| Literature DB >> 26541821 |
Nataliya Golovyashkina1, Lorène Penazzi2, Carlo Ballatore3,4, Amos B Smith5, Lidia Bakota6, Roland Brandt7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dendritic simplification, a key feature of the neurodegenerative triad of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in addition to spine changes and neuron loss, occurs in a region-specific manner. However, it is unknown how changes in dendritic complexity are mediated and how they relate to spine changes and neuron loss.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26541821 PMCID: PMC4634596 DOI: 10.1186/s13024-015-0049-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mol Neurodegener ISSN: 1750-1326 Impact factor: 14.195
Fig. 1Analysis of dendritic simplification in an ex vivo model of Alzheimer’s disease. a Outline of the experimental approach. 400 μm-thick hippocampal sections from APPSDL transgenic or non-transgenic mice were cultured using the membrane interface technique. Sindbis virus infection to express EGFP-tagged constructs was performed at day 12 in vitro (DIV). Slices were fixed three days later as indicated on the time line. b Fluorescence micrograph of a whole slice showing infected and EGFP-expressing neurons in DG, CA1 and CA3 regions. Scale bar, 150 μm. c High resolution fluorescence micrograph of a CA1 pyramidal neuron after semi-automated stitching (left) and 3D reconstruction (right). The apical part of the dendritic tree is indicated in red, the basal part in blue and the axon in turquoise. Scale bar, 50 μm. d 3D reconstructions of representative CA1, CA3 and DG neurons from APPSDL transgenic and non-transgenic (B6) mice after expression of EGFP-htau
Fig. 2Effect of tau and APP on dendritic morphology of principal hippocampal neurons. a Quantitative analysis of dendritic complexity as determined from total path length (top) and number of branching points (bottom). Expression of EGFP-htau induces dendritic simplification in CA1 neurons from APPSDL transgenic mice. b Schematic representation showing the major connectivity in different layers of the hippocampus. Gray boxes indicate sites of Schaffer collateral input in apical dendrites of CA1 neurons. c 3D Sholl analysis of the basal and apical dendritic tree in CA1 neurons. A schematic representation illustrating the procedure to determine dendritic intersections is shown left. Significant changes occur at two segments in the apical dendrite, which are indicated by gray boxes corresponding to the Schaffer collateral input as shown in (b). Statistical evaluation was performed using two-tailed, unpaired Student’s t test for comparison of the two genotypes in (a) and (c). Values are shown as mean and s.e.m. *, p < 0.05, **, p < 0.01, ***, p < 0.001. See Table 1 for details on the statistics
Dendritic simplification in an ex vivo model of Alzheimer’s disease. Summary representation of the effect of the expressed construct, the genotype of the mouse and pharmacological treatments on total path length (A) and number of branching points (B). Statistical evaluation was performed using two-tailed, unpaired Student’s t test for comparison of the two genotypes under control conditions (untreated), and one way ANOVA with post hoc Fisher’s LSD test for multiple comparisons of drug treatments or different tau constructs. P values, which represent statistical significance (p≤0.05) are indicated in bold, except when the alpha level of ANOVA was above 0.05
