Next Article in Journal
Overlap of Peak Growth Activity and Peak IGF-1 to IGFBP Ratio: Delayed Increase of IGFBPs Versus IGF-1 in Serum as a Mechanism to Speed up and down Postnatal Weight Gain in Mice
Next Article in Special Issue
Sphingosine-1-Phosphate Metabolism in the Regulation of Obesity/Type 2 Diabetes
Previous Article in Journal
Huntington’s Disease—An Outlook on the Interplay of the HTT Protein, Microtubules and Actin Cytoskeletal Components
Previous Article in Special Issue
Elusive Roles of the Different Ceramidases in Human Health, Pathophysiology, and Tissue Regeneration
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

The S1P–S1PR Axis in Neurological Disorders—Insights into Current and Future Therapeutic Perspectives

1
Department of Neurology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, 60528 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
2
Department of Neurology, RWTH Aachen University, 52074 Aachen, Germany
3
Institute of General Pharmacology and Toxicology, Pharmazentrum Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, 60528 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
4
Department of Medicine, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cells 2020, 9(6), 1515; https://doi.org/10.3390/cells9061515
Submission received: 14 May 2020 / Revised: 18 June 2020 / Accepted: 19 June 2020 / Published: 22 June 2020

Abstract

:
Sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P), derived from membrane sphingolipids, is a pleiotropic bioactive lipid mediator capable of evoking complex immune phenomena. Studies have highlighted its importance regarding intracellular signaling cascades as well as membrane-bound S1P receptor (S1PR) engagement in various clinical conditions. In neurological disorders, the S1P–S1PR axis is acknowledged in neurodegenerative, neuroinflammatory, and cerebrovascular disorders. Modulators of S1P signaling have enabled an immense insight into fundamental pathological pathways, which were pivotal in identifying and improving the treatment of human diseases. However, its intricate molecular signaling pathways initiated upon receptor ligation are still poorly elucidated. In this review, the authors highlight the current evidence for S1P signaling in neurodegenerative and neuroinflammatory disorders as well as stroke and present an array of drugs targeting the S1P signaling pathway, which are being tested in clinical trials. Further insights on how the S1P–S1PR axis orchestrates disease initiation, progression, and recovery may hold a remarkable potential regarding therapeutic options in these neurological disorders.

1. Introduction—S1P Metabolism and Signaling

Three decades ago, sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P) was identified as an intracellular signaling agent in relation to calcium release from intracellular stores and metabolic adaptations [1]. The balance between sphingosine and S1P, both metabolites of its precursor ceramide, and their subsequent activation of effector kinases were shown to matter in imposing regulatory effects in the determination of whether a cell is destined for cell death or proliferation [2]. The sphingolipid metabolism is almost as complex as its protean intricacies to signaling pathways.

1.1. De Novo Sphingolipid Synthesis and Signaling at the Endoplasmic Reticulum

De novo sphingolipid biosynthesis is initiated in the smooth endoplasmic reticulum (sER) (Figure 1). Here, the α-aminocarbonic acid serine and the lipid palmitoyl-CoA (PalCoA) are enzymatically processed by the key enzyme serine palmitoyltransferase (SPT)—which is negatively regulated by ORM1-like protein 3 (ORMDL3) [3]—to 3-ketosphinganine [4,5,6]. Subsequent conversion of 3-ketosphinganine to S1P is promoted by enzymatic reactions including a reduction to sphinganine, a synthase reaction to dihydroceramide, and a desaturase reaction to ceramide followed by deacylation by ceramidase (CDase) and a phosphorylation by sphingosine kinase (SphK), which exists in two isoforms (SphK1 and SphK2) [6,7,8]. In general, the formation of the ceramide and the sphingoid bases represents the backbone of the sphingolipid metabolic pathway, as they can be utilized for the synthesis of complex glycosphingolipids. Glycosphingolipids are crucial components of cellular membranes [4,9], such as glucosylceramide or sphingomyelin manufactured by glucosylceramide synthase (GCS) or sphingomyelin synthase (SMS), respectively [10,11]. These various enzymatic reactions are not irreversible per se, since ceramide can be generated by sphingomyelin hydrolysis and/or recycling of complex sphingolipids [10,12,13]. Ultimately, S1P can irreversibly be degraded by S1P lyase into phosphoethanolamine (PE) and hexadecenal, both of which are being further processed [14,15]; PE is used for the synthesis of phosphatidylethanolamine and hexadecenal is used to replenish the PalCoA pool [15,16,17,18]. This cycle of de novo sphingolipid synthesis is tightly controlled by NOGO-B, a protein located within the membrane of the endoplasmic reticulum, which inhibits SPT [19,20]. Alternatively, S1P can be converted back to ceramides by dephosphorylation through sphingosine 1-phosphate phosphatase (SGPP) 1 or SGPP2 [21,22], both of which are members of the lipid phosphate phosphohydrolase (LPP) family [23]. This pathway can substantially contribute to the synthesis of complex sphingolipids within a cell subject to cell type and metabolic demand [24,25].

1.2. Synthesis and Signaling of Sphingosine 1-Phosphate in Mitochondria and at the Plasma Membrane

Mitochondrial S1P (Figure 1), produced by SphK2, facilitates oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS). This effect was shown to be mediated by stabilizing the scaffolding protein prohibitin-2 (PHB2), which, in turn, eases the recruitment of cytochrome c oxidase (CCO) and thus the assembly of complex IV of the respiratory chain [23,27]. The most important site of S1P production is the plasma membrane (PM) itself (Figure 1), which is composed of a lipid bilayer, predominantly consisting of an extracellular (EC) and an intracellular (IC) phospholipid leaflet. Here, S1P is derived from sphingomyelin, an integral component of cellular membranes [4]. Sphingomyelin is metabolized to S1P via the enzymes sphingomyelinase (SMase), CDase, and sphingosine kinase 1 (SphK1) [28,29]. At this point, S1P can either be exported using the multi-pass membrane proteins spinster homolog 2 (SPNS2) [30,31,32,33] or major facilitator superfamily domain-containing protein 2B (MFSD2B) [30,31,32], respectively, or employed for further immediate intracellular signaling cascades. In terms of intracellular signaling, S1P can engage in tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) receptor-associated factor 2 (TRAF2) [34] and TRAF6-dependent TNF-α signaling [35]. S1P can either recruit the atypical protein kinase C (PKC) subtypes ζ (PKCζ) or ι (PKCι) to sites of distinct membrane microdomains using receptor for activated C kinase (RACK) proteins [36,37,38] or associate with the TRAF2 complex [34]. This, in turn, allows the activation of the interleukin-1 (IL-1) pathway via TRAF6, cell survival, and convergence on the TNF-α pathway downstream of TRAF2 [28,34,39,40,41]. The association with the TRAF2 complex is said to occur by engaging with the N-terminal adjacent really interesting new group (RING) domain, which allows activation of the intramolecular E3 ligase domain of TRAF2 [28,34,41]. The activation of TRAF2′s E3 ligase lures receptor-interacting serine/threonine-protein kinase 1 (RIP1) in close proximity, allowing polyubiquitination of its Lys63 residue. Polyubiquitination of Lys63 stimulates RIP1′s kinase activity, which results in the phosphorylation of the inhibitor of nuclear factor κ-B kinase (IκB-k). As a consequence, the nuclear factor κ-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells (NF-κB) signaling pathway is engaged, since IκB-k is now able to facilitate the down-regulation of the NF-κB inhibitor α (IκBα). This culminates in the uncoupling of IκBα from NF-κB revoking its inhibitory effect and allowing NF-κB’s nuclear translocation [28,34,35]. Crosstalk between TRAF2 and TRAF6 was previously reported, as both can engage with atypical PKCs via protein p62 [39], are able to recruit TGF-β-activated kinase 1 and MAP3K7-binding protein 3 (TAB3) [40,42], or can be polyubiquitinylated given the presence of a RING domain in TRAF6 [43]. Moreover, a disruption of TRAF6 binding sites, for example, only mildly impacts NF-κB signaling in the presence of TRAF2 and TRAF3 [44]. Beyond the TNF-α signaling pathway, S1P signaling can vitalize adipogenesis, glucose (Glc) metabolism, and β-oxidation via peroxisome proliferator activated receptor γ (PPARγ) [15,45,46]. By binding to its His323 residue, S1P activates PPARγ, increasing the likelihood of an association with the PPARγ co-activator 1β (PGC1β), a necessary co-transcription factor for nuclear translocation [46,47].

1.3. Sphingosine 1-Phosphate Signaling in the Nucleus

SphK2, the predominant isoform in the sER and mitochondria [27,48], is also predominant in the nucleus (Figure 1) [49,50,51,52,53]. Nuclear S1P was shown to be critically involved in influencing the balance between cellular quiescence and proliferation. Hait et al., showed that S1P produced in the nucleus binds to the class I histone deacetylases (HDAC) 1 and 2, which results in their inhibition [53]. In general, HDAC1 and HDAC2′s function lies in removing acetyl residues coupled to the α-aminocarbonic acid lysine close to the amino-terminal end of the histone protein H3 [54,55,56]. Therefore, the removal of these negatively charged residues culminates in a net positive charge of H3, increasing its tight association with the negatively charged deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). Ultimately, the inhibition of HDAC1/2 enhances transcription of cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 1 (p21) and the proto-oncogene c-Fos (c-fos) [53]. Conversely, S1P may bind to human telomerase reverse transcriptase (hTERT) [57], which may allow makorin ring finger protein 1 (MKRN1) to dissociate due to competitive binding sites [57,58]. This signaling cascade results in telomere maintenance, cell proliferation, and tumor growth [57].

1.4. Sphingosine 1-Phosphate in Autocrine and Paracrine Signaling

Detailed experimental evidence is available for the mechanisms of “inside-out” autocrine and paracrine S1P signaling. After release into the extracellular compartment via SPNS2 [30,31,32,33] or MFSD2B [30,31,32], S1P is swiftly bound by its chaperones due to its hydrophobic character. These chaperones are apolipoprotein M (ApoM)-containing high-density lipoprotein (HDL)—to some extent also to very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) [59,60]—or albumin, respectively [61,62,63]. Subsequently, upon release and chaperoning by HDL or albumin, ligation of the five known heptameric G protein-coupled S1P receptors (S1PR) 1–5 (S1P1–5) (Figure 1) [64,65,66,67,68,69] can result both in autocrine and paracrine signaling [70,71,72]. Signaling via S1PR is tightly regulated. Fine tuning of S1P-S1PR signaling may occur via post-translational modifications, e.g., through palmitoylation by the palmitoyltransferase DHHC5 (DHHC5) [73] and, at some point, termination of the signaling cascade may be achieved by β-arrestin-dependent recruitment of G protein-coupled receptor kinase 2 (GRK2), which phosphorylates S1PR, resulting in dynamin and moesin dependent establishment of the endosome [74,75,76,77,78,79]. At this point, re-routing, i.e., recycling of the receptor to the PM [80], polyubiquitination by the NEDD4-like E3 ubiquitin protein ligase WWP2 (WWP2) resulting in proteasomal degradation [81], or fusion with the lysosome in order for complete proteinaceous and lipid residue degradation can occur (Figure 1) [82,83,84]. The latter endolysosomal salvage pathway is of particular importance for cellular homeostasis and disassembly of complex sphingolipids to ceramides or allowing endolysosomal SphK1 to produce S1P, respectively [85,86,87]. The herein discussed mechanisms are briefly summarized in Figure 1.

1.5. External Action of Sphingosine 1-Phosphate through S1PR

With respect to S1PR ligation, the de facto signal triggered is dependent upon the S1PR subtype, the presence of co-regulatory agents, and the heterotrimeric G protein recruited. To date, five bona fide cognate receptors for S1P are known, namely S1P1–5 (Figure 2) [88]. S1P1, the most commonly expressed S1P receptor in the brain [89], appears to be most selective as it binds only to Gαi/0 [66,90]. S1P2, also binding to Gαi/0, is capable of associating with Gαq, G12/13, and Gαs [66,88,90], however, it couples most efficiently with G12/13, subsequently activating the small GTPase Rho [91,92,93]. S1P3 is said to couple with Gαi/0, Gαq, and G12/13, although a higher affinity/likelihood for association with Gαq was observed, ultimately resulting in intracellular Ca2+ enrichment and activation of PKC [92,94]. S1P4 and S1P5 can couple to Gαs, Gαq, and G12/13 [88,95]. Regarding the intracellular signaling pathways triggered, the interested reader is referred to reviews entirely dedicated to detailing molecular signaling and transcriptional cascades triggered in appreciation of the heterotrimeric G protein recruited [96,97,98,99]. Regarding receptor activation or inhibition due to the presence of co-regulatory agents, S1P1 can be activated by cluster of differentiation molecule (CD) 44 (CD44) (hyaluronic acid receptor) or activated Protein C (aPC) [100,101], whilst inhibition by CD69, S1P2 (in dermal γδ T cells), or LPA1 was reported previously [102,103,104]. Unlike NOGO-B, NOGO-A, a multi-pass PM and ER protein whose expression is confined to the central nervous system (CNS), was shown to activate the S1P binding domain Δ20 of S1P2, thereby restricting neurite outgrowth via engagement with the G13-RhoA signaling pathway [105]. Moreover, conjugated bile acids (CBAs) and FAM19A5 were other activators of S1P2 [106,107]. Figure 2 gives a synopsis signaling cascades upon S1P1–5 ligation.

2. Implications of Sphingolipids in Neurological Disorders

2.1. The Sphingolipid Metabolism in Neurodegenerative Disorders

Neurodegenerative diseases are commonly characterized by intracellular or extracellular aggregation of misfolded proteins. These diseases most commonly comprise Alzheimer’s disease (AD), characterized by the proteins amyloid-β and tau, Parkinson’s disease (PD; α-synuclein), and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), in which TAR DNA-binding protein 43 deposition is observed [108]. With respect to the accumulation of the ontogeny of the protein misfolded, different classifications of neurodegenerative conditions were established, denoted as tauopathies [109], synucleinopathies [110], or prion diseases [111] (Figure 3).
Regarding AD, increasing evidence supports the crosstalk between sphingolipids and aberrant protein aggregation [112,113]. Amyloid-β-peptide (Aβ) is cleaved from amyloid precursor protein (APP) by the β- and the γ-secretase enzymes, while α-secretase acts within the Aβ sequence [114]. APP cleavage and the release of Aβ from the PM subsequent to its production in lipid rafts are influenced by lipid composition [115,116]. Alterations in membrane lipid composition have a key role in the subsequent subcellular transport and trafficking of these proteins [114,116,117].
Perturbations in the neurovascular unit (NVU) result in a compromised barrier function and dysregulation and reduction in cerebral blood flow (CBF), which is implied to be involved in the pathogenesis of AD [118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127]. Vascular tightness via tight junctions is influenced by the sphingolipid metabolism. In that regard, acid SMase activity and ceramide production in endothelial cells were linked to vascular permeability [128]. Conversely, the acid SMase inhibition maintained enhanced tight junction regulation [128]. Similar mechanisms were observed to happen in astrocytes [129]. In brain tissue of AD patients’, studies showed increased ceramide levels and decreased sphingomyelin and S1P levels [130,131,132,133,134]. A study on AD by Katsel et al., found a significant up-regulation of messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) of phospholipid phosphatase 3 (PLPP3) and S1P lyase 1 (SGPL1) at early stages after diagnosis, suggesting a lack of S1P as a spatiotemporal function may contribute to the degeneration of neurons [135]. Besides, Ceccom et al., reported in an immunohistochemical study of AD a reduction of SphK1 accompanied by enhanced S1P lyase expression in frontal and entorhinal human cortices to be accountable for the perturbed S1P metabolism observed, contributing to the deposition of amyloid and ultimately to neuronal damage [136]. More recently, Dominguez et al., described that the subcellular localization of S1P’s production, e.g., by a disrupted equilibrium between cytosolic and nuclear SphK2, conferred pathogenic effects of S1P in AD [137].
With respect to PD, a chronic progressive disorder characterized by the degeneration of dopaminergic neurons in the pars compacta of the substantia nigra, emerging evidence has elucidated the role of mitochondrial and endolysosomal pathways and their interplay with ceramides in its pathogenesis. Xilouri et al., focused on α-synuclein degradation and suggested, in 2008, an impairment of neural autophagy-lysosomal pathways to be responsible for α-synuclein accumulation, unraveling a causal link between the pathogenic event and the initiation as well as the progression of the disease [138]. Later, further studies confirmed this hypothesis [139,140].
Glucocerebrosidase (GBA) mutations were found in subjects with parkinsonism [141,142], which were previously reported to predispose to the development of Lewy body disorders (LBD) [143]. Concerning LBD, Bras et al., investigated the neuronal ceramide metabolism and reported that several genes known to confer the risk of LBD development converge on the ceramide metabolism, although this remains to be confirmed neurohistologically [144]. In addition, implications in the pathogenesis of synucleinopathies were supported by descriptions of mutations in the GCase gene (GBA1) and altered sphingolipid pathways [145,146].
Mazzulli et al., could delineate that glucosylceramidase (GlcCer), the GCase substrates, enhanced the rate of α-synuclein oligomerization [147]. Recently, it was shown that the actual sphingolipid subspecies carry various potentials to cause formation of oligomeric α-synuclein, particularly in reflection of comparing in vitro with in vivo data [148]. Here, glucosylceramide, glucosylsphingosine, sphingosine, and S1P were shown to promote β-sheeted (oligomerized) structures of α-synuclein [148].
Somewhat aside of the molecular establishment of the aforementioned classifications, neurodegeneration is associated with the accumulation of most commonly CAG trinucleotide repeats, which encode for multiple glutamine residues to be translated, inevitably causing a toxic gain of function of the mutant protein [149]. The best-known condition for trinucleotide repeat disorders is Huntington’s disease (HD) [150]. In HD, Di Pardo et al., showed an increase in SGPL1 in the striatum and the cortex and a decrease of SphK1 in the striatum of human post-mortem tissues, which were reflected by similar changes in mouse models of HD [151]. Moreover, the R6/2 mouse model revealed reduced levels of S1P [151,152] despite an up-regulation of SphK2. In contrast, no change was seen in either SphK2 in the YAC128 model or in humans [151]. Unfortunately, no data are currently available regarding S1P levels in YAC128 mice nor in human post-mortem tissues [153]. These findings warrant further investigations into the usability of druggable targets within the sphingolipid metabolism in HD.
Regarding ALS, a study by Henriquez et al., demonstrated a link between ALS severity and gene expressions or metabolite levels for sphingosine, ceramide (d18:1/26:0), SGPP2, SphK1, and UDP galactosyltransferase 8A (UGT8A) [154]. Shedding light on the therapeutic potential of the sphingolipid metabolism in ALS, Potenza et al., reported an improved neurological phenotype and an extended survival after fingolimod, a prodrug that becomes phosphorylated after application in vivo and acts as a receptor agonist against almost unanimously all S1PR—except for S1P2 [155,156], administration in mSOD1G93A mice [157].

