| Literature DB >> 35387338 |
Huiling Chen1, Yanchao Zhang1, Xing Li1, Wei Zhang1, Haoqi He1, Bohai Du1, Tianlan Li1, Huanwen Tang1, Yungang Liu2, Li Li1, Ming Shi1,3.
Abstract
As a viable substitute for bisphenol A (BPA), BPF has been widely used in the plastic industry and daily consumer goods, resulting in its detection in humans at a comparable concentration. Evidence reveals that BPF and BPA may have similar toxic effects due to their similar structures. However, there is less information about BPF and its latent implications on the immune system, which is associated with many disorders. In this study, the in vitro toxicity of BPF on RAW264.7 macrophages was explored. The cells were treated with different concentrations of BPF (5, 10, 20, 50, 100, and 200 μM), the cell viability and apoptosis were detected, the gene expression profile was analyzed by whole-transcriptome sequencing, and the mRNA levels were detected by qRT-PCR. The results showed a high concentration of BPF could significantly reduce the survival rate of RAW264.7 macrophages. Although the medium concentration (20-50 μM) of BPF seemed to have no impact on the cell activity of macrophages, it caused the occurrence of apoptosis. The results of differential transcription showed that compared with the control group, 121 genes were upregulated and 82 genes were downregulated in the BPF group. The significantly changed gene functions were mainly concentrated in cell cycle, phagosome, lysosome, and antigen processing and presentation. These findings provide valuable information for correctly understanding the immunotoxicity risk of BPF and may help to improve the hazard identification of bisphenol compounds.Entities:
Keywords: RAW264.7 macrophages; apoptosis; bisphenol F; immunotoxicity; transcription
Year: 2022 PMID: 35387338 PMCID: PMC8978606 DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.846562
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Pharmacol ISSN: 1663-9812 Impact factor: 5.810
Primer sequences used for qRT- PCR.
| Gene | Forward | Reverse |
|---|---|---|
|
| TGTCTGTGTCTACCGAGGGTG | TCCAACGGACTTTAACAACTTCA |
|
| AGAAGGTACTTACGGTGTGGT | GAGAGATTTCCCGAATTGCAGT |
|
| TTCGTGTTCGAGAGCGATTTG | ACCTTGGAACTAGATTTGCCAG |
|
| GAGGCGAGTGAAGCCATGT | TCCAGAGTAAAAGCGGATTTCAG |
|
| AATAAGATACAGTGTCGGGTCCC | GTCCTTCTGGAAATTGGGCTC |
|
| ACAGTCCCGACCCAGAGTAG | CCACGTAGCCGACAATGATGA |
|
| GGAAGTCATCAAGCCATTCTGT | GCATCCAGTAGAACGGGTCAG |
|
| TCCCAGTGCTGGTGATGAGT | GCGTGTACTTGCCCCAAAT |
|
| CAGGTAATGCAGTTTGTGGAGC | TGGATCAGTTTCACGAAGAAGC |
|
| AAACCAGCTAAGGAGTGAACTTG | GTGGGTGTAGTCTAGGTCTTTCT |
|
| GGCTGGTGACCTACTGGATTT | GGCACTGGGAACCTGAAGT |
|
| CTGGTGTCGCTAGTGTCGC | CAGGGCCATGATGTCTCTTG |
|
| GGACCGACAGAGGAGGATG | GCCAAAGTCAAACTCTTCTGCG |
|
| ACCTGCTTCGCATCTCTACTC | GGTTGGATACCACGGAACCTC |
|
| GCTGACCAGTACGACCTTAGT | TACGGCACCTATGTAGGCAAG |
|
| ACTTGGGGACCACCTATTCCT | ATCGCCAATCAGACGCTCC |
|
| GAGAAGCCCGAAAACAGGTG | AGAGCTGACTCAGGGATATGATT |
|
| ATGGAAGGGAAGTGGTTACTGT | GCTTTGTAGGTGACCTTTGGAG |
|
| CAGAGCTGTACTTCAATGTGGAC | AGGTCTCACACTGCACTAGGT |
|
| CGGGCTCACCAGGTTACTG | GGCTAAACCCAGGATTCTCCTT |
|
| AGGCTTGGTGCTACAGGAAAA | CTTGGCCCGGTCATTCTTGT |
|
| CCTGGACATCAACGTGCAG | TGTCTCTTGGTATAGCCCAGAAA |
|
| GACAACTTACGGTTCCAAGAGCA | TCTCCACGTTGAGCAACTAAATC |
|
| GGCTGTATTCCCCTCCATCG | CCAGTTGGTAACAATGCCATGT |
FIGURE 1Cytotoxicity induced by BPF on RAW264.7 macrophages: (A) CCK-8 assay. (B) LDH release assay (n = 5). After calculation, the 50% inhibitory concentration (IC50) of BPF was 248.60 μM. Data are expressed as means ± SEM. **p < 0.01 and ***p < 0.001 are compared with the control group (0 μM).
FIGURE 2Apoptosis induced by BPF on RAW264.7 macrophages. (A) Flow cytometry was used to analyze the cell apoptosis status of RAW264.7 (n = 3). (B) The total apoptosis rates. (C) The early apoptosis rates. (D) The late apoptosis rates. Data are expressed as means ± SEM. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, and ***p < 0.001 are compared with the control group (0 μM).
