| Literature DB >> 34551810 |
Latarsha Porcher1, Sophie Bruckmeier2, Steven D Burbano1, Julie E Finnell1, Nicole Gorny2, Jennifer Klett1, Susan K Wood1, Michy P Kelly3,4,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite widespread acceptance that neuroinflammation contributes to age-related cognitive decline, studies comparing protein expression of cytokines in the young versus old brains are surprisingly limited in terms of the number of cytokines and brain regions studied. Complicating matters, discrepancies abound-particularly for interleukin 6 (IL-6)-possibly due to differences in sex, species/strain, and/or the brain regions studied.Entities:
Keywords: Aged; Aging; Alzheimer’s disease; Chemokine; Cytokine; Hippocampus; Inflammation; Inflammatory; Prefrontal cortex; Sex differences
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34551810 PMCID: PMC8459490 DOI: 10.1186/s12974-021-02252-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Neuroinflammation ISSN: 1742-2094 Impact factor: 8.322
Statistics and n’s for experiments shown in Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5
| YM | YF | MM | MF | OM | OF | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Figure | Normality | EV | effect of age | Effect of sexb | ||||||
| 1A | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | Pass | Fail | Rank sum: | |||
| 1B | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | Pass | Fail | Rank sum: | |||
| 1C | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | Pass | Pass | Student’s | |||
| 1D | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | Pass | Pass | Student’s | |||
| 1E | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | Pass | Pass | Student’s | |||
| 1F | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | Pass | Pass | Student’s | |||
| 1G | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | Pass | Fail | Rank sum: | |||
| 1H | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | Pass | Pass | Student’s | |||
| 1I | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | Fail | Rank sum: | ||||
| 1J | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | Fail | Rank sum: | ||||
| 1K | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | Pass | Pass | Student’s | |||
| 1L | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | Fail | Rank sum: | ||||
| 1M | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | Pass | Fail | Rank sum: | |||
| 1N | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | Fail | Rank sum: | ||||
| 1O | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | Fail | Rank sum: | ||||
| 1P | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | Pass | Pass | Student’s | |||
| 1Q | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | Pass | Pass | Student’s- | |||
| 1R | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | Pass | Pass | Student’s | |||
| 1S | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | Fail | Rank sum: | ||||
| 1T | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | Pass | Pass | Student’s | |||
| 1U | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | Fail | Rank sum: | ||||
| 1V | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | Pass | Pass | Student’s | |||
| 1W | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | Pass | Fail | Rank sum: | |||
| 2A-left | 7 | 7 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 6 | Fail | ANOVA on ranks: | Rank sum: | |
| 2A-right | 7 | 7 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 6 | Pass | Fail | ANOVA on ranks: | Rank sum: |
| 2B | 13 | 13 | 17 | 16 | 16 | 13 | Fail | ANOVA on ranks: | Rank sum: | |
| 2C-left | 9 | 5 | 9 | 4 | Pass | Fail | Rank sum: | Rank sum: | ||
| 2C-right | 9 | 5 | 9 | 4 | Pass | Fail | Rank sum: | Rank sum: | ||
| 3A | 9 | 8 | 12 | 11 | 17 | 14 | Fail | ANOVA on Ranks: H(2) = 50.059, | Rank sum: | |
| 3B-left | 6 | 5 | 5 | 5 | Pass | Pass | 2-Way ANOVA: | 2-Way ANOVA: | ||
| 3B-right | 6 | 5 | 5 | 5 | Pass | Pass | 2-Way ANOVA: | 2-Way ANOVA: | ||
| 3C | 15 | 12 | 9 | 14 | Fail | Rank sum: | Rank sum: | |||
| 3D-left | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | Pass | Pass | Student’s | |||
| 3D-right | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | Pass | Pass | Student’s | |||