2.2. The Sphingolipid Metabolism in Neuroinflammatory Disorders

Multiple sclerosis (MS) represents an inflammatory disorder of the brain and the spinal cord featuring inflammation, demyelination, and neurodegeneration [158] (Figure 3). Over the last decades, murine experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) models have been used to decipher the mechanisms responsible for disease pathogenesis and progression and to identify druggable targets in order to develop therapeutics for multiple sclerosis [159,160,161]. It has been known for some time that the S1P metabolism can be exploited to slow disease progression in MS, e.g., by fingolimod, causing lymphocyte sequestration and ultimately preventing auto-reactive immune cell infiltration into the CNS [162]. The potency of exploiting the S1P–S1PR axis by fingolimod in EAE was first shown in rats by Brinkmann et al., [155], implicating the feasibility to exploit S1PRs to influence lymphocyte egress. Subsequently, other studies have added to this observation [163,164,165]. Another report unveiled that prophylactic and therapeutic treatment with fingolimod resulted in suppression of EAE [166]. Choi et al., reported, in 2011, that a decline in disease severity of EAE by fingolimod involved astrocytic S1P1 modulation as well, thus a loss of S1P1 in astrocytes reduced disease severity, demyelination, axonal loss, and astrogliosis [167], arguing for additional CNS-specific effects of fingolimod in addition to lymphocyte redistribution. A recent study identified potential long-term effects caused by S1PR ligation. These long-term effects, according to Eken et al., confer an impact not only on lymphoid sequestration but similarly on non-lymphoid tissue regulatory T cell (TREG) distribution, and, more importantly, on reducing the memory TREG pool in favor of effector TREG [168]. This could have implications for appropriate T cell zone access in lymph nodes via C-C chemokine receptor type 7 (CCR7) and subsequently their ability to control auto-reactive T cells in vivo [168,169]. These findings warrant further investigation into the precise mechanisms by which enzymes and lipids involved in the generation of S1P and their effects were linked to disease progression and treatment.
Cruz-Orengo et al., identified S1P2 in the inbred SJL mouse strain as a sex- and strain-specific, disease-modifying molecule promoting the breakdown of adherens junctions, thus leading to blood-brain barrier (BBB) leakage, while antagonism of S1P2 signaling led to an amelioration of disease severity in female mice [170]. BBB disruption could also be induced by ceramides, resulting in an increased migration of monocytes [129]. Moreover, Lopes et al., demonstrated that acid SMase-derived ceramide regulates intracellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1) function during T cell transmigration across brain endothelial cells [171].
Concerning S1P receptor expression profiles in the disease model of EAE, mRNA for S1P1 and S1P5 in the spinal cord was down-regulated, and an up-regulation of S1P3 and S1P4 mRNAs occurred in the EAE model, which was reversable by fingolimod in accordance with structural restoration of the CNS parenchyma given a restriction to autoimmune T cell infiltration [166]. S1P3 was shown to be involved in promoting systemic inflammation via activation of dendritic cells [172]. Concerning S1P3 signaling in MS, Fischer et al., suggested that an increased expression of S1P3 in EAE was likely due to astrocyte activation; however, its actual sequelae regarding detrimental effects (e.g., astrogliosis) and beneficial effects (e.g., remyelination) could not be established [173]. Apart from astrocytes, the same group reported enhanced SphK1 expression in macrophages of MS lesions [173]. A more definitive proof of S1P3‘s importance regarding an inflammatory cascade triggered in astrocytes was reported by Dusaban et al., [174]. The authors demonstrated S1P3 to be up-regulated in astrocytes and to be able to engage with transforming protein RhoA (RhoA), and S1P3 ligation was shown to promote IL-6, vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGFa), and cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2), which was accompanied by an increase of SphK1 and S1P3 in vitro [174].
Neuromyelitis optica (NMO) spectrum disorders can also be classified as pertaining to the group of inflammatory brain disorders. Their hallmark feature was initially introduced by Devic and Gault [175,176] and characteristically consisted of a severe complement-mediated damage to the optic nerves and the spinal cord [177]. The discovery of highly specific serum autoantibody marker (NMO-IgG) eventually helped to differentiate this spectrum of disorders from MS and the prior interpretation as one entity [178,179]. Several reports have suggested that treatment with fingolimod in NMO may be contraindicated due to adverse events and worsening of disease severity [180,181,182,183]. However, exploitation of the sphingolipid metabolism to treat patients with NMO should not be excluded prematurely. Matsushita et al., demonstrated significantly higher levels of TH1-related, i.e., C-C motif chemokine 4-like (CCL4) and C-X-C motif chemokine (CXC) 10 (CXCL10), and the TH-17-related (and neutrophil-related) chemokine CXCL8 (IL-8) in NMO patients [184]. STAT3, which was recently shown to be linked to S1P signaling [185,186,187], is known to control the expression of chemokines and chemokine receptors in the recruitment of neutrophils [188] and T cells [189]. With respect to the mechanisms by which S1P signaling is tied to chemokine production and immune cell migration, studies revealed an interplay between S1PR and chemokine-driven migration of non-activated and naïve T cells [190]. In addition, binding of S1P produced by SphK1 to TRAF2 and cellular inhibitor of apoptosis 2 (cIAP2) in response to IL-1 signaling results in NF-κB activation [34]. This represents a relevant step in the recruitment of mononuclear cells to sites of sterile inflammation by means of interferon regulatory factor 1 (IRF1) expression and the resultant availability of the chemokines CXCL10 and CCL5 [191]. Therefore, mediation of the complex pathways of immune cell recruitment/trafficking, potentially resulting in favorable TREG recruitment without disrupting TH-17 or follicular T-helper cell (TFH) sequestration, may hold the potential for future S1P metabolism-associated therapeutic perspectives in NMO [192].
Autoimmune conditions, such as systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) or Hashimoto’s disease, may present themselves with neurological pathology [193,194,195]. Therefore, due to their clinical heterogeneity, affecting potentially any organ of the body such as renal involvement may advise future neurological therapeutic perspectives. In that regard, studies have shown elevated S1P serum levels in patients with juvenile onset SLE [196] as well as in MRL-lpr/lpr mice [197]. In light of therapeutic targets for SLE, previous studies have concentrated on lupus nephritis. Here, fingolimod showed positive effects on survival, suppressing the continuation of autoimmunity [197]. In the context of murine lupus nephritis, in the NZB/W mouse model as well as in BXSB mice, fingolimod also proved to be beneficial [198,199,200]. However, inhibition of SphK2 in the MRL-lpr/lpr model could not convey protection from SLE [196]. These promising results prompted testing of cenerimod, a selective S1P1 modulator (NCT02472795).
Other conditions denoted by aberrant inflammatory immune cell activation with a potential to cause immune encephalitis have been reported recently. For example, in autoimmune thyroiditis an enhanced expression of SphK1, S1P, and S1P1 converging on STAT3 activation in CD4+ T cells was demonstrated in mice by Han et al., [201]. Conversely, administration of fingolimod to these NOD.H-2h4 mice conferred the potential to reduce disease severity accompanied by a reduction of STAT3-related cell types, i.e., TH1, TH17, and TFH cells [201].

2.3. The Sphingolipid Metabolism in Cerebrovascular Diseases

Lipid signaling plays pleiotropic roles in cerebral ischemia. In recent years, mounting evidence has emerged depicting the relationship between the sphingolipid metabolism and stroke (Figure 3). Studies have demonstrated that the driving force of neuroinflammation following cerebral ischemia are T cells. They migrate into the brain and amplify the initial detrimental damage [202,203,204,205]. Conversely, lymphocyte-deficient mice were shown to be protected from ischemic damage [206,207].
The S1P analogue and the S1P1 functional antagonist fingolimod, originally derived from the fungal natural product ISP-1, was first synthesized in 1992 [208]. It impairs the egress of lymphocytes from primary and secondary lymphoid organs [155] and exerts immunomodulatory effects and non-immunological mechanisms [65,167,209,210,211]. Fingolimod was shown to provide protection from ischemic stroke and intracerebral hemorrhage [89,204,211,212,213,214,215,216,217], leading to the initiation of clinical studies demonstrating the efficacy of fingolimod for patients with acute ischemic stroke and improving clinical outcomes in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage [218]. In addition to reduced infarct volumes and improved neurological scores at 24 and 72 h after middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO; a commonly used animal model for ischemic stroke), fingolimod showed a deactivation of caspase-3, a reduction of terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase-mediated uridine 5′-triphosphate-biotin nick end-labeling (TUNEL-) positive neurons, an activation of RAC-alpha serine/threonine-protein kinase (Akt) and extracellular-regulated kinase (ERK), and a Bcl-2 up-regulation, delineating an anti-apoptotic effect in neurons [211].
Moreover, studies have reported a role of S1PR in the preservation of endothelial barrier integrity [64,219], and phosphorylated fingolimod promotes the establishment of adherens junction in endothelial cells, i.e., an enhanced endothelial barrier function [65,209].
In contrast, Liesz et al., investigated the effect of fingolimod in permanent murine cerebral ischemia without achieving a significant reduction of infarct volumes and behavioral dysfunction despite effective lymphopenia [220]. In addition, Cai et al., unveiled no improvement in functional outcome and BBB integrity in large hemispheric infarctions and administration of fingolimod, either alone or in conjunction with recombinant-tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA) [221]. Sanchez suggested that S1P1 desensitization and/or degradation would potentially evoke detrimental effects on neurons and/or endothelial cells in the context of stroke. Therefore, the dosing and the timing of fingolimod administration seemed to be pivotal for its protective effects [222]. This is in accordance with a previous study by Brait et al., who showed that S1P1 fosters protective effects regarding infarct volume after MCAO, however, only if the associated lymphopenia persists for at least 24 h [223].
SphK2 appears to wield an ambiguous nature in various disorders. SphK2 is the predominant S1P-synthesizing isoform in normal brain parenchyma [224] and particularly in cerebral microvascular endothelial cells [225]. SphK2 was recently shown to induce ischemic tolerance to stroke in C57BL/6 mice [226]. SphK2 is preferentially utilized to confer the neuroprotective effects of fingolimod, as it has a 30-fold higher affinity to the prodrug compared to SphK1 [225]. Mice lacking the SphK2 show larger ischemic lesions 24 h after 2 h of MCAO in comparison with wild-type animals [216], thus reinforcing the importance of extracellular signaling of S1PR. Moreover, studies have demonstrated that SphK2 predominates SphK1 in the phosphorylation of fingolimod in vitro [225] and in vivo [227]. In addition, hypoxia increases the expression and the activity levels of the SphK2 isoform in brain microvasculature, subsequently promoting ischemic tolerance [228]. In contrast to SphK2, S1P2 is characterized as a key regulator of the pro-inflammatory phenotype of the endothelium [229] and promotes ischemia-induced vascular dysfunction [230]. Conversely, S1P generated by SphK1 potently facilitates the expression of IL-17A in activated microglia, thereby supporting neuronal apoptosis in cerebral ischemia [231]. This is in support of a study by Zheng et al., who found an enhanced expression of SphK1 in microglia 96 h after MCAO [232]. Subsequently, a cortical knockdown of SphK1 resulted in reduced infarct areas and less severe neurological deficits were observed [232].
Studies have highlighted the critical role of S1P2 in ischemia-reperfusion injury, confirming that genetic deletion or inhibition of S1P2 could block the development of hemorrhagic transformation and cerebral edema by inhibiting the matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9) activation in endothelial cells [230]. It was shown previously that the use of fingolimod conveyed a reduced risk of hemorrhagic transformation after thromboembolic occlusion [233]. In regard to these findings, the benefit of fingolimod in relation to hemorrhagic transformation was tested in randomized open-label multi-center trials [234,235]. Wan et al., focused on microRNA-149-5p and demonstrated its regulatory function on the permeability of the BBB after transient MCAO in rats by targeting S1P2 of pericytes [236]. In their study, the expression of S1P2 in pericytes increased at an early stage during ischemia/reperfusion, which was associated with an aggravation of BBB permeability in vivo and in vitro [236]. An engineered S1P chaperone, ApoM-Fc, maintained sustained S1P-S1PR signaling, resulting in a promoted function of the BBB after MCAO [237]. Another study puts emphasis on the importance of S1P in ameliorating the effects of stroke, as they reported reduced S1P lyase activity and a preferential synthesis of S1P and other sphingolipids in response to hypoxia [238].
In opposition to S1P2, pathogenic mechanisms of S1P1 and S1P3 in cerebral ischemia rely on microglial activation [239,240]. Moreover, the same group elucidated the importance of S1P1-regulation in promoting a pro-inflammatory M1 polarization of astrocytes, which was brought about by the intracellular signal transducers ERK1/2, p38, and JNK MAPK favoring brain damage after cerebral ischemia [241]. Furthermore, Zamanian et al., examined reactive astrogliosis in response to either MCAO or LPS and showed Pentraxin-related protein PTX3 (PTX3), tumor necrosis factor receptor superfamily member 12A (TNFRSF12A), and S1P3 to be markers of reactive astrocytes after MCAO [242]. Liddelow et al., termed them “A1” and “A2” in analogy to the macrophage nomenclature [243]. Interestingly, S1P3 was induced 46-fold after MCAO but only 6.4-fold by LPS. Under physiological circumstances, astrocytes were reported to express mainly S1P1 and S1P3, contrasting with very low levels for S1P2 and S1P5 [244,245,246]. However, in a recent study by Karunakaran et al., the authors demonstrated the importance of S1P2 in microglial activation conferring impaired autophagy and propagating the inflammatory response in the BV2 microglial cell line [247]. Interestingly, similar effects were observed by the group after exogenous S1P administration or genetic knock out of SGPL1 [247].
S1P signaling is also functionally linked to influencing the pathophysiology during subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). In accordance with the detrimental effects caused by S1P2 ligation in ischemia-reperfusion mentioned before, Yagi et al., demonstrated that S1P signaling increases vascular tone in the context of SAH, thus worsening neurological scores [248]. By employing a selective S1P2 antagonistic treatment systemically using JTE013, they were able to set bounds to the extent of myogenic reactivity and to restore neurological scores to sham levels when administered instantly after SAH induction [248].
The various conditions that perturbed S1P signaling has been linked with are summed up in Figure 3.

