Prion diseases are caused by misfolding of the cellular protein PrP(C) to an infectious conformer, PrP(Sc). Intercellular PrP(Sc) transfer propagates conversion and allows infectivity to move from the periphery to the brain. However, how prions spread between cells of the central nervous system is unclear. Astrocytes are specialized non-neuronal cells within the brain that have a number of functions indispensable for brain homeostasis. Interestingly, they are one of the earliest sites of prion accumulation in the brain. A fundamental question arising from this observation is whether these cells are involved in intercellular prion transfer and thereby disease propagation. Using co-culture systems between primary infected astrocytes and granule neurons or neuronal cell lines, we provide direct evidence that prion-infected astrocytes can disseminate prion to neurons. Though astrocytes are capable of secreting PrP, this is an inefficient method of transferring prion infectivity. Efficient transfer required co-culturing and direct cell contact. Astrocytes form numerous intercellular connections including tunneling nanotubes, containing PrP(Sc), often colocalized with endolysosomal vesicles, which may constitute the major mechanism of transfer. Because of their role in intercellular transfer of prions astrocytes may influence progression of the disease.
Prion diseases are caused by misfolding of the cellular protein PrP(C) to an infectious conformer, PrP(Sc). Intercellular PrP(Sc) transfer propagates conversion and allows infectivity to move from the periphery to the brain. However, how prions spread between cells of the central nervous system is unclear. Astrocytes are specialized non-neuronal cells within the brain that have a number of functions indispensable for brain homeostasis. Interestingly, they are one of the earliest sites of prion accumulation in the brain. A fundamental question arising from this observation is whether these cells are involved in intercellular prion transfer and thereby disease propagation. Using co-culture systems between primary infected astrocytes and granule neurons or neuronal cell lines, we provide direct evidence that prion-infected astrocytes can disseminate prion to neurons. Though astrocytes are capable of secreting PrP, this is an inefficient method of transferring prion infectivity. Efficient transfer required co-culturing and direct cell contact. Astrocytes form numerous intercellular connections including tunneling nanotubes, containing PrP(Sc), often colocalized with endolysosomal vesicles, which may constitute the major mechanism of transfer. Because of their role in intercellular transfer of prions astrocytes may influence progression of the disease.
The conversion of the cellular prion protein PrPC to a misfolded
β-rich conformer called PrPSc underlies a group of
neurodegenerative diseases known as transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs).
PrPSc is self-propagating, i.e, capable of inducing the conversion of
naïve PrPC molecules to the misfolded conformation1 and the accumulation of sufficient levels of PrPSc results
in the formation of oligomers and higher-order fibrillar aggregates. These aggregates
may be responsible for seeding the propagation of PrPSc misfolding
between cells following their transfer from one cell to another. The accretion and
deposition of prion aggregates in neuronal plaques in diseased brains2
results in inexorable and fatal neurodegeneration; however, how these are related is not
clear since PrPSc formation and priontoxicity have been shown to be
distinct from each other345.Furthermore, while neuronal damage and death are well documented in prion diseases67, the role of other cell types in the brain such as microglia and
astrocytes are less understood. We decided to address the role of astrocytes in
intercellular PrPSc transfer and disease propagation for many reasons.
Firstly, astrocytes play a major role in the homeostasis of the brain. Astrocytes can
modulate neuronal activity by releasing gliotransmitters and scavenging glutamate, are
involved in synaptic support and formation, and physically contact and connect large
numbers of neurons8910. More interestingly, astrocytes are migrating
cells11 and also bridge structures like neurons and vasculature that
otherwise cannot communicate12, thus inviting the question of whether
they could be the key to understanding how prion infectivity crosses the brain-blood
barrier. The large numbers of tasks they carry out make them indispensable for normal
brain functioning and it is important to understand whether these roles are subverted in
the course of neurodegenerative disease and perhaps exploited to transfer infectivity.
Interestingly, in neurodegenerative diseases, one well-marked phenotype has been
reactive gliosis, including a strong astrocyte response marked by cleavage and
upregulation of the astrocyte-specific intermediate filament GFAP. The implications of
this reactivity are unclear and may indicate a protective response that in turn could be
used to transfer infectivity.Secondly, there are several indications that astrocytes may be involved in prion
propagation. Earlier studies have shown that one of the earliest sites of scrapie
accumulation in mice appears to be astrocytes13 and immunohistochemistry
of infectedsheep brains shows the accumulation of scrapie in GFAP-positive
structures14. Primary cerebellar astrocyte cultures from transgenicmice expressing hamster PrPC also sustained infection15
indicating that astrocytes are capable of supporting prion replication and infection.
Transgenic mice expressing hamsterPrPC only in astrocytes developed
prion disease upon challenge with an inoculum of hamster scrapie strain 263K16. The infection of transgenic-hamsterPrPC -expressing
astrocytes also resulted in the damage of adjacent neurons that did not express hamster
PrP17, though those neurons were not capable of replicating prion.
Thus, astrocyte infection clearly is deleterious to the brain. However, the fundamental
question of whether astrocytes are capable of transferring prion infectivity has yet to
be answered.In this study we investigate this question. Using primary cultures of astrocytes and
cerebellar granular neurons (CGNs), we first characterize the relative susceptibility of
neurons and astrocytes to infection and show that astrocytes from wild type mice are
intrinsically infectable and interestingly, appear to be more prone than neurons to
prion replication and accumulation of aggregated PrPSc. We then
investigate whether there is transfer of PrPSc between neurons and
astrocytes by developing different co-culture systems. We determine that cerebellar
astrocytes can take up PrPSc from infected neuronal CAD cells in a
cell-contact dependent manner. Furthermore, infected astrocytes can efficiently transfer
PrPSc to primary cerebellar granule neurons. Interestingly we find
that while astrocytes secrete PrP into the medium, this did not result in efficient
prion transfer to primary neurons, suggesting that transfer in primary cultures relies
primarily on cell-cell contact. Finally, our data support a role for tunneling nanotubes
(TNTs) in the intercellular prion transfer from astrocytes.
Results
Primary cerebellar astrocytes and neurons are infected with 22L
prion
In order to assess and compare prion replication in neurons and astrocytes,
primary mixed cultures of mouse cerebellar granular neurons containing
astrocytes were prepared. Since the cerebellum is post-natally developed,
cultures often contain around 10–15% of astrocytes at early
time-points(7 days in vitro, DIV) of the culture; proliferation of
astrocytes occurs over time and after 21 days in culture we routinely observe
~30–40%. The mixed cultures were left to differentiate
for 5 days before inoculation with 22L prion-infectedmouse brain homogenate.
Replication of mouse scrapie was monitored by western blot and
immunofluorescence at 7, 14 and 21 days post infection (dpi). Western blots
(Fig. 1a) revealed a gradual increase of the
characteristic proteinase-K resistant PrP (PrPRes) over the time course of the
experiment indicating that the CGN cultures were succesfully infected with 22L
prion. β3-tubulin signal did not significantly decrease in
comparison to the mock-infected cultures (treated with 0.01% brain homogenate
from non-infectedmice). This suggested there was no major neuronal loss induced
by prion infection over this time point. Immunofluorescence studies of these
cultures after Guanidium thiocyanate (GdnTCN) treatment to expose
PrPSc epitopes revealed that PrPSc aggregates
could be found in both astrocytes and neurons (Fig. 1b).
As we observed no aggregates within astrocytes or neurons 7 days after mock
infection (Fig. 1e and data not shown), this suggests that
the punctate signal we see is not from aggregated forms of non-infectious
PrPC, but reveals veritable PrPSc.
Interestingly, the majority of the PrPSc puncta were found within
GFAP-positive cells (Fig. 1b,c), suggesting that either
astrocytes were taking up the aggregates from neurons (in a possibly protective
role) or that they themselves were more apt to replicate prions. Closer
inspection of PrPSc distribution revealed that between
40–50% of the aggregates were within astrocytes compared to
approximately 20% in neurons. A large percentage of aggregates
(~30%) were unable to be colocalized positively with either type of
cell. We hypothesize that this might be extracellular prion aggregate as is
frequently reported to occur in infected brain tissue217
although we cannot rule out difficulties in co-labelling.
Figure 1
Infection of primary cerebellar mixed cultures.
(a) Representative western blot of the time course of 22L prion
infection. Lowest panel: increase of proteinase-K resistant PrP (PrPRes) at
7, 14 and 21 dpi in the cultures challenged with 22L-brain
homogenate (22L) but not those treated with uninfected brain homogenate
(Mock). Other panels depict protein levels of other important protein
markers within the culture over the time course of infection: the neuronal
marker β3-tubulin signal indicates no apparent loss of neurons,
astrocyte-specific GFAP levels are constant. Loading control:
α–tubulin. (b) Representative
immunofluorescence (Z-projections) of 22L-infected cultures at 7, 14 and
21 dpi shows that PrPSc aggregates accumulate
over time, mainly in astrocytes. An uninfected CGN culture at 14 DIV shows
no aggregation of PrP. DAPI (blue), β3-tubulin (green),
PrPSc (red) and GFAP (white). Insets depict close-ups of
neurons at different timepoints of infection. Only the upper z-stacks are
taken to reduce the PrPSc signal from surrounding astrocytes
and focus on neuron-associated PrPSc. (c) Stacked bar
graph comparing the percentage of PrPSc signal associated
with either β3-tubulin or GFAP at 7,14 and 21 dpi.
(d) Infection of pure cerebellar astrocyte cultures:
representative western blot shows accumulation of PrPRes over 21 days of
infection. (e) Representative immunofluorescence images of astrocytes
(marked with GFAP in green) that are either uninfected, mock infected or
infected with PrPSc (red) at 7 dpi. Scale bars:
10 μm.
To confirm that the astrocytes in our cultures do indeed propagate 22L-prion and
that the PrPSc aggregates within them are the result of de
novo infection following uptake of the infectious seeds, pure cerebellar
astrocytes (CA) were isolated and exposed to 22L mouse brain homogenate using
the same protocol as for the mixed CGN cultures. Infection was determined as
before, by both western blot detection of PrPRes, and immunofluorescence. Figure 1d shows the gradual increase of PrPRes, typical of
an infection. Immunofluorescence following guanidium denaturation also showed
the canonical punctate distribution of PrPSc (Fig.
1e), indicating that CA cultures are infected. This is similar to the
report by Cronier et al. 200415 where pure cerebellar
astrocytes over-expressing transgenichamster PrP were shown capable of
sustaining and propagating hamster scrapie infection. The results suggest that
mouse scrapie 22L brain homogenate infects both neurons and astrocytes
expressing endogenous levels of PrPC. They also suggest that
cerebellar astrocytes are more susceptible to prion accumulation than cerebellar
granule neurons. A very recent report18 demonstrated that
cortical astrocytes from adult hamster brains were much more efficient than
neurons at uptake of exogenous prion, and we speculate that this might promote
increased susceptibility of astrocytes to infection.
Subcellular compartmentalization of PrPSc
Studies in immortalized neuronal cell lines1920 have shown that
PrPSc is associated with markers of the endo-lysosomal
pathway. Furthermore, PrP intracellular trafficking was shown to be important
both for prion conversion19 as well as in intercellular
spreading21. Since in our culture system 22L infection
affected neurons and astrocytes, we determined the subcellular localization of
PrPSc at the midpoint of infection (14 dpi) in
both cell types by using specific neuron and astrocyte markers. In primary mixed
cultures, we observed colocalization of PrPSc with markers of the
plasma membrane, lysosomes and lipid droplets (Fig.
2).
Figure 2
Subcellular distribution of PrPSc in primary mixed cerebellar
cultures.
Representative images of colocalization of PrPSc with
different organelle markers in granule neurons (left panels) and cerebellar
astrocytes (right panels) from a mixed cerebellar culture at
14 dpi. The images shown for PrPSc association
with the plasma membrane marker WGA are from immunofluorescence on
non-permeabilized cultures and hence show external plasma membrane
localization. Scale bars: 5 μm.
In both non-permeabilized and permeabilized cultures, PrPSc could
be found associated with WGA, a common plasma membrane marker, in both
astrocytes and neurons (Fig. 2). This suggested that
PrPSc is in close association with the plasma membrane in
both cell types. Additionally we noted that this association in neurons occurred
quite often along the neurite networks, in string-like patterns that have
recently been reported to occur in the neuronal cell line ScGT122. Interestingly, we observed a frequent colocalization of PrPSc
with lysosome markers (Lamp1) in astrocytes, but not in neurons (Fig. 2).These data are consistent with the localization that has been observed in
vivo in infectedmurine hippocampi whereby using EM,
PrPSc clusters have been noted on the plasma membrane and in
lysosomes of astrocytes in infected neuropil but not in neuronal lysosomes217. Our corroborative results indicate that primary cultures are
a physiologically relevant model in which to study prion infections in
vitro. In addition, we also observed localization of
PrPSc with FL-BODIPY -positive structures in both neurons and
astrocytes. As this is a common marker of lipid droplets23 this
suggests that PrPSc might associate with cholesterol-rich lipid
droplets. We confirmed the subcellular localization of PrPSc
aggregates in pure cerebellar astrocyte cultures wherein we found a large
percentage of PrPSc in lysosomes, consistent with it being
degraded, as well as with WGA- and Bodipy-positive structures, similar to the
mixed cultures (Fig. 3). PrPSc was also
found in Vamp3-positive compartments. Vamp3 is a marker of the endocytic
recycling compartment (ERC), which has previously been shown to be involved in
prion conversion19. While we could colocalize
PrPSc to EEA1, the percentage of this colocalization was
almost negligible (~3%) and therefore considered insignificant.
Figure 3
Colocalization in pure astrocyte cultures.
(a) Representative images of colocalization of PrPSc
with different organelle markers in pure cultures of cerebellar astrocytes
at 14 dpi. Single slices are shown for clarity, and the
z-projection of the complete cell is shown on the far right. Scale bars:
5 μm (b) Quantification of percentage of
colocalization of PrPSc with respective organelle marker in
pure cerebellar astrocytes.
Of note, we also observed that the lysosomes in pure infected CA cultures
appeared to be slightly smaller than those in the mixed cultures. Upon
quantification of lysosomal size in astrocytes from mixed versus pure infected
cultures using ICY software24, we noted that the median lysosome
size was significantly increased in mixed cultures (Supplementary Fig. S1). One possible
explanation is that astrocytes within the mixed culture phagocytose portions of
infected dying neurons or larger external aggregates and the large lysosomes we
see might be phagolysosomes resulting from the phagocytic clearance of
PrPSc aggregates.
PrPSc aggregates transfer between astrocytes and neuronal
cells
The above results show that propagation of PrPSc could occur in
both mixed CGN cultures and astrocyte cultures upon the exogenous application of
a PrPSc source. This mode of infection presumably occurs by
endocytosis of the infectious seed by both cell types followed by replication of
the misfolded protein inside the cells. We were interested however, in
determining if PrPSc aggregates, once internalized and replicated
in one cell type could transfer between astrocytes and neurons and whether this
transfer would contribute to the propagation of prions in the culture.In order to address whether transfer of PrPSc could occur from
neurons to astrocytes, we set up co-culture experiments between the chronically
prion-infecteddonor neuronal cell line ScCAD and naïve acceptor
cerebellar astrocytes. ScCAD was chosen as a “neuron”
donor instead of primary cerebellar neurons due to the difficulty in completely
eliminating astrocytes from primary CGN cultures, even in the presence of
mitotic inhibitors such as FdU. The use of a pure ScCAD culture thus excluded
the possibility that any observed transfer to astrocytes resulted from an
infected astrocyte within mixed culture donors rather than from neurons.
Naïve acceptor cerebellar astrocytes were co-cultured with ScCAD for
24 hours as described in the methods. Immunofluorescence to detect
the presence of PrPSc aggregates in astrocytes revealed
aggregates within 37 ± 7.5% of astrocytes
(Fig. 4b) within the time frame of our experiment.
Figure 4
Transfer of prion from infected neuronal cells to astrocytes.
(a) Left panel: maximum intensity Z-projection image of
24 h co-cultures of uninfected astrocytes and CAD cells showing
diffusely distributed PrPC. Right panel: immunofluorescence
of 24 h co-cultures of astrocytes with prion-infected ScCAD.
Larger PrPSc puncta (red) are clearly visible in infected
ScCAD and can be seen to have transferred to the astrocyte on the far left.
Scale bars: 10 μm. Inset shows a snapshot of the
orthogonal view (xyz cuts) through a slice to demonstrate the
intracellular localization of PrPSc aggregates in the
astrocyte. (b) Quantification of the percentage of acceptor
astrocytes with PrPSc puncta after either 24 h
co-culture or treatment with ScCAD-conditioned medium (CM). The results
suggest that cell-cell contact is the more efficient method of transfer
(*p = 0.0174, Students unpaired t-test).
In order to confirm that these aggregates derived from the ScCAD donor and did
not arise from conversion and aggregation of endogenous PrPC in
the acceptor astrocytes from smaller/soluble PrPSc after uptake,
we repeated the same experiment using
PrP−/− astrocytes from knockout
mice25 as acceptors in this co-culture system. We observed
PrPSc aggregates in these astrocytes as well, which strongly
support the fact that PrP aggregates transfer from infected CAD cells to
astrocytes; they also suggest that PrPC expression in the
acceptor cells is not necessary for transfer (see Supplementary Fig S2).To determine whether transfer was secretion-dependent, we performed experiments
wherein conditioned medium from ScCAD cultures were applied on astrocytes for
24 h (see Methods). In this case we obtained
12 ± 2.6% of cells with detectable
aggregates (Fig. 4b) suggesting that the transfer of
aggregates from ScCAD to astrocytes was much more efficient when there is
cell-cell contact.Next, in order to determine whether astrocytes could transfer
PrPSc to neuronal cells, 22L prion-infected astrocytes
(22L-astrocytes) were co-cultured with naïve acceptor CAD cells for
24 h. We consistently observed that a large percentage
(81 ± 12.66%, over three independent
experiments) of CAD acceptors contained prion aggregates after being co-cultured
with 22L-astrocytes (Fig. 5a,b). This was not limited to
cells in close contact with astrocytes, but was noted even in cells that were
relatively further away from astrocytes, though the numbers of
aggregate-positive cells reduced with distance from astrocytes and efficiency of
transfer also depended on the confluence level of astrocytes. Additionally, the
efficiency of transfer was much higher than that observed from neuronal cells to
astrocytes. To determine whether astrocytes were releasing PrPSc
into the medium, CAD cells were incubated with conditioned medium from
22L-astrocytes (see Methods). After 24 h, we observed similar levels
of aggregate-positive cells (81.67 ± 18.33%,
Fig. 5b), suggesting that astrocytes were indeed
secreting PrPSc that was in turn up taken by CAD cells. We
therefore precipitated proteins in conditioned medium from cultures of 22L-
astrocytes and ScCAD and assayed for the presence of PrP by immunoblot. After
24 h of conditioning we consistently detect PrP in
22L-astrocyte-conditioned medium (Fig. 5c). Since we did
not observe any dead cells over this time period in astrocyte cultures, it seems
likely that this PrP is either exocytosed or cleaved from the plasma membrane of
infected astrocytes, and is not debris resulting from cell death. Using similar
experimental parameters with ScCAD cultures, we could not detect PrP in the
conditioned medium from most cultures (Fig. 5c) and
occasionally they displayed very low PrP signal compared to the astrocytes
medium (5c, far right). This suggests that ScCAD releases very low levels of
prion into the media or the inconsistent detection by immunoblot is a result of
release by dying cells/debris.
Figure 5
Transfer of prion from infected astrocytes to neuronal cells.
(a) Maximum-intensity Z projection image of
24 h-co-cultures between 22L-astrocytes and naïve
CAD cells. PrPSc puncta are visible in the majority of CAD
cells after co-culture. Scale bar: 10 μm. (b)
Quantification of percentage transfer after co-culture or after
24 h treatment of CAD with 22L-astrocyte-conditioned medium
suggests that transfer from astrocytes to CAD is secretion-mediated.
(c) Left: immunoblot comparison of the proportion of total PrP
(PK-) found in 1/2 the total volume of 24 h conditioned medium
(CM) from ScCAD and 22L-astrocyte cultures compared to that found in
25 μg of associated cell lysate. 25μg of
lysate corresponds to 1/20th of the total protein lysate of the astrocyte
culture or 1/12th of the ScCAD culture. The quantity of protein obtained
from methanol precipitation of the indicated volumes of CM is also shown.
Far right panel: immunodetection of PrP precipitated from the total volume
(3 ml) of CM from confluent flasks of ScCAD and 22L-astrocytes
shows very weak signal from ScCAD cultures. (d) PrPRes is not
detected from 22L-astrocyte CM. Equal quantities of protein
(25 μg) from 22L-astrocytes, mock-infected
astrocytes and the CM from 22L astrocytes were subjected to Proteinase K
treatment.
Of note, while total PrP is easily observed, proteinase K (PK) resistance assays
of astrocyte-conditioned medium did not reveal any detectable amounts of
PK-resistant PrP (Fig. 5d). This could imply that the
levels of PrPSc in the medium released from the astrocytes in
this time frame were under the detection sensitivity of a Western blot or that
secreted PrPSc is PK-sensitive26.In order to support our observation in a more physiologically relevant context,
we repeated the co-culture experiments using primary cerebellar granule neurons
(CGNs) as acceptors. To this end, astrocytes that had been infected for 7 days
were washed thoroughly, enzymatically detached and added to coverslips
containing naïve CGNs at 5 DIV. However, after 24 h, it
proved difficult to clearly distinguish transferred PrPSc
aggregates from the PrPC signal in the cerebellar granular
neurons. A possible explanation is that granule neurons, being very small and
with fine neurites, take up the smaller aggregates that are difficult to detect.
Thus, to eliminate the possibility of false-positive or false-negative results,
we co-cultured the infected astrocytes and naïve neurons for 11
days. Since after 7 days we are able to distinguish PrPSc
aggregates in CGNs after challenging with 22L brain homogenate (Fig. 1), we reasoned that if secreted infectious
PrPSc aggregates were internalized by neurons, some
percentage of them would replicate the prion and the resultant aggregates that
developed could be more easily detected by microscopy. After 11 days
co-culturing, we were able to observe the occurrence of prion aggregates (Fig. 6) in 32.2 ± 10.98%
of neurons suggesting that 22L-infected astrocytes were able to transfer
infection to cerebellar neurons. Although remarkable, the efficiency of transfer
however was lower compared to that observed in the CAD cells. To test for
secretion, we performed parallel experiments wherein we conditioned media from
22L-astrocytes for 11 days to approximate the PrP concentrations that might be
released over the co-culture time period, and then added this to
naïve CGN cultures and incubated for 11 days. Intriguingly, we
observed significantly less PrP-aggregate-positive neurons upon incubation with
conditioned medium (6.7 ± 0.32%,
p = 0.041). Additionally, astrocytes that are present in
the mixed acceptor CGN culture, which are usually more susceptible to infection
(see Fig. 1), also displayed a low percentage of transfer
(11.3 ± 4.03%). These data indicate that
while astrocytes release PrP into the medium, transfer via secretion in primary
cells is quite inefficient and relies more on cell-cell contact.
Figure 6
Transfer of prion from infected astrocytes to primary cerebellar granular
neurons.
(a) Upper panels: 11day co-culture between uninfected astrocytes and
granule neurons (control co-culture). Lower panels: 22L-astrocytes were
co-cultured with cerebellar granular neurons (22L-co-culture) for 11 days.
Bright PrPSc puncta (red) were detectable within
β3-tubulin-positive neuronal cell bodies (green) suggesting
transfer of infectivity could occur in primary culture as well. Only the
upper z-stacks of the image are shown for clarity to reduce signal from
astrocytes and focus on neuronal cell bodies. Insets highlight the presence
of aggregates within cell bodies of neurons in the 22L co-cultures compared
to the more diffuse PrPC signal in uninfected co-cultures.
Scale bars: 10 μm. (b) Quantification of
percentage transfer in co-cultures versus conditioned medium-treated cells.
*p = 0.041
Finally, to determine whether astrocytes can also transfer prion between
themselves, we co-cultured 22L-astrocytes with wild-type acceptor astrocytes
that had been labeled with Cell-Tracker Green (CTG). After 24 h of
co-culture, we observed the presence of sharp PrPSc puncta in the
CTG-labelled acceptors (approx. 40%, Fig. 7a,b). Using
CTG-labelled PrP−/− astrocytes as
acceptors also gave similar results (see Supplementary Fig. S3), thus these appear to be transferred
aggregates. We performed the usual conditioned medium controls in parallel and
observed very low numbers of aggregate-positive astrocytes that had been exposed
to 22L-astrocyte conditioned medium for either 24 h
(7.01 ± 1.4%) or 11 days (approx. 13%, data
not shown). These numbers were not significantly affected by increasing the time
of conditioning from 24 h to 11 days, suggesting that
secretion-and-uptake was not very efficient as a mechanism of prion
transfer/infectivity in primary cells. We also observed that 22L-astrocytes form
numerous intercellular connections in which PrPSc aggregates can
be found. While many of these structures do not strictly fall within the current
criteria for tunneling nanotubes (TNTs) (see discussion), nevertheless some
proportion of truly TNT-like structures was detectable between astrocytes (Fig. 7c). We found PrPSc aggregates
colocalized with endolysosomal vesicles within TNT-like structures, consistent
with what was observed in the case of PrPSc transfer between
neuronal cells21. Together with the much higher efficiency of
transfer when physical contact between astrocytes was allowed, these data point
towards these type of structures to be the predominant method of intercellular
PrPSc transfer.
Figure 7
Transfer of prion between infected astrocytes.
(a) PrPSc aggregates (red) are easily detected in green
CTG-acceptor astrocytes after 24-co-culture with unlabeled 22L-astrocytes
(co-culture). Shown for comparison are representative images of uninfected
astrocytes (control) and astrocytes that have been cultured for
24 h in the presence of 24 h 22L-astrocyte
conditioned medium (conditioned medium). GFAP is shown in blue. Scale bars:
10 μm. (b) Quantification of the percentage
of astrocytes containing transferred PrPSc after
24 h co-culturing versus those grown in the presence of
conditioned medium. **p = 0.0017 (c) Left: Z
projections of 22L-infected astrocytes forming numerous
PrPSc-containing intercellular connections, including TNTs
(Insets). Right: Snapshots of orthogonal views (xyz cuts through the
image) showing a slice through the TNT: PrPSc aggregates
colocalize with endolysosomal vesicles within TNTs (white arrows), including
lysosomes (Lamp1), early endosomes (EEA1) and endocytic recycling
compartments (Vamp3). Images for Vamp3 and EEA1 have had their orientation
rotated 90° and inverted for presentation purposes. Organelle
markers: green, PrPSc: red, and the plasma membrane marker
WGA: blue. Scale bars: 5 μm.
Discussion
The intercellular transfer of prion remains a matter of significant interest and
interlinks the question of which cell types are involved in spreading prion with
that of which molecular mechanisms mediate the transfer. There are multiple routes
and different cell types wherein prion is replicated and then transferred from the
periphery to the central nervous system27. Nevertheless, in all cases
(acquired, sporadic or genetic) it is the accumulation and spread of prion in cells
of the central nervous system which results in the pathology of disease. However,
the role of non-neuronal cells such as astrocytes (which comprise the greater part
of the brain) in scrapie infections is unclear, and there are contradictory reports
on their effect on neuropathology, depending on the strain of scrapie317. Thus, more detailed research is needed into how cells such as
astrocytes influence the course of disease. Additionally, while different mechanisms
of prion dissemination have been described and proposed, such as exosomal secretion,
tunneling nanotubes, GPI painting or axonal transport282930, it
is not yet clear whether these mechanisms are common to all the cell types known to
replicate prion or whether different cell types use predominantly one or another
form of dissemination depending on their primary functions and physiology. This
paper presents direct evidence to suggest that mouse astrocytes are involved in
prion intercellular transfer. Our results confirm previous reports that astrocytes
replicate prion1516, and demonstrates that astrocytes can indeed
transfer PrPSc to neurons as well as between themselves. This is
supported by a report demonstrating that prion-infected astrocytes induce
neurotoxicity and sensitivity to environmental stress in co-cultured neurons31. The authors also observed an overall increase in
PrPSc fluorescence intensity signal upon co-culturing
naïve CGNs with ovine scrapie-infected astrocytes for 7 days, suggesting
propagation of infectivity. However, the study did not determine the nature of the
acceptors (whether neurons or astrocytes) and the extensive neurodegeneration
hinders accurate quantification of efficiency of transfer. We observed minimal
degeneration in our system, (possibly because in our different co-culture system,
neurons are allowed to mature prior to addition of infected donors) allowing direct
observation and quantification of intercellular transfer. Additionally, our combined
data suggest that while astrocytes can transmit prion infectivity via multiple
mechanisms, including secretion, they predominantly use cell-cell contact, such as
tunneling nanotubes to mediate transfer. This is likely due to the number of
functions astrocytes play: as described in the introduction, they are known to
secrete a variety of factors to shape the extracellular matrix and influence
neuronal behaviour, however they also rely on direct contact to perform a number of
regulatory and protective roles. Thus, these functional roles may be exploited to
disseminate infectious PrPSc to neighbouring neurons.The colocalization results in the primary mixed cultures show that
PrPSc is differentially localized in astrocytes and neurons with
respect to lysosomes. We speculate that this might be related to the functions
performed by astrocytes and neurons. Astrocytes may assist certain functions of
neurons in order to allow them to focus their cellular energy reserves on their
function. For example, astrocytes are responsible for a large percentage of
cholesterol production and dissemination in the brain32 and neurons
are believed to uptake cholesterol from lipoproteins released from astrocytes3334. Thus it is possible that astrocytes uptake and degrade protein
aggregates from both the extracellular space and from damaged or infected neurons in
order to protect them from the deleterious effects of their build-up. Indeed, Chung
et al., 201335 demonstrated that astrocytes are capable of
phagocytosing parts of neurons. Importantly, cultured astrocytes from different
species have been shown to rapidly internalize prion and be capable of its
degradation1836 and a recent report showed that glia in
Drosophila brains could phagocytose Huntingtin aggregates from neurons37. Taken together with the observation that astrocytes can take up
PrPSc aggregate from neuronal cells, these data lend weight to
the idea that astrocytes may perform most of the prion degradation in mixed
cultures, thus explaining the localization of PrP mainly in lysosomes of astrocytes
but not neurons.Nonetheless it is known that neurodegenerative disease impairs astrocytic functions:
in mouse models of Alzheimer’s and prion disease, the establishment of
disease results in lowered astrocytic degradation capacity3839.
Thus this function could be subverted in infected astrocytes: the initial capacity
to degrade is overtaken at later stages by prion production and increased
intracellular burden, resulting in abnormal physiology and, possibly, dissemination
from the infected astrocyte. Our finding that PrP can be detected in medium
conditioned by infected astrocytes is in line with this idea and suggests that
astrocytes release prion protein. Exosomal secretion is one possibility; however it
is unclear how efficient this is as a general method of transfer - while prion
transfer occurs via exosomes in cultured cell models, the authors note that the
efficiency of this method is highly strain-dependent40. The authors
suggest that this may be due to a strain-dependent size-exclusion effect in packing
into exosomes, thereby limiting the efficiency and scope of this method.
Interestingly, they observed that the infectivity of 22L prion, which we use in this
study, was secreted with one of the lowest efficiencies from cultured cells. Our
data with primary astrocytes and neurons suggests that it is equally inefficient as
a transfer mechanism in primary cells. Additionally, the size of transferred
aggregates in acceptor astrocytes in the co-culture system were far too large to be
packaged into exosomes and most likely arise not from short-range secretion but from
active transfer of PrPSc packaged in endolysosomal vesicles or,
possibly, phagocytosis from infected cell surfaces. However, in apparent contrast to
the data in primary cells we observed efficient transfer of PrPSc
from astrocyte-conditioned medium to CAD cells as detected by the presence of
PrPSc aggregates, despite our inability to detect PrPRes in the
conditioned medium. One possible explanation for the difference in transfer
efficiency between primary cells and CAD could be the relative susceptibility of
different cell types to prion infection; cultured CAD cells may endocytose secreted
factors more efficiently or are more susceptible to prion conversion/replication
than primary cerebellar granule neurons. In the case of primary neurons or
astrocytes whose physiology is very different, and wherein cell-cell contact plays a
great role in normal functioning, direct physical contact may be the more efficient
mechanism of transfer. It is likely that the interplay of signals between the
primary neurons and astrocytes influences and encourages their physical contact in a
way that is very different from the co-culture system with CAD cells, enhancing
transfer via cell-cell contact. Indeed, we found that astrocytes are found in close
apposition to neurons, in direct contact with cell bodies. They also form large
numbers of intercellular connections between themselves, including TNT-like
structures in which we observe PrPSc aggregates. These thin
actin-containing intercellular bridges can connect distant cells of the same type or
heterologous cells such as neuronal cells and bone marrow dendritic cells or neurons
and astrocytes294142 and mediate the transfer of small molecules,
protein aggregates and organelles2941434445 which make them
interesting candidates as a general transfer mechanism. We have previously
demonstrated that prion travels within TNTs between CAD neuronal cells, as well as
between dendritic cells and primary neurons and that this transfer occurs in
endolysosomal compartments212946. Our similar finding of prion
transfer between astrocytes suggests that TNTs might be a conserved mechanism of
intercellular prion transfer. While identifying TNTs between astrocytes and neurons
in our CGN system is fraught with difficulty due to the lack of a TNT-specific
marker that allows clear identification of this structure from other neuronal
processes, the need for cell-cell contact upon transfer from astrocytes to neurons
combined with the presence of PrPSc in TNTs, suggests that this could
be one transfer mechanism in this case as well. Studies have demonstrated that
immature neurons can form TNTs with astrocytes42 thus evidence exists
that such a contact is possible between these cell types, at least during
development, prior to axonal/dendritic extension. Intriguingly, it was shown in
mature differentiated co-cultures that astrocyte-to-neuron Ca2+-transmission
occurred through a synapse-independent, physical intercellular contact that had at
least some characteristics of a gap junction47. Since connexins have
been shown to be localized to a subset of TNTs4248, this also
suggests that TNTs between astrocytes and neurons in developed brains or
differentiated primary cultures may exist and be a potent method of intercellular
communication. However, in the absence of tools to identify or specifically block
TNT formation it is currently difficult to assess the extent to which this mechanism
contributes in intercellular prion transfer. Indeed, it is as yet unclear whether
the other intercellular connections between astrocytes also represent a different
type of TNT or are other structures that mediate transfer and intercellular
communication. Further investigation into delineating the exact mechanisms of
transfer of prion between astrocytes and neurons should yield useful insights into
the propagation of these neurodegenerative diseases as well as in the field of
intercellular communication.
Materials and Methods
Ethics Statement
C57BL/6J and PrP−/−
(B6;129-Prnp ) mice were used to
obtain primary cultures. All animal experiments and protocols were performed in
accordance with regulations set by the Ministère de
l’Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche, France.
These experimental protocols and methods were approved by the institutional
committee, Comité d’ethique en
éxperimentation animale (CETEA), Institut Pasteur, (project no.
HA0025).
Primary cultures
Cerebellar granular neurons and cerebellar astrocytes (CA) were isolated from
4–6 day-old mouse pups. Cerebella were isolated, meninges removed
and washed twice in PBS. After Trypsin-EDTA treatment for 10 minutes
at 37°C followed by trypsin inactivation with FBS,
105 units/ml of DNase I (Sigma Aldrich) were
added and the solution triturated with a 5 ml pipette to dissociate
tissue. After gentle centrifugation (700 rpm, 7 minutes
no brake), supernatant was removed and 5 ml of complete neuronal
medium (DMEM-Glutamax, 10% FBS, B27 supplement, N2 supplement, 20 mM
KCl and 1% Pen-strep) was added to the pellet. Cells were plated at a density of
150000-cells/12 mm. For cerebellar astrocytes, the procedure was
identical. The day after plating, CA cultures were vigorously shaken to remove
debris and other types of glia. Plating and maintenance was carried out using
DMEM-Glutamax, 10% Horse serum and 1% Pen-strep as the culture medium.
Cell culture
The mouse catecholaminergic CAD (cath-a-differentiated) neuronal cell line and
its chronically scrapie-infected counterpart ScCAD were grown in OPTI-MEM medium
supplemented with 10% FBS +1% Penicillin-Streptomycin.
Infection of primary cultures
22L-infectedmouse brain homogenate was sonicated (2 min, 80%
amplitude, 5 sec on/2 sec off cycles using a Vibra Cell
Bioblock Scientific sonicator) and diluted to a final percentage of 0.01% (v/v)
in either neuronal or astrocyte medium before adding to the culture. After 2
days, the medium was either completely replaced with fresh medium in the case of
astrocyte cultures or half the volume replaced in the case of CGN cultures.
Medium was refreshed every week.
Proteinase K resistance assays and western blots
To determine infection of primary cultures, cells were lysed in lysis buffer
(25 mM Tris pH 7.5, 1% TritonX-100 and 1% β-octyl
glucoside). 50μg of protein was treated with
3.75 μg/ml of proteinase K at 37°C for
30 minutes and methanol-precipitated prior to resuspension in
SDS-loading dye and running on a 12% Tris-Glycine gel. Western blots were
carried out with Sha31 antibody (SPIBio, mouse anti-PrP, 1:5000),
β3-tubulin (Sigma Aldrich, mouse 1:5000), a-tubulin (Sigma-aldrich,
mouse 1:10000), GFAP (Dako, rabbit 1:5000). Peroxidase-conjugated secondary
antibodies to mouse or rabbit were used (GE Healthcare) and blots were revealed
with ECL Western Blot detection reagent (Amersham). For assays on conditioned
medium (CM), cells were plated in T-25 flasks and grown to confluence. Medium
was removed, cells were washed twice with PBS and 3 ml of serum-free
media added. After 24 h conditioning, medium was removed and
pelleted at 2000 rpm to remove debris. Cells were lysed in
1 ml lysis buffer. 1.5 ml CM was used for detecting PrP
in the absence of PK treatment. The other 1.5 ml was precipitated in
3 vols of methanol overnight
(−20 °C), pelleted at 6000 rpm
for 15 minutes and the protein pellet resuspended in
50 μl of lysis buffer. Protein in lysates and
re-solubilised CM were quantified and PK resistance determined as described
above.
Immunofluorescence
primary cultures or co-cultures were fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde. After
permeabilisation with 0.1% TX-100, PrPSc epitopes were revealed
by 5 minutes of treatment with 3 M guanidium thiocyanate
(GdnTCN) and detected using either Sha31 (Spibio, IgG1, mouse) or ICSM35 (DGen,
mouse IgG2bk). Antibodies to different markers were as follows: GFAP to detect
astrocytes (Dako, rabbit polyclonal), β3 tubulin to mark neuronal
processes (Sigma-Aldrich, mouseIgG2a), Lamp1 for lysosomes (BD Pharmingen, rat
clone 1D4B), Vamp3 for endocytic recycling compartment (ERC) (Abcam, rabbit) and
EEA1 for early endosomes (a gift from Dr. Marino Zerial, rabbit) were all used
at 1:500 dilution in blocking buffer (PBS +10% goat serum). Secondary antibodies
were conjugated to Alexa-488 or Alexa-546. BODIPY 490/505 (1:1000 dilution) was
used to stain lipid droplets. Alexa488-Wheat Germ agglutinin, WGA (Life
Technologies) was used to mark the plasma membrane. Coverslips were sealed with
Aquapolymount ™. Images were acquired using a Zeiss LSM700 confocal
microscope. A 40X oil objective (NA 1.3) was used to acquire images of infection
or transfer and a 60X oil objective for colocalization studies. To discriminate
PrPSc aggregate signal from PrPC, after
guanidium denaturation to reveal PrPSc epitopes, we first
acquired images of uninfected controls at a detector gain and laser intensity
setting to minimize the PrPC signal, then imaged the 22L-infected
cultures at exactly the same acquisition parameter settings for the PrP channel.
This constitutes an acquisition-level threshold for PrPSc signal.
Post-acquisition image analysis was performed using ICY software24. A fluorescence intensity threshold was always applied to the control images
to reduce PrP signal intensity to black, then the same intensity cut-off was
applied to the corresponding infected images and the fluorescent objects that
remain are considered as aggregated PrPSc. These objects can also
be detected using the automated Spot Detector plugin on the software, using the
same sensitivity thresholds for the control and 22L culture images. Smaller
aggregates are detected using a combination of Scale 1 and 2, which detects
fluorescent objects between 1–3 pixels. Larger aggregates are
detected with the combination of Scale 2 and 3 to detect objects up to 7 pixels.
Mock infected or uninfected cultures show no significant aggregate detection
(less than 3% detected in both cases). Images are presented as maximum intensity
Z projections or as orthogonal views when determination of intracellular
localization of an object requires viewing through the x, y, and z-axes of the
image.
Colocalization studies
Colocalization of PrPSc with different organelle markers was
performed at 14 dpi. After fixation and GdnTCN denaturation,
immunofluorescence was performed for PrPSc and different
organelle markers. Secondary antibodies to PrPSc were conjugated
to Alexa-546 and secondary antibodies/dyes to the specific organelles were
labeled with Alexa-488 or BODIPY 493/503. Z-stack images were acquired using a
Zeiss LSM700 confocal microscope with a 63x oil plan apochromat objective (NA
1.4) to eliminate chromatic aberration. Acquisition parameters were close to
Nyquist sampling limits, in order to perform image deconvolution. Deconvolution
was performed to reduce the point spread function and improve resolution using
Huygens Essential software (Scientific Volume Imaging). Colocalization analysis
was performed on deconvolved images using the objects-based colocalization
plugin in the image analysis software ICY with object sizes set to
3–7 pixels and with an intensity threshold for PrPC
signal.
Co-culture transfer experiments
Transfer experiments were carried out using a simple InfectedDonor-to-Acceptor
co-culture system that was adapted to use either astrocytes or neuronal cells
interchangeably as donors or acceptors. The different combinations of donor and
acceptor cell types are described briefly below.
Neuronal cells-to-astrocytes
To determine if PrPSc transfer occurred from the chronically
infected neuronal cell line ScCAD to naïve astrocytes, cerebellar
astrocytes were plated onto poly-D-lysine-coated coverslips and allowed to
attach, and differentiate for 5 days.
1 × 105
“donor” ScCAD cells/ml were then added and co-cultured
with the astrocytes for 24 h before fixation, GdnTCN treatment to
reveal PrPSc epitopes and immunofluorescence to detect
PrPSc.
Astrocytes-to-neuronal cells
Astrocyte cultures were infected with 22L prion as described above. At
7 dpi they were washed extensively before trypsinising and
re-plating on cover slips. After 5 days they were again washed extensively to
remove any debris or released PrPSc before naïve CAD
cells were added in Opti-MEM medium at a cell density of
1 × 105/ml.
24 h post co-culture (dpc) cells were fixed and immunofluorescence
carried out to detect PrPSc in acceptor CAD.
Astrocytes-to-primary neurons
22L-infecteddonor astrocytes were washed extensively, trypsinised and re-plated
on coverslips containing naïve CGNs at 5 DIV. After 11 days of
co-culture the cultures were fixed and immunofluorescence performed to detect
PrPSc associated with β3-tubulin-positive
structures (neurons).
Astrocyte-to-astrocyte
Naïve acceptor cerebellar astrocytes were plated on PDL-coated cover
slips. After 5 days, they were stained with
15 μM Cell-Tracker Green (CTG-CMDA, from
Life Technologies) according to the manufacturers instructions and washed
several times with serum-free medium before replacing fresh medium. 22L-infecteddonor astrocytes were then trypsinised and added and at 24 h, 3d and
11 days after addition, the co-cultures were fixed and immunofluorescence
performed. At each time point the number of CTG-labelled astrocytes with
detectable aggregates was counted.Conditioned medium (CM) controls were performed in parallel for all combinations
of donor and acceptor. Briefly,
5 × 105 infecteddonor
(22L-astrocytes or ScCAD) cells were plated in 24 well plates and washed
extensively to remove any cell debris. 500μl fresh medium/well was
replaced and then cells were incubated for 24 h (or 11 days when
co-cultures were performed for 11 days). CM from the donors was then collected
and pelleted at 2000 rpm to settle any cell debris. The supernatant
was then carefully collected and the entire 500μl was added to the
acceptors, which were also plated on coverslips in 24 well plates. In the case
of primary neuron acceptors, neuronal supplements B27 and N2 were added to the
CM prior to addition to prevent cell death. Cells were fixed at the same time
points described for the co-cultures and immunofluorescence performed to detect
PrPSc.Images were processed as described above to determine the number of acceptor
cells (astrocytes/CAD/neurons) that had detectable aggregates.
Statistical analyses
All graphs show the mean + s.e.m. from 3 independent
experiments (cultures derived from dissections from different litters).
Statistical analysis was performed using Prism software. Student’s
unpaired t-tests were used to evaluate the significance of all the data. Normal
distributions were assumed but not formally tested. All experiments were
repeated at least three times and no issues in reproducibility were
encountered.
Additional Information
How to cite this article: Victoria, G. S. et al. Astrocyte-to-neuron
intercellular prion transfer is mediated by cell-cell contact. Sci. Rep.
6, 20762; doi: 10.1038/srep20762 (2016).
Authors: H Büeler; M Fischer; Y Lang; H Bluethmann; H P Lipp; S J DeArmond; S B Prusiner; M Aguet; C Weissmann Journal: Nature Date: 1992-04-16 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Tong Liu; Ruliang Li; Tao Pan; Dacai Liu; Robert B Petersen; Boon-Seng Wong; Pierluigi Gambetti; Man Sun Sy Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2002-09-30 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Kirby M Donnelly; Olivia R DeLorenzo; Aprem DA Zaya; Gabrielle E Pisano; Wint M Thu; Liqun Luo; Ron R Kopito; Margaret M Panning Pearce Journal: Elife Date: 2020-05-28 Impact factor: 8.140