| Literature DB >> 32210151 |
Sam Enayati1,2,3,4, Karen Chang1, Hamida Achour1,4, Kin-Sang Cho1, Fuyi Xu5, Shuai Guo1, Katarina Z Enayati1, Jia Xie1, Eric Zhao1, Tytteli Turunen1, Amer Sehic6, Lu Lu5, Tor Paaske Utheim1,2,3,6,7, Dong Feng Chen1.
Abstract
Non-invasive electrical stimulation (ES) is increasingly applied to improve vision in untreatable eye conditions, such as retinitis pigmentosa and age-related macular degeneration. Our previous study suggested that ES promoted retinal function and the proliferation of progenitor-like glial cells in mice with inherited photoreceptor degeneration; however, the underlying mechanism remains obscure. Müller cells (MCs) are thought to be dormant residential progenitor cells that possess a high potential for retinal neuron repair and functional plasticity. Here, we showed that ES with a ramp waveform of 20 Hz and 300 µA of current was effective at inducing mouse MC proliferation and enhancing their expression of progenitor cell markers, such as Crx (cone-rod homeobox) and Wnt7, as well as their production of trophic factors, including ciliary neurotrophic factor. RNA sequencing revealed that calcium signaling pathway activation was a key event, with a false discovery rate of 5.33 × 10-8 (p = 1.78 × 10-10) in ES-mediated gene profiling changes. Moreover, the calcium channel blocker, nifedipine, abolished the observed effects of ES on MC proliferation and progenitor cell gene induction, supporting a central role of ES-induced Ca2+ signaling in the MC changes. Our results suggest that low-current ES may present a convenient tool for manipulating MC behavior toward neuroregeneration and repair.Entities:
Keywords: Müller cells; electrical-stimulation; glial cells; proliferation; retina; retinitis pigmentosa
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32210151 PMCID: PMC7140850 DOI: 10.3390/cells9030781
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cells ISSN: 2073-4409 Impact factor: 7.666
Figure 1The effect of electrical stimulation (ES) on cultured Müller cells (MCs). (A) Photomicrographs showing isolated MC cultures immunolabeled for MC specific marker glutamine synthetase (GS; red) and counter-stained with a nuclear marker 4′,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI) (blue). Note that most cells in isolated MC cultures expressed typical MC marker GS. (B) MC proliferation assessed by EdU incorporation. MCs were stimulated with ES or sham-treatment (control) for 1 h. Note the increased number of EdU+ (red) cells 2 days after ES treatment as compared to the control group. Scale bar = 20 µm.
Figure 2Optimal conditions of ES with a ramp waveform. (A) The three waveforms used in the study: ramp waveform with negative and positive ramp, the typical sinusoidal waveform with current fluctuations in a typical sinusoidal pattern, and the biphasic rectangular waveform. (B) Changes in MC proliferation following ES of different waveforms at 20 PPS and 100 μA. Note that ramp waveform significantly promoted MC proliferation by ~2-fold as compared to the control group. (C) Changes in MC proliferation when stimulated with ramp waveforms of ES at 20 PPS and different current levels. Paired t-test, p < 0.05 compared to controls. (D) Changes in MC proliferation with ES of fixed 300 µA current and ramp waveform at various frequencies. Note that 20 PPS yielded significantly increased MC proliferation. Value = means ± S.E.M. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 compared to controls by paired t-test (n = 5/group).
Figure 3ES-induced transcription factor (TF) changes in cultured MC. (A) Volcano plot of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) results between ES- and control-treated MC groups. The y-axis corresponds to the p-value showing at −log10 of the paired t-test; the x-axis shows the fold change calculated at log2 value. The red dots represent the genes with expression changes <1.5-fold; the blue dots represent genes with expression change >1.5-fold and FDR and p < 0.05. (B) Summary of regulatory elements (REs) detected by distant regulatory elements (DiRE) analysis, which is represented relative to the input genes and categorized as promoter, intronic, intergenic, or UTR elements. (C) Graphical representation of candidate RE scores to the list of most important TFs. The “occurrence” represents the fraction of putative REs that contain a particular TF binding site, and the “importance” is defined as the product of the TF occurrence and its weight. (D) Results of qPCR confirming the significant downregulation of Notch3 and Hes1, 48 h after ES in purified MC cultures (* p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.01, compared to the controls by paired t-test; n = 4/group). (E) Schematic illustration of the notch/HES signaling on MC fate determination.
Figure 4Upregulation of calcium signaling and cell growth events in MCs by ES. (A) Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) analysis showing the top three, particularly Ca2+-mediated signaling pathway, identified with a high number of genes changed upon ES-treatment (showed as numbers on the bars). (B) Schematic summary of ES-induced signaling pathway changes as shown by KEGG pathway analysis of all DEGs showing significant upregulation of the calcium signaling pathway and cell growth while inhibition of NFATc pathway with overlaid predictions. Orange lines predict activation and blue lines indicate inhibition of the downstream signal.
Figure 5Essential involvement of calcium for ES-induced MC proliferation. (A) Improved MC proliferation after ES and the loss of this effect in the presence of 1 µM nifedipine (* p < 0.05, paired t-test). (B) Results of qPCR showing upregulation of progenitor cell markers and the neurotrophic factor Cntf in cultured MC at 48 h after ES with ** p < 0.005 and * p < 0.05 compared to sham treated control with paired t-test. (C) Nifedipine blocked ES-induced upregulation of progenitor markers such as Wnt3, Wnt7, Crx, and Chx10 in cultured MC.