| Literature DB >> 25635858 |
Yang Wang1, Zhi-Hao Chen1, Chun Yin1, Jian-Hua Ma1, Di-Jie Li1, Fan Zhao1, Yu-Long Sun1, Li-Fang Hu1, Peng Shang1, Ai-Rong Qian1.
Abstract
The diamagnetic levitation as a novel ground-based model for simulating a reduced gravity environment has recently been applied in life science research. In this study a specially designed superconducting magnet with a large gradient high magnetic field (LG-HMF), which can provide three apparent gravity levels (μ-g, 1-g, and 2-g), was used to simulate a space-like gravity environment. Osteocyte, as the most important mechanosensor in bone, takes a pivotal position in mediating the mechano-induced bone remodeling. In this study, the effects of LG-HMF on gene expression profiling of osteocyte-like cell line MLO-Y4 were investigated by Affymetrix DNA microarray. LG-HMF affected osteocyte gene expression profiling. Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) and data mining were further analyzed by using bioinfomatic tools, such as DAVID, iReport. 12 energy metabolism related genes (PFKL, AK4, ALDOC, COX7A1, STC1, ADM, CA9, CA12, P4HA1, APLN, GPR35 and GPR84) were further confirmed by real-time PCR. An integrated gene interaction network of 12 DEGs was constructed. Bio-data mining showed that genes involved in glucose metabolic process and apoptosis changed notablly. Our results demostrated that LG-HMF affected the expression of energy metabolism related genes in osteocyte. The identification of sensitive genes to special environments may provide some potential targets for preventing and treating bone loss or osteoporosis.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25635858 PMCID: PMC4312085 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0116359
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Volcano plots of differentially expressed genes in MLO-Y4 cells exposed to LG-HMF.
Volcano plots displays unstandardized signal against noise-adjusted/standardized signal. The x-axis represents the fold change cutoff, while y-axis shows the negative logarithmic of P value. A: μ-g v.s. control (set 1), B: 2-g v.s. control (set 2), C: 1-g v.s. control (set 3), D: μ-g v.s. 2-g (set 4).
Number of DEGs in MLO-Y4 cells exposed to LG-HMF.
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Set1(μ-g | 0 | 14 | 7 | 40 |
| Set2(2-g | 13 | 5 | 69 | 40 |
| Set3(1-g | 0 | 13 | 4 | 34 |
| Set4(μ-g | 2 | 40 | 31 | 137 |
DEGs: differentially expressed genes. FC: Fold change. This table listed the number of genes up-expressed or down-expressed with cutoff limitations of 2-fold and 1.5-fold. Those genes were the DEGs obtained from the comparison groups between three experimental treatments (μ-g, 1-g and 2-g) and control, also with the group of μ-g vs. 2g (P <0.05).
Figure 2The relationship among differentially expressed genes (FC> 2) in four sets.
The relationship of DEGs (FC > 2) among set 1, set 3 and set 4 was further analyzed. Most of DEGs in set 1 and set 3 are same except 3 genes (CRCT1, ALDOC and Higd1 a). There were one gene (CA12) in set 3 and two genes (MGARP and CRCT1) in set 1 different from set 4. Set 1: μ-g v.s. control; Set 3: 1-g v.s. control; Set 4: μ-g v.s. 2-g.
Functional categories of DEGs in the four sets (FC>1.5).
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| cytokine | 0 | 6( | 0 | 5( |
| G-protein coupled receptor | 2( | 3( | 1( | 5( |
| growth factor | 0 | 1( | 0 | 2( |
| Enzyme | 12( | 23( | 8( | 42( |
| Kinase | 5( | 5( | 4( | 10( |
| microRNA | 0 | 1( | 2( | 4( |
| other | 23( | 53( | 20( | 70( |
| Peptidase | 1( | 5( | 0 | 3( |
| phosphatase | 1( | 1( | 1( | 4( |
| Transcription regulator | 1( | 4( | 0 | 9( |
| translation regulator | 1( | 0 | 1( | 0 |
| transmembrane receptor | 0 | 1( | 0 | 3( |
| transporter | 1( | 6( | 1( | 11( |
DEGs: differentially expressed genes. This table listed the number and the percentage of DEGs’ functional categories in μ-g v.s. control, 2-g v.s. control, 1-g v.s. control and μ-g v.s. 2-g (FC > 1.5).
The percentage of cellular locations in the four sets (FC>1.5).
