| Literature DB >> 32454811 |
Milo R Smith1,2,3,4,5,6,7, Priscilla Yevoo1,3,4,6,7, Masato Sadahiro1,3,4,6,7, Ben Readhead5,8, Brian Kidd2,5, Joel T Dudley2,5, Hirofumi Morishita1,3,4,6,7.
Abstract
The tens of thousands of industrial and synthetic chemicals released into the environment have an unknown but potentially significant capacity to interfere with neurodevelopment. Consequently, there is an urgent need for systematic approaches that can identify disruptive chemicals. Little is known about the impact of environmental chemicals on critical periods of developmental neuroplasticity, in large part, due to the challenge of screening thousands of chemicals. Using an integrative bioinformatics approach, we systematically scanned 2001 environmental chemicals and identified 50 chemicals that consistently dysregulate two transcriptional signatures of critical period plasticity. These chemicals included pesticides (e.g., pyridaben), antimicrobials (e.g., bacitracin), metals (e.g., mercury), anesthetics (e.g., halothane), and other chemicals and mixtures (e.g., vehicle emissions). Application of a chemogenomic enrichment analysis and hierarchical clustering across these diverse chemicals identified two clusters of chemicals with one that mimicked an immune response to pathogen, implicating inflammatory pathways and microglia as a common chemically induced neuropathological process. Thus, we established an integrative bioinformatics approach to systematically scan thousands of environmental chemicals for their ability to dysregulate molecular signatures relevant to critical periods of development.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32454811 PMCID: PMC7222500 DOI: 10.1155/2020/1673897
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neural Plast ISSN: 1687-5443 Impact factor: 3.599
Figure 1Environmental chemicals preferentially impact expression of genes downregulated in the critical period brain plasticity signatures of juvenile and Lynx1-/- mice. (a) We generated two in vivo critical period transcriptome signatures (juvenile at the peak of the endogenous critical period at P26 and Lynx1-/- adult mice, which maintain critical period-like plasticity) from public data. (b) Environmental chemical signatures using genes either increased or decreased by a given chemical (CHEM composite) were derived from the Comparative Toxicogenomics Database. (c) Molecular matches were computed to the critical period signatures using Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA) to identify that chemicals preferentially impact genes downregulated in the critical period signatures.
Figure 2Molecular matching via GSEA identifies 50 chemicals that increase expression of genes downregulated in the juvenile and Lynx1-/- critical period transcriptome signatures. (a) 2001 CHEM composite gene sets were split into CHEM up (1742 signatures) and CHEM down (1242 signatures) libraries to assess the directional impact of each chemical on critical period gene expression. (b) GSEA was used to assess negative scores (reflecting a chemical's impact on downregulated critical period genes) for CHEM up and CHEM down signatures against the critical period signatures and the binomial test to assess a bias to up or down library. (c) Fifty chemicals increase downregulated critical period genes. See Supplementary Table 1 for a list of all 50 chemicals.
Figure 3Chemogenomic enrichment analysis (CGEA) workflow. (a) Enrichments of 5191 Gene Ontology (GO) Biological Process (BP) and 96 Library of Integrated Network-based Cellular Signatures (LINCS) ligand gene sets were calculated for 1742 CHEM up signatures. (b) We calculated overrepresentation of pathways in each of 50 chemical signatures that impact critical period signatures, relative to the remaining 1692 chemical signatures. (c) Top overrepresentation hits were calculated (Figure 4), and hierarchical clustering was performed on enrichment Padj values (Figure 5).
Figure 4Chemogenomic enrichment analysis of 50 chemicals that increase expression of genes downregulated in the critical period signatures reveals inflammatory, response to pathogen, and immune cell chemotaxis pathways. We computed gene set enrichments for the CHEM up library (1742 chemical signatures) across 5191 Gene Ontology (GO) Biological Process (BP) gene sets and 96 LINCS ligand gene sets to yield 9,042,722 and 167,232 enrichment P values, which were corrected for multiple testing using the Benjamini and Hochberg approach. For each biological process or ligand, we calculated the overrepresentation of that gene set (if it was significant after multiple test correction) among the 50 chemicals identified as impacting both juvenile and Lynx1-/- critical period signatures, in comparison to the remaining 1692 chemicals, using a hypergeometric test (hypergea R package implementation). A pathway was considered associated with a chemical if the enrichment Padj < 0.05, yielding (a) 33 GO BP gene sets and (b) 48 LINCS ligand gene sets.
Figure 5Clustering of chemical pathway enrichments identifies antimicrobial and inflammatory clusters. Hierarchical clustering (Ward D method) on the negative log Padj values of Gene Ontology (GO) Biological Process (BP) and LINCS ligand enrichment analysis revealed two clusters of chemicals. Cluster A (29 chemicals) contains few inflammatory pathway enrichments and 9 of the 10 antimicrobials in the set of 50 chemicals examined, whereas Cluster B contains the majority of enrichments for response to pathogen, inflammation, immune cell chemotaxis, and IL-1/TNF-α. See Supplementary Figure 1 for detailed enrichment information.
Figure 6Fifty chemicals mimic the gene expression phenotype induced by LPS-activated microglia. We used Fisher's exact test to calculate the overlap of microglia genes increased by LPS activation to the genes in a given CHEM up signature. 58% of all chemicals were enriched (at Padj < 0.05), and Cluster B was more likely than Cluster A to display this phenotype (Fisher's exact test: OR = 3.8, ∗P = 0.26). Chemicals ordered as in Figure 5.