Does arginase mediate immune suppression in the brain?

This week I want to talk about an interesting enzyme: Arginase-I (Arg1) and its metabolic pathway in an immune microenvironment. Arg1 is a cytosolic protein that is involved in the urea cycle. Specifically, it catalyzes the hydrolysis of L-arginine to L-ornithine and urea. It has been shown that the expression of Arg1 by macrophages has an important role in tumor growth. Macrophages that are recruited into the tumor microenvironment (tumor associated macrophages) express high levels of Arg1 resulting in the depletion of arginine – an essential nutrient required for T cell metabolism. Cytotoxic T cells, therefore, can no longer function and inhibit the tumor cells from proliferating. Arg1 is implicated in several inflammatory diseases as well as in autoimmunity. Arg1 plays a significant role in mediating immune suppression and blocking its metabolism is a novel strategy in preventing tumor growth and other inflammation-related conditions.

T cell suppression by MDSC
Myeloid-Derived Suppressor Cell suppresses cytotoxic T cell function through Arg1 metabolism. (IFNγ, IL-4, and IL-13 are cytokines that induced MDSC activation)

One hypothesis is that the immune suppressive cells in other immune microenvironments in the body must be similar to the Myeloid-Derived Suppressor Cells (MDSCs) that induce T cell suppression in the cancer microenvironment. The question is, do such immunosuppressive cells express increased levels of Arg1 and act through the Arg1 metabolic pathway? Since I am interested in the brain and neurodegeneration, this hypothesis can be extended to the brain immune microenvironment. Microglial cells in the brain also upregulate Arg1 and are neuroprotective in nature (in a healthy brain). These cells are the resident macrophages of the central nervous system and function by phagocytosing cell debris and toxic misfolded proteins (that eventually form aggregates and lead to neuronal death as seen in Alzheimer’s disease) out of the brain environment. The question now is – do the microglial cells exhibit immunosuppressive behavior by altering their Arg1 metabolism?

Kan et al., 2015, recently showed that CD11c positive microglial cells are immunosuppressive in the CVN-AD mouse model and that immune suppression is caused due to the deprivation of arginine (increased levels of extracellular Arg1 causing decreased levels of total brain arginine). What isn’t explicitly mentioned in this study is that arginine is also the substrate for nitric oxide synthase (NOS) that makes nitric oxide (NO) in an alternate L-arginine metabolic pathway. L-arginine is a substrate for both Arg1 and NOS. The Arg1 pathway polarizes the macrophages to M2 phenotype and the NOS pathway polarizes the macrophages to the M1 phenotype (Rath et al., 2014). The current model of microglial activation in the CNS is limited to these two polarized states, where, the M1 microglia are neurotoxic and the M2 microglia are neuroprotective. Arg1 is upregulated in microglia in the healthy brain and aids in phagocytosis of misfolded proteins and other cell debris. The classical microglial activation is through the M2 phenotype wherein the induced nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) is upregulated thereby accelerating inflammation in the brain (neuroinflammation is one of the hallmark characteristics of several neurological diseases such as Alzheimer’s Parkinson’s, Multiple Sclerosis, Traumatic Brain Injury, etc).

M1 and M2 microglia
The current model of microglial activation is limited to the Arg1-mediated M1 and iNOS-mediated M2 polarized states.

So, if an immunosuppressive cell exists in the brain, is it possible that the immune suppression is regulated through the M2 activation and that M1 activation is absent? In other words, L-arginine is metabolized through the Arg1 pathway and not through the NOS pathway. Other questions to consider: MDSCs upregulate both Arg1 and iNOS – so how does that fit into the two-state polarization model? How does iNOS modulate MDSC activity? We know that increased NO expression by MDSCs increases T cell suppression in the tumor microenvironment. Currently, both Arg1 and iNOS inhibitors are being developed to block the immune suppressive activity of MDSCs in the cancer microenvironment. However, understanding immunosuppression in the brain is still a long way to go and the idea is not widely accepted within the neurobiology community (my understanding from the currently available literature or published studies). Investigating this mechanism in the brain will be useful in developing potential therapeutic strategies for treating neuroinflammation and neurodegeneration.


