| Literature DB >> 28671601 |
Shijie Song1,2, Xiaoyuan Kong3,4, Sandra Acosta5, Vasyl Sava6,7, Cesar V Borlongan8, Juan Sanchez-Ramos9,10.
Abstract
Administration of the hematopoietic growth factor granulocyte-colony stimulating Factor (G-CSF) has been reported to enhance recovery from controlled cortical impact (CCI) in rodent models. G-CSF exerts actions in both the periphery (stimulation of hematopoiesis) and in the brain, where it serves as a neurotrophic factor, promoting neuronal survival and stimulating neural stem/progenitor cell proliferation in the hippocampus. In order to distinguish the direct CNS actions of G-CSF from its peripheral actions, experiments were designed to block the recruitment of peripheral monocytes to the site of the lesion produced by CCI. The selective C-C motif receptor 2 (CCR2) antagonist (RS504303) was co-administered with G-CSF for three days after CCI in a chimeric mouse previously transplanted with GFP-expressing (GFP+) blood stem-progenitor cells.Entities:
Keywords: bone marrow transplantation; granulocyte-colony stimulating factor; hippocampal neurogenesis; monocyte chemotactic protein-1; radial arm water maze
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28671601 PMCID: PMC5535910 DOI: 10.3390/ijms18071418
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1Effects of right-sided controlled cortical impact (CCI) on microgliosis (Iba1+ cells) and infiltration of green fluorescent protein-expressing (GFP+) cells into the right cerebral cortex at two weeks. The left-hand panels show GFP+ cells; middle panels show Iba1+ cells (microglia); right-hand panels show the composite image (GFP/Iba1). (A) Effects of vehicle treatment; (B) effects of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) (100 µg/kg daily × 3 days) treatment after CCI. Note that many microglia co-express GFP+, indicating their origin from peripheral monocytes; (C) Effect of G-CSF and CCR2 antagonist treatment (0.5 mg/kg daily × 3 days); (D) effects of G-CSF and CCR2 antagonist treatment (2.0 mg/kg daily × 3 days) (scale bar = 20 µm).
Figure 2Effects of right-sided CCI on microgliosis (Iba1+ cells) and infiltration of GFP+ cells into the right corpus striatum at two weeks. Left-hand panels show GFP+ cells; middle panels show Iba1+ cells (microglia); right-hand panels show the composite image (GFP/Iba1). (A) Effects of vehicle treatment. Most of the GFP+ cells are within capillaries; (B) effects of G-CSF (100 µg/kg daily × 3 days) treatment after CCI. G-CSF increased the infiltration of GFP+ cells into the striatal parenchyma. Note that many microglia co-express GFP+, indicating their origin from peripheral monocytes; (C) effect of the CCR2 antagonist treatment alone (0.5 mg/kg daily × 3 days). Note that the CCR2 antagonist markedly diminishes the GFP+ signal, even in the capillaries of the striatum; (D) effects of G-CSF and CCR2 antagonist treatment (0.5 mg/kg daily × 3 days). Similar to the panels in (C), the CCR2 antagonist blocked the recruitment of GFP+ cells. The effects of the combination of G-CSF and 2.0 mg/kg CCR2 antagonist are not shown, but are similar to those produced by G-CSF and 0.5 mg/kg CCR2 antagonist as in Figure 2D (scale bar = 20 µm).
Figure 3Summary data of GFP+ signal in the frontal cortex, striatum and hippocampus two weeks after CCI. The left panel shows an analysis of the GFP+ signal in the right frontal cortex. G-CSF-treated mice exhibited a significant increase in the GFP+ signal that was blocked by co-administration of the CCR2 receptor antagonist at both 0.5 and 2.0 mg/kg doses. One-way ANOVA (p = 0.0001) was followed by Sidak’s multiple comparison tests. * p < 0.05. It is noteworthy that the low dose CCR2 antagonist group alone significantly decreased the GFP+ signal compared to the vehicle-treated group. One-way ANOVA was run on all groups excluding the G-CSF group: multiple comparisons of the CCR2 antagonist (with and without G-CSF) compared to the vehicle-treated group revealed that the low dose CCR2 (0.5 mg/kg) groups exhibited a significant decrease in signal. ** p <0.05. The middle panel shows an analysis of the right striatum. G-CSF significantly increased the GFP+ signal compared to vehicle treatment. The GFP+ signal was blocked by co-administration of the CCR2 receptor antagonist at both doses. One-way ANOVA (p = 0.001) was followed by Sidak’s multiple comparison tests. * p < 0.05. The right panel shows an analysis of the right hippocampus. G-CSF did not increase the GFP+ signal. The administration of the CCR2 receptor antagonist alone tended to decrease the GFP+ signal compared to the vehicle-treated group, but this did not reach statistical significance.
Figure 4Effects of G-CSF and CCR2 antagonist treatment on performance in the Radial Arm Water Maze (RAWM). Summary data is plotted as the mean number of errors on the y-axis and trials on the x-axis. Baseline training on the RAWM was performed for three days before CCI. Drugs were then administered daily for three days after CCI. The RAWM was repeated on day 12 with reversal testing on day 14 post CCI (bar graphs). Asterisks indicate significant differences between treatments compared to each other and compared to baseline performance (* p <0.05), based on one-way ANOVA (*** p = 0.008) followed by Bonferroni multiple comparison tests (** p < 0.05).
Figure 5Effects of G-CSF and CCR2 receptor antagonist treatment on the expression of hippocampal doublecortin (DCX), a surrogate marker of neurogenesis. Arrows point to DCX+ cells in the subgranular zone. (A) Vehicle (left panel) compared to G-CSF treatment (right panel); (B) CCR2 receptor antagonist (0.5 mg/kg) alone (left panel) compared to G-CSF co-administered with the CCR2 receptor antagonist (0.5 mg/kg); (C) CCR2 receptor antagonist (2.0 mg/kg) alone (left panel) compared to G-CSF co-administered with the CCR2 receptor antagonist (2.0 mg/kg). Scale bar = 20 µm; (D) Summary of signal analysis. Mean ± SEM of the DCX+ signal (% of area) is plotted against specific treatment. Both G-CSF administered alone, and the CCR2 receptor antagonist administered alone increased the DCX signal in the subgranular zone of the hippocampus compared to vehicle treatment. One-way ANOVA was followed by Sidak’s correction for multiple comparisons (* p < 0.05).
Schedule of G-CSF and CCR-2 antagonist administration.
| Group | Number of Mice | Treatments | Schedule |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | 8 | Saline + Saline | Daily × 3 days |
| B | 8 | Saline + G-CSF | Daily × 3 days |
| C | 16 | CCR-2 antag (0.5 or 2 mg/kg)+ Saline | Daily × 3 days |
| D | 16 | CCR-2 antag (0.5 or 2 mg/kg)+ G-CSF | Daily × 3 days |