| Literature DB >> 30042304 |
Hiroki Ishiguro1, Yasue Horiuchi2, Koichi Tabata3, Qing-Rong Liu4, Tadao Arinami5, Emmanuel S Onaivi6.
Abstract
CB2 cannabinoid receptor (CB2R) gene is associated with depression. We investigated the gene-environment interaction between CB2R function and diverse stressors. First, anxiety-like behavior during chronic-mild-stress (CMS) was evaluated in C57BL/6JJmsSlc mice following treatment with CB2R agonist JWH015 or inverse-agonist AM630. Second, locomotor activity and anxiety-like behavior were measured following exposure to an immune poly I:C stressor. Gene expressions of HPA axis related molecules, Fkbp5, Nr3c1 and Crf and pro-inflammatory cytokine Il-1b, as well as Bdnf as a key neurotrophin that supports neuron health, function, and synaptic plasticity, were determined in hippocampus of Cnr2 knockout mice, as indicators of stressful environment. CMS-induced anxiety-like behavior was enhanced by AM630 and reduced by JWH015 and fluvoxamine. Poly I:C reduced locomotor activity and increased anxiety-like behavior, and these effects were pronounced in the heterozygote than in the wild type mice. Fkbp5 and Nr3c1 expression were lower in the Cnr2 heterozygotes than in the wild type mice with Poly I:C treatment. These findings indicate that interaction between CB2R gene and stressors increases the risk of depression-like behaviors that may be linked with neuro-immune crosstalk. Further studies in human subjects are necessary to determine the role of CB2R and environmental interaction in the development of depression.Entities:
Keywords: Cnr2; HPA axis; anxiety; cannabinoid CB2 receptor; chronic mild stress; depression; endocannabinoid; neuro-immune signaling
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30042304 PMCID: PMC6114128 DOI: 10.3390/molecules23081836
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Result of statistical analyses of the behavioral and gene expression data. The results of the statistical analysis for each experiment of the behavioral and gene expression data are shown. The numbers in parenthesis show the corresponding figures. The results by ANOVA are shown in general and in each effect. Post-hoc analysis with Tukey tests was performed where appropriate. Differences were considered significant at the a priori level of p < 0.05.
| Behavioral Test | Treatment/Strain | Statics ANOVA | Noted by Post-Hoc Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Zero maze test | Saline/ | F1,34 = 0.48, | |
| Zero maze test | Poly I:C/ | F3,118 = 4.4, | Poly I:C vs. saline treated heterozygote mice; |
| genotype F = 0.09, | |||
| treatment F = 7.7, | |||
| genotype × treatment F = 1.6, | |||
| pulley rotate test | Poly I:C/ | F3,110 = 4.8, | Poly I:C treated wildtype mice vs. heterozygote mice; |
| genotype F = 4.2, | |||
| treatment F = 8.2, | |||
| genotype × treatment F = 0.6, | |||
| Zero maze test | CMS/C57B/JJmsSlc mice ( | F4, 46 = 19.0, | CMS treated vs. naïve mice; |
| AM630 vs. Saline treated mice with CMS; | |||
| JWH015 vs. Saline treated mice with CMS; | |||
| Fluvoxamine vs. Saline treated mice with CMS; | |||
| JWH015 vs. Fluvoxamine treated mice with CMS; | |||
| Locomotion test | Poly I:C/ | t(1827) = 1.54, | |
|
| |||
|
| CMS/C57B/JJmsSlc mice ( | F1, 12 = 8.4, | |
|
| Poly I:C/ | F3,58 = 4.6, | Poly I:C treated wildtype mice vs. heterozygote mice; |
| genotype F = 2.6, | Poly I:C treated vs. Saline treated wildtype mice; | ||
| treatment F = −1.9, | Poly I:C treated wildtype mice vs. Saline treated heterozygote mice; | ||
| genotype × treatment F = −1.7, | |||
|
| Poly I:C/ | F3,59 = 4.4, | Poly I:C treated wildtype mice vs. heterozygote mice; |
| genotype F = 8.4, | |||
| treatment F = 0.83, | |||
| genotype x treatment F = 3.2, | |||
|
| Poly I:C/ | F3,58 = 1.8, | |
| genotype F = 0.0004, | |||
| treatment F = 0.98, | |||
| genotype × treatment F = 4.05, | |||
|
| Poly I:C/ | F3,59 = 0.15, | n.s. |
|
| Poly I:C/ | F3,59 = 0.54, | n.s. |
| genotype F = 0.49, | |||
| treatment F = 0.54, | |||
| genotype × treatment F = 0.97, | |||
Figure 1Cannabinoid CB2R ligands regulate CMS-induced anxiety-like behavior. The vertical axis shows %time spent in open section in Zero maze. Naïve is non-stressed control, and others are CMS treated mice. White bar is %time of the Naïve (non-stressed) mice, black bar is %time of the stressed with saline treatment mice (SS), red bar are %time of the stressed with AM630 treatment mice (AS), blue bar is %time of the stressed with JWH015 treatment mice (JS), and green line bar is %time of the stressed with fluvoxamine treatment mice (FS). Number of subjects for each group is indicated in parenthesis. Significant difference between the groups: * p = 0.015, ** p = 0.0016, *** p < 1 × 10−3.