3. Insights into Current and Future Therapeutic Perspectives

Almost a decade ago, the FDA approved the first drug aimed to interfere with the S1P-S1PR signaling cascade, fingolimod, in 2010 [162]. Due to fingolimod’s preference for S1P1 and the strong activation of this receptor subtype, S1P1 eventually becomes down-regulated, resulting in a long-lasting functional antagonism that accounts for fingolimod-induced lymphocyte trapping in primary and secondary lymphoid organs. Consequently, this lymphocyte sequestration prevents auto-reactive T cells to migrate to the brain and therefore reduces the ferocious neurotoxic damage to myelin-associated proteins in patients with multiple sclerosis [158,249]. Nevertheless, due to its lack of specificity, a range of adverse effects (e.g., first-dose bradycardia [250], macular edema [251], elevated liver enzymes [252], and lymphopenia warranting vigilance regarding occurrence of infections [253,254,255]) is inevitable [256]. The endeavor to circumvent these unwanted drug effects led to the development of more tailored drugs aimed at selectively activating or inhibiting checkpoints within the sphingolipid metabolism on demand. To date, there is a huge number of clinical trials either completed (C), terminated (T), or momentarily being conducted in various clinical conditions examining the pharmacological exploitability of drugs designed to beneficially influence targets within the sphingolipid metabolism. A selection of these studies is presented below (Table 1). It is advisable to conceive that potentially all molecules/agents addressed in Figure 1 and Figure 2 may represent future therapeutic targets.
Safingol, which targets PKC and non-selectively sphingosine kinases (SphK) [257], was identified in 1995 [258]. Safingol is now being tested in various cancer settings, since it is safe to co-administer with cisplatin and exerts tumoricidal effects [259,260]. Similarly, another drug targets SphK. The compound 3-(4-chlorophenyl)-adamantane-1-carboxylic acid (pyridine-4-ylmethyl)amide (ABC294-640) selectively inhibits SphK2. ABC294640 was identified in 2010 [261] and mechanistically competes with sphingosine for binding sites at SphK2. This, in turn, allows sphingosine and ceramides levels to increase (due to inability/slower rate of enzymatical conversion to S1P), facilitating apoptosis-inducing pathways [2,6,262]—a mechanism that was recently studied in various cancer therapies [263,264,265,266]. In that regard, conceivably, the exploitation of PKC and SphK subtypes in neurological conditions where their homeostasis of molecular activation, proliferation, and apoptosis is perturbed by crucially diminishing the S1P level within a cell and its immediate effects via PKC appears intuitive. This remains apprehensible, since S1P levels were previously shown to be enhanced to the disadvantage of its pro-differentiative and pro-apoptotic precursor ceramide [267,268].
Previously, a S1P-directed therapeutic agent was introduced [269]. The S1P-specific monoclonal antibody sonepcizumab (LT1009) is being tested in conditions where pathologies of the vasculature system occur [270,271,272].
Conversely to the aforementioned mechanisms inevitably reducing the amount of S1P available, drugs either mimicking S1P effects at the receptor site or actually increasing S1P levels have been designed. The S1P lyase inhibitor LX3305 is currently being investigated in rheumatoid arthritis as an alternative to therapies with biologicals [273]. Conceptually, LX3305′s tentative application in neurological conditions where S1P is reduced/disturbed appears undoubtedly apprehensible, e.g., in neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease [134], Parkinson’s disease [274], Huntington’s disease [151,153], or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis [154]. Several diseases have been implicated in aberrant S1PR-specific signaling pathways. In that regard, several drugs specifically designed to interact with S1P1 are available to date. AKP11, for example, was compared against fingolimod in a rodent model of multiple sclerosis and was associated with a higher degree of endosomal receptor recycling upon withdrawal, lesser extent of proteasomal degradation, and milder and more easily reversible lymphopenia [275]. Despite similar therapeutic effects, an almost complete absence of adverse events was observed [275]. Similarly, but more recently, BMS-986104 was shown to act equivalently efficient to fingolimod in a T cell transfer colitis model, although not conveying as many cardiovascular and pulmonary adverse events in in vitro settings [276]. Moreover, cenerimod (ACT-334441) could also be confirmed as a potent and selective S1P1 agonistic signaling properties, whilst broncho- and vasoconstrictive effects were not clinically relevant [277]. In humans, cenerimod showed an improvement in disease activity scores for systemic lupus without constraining an acceptable safety profile [278]. In contrast to these specific and well-tolerable agents, GSK2018682, another S1P1 agonist, did bring about bradycardia and subsequent AV-block [279]. In contrast, BMS-986104 and cenerimod seem to have a favorable risk profile in comparison to fingolimod, which, of course, warrants further investigation in in vivo studies to determine its safety and efficacy in other conditions. Interestingly, in pancreatic islet transplantation, which at least in humans is a definitive treatment for type 1 diabetes mellitus denoted by high mortality and morbidity in the early phase after transplantation [280], KRP203 was shown to cause a marked increase in viable pancreatic islet transplants in C57BL/10 mice [281]. Nevertheless, KRP203 is not an entirely selective S1P1 agonist, as it does bind to S1P3 with 5-fold and to S1P2 and S1P5 100-fold lesser selectivity [281]. Thus, concerns regarding adverse effects, particularly with potentially increased doses necessary and depending on pharmacogenetics, should govern careful investigations in humans. Lastly with respect to S1P1 specific compounds, ponesimod (ACT-128800) was previously reported to display therapeutic efficacy in psoriasis whilst also distinguishing itself by swift reversibility upon discontinuation; however, some degree of cardiac effects was detected in clinical trials [282].
It may be advised, under some conditions, to exploit multiple S1PR pathways. S1P5, for example, is implicated in having pro-fibrotic effects to act on proliferation and its involvement in early transforming-growth-factor-β (TGF-β)-signaling [283]. Therefore, fibrotic conditions or tissue scarring might be well-suited for treatment with an agent synthesized to evoke agonistic effects both against S1P1 and S1P5. Three compounds are currently being tested, which act in this pharmacological manner, namely: ceralifimod (ONO-4641), ozanimod (RPC1063), and siponimod (BAF312).
Ceralifimod (ONO-4641), 1-((6-(2-methoxy-4-propylbenzyl)oxy)-1-methyl-3,4-dihydronaphthalen-2-yl)methyl)azetidine-3-carboxylic acid 13n was recently synthesized in 2017 [284]. Beside ceralifimod, ozanimod (RPC1063), which acts similarly, was shown to cause beneficial effects in patients with multiple sclerosis and ulcerative colitis alike [285]. In addition, the authors found that ozanimod wielded strong influence on the innate immune cells. Here, plasmacytoid dendritic cells were lowered (potentially by means of sequestration), which, in turn, reduced interferon alpha (IFN-α) in lupus patients in addition to reducing the entirety of B cell and T cell subsets in the spleen [285].
Lastly, agents that not only depicted S1P1 and S1P5 agonistic features but that also were partially able to engage with S1P4 were identified. This cohort of compounds currently comprises amiselimod (MT-1303) and etrasimod (APD334). The potential of being able to engage with S1P4 may hold promising therapeutic benefits. In this regard, S1P4, as discussed previously in this review, is predominantly expressed in lymphoid tissues [88,95], and ligation and its subsequent signaling are involved in marking time regarding proliferation [286,287], a reduction of effector cytokines secreted [286,287], and migration of lymphocytes [288,289]. It is worth noting that amiselimod displays a very safe risk profile [290,291,292], while it is too early to consistently assess this for etrasimod [293]. Their application and/or investigation regarding their future therapeutic exploitability in neurological conditions should find due consideration soon.

4. Conclusions

In this review, we described the complexities of the sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P) signaling in neurological conditions in reflection of currently available S1P signaling targeted drugs. Starting with the de novo synthesis of S1P either at the smooth endoplasmic reticulum or other subcellular microdomains, we highlighted the currently established signaling pathways. However, S1P signaling also occurs after secretion and transportation by its chaperones HDL or albumin in the extracellular compartment, allowing either autocrine or paracrine signaling upon ligation to S1P1–5. It was highlighted that each S1PR subtype is capable of coupling to a variety of heterotrimeric G proteins, subsequently allowing a tailored intracellular signaling cascade to be incited. However, under perturbed circumstances, the presence of co-activators, inhibitors of S1PR, or simply skewed S1PR patterns may predispose for disease onset and progression. Despite remarkable advances in understanding the contribution of sphingolipid signaling to neurological disorders, the field has yet a lot to learn. In this review, we highlighted the currently available literature regarding perturbations of the sphingolipid metabolism in the context of neurodegenerative, neuroinflammatory, and cerebrovascular diseases. A considerable number of clinical trials are being carried out testing S1P signaling targeted drugs in conditions linked to activation of the immune system. These trials may enhance our understanding of the importance of the S1P–S1PR axis and ultimately help to inform us about future therapeutic usability of these compounds in various neurological disorders. We reported on the importance of S1P1 for vascular and other barrier functions. Activation of S1P1 causes a significant improvement of vascular barrier properties and prevents microvascular leakage. Currently available drugs interacting with S1P1 initially act as agonists but then may cause a profound and long-lasting desensitization and degradation of S1P1. As outlined above, they finally act as functional antagonists with, in the long term, negative impact on vascular integrity. Currently, there is no pure S1P1 receptor agonist available that does not desensitize the receptor. The compounds described thus far may indeed have a varying degree of agonistic and antagonistic properties. However, such a “true agonist” would be highly desirable and unique in order to protect from vascular leakage.

Author Contributions

A.L. and J.S. contributed equally to the design and the conception of this article and wrote the entire manuscript. R.B., J.M.P., and W.P. critically edited the manuscript and supervised the writing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors would like to acknowledge the support by the Open Access Publication Fund of the Goethe University Frankfurt. R.B., J.M.P., and W.P. are funded by the German Research Organization (DFG; SFB1039). J.M.P. and W.P. are funded by the Fondation Leducq (SphingoNet). J.M.P. is funded by the Uniscientia Foundation Vaduz. J.S. is funded by a scholarship from the German Academic Scholarship Foundation (Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

ADAlzheimer’s disease
AktRAC-alpha serine/threonine-protein kinase
ALSAmyotrophic lateral sclerosis
aPCActivated protein C
ApoMApolipoprotein M
APPAmyloid precursor protein
Amyloid-β-peptide
BBBBlood brain barrier
CBAsConjugated bile acids
CBFCerebral blood flow
CCL4C-C motif chemokine 4-like
CCL5C-C motif chemokine 5-like
CCOCytochrome c oxidase
CCR7C-C chemokine receptor type 7
CDCluster of differentiation molecule
CDaseCeramidase
c-fosProto-oncogene c-Fos
cIAP2Cellular inhibitor of apoptosis 2
CNSCentral nervous system
COX-2Cyclooxygenase-2
CXCL8C-X-C motif chemokine 8, IL-8
CXCL10C-X-C motif chemokine 10
DHHC5Palmitoyltransferase DHHC5
DNADesoxyribonucleic acid
EAEExperimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis
ECExtracellular
ERKExtracellular-regulated kinase
GBAGlucocerebrosidase
GCSGlucosylceramide synthase
GlcGlucose
GlcCerGlucosylceramidase
GRK2G protein-coupled receptor kinase 2
i/oInhibitory Gα subunit
qq subtype of Gα proteins
sStimulatory Gα subunit
G12/1312/13 subtype of Gα proteins
HDHuntigton’s disease
HDAC1/2Histone deacetylases 1/2
HDLHigh-density lipoprotein
hTERTHuman telomerase reverse transcriptase
ICIntracellular
ICAM1Intracellular adhesion molecule 1
IFN-αInterferon α
IL-1Interleukin-1
IL-6Interleukin-6
IL-17AInterleukin-17A
IRF1Interferon regulatory factor 1
IκBInhibitor of nuclear factor κ-B kinase
IκBαNF-κB inhibitor α
LBDLewy body disorders
LDLLow-density lipoprotein
LPPLipid phosphate phosphohydrolase
MCAOMiddle cerebral artery occlusion
MFSD2BMajor facilitator superfamily domain-containing protein 2B
MKRN1Makorin ring finger protein 1
MMP-9Matrix metalloproteinase-9
mRNAMessenger ribonucleic acid
MSMultiple slerosis
NF-κBNuclear factor κ-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells
NMONeuromyelitis optica
NVUNeurovascular unit
ORMDL3ORM1-like protein 3
OXPHOSOxidative phosphorylation
PalCoAPalmitoyl-CoA
PDParkinson’s disease
PEPhosphoethanolamine
PGC1βPPARγ co-activator 1β
PHB2Prohibitin-2
PKCProtein kinase C
PKCζAtypical PKC subtype ζ
PKCι Atypical PKC subtype ι
PLPP3Phospholipid phosphatase 3
PMPlasma membrane
PPARγPeroxisome proliferator activated receptor γ
PTX3Pentraxin-related protein 3
p21Cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 1
RACKReceptor for activated C kinase proteins
RhoATransforming protein RhoA
RINGReally interesting new group
RIP1Receptor-interacting serine/threonine-protein kinase 1
rt-PARecombinant-tissue plasminogen activator
SAHSubarachnoid hemorrhage
sERSmooth endoplasmic reticulum
SGPL1S1P lyase 1
SGPP1/2Sphingosine 1-phosphate phosphohydrolase 1/2
SLESystemic lupus erythematosus
SMaseSphingomyelinase
SMSSphingomyelin synthase
SphK1Sphingosine kinase 1
SphK2Sphingosine kinase 2
SPNS2Spinster homolog 2
SPTSerine palmitoyltransferase
STAT3Signal transducer and activator of transcription 3
S1PSphingosine 1-phosphate
S1PRSphingosine 1-phosphate receptor
S1P1–5S1PR subtype 1–5
TAB3TGF-β-activated kinase 1 and MAP3K7-binding protein3
TFHFollicular TH cell
TGF-βTransforming-growth-factor-β
TH-17TH-17 type cell
TNFRSF12ATumor necrosis factor receptor superfamily member 12A
TNF-αTumor necrosis factor-α
TRAF2TNF-α receptor-associated factor 2
TRAF6 TNF-α receptor-associated factor 6
TREGRegulatory T cell
TUNELTerminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase-mediated, uridine 5′triphosphate-biotin nick end-labeling
UGT8AUDP galactosyltransferase 8A
VEGFaVascular endothelial growth factor A
VLDLVery low-density lipoprotein
WWP2NEDD4-like E3 ubiquitin ligase WWP2