| 3E | 16 | 13 | 10 | 10 | Pass | Pass | 2-Way ANOVA: | 2-Way ANOVA: | ||
| 3F-left | 11 | 6 | 11 | 7 | Fail | Rank sum: | Rank sum: | |||
| 3F-right | 11 | 7 | 11 | 7 | Pass | Fail | Rank sum: | Rank sum: | ||
| 3G | 14 | 13 | 16 | 17 | 16 | 16 | Fail | ANOVA on ranks: | Rank sum: | |
| 3H | 9 | 9 | 4 | 4 | 9 | 9 | Pass | Pass | 2-Way ANOVA: | 2-Way ANOVA: |
| 4A | 2 | 5 | 2 | 5 | Pass | Fail | Rank sum: | |||
| 4B | 2 | 5 | 2 | 5 | Fail | Rank sum: | ||||
| 4C | 2 | 5 | 2 | 5 | Fail | Rank sum: | ||||
| 4D | 2 | 5 | 2 | 5 | Fail | Rank sum: | ||||
| 4E | 2 | 5 | 2 | 5 | Pass | Pass | Student’s t: | |||
| 4F | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | Pass | Pass | 2-Way ANOVA: | 2-Way ANOVA: | ||
| 4G | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | Pass | Pass | 2-Way ANOVA: | 2-Way ANOVA: | ||
| 5A-nuc | 7 | 2 | 6 | 2 | Pass | Fail | Rank sum: | |||
| 5A-cyto | 7 | 2 | 6 | 2 | Fail | Rank sum: | ||||
| 5A-memb | 7 | 2 | 6 | 2 | Fail | Rank sum: | ||||
| 5B-nuc | 7 | 2 | 6 | 2 | Pass | fail | Rank sum: | |||
| 5B-cyto | 7 | 2 | 6 | 2 | Fail | Rank sum: | ||||
| 5B-memb | 6 | 2 | 6 | 2 | Fail | Rank sum: | ||||
YM young males, YF young females, MM middle-aged males, MF middle-aged females, OM old males, OF old females, EV equal variance, FDR corrected for multiple comparisons using false detection rate
aEqual variance only tested when dataset passed normality
bEffect of sex only analyzed in experiments where n>4/sex/age. Rank sum used when 2-way ANOVA for age x sex failed normality or equal variance and reports effect of sex within old mice. 2-way ANOVA used when normality and equal variance pass and reports main effect of sex across ages
cSee the “Results” section for post hoc tests
Fig. 1Bioplex analyses show widespread upregulation of cytokines in old versus young C57BL/6J ventral hippocampus. Cytokine expression was measured in the ventral hippocampus of young versus old C57BL/6J. Relative to young mice, old mice expressed significantly higher levels of A interleukin 1α (IL-1α), B IL-1β, C IL-2, D IL-3, and E IL-4 but not F IL-5. Old mice also expressed higher levels of G IL-6, H IL-9, I IL-10, J IL-12p40, K IL-12p70, L IL-13, M IL-17, N eotaxin, and O granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), but not P granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF). Q Interfeuron gamma (IFNγ) also exhibited an age-related increase, as did R KC but not S monocyte chemoattractant protein 1 (MCP1). Finally, T macrophage inflammatory protein 1a (MIP-1a), U MIP-1b, V rantes, and W tumor necrosis factor (TNFα) all demonstrated age-related increases in expression. X Correlational analyses (bold = FDR-P<0.05) of data from old mice reveals that a subset of these cytokines become uniquely coupled with each other in the aged ventral hippocampus (i.e., IL-1α, IL-1β, IL-3, IL-6, KL12p40, IL-13, IL17, KC, MCP-1, MIP-1b and Rantes; see Table S2 for r and P values for both young and old mice). Data expressed as mean ±SEM. *vs. young, FDR-P=0.044–0.002. FDR—false discovery rate
Fig. 2Western blots confirm IL-10, IL-6, and IL-1β expression increase with age in mouse ventral hippocampus. A An IL-10 antibody detected a doublet migrating at ~25 kDa, possibly due to detection of differentially glycosylated forms. Across sexes, old and middle-aged mice showed higher expression of the bottom band relative to young adult mice. The fact that the effect of age occurs across sexes is indicated by the significance marker (i.e., * or #) being placed above a bar that extends across the male and female histograms (see Table 1). B IL-6 (migrating as a single band at ~21 kDa) was also elevated in old mice relative to young adult and middle-aged mice. This age-related increase was observed across males and females, but was smaller in males. C Across sexes, IL-1β protein (migrating as a doublet at ~25 kDa possibly due to detection of differentially glycosylated forms) was also elevated in old versus young adult mice. Data expressed as mean ±SEM. Brightness and contrast of blots and Ponceau stain (PS) images adjusted for graphical clarity. Effect of age across sexes: *vs. young, P=0.049 to <0.00001; #vs. young and middle-aged, P<0.001. Rank Sum test of sex within old: @vs. female, P=0.013. LB—lower band, UB—upper band, Y—young, M—middle aged, O—old.
