| Literature DB >> 28982363 |
Nozomu Yoshioka1,2,3, Shinji Miyata4,5, Atsushi Tamada1,2,6, Yumi Watanabe1,7, Asami Kawasaki1,2, Hiroshi Kitagawa4, Keizo Takao8,9, Tsuyoshi Miyakawa8,10, Kosei Takeuchi1,11, Michihiro Igarashi12,13.
Abstract
Chondroitin sulfate (CS) is an important glycosaminoglycan and is mainly found in the extracellular matrix as CS proteoglycans. In the brain, CS proteoglycans are highly concentrated in perineuronal nets (PNNs), which surround synapses and modulate their functions. To investigate the importance of CS, we produced and precisely examined mice that were deficient in the CS synthesizing enzyme, CSGalNAcT1 (T1KO). Biochemical analysis of T1KO revealed that loss of this enzyme reduced the amount of CS by approximately 50% in various brain regions. The amount of CS in PNNs was also diminished in T1KO compared to wild-type mice, although the amount of a major CS proteoglycan core protein, aggrecan, was not changed. In T1KO, we observed abnormalities in several behavioral tests, including the open-field test, acoustic startle response, and social preference. These results suggest that T1 is important for plasticity, probably due to regulation of CS-dependent PNNs, and that T1KO is a good model for investigation of PNNs.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28982363 PMCID: PMC5629790 DOI: 10.1186/s13041-017-0328-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mol Brain ISSN: 1756-6606 Impact factor: 4.041
Fig. 1T1KO had half the amount of CS compared to WT in various brain regions. The total amount of CS in WT (closed bars) and in T1KO (open bars) is shown. The mice used were 12 week-old males. Data are the mean ± SEM. *p < 0.05; ***p < 0.001; n.s., not significant. N = 3–4 mice each
The composition of CS disaccharides in T1KO compared with WT
| mol% | Average | SEM | Average | SEM |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cerebrum | WT | KO | |||
| O | 9.1 | 0.19 | 12.0 | 1.04 |
|
| C | 1.8 | 0.27 | 5.3 | 0.12 | 0.821 |
| A | 87.2 | 0.14 | 77.7 | 0.69 |
|
| D | 0.7 | 0.05 | 2.1 | 0.03 |
|
| E | 1.2 | 0.05 | 2.9 | 0.44 |
|
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | |||
| Diencephalon | WT | KO | |||
| O | 4.4 | 0.17 | 4.7 | 0.25 | 0.374 |
| C | 3.8 | 0.09 | 3.0 | 0.06 |
|
| A | 88.9 | 0.34 | 89.4 | 0.34 | 0.367 |
| D | 1.3 | 0.13 | 1.0 | 0.03 | 0.075 |
| E | 1.6 | 0.05 | 1.9 | 0.06 |
|
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | |||
| Cerebellum | WT | KO | |||
| O | 7.6 | 1.88 | 4.5 | 0.24 | 0.183 |
| C | 3.7 | 0.17 | 4.9 | 0.43 | 0.062 |
| A | 85.5 | 1.52 | 87.3 | 0.46 | 0.333 |
| D | 1.8 | 0.20 | 1.6 | 0.12 | 0.395 |
| E | 1.4 | 0.01 | 1.7 | 0.15 | 0.082 |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | |||
| Spinal Cord | WT | KO | |||
| O | 12.0 | 1.04 | 11.8 | 2.68 | 0.930 |
| C | 5.3 | 0.12 | 4.7 | 0.06 |
|
| A | 77.7 | 0.69 | 78.7 | 2.27 | 0.647 |
| D | 2.1 | 0.03 | 1.4 | 0.25 |
|
| E | 2.9 | 0.44 | 3.4 | 0.59 | 0.525 |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | |||
| Visual Cortex | WT | KO | |||
| O | 9.0 | 0.18 | 10.7 | 0.16 |
|
| C | 2.7 | 0.01 | 2.3 | 0.03 |
|
| A | 86.4 | 0.18 | 84.6 | 0.19 |
|
| D | 0.7 | 0.03 | 0.4 | 0.03 |
|
| E | 1.2 | 0.01 | 1.9 | 0.03 |
|
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | |||
Note that among the five patterns of CS-derived disaccharides, CS-E in T1KO was significantly increased in each brain region. Statistically significant differences in T1KO are shown in italics (p < 0.05), compared to the corresponding results for WT [7, 8, 10]