  • Kan MJ, Lee JE, Wilson JG, et al. Arginine Deprivation and Immune Suppression in a Mouse Model of Alzheimer’s Disease. The Journal of Neuroscience. 2015;35(15):5969-5982. DOI:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4668-14.2015.
  • Rath M, Müller I, et al. Metabolism via arginase or nitric oxide synthase: two competing arginine pathways in macrophages. Front. Immunol., 27 October 2014. DOI:

Metabolic interplay

Renner K et al. Front Immunol. (2017)

I recently came across this figure that shows the key metabolic processes that dictates an immune cell behavior and function. Biochemists and pharmacologists sometimes focus on one or two key pathways in a disease model and forget that proteins don’t function in isolation. Protein networks are complex pathways with many overlays. A drug designed to inhibit or activate a specific protein can also affect other proteins in the connected pathways. This figure is focussed on an immune cell (natural killer cell) and its interaction with a tumor cell. The interplay between the different metabolic pathways applies to all kinds of cells in the body.

This figure is also quite interesting to me because I have been studying the arginase-1 (Arg1) pathway in microglial cells and this gives me a brief overview of where my study lies in the spectrum of key cellular metabolic pathways. Arg1 is an enzyme that metabolizes L-arginine to L-ornithine and urea in the urea cycle. With the help of ornithine decarboxylase (ODC), L-ornithine further makes polyamines that are important (? – it depends) for cell growth and survival (? – it depends). I think it is quite interesting to see how Arg1 and ODC would dictate the phenotypes of the microglial cells in the brain. Microglia are the brain’s resident immune cells – they chew up all the toxic stuff and get rid of them (this is known as phagocytosis). We have always studied these cells based on their two active states (M1 or M2). There has been evidence in the recent years to show that these cells in fact may exhibit multiple activated states (not just M1 and M2). Just like many immune cells in the body that exhibit a heterogenous phenotype, microglia in the brain may be no different. I’m curious if Arg1 and ODC may be involved in regulating a similar mechanism in microglial cells during neurodegeneration..

Source: Renner K., Singer K., et al. Metabolic Hallmarks of Tumor and Immune Cells in the Tumor Microenvironment. Front Immunol. 2017; 8: 248.


Maintaining laboratory notebooks

One of the first things that I had to do when I started my research in the lab was to create a lab notebook. What started off as a well-groomed, precise and perfectly organised record of my research procedures is now turning into a sloppy mess. Making daily entries of my work has become tiresome and I am slowly losing track of the orderliness while trying to keep up. But guess what? The *perfect* lab notebook simply does not exist.

Page from one of my first lab notebooks.
Page from one of my first lab notebooks.

Lab notebooks are supposed to be a documentation of our research. And no research is perfect. Numerous changes to protocols, adjustments in data and new developments in our exploration as we maneuver through the endless facts and figures are all an integral part of scientific research. A lab notebook which demonstrates all this translucently is ‘almost’ perfect. The essentials like dates, page numbers, goals, protocols, observations, calculations and the results are absolutely fundamental. However, so are the tiny side notes to show changes, end pointers to highlight significant steps, indicators to expose errors & oversights, etc. Further more, pictures of gels, protein expression, spectrophotometer results, blots, gene maps, overview diagrams, illustrations, and experimental designs add unique individual characteristics to each lab notebook.

The intention should be to establish a good record keeping practice, without missing out on any vital details that can be easily understood by all. One of the critical components that I found missing in many books was the answer to the question “why” at the beginning of every protocol/day. I consider this element to be important because many times, we find ourselves lose track of the purpose of a particular procedure or fail to see the larger picture while blatantly repeating steps for the zillionth time.

Another format that one can consider these days are ELNs or electronic lab notebooks. These could be great in terms of simplicity, effortlessness and all the features that accompany it. Images in-between protocols, adding graphs & tables, attaching external files, hyperlinks, organising experiments in different files, creating tabs for managing inventories, etc can all be incorporated into one project file. It is like maintaing an entire lab digitally on a personal computer! Hard copies of the documents can be printed out regularly to serve as an alternate backup. The efficiency of ELNs seems to be drawing a lot of attention from some of the new age scientists.

While this seems to be a new avenue to explore, I am going to give myself enough time and experience to outgrow the good old hardbound notebooks that are going to serve as my memory aid in the future.

Resources –