| A. Total path length | |||||||||
| Construct | Condition | Region | Genotype | Mice (n) | Cells (n) | Mean ± s.e.m (based on cell number) in mm | Student’s test | ||
|
| |||||||||
| EGFP | untreated | CA1 | B6 | 5 | 9 | 3.113±0.465 |
| ||
| EGFP | untreated | CA1 | APPSDL | 5 | 5 | 3.364±0.707 | |||
| EGFP | untreated | CA3 | B6 | 7 | 8 | 4.490±0.292 |
| ||
| EGFP | untreated | CA3 | APPSDL | 5 | 7 | 4.187±0.202 | |||
| EGFP | untreated | DG | B6 | 6 | 6 | 1.223±0.232 |
| ||
| EGFP | untreated | DG | APPSDL | 5 | 7 | 0.911±0.161 | |||
| EGFP-htau | untreated | CA1 | B6 | 4 | 7 | 3.996±0.237 |
| ||
| EGFP-htau | untreated | CA1 | APPSDL | 6 | 8 | 2.491±0.163 | |||
| EGFP-htau | untreated | CA3 | B6 | 5 | 6 | 4.344±0.423 |
| ||
| EGFP-htau | untreated | CA3 | APPSDL | 5 | 6 | 3.920±0.283 | |||
| EGFP-htau | untreated | DG | B6 | 5 | 10 | 0.813±0.071 |
| ||
| EGFP-htau | untreated | DG | APPSDL | 7 | 17 | 0.826±0.051 | |||
| Construct | Condition | Region | Genotype | Mice (n) | Cells (n) | Mean ± s.e.m (based on cell number) in mm | One way ANOVA (together with EGFP-htau untreated, both genotypes, same region) |
|
|
| EGFP-htau | DAPT | CA1 | B6 | 4 | 6 | 3.691±0.154 |
|
|
|
| EGFP-htau | DAPT | CA1 | APPSDL | 4 | 7 | 3.122±0.154 |
| ||
| EGFP-htau | DAPT | CA3 | B6 | 5 | 6 | 3.122±0.258 |
|
|
|
| EGFP-htau | DAPT | CA3 | APPSDL | 4 | 8 | 3.177±0.249 |
| ||
| EGFP-htau | CPP | CA1 | B6 | 5 | 7 | 3.671±0.289 |
|
|
|
| EGFP-htau | CPP | CA1 | APPSDL | 6 | 7 | 3.265±0.263 |
| ||
| EGFP-htau | CPP | CA3 | B6 | 6 | 6 | 3.714±0.293 | F (3,23) = 0.5765 ; |
|
|
| EGFP-htau | CPP | CA3 | APPSDL | 7 | 9 | 3.797±0.357 |
| ||
| EGFP-htau | EpoD | CA1 | B6 | 7 | 8 | 3.038±0.288 |
|
|
|
| EGFP-htau | EpoD | CA1 | APPSDL | 8 | 8 | 2.820±0.241 |
| ||
| EGFP-htau | EpoD | CA3 | B6 | 7 | 8 | 3.603±0.186 |
|
|
|
| EGFP-htau | EpoD | CA3 | APPSDL | 7 | 7 | 2.853±0.126 |
| ||
| EGFP-Ala htau | untreated | CA1 | B6 | 5 | 7 | 2.797±0.268 |
|
|
|
| EGFP-Ala htau | untreated | CA1 | APPSDL | 4 | 6 | 3.370±0.249 |
| ||
| EGFP-Ala htau | untreated | CA3 | B6 | 5 | 6 | 2.912±0.224 |
|
|
|
| EGFP-Ala htau | untreated | CA3 | APPSDL | 4 | 6 | 2.984±0.396 |
| ||
| EGFP-PHP htau | untreated | CA1 | B6 | 4 | 7 | 3.342±0.298 |
|
|
|
| EGFP-PHP htau | untreated | CA1 | APPSDL | 4 | 6 | 3.155±0.429 |
| ||
| EGFP-PHP htau | untreated | CA3 | B6 | 5 | 6 | 3.578±0.450 | F (3,20) = 2.724 ; |
|
|
| EGFP-PHP htau | untreated | CA3 | APPSDL | 4 | 6 | 2.851±0.352 |
| ||
| Construct | Condition | Region | Genotype | Mice (n) | Cells (n) | Mean ± s.e.m (based on cell number) in mm | One way ANOVA (together with EGFP untreated, both genotypes, same region) |
|
|
| EGFP | CPP | CA1 | B6 | 6 | 7 | 3.597±0.207 | F (3,23) = 0.4707 ; |
|
|
| EGFP | CPP | CA1 | APPSDL | 6 | 6 | 3.787±0.334 |
| ||
| EGFP | CPP | CA3 | B6 | 5 | 5 | 3.603±0.244 | F (3,22) = 2.806 ; |
|
|
| EGFP | CPP | CA3 | APPSDL | 5 | 6 | 3.474±0.382 |
| ||
| EGFP | EpoD | CA1 | B6 | 6 | 6 | 3.110±0.307 | F (3,23) = 0.2951 ; |
|
|
| EGFP | EpoD | CA1 | APPSDL | 7 | 7 | 3.591±0.168 |
| ||
| EGFP | EpoD | CA3 | B6 | 6 | 6 | 2.995±0.268 |
|
|
|
| EGFP | EpoD | CA3 | APPSDL | 6 | 6 | 3.851±0.287 |
| ||
| B. Number of branching points | |||||||||