References

  1. Zhang, H.; Desai, N.N.; Olivera, A.; Seki, T.; Brooker, G.; Spiegel, S. Sphingosine-1-phosphate, a novel lipid, involved in cellular proliferation. J. Cell Biol. 1991, 114, 155–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Cuvillier, O.; Pirianov, G.; Kleuser, B.; Vanek, P.G.; Coso, O.A.; Gutkind, S.; Spiegel, S. Suppression of cermide-mediated programmed cell death by sphingosine-1-phosphate. Nature 1996, 381, 800–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Breslow, D.K.; Collins, S.R.; Bodenmiller, B.; Aebersold, R.; Simons, K.; Shevchenko, A.; Ejsing, C.S.; Weissman, J.S. Orm family proteins mediate sphingolipid homeostasis. Nature 2010, 463, 1048–1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Breslow, D.K.; Weissman, J.S. Membranes in Balance: Mechanisms of Sphingolipid Homeostasis. Mol. Cell. 2010, 40, 267–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Hannun, Y.A.; Obeid, L.M. The ceramide-centric universe of lipid-mediated cell regulation: Stress encounters of the lipid kind. J. Biol. Chem. 2002, 277, 25847–25850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Linn, S.C.; Kim, H.S.; Keane, E.M.; Andras, L.M.; Wang, E.; Merrill, A.H., Jr. Regulation of de novo sphingolipid biosynthesis and the toxic consequences of its disruption. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 2001, 29, 831–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Xu, R.; Jin, J.; Hu, W.; Sun, W.; Bielawski, J.; Szulc, Z.; Taha, T.; Obeid, L.M.; Mao, C. Golgi alkaline ceramidase regulates cell proliferation and survival by controlling levels of sphingosine and S1P. FASEB J. 2006, 20, 1813–1825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Galadari, S.; Wu, B.X.; Mao, C.; Roddy, P.; El Bawab, S.; Hannun, Y.A. Identification of a novel amidase motif in neutral ceramidase. Biochem. J. 2006, 393, 687–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  9. Prinetti, A.; Loberto, N.; Chigorno, V.; Sonnino, S. Glycosphingolipid behaviour in complex membranes. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2009, 1788, 184–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Maceyka, M.; Spiegel, S. Sphingolipid metabolites in inflammatory disease. Nature 2014, 510, 58–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Tafesse, F.G.; Ternes, P.; Holthuis, J.C.M. The multigenic sphingomyelin synthase family. J. Biol. Chem. 2006, 281, 29421–29425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Hakomori, S. Traveling for the glycosphingolipid path. Glycoconj. J. 2000, 17, 627–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ichikawa, S.; Hirabayashi, Y. Glucosylceramide synthase and glycosphingolipid synthesis. Trends Cell Biol. 1998, 8, 198–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Zhou, J.; Saba, J.D. Identification of the first mammalian sphingosine phosphate lyase gene and its functional expression in yeast. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 1998, 242, 502–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bektas, M.; Allende, M.L.; Lee, B.G.; Chen, W.; Amar, M.J.; Remaley, A.T.; Saba, J.D.; Proia, R.L. Sphingosine 1-phosphate lyase deficiency disrupts lipid homeostasis in liver. J. Biol. Chem. 2010, 285, 10880–10889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Bandhuvula, P.; Saba, J.D. Sphingosine-1-phosphate lyase in immunity and cancer: Silencing the siren. Trends Mol. Med. 2007, 13, 210–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Nakahara, K.; Ohkuni, A.; Kitamura, T.; Abe, K.; Naganuma, T.; Ohno, J.; Zoeller, R.A.; Kihara, A. The Sjögren-Larsson syndrome gene encodes a hexadecenal dehydrogenase of the sphingosine 1-phosphate degradation pathway. Mol. Cell. 2012, 46, 461–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Dobrosotskaya, I.Y.; Seegmiller, A.C.; Brown, M.S.; Goldstein, J.L.; Rawson, R.B. Regulation of SREBP processing and membrane lipid production by phospholipids in Drosophila. Science 2002, 29, 879–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Cantalupo, A.; Zhang, Y.; Kothiya, M.; Galvani, S.; Obinata, H.; Bucci, M.; Giordano, F.J.; Jiang, X.-C.; Hla, T.; Di Lorenzo, A. Nogo-B regulates endothelial sphingolipid homeostasis to control vascular function and blood pressure. Nat. Med. 2015, 21, 1028–1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Zhang, Y.; Huang, Y.; Cantalupo, A.; Azevedo, P.S.; Siragusa, M.; Bielawski, J.; Giordano, F.J.; Di Lorenzo, A. Endothelial Nogo-B regulates sphingolipid biosynthesis to promote pathological cardiac hypertrophy during chronic pressure overload. JCI Insight 2016, 1, e85484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Le Stunff, H.; Giussani, P.; Maceyka, M.; Lépine, S.; Milstien, S.; Spiegel, S. Recycling of sphingosine is regulated by the concerted actions of sphingosine-1-phosphate phosphohydrolase 1 and sphingosine kinase 2. J. Biol. Chem. 2007, 282, 34372–34380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Ogawa, C.; Kihara, A.; Gokoh, M.; Igarashi, Y. Identification and characterization of a novel human sphingosine-1-phosphate phosphohydrolase, hSPP2. J. Biol. Chem. 2003, 278, 1268–1272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Kunkel, G.T.; Maceyka, M.; Milstien, S.; Spiegel, S. Targeting the sphingosine-1-phosphate axis in cancer, inflammation and beyond. Nat. Rev. Drug. Discov. 2013, 12, 688–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Gillard, B.K.; Clement, R.G.; Marcus, D.M. Variations among cell lines in the synthesis of sphingolipids in de novo and recycling pathways. Glycobiology 1998, 8, 885–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Tettamanti, G.; Bassi, R.; Viani, P.; Riboni, L. Salvage pathways in glycosphingolipid metabolism. Biochimie 2003, 85, 423–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Cartier, A.; Hla, T. Sphingosine 1-phosphate: Lipid signaling in pathology and therapy. Science 2019, 366, eaar5551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Strub, G.M.; Paillard, M.; Liang, J.; Gomez, L.; Allegood, J.C.; Hait, N.C.; Maceyka, M.; Price, M.M.; Chen, Q.; Simpson, D.C; et al. Sphingosine-1-phosphate produced by sphingosine kinase 2 in mitochondria interacts with prohibitin 2 to regulate complex IV assembly and respiration. FASEB J. 2011, 25, 600–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Maceyka, M.; Harikumar, K.B.; Milstien, S.; Spiegel, S. Sphingosine-1-phosphate signaling and its role in disease. Trends Cell Biol. 2012, 22, 50–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Huwiler, A.; Kolter, T.; Pfeilschifter, J.; Sandhoff, K. Physiology and pathophysiology of sphingolipid metabolism and signaling. Biochim. Biophys. ACTA 2000, 1485, 63–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Pappu, R.; Schwab, S.R.; Cornelissen, I.; Pereira, J.P.; Regard, J.B.; Xu, Y.; Camerer, E.; Zheng, Y.-W.; Huang, Y.; Cyster, J.G.; et al. Promotion of lymphocyte egress into blood and lymph by distinct sources of sphingosine-1-phosphate. Science 2007, 316, 295–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Venkataraman, K.; Lee, Y.-M.; Michaud, J.; Thangada, S.; Ai, Y.; Bonkovsky, H.L.; Parikh, N.S.; Habrukowich, C.; Hla, T. Vascular endothelium as a contributor of plasma sphingosine 1-phosphate. Circ. Res. 2008, 102, 669–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Hisano, Y.; Kobayashi, N.; Yamaguchi, A.; Nishi, T. Mouse SPNS2 functions as a Sphingosine-1-phosphate transporter in vascular endothelial cells. PLoS One 2012, 7, e38941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Fukuhara, S.; Simmons, S.; Kawamura, S.; Inoue, A.; Orba, Y.; Tokudome, T.; Sunden, Y.; Arai, Y.; Moriwaki, K.; Ishida, J.; et al. The sphingosine-1-phosphate transporter Spns2 expressed on endothelial cells regulates lymphocyte trafficking in mice. J. Clin. Invest. 2012, 122, 1416–1426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Alvarez, S.E.; Harikumar, K.B.; Hait, N.C.; Allegood, J.; Strub, G.M.; Kim, E.Y.; Maceyka, M.; Jiang, H.; Luo, C.; Kordula, T.; et al. Sphingosine-1-phosphate is a missing cofactor for the E3 ubiquitin ligase TRAF2. Nature 2010, 465, 1084–1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Spiegel, S.; Milstien, S. The outs and the ins of sphingosine-1-phosphate in immunity. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2011, 11, 403–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kajimoto, T.; Caliman, A.D.; Tobias, I.S.; Okada, T.; Pilo, C.A.; Van, A.-A. N.; McCammon, J.A.; Nakamura, S.-I.; Newton, A.C. Activation of atypical protein kinase C by sphingosine 1-phosphate revealed by an aPKC-specific activity reporter. Sci. Signal. 2019, 12, eaat6662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. Adams, D.R.; Ron, D.; Kiely, P.A. RACK1, a multifaceted scaffolding protein: Structure and function. Cell Commun. Signal. 2011, 9, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Steinberg, S.F. Structural basis of protein kinase C isoform function. Physiol. Rev. 2008, 88, 1341–1378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Moscat, J.; Diaz-Meco, M.T. The atypical protein kinase Cs: Functional specificity mediated by specific protein adapters. EMBO Rep. 2000, 1, 399–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Li, S.; Wang, L.; Dorf, M.E. PKC phosphorylation of TRAF2 mediates IKKα/β recruitment and K63-linked polyubiquitination. Mol. Cell. 2009, 33, 30–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Etemadi, N.; Chopin, M.; Anderton, H.; Tanzer, M.C.; Rickard, J.A.; Abeysekera, W.; Hall, C.; Spall, S.; Wang, B.; Xiong, Y.; et al. TRAF2 regulates TNF and NF-κB signalling to suppress apoptosis and skin inflammation independently of sphingosine kinase. Elife 2015, 4, e10592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  42. Kanayama, A.; Seth, R.B.; Sun, L.; Ea, C.-K.; Hong, M.; Shaito, A.; Chiu, Y.-H.; Deng, L.; Chen, Z.J. TAB2 and TAB3 activate the NF-κB pathway through binding to polyubiquitin chains. Mol. Cell. 2004, 15, 535–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Deng, L.; Wang, C.; Spencer, E.; Yang, L.; Braun, A.; You, J.; Slaughter, C.; Pickart, C.; Chen, Z.J. Activation of the Iκb kinase complex by TRAF6 requires a dimeric ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme complex and a unique polyubiquitin chain. Cell 2000, 103, 351–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Manning, E.; Pullen, S.S.; Souza, D.J.; Kehry, M.; Noelle, R.J. Cellular responses to murine CD40 in a mouse B cell line may be TRAF dependent or independent. Eur. J. Immunol. 2002, 32, 39–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Tontonoz, P.; Spiegelman, B.M. Fat and beyond: The diverse biology of PPARγ. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 2008, 77, 289–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Parham, K.A.; Zebol, J.R.; Tooley, K.L.; Sun, W.Y.; Moldenhauer, L.M.; Cockshell, M.P.; Gliddon, B.L.; Moretti, P.A.; Tigyi, G.; Pitson, S.M.; et al. Sphingosine 1-phosphate is a ligand for peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ that regulates neoangiogenesis. FASEB J. 2015, 29, 3638–3653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ogretmen, B. Sphingolipid metabolism in cancer signalling and therapy. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2018, 18, 33–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Maceyka, M.; Sankala, H.; Hait, N.C.; Le Stunff, H.; Liu, H.; Toman, R.; Collier, C.; Zhang, M.; Satin, L.S.; Merrill, A.H., Jr.; et al. SphK1 and SphK2, sphingosine kinase isoenzymes with opposing functions in sphingolipid metabolism. J. Biol. Chem. 2005, 280, 37118–37129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Igarashi, N.; Okada, T.; Hayashi, S.; Fujita, T.; Jahangeer, S.; Nakamura, S.-I. Sphingosine kinase 2 is a nuclear protein and inhibits DNA synthesis. J. Biol. Chem. 2003, 278, 46832–46839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Sankala, H.M.; Hait, N.C.; Paugh, S.W.; Shida, D.; Lépine, S.; Elmore, L.W.; Dent, P.; Milstien, S.; Spiegel, S. Involvement of sphingosine kinase 2 in p53-independent induction of p21 by the chemotherapeutic drug doxorubicin. Cancer Res. 2007, 67, 10466–10474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Ding, G.; Sonoda, H.; Yu, H.; Kajimoto, T.; Goparaju, S.K.; Jahangeer, S.; Okada, T.; Nakamura, S.-I. Protein kinase D-mediated phosphorylation and nuclear export of sphingosine kinase 2. J. Biol. Chem. 2007, 282, 27493–27502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  52. Spiegel, S.; Maczis, M.A.; Maceyka, M.; Milstien, S. New insights into functions of the sphingosine-1-phosphate transporter SPNS2. J. Lipid Res. 2019, 60, 484–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  53. Hait, N.C.; Allegood, J.; Maceyka, M.; Strub, G.M.; Harikumar, K.B.; Singh, S.K.; Luo, C.; Marmorstein, R.; Kordula, T.; Milstien, S.; et al. Regulation of histone acetylation in the mucleus by sphingosine-1-phosphate. Science 2009, 325, 1254–1257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Jamaladdin, S.; Kelly, R.D.W.; O’Regan, L.; Dovey, O.M.; Hodson, G.E.; Millard, C.J.; Portolano, N.; Fry, A.M.; Schwabe, J.W.R.; Cowley, S.M. Histone deacetylase (HDAC) 1 and 2 are essential for accurate cell division and the pluripotency of embryonic stem cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 9840–9845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Choudhary, C.; Kumar, C.; Gnad, F.; Nielsen, M.L.; Rehman, M.; Walther, T.C.; Olsen, J.V.; Mann, M. Lysine acetylation targets protein complexes and co-regulates major cellular functions. Science 2009, 325, 834–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Kelly, R.D.W.; Chandru, A.; Watson, P.J.; Song, Y.; Blades, M.; Robertson, N.S.; Jamieson, A.G.; Schwabe, J.W.R.; Cowley, S.M. Histone deacetylase (HDAC) 1 and 2 complexes regulate both histone acetylation and crotonylation in vivo. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 14690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  57. Panneer Selvam, S.; De Palma, R.M.; Oaks, J.J.; Oleinik, N.; Peterson, Y.K.; Stahelin, R.V.; Skoralakes, E.; Ponnusamy, S.; Garrett-Mayer, E.; Smith, C.D.; et al. Binding of the sphingolipid S1P to hTERT stabilizes telomerase at the nuclear periphery by allosterically mimicking protein phosphorylation. Sci. Signal. 2015, 8, ra58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Kim, J.H.; Park, S.-M.; Kang, M.R.; Oh, S.-Y.; Lee, T.H.; Muller, M.T.; Chung, I.K. Ubiquitin ligase MKRN1 modulates telomere length homeostasis through a proteolysis of hTERT. Genes Dev. 2005, 19, 776–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Murata, N.; Sato, K.; Kon, J.; Tomura, H.; Yanagita, M.; Kuwabara, A.; Ui, M.; Okajima, F. Interaction of sphingosine 1-phosphate with plasma components, including lipoproteins, regulates the lipid receptor-mediated actions. Biochem. J. 2000, 352, 809–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Argraves, K.M.; Argraves, W.S. HDL serves as a S1P signaling platform mediating a multitude of cardiovascular effects. J. Lipid Res. 2007, 48, 2325–2333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Christoffersen, C.; Obinata, H.; Kumaraswamy, S.B.; Galvani, S.; Ahnström, J.; Sevvana, M.; Egerer-Sieber, C.; Muller, Y.A.; Hla, T.; Nielsen, L.B.; et al. Endothelium-protective sphingosine-1-phosphate provided by HDL-associated apolipoprotein M. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 9613–9618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  62. Kurano, M.; Tsukamoto, K.; Ohkawa, R.; Hara, M.; Iino, J.; Kageyama, Y.; Ikeda, H.; Yatomi, Y. Liver involvement in sphingosine 1-phosphate dynamism revealed by adenoviral hepatic overexpression of apolipoprotein M. Atherosclerosis. 2013, 229, 102–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Liu, M.; Seo, J.; Allegood, J.; Bi, X.; Zhu, X.; Boudyguina, E.; Gebre, A.K.; Avni, D.; Shah, D.; Sorci-Thomas, M.G.; et al. Hepatic apolipoprotein M (ApoM) overexpression stimulates formation of larger ApoM/sphingosine 1-phosphate-enriched plasma high density lipoprotein. J. Biol. Chem. 2014, 289, 2801–2814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Lee, M.J.; Thangada, S.; Claffey, K.P.; Ancellin, N.; Liu, C.H.; Kluk, M.; Volpi, M.; Sha’afi, R.I.; Hla, T. Vascular endothelial cell adherens junction assembly and morphogenesis induced by sphingosine-1-phosphate. Cell 1999, 99, 301–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Sanchez, T.; Estrada-Hernandez, T.; Paik, J.-H.; Wu, M.-T.; Venkataraman, K.; Brinkmann, V.; Claffey, K.; Hla, T. Phosphorylation and action of the immunomodulator FTY720 inhibits vascular endothelial cell growth factor-induced vascular permeability. J. Biol. Chem. 2003, 278, 47281–47290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  66. Cyster, J.G.; Schwab, S.R. Sphingosine-1-phosphate and lymphocyte egress from lymphoid organs. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 2012, 30, 69–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Blaho, V.A.; Hla, T. An update on the biology of sphingosine 1-phosphate receptors. J. Lipid Res. 2014, 55, 1596–1608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Regard, J.B.; Sato, I.T.; Coughlin, S.R. Anatomical profiling of G protein-coupled receptor expression. Cell 2008, 135, 561–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Garcia, J.G.; Liu, F.; Verin, A.D.; Birukova, A.; Dechert, M.A.; Gerthoffer, W.T.; Bamberg, J.R.; English, D. Sphingosine 1-phosphate promotes endothelial cell barrier integrity by Edg-dependent cytoskeletal rearrangement. J. Clin. Invest. 2001, 108, 689–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Rosen, H.; Goetzl, E.J. Sphingosine 1-phosphate and its receptors: An autocrine and paracrine network. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2005, 5, 560–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Alvarez, S.E.; Milstien, S.; Spiegel, S. Autocrine and paracrine roles of sphingosine-1-phosphate. Trends Endocrinol. Metab. 2007, 18, 300–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Rosen, H.; Stevens, R.C.; Hanson, M.; Roberts, E.; Oldstone, M.B.A. Sphingosine-1-phosphate and its receptors: Structure, signaling, and influence. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 2013, 82, 637–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Badawy, S.M.M.; Okada, T.; Kajimoto, T.; Ijuin, T.; Nakamura, S.I. DHHC5-mediated palmitoylation of S1P receptor subtype 1 determines G-protein coupling. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 16552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Kono, M.; Tucker, A.E.; Tran, J.; Bergner, J.B.; Turner, E.M.; Proia, R.L. Sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor 1 reporter mice reveal receptor activation sites in vivo. J. Clin. Invest. 2014, 124, 2076–2086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Kono, M.; Conlon, E.G.; Lux, S.Y.; Yanagida, K.; Hla, T.; Proia, R.L. Bioluminescence imaging of G protein-coupled receptor activation in living mice. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  76. Arnon, T.I.; Xu, Y.; Lo, C.; Pham, T.; An, J.; Coughlin, S.; Dorn, G.W.; Cyster, J.G. GRK2-dependent S1PR1 desensitization is required for lymphocytes to overcome their attraction to blood. Science 2011, 333, 1898–1903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  77. Thangada, S.; Khanna, K.M.; Blaho, V.A.; Oo, M.L.; Im, D.-S.; Guo, C.; Lefrancois, L.; Hla, T. Cell-surface residence of sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor 1 on lymphocytes determines lymphocyte egress kinetics. J. Exp. Med. 2010, 207, 1475–1483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Willinger, T.; Ferguson, S.M.; Pereira, J.P.; De Camilli, P.; Flavell, R.A. Dynamin 2-dependent endocytosis is required for sustained S1PR1 signaling. J. Exp. Med. 2014, 211, 685–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Nomachi, A.; Yoshinaga, M.; Liu, J.; Kanchanawong, P.; Tohyama, K.; Thumkeo, D.; Watanabe, T.; Narumiya, S.; Hirata, T. Moesin controls clathrin-mediated S1PR1 internalization in T cells. PLoS ONe 2013, 8, e82590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Liu, C.H.; Thangada, S.; Lee, M.J.; Van Brooklyn, J.R.; Spiegel, S.; Hla, T. Ligand-induced trafficking of the sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor EDG- 1. Mol. Biol. Cell. 1999, 10, 1179–1190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Oo, M.L.; Chang, S.H.; Thangada, S.; Wu, M.-T.; Rezaul, K.; Blaho, V.; Hwang, S.-I.; Han, D.K.; Hla, T. Engagement of S1P1-degradative mechanisms leads to vascular leak in mice. J. Clin. Invest. 2011, 121, 2290–2300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  82. Schulze, H.; Kolter, T.; Sandhoff, K. Principles of lysosomal membrane degradation: Cellular topology and biochemistry of lysosomal lipid degradation. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2009, 1793, 674–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  83. Luzio, J.P.; Gray, S.R.; Bright, N.A. Endosome-lysosome fusion. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 2010, 38, 1413–1416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Lawrence, R.E.; Zoncu, R. The lysosome as a cellular centre for signalling, metabolism and quality control. Nat. Cell Biol. 2019, 21, 133–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Kitatani, K.; Idkowiak-Baldys, J.; Hannun, Y.A. The sphingolipid salvage pathway in ceramide metabolism and signaling. Cell Signal. 2008, 20, 1010–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Proia, R.L.; Hla, T. Emerging biology of sphingosine-1-phosphate: Its role in pathogenesis and therapy. J. Clin. Invest. 2015, 125, 1379–1387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  87. Young, M.M.; Takahashi, Y.; Fox, T.E.; Yun, J.K.; Kester, M.; Wang, H.-G. Sphingosine kinase 1 cooperates with autophagy to maintain endocytic membrane trafficking. Cell Rep. 2016, 17, 1532–1545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  88. Chun, J.; Hla, T.; Lynch, K.R.; Spiegel, S.; Moolenaar, W.H. International Union of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology. LXXVIII. Lysophospholipid receptor nomenclature. Pharmacol. Rev. 2010, 62, 579–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  89. Moon, E.; Han, J.E.; Jeon, S.; Ryu, J.H.; Choi, J.W.; Chun, J. Exogenous S1P exposure potentiates ischemic stroke damage that is reduced possibly by inhibiting S1P receptor signaling. Mediators Inflamm. 2015, 2015, 492659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Siehler, S.; Manning, D.R. Pathways of transduction engaged by sphingosine 1-phosphate through G protein-coupled receptors. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2002, 1582, 94–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Gonda, K.; Okamoto, H.; Takuwa, N.; Yatomi, Y.; Okazaki, H.; Sakurai, T.; Kimura, S.; Sillard, R.; Harii, K.; Takuwa, Y. The novel sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor AGR16 is coupled via pertussis toxin-sensitive and -insensitive G-proteins to multiple signalling pathways. Biochem. J. 1999, 337, 67–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Windh, R.T.; Lee, M.J.; Hla, T.; An, S.; Barr, A.J.; Manning, D.R. Differential coupling of the sphingosine 1-phosphate receptors Edg-1, Edg-3, and H218/Edg-5 to the G(i), G(q), and G12 families of heterotrimeric G proteins. J. Biol. Chem. 1999, 274, 27351–27358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  93. Okamoto, H.; Takuwa, N.; Yokomizo, T.; Sugimoto, N.; Sakurada, S.; Shigematsu, H.; Takuwa, Y. Inhibitory regulation of Rac activation, membrane ruffling, and cell migration by the G protein-coupled sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor EDG5 but not EDG1 or EDG3. Mol. Cell Biol. 2000, 20, 9247–9261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  94. Ancellin, N.; Hla, T. Differential pharmacological properties and signal transduction of the sphingosine 1-phosphate receptors EDG-1, EDG-3, and EDG-5. J. Biol. Chem. 1999, 274, 18997–19002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. Graeler, M.; Goetzl, E.J. Activation-regulated expression and chemotactic function of sphingosine 1-phosphate receptors in mouse splenic T cells. FASEB J. 2002, 16, 1874–1878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Neves, S.R.; Ram, P.T.; Iyengar, R. G protein pathways. Science 2002, 296, 1636–1639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Ghosh, P.; Rangamani, P.; Kufareva, I. The GAPs, GEFs, GDIs and…now, GEMs: New kids on the heterotrimeric G protein signaling block. Cell Cycle. 2017, 16, 607–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  98. Oldham, W.M.; Hamm, H.E. Heterotrimeric G protein activation by G-protein-coupled receptors. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2008, 9, 60–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Smith, J.S.; Lefkowitz, R.J.; Rajagopal, S. Biased signalling: From simple switches to allosteric microprocessors. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2018, 17, 243–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Feistritzer, C.; Riewald, M. Endothelial barrier protection by activated protein C through PAR1-dependent sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor-1 crossactivation. Blood 2005, 105, 3178–3184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Singleton, P.A.; Dudek, S.M.; Ma, S.-F.; Garcia, J.G.N. Transactivation of sphingosine 1-phosphate receptors is essential for vascular barrier regulation: Novel role for hyaluronan and CD44 receptor family. J. Biol. Chem. 2006, 281, 34381–34393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  102. Shiow, L.R.; Rosen, D.B.; Brdičková, N.; Xu, Y.; An, J.; Lanier, L.L.; Cyster, J.G.; Matloubian, M. CD69 acts downstream of interferon-α/β to inhibit S1P1 and lymphocyte egress from lymphoid organs. Nature 2006, 440, 540–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Hisano, Y.; Kono, M.; Cartier, A.; Engelbrecht, E.; Kano, K.; Kawakami, K.; Xiong, Y.; Piao, W.; Galvani, S.; Yanagida, K.; et al. Lysolipid receptor cross-talk regulates lymphatic endothelial junctions in lymph nodes. J. Exp. Med. 2019, 216, 1582–1598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Laidlaw, B.J.; Gray, E.E.; Zhang, Y.; Ramírez-Valle, F.; Cyster, J.G. Sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor 2 restrains egress of γδ T cells from the skin. J. Exp. Med. 2019, 216, 1487–1496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  105. Kempf, A.; Tews, B.; Arzt, M.E.; Weinmann, O.; Obermair, F.J.; Pernet, V.; Zagrebelsky, M.; Delekate, A.; Iobbi, C.; Zemmar, A.; et al. The sphingolipid receptor S1PR2 is a receptor for Nogo-A repressing synaptic plasticity. PLoS Biol. 2014, 12, e1001763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Studer, E.; Zhou, X.; Zhao, R.; Wang, Y.; Takabe, K.; Nagahashi, M.; Pandak, W.M.; Dent, P.; Spiegel, S.; Shi, R.; et al. Conjugated bile acids activate the sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor 2 in primary rodent hepatocytes. Hepatology 2012, 55, 267–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  107. Wang, Y.; Chen, D.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, P.; Zheng, C.; Zhang, S.; Yu, B.; Zhang, L.; Zhao, G.; Ma, B.; et al. Novel adipokine, FAM19A5, inhibits neointima formation after injury through sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor 2. Circulation 2018, 138, 48–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Peng, C.; Trojanowski, J.Q.; Lee, V.M.-Y. Protein transmission in neurodegenerative disease. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 2020, 16, 199–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Goedert, M.; Masuda-Suzukake, M.; Falcon, B. Like prions: The propagation of aggregated tau and α-synuclein in neurodegeneration. Brain 2017, 140, 266–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  110. Angot, E.; Steiner, J.A.; Hansen, C.; Li, J.-Y.; Brundin, P. Are synucleinopathies prion-like disorders? Lancet Neurol. 2010, 9, 1128–1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Aguzzi, A.; Nuvolone, M.; Zhu, C. The immunobiology of prion diseases. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2013, 13, 888–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Shubhra Chakrabarti, S.; Bir, A.; Poddar, J.; Sinha, M.; Ganguly, A.; Chakrabarti, S. Ceramide and sphingosine-1-phosphate in cell death pathways: Relevance to the pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease. Curr. Alzheimer Res. 2016, 13, 1232–1248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Di Paolo, G.; Kim, T.-W. Linking lipids to Alzheimer’s disease: Cholesterol and beyond. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2011, 12, 284–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Van Echten-Deckert, G.; Walter, J. Sphingolipids: Critical players in Alzheimer’s disease. Prog. Lipid Res. 2012, 51, 378–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Lemkul, J.A.; Bevan, D.R. Lipid composition influences the release of Alzheimer’s amyloid β-peptide from membranes. Protein Sci. 2011, 20, 1530–1545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  116. Grassi, S.; Giussani, P.; Mauri, L.; Prioni, S.; Sonnino, S.; Prinetti, A. Lipid rafts and neurodegeneration: Structural and functional roles in physiologic aging and neurodegenerative diseases. J. Lipid Res. 2020, 61, 636–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  117. Crivelli, S.M.; Giovagnoni, C.; Visseren, L.; Scheithauer, A.-L.; de Wit, N.; den Hoedt, S.; Losen, M.; Mulder, M.T.; Walter, J.; de Vries, H.E. et al.; et al. Sphingolipids in Alzheimer’s disease, how can we target them? Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev 2020, S0169-409X(20)30002-8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Kisler, K.; Nelson, A.R.; Montagne, A.; Zlokovic, B.V. Cerebral blood flow regulation and neurovascular dysfunction in Alzheimer disease. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2017, 18, 419–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  119. Iadecola, C. The pathobiology of vascular dementia. Neuron 2013, 80, 844–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  120. Iadecola, C. Neurovascular regulation in the normal brain and in Alzheimer’s disease. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2004, 5, 347–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Zlokovic, B.V. Neurovascular pathways to neurodegeneration in Alzheimer’s disease and other disorders. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2011, 12, 723–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Toledo, J.B.; Cairns, N.J.; Da, X.; Chen, K.; Carter, D.; Fleisher, A.; Householder, E.; Ayutyanont, N.; Roontiva, A.; Bauer, R.J.; et al. Clinical and multimodal biomarker correlates of ADNI neuropathological findings. Acta Neuropathol. Commun. 2013, 1, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  123. Montagne, A.; Barnes, S.R.; Sweeney, M.D.; Halliday, M.R.; Sagare, A.P.; Zhao, Z.; Toga, A.W.; Jacobs, R.E.; Liu, C.Y.; Amezcua, L.; et al. Blood-brain barrier breakdown in the aging human hippocampus. Neuron 2015, 85, 296–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  124. Sweeney, M.D.; Sagare, A.P.; Zlokovic, B.V. Cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers of neurovascular dysfunction in mild dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. J. Cereb. Blood Flow Metab. 2015, 35, 1055–1068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  125. Arvanitakis, Z.; Capuano, A.W.; Leurgans, S.E.; Bennett, D.A.; Schneider. JA. Relation of cerebral vessel disease to Alzheimer’s disease dementia and cognitive function in elderly people: A cross-sectional study. Lancet Neurol. 2016, 15, 934–943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  126. Iturria-Medina, Y.; Sotero, R.C.; Toussaint, P.J.; Mateos-Pérez, J.M.; Evans, A.C. Early role of vascular dysregulation on late-onset Alzheimer’s disease based on multifactorial data-driven analysis. Nat. Commun. 2016, 7, 11934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Nelson, A.R.; Sweeney, M.D.; Sagare, A.P.; Zlokovic, B.V. Neurovascular dysfunction and neurodegeneration in dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2016, 1862, 887–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Becker, K.A.; Fahsel, B.; Kemper, H.; Mayeres, J.; Li, C.; Wilker, B.; Keitsch, S.; Soddemann, M.; Sehl, C.; Kohnen, M.; et al. Staphylococcus aureus alpha-toxin disrupts endothelial-cell tight junctions via acid sphingomyelinase and ceramide. Infect. Immun. 2017, 86, e00606–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  129. van Doorn, R.; Nijland, P.G.; Dekker, N.; Witte, M.E.; Lopes-Pinheiro, M.A.; van het Hof, B.; Kooij, G.; Reijerkerk, A.; Dijkstra, C.; van van der Valk, P.; et al. Fingolimod attenuates ceramide-induced blood-brain barrier dysfunction in multiple sclerosis by targeting reactive astrocytes. Acta Neuropathol. 2012, 124, 397–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Cutler, R.G.; Kelly, J.; Storie, K.; Pedersen, W.A.; Tammara, A.; Hatanpaa, K.; Troncoso, J.C.; Mattson, M.P. Involvement of oxidative stress-induced abnormalities in ceramide and cholesterol metabolism in brain aging and Alzheimer’s disease. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2004, 101, 2070–2075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  131. Han, X.; Holtzman, D.M.; McKeel, D.W., Jr.; Kelley, J.; Morris, J.C. Substantial sulfatide deficiency and ceramide elevation in very early Alzheimer’s disease: Potential role in disease pathogenesis. J. Neurochem. 2002, 82, 809–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. He, X.; Huang, Y.; Li, B.; Gong, C.-X.; Schuchman, E.H. Deregulation of sphingolipid metabolism in Alzheimer’s disease. Neurobiol. Aging 2010, 31, 398–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  133. Filippov, V.; Song, M.A.; Zhang, K.; Vinters, H.V.; Tung, S.; Kirsch, W.M.; Yang, J.; Duerksen-Hughes, P.J. Increased ceramide in brains with alzheimer’s and other neurodegenerative diseases. J. Alzheimer’s Dis. 2012, 29, 537–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  134. Couttas, T.A.; Kain, N.; Daniels, B.; Lim, X.Y.; Shepherd, C.; Kril, J.; Pickford, R.; Li, H.; Garner, B.; Don, A.S. Loss of the neuroprotective factor sphingosine 1-phosphate early in Alzheimer’s disease pathogenesis. Acta Neuropathol. Commun. 2014, 2, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  135. Katsel, P.; Li, C.; Haroutunian, V. Gene expression alterations in the sphingolipid metabolism pathways during progression of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease: A shift toward ceramide accumulation at the earliest recognizable stages of Alzheimer’s disease? Neurochem. Res. 2007, 32, 845–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Ceccom, J.; Loukh, N.; Lauwers-Cances, V.; Touriol, C.; Nicaise, Y.; Gentil, C.; Uro-Coste, E.; Pitson, S.; Maurage, C.A.; Duyckaerts, C.; et al. Reduced sphingosine kinase-1 and enhanced sphingosine 1-phosphate lyase expression demonstrate deregulated sphingosine 1-phosphate signaling in Alzheimer’s disease. Acta Neuropathol. Commun. 2014, 2, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Dominguez, G.; Maddelein, M.-L.; Pucelle, M.; Nicaise, Y.; Maurage, C.-A.; Duyckaerts, C.; Cuvillier, O.; Delisle, M.-B. Neuronal sphingosine kinase 2 subcellular localization is altered in Alzheimer’s disease brain. Acta Neuropathol. Commun. 2018, 6, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Xilouri, M.; Vogiatzi, T.; Vekrellis, K.; Stefanis, L. α-synuclein degradation by autophagic pathways: A potential key to Parkinson’s disease pathogenesis. Autophagy 2008, 4, 917–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  139. Dehay, B.; Martinez-Vicente, M.; Caldwell, G.A.; Caldwell, K.A.; Yue, Z.; Cookson, M.R.; Klein, C.; Vila, M.; Bezard, E. Lysosomal impairment in Parkinson’s disease. Mov. Disord. 2013, 28, 725–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Manzoni, C.; Lewis, P.A. Dysfunction of the autophagy/lysosomal degradation pathway is a shared feature of the genetic synucleinopathies. FASEB J. 2013, 27, 3424–3429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  141. Lwin, A.; Orvisky, E.; Goker-Alpan, O.; LaMarca, M.E.; Sidransky, E. Glucocerebrosidase mutations in subjects with parkinsonism. Mol. Genet. Metab. 2004, 81, 70–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  142. Neumann, J.; Bras, J.; Deas, E.; O’Sullivan, S.S.; Parkkinen, L.; Lachmann, R.H.; Li, A.; Holton, J.; Guerreiro, R.; Paudel, R.; et al. Glucocerebrosidase mutations in clinical and pathologically proven Parkinson’s disease. Brain 2009, 132, 1783–1794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  143. Mata, I.F.; Samii, A.; Schneer, S.H.; Roberts, J.W.; Griffith, A.; Leis, B.C.; Schellenberg, G.D.; Sidransky, E.; Bird, T.D.; Leverenz, J.B.; et al. Glucocerebrosidase gene mutations: A risk factor for Lewy body disorders. Arch. Neurol. 2008, 65, 379–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  144. Bras, J.; Singleton, A.; Cookson, M.R.; Hardy, J. Emerging pathways in genetic Parkinson’s disease: Potential role of ceramide metabolism in Lewy body disease. FEBS J. 2008, 275, 5767–5773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  145. Sidransky, E. Gaucher disease and parkinsonism. Mol. Genet. Metab. 2005, 84, 302–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Sidransky, E.; Lopez, G. The link between the GBA gene and parkinsonism. Lancet Neurol. 2012, 11, 986–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  147. Mazzulli, J.R.; Xu, Y.-H.; Sun, Y.; Knight, A.L.; McLean, P.J.; Caldwell, G.A.; Sidransky, E.; Grabowski, G.A.; Krainc, D. Gaucher disease glucocerebrosidase and α-synuclein form a bidirectional pathogenic loop in synucleinopathies. Cell 2011, 146, 37–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  148. Taguchi, Y.V.; Liu, J.; Ruan, J.; Pacheco, J.; Zhang, X.; Abbasi, J.; Keutzer, J.; Mistry, P.K.; Chandra, S.S. Glucosylsphingosine promotes α-synuclein pathology in mutant GBA-associated parkinson’s disease. J. Neurosci. 2017, 37, 9617–9631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  149. Everett, C.M.; Wood, N.W. Trinucleotide repeats and neurodegenerative disease. Brain 2004, 127, 2385–2405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  150. Jimenez-Sanchez, M.; Licitra, F.; Underwood, B.R.; Rubinsztein, D.C. Huntington’s disease: Mechanisms of pathogenesis and therapeutic strategies. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Med. 2017, 7, a024240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  151. Di Pardo, A.; Amico, E.; Basit, A.; Armirotti, A.; Joshi, P.; Neely, M.D.; Vuono, R.; Castaldo, S.; Digilio, A.F.; Scalabrì, F.; et al. Defective sphingosine-1-phosphate metabolism is a druggable target in Huntington’s disease. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 5280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  152. Pirhaji, L.; Milani, P.; Dalin, S.; Wassie, B.T.; Dunn, D.E.; Fenster, R.J.; Avila-Pacheco, J.; Greengard, P.; Clish, C.B.; Heiman, M.; et al. Identifying therapeutic targets by combining transcriptional data with ordinal clinical measurements. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  153. Di Pardo, A.; Maglione, V. The S1P axis: New exciting route for treating Huntington’s disease. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 2018, 39, 468–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Henriques, A.; Croixmarie, V.; Bouscary, A.; Mosbach, A.; Keime, C.; Boursier-Neyret, C.; Walter, B.; Spedding, M.; Loeffler, J.-P. Sphingolipid metabolism is dysregulated at transcriptomic and metabolic levels in the spinal cord of an animal model of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Front. Mol. Neurosci. 2018, 10, 433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  155. Brinkmann, V.; Davis, M.D.; Heise, C.E.; Albert, R.; Cottens, S.; Hof, R.; Bruns, C.; Prieschl, E.; Baumruker, T.; Hiestand, P.; et al. The immune modulator FTY720 targets sphingosine 1-phosphate receptors. J. Biol. Chem. 2002, 277, 21453–21457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  156. Mandala, S.; Hajdu, R.; Bergstrom, J.; Quackenbush, E.; Xie, J.; Milligan, J.; Thornton, R.; Shei, G.-J.; Card, D.; Keohane, C.; et al. Alteration of lymphocyte trafficking by sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor agonists. Science 2002, 296, 346–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Potenza, R.L.; De Simone, R.; Armida, M.; Mazziotti, V.; Pèzzola, A.; Popoli, P.; Minghetti, L. Fingolimod: A disease-modifier drug in a mouse model of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Neurotherapeutics 2016, 13, 918–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  158. Compston, A.; Coles, A. Multiple sclerosis. Lancet 2008, 372, 1502–1517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Constantinescu, C.S.; Farooqi, N.; O’Brien, K.; Gran, B. Experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) as a model for multiple sclerosis (MS). Br. J. Pharmacol. 2011, 164, 1079–1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Grant, J.L.; Ghosn, E.E.B.; Axtell, R.C.; Herges, K.; Kuipers, H.F.; Woodling, N.S.; Andreasson, K.; Herzenberg, L.A.; Herzenberg, L.A.; Steinman, L. Reversal of paralysis and reduced inflammation from peripheral administration of β-amyloid in TH1 and TH17 versions of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis. Sci. Transl. Med. 2012, 4, 145ra105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  161. Gijbels, K.; Engelborghs, S.; De Deyn, P.P. Experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis: An animal model for multiple sclerosis. Neurosci. Res. Commun. 2000, 26, 193–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Brinkmann, V.; Billich, A.; Baumruker, T.; Heining, P.; Schmouder, R.; Francis, G.; Aradhye, S.; Burtin, P. Fingolimod (FTY720): Discovery and development of an oral drug to treat multiple sclerosis. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2010, 9, 883–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  163. Fujino, M.; Funeshima, N.; Kitazawa, Y.; Kimura, H.; Amemiya, H.; Suzuki, S.; Li, X.-K. Amelioration of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis in Lewis rats by FTY720 treatment. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 2003, 305, 70–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  164. Webb, M.; Tham, C.-S.; Lin, F.-F.; Lariosa-Willingham, K.; Yu, N.; Hale, J.; Mandala, S.; Chun, J.; Rao, T.S. Sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor agonists attenuate relapsing-remitting experimental autoimmune encephalitis in SJL mice. J. Neuroimmunol. 2004, 153, 108–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  165. Kataoka, H.; Sugahara, K.; Shimano, K.; Teshima, K.; Koyama, M.; Fukunari, A.; Chiba, K. FTY720, sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor modulator, ameliorates experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis by inhibition of T cell infiltration. Cell Mol. Immunol. 2005, 2, 439–448. [Google Scholar]
  166. Foster, C.A.; Mechtcheriakova, D.; Storch, M.K.; Balatoni, B.; Howard, L.M.; Bornancin, F.; Wlachos, A.; Sobanov, J.; Kinnunen, A.; Baumruker, T. FTY720 rescue therapy in the dark agouti rat model of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis: Expression of central nervous system genes and reversal of blood-brain-barrier damage. Brain Pathol. 2009, 19, 254–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Choi, J.W.; Gardell, S.E.; Herr, D.R.; Rivera, R.; Lee, C.-W.; Noguchi, K.; Teo, S.T.; Yung, Y.C.; Lu, M.; Kennedy, G.; et al. FTY720 (fingolimod) efficacy in an animal model of multiple sclerosis requires astrocyte sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor 1 (S1P1) modulation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 751–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  168. Eken, A.; Duhen, R.; Singh, A.K.; Fry, M.; Buckner, J.H.; Kita, M.; Bettelli, E.; Oukka, M. S1P1 deletion differentially affects TH17 and regulatory T cells. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 12905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  169. Smigiel, K.S.; Richards, E.; Srivastava, S.; Thomas, K.R.; Dudda, J.C.; Klonowski, K.D.; Campbell, D.J. CCR7 provides localized access to IL-2 and defines homeostatically distinct regulatory T cell subsets. J. Exp. Med. 2014, 211, 121–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Cruz-Orengo, L.; Daniels, B.P.; Dorsey, D.; Basak, S.A.; Grajales-Reyes, J.G.; McCandless, E.E.; Piccio, L.; Schmidt, R.E.; Cross, A.H.; Crosby, S.D.; et al. Enhanced sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor 2 expression underlies female CNS autoimmunity susceptibility. J. Clin. Invest. 2014, 124, 2571–2584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  171. Lopes Pinheiro, M.A.; Kroon, J.; Hoogenboezem, M.; Geerts, D.; van Het Hof, B.; van der Pol, S.M.A.; van Buul, J.D.; de Vries, H.E. Acid sphingomyelinase–derived ceramide regulates ICAM-1 function during T cell transmigration across brain endothelial cells. J. Immunol. 2016, 196, 72–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  172. Niessen, F.; Schaffner, F.; Furlan-Freguia, C.; Pawlinski, R.; Bhattacharjee, G.; Chun, J.; Derian, C.K.; Andrade-Gordon, P.; Rosen, H.; Ruf, W. Dendritic cell PAR1-S1P3 signalling couples coagulation and inflammation. Nature 2008, 452, 654–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  173. Fischer, I.; Alliod, C.; Martinier, N.; Newcombe, J.; Brana, C.; Pouly, S. Sphingosine kinase 1 and sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor 3 are functionally upregulated on astrocytes under pro-inflammatory conditions. PLoS One. 2011, 6, e23905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  174. Dusaban, S.S.; Chun, J.; Rosen, H.; Purcell, N.H.; Brown, J.H. Sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor 3 and RhoA signaling mediate inflammatory gene expression in astrocytes. J. Neuroinflammation 2017, 14, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  175. Devic, E. Congrès français de médecine (Premiere Session; Lyon, 1894; procès-verbaux, mémoires et discussions; publiés par M. le Dr, L. Bard); Asselin et Houzeau: Lyon, France, 1895. [Google Scholar]
  176. Gault, F. De la neuromyélite optique aiguë. Ph.D. Thesis, Faculté de Médecine Lyon Est, Lyon, France, 1894. [Google Scholar]
  177. Wingerchuk, D.M.; Lennon, V.A.; Lucchinetti, C.F.; Pittock, S.J.; Weinshenker, B.G. The spectrum of neuromyelitis optica. Lancet Neurol. 2007, 6, 805–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Weinshenker, B.G.; Wingerchuk, D.M.; Pittock, S.J.; Lucchinetti, C.F.; Lennon, V.A. NMO-IgG: A specific biomarker for neuromyelitis optica. Dis. Markers 2006, 22, 197–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  179. Jarius, S.; Franciotta, D.; Bergamaschi, R.; Wright, H.; Littleton, E.; Palace, J.; Hohlfeld, R.; Vincent, A. NMO-IgG in the diagnosis of neuromyelitis optica. Neurology 2007, 68, 1076–1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Min, J.H.; Kim, B.J.; Lee, K.H. Development of extensive brain lesions following fingolimod (FTY720) treatment in a patient with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder. Mult. Scler. 2012, 18, 113–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Yoshii, F.; Moriya, Y.; Ohnuki, T.; Ryo, M.; Takahashi, W. Fingolimod-induced leukoencephalopathy in a patient with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder. Mult. Scler. Relat Disord. 2016, 7, 53–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Izaki, S.; Narukawa, S.; Kubota, A.; Mitsui, T.; Fukaura, H.; Nomura, K. A case of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder developing a fulminant course with multiple white-matter lesions following fingolimod treatment. Clin. Neurol. 2013, 53, 513–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Tanaka, M.; Oono, M.; Motoyama, R.; Tanaka, K. Longitudinally extensive spinal cord lesion after initiation, and multiple extensive brain lesions after cessation of fingolimod treatment in a patient with recurrent myelitis and anti-aquaporin 4 antibodies. Clin. Exp. Neuroimmunol. 2013, 4, 239–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Matsushita, T.; Tateishi, T.; Isobe, N.; Yonekawa, T.; Yamasaki, R.; Matsuse, D.; Murai, H.; Kira, J.-I. Characteristic cerebrospinal fluid cytokine/chemokine profiles in neuromyelitis optica, relapsing remitting or primary progressive multiple sclerosis. PLoS One 2013, 8, e61835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  185. Lee, H.; Deng, J.; Kujawski, M.; Yang, C.; Liu, Y.; Herrmann, A.; Kortylewski, M.; Horne, D.; Somlo, G.; Forman, S.; et al. STAT3-induced S1PR1 expression is crucial for persistent STAT3 activation in tumors. Nat. Med. 2010, 16, 1421–1428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  186. Liang, J.; Nagahashi, M.; Kim, E.Y.; Harikumar, K.B.; Yamada, A.; Huang, W.-C.; Hait, N.C.; Allegood, J.C.; Price, M.M.; Avni, D.; et al. Sphingosine-1-phosphate links persistent STAT3 activation, chronic intestinal inflammation, and development of colitis-associated cancer. Cancer Cell 2013, 23, 107–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  187. Nguyen, A.V.; Wu, Y.Y.; Liu, Q.; Wang, D.; Nguyen, S.; Loh, R.; Pang, J.; Friedman, K.; Orlofsky, A.; Augenlicht, L.; et al. STAT3 in epithelial cells regulates inflammation and tumor progression to malignant state in colon. Neoplasia 2013, 15, 998–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  188. Nguyen-Jackson, H.; Panopoulos, A.D.; Zhang, H.; Li, H.S.; Watowich, S.S. STAT3 controls the neutrophil migratory response to CXCR2 ligands by direct activation of G-CSF-induced CXCR2 expression and via modulation of CXCR2 signal transduction. Blood 2010, 115, 3354–3363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  189. McLoughlin, R.M.; Jenkins, B.J.; Grail, D.; Williams, A.S.; Fielding, C.A.; Parker, C.R.; Ernst, M.; Topley, N.; Jones, S.A. IL-6 trans-signaling via STAT3 directs T cell infiltration in acute inflammation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2005, 102, 9589–9594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  190. Yopp, A.C.; Ochando, J.C.; Mao, M.; Ledgerwood, L.; Ding, Y.; Bromberg, J.S. Sphingosine 1-phosphate receptors regulate chemokine-driven transendothelial migration of lymph node but not splenic T cells. J. Immunol. 2005, 175, 2913–2924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Harikumar, K.B.; Yester, J.W.; Surace, M.J.; Oyeniran, C.; Price, M.M.; Huang, W.-C.; Hait, N.C.; Allegood, J.C.; Yamada, A.; Kong, X.; et al. K63-linked polyubiquitination of transcription factor IRF1 is essential for IL-1-induced production of chemokines CXCL10 and CCL5. Nat. Immunol. 2014, 15, 231–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  192. Uzawa, A.; Mori, M.; Arai, K.; Sato, Y.; Hayakawa, S.; Masuda, S.; Taniguchi, J.; Kuwabara, S. Cytokine and chemokine profiles in neuromyelitis optica: Significance of interleukin-6. Mult. Scler. 2010, 16, 1443–1452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Muscal, E.; Brey, R.L. Neurologic manifestations of systemic lupus erythematosus in children and adults. Neurol. Clin. 2010, 28, 61–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  194. Kirshner, H.S. Hashimoto’s encephalopathy: A brief review. Curr. Neurol. Neurosci. Rep. 2014, 14, 476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Sanna, G.; Piga, M.; Terryberry, J.W.; Peltz, M.T.; Giagheddu, S.; Satta, L.; Ahmed, A.; Cauli, A.; Montaldo, C.; Passiu, G.; et al. Central nervous system involvement in systemic lupus erythematosus: Cerebral imaging and serological profile in patients with and without overt neuropsychiatric manifestations. Lupus 2000, 9, 573–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  196. Snider, A.J. Sphingosine kinase and sphingosine-1-phosphate: Regulators in autoimmune and inflammatory disease. Int. J. Clin. Rheumtol. 2013, 8, 453–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  197. Okazaki, H.; Hirata, D.; Kamimura, T.; Sato, H.; Iwamoto, M.; Yoshio, T.; Masuyama, J.; Fujimura, A.; Kobayashi, E.; Kano, S.; et al. Effects of FTY720 in MRL-lpr/lpr mice: Therapeutic potential in systemic lupus erythematosus. J. Rheumatol. 2002, 29, 707–716. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  198. Alperovich, G.; Rama, I.; Lloberas, N.; Franquesa, M.; Poveda, R.; Gomà, M.; Herrero-Fresneda, I.; Cruzado, J.M.; Bolaños, N.; Carrera, M.; et al. New immunosuppresor strategies in the treatment of murine lupus nephritis. Lupus 2007, 16, 18–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Ando, S.; Amano, H.; Amano, E.; Minowa, K.; Watanabe, T.; Nakano, S.; Nakiri, Y.; Morimoto, S.; Tokano, Y.; Lin, Q.; et al. FTY720 exerts a survival advantage through the prevention of end-stage glomerular inflammation in lupus-prone BXSB mice. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2010, 394, 804–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Wenderfer, S.E.; Stepkowski, S.M.; Braun, M.C. Increased survival and reduced renal injury in MRL/lpr mice treated with a novel sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor agonist. Kidney Int. 2008, 74, 1319–1326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  201. Han, C.; He, X.; Xia, X.; Guo, J.; Liu, A.; Liu, X.; Wang, X.; Li, C.; Peng, S.; Zhao, W.; et al. Sphk1/S1P/S1PR1 Signaling is involved in the development of autoimmune thyroiditis in patients and NOD.H-2h4 mice. Thyroid 2019, 29, 700–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Yilmaz, G.; Arumugam, T.V.; Stokes, K.Y.; Granger, D.N. Role of T lymphocytes and interferon-γ in ischemic stroke. Circulation 2006, 113, 2105–2112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  203. Lo, E.H. T time in the brain. Nat. Med. 2009, 15, 844–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  204. Shichita, T.; Sugiyama, Y.; Ooboshi, H.; Sugimori, H.; Nakagawa, R.; Takada, I.; Iwaki, T.; Okada, Y.; Iida, M.; Cua, D.J.; et al. Pivotal role of cerebral interleukin-17-producing γδT cells in the delayed phase of ischemic brain injury. Nat. Med. 2009, 15, 946–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  205. Iadecola, C.; Anrather, J. The immunology of stroke: From mechanisms to translation. Nat. Med. 2011, 17, 796–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  206. Hurn, P.D.; Subramanian, S.; Parker, S.M.; Afentoulis, M.E.; Kaler, L.J.; Vandenbark, A.A.; Offner, H. T- and B-cell-deficient mice with experimental stroke have reduced lesion size and inflammation. J. Cereb. Blood Flow Metab. 2007, 27, 1798–1805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  207. Kleinschnitz, C.; Schwab, N.; Kraft, P.; Hagedor, I.; Dreykluft, A.; Schwarz, T.; Austinat, M.; Nieswandt, B.; Wiendl, H.; Stoll, G. Early detrimental T-cell effects in experimental cerebral ischemia are neither related to adaptive immunity nor thrombus formation. Blood 2010, 115, 3835–3842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Adachi, K.; Kohara, T.; Nakao, N.; Arita, M.; Chiba, K.; Mishina, T.; Sazaki, S.; Fujita, T. Design, synthesis, and structure-activity relationships of 2-substituted-2-amino-1,3-propanediols: Discovery of a novel immunosuppressant, FTY720. Bioorganic Med. Chem. Lett. 1995, 5, 853–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Brinkmann, V.; Cyster, J.G.; Hla, T. FTY720: Sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor-1 in the control of lymphocyte egress and endothelial barrier function. Am. J. Transplant. 2004, 4, 1019–1025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Rolland, W.B., II.; Manaenko, A.; Lekic, T.; Hasegawa, Y.; Ostrowski, R.; Tang, J.; Zhang, J.H. FTY720 is neuroprotective and improves functional outcomes after intracerebral hemorrhage in mice. Acta Neurochir. Suppl. 2011, 111, 213–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  211. Hasegawa, Y.; Suzuki, H.; Sozen, T.; Rolland, W.; Zhang, J.H. Activation of sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor-1 by FTY720 is neuroprotective after ischemic stroke in rats. Stroke 2010, 41, 368–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  212. Czech, B.; Pfeilschifter, W.; Mazaheri-Omrani, N.; Strobel, M.A.; Kahles, T.; Neumann-Haefelin, T.; Rami, A.; Huwiler, A.; Pfeilschifter, J. The immunomodulatory sphingosine 1-phosphate analog FTY720 reduces lesion size and improves neurological outcome in a mouse model of cerebral ischemia. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2009, 389, 251–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  213. Kraft, P.; Göb, E.; Schuhmann, M.K.; Göbel, K.; Deppermann, C.; Thielmann, I.; Herrmann, A.M.; Lorenz, K.; Brede, M.; Stoll, G.; et al. FTY720 ameliorates acute ischemic stroke in mice by reducing thrombo-inflammation but not by direct neuroprotection. Stroke 2013, 44, 3202–3210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  214. Nazari, M.; Keshavarz, S.; Rafati, A.; Namavar, M.R.; Haghani, M. Fingolimod (FTY720) improves hippocampal synaptic plasticity and memory deficit in rats following focal cerebral ischemia. Brain Res. Bull. 2016, 124, 95–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  215. Wei, Y.; Yemisci, M.; Kim, H.-H.; Yung, L.M.; Shin, H.K.; Hwang, S.-K.; Guo, S.; Qin, T.; Alsharif, N.; Brinkmann, V.; et al. Fingolimod provides long-term protection in rodent models of cerebral ischemia. Ann Neurol. 