FIGURE 3Differential expression patterns of mRNAs between control and BPF-exposed RAW264.7 macrophages. (A) The cluster heat map. (B) The volcano map of all the sequenced genes from the samples (p < 0.05 and |log2 (fold change)| > 0.26). (C) Venn diagram of co-expressed genes between control and BPF-exposed RAW264.7 macrophages.
FIGURE 4Functional enrichment analysis of DEGs based on the GO annotation category and KEGG pathway category. GO enrichment analysis histogram. X-axis: the serial number of GO Term (see Supplementary Tables S1 and S2 for function description corresponding to GO enrichment analysis); Y-axis: the significant difference of GO enrichment between the control group and BPF treatment group (−log10 p value). (A) GO enrichment analysis histogram of upregulated DEGs. (B) GO enrichment analysis histogram of downregulated DEGs. (C) KEGG bubble charts of upregulated DEGs (C) and downregulated DEGs (D). The size of dots represents the number of genes annotated to GO enrichment or the KEGG pathway, and the color from red to purple represents the significance of enrichment.
Significant KEGG pathways from differentially expressed genes.
| Terms |
| Transcriptome count | Fold enrichment |
|---|---|---|---|
| mmu04141: Protein processing in endoplasmic reticulum | <0.001 | 34 | 3.73 |
| mmu04142: Lysosome | <0.01 | 20 | 2.93 |
| mmu04145: Phagosome | <0.05 | 20 | 2.48 |
| mmu04110: Cell cycle | <0.05 | 16 | 2.30 |
| mmu04612: Antigen processing and presentation | <0.05 | 12 | 3.19 |
| mmu00510: N-Glycan biosynthesis | <0.05 | 10 | 3.86 |
| mmu03060: Protein export | <0.05 | 7 | 4.76 |
| mmu00531: Glycosaminoglycan degradation | <0.05 | 6 | 6.00 |
Upregulated and downregulated DEGs in the top eight most significant results of KEGG enrichment.
| Description | Count | Upregulated | Downregulated | Gene name | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Upregulated | Downregulated | ||||
| Protein processing in the endoplasmic reticulum | 34 | 32 | 2 | Hspa5/Ssr1/Hyou1/Hsp90b1/P4hb/Pdia6/Xbp1/Sec24d/Selenos/Ssr3/Rpn1/Sec61a1/Stt3a/Sec61b/Canx/Ssr2/Sec61g/Pdia4/Dnajc3/Tram1/Txndc5/Dnajb11/Syvn1/Rpn2Sec23b/Sec24c/Ddost/Pdia3/Calr/Lman1/Herpud1/Edem2 | Man1c1/Atxn3 |
| Lysosome | 20 | 0 | 20 | / | Gusb/Hexa/Gns/Ctsd/Igf2r/Ctsa/Hexb/Ap1g2/Atp6v0a1/Gaa/Litaf/Hyal1/Ap1m1/Ctsb/Gga2/Laptm5/Ctsz/Gga1/Atp6v0d1/Idua |
| Phagosome | 20 | 11 | 9 | Sec61a1/Sec61b/Canx/Sec61g/Eea1/Ncf2/Tubb4b/Cd36/H2-Q6/Calr/H2-Eb1 | H2-T23/Atp6v1c1/Coro1a/Atp6v0a1/Itgb2/Colec12/Itgb5/Atp6v0d1/Atp6v1a |
| Cell cycle | 16 | 15 | 1 | Cdk1/Cdc20/Ttk/Ccnb1/Bub1/Tfdp2/Bub1b/Cdc25b/Rad21/Ccna2/Smc1a/Mad2l1/Dbf4/Ccnb2/Mdm2 | Tgfb1 |
| Antigen processing and presentation | 12 | 8 | 4 | Hspa5/Psme2/Canx/H2-Q6/Pdia3/Calr/B2m/H2-Eb1 | Psme2b/H2-T23/Ctsb/Tapbp |
| N-Glycan biosynthesis | 10 | 7 | 3 | Rpn1/Stt3a/Alg2/Mgat2/Rpn2/Ddost/Alg13 | Man1c1/Man2a2/Dpm3 |
| Protein export | 7 | 7 | 0 | Hspa5/Sec61a1/Spcs2/Sec61b/Sec61g/Spcs3/Srp72 | / |
| Glycosaminoglycan degradation | 6 | 0 | 6 | / | Gusb/Hexa/Gns/Hexb/Hyal1/Idua |
FIGURE 5Results of the effects of BPF on the cell cycle, phagosome, lysosome, and antigen processing and presentation pathway. (A–D) Schematic diagram of the KEGG signaling pathway of cell cycle, phagosome, lysosome, and antigen processing and presentation pathway induced by BPF, respectively. Red and green symbols represent upregulated and downregulated gene expressions. (E–H) FPKM/relative expression levels of the top five genes with significant difference in the aforementioned KEGG signaling pathway. (I–L) The mRNA levels of the top five genes in the aforementioned KEGG signaling pathway re-confirmed by qRT-PCR. Data are expressed as means ± SEM. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, and ***p < 0.001 are compared with the control group (0 μM).