| Literature DB >> 26286205 |
Eric H Chang1, Bruce T Volpe2, Meggan Mackay3, Cynthia Aranow3, Philip Watson4, Czeslawa Kowal3, Justin Storbeck4, Paul Mattis5, RoseAnn Berlin6, Huiyi Chen7, Simone Mader3, Tomás S Huerta1, Patricio T Huerta8, Betty Diamond9.
Abstract
Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) experience cognitive abnormalities in multiple domains including processing speed, executive function, and memory. Here we show that SLE patients carrying antibodies that bind DNA and the GluN2A and GluN2B subunits of the N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor (NMDAR), termed DNRAbs, displayed a selective impairment in spatial recall. Neural recordings in a mouse model of SLE, in which circulating DNRAbs penetrate the hippocampus, revealed that CA1 place cells exhibited a significant expansion in place field size. Structural analysis showed that hippocampal pyramidal cells had substantial reductions in their dendritic processes and spines. Strikingly, these abnormalities became evident at a time when DNRAbs were no longer detectable in the hippocampus. These results suggest that antibody-mediated neurocognitive impairments may be highly specific, and that spatial cognition may be particularly vulnerable to DNRAb-mediated structural and functional injury to hippocampal cells that evolves after the triggering insult is no longer present.Entities:
Keywords: AP, alkaline phosphatase; BBB, blood–brain barrier; BDI, Beck depression index; C3, C4, complements 3 and 4, respectively; CA1 place cell; CA1, cornus ammonis area 1 of the hippocampus; CNS, central nervous system; CSF, cerebrospinal fluid; DMARD, disease-modifying drugs; DNRAb, anti-DNA antibody reactive to the GluN2A and GluN2B subunits of the NMDAR; DWEYS, amino acid consensus sequence (D/E, W, D/E, Y, S/G) for DNRAb binding; FA, Freund's adjuvant; HC, healthy control; HEK-293T, human embryonic kidney 293 T cell; Hippocampus; IgG, immunoglobulin G; LPS, lipopolysaccharide; Lupus; MAP, multi-antigenic polylysine backbone; Mouse lupus model; NMDAR, N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor; NOR, novel object recognition; NPSLE, neuropsychiatric lupus; Neuropsychiatric lupus; OPM, object place memory; SELENA, safety of estrogens in lupus erythematosus national assessment; SLE, systemic lupus erythematosus; SLEDAI, systemic lupus erythematosus disease activity index; SLICCDI, systemic lupus international collaborating clinics damage index; dsDNA, double stranded DNA; i.p, intraperitoneally
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26286205 PMCID: PMC4534689 DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2015.05.027
Source DB: PubMed Journal: EBioMedicine ISSN: 2352-3964 Impact factor: 8.143
Clinical characteristics of SLE patients.
| Healthy control | SLE DNRAb − | SLE DNRAb + | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | 27 | 27 | 22 | |
| Age (mean) | 38.2 ± 11.6 | 43.5 ± 9.6 | 40.5 ± 9.7 | 0.287 |
| Gender: female | 100% | 100% | 100% | |
| Ethnicity | ||||
| African American | 55.6% | 77.8% | 59.1% | |
| Caucasian | 22.2% | 18.5% | 13.6% | |
| Hispanic | 14.8% | 3.7% | 22.7% | |
| Asian | 3.7% | 0 | 4.5% | |
| Other | 1.3% | 0 | 0 | |
| Education (mean) | 14.8 ± 1.84 | 14 ± 2.1 | 12.8 ± 2.1 | 0.056 |
| BDI (mean) | 2.8 ± 3.2 | 8.1 ± 6.0 | 6.2 ± 6.3 | 0.289 |
| BDI: % with mild, moderate depression | 3.7% | 25.9% | 18.2% | 0.518 |
| Disease duration (years) | 13.7 ± 8.6 | 13 ± 9.4 | 0.772 | |
| Medications | ||||
| Current prednisone (mg per day) | 2.9 ± 4.0 | 2.5 ± 4.4 | 0.759 | |
| Current DMARD use | 59% | 48% | 0.445 | |
| SLEDAI (mean) | 1.5 ± 1.7 | 1.9 ± 1.7 | 0.422 | |
| SLE damage index (mean) | 0.85 ± 1.4 | 1.0 ± 1.2 | 0.686 | |
| Anti-dsDNA antibody titer % high | 40.7% | 63.6% | 0.111 | |
| C3 (mean) | 109.2 ± 24.7 | 99.1 ± 33.4 | 0.23 | |
| C4 (mean) | 24.0 ± 11.0 | 17.7 ± 9.7 | 0.042 | |
| Anti-Ro antibody | 48.1% | 54.5% | 0.656 | |
| Anti-ribosomal P antibody | 14.8% | 13.6% | 0.907 | |
| ACL antibody (IgG or IgM) | 0 | 4.5% | 0.263 |
Data are mean ± SEM, except where otherwise indicated. There were no clinical differences between the DNRAb + and DNRAb − groups in areas that may have confounded results of the cognitive task including age, education, disease activity, disease duration, depression, medication use and other autoantibodies. * P values represent comparisons, by t test, between the two SLE groups.
