In this study we provided evidence that treatment of experimental bacterial keratitis with rTM, composed of domains TMD1-TMD4 (Leu 17–Ser 517), is protective against perforation in a mouse model of bacterial keratitis. Protection appeared to correlate with mechanisms of virulence, in that better protection was achieved for a cytotoxic (19660) versus a noncytotoxic clinical isolate. For the cytotoxic strain, which was tested in detail, treatment with rTM resulted in reduction of proinflammatory molecules, including IL-1β and CXCL2, as well as a reduction in MPO activity consistent with reducing the two cytokines that have been shown to be associated with the cellular infiltrate in keratitis, which is mainly neutrophilic.
40 Also consistent with fewer neutrophils in the stroma, which would reduce bystander damage and decrease nutrition for bacterial growth, the viable plate count also was reduced. It is also worth considering that other factors not tested herein could play a role in this outcome. In this regard, it has been shown that human TM regulates complement activation in response to xenogeneic stimuli
41; that elevated plasma concentrations of nitric oxide correlates with elevated soluble TM levels in lupus patients
42; that in a mutation of TM, activation of protein C is impaired, leading to increased neutrophils and inflammation in melioidosis, although it has no impact on bacterial growth or dissemination
43; and that its lectin-like domain binding to Lewis Y antigen could neutralize LPS-induced inflammation.
27 In contrast, we had expected to see reduction of HMGB1, which would in turn reduce rather than amplify inflammation, as shown in other systems
8,13–17; however, the molecule was not reduced at either the mRNA or protein level. Based on this, we hypothesized that reduction in keratitis could be due to the possibility that the rTM that we used, which included domain 23, may have had an angiogenic effect, as has been shown by others,
30 and that this might play a role in the healing response we observed. Alternatively, because the rTM that we used did not reduce HMGB1, we hypothesized that this could be because it lacked the full TMD1 lectin-like domain, which binds HMGB1,
18 interferes with its binding to RAGE, impairing HMGB1-RAGE signaling
18 or enhancing thrombin-mediated proteolytic degradation of HMGB1.
19