| Literature DB >> 29956125 |
Dandan Luo1,2,3, Weihong Ge4, Xiao Hu1,2,3, Chen Li1,2,3, Chia-Ming Lee5, Liqiang Zhou3, Zhourui Wu1,2,3, Juehua Yu3, Sheng Lin3, Jing Yu3, Wei Xu1,2,3, Lei Chen1,2,3, Chong Zhang3, Kun Jiang3, Xingfei Zhu1,2,3, Haotian Li1,2,3, Xinpei Gao3, Yanan Geng3, Bo Jing3, Zhen Wang3, Changhong Zheng3, Rongrong Zhu1,2, Qiao Yan3, Quan Lin3,5, Keqiang Ye6, Yi E Sun7,8, Liming Cheng9,10,11.
Abstract
The mammalian central nervous system (CNS) is considered an immune privileged system as it is separated from the periphery by the blood brain barrier (BBB). Yet, immune functions have been postulated to heavily influence the functional state of the CNS, especially after injury or during neurodegeneration. There is controversy regarding whether adaptive immune responses are beneficial or detrimental to CNS injury repair. In this study, we utilized immunocompromised SCID mice and subjected them to spinal cord injury (SCI). We analyzed motor function, electrophysiology, histochemistry, and performed unbiased RNA-sequencing. SCID mice displayed improved CNS functional recovery compared to WT mice after SCI. Weighted gene-coexpression network analysis (WGCNA) of spinal cord transcriptomes revealed that SCID mice had reduced expression of immune function-related genes and heightened expression of neural transmission-related genes after SCI, which was confirmed by immunohistochemical analysis and was consistent with better functional recovery. Transcriptomic analyses also indicated heightened expression of neurotransmission-related genes before injury in SCID mice, suggesting that a steady state of immune-deficiency potentially led to CNS hyper-connectivity. Consequently, SCID mice without injury demonstrated worse performance in Morris water maze test. Taken together, not only reduced inflammation after injury but also dampened steady-state immune function without injury heightened the neurotransmission program, resulting in better or worse behavioral outcomes respectively. This study revealed the intricate relationship between immune and nervous systems, raising the possibility for therapeutic manipulation of neural function via immune modulation.Entities:
Keywords: immune deficiency; neurotransmision; spinal cord injury repair; transcriptomic analysis
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29956125 PMCID: PMC6626597 DOI: 10.1007/s13238-018-0559-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Protein Cell ISSN: 1674-800X Impact factor: 14.870
Figure 1SCID mice showed better motor functional recovery than WT mice after SCI. (A) Schematic illustration of anatomical positioning of SCI (upper left diagram) and SCI crush model using an artery clamp with 60 g constant force (upper right diagram). The lower panel shows an example of the gross anatomy of spinal cord tissue 1 week post-injury. (B) BMS open-field test to show hindlimb motor functional recovery of SCID and WT mice from 0 d to 42 d after SCI (mean ± SEM; **P < 0.01, n ≥ 15, unpaired Student’s t-test with comparison between two groups at each time point). (C) Rotarod performance of WT and SCID mice at 42 d post-injury. The left panel shows the drop-off time at 15 rpm constant speed, and the right panel shows the drop-off speed during 0 to 40 rpm acceleration (mean ± SEM; n = 6, *P < 0.05, unpaired Student’s t-test). (D) Electrophysiological analysis of SCID and WT mice at 42 d post-injury. The left two panels show a schematic graph of MEP recording and representative MEP traces. The right three panels show significant differences in Amplitude (Amp), but not in threshold stimulation (TS) or latency between SCID and WT groups. (mean ± SEM; n ≥ 5, *P < 0.05, unpaired Student’s t-test). (E) GFAP immunohistochemical analysis demonstrated significantly greater lesion volumns in WT mice than SCID mice. Dotted lines demarcate the epicenter span with high magnification images to the right of each panel (mean ± SEM; n = 6, *P < 0.05, unpaired Student’s t-test)
Figure 2WGCNA uncovered molecular mechanisms for better functional recovery in SCID mice. (A) Total RNA was collected from 1 cm segments of spinal cord surrounding the epicenter of the lesion. (B) Unbiased hierarchical clustering heat map of the complete transcriptome dataset of 31 samples based on Pearson’s correlation coefficient. (C) Hierarchical cluster dendrogram of 31 samples showed coexpression modules identified using WGCNA. Modules corresponding to branches were labeled with colors indicated by color bands underneath the tree. 9 modules were detected after 0.25 threshold merge. (D) Module-trait correlation analysis revealed dynamic changes of nine modules under different conditions. (E) GO terms and gene expression time courses of 9 modules after SCI. The time course was described by average gene expression of top 30 hub genes within each module from injured WT mice from 0 to 42 days after SCI. Gene expression of 9 modules in uninjured and 42 d injured WT/SCID mice samples were displayed by bar graphs. Two sets of data (i.e., time course and WT/SCID comparisons) were normalized to uninjured WT group of each dataset, indicated by dash line at X-axis (Y = 0), for proper comparison between the two data sets. Hub genes of each module were also listed. (F) Total gene percentage pie-chart of each module. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001, ****P < 0.0001; statistical analyses were by Turkey’s multiple comparisons test (n = 31)
