The efficacy of oncolytic viruses (OVs), such as reovirus, is dictated by host immune responses, including those mediated by the pro- versus anti-inflammatory macrophages. As such, a detailed understanding of the interaction between reovirus and different macrophage types is critical for therapeutic efficacy. To explore reovirus-macrophage interactions, we performed tandem mass tag (TMT)-based quantitative temporal proteomics on mouse bone marrow-derived macrophages (BMMs) generated with two cytokines, macrophage colony stimulating factor (M-CSF) and granulocytic-macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF), representing anti- and proinflammatory macrophages, respectively. We quantified 6863 proteins across fi... More
The efficacy of oncolytic viruses (OVs), such as reovirus, is dictated by host immune responses, including those mediated by the pro- versus anti-inflammatory macrophages. As such, a detailed understanding of the interaction between reovirus and different macrophage types is critical for therapeutic efficacy. To explore reovirus-macrophage interactions, we performed tandem mass tag (TMT)-based quantitative temporal proteomics on mouse bone marrow-derived macrophages (BMMs) generated with two cytokines, macrophage colony stimulating factor (M-CSF) and granulocytic-macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF), representing anti- and proinflammatory macrophages, respectively. We quantified 6863 proteins across five time points in duplicate, comparing M-CSF (M-BMM) and GM-CSF (GM-BMM) in response to OV. We find that GM-BMMs have lower expression of key intrinsic proteins that facilitate an antiviral immune response, express higher levels of reovirus receptor protein JAM-A, and are more susceptible to oncolytic reovirus infection compared to M-BMMs. Interestingly, although M-BMMs are less susceptible to reovirus infection and subsequent cell death, they initiate an antireovirus adaptive T cell immune response comparable to that of GM-BMMs. Taken together, these data describe distinct proteome differences between these two macrophage populations in terms of their ability to mount antiviral immune responses.