Fig. 2Representative views of histochemistry revealed abnormal PNNs but normal PV cells and AGR distribution in various brain regions. a-p DAB staining of CS in the cingulate cortex (CCX; WT; a-c, T1KO; e-g) and in the somatosensory cortex (SCX; WT: d, T1KO: h). b and f are higher magnification views of the rectangular areas in (a) and (e), respectively. CS was labeled with WFA (a, b, d, e, f, h), and directly recognized with an anti-CS antibody, 2H6 (c, g). i-p Triple fluorescent staining with WFA (green), anti-AGR (red), and anti-PV (blue) in the CCX (i, m), SCX (j, n), hippocampus (HI) (k, o), and thalamic reticular nucleus (TRN) (l, p) in the brain obtained from WT (i-l) and T1KO (m-p) mice. Representative PV cells were indicated by white arrows (i-p). Scale bars, 200 μm (a and e), 50 μm (b-d, f-h), and 100 μm (i-p)
Fig. 3Quantitative analysis of the histochemistry. a-c Intensity analyses of AGR (a), WFA (b), and PV (c) relative to AGR (+) pixels. The average intensity on each section was calculated. Open bars, WT; Closed bars, T1KO. The data represent the mean ± SD. RN, red nucleus; DCN, deep cerebellar nucleus. See Fig. 2 for other abbreviations. The number of samples for each data point is shown at the bottom of the column. **p < 0.01; ****p < 0.0001; n.s., not significant. Bonferroni post-hoc tests after two-way factorial ANOVA
Fig. 4Behavioral abnormalities in T1KO. Significant differences were observed between genotypes in the six behavioral tests shown here. a General health (body weight; ****p < 0.0001), b Open field test (**p < 0.05), (c) Rota-rod test (**p < 0.05), d Acoustic startle responses (**p < 0.05), e General activity (**p < 0.05; ***p < 0.001), and f Social preference (stay time) (**p < 0.05; ***p < 0.001; ****p < 0.0001). Each group was composed of 20 male mice at the age of 12 weeks. See also Table 2
The behavioral tests in T1KO that were not significantly different between genotypes (p ≥ 0.05)
| Test | Controls | Mutants | F value |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SEM | Mean | SEM | |||
| General health/neurological screen | ||||||
| body temperature (°C) | 36.85 | 0.141 | 37.28 | 0.164 | 2.747 | 0.1049 |
| grip strength (n) | 0.554 | 0.02 | 0.577 | 0.012 | 1.038 | 0.3141 |
| wire hang (latency to fall, s) | 39.512 | 5.428 | 29.507 | 2.879 | 3.204 | 0.0808 |
| Light/dark transition | ||||||
| latency to light (s) | 44.143 | 5.829 | 56.1 | 6.621 | 1.293 | 0.2619 |
| light distance (cm) | 622.129 | 46.667 | 609.563 | 41.119 | 0.034 | 0.8548 |
| dark distance (cm) | 1555.886 | 65.493 | 1628.983 | 35.355 | 1.147 | 0.2904 |
| number of transitions | 32.714 | 2.23 | 28.967 | 1.965 | 1.32 | 0.2571 |
| stay time in light (s) | 158.071 | 9.869 | 147.5 | 10.065 | 0.423 | 0.5189 |
| Open field | ||||||
| stereotypic counts | 6911.643 | 520.353 | 7369.367 | 526.983 | 0.289 | 0.5939 |
| vertical activity | 348.357 | 53.683 | 275.4 | 43.994 | 0.966 | 0.3312 |
| center time (s) | 633.986 | 121.934 | 813.077 | 111.923 | 0.945 | 0.3365 |
| Elevated plus maze | ||||||
| number of total entry (times) | 36.071 | 2.319 | 36.833 | 2.229 | 0.044 | 0.835 |
| entry into open arms (%) | 13.393 | 2.567 | 13.863 | 1.572 | 0.027 | 0.8715 |
| total distance travelled (cm) | 1806.893 | 92.545 | 1880.087 | 73.559 | 0.343 | 0.5614 |
| time on open arms (times) | 3.443 | 1.125 | 2.923 | 0.744 | 0.152 | 0.6985 |
| Hot plate | ||||||
| latency (s) | 6.403 | 0.386 | 6.318 | 0.394 | 0.018 | 0.8944 |
| Social interaction (novel environment) | ||||||