2011, 69, 119–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  216. Pfeilschifter, W.; Czech-Zechmeister, B.; Sujak, M.; Mirceska, A.; Koch, A.; Rami, A.; Steinmetz, H.; Foerch, C.; Huwiler, A.; Pfeilschifter, J. Activation of sphingosine kinase 2 is an endogenous protective mechanism in cerebral ischemia. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2011, 413, 212–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  217. Rolland, W.B.; Lekic, T.; Krafft, P.R.; Hasegawa, Y.; Altay, O.; Hartman, R.; Ostrowski, R.; Manaenko, A.; Tang, J.; Zhang, J.H. Fingolimod reduces cerebral lymphocyte infiltration in experimental models of rodent intracerebral hemorrhage. Exp. Neurol. 2013, 241, 45–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  218. Fu, Y.; Zhang, N.; Ren, L.; Yan, Y.; Sun, N.; Li, Y.-J.; Han, W.; Xue, R.; Liu, Q.; Hao, J.; et al. Impact of an immune modulator fingolimod on acute ischemic stroke. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 18315–18320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  219. Schaphorst, K.L.; Chiang, E.; Jacobs, K.N.; Zaiman, A.; Natarajan, V.; Wigley, F.; Garcia, J.G.N. Role of sphingosine-1 phosphate in the enhancement of endothelial barrier integrity by platelet-released products. Am. J. Physiol. Lung Cell Mol. Physiol. 2003, 285, L258–L267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  220. Liesz, A.; Zhou, W.; Mracskó, É.; Karcher, S.; Bauer, H.; Schwarting, S.; Sun, L.; Bruder, D.; Stegemann, S.; Cerwenka, A.; et al. Inhibition of lymphocyte trafficking shields the brain against deleterious neuroinflammation after stroke. Brain 2011, 134, 704–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  221. Cai, A.; Schlunk, F.; Bohmann, F.; Kahefiolasl, S.; Brunkhorst, R.; Foerch, C.; Pfeilschifter, W. Coadministration of FTY720 and rt-PA in an experimental model of large hemispheric stroke-No influence on functional outcome and blood-brain barrier disruption. Exp. Transl. Stroke Med. 2013, 5, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  222. Sanchez, T. Sphingosine-1-phosphate signaling in endothelial disorders. Curr. Atheroscler. Rep. 2016, 18, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  223. Brait, V.H.; Tarrasón, G.; Gavaldà, A.; Godessart, N.; Planas, A.M. Selective sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor 1 agonist is protective against ischemia/reperfusion in mice. Stroke 2016, 47, 3053–3056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  224. Blondeau, N.; Lai, Y.; Tyndall, S.; Popolo, M.; Topalkara, K.; Pru, J.K.; Zhang, L.; Kim, H.; Liao, J.K.; Ding, K.; et al. Distribution of sphingosine kinase activity and mRNA in rodent brain. J. Neurochem. 2007, 103, 509–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  225. Billich, A.; Bornancin, F.; Dévay, P.; Mechtcheriakova, D.; Urtz, N.; Baumruker, T. Phosphorylation of the immunomodulatory drug FTY720 by sphingosine kinases. J. Biol. Chem. 2003, 278, 47408–47415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  226. Wacker, B.K.; Perfater, J.L.; Gidday, J.M. Hypoxic preconditioning induces stroke tolerance in mice via a cascading HIF, sphingosine kinase, and CCL2 signaling pathway. J. Neurochem. 2012, 123, 954–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  227. Zemann, B.; Kinzel, B.; Müller, M.; Reuschel, R.; Mechtcheriakova, D.; Urtz, N.; Bornancin, F.; Baumruker, T.; Billich, A. Sphingosine kinase type 2 is essential for lymphopenia induced by the immunomodulatory drug FTY720. Blood 2006, 107, 1454–1458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  228. Wacker, B.K.; Park, T.S.; Gidday, J.M. Hypoxic preconditioning-induced cerebral ischemic tolerance: Role of microvascular sphingosine kinase 2. Stroke 2009, 40, 3342–3348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  229. Zhang, W.; An, J.; Jawadi, H.; Siow, D.L.; Lee, J.-F.; Zhao, J.; Gartung, A.; Maddipati, K.R.; Honn, K.V.; Wattenberg, B.W.; et al. Sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor-2 mediated NFκB activation contributes to tumor necrosis factor-α induced VCAM-1 and ICAM-1 expression in endothelial cells. Prostaglandins Other Lipid Mediat. 2013, 106, 62–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  230. Kim, G.S.; Yang, L.; Zhang, G.; Zhao, H.; Selim, M.; McCullough, L.D.; Kluk, M.J.; Sanchez, T. Critical role of sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor-2 in the disruption of cerebrovascular integrity in experimental stroke. Nat. Commun. 2015, 6, 7893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  231. Lv, M.; Zhang, D.; Dai, D.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, L. Sphingosine kinase 1/sphingosine-1-phosphate regulates the expression of interleukin-17A in activated microglia in cerebral ischemia/reperfusion. Inflamm. Res. 2016, 65, 551–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  232. Zheng, S.; Wei, S.; Wang, X.; Xu, Y.; Xiao, Y.; Liu, H.; Jia, J.; Cheng, J. Sphingosine kinase 1 mediates neuroinflammation following cerebral ischemia. Exp. Neurol. 2015, 272, 160–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  233. Campos, F.; Qin, T.; Castillo, J.; Seo, J.H.; Arai, K.; Lo, E.H.; Waeber, C. Fingolimod reduces hemorrhagic transformation associated with delayed tissue plasminogen activator treatment in a mouse thromboembolic model. Stroke 2013, 44, 505–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  234. Zhu, Z.; Fu, Y.; Tian, D.; Sun, N.; Han, W.; Chang, G.; Dong, Y.; Xu, X.; Liu, Q.; Huang, D.; et al. Combination of the immune modulator fingolimod with alteplase in acute ischemic stroke: A pilot trial. Circulation 2015, 132, 1104–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  235. Zhang, S.; Zhou, Y.; Zhang, R.; Zhang, M.; Campbell, B.; Lin, L.; Shi, F.-D.; Lou, M. Rationale and design of combination of an immune modulator fingolimod with alteplase bridging with mechanical thrombectomy in acute ischemic stroke (FAMTAIS) trial. Int. J. Stroke 2017, 12, 906–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  236. Wan, Y.; Jin, H.-J.; Zhu, Y.-Y.; Fang, Z.; Mao, L.; He, Q.; Xia, J.-P.; Li, M.; Li, Y.; Chen, X.; et al. MicroRNA-149-5p regulates blood-brain barrier permeability after transient middle cerebral artery occlusion in rats by targeting S1PR2 of pericytes. FASEB J. 2018, 32, 3133–3148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  237. Swendeman, S.L.; Xiong, Y.; Cantalupo, A.; Yuan, A.; Burg, N.; Hisano, Y.; Cartier, A.; Liu, C.H.; Engelbrecht, E.; Blaho, V.; et al. An engineered S1P chaperone attenuates hypertension and ischemic injury. Sci. Signal. 2017, 10, eaal2722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  238. Testai, F.D.; Kilkus, J.P.; Berdyshev, E.; Gorshkova, I.; Natarajan, V.; Dawson, G. Multiple sphingolipid abnormalities following cerebral microendothelial hypoxia. J. Neurochem. 2014, 131, 530–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  239. Gaire, B.P.; Lee, C.H.; Sapkota, A.; Lee, S.Y.; Chun, J.; Cho, H.J.; Nam, T.-G.; Choi, J.W. Identification of sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor subtype 1 (S1P1) as a pathogenic factor in transient focal cerebral ischemia. Mol. Neurobiol. 2018, 55, 2320–2332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  240. Gaire, B.P.; Song, M.-R.; Choi, J.W. Sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor subtype 3 (S1P3) contributes to brain injury after transient focal cerebral ischemia via modulating microglial activation and their M1 polarization. J. Neuroinflammation 2018, 15, 284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  241. Gaire, B.P.; Bae, Y.J.; Choi, J.W. S1P1 regulates M1/M2 polarization toward brain injury after transient focal cerebral ischemia. Biomol. Ther. 2019, 27, 522–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  242. Zamanian, J.L.; Xu, L.; Foo, L.C.; Nouri, N.; Zhou, L.; Giffard, R.G.; Barres, B.A. Genomic analysis of reactive astrogliosis. J. Neurosci. 2012, 32, 6391–6410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  243. Liddelow, S.A.; Guttenplan, K.A.; Clarke, L.E.; Bennett, F.C.; Bohlen, C.J.; Schirmer, L.; Bennett, M.L.; Münch, A.E.; Chung, W.-S.; Peterson, T.C.; et al. Neurotoxic reactive astrocytes are induced by activated microglia. Nature 2017, 541, 481–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  244. Anelli, V.; Bassi, R.; Tettamanti, G.; Viani, P.; Riboni, L. Extracellular release of newly synthesized sphingosine-1-phosphate by cerebellar granule cells and astrocytes. J. Neurochem. 2005, 92, 1204–1215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  245. Mullershausen, F.; Craveiro, L.M.; Shin, Y.; Cortes-Cros, M.; Bassilana, F.; Osinde, M.; Wishart, W.L.; Guerini, D.; Thallmair, M.; Schwab, M.E.; et al. Phosphorylated FTY720 promotes astrocyte migration through sphingosine-1-phosphate receptors. J. Neurochem. 2007, 102, 1151–1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  246. Herr, D.R.; Chun, J. Effects of LPA and S1P on the nervous system and implications for their involvement in disease. Curr. Drug Targets 2007, 8, 155–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  247. Karunakaran, I.; Alam, S.; Jayagopi, S.; Frohberger, S.J.; Hansen, J.N.; Kuehlwein, J.; Hölbling, B.V.; Schumak, B.; Hübner, M.P.; Gräler, M.H.; et al. Neural sphingosine 1-phosphate accumulation activates microglia and links impaired autophagy and inflammation. Glia 2019, 67, 1859–1872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  248. Yagi, K.; Lidington, D.; Wan, H.; Fares, J.C.; Meissner, A.; Sumiyoshi, M.; Ai, J.; Foltz, W.D.; Nedospasov, S.A.; Offermanns, S.; et al. Therapeutically targeting tumor necrosis factor-α/sphingosine-1-phosphate signaling corrects myogenic reactivity in subarachnoid hemorrhage. Stroke 2015, 46, 2260–2270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  249. Olsson, T.; Zhi, W.W.; Hojeberg, B.; Kostulas, V.; Jiang, Y.P.; Anderson, G.; Ekre, H.P.; Link, H. Autoreactive T lymphocytes in multiple sclerosis determined by antigen-induced secretion of interferon-γ. J. Clin. Invest. 1990, 86, 981–985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  250. Comi, G. Position and practical use of fingolimod in Europe. Clin. Exp. Neuroimmunol. 2014, 5, 19–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  251. Camm, J.; Hla, T.; Bakshi, R.; Brinkmann, V. Cardiac and vascular effects of fingolimod: Mechanistic basis and clinical implications. Am. Heart J. 2014, 168, 632–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  252. Cohen, J.A.; Barkhof, F.; Comi, G.; Hartung, H.-P.; Khatri, B.O.; Montalba, Y.; Pelletier, J.; Capra, R.; Gallo, P.; Izquierdo, G.; et al. Oral fingolimod or intramuscular interferon for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2010, 362, 402–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  253. Arvin, A.M.; Wolinsky, J.S.; Kappos, L.; Morris, M.I.; Reder, A.T.; Tornatore, C.; Gershon, A.; Gershon, M.; Levin, M.J.; Bezuidenhoudt, M.; et al. Varicella-zoster virus infections in patients treated with fingolimod: Risk assessment and consensus recommendations for management. JAMA Neurol. 2015, 72, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  254. Kappos, L.; Radue, E.-W.; O’Connor, P.; Polman, C.; Hohlfeld, R.; Calabresi, P.; Selmaj, K.; Agoropoulou, C.; Leyk, M.; Zhang-Auberson, L.; et al. A placebo-controlled trial of oral fingolimod in relapsing multiple sclerosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2010, 362, 387–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  255. Foerch, C.; Friedauer, L.; Bauer, B.; Wolf, T.; Adam, E.H. Severe COVID-19 infection in a patient with multiple sclerosis treated with fingolimod. Mult. Scler. Relat. Disord. 2020, 42, 102180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  256. Brinkmann, V. Sphingosine 1-phosphate receptors in health and disease: Mechanistic insights from gene deletion studies and reverse pharmacology. Pharmacol. Ther. 2007, 115, 84–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  257. Carvajal, R.D.; Merrill, A.H., Jr.; Dials, H.; Barbi, A.; Schwartz, G.K. A phase I clinical study of safingol followed by cisplatin: Promising activity in refractory adrenocortical cancer with novel pharmacology. J. Clin. Oncol. 2006, 24, 13044–13044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  258. Schwartz, G.K.; Haimovitz-Friedman, A.; Dhupar, S.K.; Ehleiter, D.; Maslak, P.; Lai, L.; Loganzo, F., Jr.; Kelsen, D.P.; Fuks, Z.; Albino, A.P. Potentiation of apoptosis by treatment with the protein kinase C-specific inhibitor safingol in mitomycin C- treated gastric cancer cells. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1995, 87, 1394–1399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  259. Dickson, M.A.; Carvajal, R.D.; Merrill, A.H., Jr.; Gonen, M.; Cane, L.M.; Schwartz, G.K. A phase I clinical trial of safingol in combination with cisplatin in advanced solid tumors. Clin. Cancer Res. 2011, 17, 2484–2492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  260. Ling, L.-U.; Tan, K.-B.; Lin, H.; Chiu, G.N.C. The role of reactive oxygen species and autophagy in safingol-induced cell death. Cell Death Dis. 2011, 2, e129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  261. French, K.J.; Zhuang, Y.; Maines, L.W.; Gao, P.; Wang, W.; Beljanski, V.; Upson, J.J.; Green, C.L.; Keller, S.N.; Smith, C.D. Pharmacology and antitumor activity of ABC294640, a selective inhibitor of sphingosine kinase-2. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 2010, 333, 129–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  262. Chaurasia, B.; Summers, S.A. Ceramides - Lipotoxic inducers of metabolic disorders. Trends Endocrinol. Metab. 2015, 26, 538–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  263. Britten, C.D.; Garrett-Mayer, E.; Chin, S.H.; Shirai, K.; Ogretmen, B.; Bentz, T.A.; Brisendine, A.; Anderton, K.; Cusack, S.L.; Maines, L.W.; et al. A phase I study of ABC294640, a first-in-class sphingosine kinase-2 inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumors. Clin. Cancer Res. 2017, 23, 4642–4650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  264. Xun, C.; Chen, M.-B.; Qi, L.; Tie-Ning, Z.; Peng, X.; Ning, L.; Zhi-Xiao, C.; Li-Wei, W. Targeting sphingosine kinase 2 (SphK2) by ABC294640 inhibits colorectal cancer cell growth in vitro and in vivo. J. Exp. Clin. Cancer Res. 2015, 34, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  265. Xu, L.; Jin, L.; Yang, B.; Wang, L.; Xia, Z.; Zhang, Q.; Xu, J. The sphingosine kinase 2 inhibitor ABC294640 inhibits cervical carcinoma cell growth. Oncotarget 2018, 9, 2384–2394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  266. Dai, L.; Smith, C.D.; Foroozesh, M.; Miele, L.; Qin, Z. The sphingosine kinase 2 inhibitor ABC294640 displays anti-non-small cell lung cancer activities in vitro and in vivo. Int. J. Cancer 2018, 142, 2153–2162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  267. Abuhusain, H.J.; Matin, A.; Qiao, Q.; Shen, H.; Kain, N.; Day, B.W.; Stringer, B.W.; Daniels, B.; Laaksonen, M.A.; Teo, C.; et al. A metabolic shift favoring sphingosine 1-phosphate at the expense of ceramide controls glioblastoma angiogenesis. J. Biol. Chem. 2013, 288, 37355–37364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  268. Mahajan-Thakur, S.; Bien-Möller, S.; Marx, S.; Schroeder, H.; Rauch, B.H. Sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P) signaling in glioblastoma multiforme—A systematic review. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 2448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  269. Visentin, B.; Vekich, J.A.; Sibbald, B.J.; Cavalli, A.L.; Moreno, K.M.; Matteo, R.G.; Garland, W.A.; Lu, Y.; Hall, H.S.; et al. Validation of an anti-sphingosine-1-phosphate antibody as a potential therapeutic in reducing growth, invasion, and angiogenesis in multiple tumor lineages. Cancer Cell 2006, 9, 225–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  270. Caballero, S.; Swaney, J.; Moreno, K.; Afzal, A.; Kielczewski, J.; Stoller, G.; Cavalli, A.; Garland, W.; Hansen, G.; Sabbadini, R.; et al. Anti-sphingosine-1-phosphate monoclonal antibodies inhibit angiogenesis and sub-retinal fibrosis in a murine model of laser-induced choroidal neovascularization. Exp. Eye Res. 2009, 88, 367–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  271. Sabbadini, R.A. Sphingosine-1-phosphate antibodies as potential agents in the treatment of cancer and age-related macular degeneration. Br. J. Pharmacol. 2011, 162, 1225–1238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  272. Pal, S.K.; Drabkin, H.A.; Reeves, J.A.; Hainsworth, J.D.; Hazel, S.E.; Paggiarino, D.A.; Wojciak, J.; Woodnutt, G.; Bhatt, R.S. A phase 2 study of the sphingosine-1-phosphate antibody sonepcizumab in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Cancer 2017, 123, 576–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  273. Fleischmann, R. Novel small-molecular therapeutics for rheumatoid arthritis. Curr. Opin. Rheumatol. 2012, 24, 335–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  274. Pyszko, J.A.; Strosznajder, J.B. The key role of sphingosine kinases in the molecular mechanism of neuronal cell survival and death in an experimental model of Parkinson’s disease. Folia Neuropathol. 2014, 52, 260–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  275. Samuvel, D.J.; Saxena, N.; Dhindsa, J.S.; Singh, A.K.; Gill, G.S.; Grobelny, D.W.; Singh, I. AKP-11 - A novel S1P1 agonist with favorable safety profile attenuates experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis in rat model of multiple sclerosis. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0141781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  276. Dhar, T.G.M.; Xiao, H.-Y.; Xie, J.; Lehman-McKeeman, L.D.; Wu, D.-R.; Dabros, M.; Yang, X.; Taylor, T.L.; Zhou, X.D.; Heimrich, E.M.; et al. Identification and preclinical pharmacology of BMS-986104: A differentiated S1P1 receptor modulator in clinical trials. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. 2016, 7, 283–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  277. Piali, L.; Birker-Robaczewska, M.; Lescop, C.; Froidevaux, S.; Schmitz, N.; Morrison, K.; Kohl, C.; Rey, M.; Studer, R.; Vezzali, E.; et al. Cenerimod, a novel selective S1P1 receptor modulator with unique signaling properties. Pharmacol. Res. Perspect. 2017, 5, e00370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  278. Hermann, V.; Batalov, A.; Smakotina, S.; Juif, P.E.; Cornelisse, P. First use of cenerimod, a selective S1P 1 receptor modulator, for the treatment of SLE: A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, proof-of-concept study. Lupus Sci. Med. 2019, 6, e000354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  279. Xu, J.; Gray, F.; Henderson, A.; Hicks, K.; Yang, J.; Thompson, P.; Oliver, J. Safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and bioavailability of GSK2018682, a sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulator, in healthy volunteers. Clin. Pharmacol. Drug Dev. 2014, 3, 170–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  280. Gruessner, R.W.; Sutherland, D.E.; Troppmann, C.; Benedetti, E.; Hakim, N.; Dunn, D.L.; Gruessner, A.C. The surgical risk of pancreas transplantation in the cyclosporine era: An overview. