| Literature DB >> 32005875 |
P M A Antony1, O Kondratyeva2, K Mommaerts3, M Ostaszewski2, K Sokolowska3, A S Baumuratov2, L Longhino4, J F Poulain4, D Grossmann2, R Balling2, R Krüger2,4,5, N J Diederich4.
Abstract
Mitochondrial dysfunction is a hallmark in idiopathic Parkinson's disease (IPD). Here, we established screenable phenotypes of mitochondrial morphology and function in primary fibroblasts derived from patients with IPD. Upper arm punch skin biopsy was performed in 41 patients with mid-stage IPD and 21 age-matched healthy controls. At the single-cell level, the basal mitochondrial membrane potential (Ψm) was higher in patients with IPD than in controls. Similarly, under carbonyl cyanide 4-(trifluoromethoxy)phenylhydrazone (FCCP) stress, the remaining Ψm was increased in patients with IPD. Analysis of mitochondrial morphometric parameters revealed significantly decreased mitochondrial connectivity in patients with IPD, with 9 of 14 morphometric mitochondrial parameters differing from those in controls. Significant morphometric mitochondrial changes included the node degree, mean volume, skeleton size, perimeter, form factor, node count, erosion body count, endpoints, and mitochondria count (all P-values < 0.05). These functional data reveal that resistance to depolarization was increased by treatment with the protonophore FCCP in patients with IPD, whereas morphometric data revealed decreased mitochondrial connectivity and increased mitochondrial fragmentation.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32005875 PMCID: PMC6994699 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-58505-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Increased mitochondrial membrane potential in fibroblasts derived from patients with IPD. (A) Analysis performed at baseline respectively after FCCP perturbation at the single-cell level. The histograms show the mean TMRM fluorescence in the cell area. Statistics: Wilcoxon rank-sum test, ***indicates P < 0.001. Counts of analysed cells per group: Ctrl unperturbed, 22.136; IPD unperturbed, 28.005; IPD + FCCP, 29.811; Ctrl + FCCP, 20.789. (B) Analysis performed at baseline at the level of individual subjects. Individual analysis at baseline condition showed no significant difference in TMRM fluorescence between patients and controls (P = 0.065). (C) Analysis performed after FCCP perturbation at the individual subject level. The difference in TMRM fluorescence between patients with IPD and controls was significant. Statistics: Wilcoxon rank-sum test, ***indicates P < 0.001. (D) Analysis of correlation between pairwise features. Pearson coefficients of correlation are provided as white text and color-coded. Dendrograms illustrate hierarchical clustering with Euclidean distance metric and average linkage. Correlations between cellular doubling time and cellular morphological parameters were negligible (correlation coefficient |r| < 0.30). Furthermore, mostly negligible (|r| < 0.30) and one low (0.30 < |r| < 0.50) but no moderate (0.50 < |r| < 0.70) or higher correlations were found between doubling time and functional or morphometric mitochondrial features.
Demographics and cellular doubling time (mean +− standard deviation).
| IPD | Controls | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (mean +− SD) [years] | 66.3 ± 7.3 | 66.1 ± 5 | 0.901 |
| Gender M/F | 25/16 | 4/17 | 0.001 |
| PD duration | 6.6 ± 5.2 | NA | NA |
| UPDRS motor score | 10.4 ± 5 | 0.6 ± 1 | <0.001 |
| Levodopa dosage | 589.8 ± 348.9 | NA | NA |
| MMSE score | 27.9 ± 4.7 | 29.1 ± 1.3 | 0.172 |
| FAB score | 15.4 ± 2.5 | 16 ± 2.6 | 0.197 |
| UPSIT score | 19.5 ± 7.1 | 31 ± 4.7 | <0.001 |
| NMS score | 8.1 ± 5.3 | 2.7 ± 2.5 | <0.001 |
| Doubling time [days] | 16.1 ± 18.5 | 4.9 ± 4.2 | <0.001 |
Abbreviations: UPDRS = Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale; MMSE = MiniMental State Examination; FAB = Frontal Assessment Battery; UPSIT = University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test; NMS = Non-motor symptom score.
Figure 2Morphometric features. The features are numeric descriptors of image contained information. The terminology used to define the features is illustrated in the schematic column. The segmentation column shows from top to bottom, a real example of a computationally defined mitochondrial region of interest (ROI), the perimeter of that ROI, the bodies that are remaining when removing the perimeter from the ROI, and an illustration of skeleton (blue, green, and red pixels), nodes (green pixels), and endpoints (red pixels). Please note that the terminology originates from computer vision and graph theory. Aspect ratio and form factor were used for both mitochondria and cells.
Figure 3Cellular and mitochondrial morphometric characteristics in fibroblasts derived from patients with IPD and healthy controls as well as classification into the two groups based on these characteristics. (A) Segmentation examples. Please note the reduced branching of mitochondria in the IPD example compared to the Ctrl example. Scale bars: 20 or 200 µm, as labelled. White boxes in stitched mosaic overlays indicate coordinates of raw image examples. (B) Individual subject analysis of mitochondrial morphometric features. The mean TMRM intensity within mitochondria at the base level is shown as TMRM_MitoMask. (C) Individual subject analysis of cellular morphometric features. The mean TMRM intensity within cells at the base level is shown as TMRM_Cell. Statistics and significance: without Bonferroni correction: [*P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001]; with Bonferroni correction: [#P < 0.05; ##P < 0.01; ###P < 0.001]. The minimum number of cells analysed per individual: 175. (D) Classification into patients with IPD and healthy controls by morphofunctional characteristics. A random classification would result in a diagonal line (shown in black) in the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and an area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.5, whereas a perfect classification would result in AUC = 1. This ROC shows that predictions learned from pooled data that take into account mitochondrial and cellular morphometrics including both baseline and FCCP conditions, provide a better predictive power than baseline data alone (baseline alone, cyan, AUC = 0.83; baseline and FCCP, dark blue, AUC = 0.87).
Mitochondrial TMRM fluorescence correlates with mitochondrial morphometric features.
| Estimate | t value | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| MitoVolumeMean | 7.5180 | 13.246 | <2e−16 |
| MitoSkel | −6.7891 | −8.911 | 2.51e−12 |
| MitoEndpoints | 5.1302 | 6.363 | 3.89e−08 |
| MitoNodeDegree | −1.4292 | −2.899 | 0.00533 |
| PD diagnosis | 7.8065 | 2.255 | 0.02806 |
Multiple linear regression summary with multiple R-squared = 0.8857.