| Construct | Condition | Region | Genotype | Mice (n) | Cells (n) | Mean ± s.e.m (based on cell number) | Student’s | ||
|
| |||||||||
| EGFP | untreated | CA1 | B6 | 5 | 9 | 31±4.11 |
| ||
| EGFP | untreated | CA1 | APPSDL | 5 | 5 | 36±7.22 | |||
| EGFP | untreated | CA3 | B6 | 7 | 8 | 39±3.83 |
| ||
| EGFP | untreated | CA3 | APPSDL | 5 | 7 | 33±1.90 | |||
| EGFP | untreated | DG | B6 | 6 | 6 | 11±2.68 |
| ||
| EGFP | untreated | DG | APPSDL | 5 | 7 | 7±0.57 | |||
| EGFP-htau | untreated | CA1 | B6 | 4 | 7 | 36±3.58 |
| ||
| EGFP-htau | untreated | CA1 | APPSDL | 6 | 8 | 23±3.05 | |||
| EGFP-htau | untreated | CA3 | B6 | 5 | 6 | 40±3.24 |
| ||
| EGFP-htau | untreated | CA3 | APPSDL | 5 | 6 | 34±2.24 | |||
| EGFP-htau | untreated | DG | B6 | 5 | 10 | 8±4.49 |
| ||
| EGFP-htau | untreated | DG | APPSDL | 7 | 17 | 8±2.73 | |||
| Construct | Condition | Region | Genotype | Mice (n) | Cells (n) | Mean ± s.e.m (based on cell number) | One way ANOVA (together with EGFP-htau untreated, both genotypes, same region) |
|
|
| EGFP-htau | DAPT | CA1 | B6 | 4 | 6 | 36±2.11 |
|
|
|
| EGFP-htau | DAPT | CA1 | APPSDL | 4 | 7 | 31±2.00 |
| ||
| EGFP-htau | DAPT | CA3 | B6 | 5 | 6 | 30±1.95 |
|
|
|
| EGFP-htau | DAPT | CA3 | APPSDL | 4 | 8 | 25±1.51 |
| ||
| EGFP-htau | CPP | CA1 | B6 | 5 | 7 | 32±4.34 | F (3,25) = 2.434 ; |
|
|
| EGFP-htau | CPP | CA1 | APPSDL | 6 | 7 | 28±3.53 |
| ||
| EGFP-htau | CPP | CA3 | B6 | 6 | 6 | 32±2.77 |
|
|
|
| EGFP-htau | CPP | CA3 | APPSDL | 7 | 9 | 26±2.19 |
| ||
| EGFP-htau | EpoD | CA1 | B6 | 7 | 8 | 27±1.83 |
|
|
|
| EGFP-htau | EpoD | CA1 | APPSDL | 8 | 8 | 25±1.31 |
| ||
| EGFP-htau | EpoD | CA3 | B6 | 7 | 8 | 29±2.86 |
|
|
|
| EGFP-htau | EpoD | CA3 | APPSDL | 7 | 7 | 26±2.93 |
| ||
| EGFP-Ala htau | untreated | CA1 | B6 | 5 | 7 | 26±3.41 |
|
|
|
| EGFP-Ala htau | untreated | CA1 | APPSDL | 4 | 6 | 34±3.12 |
| ||
| EGFP-Ala htau | untreated | CA3 | B6 | 5 | 6 | 25±3.06 |
|
|
|
| EGFP-Ala htau | untreated | CA3 | APPSDL | 4 | 6 | 28±3.72 |
| ||
| EGFP-PHP htau | untreated | CA1 | B6 | 4 | 7 | 32±3.28 |
|
|
|
| EGFP-PHP htau | untreated | CA1 | APPSDL | 4 | 6 | 25±2.45 |
| ||
| EGFP-PHP htau | untreated | CA3 | B6 | 5 | 6 | 38±6.57 | F (3,20) = 0.6744 ; |
|
|
| EGFP-PHP htau | untreated | CA3 | APPSDL | 4 | 6 | 31±6.14 |
| ||
| Construct | Condition | Region | Genotype | Mice (n) | Cells (n) | Mean ± s.e.m (based on cell number) | One way ANOVA (together with EGFP untreated, both genotypes, same region) |
|
|
| EGFP | CPP | CA1 | B6 | 6 | 7 | 34±3.15 | F (3,23) = 0.3279 ; |
|
|
| EGFP | CPP | CA1 | APPSDL | 6 | 6 | 36±2.74 |
| ||
| EGFP | CPP | CA3 | B6 | 5 | 5 | 33±3.24 | F (3,22) = 2.872 ; |
|
|
| EGFP | CPP | CA3 | APPSDL | 5 | 6 | 26±3.16 |
| ||
| EGFP | EpoD | CA1 | B6 | 6 | 6 | 25±2.16 | F (3,23) = 1.069 ; |
|
|
| EGFP | EpoD | CA1 | APPSDL | 7 | 7 | 31±0.57 |
| ||
| EGFP | EpoD | CA3 | B6 | 6 | 6 | 23±3.24 |
|
|
|
| EGFP | EpoD | CA3 | APPSDL | 6 | 6 | 35±1.99 |
| ||