Fig. 3Age-related increases in IL-1β appear to be restricted to the hippocampus, whereas age-related increases in IL-6 are noted throughout the brain. A Across sexes, middle-aged, and old mice expressed higher levels of IL-6 protein (migrating at ~21 kDa) relative to young mice in the dorsal hippocampus. The fact that the effect of age occurs across sexes is indicated by the significance marker (i.e., * or #) being placed above a bar that extends across the male and female histograms (see Table 1). B) IL-1β (migrating as a doublet at ~25 kDa) also appears to be upregulated with age across sexes in the dorsal hippocampus as old mice showed stronger signals in both the upper and lower bands relative to young mice. C IL-6 was significantly elevated in the prefrontal cortex of old mice relative to young mice; however, D IL-1β expression did not change with age in the prefrontal cortex. A similar pattern was observed in striatum, with E old mice expressing more IL-6 than young mice but F not more IL-1β. G In the cerebellum, both middle-aged and old mice showed higher levels of IL-6 relative to young mice. H In contrast, IL-1β—which migrated as a single-thick band in the cerebellum—did not change with age. Data expressed as mean ±SEM. Brightness and contrast of blots and Ponceau stain (PS) images adjusted for graphical clarity. Effect of age across sexes: *vs young, P=0.005 to <0.001; #vs young and middle, P<0.001; rank sum test of sex within old: @vs. male, P=0.044. LB—lower band, UB—upper band, Y—young, M—middle aged, O—old
Fig. 4Age-related increases in IL-6 are also noted in multiple brain regions of BALB/cJ mice and Brown Norway Rats. Relative to young BALB/cJ mice, old BALB/cJ mice express significantly higher levels of IL-6 protein in the A ventral hippocampus (VHIPP; effect of age across sexes indicated by the bar extended across the male and female histograms), B dorsal hippocampus (DHIPP), C prefrontal cortex (PFC), D striatum, and E cerebellum. Similarly, old Brown Norway Rats showed higher expression of IL-6 protein relative to young rats in the F PFC and G cerebellum, with females expressing higher levels than males in the cerebellum across ages. These data suggest widespread age-related increases in IL-6 expression are conserved across species and are not tied to a single rearing environment. Data expressed as mean ±SEM. Brightness and contrast of blots and Ponceau stain (PS). images adjusted for graphical clarity. *Main effect of age (vs. young), P=0.002 to <0.001; @main effect of sex (vs. male), P=0.002. Y—young, O—old
Fig. 5Age-related increases in hippocampal IL-6 are more pronounced in cytosolic versus nuclear or membrane fractions. To determine if age-related increases in IL-6 were more likely to impact the membrane-associated classical anti-inflammatory pathway or the soluble trans-signaling pro-inflammatory pathway, hippocampi from C57BL/6J mice were subjected to biochemical fractionation to separate proteins into nuclear (N, nuc), cytosolic (C, cyto), and membrane (M, memb) fractions. A Validation of biochemically fractionated samples suggests minimal contamination of the nuclear fraction with unsheared cells as we find histone 3 in the nuclear fraction but not cytosol or