Figure 2Anxiety-like behavior following immune stress induced by Poly I:C injection in Zero maze test. The vertical axis shows %time spent in the open section of the Zero maze. Light gray bar is %time of the wild type saline treated mice, white bar is %time of the heterozygote saline treated mice, black bar is %time of the wild type Poly I:C treated mice, and dark gray bar is %time of the heterozygotes Poly I:C treated mice. The higher %time spent in the open section indicates reduced anxiety-like behavior of the mice. * Significant difference was found between treatments in heterozygote knockout mice as shown (p = 0.003), while no difference was found in wild type mice.
Figure 3Anxiety-like behavior of mice in the rotated pulley model induced by Poly I:C injection. Mice that display anxiety-like behavior rotated the pulley faster in order to crawl up from water. The vertical axis shows number of pulley rotation. Light gray bar indicates the wild type saline treated mice, white bar represents the heterozygote saline treated mice, black bar represents the wild type Poly I:C treated mice, and dark gray bar represents the heterozygote Poly I:C treated mice. Number of subjects for each group is shown in parenthesis. There was * Significant difference between the genotypes when the mice were treated with Poly I:C (p = 0.03).
Figure 4Locomotor activity of the Cnr2 heterozygote KO mice three days after Poly I:C injection. Locomotor activity of each mouse every 30 min for 72 h is plotted as a dot for the wild type and the heterozygote Cnr2 KO mice. The light gray fields shows the locomotor activity of saline treated mice, while dark gray field show that of Poly I:C treated mice. ANOVA analysis showed significant difference (p < 0.0001), especially for the effect of Poly I:C treatment (p < 0.0001), but not for the genotypes (p = 0.35) or the combination of Poly I:C treatment and genotypes (p = 0.17). However, post-hoc analysis showed a small but insignificant difference in locomotor activity between the genotypes when the mice were injected with Poly I:C (p (single sided) = 0.06).
Figure 5Fkbp5 gene expression in the hippocampus of the C57B/6JJmsSlc mice is altered by CMS. The vertical axis shows the relative Fkbp5 expression level in the hippocampus of CMS treated C57BL/6JJmsSlc mice in comparison to that of naïve mice. Black bar indicates the relative Fkbp5 expression of the stressed mice in comparison to that of naïve (non-stressed) mice indicated in white bar. Number of subjects for each group is shown in parenthesis. There was * Significant reduction of the expression of Fkbp5 in the hippocampus in mice with CMS (p = 0.013).
Figure 6Analysis of the Fkbp5 gene expression in the hippocampus after Poly I:C treatment. The vertical axis shows the relative Fkbp5 expression level after Poly I:C or saline treatments for each genotype group (in comparison to saline treated wild type mice). Light gray bar indicates the wild type saline treated mice, white bar represents the heterozygote saline treated mice, black bar represents the wild type Poly I:C treated mice, and dark gray bar represents the heterozygote Poly I:C treated mice. Number of subjects in each group is shown in parenthesis. * Significant difference between the genotypes when the mice were treated with Poly I:C (p = 0.01).
Figure 7Analysis of the Nr3c1 gene expression in the hippocampus of Cnr2 KO mice treated with Poly I:C. The vertical axis shows the relative Nr3c1 expression level after Poly I:C treatment for each genotype group (in comparison to saline treated wild type mice). Light gray bar indicates the wild type saline treated mice, white bar represents the heterozygote saline treated mice, black bar represents the wild type Poly I:C treated mice, and dark gray bar represents the heterozygote Poly I:C treated mice. Number of subjects in each group is shown in parenthesis. * Significant difference between the genotypes when the mice were treated with Poly I:C (p = 0.007).
Figure 8Analysis Il1b gene expressions in the hippocampus after poly I:C stress. The vertical axis shows the relative Il1b expression level after Poly I:C treatment for each genotype group (in comparison to saline treated wild type mice). Light gray bar indicates the wild type saline treated mice, white bar represents the heterozygote saline treated mice, black bar represents the wild type Poly I:C treated mice, and dark gray bar represents the heterozygote Poly I:C treated mice. The numbers of the subjects are shown in parenthesis. While two-way ANOVA indicated possible involvement of Il1b in genotype and Poly I:C treatment, post-hoc analysis with Tukey test did not show any significant differences between the groups.
The experimental design and the tested animals. The stressors, chemicals administered to mice and behavioral tests used in the study are shown. The numbers in parenthesis in experimental treatment section show number of mice used.
| Stressors | Experimental Treatment | Behavioral Tests | Gene Expression Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Physical/Emotional (Chronic mild stress) | Control (10) | 1. Zero maze | |
| Immune | Poly I:C (20) | 1. Locomotion in home cage | |
| Poly I:C (70) | 2. Zero maze | ||
| Poly I:C (61) | 3. Pulley rotating test (originally developed test) |