when gD1 would have been a better choice? However, we did not do a vaccination in our study, except insofar as to suggest that injection of mice with CSF-1 DNA is advantageous over gamma interferon (IFN-γ) DNA injection. Therefore, what is the relevance of his vaccination strategy to our injection strategy, except advertising for his commercial endeavor? In addition, we suggested in our discussion that if CSF-1 is included with a cocktail of HSV-1 glycoproteins, we may obtain better protection. In our paper, we clearly showed a shift in the phenotypes of macrophages after injection with IFN-γ DNA (toward M1) and CSF-1 DNA (toward M2), as well as higher levels of IFN-γ expression in the IFN-γ DNA-injected group. In addition, our results obtained with splenic and peritoneal macrophages from injected mice also clearly show a shift in systemic responses due to injection with CSF-1 DNA versus IFN-γ but not controls. Our study was specifically designed to look only at possible differences in M1 versus M2 macrophages both in vitro and in vivo. A more careful reading of our report and a better understanding of the subject would have eliminated these misconceptions.

(iv) Dr. Carr discusses a lack of statistical analysis for Tables 1 and 2. In those two tables, we looked at 34 cytokines and chemokines from six different treatments per cell type by using two different cell types. We purposely mentioned only those differences that we felt may be relevant to our model as a reference without including any statistical analysis so as not to clutter up the tables and to let readers draw their own conclusions. In addition, our statistical analyses are relevant to our experiments and are well established. Regarding analysis of variance (ANOVA), we believe that the two-tailed t test is an appropriate method, as we only compared two groups at a time. Also, we got the same results whether we used the Fisher exact test or ANOVA. Overall, our data were highly significant and we would have gotten the same results no matter what type of statistical analysis we used, and as one of my professors said many decades ago, “do not let statistics be your master.”

In conclusion, even Dr. Carr's own cited paper supports our studies (7). If Dr. Carr had paid more attention to how we performed the virus work, taken into account the complications associated with using corneal scarification to initiate infection of the eye, and realized that a very large dose of a virulent virus was used for this study, this unfortunate misinterpretation could have been avoided. To the best of our knowledge, our study was unique and novel and for the first time we correlated the in vitro function of M1 and M2 macrophages with their presence and function in vivo.

FOOTNOTES

  • This is a response to a letter by Carr (https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.01267-17).

  • Copyright © 2017 American Society for Microbiology.

All Rights Reserved .

