| Literature DB >> 28468668 |
Antwoine Flowers1,2, Harris Bell-Temin3, Ahmad Jalloh1,2, Stanley M Stevens3, Paula C Bickford4,5,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Age is the primary risk factor for many diseases. As such, age is a critical co-factor for examination in order to understand the progression and potential intervention in disease progression. Studies examining both the phenotype and transcriptome of aged microglia demonstrated a propensity for the development of a pro-inflammatory phenotype. Less well studied is the concomitant blunting of anti-inflammatory aspects of microglial function with age which also impact plasticity and repair in the CNS.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28468668 PMCID: PMC5415769 DOI: 10.1186/s12974-017-0840-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Neuroinflammation ISSN: 1742-2094 Impact factor: 8.322
Fig. 1Age-related differential expression of selected microglial proteins. SILAC or label-free ratios were determined by MaxQuant and then normalized to the young group for each individual protein. Error bars represent SEM and statistical significance was determined by Welch’s t test (p < 0.05) and |z-score| >1
Functional processes identified from proteins differentially expressed with age
| Upregulated | Downregulated |
|---|---|
| Oxidative phosphorylation—UQCRC2, NDUFB3, ATP5D, TCIRG1, UQCRC1, COX7A2, NDUFA7, ATP5F1, COX4I1, COX6C, SDHA, ATP6V1C1, ATP6V1A, NDUFS5, COX6B1, ATP6V0D1 | Spliceosome—NCBP1, TCERG1, PRPF8, U2AF2, TRA2B, SNRNP200, PRPF3, HNRNPC, DDX5, HNRNPU, SF3B2, SNRPG, PRPF40A |
| Oxidoreductase—HSD17B11, UQCRC2, HSD17B10, CYB5R1, ME2, GLUD1, PGD, OGDH, PRDX1, FTH1, HADHA, ACOX3, IVD, CAT, COX7A2, ACADS, COX4I1, CBR4, TECR, COX6C, SOD2, SDHA, DHRS1, CYBA, BLVRB | Nuclear lumen—LMNB1, MTA2, PRPF3, DDX5, CBX5, HNRNPL, NONO, SET, TCERG1, HNRNPH2, ILF2, FRG1, PRPF8, ANP32A, RRS1, ACTL6A, RUVBL1, HNRNPH1, RBM14, LBR, PRPF40A, SMARCA4 |
| Mitochondrion—UQCRC2, ATP5D, UQCRC1, COX7A2, ME2, GATM, ACADS, GLUD1, ATP5F1, ECHS1, COX4I1, OGDH, HADHA, HADHB, SOD2, SDHA, ACOT9, IVD, OXCT1, ATPIF1, HMGCL | Helicase activity—DDX17, SNRNP200, RUVBL1, DDX5, CHD4, SMARCA4 |
| Hydrogen ion transmembrane transporter activity—TCIRG1, ATP5D, ATP6V1C1, ATP6V1A, COX7A2, COX6B1, ATP5F1, COX4I1, ATP6V0D1, COX6C | Nucleotide binding—RAB5B, TRA2B, U2AF2, HNRNPL, GPD1L, NONO, HSPH1, DDX17, AGPS, TARDBP, TUBB5, ACTL6A, HNRNPC, CHD4, CSTF2, STK24, ELAVL1, ATP1A1, DDX5, CRYZ, HNRNPR, HNRNPH2, ILF2, MAPK14, PSMC1, SNRNP200, RUVBL1, RBM14, SMC1A, HNRNPH1, SMARCA4, MDH1 |
| Regulation of actin cytoskeleton organization—DBNL, CORO1A, ARPC3, ARPC2, CAPG, MYO1F, ARPC5, CAPZB | Chromatin organization—SET, SMARCD2, HIST1H1B, MTA2, SMARCC2, ACTL6A, RUVBL1, RBM14, CHD4, CBX5, SMARCA4 |
| Lysosome—LAMP1, NPC1, CTSZ, LAMP2, LIPA, HEXA, HEXB, ARL8A, ACP2, CTSB, ARL8B, SCARB2 | Regulation of transcription—SUB1, MTA2, TERF2IP, DDX5, CBX5, NONO, FUBP3, TCERG1, SMARCD2, ILF2, HNRNPUL1, TARDBP, MAPK14, SMARCC2, ANP32A, ACTL6A, RUVBL1, RBM14, CHD4, SMARCA4 |
| Generation of precursor metabolites and energy—UQCRC2, NDUFB3, ATP5D, TCIRG1, UQCRC1, NDUFA7, ATP5F1, HK2, OGDH, SOD2, SDHA, ATP6V1C1, ATP6V1A, CYBA, NDUFS5, GOT1, CAT, ATP6V0D1 | Nucleocytoplasmic transport—NCBP1, KPNA6, NUTF2, IPO9, KPNA3 |
| Valine, leucine, and isoleucine degradation—HSD17B10, ACADS, IVD, OXCT1, ECHS1, HMGCL, HADHA, HADHB | Proteasome complex—PSMB4, PSMA6, PSMC1 |
| Response to oxidative stress—GATM, APOE, CAT, GCLM, PRDX1, SOD2 | DNA repair—NONO, DDB1, SMC1A, APEX1 |
| Immune effector process—PTPRC, CD47, MYO1F, FCER1G, INPP5D, PRDX1 | Coenzyme binding—GPD1L, DBT, AGPS, CRYZ, MDH1 |
| Cell chemotaxis—CORO1A, FCER1G, NUP85 | Chromatin remodeling complex—MTA2, ACTL6A, CBX5, SMARCA4 |
| Antigen processing and presentation of peptide antigen via MHC class I—H2-D1, FCER1G, B2M, TAPBP | |
| Apoptotic mitochondrial changes—SH3GLB1, BAX, SOD2 | |
| Cellular lipid catabolic process—HEXA, PLCG2, HEXB, HADHA, ACOX3, HADHB |
Upstream regulators from IPA analysis
| Top 10 upstream regulators by |
| Activated upstream regulators by |
| Inhibited upstream regulators by |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RICTOR | 3.55E−12 | INSR | 3.43 | MAP4K4 | −3.00 |
| MYC | 3.21E−11 | IFNG | 3.37 | RICTOR | −2.84 |
| Nrf1 | 1.42E−10 | IKBKB | 3.14 | VCAN | −2.00 |
| NFE2L2 | 1.20E−09 | APP | 3.11 | ||
| CD3 | 1.22E−09 | NRF1 | 2.97 | ||
| TP53 | 7.91E−09 | TP53 | 2.58 | ||
| HNF4A | 1.83E−08 | XBP1 | 2.56 | ||