membrane, pAKT enriched in the cytosol fraction, and synaptophysin in the membrane but not nuclear or cytosolic fraction. B In the ventral hippocampus (VHIPP), old mice showed higher expression of IL-6 relative to young mice in the nuclear, cytosolic, and membrane fractions. C The dorsal hippocampus (DHIPP) showed the same pattern with old mice expressing higher levels of IL-6 relative to young mice in the nuclear, cytosolic, and membrane fractions. Across the ventral and dorsal hippocampus, the age-related increases that were observed in the cytosolic fractions were approximately twice those observed in the nuclear and membrane fractions. Data expressed as mean ±SEM. Brightness and contrast of blots adjusted for graphical clarity. Post hoc: #vs nuclear and membrane, P<0.001; *vs young, P<0.002
Ratios of pro/anti-inflammatory cytokines suggest both types of cytokines are largely upregulated in the ventral hippocampus of old versus young C57BL/6J mice to the same extent
| Ratio | Young mean | Young SEM | Old mean | Old SEM | Student’s | Raw | FDR-P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IL-1α/IL-10 | 1.00 | 0.05 | 1.30 | 0.18 | Failed EV: | 0.0973 | 0.37537 |
| IL-1β/IL-10 | 1.01 | 0.06 | 1.25 | 0.13 | 0.1139 | 0.38428 | |
| IL-2/IL-10 | 1.04 | 0.12 | 0.85 | 0.08 | 0.2123 | 0.4776 | |
| IL-6/IL-10 | 1.03 | 0.08 | 1.09 | 0.12 | 0.7185 | 0.84346 | |
| IL-12p40/IL-10 | 1.04 | 0.09 | 1.09 | 0.09 | 0.7024 | 0.90308 | |
| IL-12p70/IL-10 | 1.05 | 0.12 | 1.09 | 0.14 | 0.8201 | 0.88573 | |
| G-CSF/IL-10 | 1.01 | 0.10 | 0.95 | 0.08 | 0.6471 | 0.87365 | |
| IFNγ/IL-10 | 1.03 | 0.12 | 0.80 | 0.14 | 0.2517 | 0.48541 | |
| MIP-1α/IL-10 | 1.13 | 0.29 | 0.91 | 0.10 | Failed normality: | 0.8048 | 0.90538 |
| TNFα/IL-10 | 1.02 | 0.05 | 1.53 | 0.28 | Failed normality: | 0.0530 | 0.28636 |
| IL-1α/IL-4 | 1.00 | 0.18 | 1.06 | 0.20 | 0.8382 | 0.87044 | |
| IL-1β/IL-4 | 1.00 | 0.19 | 0.98 | 0.15 | 0.9183 | 0.9183 | |
| IL-2/IL-4 | 0.99 | 0.20 | 0.66 | 0.11 | 0.1727 | 0.4239 | |
| IL-6/IL-4 | 1.02 | 0.17 | 0.87 | 0.16 | 0.5300 | 0.795 | |
| IL-12p40/IL-4 | 0.99 | 0.15 | 0.86 | 0.13 | 0.5400 | 0.76737 | |
| IL-12p70/IL-4 | 0.96 | 0.15 | 0.87 | 0.17 | 0.7100 | 0.87136 | |
| G-CSF/IL-4 | 1.07 | 0.22 | 0.76 | 0.13 | 0.2200 | 0.45692 | |
| IFNg/IL-4 | 1.02 | 0.26 | 0.60 | 0.10 | 0.1400 | 0.42 | |
| MIP-1α/IL-4 | 0.92 | 0.09 | 0.68 | 0.08 | 0.0636 | 0.2862 | |
| TNFα/IL-4 | 0.99 | 0.16 | 1.22 | 0.26 | 0.4844 | 0.76934 | |
| IL-1β/IL6 | 1.00 | 0.06 | 1.19 | 0.10 | Failed normality: | 0.3200 | 0.576 |
| GM-CSF/IL-6 | 1.01 | 0.10 | 0.62 | 0.12 | 0.33506 | ||
| IFNγ/IL-6 | 1.01 | 0.11 | 0.76 | 0.13 | 0.1724 | 0.46538 | |
| IL-1α/IL-13 | 1.01 | 0.06 | 0.76 | 0.09 | 0.27736 | ||
| IL-1β/IL-13 | 1.02 | 0.05 | 0.74 | 0.05 | |||
| MIP-1α/IL-13 | 1.15 | 0.33 | 0.58 | 0.11 | Failed normality: | 0.0530 | 0.35775 |
| TNFα/IL-13 | 1.05 | 0.11 | 0.89 | 0.12 | 0.3286 | 0.55451 |
EV equal variance
Pairings of pro- vs anti-inflammatory cytokines based on https://www.sinobiological.com/resource/cytokines/all-anti-inflammatory-cytokines (accessed 04/05/21). Note that 1 young subject expressed no IL-4; therefore, data from this subject could not be expressed as a ratio. Thus, n=7/age for all except for IL-4 ratios where n=6 for young