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Cytoplasm | 23( | 34( | 21( | 61( |
| Extracellular Space | 4( | 23( | 2( | 24( |
| Nucleus | 4( | 13( | 3( | 22( |
| Plasma Membrane | 7( | 21( | 4( | 33( |
| Unknown | 9( | 18( | 8( | 28( |
This table listed the number and the percentage of DEGs’ cellular location in μ-g v.s. control, 2-g v.s. control, 1-g v.s. control and μ-g v.s. 2-g (FC>1.5).
Functional annotation cluster of DEGs in four sets (FC>1.5).
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| GOTERM_BP_FAT | |||
|
| |||
| glucose metabolic process | 1.03E-07 | PDK1, ALDOART1, PFKL, ALDOC, PGM1, ENO2, PGK1 | Set 1 |
| glucose metabolic process | 7.51E-15 | PDK1, ALDOART1, ALDOA, LDHA, PFKL, ALDOC, SLC37A4, EPM2A, PGAM1, PFKP, HK1, PPP1R3C, PYGL, PGM1, ENO2, GYS1, PGK1 | Set 4 |
| GOTERM_MF_FAT | |||
|
| |||
| oxidoreductase activity, acting on single donors with incorporation of molecular oxygen, incorporation of two atoms of oxygen | 1.75E-10 | P4HA2, PLOD1, P4HA1, JMJD6, PLOD2, EGLN3, KDM4B, KDM3A, EGLN1, TET2, KDM5B | Set 4 |
| oxidoreductase activity, acting on single donors with incorporation of molecular oxygen, incorporation of two atoms of oxygen | 1.53E-09 | P4HA2, P4HA1, PLOD2, P4HA3, EGLN3, KDM4B, EGLN1, TET2, KDM5B | Set 2 |
| GOTERM_CC_FAT | |||
|
| |||
| extracellular region | 8.17E-06 | CSF3, BGLAP, TNF, ENPP1, OLR1, MUP1, IL1RN, COL3A1, CCDC80, MCPT8, MMP13, IL10, IGSF10, OLFML3, S100B, ADM, SULF2, AGT, COL6A3, HTRA4, STC1, LOXL2, CSN3, ADAMTS5 | Set 2 |
| KEGG_PATHWAY | |||
|
| |||
| Glycolysis / Gluconeogenesis | 1.94E-05 | PFKL, ALDOC, PGM1, ENO2, PGK1 | Set 1 |
| Glycolysis / Gluconeogenesis | 8.03E-09 | ALDOA, LDHA, PFKL, ALDOC, PGM1, PGAM1, ENO2, PFKP, HK1, PGK1 | Set 4 |
| SP_PIR_KEYWORDS | |||
| glycolysis | 1.10E-06 | ALDOART1, PFKL, ALDOC, ENO2, PGK1 | Set 1 |
| glycoprotein | 7.18E-07 | CSF3, SLC5A3, GPR84, CPM, TNF, ENPP1, CD248, PRND, COL3A1, CD53, NRN1, IL10, IGSF10, S1PR3, OLFML3, P4HA2, CLEC4E, P4HA1, PLOD2, ELOVL3, AGT, P4HA3, COL6A3, CLEC4D, LOXL2, GPNMB, OLR1, IL1RN, CCDC80, MCPT8, MMP13, GZMF, GPR35, SNED1, SULF2, STC1, CLEC14A, ADAMTS5 | Set 2 |
| signal | 5.77E-06 | CSF3, CPM, CD248, PRND, COL3A1, NRN1, IL10, IGSF10, OLFML3, P4HA2, P4HA1, PLOD2, AGT, COL6A3, P4HA3, LOXL2, GPNMB, APLN, BGLAP, MUP1, IL1RN, CCDC80, MCPT8, MMP13, GZMF, ADM, SNED1, SULF2, STC1, CSN3, ADAMTS5, CLEC14A | Set 2 |
| dioxygenase | 1.62E-09 | P4HA2, P4HA1, PLOD2, P4HA3, EGLN3, KDM4B, EGLN1, TET2, KDM5B | Set 2 |
| glycolysis | 1.95E-11 | ALDOA, ALDOART1, LDHA, PFKL, ALDOC, PGAM1, ENO2, PFKP, HK1, PGK1 | Set 4 |
| dioxygenase | 1.18E-10 | P4HA2, PLOD1, P4HA1, JMJD6, PLOD2, EGLN3, KDM4B, KDM3A, EGLN1, TET2, KDM5B | Set 4 |
Gene fuctions were annotated based on terms of Gene Ontology, SP_PIR_KEYWARDS and KEGG_PATHWAY. Genes were clustered according to the annotation terms by using DAVID Bioinformatics Resources 6.7 (http://david.abcc.ncifcrf.gov/). The most significantly related terms were selected based on P value (Enrichment sore > 2, FDR < 0.05). Set 1: μ-g v.s. control; Set 3: 1-g v.s. control; Set 4: μ-g v.s. 2-g.