Fig. 3Effect of γ-secretase inhibition on dendritic simplification. a Total path length and number of branching points of CA1 and CA3 neurons in the presence of the γ-secretase inhibitor DAPT. Schematic representation of the time line of the respective experiment is shown on top. DAPT reduces simplification in CA1 neurons. b Sholl analysis of basal and apical parts of the dendritic tree in CA1 neurons after DAPT treatment. DAPT completely abolishes simplification of APPSDL transgenic cultures in the basal part and reduces simplification in the apical part of the dendritic tree. (+) indicates significant increase, (#,##) significant decrease compared to the respective condition without the drug. Statistical evaluation was performed using one way ANOVA with post hoc Fisher’s LSD test for multiple comparisons (a) and Student’s t test for comparison of the two genotypes (b). Values are shown as mean and s.e.m. *(#)(+), p < 0.05, (##), p < 0.01. See Table 1 for details on the statistics
Fig. 4Effect of the NMDA receptor antagonist CPP on dendritic simplification. a Total path length and number of branching points of CA1 and CA3 neurons in the presence of the NMDAR antagonist CPP. Schematic representation of the time line of the respective experiment is shown on top. CPP reduces simplification in CA1 neurons. b Sholl analysis of basal and apical parts of the dendritic tree in CA1 neurons after CPP treatment. CPP completely abolishes simplification of APPSDL transgenic cultures in the basal part and reduces simplification in the apical part of the dendritic tree. (+) indicates significant increase, (#) significant decrease compared to the respective condition without the drug. Statistical evaluation was performed using one way ANOVA with post hoc Fisher’s LSD test for multiple comparisons (a) and Student’s t test for comparison of the two genotypes (b). Values are shown as mean and s.e.m. *(#)(+), p < 0.05. See Table 1 for details on the statistics
Fig. 5Effect of the microtubule-stabilizing drug EpoD on dendritic simplification. a Total path length and number of branching points of CA1 neurons in the presence of EpoD. Schematic representation of the time line of the experiment is shown on top. EpoD causes dendritic simplification on a non-transgenic background. b, c 3D reconstructions of representative CA1 neurons (c) and Sholl analysis (b) from APPSDL transgenic and non-transgenic (B6) mice in the presence of EpoD illustrating similar complexity in the basal (blue) and apical (red) part of the dendritic tree. (#, ##) indicate significant decrease compared to the respective condition without EpoD. Statistical evaluation was performed using one way ANOVA with post hoc Fisher’s LSD test for multiple comparisons (a) and Student’s t test for comparison of the two genotypes (b). Values are shown as mean and s.e.m. *(#), p < 0.05, (##), p < 0.01. See Table 2 for details on the statistics
Effect of drug treatment on dendritic tau levels. Dendritic tau levels in 2nd or 3rd order of CA1 neurons expressing the respective construct were determined as described in “Methods”. For every neuron, 3–4 measurements were performed and averaged. Statistical evaluation was performed using two-tailed, unpaired Student’s t test for untreated cultures, and one way ANOVA with post hoc Fisher’s LSD test for multiple comparisons of drug treatments or different tau constructs. Note that alpha levels of ANOVA did not reach significance (p≤0.05) for any condition
| Construct | Condition | Region | Genotype | Mice (n) | Cells (n) | Mean ± s.e.m (based on cell number) of normalized intensity values | Student’s | ||
|
| |||||||||
| EGFP-htau | untreated | CA1 | B6 | 3 | 5 | 1.061±0.099 |
| ||
| EGFP-htau | untreated | CA1 | APPSDL | 5 | 5 | 1.111±0.120 | |||