| duration of contacts (s) | 68.7 | 9.138 | 88.707 | 7.29 | 2.605 | 0.1222 |
| number or contacts (times) | 40.143 | 3.845 | 45.333 | 2.462 | 1.358 | 0.2577 |
| mean duration of contacts (s) | 1.786 | 0.263 | 1.993 | 0.187 | 0.4 | 0.5341 |
| distance travelled (cm) | 2957.586 | 285.871 | 3196.793 | 153.133 | 0.654 | 0.4283 |
| Porsolt forced swim | ||||||
| day1 immobility (%) | 41.8131 | 3.617 | 46.252 | 2.314 | 1.099 | 0.3009 |
| day2 immobility (%) | 57.747 | 3.627 | 54.268 | 2.624 | 0.569 | 0.4551 |
| Gait analysis | ||||||
| front swing/stride duration | 41 | 0.508 | 40.969 | 0.43 | 0.002 | 0.9662 |
| front brake/stride duration | 28.115 | 0.909 | 27.234 | 0.715 | 0.512 | 0.4784 |
| front propel/stride duration | 30.896 | 0.871 | 31.795 | 0.645 | 0.635 | 0.4302 |
| front stance width | 1.946 | 0.062 | 1.921 | 0.038 | 0.134 | 0.7164 |
| front step angle | 62.308 | 1.762 | 60.066 | 1.075 | 1.269 | 0.2666 |
| front paw angle | −0.235 | 0.866 | 0.89 | 0.455 | 1.591 | 0.2144 |
| hind brake/stride duration | 14.142 | 0.831 | 15.564 | 0.364 | 3.373 | 0.0737 |
| hind step angle | 53.746 | 1.757 | 55.321 | 1.627 | 0.338 | 0.564 |
| hind paw angle | −0.788 | 0.953 | −0.983 | 0.519 | 0.038 | 0.8471 |
| Barnes maze | ||||||
| time spent around target (probe test, 1 day) | 40.538 | 4.748 | 39.143 | 4.067 | 0.042 | 0.8385 |
| time spent around target (probe test, 1 month) | 32.154 | 5.78 | 30.172 | 4.224 | 0.072 | 0.7904 |
| time spent around target (reversal test, 1 day) | 31.077 | 4.118 | 28.214 | 3.227 | 0.27 | 0.6064 |
| Cued and contextual fear conditioning | ||||||
| conditioning (freezing, %) | 57.756 | 2.66 | 56.821 | 1.83 | 0.82 | 0.7764 |
| context test, 1 day (freezing, %) | 70.082 | 3.444 | 66.333 | 3.372 | 0.453 | 0.5053 |
| cued test, with tone,1 day (freezing, %) | 89.158 | 3.641 | 88.147 | 2.004 | 0.069 | 0.7945 |
| context test, 30 days (freezing, %) | 79.412 | 5.225 | 79.481 | 3.222 | 0.0001376 | 0.9907 |
| cued test, pretone period, 30 days (freezing, %) | 60.603 | 4.475 | 49.672 | 4.306 | 2.345 | 0.1342 |
| cued test, with tone, 30 days (freezing, %) | 90.183 | 3.079 | 87.86 | 1.944 | 0.425 | 0.5186 |
| Tail suspension | ||||||
| immobility (%) | 37.255 | 3.747 | 41.75 | 2.603 | 0.957 | 0.334 |
| 24 h home cage monitoring | ||||||
| activity light period (A.U.) | 478,882.065 | 30,477.038 | 670,800.611 | 107,540.908 | 2.948 | 0.1167 |
| activity dark period (A.U.) | 1,033,998.833 | 66,355.759 | 1,385,925 | 191,066.128 | 3.027 | 0.1125 |
| number of particle dark period | 1.175 | 0.02 | 1.196 | 0.022 | 0.482 | 0.5034 |
| Stranger | Empty or Familiar | t value |
| |||
| Mean | SEM | Mean | SEM | |||
| Social approach test (Stranger vs Empty) | ||||||
| number of entry around cage (controls) | 9 | 1.043 | 7.714 | 0.952 | 1.178 | 0.26 |
| time spent around cage (mutants) | 209.241 | 12.352 | 137.448 | 10.928 | 0.627 | 0.5359 |
| Social novelty preference test (Stranger vs Familiar) | ||||||
| number of entry around cage (controls) | 8.357 | 0.887 | 8.786 | 1.11 | −0.405 | 0.6918 |
| number of entry around cage (mutants) | 9.862 | 0.851 | 10.034 | 0.863 | −0.16 | 0.8742 |
| time spent around cage (controls) | 165.071 | 16.433 | 148.5 | 28.882 | 0.435 | 0.6708 |
| time spent around cage (mutants) | 175.31 | 17.16 | 156.379 | 13.814 | 0.673 | 0.5063 |
The tests that were significantly different between T1KO and WT are displayed in Fig. 4. The results of the tests that were not significantly different are listed here. Each group was composed of 20 male mice at the age of 12 weeks