Figure 3Biological processes associated to differentially expressed genes in four sets.
Biological processes were mapped by Ingenuity knowledgebase. Line A shows the the most statistically significant biological processes of set 1, set 2 set 3 and set 4. line B shows the biological processes (P < 0.05) involving most differentially expressed genes. Fisher’s exact test was used to calculate the P value. Set 1: μ-g v.s. control; Set 2: 2-g v.s. control, Set 3: 1-g v.s. control; Set 4: μ-g v.s. 2-g.
Fold change of DEGs tested by qPCR & microarray in μ-g vs. control, μ-g vs. 2- g, and 1- g vs. control by qPCR and microarray assays.
|
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 0.31 | 0.52 | 0.13 | 0.22 | 0.37 | 0.57 |
|
| 0.51 | 0.67 | 2.63 | 2.38 | 0.58 | 0.68 |
|
| 0.23 | 0.57 | 0.12 | 0.31 | 0.48 | 0.62 |
|
| 0.49 | 0.26 | 0.13 | 0.089 | 0.3 | 0.37 |
|
| 0.32 | 0.5 | 0.31 | 0.37 | 0.31 | 0.47 |
|
| 0.35 | 0.36 | 0.17 | 0.26 | 0.41 | 0.41 |
|
| 0.24 | 0.6 | 0.53 | 0.19 | 0.2 | 0.55 |
|
| 0.55 | 0.66 | 0.29 | 0.38 | 0.64 | 0.74 |
|
| 0.006 | 0.28 | 0.002 | 0.09 | 0.007 | 0.29 |
|
| 0.21 | 0.45 | 0.13 | 0.56 | 0.22 | 0.48 |
|
| 1.46 | — | 0.77 | 0.42 | 1.11 | — |
|
| 1.16 | 0.62 | 0.24 | 0.28 | 0.62 | 0.63 |
RNA from cells sampled at 48h in LG-HMF and ground controls was evaluated by DNA microarray and by RT-PCR as described in materials and methods. Fold changes of 12 differentially expressed genes in μ-g v.s. control, μ-g v.s. 2-g, and 1-g v.s. control by QPCR and microarray analysis were listed. The fold change between μ-g and 2-g conditions was calculated based on 2−ΔΔCT (Livak) method. 18S or GAPDH was chosen as reference genes. All the changes showed significant differences (t-test, n = 3).
Figure 4Microarray results were verified using real-time PCR for genes in response to LG-HMF.
Total RNA was extracted and qPCR assay was used to further identify for 12 selected genes. The method of relative quantification was used to estimate the relative expression changes of selected gene expression in MLO-Y4 cells exposed to LG-HMF. The changes in selected gene expression, normalized to 18S under LG-HMF were calculated. The difference between μ-g v.s. control, μ-g v.s. 2- g, and 1- g v.s. control was statistically analyzed by one-way ANOVA. μ - g, 1-g, 2 - g v.s control group: ***P< 0.001; **P< 0.01; *P< 0.05. μ - g v.s 2 - g group: ### P < 0.001; ## P < 0.01.
Figure 5Analysis of interactions among differentially expressed genes in four sets.
Interactions of DEGs were mined by iReport (http://www.ingenuity.com/products/ireport) on the basis of Ingenuity knowledge base. The arrow points downstream. The double sided arrow indicated that interaction of the two genes were bi-directional. The red font genes were those verified by PCR, and the write font ones were DEGs tested by microarray. The dashed lines partitioned different regions of osteocyte cell and genes then presented as their cellular locations. (A) μ-g v.s. control, (B) 2-g v.s. control, (C) μ-g v.s. 2-g.
