| Literature DB >> 32879784 |
Alicia A Brunet1,2, Paula I Fuller-Carter2, Annie L Miller1,2, Valentina Voigt2, Sophia Vasiliou2, Rabab Rashwan2,3, David M Hunt1,2, Livia S Carvalho1,2.
Abstract
Purpose: To validate the application of a known transgenic mouse line with green fluorescent cones (Chrnb4.EGFP) to study cone photoreceptor biology and function in health and disease.Entities:
Keywords: Chrnb4.GFP; cones; green fluorescent protein; photoreceptors; retinal degeneration
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32879784 PMCID: PMC7442867 DOI: 10.1167/tvst.9.9.28
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol ISSN: 2164-2591 Impact factor: 3.283
Figure 1.GFP expression is localised to cone photoreceptors. Shown are representative confocal images of retinal cryosections of Chrnb4.GFP, Gnat2.GFP, and Pde6c.GFP mice at P24. The 4′,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI; blue) nuclear stain shows the retinal layers. Immunohistochemical detection of cone arrestin (ARR3, red) and GFP (green) shows co-localization in cone photoreceptors (yellow, rightmost column). INL, inner nuclear layer; ONL, outer nuclear layer OPL; outer plexiform layer; OS, outer segment. Scale bar = 20 µm.
Figure 2.Functional analysis via ERG on all mouse lines at various stimulus intensities. (A) Photopic ERG traces of Chrnb4 GFP− (grey) and GFP+ (light green) mice as well as Gnat2.GFP and Pde6c.GFP mice showing no difference between Chrnb4 GFP− and GFP+ mice but a decrease in response in the Gnat2.GFP and Pde6c.GFP lines. (B) Scotopic ERG traces Chrnb4 GFP− (grey) and GFP+ (light green) mice as well as Gnat2.GFP and Pde6c.GFP mice showing similar responses between all lines. (C, D) Quantification of photopic a- and b-wave responses for all mouse lines, except Pde6c.GFP which was omitted due to no detectable response. (E, F) Quantification of scotopic a- and b-wave responses for all mouse lines. n = 3–4 for each mouse line. Values are mean ± standard error of the mean.
Figure 3.Characterization of Chrnb4.GFP and the effect of GFP expression on cone and retinal biology. (A) Representative confocal images of immunohistochemical staining of a P24 Chrnb4.GFP retina showing TUNEL+ cells in the ONL. White arrows indicate TUNEL+ labelled cells. Scale bar = 50 µm. (B) Graph showing the average number of TUNEL+ cells counted in the ONL from GFP− and GFP+ Chrnb4 retinas at P24. No significant difference was observed between genotypes. Values are mean ± standard error of the mean; GFP−: 1379.8 ± 31.2; GFP+: 1197.6 ± 201.5; n = 4/genotype. (C) Relative gene expression of cone-specific markers show no significant difference between GFP− and GFP+ Chrnb4 mice. Each bar represents the relative expression calculated by the ΔΔCt method normalized to Gapdh. Values are mean ± standard error of the mean; n = 3/genotype. (D) Representative confocal images of immunohistochemical staining of collagen IV (COL-IV; green) and CD45+ (red) in GFP− and GFP+ Chrnb4 retinas at P60. CD45+ cells were found only within blood vessels and are indicated by white arrows. Upper images, scale bar = 50 µm; lower images, scale bar = 100 µm.
Figure 4.Temporal decrease in GFP expression in Chrnb4.GFP mice with age. (A, B) Representative confocal images of retinal cryosections in Chrnb4.GFP mice show a decrease in GFP fluorescence over time. Scale bars = 20 µm. (i, ii) The 8 months panel shows two individual cones at higher magnification with images modified to account for lower expression levels highlighting the intercellular GFP expression differences. Scale bars = 5 µm. (C) A qPCR analysis of GFP expression shows a temporal decrease of GFP with age, where highest GFP expression was measured at P12 time point with significant decreases until the P40 time point. Asterisks denote time points where GFP expression was significantly decreased (P < 0.05) compared with P12. (D) A qPCR analysis of Chrnb4 gene expression also shows a temporal decrease over time, with a significant decrease in expression between time points P32 and P40 (P= 0 .03, unpaired two-tailed Student t-test). All qPCR analyses were normalized to Gapdh, n = 3 for each time point. Values are mean ± standard error of the mean.
Figure 5.Flow cytometry validation for cone degeneration GFP+ lines. (A–D) Flow cytometry scatter plots of cell gating strategy. Retinas from Gnat2.GFP P60 animals were used for testing different retinal cell dissociation methods. (A) Representative gating of all cells. (B) Representative gating of live cells. (C) Representative gating of GFP+ cells. (D) The resulting GFP+ population. (E) Average GFP+ cell counts from flow cytometry data show significantly higher numbers of GFP+ cells from the papain protocol. (F) Average GFP+ cell counts from flow cytometry data show significantly lower number of GFP+ cells in the Pde6c.GFP line compared with the Chrnb4.GFP line at 6 months of age. Values are mean ± standard error of the mean. ***P = 0.0006, **P = 0.003, and *P = 0.001 (unpaired two-tailed Student t-test). (G–I) Representative single cell fluorescent activated cell sort (FACS) cone cell gating strategy from a P24 Gnat2.GFP retina. Post-sort purity analysis on the (H) GFP+ sorted cone cells is shown alongside the post-sort analysis of the (I) GFP− cells from the same retina.