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 1997, 185, 128–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  281. Khattar, M.; Deng, R.; Kahan, B.D.; Schroder, P.M.; Phan, T.; Rutzky, L.P.; Stepkowski, S.M. Novel sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulator KRP203 combined with locally delivered regulatory T cells induces permanent acceptance of pancreatic islet allografts. Transplantation 2013, 95, 919–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  282. D’Ambrosio, D.; Freedman, M.S.; Prinz, J. Ponesimod, a selective S1P1 receptor modulator: A potential treatment for multiple sclerosis and other immune-mediated diseases. Ther. Adv. Chronic Dis. 2016, 7, 18–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  283. Schmidt, K.G.; Herrero San Juan, M.; Trautmann, S.; Berninger, L.; Schwiebs, A.; Ottenlinger, F.M.; Thomas, D.; Zaucke, F.; Pfeilschifter, J.M.; Radeke, H.H. Sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor 5 modulates early-stage processes during fibrogenesis in a mouse model of systemic sclerosis: A pilot study. Front. Immunol. 2017, 8, 1242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  284. Kurata, H.; Kusumi, K.; Otsuki, K.; Suzuki, R.; Kurono, M.; Komiya, T.; Hagiya, H.; Mizuno, H.; Shioya, H.; Ono, T.; et al. Discovery of a 1-Methyl-3,4-dihydronaphthalene-based sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) receptor agonist ceralifimod (ONO-4641). A S1P1 and S1P5 selective agonist for the treatment of autoimmune diseases. J. Med. Chem. 2017, 60, 9508–9530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  285. Meadows, K.R.T.; Steinberg, M.W.; Clemons, B.; Stokes, M.E.; Opiteck, G.J.; Peach, R.; Scott, F.L. Ozanimod (RPC1063), a selective S1PR1 and S1PR5 modulator, reduces chronic inflammation and alleviates kidney pathology in murine systemic lupus erythematosus. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0193236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  286. Wang, W.; Graeler, M.H.; Goetzl, E.J. Type 4 sphingosine 1-phosphate G protein-coupled receptor (S1P4 ) transduces S1P effects on T cell proliferation and cytokine secretion without signaling migration. FASEB J. 2005, 19, 1731–1733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  287. Wang, W.; Huang, M.-C.; Goetzl, E.J. Type 1 sphingosine 1-phosphate G protein-coupled receptor (S1P1) mediation of enhanced IL-4 generation by CD4 T cells from S1P1 transgenic mice. J. Immunol. 2007, 178, 4885–4890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  288. Gräler, M.H.; Grosse, R.; Kusch, A.; Kremmer, E.; Gudermann, T.; Lipp, M. The sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor S1P4 regulates cell shape and motility via coupling to Gi and G12/13. J. Cell Biochem. 2003, 89, 507–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  289. Schulze, T.; Golfier, S.; Tabeling, C.; Räbel, K.; Gräler, M.H.; Witzenrath, M.; Lipp, M. Sphingosine-1-phospate receptor 4 (S1P4) deficiency profoundly affects dendritic cell function and TH 17-cell differentiation in a murine model. FASEB J. 2011, 25, 4024–4036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  290. Sugahara, K.; Maeda, Y.; Shimano, K.; Mogami, A.; Kataoka, H.; Ogawa, K.; Hikida, K.; Kumagai, H.; Asayama, M.; Yamamoto, T.; et al. Amiselimod, a novel sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor-1 modulator, has potent therapeutic efficacy for autoimmune diseases, with low bradycardia risk. Br. J. Pharmacol. 2017, 174, 15–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  291. Kappos, L.; Arnold, D.L.; Bar-Or, A.; Camm, A.J.; Derfuss, T.; Sprenger, T.; Davies, M.; Piotrowska, A.; Ni, P.; Harada, T. Two-year results from a phase 2 extension study of oral amiselimod in relapsing multiple sclerosis. Mult. Scler. 2018, 24, 1605–1616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  292. Shimano, K.; Maeda, Y.; Kataoka, H.; Murase, M.; Mochizuki, S.; Utsumi, H.; Oshita, K.; Sugahara, K. Amiselimod (MT-1303), a novel sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor-1 functional antagonist, inhibits progress of chronic colitis induced by transfer of CD4+CD45RBhigh T cells. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0226154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  293. Sandborn, W.J.; Peyrin-Biroulet, L.; Zhang, J.; Chiorean, M.; Vermeire, S.; Lee, S.D.; Kühlbacher, T.; Yacyshyn, B.; Cabell, C.H.; Naik, S.U.; et al. Efficacy and safety of etrasimod in a phase 2 randomized trial of patients with ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterology 2020, 158, 550–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Figure 1. Sphingolipid biosynthesis, sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P) release, and signaling. S1P is generated in different compartments within a cell. Nuclear S1P influences the balance between chromosome density by histones and telomere length impacting on metabolic adaptations and cell proliferation. De novo S1P synthesized at the smooth endoplasmic reticulum may be utilized for complex sphingolipid synthesis, crucial components of cellular membranes. Mitochondrial S1P influences mitochondrial respiration by activating complex IV. S1P generated at the intracellular leaflet of the plasma membrane (PM) is either used for intracellular signaling converging on the TNFα or the PPARγ pathways or is exported to induce autocrine or paracrine stimulation transported by apolipoprotein (ApoM)-containing high-density lipoprotein (HDL) or albumin and signaling via membrane-bound S1P receptor (S1PR). Intracellularly, S1PR recruit different heterotrimeric G proteins to initiate different signaling pathways, which results in the down-regulation of S1PR via β-arrestin dependent recruitment of G protein receptor β-arrestin-regulated kinase 2 (GRK2), allowing dynamin and moesin-dependent endosome recruitment. Endosomal S1PR are either recruited to the PM or polyubiquitinylated by NEDD4-like E3 ubiquitin ligase WWP2 (WWP2) targeting S1PR for proteasomal degradation. Endosomal remnants are fused with the lysosome (the place where complex sphingolipids are degraded) to fully degrade proteinaceous or lipid cargo, ultimately replenishing the S1P pool. The figure is a modified version of Cartier and Hla [26] and Kunkel et al., [23].
Figure 1. Sphingolipid biosynthesis, sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P) release, and signaling. S1P is generated in different compartments within a cell. Nuclear S1P influences the balance between chromosome density by histones and telomere length impacting on metabolic adaptations and cell proliferation. De novo S1P synthesized at the smooth endoplasmic reticulum may be utilized for complex sphingolipid synthesis, crucial components of cellular membranes. Mitochondrial S1P influences mitochondrial respiration by activating complex IV. S1P generated at the intracellular leaflet of the plasma membrane (PM) is either used for intracellular signaling converging on the TNFα or the PPARγ pathways or is exported to induce autocrine or paracrine stimulation transported by apolipoprotein (ApoM)-containing high-density lipoprotein (HDL) or albumin and signaling via membrane-bound S1P receptor (S1PR). Intracellularly, S1PR recruit different heterotrimeric G proteins to initiate different signaling pathways, which results in the down-regulation of S1PR via β-arrestin dependent recruitment of G protein receptor β-arrestin-regulated kinase 2 (GRK2), allowing dynamin and moesin-dependent endosome recruitment. Endosomal S1PR are either recruited to the PM or polyubiquitinylated by NEDD4-like E3 ubiquitin ligase WWP2 (WWP2) targeting S1PR for proteasomal degradation. Endosomal remnants are fused with the lysosome (the place where complex sphingolipids are degraded) to fully degrade proteinaceous or lipid cargo, ultimately replenishing the S1P pool. The figure is a modified version of Cartier and Hla [26] and Kunkel et al., [23].
Cells 09 01515 g001
Figure 2. Sphingosine 1-phosphate receptors, canonical pathways, and functions triggered. The currently discovered S1P receptors 1–5 (S1P1–5) are displayed. S1PR are naturally activated by S1P and to some extent by dihydro-S1P (sphinganine 1-phosphate) and phyto-S1P (4-hydroxysphinganine 1-phosphate), but also competitive/allosteric activation and inhibition by other molecules are described. Upon activation, S1PR can recruit various heterotrimeric G proteins, which, in turn, allow a finely tuned intracellular signaling cascade to be evoked by means of both Gα and Gβγ. Thus, differential S1PR expression in response to varying environmental lipid contexts, i.e., S1P, dihydro-S1P, and phyto-S1P, respectively, may result in a context- and cell type-dependent function triggered.
Figure 2. Sphingosine 1-phosphate receptors, canonical pathways, and functions triggered. The currently discovered S1P receptors 1–5 (S1P1–5) are displayed. S1PR are naturally activated by S1P and to some extent by dihydro-S1P (sphinganine 1-phosphate) and phyto-S1P (4-hydroxysphinganine 1-phosphate), but also competitive/allosteric activation and inhibition by other molecules are described. Upon activation, S1PR can recruit various heterotrimeric G proteins, which, in turn, allow a finely tuned intracellular signaling cascade to be evoked by means of both Gα and Gβγ. Thus, differential S1PR expression in response to varying environmental lipid contexts, i.e., S1P, dihydro-S1P, and phyto-S1P, respectively, may result in a context- and cell type-dependent function triggered.
Cells 09 01515 g002
Figure 3. Clinical significance of distorted sphingosine 1-phosphate signaling in neurological disorders. Perturbed S1P signaling has been reported in various clinical conditions ranging from autoimmunity, infection, and cancer. S1P signaling was also shown to play a detrimental role in several neurological diseases, including neurodegenerative and neuroinflammatory conditions, but equally in cerebrovascular insults resulting in stroke or subarachnoid hemorrhage. The yellow patches refer to demyelinated/inflamed areas in the white matter. The area of the grey matter (grey) highlighted in blue denotes the infarcted region. This region is perfused by the middle cerebral artery (here blocked by an embolus), a branch of the cerebral vessel system (red).
Figure 3. Clinical significance of distorted sphingosine 1-phosphate signaling in neurological disorders. Perturbed S1P signaling has been reported in various clinical conditions ranging from autoimmunity, infection, and cancer. S1P signaling was also shown to play a detrimental role in several neurological diseases, including neurodegenerative and neuroinflammatory conditions, but equally in cerebrovascular insults resulting in stroke or subarachnoid hemorrhage. The yellow patches refer to demyelinated/inflamed areas in the white matter. The area of the grey matter (grey) highlighted in blue denotes the infarcted region. This region is perfused by the middle cerebral artery (here blocked by an embolus), a branch of the cerebral vessel system (red).
Cells 09 01515 g003
Table 1. Trials of drugs interfering with the sphingosine 1-phosphate metabolism in clinical conditions. (C), completed; (T), terminated; (S), suspended (one study currently on halt due to COVID-19-related recruitment stop); SPHK1/2, sphingosine kinase 1/2; PKC, protein kinase C; S1P, sphingosine 1-phosphate; S1Pn, S1P receptor ‘n’.
Table 1. Trials of drugs interfering with the sphingosine 1-phosphate metabolism in clinical conditions. (C), completed; (T), terminated; (S), suspended (one study currently on halt due to COVID-19-related recruitment stop); SPHK1/2, sphingosine kinase 1/2; PKC, protein kinase C; S1P, sphingosine 1-phosphate; S1Pn, S1P receptor ‘n’.
TargetCompounds (Mechanism of Action)IndicationsClinicalTrials.gov IdentifierPhase
SPHK1/2, PKC inhibitorSafingolSolid tumorNCT01553071I
Adult solid tumor (unspec.)NCT00084812I (C)
SPHK2ABC294640
(SPHK2 inhibition)
Non-resectable, perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (extra- and intrahepatic)NCT03377179II
NCT03414489n/a
Pancreatic cancer, adult solid tumor (unspec.)NCT01488513I (C)
Multiple myelomaNCT02757326I, II (T)
S1Pn/aBacterial pneumoniaNCT04007328II, III
Food Allergy, anaphylaxisNCT01776489n/a
AsthmaNCT04134351n/a
Pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthmaNCT03473119n/a
Sonepcizumab [LT1009]
(S1P-specific mAb)
Solid tumorsNCT00661414I (C)
Neovascular age-related macular degenerationNCT00767949I
Exudative age-related macular degenerationNCT01414153II (C)
Pigment epithelial detachmentNCT01334255I (T)
Renal cell carcinomaNCT01762033II (T)
S1P lyaseLX3305(S1P lyase inhibition)Rheumatoid arthritisNCT00847886,
NCT01417052
I (C)
NCT00903383II (C)
S1P1n/aInterstitial cystitisNCT03003845n/a
EndometriosisNCT02973854n/a
VulvodyniaNCT02981433n/a
AKP11Atopic dermatitisACTRN12617000763347II
Rheumatoid arthritisACTRN12617001223325II
BMS-986104Rheumatoid arthritis (healthy volunteers)NCT02211469II (C)
Cenerimod[ACT-334441](S1P1 agonist)Systemic lupus erythematosusNCT02472795I, II (C)
Healthy volunteersNCT04052360I (C)
NCT04255277I
CS-077
(S1P1 agonist)
Multiple sclerosisNCT00616733I (C)
GSK2018682(S1P1 agonist)Multiple sclerosis
(healthy volunteers)
NCT01387217I (C)
Relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis
(healthy volunteers)
NCT01466322,
NCT01431937
I (C)
KRP203
(S1P1 agonist)
Subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosusNCT01294774II (C)
Hematological malignanciesNCT01830010I (C)
Ulcerative colitisNCT01375179II (T)
Ponesimod [ACT-128800]
(S1P1 agonist)
Multiple sclerosisNCT02425644III (C)
NCT03232073III
NCT02907177III (T)
Relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosisNCT01093326II
NCT01006265II (C)
Plaque psoriasisNCT00852670,
NCT01208090
II (C)
Chronic graft versus host diseaseNCT02461134II (T)
Healthy volunteersNCT02136888,
NCT02068235,
NCT03882255,
NCT02223832
I (C)
PharmacokineticsNCT02126956I (C)
Safety and tolerabilityNCT02029482I (C)
S1P1, S1P3, S1P4, S1P5Fingolimod [FTY720]
(S1PR modulator, S1P1 functional antagonist)
Healthy volunteersNCT00416845,
NCT03757338
I (C)
Multiple sclerosisNCT00537082,
NCT00670449,
NCT00333138
II (C)
NCT01892722III
NCT00662649,
NCT00355134,
NCT02939079,
NCT00340834
III (C)
NCT01647880III (T)
NCT01585298,
NCT01333501
IV (C)
NCT02232061,
NCT01981161,
NCT02769689
IV
NCT02139696,
NCT01592097,
NCT01285479,
NCT01281657,
NCT02225977,
NCT02408380,
NCT03216915,
NCT01811290,
NCT02799199,
NCT02776072,
NCT01442194,
NCT02021162,
NCT02307877,
NCT03243721
n/a
Multiple sclerosis (autonomic nervous system dysfunction)NCT02048072IV (C)
Multiple sclerosis (fatigue)NCT01490840IV (T)
Multiple sclerosis (cognitive deficits)NCT02141022n/a
Primary progressive multiple sclerosisNCT00731692III (T)
Relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosisNCT00289978,
NCT01127750,
NCT01201356,
NCT01497262,
NCT01199861
III (C)
NCT01499667,
NCT01633112
III (T)
NCT01310166,
NCT02325440
IV
NCT02137707,
NCT02307838,
NCT01420055,
NCT02720107,
NCT03257358,
NCT02373098,
NCT01578330,
NCT01623596,
NCT01534182,
NCT01317004,
NCT01498887,
NCT01216072,
NCT01705236
IV (C)
NCT01755871,
NCT02342704,
NCT03345940
IV (T)
NCT01790269,
NCT01704183,
NCT02335892,
NCT02277964
n/a
Relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (cognition, brain volume loss)NCT02575365IV (T)
Relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (depression)NCT01436643IV (T)
Acute demyelinating optic neuritisNCT01757691II (T)
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosisNCT01786174II (C)
Intracerebral hemorrhage (hypertensive, intraparenchymal), cerebral edemaNCT04088630I
(Acute) stroke, (cerebro-) vascular accident, cerebral strokeNCT02002390II (C)
Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (numbness, pain, tingling)NCT03943498I
Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathyNCT01625182III (C)
Breast carcinomaNCT03941743I
Glioblastoma, anaplastic astrocytomaNCT02490930I (C)
Coronavirus disease (COVID-19)NCT04280588II
AsthmaNCT00785083II (C)
Rett syndromeNCT02061137II (C)
SchizophreniaNCT01779700II (C)
Renal insufficiencyNCT00731523I (C)
Kidney transplantationNCT00239902,
NCT00239798
II (C)
NCT00099736,
NCT00239876,
NCT00239811,
NCT00099801,
NCT00099749,
NCT00239863,
NCT00239785,
NCT00098735
III (C)
S1P1, S1P5Ceralifimod [ONO-4641]
(S1P1,5 agonist)
Multiple sclerosisNCT01081782II (C)
NCT01226745II (T)
Ozanimod [RPC1063]
(S1P1,5 agonist)
Multiple sclerosisNCT02797015I (C)
NCT02576717,
NCT04140305
III
NCT02294058III (C)
Relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosisNCT01628393,
NCT02047734
III (C)
Ulcerative colitisNCT01647516II
NCT02435992,
NCT02531126,
NCT03915769
III
Crohn’s diseaseNCT02531113II (C)
NCT03467958,
NCT03464097,
NCT03440372,
NCT03440385
III
Healthy volunteersNCT02994381,
NCT03694119,
NCT03644576,
NCT03624959,
NCT03665610
I (C)
NCT04149678,
NCT04211558
I
Siponimod [BAF312]
(S1P1,5 modulator)
Healthy volunteersNCT00422175I (C)
Multiple sclerosisNCT03623243III
Relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosisNCT01185821,
NCT00879658
II (C)
Secondary progressive multiple sclerosisNCT01665144III
NCT02330965n/a
Polymyositis (, dermato-myositis)NCT01801917,
NCT01148810,
NCT02029274
II (T)
Hepatic impairmentNCT01565902I (C)
Hemorrhagic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH)NCT03338998II (S)
Renal impairmentNCT01904214I (C)
S1P1, S1P5, (S1P4)Amiselimod [MT-1303]
(S1PR modulator, S1P1 functional antagonist)
Relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosisNCT02193217,
NCT02310048,
NCT02293967
I (C)
NCT01890655,
NCT01742052
II (C)
Crohn’s diseaseNCT02148185I (C)
NCT02389790,
NCT02378688
II (C)
Systemic lupus erythematosusNCT02307643I (C)
Plaque psoriasisNCT01987843II (C)
Inflammatory bowel diseaseNCT01666327I (C)
Etrasimod [APD334]Primary biliary cholangitisNCT03155932II (T)
Inflammatory bowel disease(extra-int. skin manifestations)NCT03139032II (T)
Ulcerative colitisNCT02447302,
NCT02536404
II (C)
NCT03950232,
NCT03945188,
NCT03996369,
NCT04176588
III
Pyoderma gangrenosumNCT03072953II (T)
Crohn’s diseaseNCT04173273II
Atopic dermatitisNCT04162769II

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lucaciu, A.; Brunkhorst, R.; Pfeilschifter, J.M.; Pfeilschifter, W.; Subburayalu, J. The S1P–S1PR Axis in Neurological Disorders—Insights into Current and Future Therapeutic Perspectives. Cells 2020, 9, 1515. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells9061515

AMA Style

Lucaciu A, Brunkhorst R, Pfeilschifter JM, Pfeilschifter W, Subburayalu J. The S1P–S1PR Axis in Neurological Disorders—Insights into Current and Future Therapeutic Perspectives. Cells. 2020; 9(6):1515. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells9061515

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lucaciu, Alexandra, Robert Brunkhorst, Josef M. Pfeilschifter, Waltraud Pfeilschifter, and Julien Subburayalu. 2020. "The S1P–S1PR Axis in Neurological Disorders—Insights into Current and Future Therapeutic Perspectives" Cells 9, no. 6: 1515. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells9061515

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop