| Literature DB >> 34759932 |
Yufang Rao1, Dalin Zhong1, Ke Qiu1, Danni Cheng1, Li Li2, Yi Zhang3, Minzi Mao1, Wendu Pang1, Daibo Li1, Yao Song1, Junhong Li1, Yijun Dong1, Wei Zhang4,5, Haopeng Yu4,5, Jianjun Ren1,4,5, Yu Zhao1,4,5.
Abstract
Background: The molecular mechanisms of acute otitis media (AOM) development, and the intercellular crosstalk within the multicellular ecosystem of AOM, are not clear.Entities:
Keywords: acute otitis media; dual-feature; intercellular crosstalk; macrophage; middle ear mucosa; single-cell RNA sequencing
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34759932 PMCID: PMC8572853 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.760954
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Immunol ISSN: 1664-3224 Impact factor: 7.561
Figure 1Single cell transcriptome profiling of rat middle ear mucosa (MEM). (A) Workflow showing the process of model construction, sample collection and scRNA-seq using BD Rhapsody platform. (B) H&E staining of normal MEM. Normal epithelium is indicated by the bule arrow. (C) H&E staining of inflamed MEM. Damaged epithelium is indicated by the blue and red arrow. Inflammatory infiltration is indicated by the black arrow. (D) t-SNE plot of all single cells from BD Rhapsody. (E) Violin plots showing the expression levels of different marker genes across 19 clusters.
Figure 2AOM is characterized by rapid infiltration of neutrophils and macrophages during inflammatory progression. (A) t-SNE plots comparing the distribution of single cells derived from inflamed and normal MEM (B) Comparison of cell proportions in each cluster between normal and inflamed MEM (C) Comparison of cell proportions in each major cell type between normal and inflamed MEM.
Figure 3M2 macrophage play as a key regulator in inflammation progression. (A, B) Circos plots displaying putative ligand–receptor interactions between macro_2 and other cell clusters from inflamed MEM. Interactions are divided into incoming and outgoing events. The brand links pairs of interacting cell types, and corresponding number of events were labeled in the graph (C, D) Summary of selected ligand–receptor interactions between different cell clusters from inflamed MEM and normal MEM, respectively. P–values (permutation test) are represented by the size of each circle. The color gradient indicates the level of interaction. (E) The inferred signaling networks between different cell clusters. Circle sizes are proportional to the number of cells in each cell group and edge width represents the communication probability.
Figure 4Phagocytosis-related dual-feature cells and professional phagocytes coexist in rat MEM. (A) UMAP plot of CD68+ single cells at the resolution of 0.6 as well as UMAP plot showing the distribution of singlets and doublets (indicated at the upper right corner) (B) Violin plots showing the expression levels of different marker genes across 12 clusters of CD68+ single cells (C) UMAP plots comparing the distribution of CD68+ single cells derived from inflamed and normal MEM (D) Comparison of cell proportions of each cluster between inflamed and normal MEM (E) Scatterplot showing the correlation between the Mki67+ progenitor cell scores and macrophage scores as well as comparison of macrophage scores of single cells between macrophages and Mki67+ progenitor cells (F) Scatterplot showing the correlation between the epithelial cell scores and macrophage scores as well as comparison of macrophage scores of single cells between macrophages and epithelial cells (G) Scatterplot showing the correlation between the fibroblast scores and macrophage scores as well as comparison of macrophage scores of single cells between macrophages and fibroblasts.
Figure 5Multiplex immunofluorescence confirmed the existence of phagocytosis-related dual-feature cells in rat MEM (A) Landscape of rat inflamed MEM stained with antibodies against CD68, EPCAM, MKI67, COL1A1 and SFRP4 and counterstained with DAPI (B) Target region of rat inflamed MEM stained with antibodies against CD68, EPCAM, MKI67, COL1A1 and SFRP4 and counterstained with DAPI (C) Landscape of rat normal MEM stained with antibodies against CD68, EPCAM, MKI67, COL1A1 and SFRP4 and counterstained with DAPI (D) Target region of rat normal MEM stained with antibodies against CD68, EPCAM, MKI67, COL1A1 and SFRP4 and counterstained with DAPI (E) Target region of rat inflamed (upper images) and normal (lower images) MEM stained with antibodies against EPCAM, COL1A1, SFRP4, MKI67, CD68, and counterstained with DAPI. (F) Target region of rat inflamed (upper images) and normal (lower images) MEM stained with antibodies against CD68 and MKI67, CD68 and EPCAM, CD68 and SFRP4, CD68 and COL1A1, and counterstained with DAPI.
Figure 6Phagocytosis-related dual-feature cells are a heterogeneous group of cells with distinct immune regulation functions. (A) Top canonical pathways enriched in the Mki67+ progenitor cell (cluster C7) (B) Top canonical pathways enriched in the epithelial cell (cluster C8) (C) Top canonical pathways enriched in the Osteoblastic stromal cell (cluster C9) (D) The developmental trajectory of cells in each cluster inferred by Monocle2 (E) The developmental trajectory of cells in each cluster inferred by Monocle2 comparing the distribution of CD68+ single cells derived from inflamed and normal MEM. The developmental trajectories showed that most of the Mki67+ progenitor cells, epithelial cells and osteoblastic stromal cells were located on the early branch, indicating their derivation from normal MEM as well as their failure to maintain self-integrity in the inflammatory progression. On the contrary, granulocytes and monocytes tended to locate on the late branches, representing the occurrence of inflammatory infiltration. Meanwhile, clusters of macrophages and dendritic cells presented with highly distinct trajectories throughout the inflammatory response, suggesting these cells might have multiplex roles in the inflammation progression.