Figure 3Dampened immune response in SCID mice after SCI. (A) Detection of microglia/macrophages in WT and SCID mouse spinal cord samples by IBA1 and CD11b immunostaining at 28 d post-injury. (B) Quantification of IBA1/CD11b double positive cells located within 1 mm of the spinal cord segment flanking the epicenter. (C) qRT-PCR validation of expression of inflammation-related genes Itgb2(CD18) and Aif1(IBA1) in WT and SCID mouse samples. (D) Immunostaining of pan-leukocyte surface marker CD45 in WT and SCID mouse samples at 28 d post-SCI. (F) Unbiased stereological quantification of CD45 positive inflammatory leukocytes in the three regions illustrated in (E) (mean ± SEM; n = 4, *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, unpaired Student’s t-test). (G) qRT-PCR validation of Ptprc(CD45) gene expression in WT and SCID mouse samples
Figure 4Dampened Immune response in SCID mice after SCI was associated with enhanced neural protection and neurotransmitter release. (A) Time course of blue module gene expression in WT mice post SCI, as well as overall module expression in uninjured and 42 d injured WT/SCID samples (bar graphs). (B) Blue module hub gene network constructed by top 30 hub genes. (C) GO Terms of the blue module with representative genes associated with each term. Numbers in parentheses indicated rankings within the module calculated by their correlations with the eigengene (representative module gene) of this module. (D) The axons adjacent to the epicenter were labeled by a pan-axon filament marker, SMI-312. The presynapses were lableded by a presynaptic marker, SNAP25. The middle panels showed high magnification of highlighted areas in the left panels. Right panels showed representarive images of SNAP25 and SMI-312 immunostaining and the surface model that were used for presynaptic puncta quantification. The surface model was generated by Imaris software (Bitplane). (E) The quantification of SNAP25+ puncta within SMI-312+ labeled axons (per µm3) adjacent to the injury epicenter (left panel) (mean ± SEM; n ≥ 15, P < 0.05, Mann Whitney test). The average surface area (μm2) per SMI-312 positive axon fragment was calculated to illustrate the integrity of axon adjacent to the epicenter (right panel). (F) qRT-PCR validations of Snap25 and Nefh genes expression in 1cm spinal cord segments of WT and SCID mice. (G) Immunostaining of neuronal makers MAP2 and NeuN in WT and SCID mouse spinal cord samples at 28 d post-injury, with quantifications. High magnification images of highlighted regions are presented on the right. (mean ± SD; n ≥ 15, ****P < 0.0001, Mann Whitney test)
Figure 5Uninjured SCID mice displayed boosted synaptic transmission program. (A) Immunostaining of SNAP25 and SMI-312 in WT/SCID uninjured spinal cord samples with high magnification images of indicated areas presented to the right. SNAP25+ puncta within SMI-312+ labeled axons (per µm3) of uninjured samples in the equivalent location as injured samples were measured (mean ± SEM; n ≥ 20, ***P < 0.001, Mann Whitney test). (B) Western blotting analysis of blue module hub genes VAMP1, SNAP25, RAB3A, STMN2 and β-actin protein levels of uninjured spinal cord sample from WT and SCID mice (mean ± SD; n = 4 (WT), n = 5 (SCID), *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, unpaired Student’s t-test)
Figure 6Uninjured SCID mice showed worse behavior performance in MWM. (A) The test of initial swimming distance (m) and swimming speed (m/s) before training showed no significant differences between two genotypes (mean ± SEM; n = 15, P > 0.05, unpaired Student’s t-test). (B) Upper panels (in red) shows the escape latency for mice to reach the hidden platform during forward acquisition training phases, as well as traverses through the platform zone and the latency to first reach the platform zone (mean ± SEM; n = 15, *P < 0.05, **P < 0.001, unpaired Student’s t-test). The lower panel (in blue) shows the exact same results in reverse test (acquisition phase and probe trial). (C) Representative swimming traces of SCID and WT mice during acquisition training phases and probe trial
Figure 7Current working model delineating the seesaw relationship between neurotransmission program and immune function. As demonstrated, synapse/neurotransmission-related gene expression program can be influenced by immune functional gene expression, and an appropriate (i.e., neither too high nor too low) expression levels of synapse/neurotransmission module genes are critical for proper neuronal function
Primers for qRT-PCR
| Gene | Primer | Length | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| ACCCAGAAGACTGTGGATGG | 20 | Forward |
| CACATTGGGGGTAGGAACAC | 20 | Reverse | |
| TGGAATGACCTCAAGGTGTCCTC | 23 | Forward | |
| GCTGTACACACCCACAGCACTCTTA | 25 | Reverse | |
| AGCTGCCTGTCTTAACCTGCATC | 23 | Forward | |
| TTCTGGGACCGTTCTCACACTTC | 23 | Reverse | |
| TGCATATGTGACGAAGGCTACCA | 23 | Forward | |
| ACTTCAGGCACTCGGCACAA | 20 | Reverse | |
| TATCGTGGGCAGCTCAGTGG | 20 | Forward | |
| GCGGGTTCAAAGACGATGG | 19 | Reverse | |
|
| CGGCATCATCGGAAACCTC | 19 | Forward |
| GCACGTTGGTTGGCTTCATC | 20 | Reverse | |
|
| GTGCTGCACTGTACAACCAAATTC | 24 | Forward |
| TCCTGATCGGTCAGCACCAC | 20 | Reverse | |
|
| AGATTCTGCCAGCTGTTAGCTGTTC | 25 | Forward |
| AGGTTTCAAATTCTGCCTGTCCTC | 24 | Reverse | |
|
| GTTCCGAGTGAGGTTGGACC | 20 | Forward |
| CCGCCGGTACTCAGTTATCTC | 21 | Reverse |