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Lee DH,
    2. Ghiasi H
    . 2017. Roles of M1 and M2 macrophages in herpes simplex virus 1 infectivity. J Virol91:e00578-17. doi:10.1128/JVI.00578-17.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Tumpey TM,
    2. Chen SH,
    3. Oakes JE,
    4. Lausch RN
    . 1996. Neutrophil-mediated suppression of virus replication after herpes simplex virus type 1 infection of the murine cornea. J Virol70:898–904.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Thomas J,
    2. Gangappa S,
    3. Kanangat S,
    4. Rouse BT
    . 1997. On the essential involvement of neutrophils in the immunopathologic disease: herpetic stromal keratitis. J Immunol158:1383–1391.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  4. 4.↵
    1. Arafat SN,
    2. Robert MC,
    3. Abud T,
    4. Spurr-Michaud S,
    5. Amparo F,
    6. Dohlman CH,
    7. Dana R,
    8. Gipson IK
    . 2017. Elevated neutrophil elastase in tears of ocular graft-versus-host disease patients. Am J Ophthalmol176:46–52. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2016.12.026.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. 5.↵
    1. Tibrewal S,
    2. Ivanir Y,
    3. Sarkar J,
    4. Nayeb-Hashemi N,
    5. Bouchard CS,
    6. Kim E,
    7. Jain S
    . 2014. Hyperosmolar stress induces neutrophil extracellular trap formation: implications for dry eye disease. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci55:7961–7969. doi:10.1167/iovs.14-15332.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Crnej A,
    2. Omoto M,
    3. Dohlman TH,
    4. Dohlman CH,
    5. Dana R
    . 2014. Corneal inflammation after miniature keratoprosthesis implantation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci56:185–189.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    1. Royer DJ,
    2. Gurung HR,
    3. Jinkins JK,
    4. Geltz JJ,
    5. Wu JL,
    6. Halford WP,
    7. Carr DJ
    . 2016. A highly efficacious herpes simplex virus 1 vaccine blocks viral pathogenesis and prevents corneal immunopathology via humoral immunity. J Virol90:5514–5529. doi:10.1128/JVI.00517-16.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Royer DJ,
    2. Carr MM,
    3. Gurung HR,
    4. Halford WP,
    5. Carr DJJ
    . 31July2017. The neonatal Fc receptor and complement fixation facilitate prophylactic vaccine-mediated humoral protection against viral infection in the ocular mucosa. J Immunol doi:10.4049/jimmunol.1700316.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. 9.↵
    1. Gurung HR,
    2. Carr MM,
    3. Bryant K,
    4. Chucair-Elliott AJ,
    5. Carr DJ
    . 5April2017. Fibroblast growth factor-2 drives and maintains progressive corneal neovascularization following HSV-1 infection. Mucosal Immunol doi:10.1038/mi.2017.26.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. 10.↵
    1. Carr DJ,
    2. Chodosh J,
    3. Ash J,
    4. Lane TE
    . 2003. Effect of anti-CXCL10 monoclonal antibody on herpes simplex virus type 1 keratitis and retinal infection. J Virol77:10037–10046. doi:10.1128/JVI.77.18.10037-10046.2003.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Liu J,
    2. Xue Y,
    3. Dong D,
    4. Xiao C,
    5. Lin C,
    6. Wang H,
    7. Song F,
    8. Fu T,
    9. Wang Z,
    10. Chen J,
    11. Pan H,
    12. Li Y,
    13. Cai D,
    14. Li Z
    . 2017. CCR2− and CCR2+ corneal macrophages exhibit distinct characteristics and balance inflammatory responses after epithelial abrasion. Mucosal Immunol10:1145–1159. doi:10.1038/mi.2016.139.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  12. 12.↵
    1. Swirski FK,
    2. Nahrendorf M,
    3. Etzrodt M,
    4. Wildgruber M,
    5. Cortez-Retamozo V,
    6. Panizzi P,
    7. Figueiredo JL,
    8. Kohler RH,
    9. Chudnovskiy A,
    10. Waterman P,
    11. Aikawa E,
    12. Mempel TR,
    13. Libby P,
    14. Weissleder R,
    15. Pittet MJ
    . 2009. Identification of splenic reservoir monocytes and their deployment to inflammatory sites. Science325:612–616. doi:10.1126/science.1175202.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Ghiasi H,
    2. Hofman FM,
    3. Cai S,
    4. Perng GC,
    5. Nesburn AB,
    6. Wechsler SL
    . 1999. Vaccination with different HSV-1 glycoproteins induces different patterns of ocular cytokine responses following HSV-1 challenge of vaccinated mice. Vaccine17:2576–2582. doi:10.1016/S0264-410X(99)00056-0.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. 14.↵
    1. Ghiasi H,
    2. Hofman FM,
    3. Wallner K,
    4. Cai S,
    5. Perng G,
    6. Nesburn AB,
    7. Wechsler SL
    . 2000. Corneal macrophage infiltrates following ocular herpes simplex virus type 1 challenge vary in BALB/c mice vaccinated with different vaccines. Vaccine19:1266–1273. doi:10.1016/S0264-410X(00)00298-X.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  15. 15.↵
    1. Ghiasi H,
    2. Pemg GC,
    3. Hofman FM,
    4. Cai S,
    5. Nesburn AB,
    6. Wechsler SL
    . 1999. Specific and nonspecific immune stimulation of MHC-II-deficient mice results in chronic HSV-1 infection of the trigeminal ganglia following ocular challenge. Virology258:208–216. doi:10.1006/viro.1999.9710.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Ghiasi H,
    2. Wechsler SL,
    3. Cai S,
    4. Nesburn AB,
    5. Hofman FM
    . 1998. The role of neutralizing antibody and T-helper subtypes in protection and pathogenesis of vaccinated mice following ocular HSV-1 challenge. Immunology95:352–359. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2567.1998.00602.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  17. 17.↵
    1. Ghiasi H,
    2. Wechsler SL,
    3. Kaiwar R,
    4. Nesburn AB,
    5. Hofman FM
    . 1995. Local expression of tumor necrosis factor alpha and interleukin-2 correlates with protection against corneal scarring after ocular challenge of vaccinated mice with herpes simplex virus type 1. J Virol69:334–340.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Sacks WR,
    2. Schaffer PA
    . 1987. Deletion mutants in the gene encoding the herpes simplex virus type 1 immediate-early protein ICP0 exhibit impaired growth in cell culture. J Virol61:829–839.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Reply to “Herpes Simplex Virus 1, Macrophages, and the Cornea”
Dhong Hyun Lee, Homayon Ghiasi
Journal of Virology Oct 2017, 91 (21) e01317-17; DOI: 10.1128/JVI.01317-17

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Virology article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Reply to “Herpes Simplex Virus 1, Macrophages, and the Cornea”
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Virology
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Virology.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Reply to “Herpes Simplex Virus 1, Macrophages, and the Cornea”
Dhong Hyun Lee, Homayon Ghiasi
Journal of Virology Oct 2017, 91 (21) e01317-17; DOI: 10.1128/JVI.01317-17
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • REPLY
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

Herpesvirus 1, Human
Simplexvirus

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About JVI
  • Editor in Chief
  • Editorial Board
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #Jvirology

@ASMicrobiology

       

 

JVI in collaboration with

American Society for Virology

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0022-538X; Online ISSN: 1098-5514