| Construct | Condition | Region | Genotype | Mice (n) | Cells (n) | Mean ± s.e.m (based on cell number) of normalized intensity values | One way ANOVA (together with EGFP-htau untreated, both genotypes) |
|
|
| EGFP-htau | DAPT | CA1 | B6 | 3 | 6 | 0.827±0.066 | F (3,17) = 2.183 ; |
|
|
| EGFP-htau | DAPT | CA1 | APPSDL | 4 | 5 | 1.197±0.154 |
| ||
| EGFP-htau | EpoD | CA1 | B6 | 4 | 5 | 1.119±0.138 | F (3,16) = 0.2108 ; |
|
|
| EGFP-htau | EpoD | CA1 | APPSDL | 5 | 5 | 1.148±0.066 |
| ||
| EGFP-htau | CPP | CA1 | B6 | 5 | 5 | 0.945±0.176 | F (3,16) = 1.334 ; |
|
|
| EGFP-htau | CPP | CA1 | APPSDL | 4 | 5 | 0.793±0.019 |
| ||
| EGFP-Ala htau | untreated | CA1 | B6 | 5 | 5 | 1.083±0.135 | F (3,16) = 0.6240 ; |
|
|
| EGFP-Ala htau | untreated | CA1 | APPSDL | 5 | 5 | 0.917±0.068 |
| ||
| EGFP-PHP htau | untreated | CA1 | B6 | 3 | 5 | 1.174±0.064 | F (3,16) = 0.5229 ; |
|
|
| EGFP-PHP htau | untreated | CA1 | APPSDL | 3 | 5 | 1.172±0.080 |
|
Fig. 6Effect of phosphoblocking and phosphomimicking tau on dendritic simplification. a Total path length and number of branching points of CA1 neurons that express phosphoblocking (Ala htau) or phosphomimicking tau (PHP htau). Schematic representations of the respective construct are shown on the top. Mutated residues are indicated. Ala htau causes dendritic simplification on a non-transgenic background, whereas PHP htau behaves neutral. b Ratio of acetylated to total tubulin as a marker for microtubule stabilization. Immunoblots showing staining against acetylated tubulin and total tubulin (top) and the respective quantitation (bottom). Expression of Ala htau causes stabilization of microtubules. c Effect of low nanomolar concentrations of naturally secreted Aβ on the phosphorylation of tau in model neurons. A schematic representation of the experimental approach is shown to the left. Neuronally differentiated PC12 cells expressing PAGFP-tagged human tau are incubated with a supernatant from Aβ-expressing cells (HEK-SW) or the respective controls (HEK-con). Representative Western blots and quantification of phosphorylation at selected sites is shown to the right. 3.5 nM Aβ induce dephosphorylation of tau at S262. (+) indicate significant increase, (#, ##) significant reduction compared to neurons expressing wildtype human tau. Statistical evaluation was performed using one way ANOVA with post hoc Fisher’s LSD test for multiple comparisons (a) and Student’s t test for comparison of the constructs (b) and the two genotypes (c). Values are shown as mean and s.e.m. See Table 1 for details on the statistics. For (c), 3–10 Western blot experiments were evaluated per condition. *(#)(+), p < 0.05, **(##), p < 0.01
Fig. 7Schematic representation showing the proposed pathway that mediates dendritic simplification. The formation of Aβ and NMDAR activity are required for dendritic simplification since blocking of Aβ production or inhibition of NMDAR activity abolish the pathology. NMDAR activation leads to pathologic dephosphorylation of dendritic tau, which shows at physiological conditions a higher phosphorylation state. Dephoshorylation increases tau’s activity to stabilize dendritic microtubules, an activity that is mimicked by the microtubule-stabilizing drug EpoD or phosphoblocking tau (Ala htau). Continuous lines show direct effects, and dashed lines show indirect effects with potential intermediate steps