DEGs involved in disease processes in four sets.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| μ-g | osteoporosis | CA9, CA12 |
| 1-g | osteoporosis | CA9, CA12 |
| juvenile rheumatoid arthritis | ADM, IL1RN, CCL3L1/CCL3L3, S100A8, TNF | |
| 2-g | arthritis | ADM, ENPP1, SLC7A11, IL10, MMP13, CSF3, EGLN1, CLEC4E, IL1RN, CLEC4D, EGLN3, CCL3L1/CCL3L3, S100A8, ADAMTS5, TNF, COL3A1 |
| abnormal bone density | CA9, CTSK, CA12, Ly6a, CSF3, COL3A1 | |
| μ-g | arthritis | ADM, PGK1, CRYAB, CXCL9, SLC7A11, IL10, MMP13, CSF3, CDA, SELENBP1, RASGRF1, EGLN1, CLEC4E, EGLN3, ALDOA, CCL3L1/CCL3L3, TFRC, ENPP2, COL3A1 |
| dyskinesia | KDM3A, PGK1, PLOD2, CRYAB, CTGF, SLC2A1, NDRG1, ENO2, CA12, AQP1, SERPINA3, P4HA1, USP13, PENK, LDHA, PPARGC1A |
Disease processes in which DEGs participated were selected by iReport system (http://www.ingenuity.com/products/ireport) according to ingenuity knowledge base. Fisher’s exact test was used to calculate the statistical significance between the gene and disease term. iReport analysis presented a set of genes involved in one disease process. Results showed in this table were bone-related diseases in which the 12 verified genes involved. (P < 0.05)
Specifications of superconducting magnet.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Diamagnetic levitation | μ-g | 12T | −1370 T2/m |
| 1-g with LG-HMF | 1- | 16T | 0 T2/m |
| 2-g with LG-HMF | 2- | 12T | 1370 T2/m |
| Control | 1- | geomagnetic field (30–50μT) | 0 T2/m |
This table listed the specifications of the superconducting magnet, including apparent gravity level, magnetic intensity and magnetic force gradient.
Mus musculus primers of sensitive genes in MLO-Y4 cells used for quantitative real-time RT- PCR.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Pfkl | F-TGGCTGAGGGATGTGG | 60 | NM_008826 |
| R-ATGTGGGTCTGACTGGAAG | |||
| Aldoc | F-TCAACCGCTGCCCACTTC | 60 | NM_009657 |
| R-CCATCTCCACTGCCTTCAT | |||
| GPR35 | F-ATCACAGGTAAACTCTCAGACACCAACT | 62 | NM_022320 |
| R-CTTGAACGCTTCCTGGAACTCT | |||
| GPR84 | F-TGCAGCCTTTCTCCGTGGACA | 62 | NM_030720 |
| R-TACAGAAGACCGCGCCG | |||
| STC1 | F-ATGCTCCAAAACTCAGCAGTGATTC | 64.5 | NM_009285 |
| R-CAGGCTTCGGACAAGTCTGT | |||
| Car12 | F-CCTATGTTGGTCCTGCTG | 56.5 | NM_178396 |
| R-CGTTGTAACCTTGGAACTG | |||
| Cox7a1 | F-AAAACCGTGTGGCAGAGAAG | 60 | NM_009944 |
| R-CCAGCCCAAGCAGTATAAGC | |||
| P4ha1 | F-CTGTTCTGCCGCTACCATGA | 60 | NM_011030 |
| R-CCCACTCGTCCTCCTGCTT | |||
| AK4 | F-GTGGCTGCGTGAGGCTATTTCTTT | 60 | NM_009647 |
| R-CCAGCCTGCCTTAACGTCTTGTGT | |||
| Adm | F-AAGTCGTGGGAAGAGGGA | 56 | NM_009627 |
| R-TCTGGCGGTAGCGTTTGA | |||
| Car9 | F-ATCACCCAGGCTCAGAACAC | 60 | NM_139305 |
| R-TTTCTTCCAAATGGGACAGC | |||
| Apln | F-CCTTGACTGCAGTTTGTGGA | 60 | NM_013912 |
| R-GTTCTGGGCTTCACCAGGTA | |||
| GAPDH | F- TGCACCACCAACTGCTTAG | 60 | XM_001473623 |
| R- GGATGCAGGGATGATGTTC | |||
| 18S rRNA | F-AATCAGGGTTCGATTCCGGA | 55 | NR0032861 |
| R-CCAAGATCCAACTACGAGCT |
Primers of 12 DGEs and 18S rRNA were designed based on the sequence of each gene available in GenBank (accession no.) and were synthesized.