| INSR | 3.49E−08 | Ins1 | 2.53 | ||
| TGFB1 | 8.12E−08 | CST5 | 2.5 | ||
| CST5 | 1.37E−07 | Cdc42 | 2.45 |
Fig. 2Canonical pathways form groups for each individual protein. The table on the left contains the name of each pathway in the cluster, as well as the proteins for which the pathway enriches. To illustrate the interrelationships of the proteins in each cluster with upstream regulators determined by IPA, the proteins that enriched for the pathways in clusters 1, 2, and 3 as well as upstream regulators were visualized as a network using IPA. Downstream proteins that were detected in the proteomics experiment are denoted by fold change and p values beneath them. Red color indicates an upregulation and green a downregulation with color intensity related to expression value. Upstream regulators are listed in the table to the right of the figure and contain the downstream proteins effected. Upstream regulator are colored with orange (upregulation) or blue (downregulation). The lines connecting various proteins are meant to describe the predicted effect that the observed change has on that particular relationship. A blue line would suggest that due to the differential expression of the upstream protein, it is having an inhibitory effect on the downstream target. With this graphic representation of the networks, the complex interactions and nodes of intersection can be presented. For example, note that RICTOR, one of the top upstream regulators identified, is central to both clusters 1 and 2
Fig. 3RICTOR is upstream of multiple canonical pathways. a RICTOR and its downstream proteins displayed as a network. Symbol color represents expression value, red indicating an upregulation and blue/green indicating downregulation in our dataset. RICTOR modulates the expression or function of downstream proteins listed in figure. The aggregate expression values of data set proteins contribute to a predicted decrease in RICTOR activity. b Proteins downstream of RICTOR can be grouped into five canonical pathway groups and four families. The identified pathways are also included in the top five pathways identified as affected by age
Fig. 4Age-dependent decrease in mTORC2 contributes to pro-inflammatory phenotype. a Protein analysis using the Wes instrument (Protein Simple) analyzing levels of RICTOR in primary microglia. b Graph representing measurements from RICTOR western show aged microglia have diminished levels of the RICTOR protein (## p < 0.01 Student’s unpaired t test, N = 3). c Primary microglia young (5–7 months) and old (20–24 months) were treated with 100 ng/ml IGF for 15 min and then protein samples analyzed for AKT and AKTp473. d Analysis of intensity measurements received from the WES indicates pAKT activation by IGF is lower in aged microglia (two-way ANOVA, there was a significant effect of age F(1,8) = 60.8, ## p < 0.01 and a significant effect of treatment F(1,8) 33.45 ## p < 0.01. N = 3). e PCR analysis of primary microglia shows increased pro-inflammatory gene expression at baseline; values are expressed as fold change from young. f Primary microglia were stimulated with 20 ng/ml TNFα for 24 h. g Aged microglia have higher change from their respective baseline than young microglia for TNF, IL1β, IL6, and Marco. h Primary microglia were stimulated with IL4 20 ng/ml for 24 h. A reduced change (>−1.5-fold) from baseline in the aged compared to control was observed for Arg1 and FIZZ1. i BV2 cells (siRNA Rictor 48 h) treated with TNFα had higher levels of inflammatory gene expression IL1β and IL6 than a scramble control group. j BV2 cells pretreated with siRNA and scramble RNA for 48 h and subsequently treated with IL4 (20 ng/ml) for 24 h had lower expression of genes Arg1 and Fizz1 associated with resolution of the inflammatory response. Fold changes for baseline that are reported are relative comparisons using Young/Scramble as control. Interpreted as had lower expression of anti-inflammatory genes as compared to young microglia. N = 3 biological replicates per experiment examined in triplicate. For the TNFα and IL4 stimulation experiments, data is represented as the ratio of fold change from age/treatment matched control. Interpreted as the fold change from baseline in aged microglia for IL6 in response to TNFα is sevenfold higher than that observed in young microglia. Fold change of greater than 1.5 is considered significant (marked by number sign), all changes are illustrated, not just those that met criterion