| Literature DB >> 27317566 |
Franck Verdonk1,2,3,4, Pascal Roux5, Patricia Flamant1, Laurence Fiette1, Fernando A Bozza6, Sébastien Simard5, Marc Lemaire2, Benoit Plaud7,8, Spencer L Shorte5, Tarek Sharshar1,9,10,4, Fabrice Chrétien11,12,13,14, Anne Danckaert15.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Microglial cells are tissue-resident macrophages of the central nervous system. They are extremely dynamic, sensitive to their microenvironment and present a characteristic complex and heterogeneous morphology and distribution within the brain tissue. Many experimental clues highlight a strong link between their morphology and their function in response to aggression. However, due to their complex "dendritic-like" aspect that constitutes the major pool of murine microglial cells and their dense network, precise and powerful morphological studies are not easy to realize and complicate correlation with molecular or clinical parameters.Entities:
Keywords: Automated high-content analysis; Clustering; Complexity index; Microglial cell morphology; Neuroinflammation; Sub-population behaviour
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27317566 PMCID: PMC4912769 DOI: 10.1186/s12974-016-0614-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Neuroinflammation ISSN: 1742-2094 Impact factor: 8.322
Fig. 1The characterization of microglial cells by morphological criteria. a Confocal images, representing a sub-part of the analysed image in the frontal cortex region after maximum intensity projection. The individual microglia based on GFP fluorescence appears in white outline. The scale bar equals 50 μm. b Ramification detection based on GFP fluorescence with AcapellaTM software. The segmented ramifications linked to an individual microglia are shown artificially in green, the unattributed ramifications in white. The scale bar equals 50 μm. c The morphological criteria to characterize a microglial cell. The cell body detection (blue) and cytoplasm area (pink) have performed as a starting point to characterize a microglial cell. The complexity index (green) and the covered environment area (CEA in orange) have been deduced from ramification detection. The scale bar equals 10 μm. d Two-dimensional cartography at a single cell resolution. Colours correspond to the range of complexity and CEA with a gradient from a low level of complexity and CEA (yellow) to a high level of complexity and CEA (red). The scale bar equals 50 μm. For illustration, the images are contrast adjusted to aid in visualizing the GFP expression
Morphological variability study for microglial cells between two groups
| Criteria | H | FC | S | C |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GFP intensity | 0.2331 | 0.5245 | 0.5245 | 0.4394 |
| Cell body area |
|
|
|
|
| Cytoplasm area |
|
|
|
|
| Complexity | 0.1364 | 0.6154 | 0.6037 |
|
| CEA | 0.9172 | 0.2925 | 0.6154 | 0.1783 |
| Density | 0.0734 | 0.9749 | 0.9172 | 0.1014 |
Values are expressed as Mann-Whitney exact p values; significant differences in italics
Fig. 2The inter-region variability by morphological criteria. Four regions have been explored: hippocampus (H), frontal cortex (FC), striatum (S) and cerebellum (C) in two different conditions, the control (left column) and the LPS (right column). a Historical parameters to characterize the microglial morphology: the cell body area and the cytoplasm area defined as the cell body area associated with the cytoplasmic area of the primary ramifications in μm2. b Calculated criteria extrapolated from the Acapella™ script: the complexity index (CI) and the covered environment area (CEA), in μm2. Data shown are means ± SD in the control and LPS groups (n = 7 and n = 6, respectively). The scale bars equal 10 μm. ANOVA Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare the different regions. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
Fig. 3Characteristics of the amoeboid population and their inter-region variability. Bar charts represent the characteristics of the amoeboid cell morphology (characterized by a CI = 1, without nodes) and the distribution within the four explored regions: hippocampus (H), frontal cortex (FC), striatum (S) and cerebellum (C) in the two different conditions, the control (left column) and the LPS (right column). a Parameters to characterize the amoeboid cells morphology: the cell body area and the cytoplasm area defined as the cell body area associated with the cytoplasmic area of the primary ramifications in μm2. b Parameters to characterize the amoeboid cell distribution: density calculated by dividing the number of microglial cells selected by the scanned tissue area (3.03 mm2) and frequency as the ratio between the number of amoeboid cells and the total number of microglial cells analysed. Data shown are means ± SD per condition (n = 7, n = 6 for control and LPS, respectively); we used ANOVA Kruskal-Wallis test. **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
Morphological variability study for amoeboid between two groups
| Criteria | H | FC | S | C |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GFP intensity | 0.7133 | 0.9021 | 0.7133 | 0.8135 |
| Cell body area |
| 0.1014 | 0.8135 |
|
| Cytoplasm area |
|
|
| 0.1375 |
| Density | 0.1288 |
| 0.1014 | 0.0734 |
| Frequency | 0.9021 | 0.2308 | 0.1276 | 0.5058 |
Values are expressed as Mann-Whitney exact p values; significant differences in italics
Fig. 4Approach by clustering to track sub-populations of microglial cells in the whole brain. a The scatter plots illustrate, at a single cell resolution, the CEA and CI characteristics and their frequency by cluster. The symbols “+” and “x” correspond to the centre of each cluster by the control and the LPS condition, respectively. The pie charts show the cluster frequencies by k-means clustering method (k = 4), and no significant difference has been observed between the two conditions using the chi-square test. b Four sub-populations have been defined by the cutoff (dotted lines) fixing the high (+) or the low (−) characteristic of one sub-population in the whole brain (WB). The cutoff was defined as the average of each morphological criterion (CI and CEA) in the control group. The centre of each cluster was plotted in the graph. The pie charts represent the proportions of sub-populations by condition. The same repartitions by sub-population as by cluster were observed
Fig. 5Highlighting sub-populations by region. The pie charts represent the proportions of sub-populations defined by the cutoff previously described in Fig. 4 by region of interest and by condition: in yellow, sub-population with low CEA and low CI (−/−); in orange, sub-population with low CEA and high CI (−/+); in dark orange, sub-population with high CEA and low CI (+/−); and in red, sub-population with high CEA and high CI (+/+). Chi-square test was used to compare the control and the LPS group. ****p < 0.0001
Expected sample size to obtain significant differences between the two groups using a conventional approach
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H | FC | |||||
| CI | 5.9 (4.9) | 1.2 | 36 | 5.7 (6.1) | 1.2 | 189 |
| CEA (μm2) | 953 (908) | 253 | 643 | 950 (1184) | 349 | 47 |
| Cytoplasm area (μm2) | 74.4 (149.4) | 42.2 | 7 | 62.4 (123.0) | 33.0 | 7 |
| S | C | |||||
| CI | 7.9 (7.3) | 1.6 | 114 | 4.5 (3.6) | 0.5 | 7 |
| CEA (μm2) | 1378 (1499) | 435 | 272 | 450 (360) | 130 | 45 |
| Cytoplasm area (μm2) | 66.3 (129.2) | 34.1 | 7 | 123.4 (177.0) | 37.9 | 11 |
Where is the mean of criteria for the control (LPS) set of data, σ is the common standard deviation of the two groups and n is the expected number of samples to obtain a significant difference