Fig. 1Selective impairment of spatial memory in SLE patients with DNRAbs. (A) Schematic of the task with drawings of objects presented as 2 × 2 arrays for 6 s, followed immediately by an identification question or a spatial question. Subjects chose their answer by pressing a numeric keyboard. (B) Accuracy of responses, plotted as distributions of cumulative probabilities and box plots (insets, center dots represent the mean response), reveal no significant differences between groups in the identification memory component of the task (top) but marked differences between healthy controls (HC) and the DNRAb + patients in the spatial memory component (bottom); * P < 0.05, t test. (C) Histograms for the accuracy of spatial memory reveal that the DNRAb + group shows a clear distribution shift toward lower accuracy values (χ2 = 2.93, P = 0.08, Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA), which becomes significant if the worst performer in the DNRAb − group is ignored (P < 0.05, KWANOVA); n = number of subjects.
Fig. 2Mice with hippocampal exposure to DNRAbs show impaired spatial memory but normal object recognition. (A) Left, schematic of the novel object recognition (NOR) task comprising sample (5 min), delay (10 min), and choice (5 min) phases. A1 and A2 represent identical objects, whereas B refers to a novel object. Right, both groups displayed a robust bias for exploring the novel object during the choice phase. Data are mean ± SEM. (B) Left, schematic of the object place memory (OPM) task with sample (5 min), delay (10 min), and choice (5 min) in which the A2 object is moved to a different location. Right, DNRAb − mice explored the moved object preferentially, while DNRAb + mice did not. Data are mean ± SEM. (C) Left, concentration (conc.) of albumin within the hippocampus, extracted at 1, 2 or 14 days post-LPS. Right, IgG concentration at different points after LPS treatment. Bars represent the mean values. (D) Box plots for the titer of DWEYS-binding antibody expressed as optical density; ns, non-significant; * P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01, t test.
Fig. 3DNRAbs bind to NMDARs expressed in the cell membrane. The panels show the binding of G11 (human monoclonal DNRAb cloned from a SLE patient) to transfected HEK-293 T cells. (A) Left, GluN1–GluN2A double transfected cells show clear surface binding of G11 (top, green signal, Alexa 488) but not B1, the control human antibody without NMDAR binding (bottom). Middle, strong binding of rabbit anti-GluN2A antibody to surface-expressed GluN2A (red signal, Alexa 594). Right, merged signal indicates that G11 binds to the GluN2A-containing NMDARs. (B) GluN1–GluN2B double transfected cells show a similar binding pattern for the GluN2B-containing NMDARs. (C) Binding of G11 to rabbit polyclonal antibodies was excluded by demonstrating that G11 does not bind to the cell surface of HEK-293 T cells incubated with rabbit polyclonal GLUT2 antibody, which abundantly binds to the cell surface of HEK-293 T cells (red staining). Bar, 30 μm.
Fig. 4Place cells in the CA1 hippocampal region of mice with hippocampal exposure to DNRAbs show abnormally large place fields. (A) Left, schematic view of the placement of the multi-electrode array in the dorsal CA1 region. Right, representative Nissl-stained section showing the lesions of the electrode tips in the cell body layer of CA1. (B) Left, representative local field potentials from one of the electrodes displaying an oscillatory episode. Right, plot of power spectral density obtained from the local field potentials, indicating the band for theta frequency (4–12 Hz, cyan). (C) Time course for the power of theta rhythm (mean ± SEM) reveals no differences between DNRAb + and DNRAb − groups, up to 2 weeks post-LPS when values return to baseline (F = 1.68, P = 0.25, ANOVA with repeated measures). (D) Representative firing rate maps, recorded 1 week pre-LPS and 4 weeks post-LPS, during 10-min sessions in an arena (viewed from the top, 40 cm on the side). Color scale indicates frequency (Hz, spikes per second), in which red corresponds to the peak firing rate (numbers at lower left of each panel) and blue to null firing. (E) Time course of place field sizes (mean ± SEM) reveals a permanent enlargement in DNRAb + mice, up to 9 weeks post-LPS. ANOVA, for the post-LPS points, shows that the groups are significantly different (F = 27.11, P < 0.0001). (F) Histograms for place field sizes of all place cells recorded in the pre-LPS and post-LPS periods. The DNRAb + group shows a significant distribution shift toward larger field size values (D = 0.45, P < 0.0001, Kolmogorov–Smirnov test); n indicates number of cells.
Fig. 5Pyramidal neurons of mice with hippocampal exposure to DNRAbs show abnormal dendritic branching and spine density. (A) Traced drawings of representative Golgi-impregnated CA1 pyramidal neurons from DNRAb − (left) and DNRAb + (right) mice. (B) Scholl analysis depicts dendritic length as a function of distance from the soma. Left, both groups of mice have comparable dendritic length at 2 weeks post-LPS (t = 0.5, P = 0.13, t test). Right, the DNRAb + neurons have significant dendritic loss at 8 weeks post-LPS (t = 7.9, P < 0.0001, t test); n = number of cells; 3 animals per group. (C) Left, CA3 pyramidal cells show significant loss of dendritic branches in the DNRAb + group at 8 weeks post-LPS (t = 7.1, P < 0.0001, t test). Right, neurons in the layer 4 of the parietal cortex have similar dendritic length in both groups at 8 weeks post-LPS (t = 0.01, P = 0.9, t test); n = number of cells; 3 animals per group. (D) Density of synaptic dendritic spines (mean ± SEM) in CA1 neurons is comparable for both groups at 2 weeks post-LPS (t = 0.05, P = 0.6, t test) but by 8 weeks post-LPS, the spine count in the DNRAb + mice is significantly reduced (t = 7.86, P < 0.0001, t test); numbers in bars indicate dendritic trees counted; 3 animals per group.