| Literature DB >> 35465329 |
Dongping Lyu1,2, Guanjun Kou1,2, Shiyang Li1,3,4, Lixiang Li1,2,5, Bing Li1,2, Ruchen Zhou1,2, Xiaoxiao Yang1,2, Wenyu Tian3, Yanqing Li1,2,5, Xiuli Zuo1,2,5.
Abstract
As a major component of the enteroendocrine system, enterochromaffin (EC) cells play a key role in ulcerative colitis (UC). However, the scarcity of EC cells has limited the investigation of their function. In this study, we applied digital spatial profiling to acquire transcriptomic data for EC cells and other epithelial cells from colonoscopic biopsy samples from eight patients with UC and seven healthy controls. Differential expression analysis, gene set enrichment analysis, and weighted gene coexpression network analysis were performed to identify differentially expressed genes and pathways and coexpression networks. Results were validated using an online dataset obtained by single-cell RNA sequencing, along with immunofluorescence staining and quantitative real-time PCR. In healthy participants, 10 genes were significantly enriched in EC cells, functionally concentrated in protein and bioamine synthesis. A coexpression network containing 17 hub genes, including TPH1, CHGA, and GCLC, was identified in EC cells. In patients with UC, EC cells gained increased capacity for protein synthesis, along with novel immunological functions such as antigen processing and presentation, whereas chemical sensation was downregulated. The specific expression of CHGB and RGS2 in EC cells was confirmed by immunofluorescence staining. Our results illuminate the transcriptional signatures of EC cells in the human colon. EC cells' newly observed functional shift from sensation to secretion and immunity indicates their pivotal role in UC.Entities:
Keywords: chromogranin B; digital spatial profiling; enterochromaffin cell; single-cell RNA-seq; ulcerative colitis
Year: 2022 PMID: 35465329 PMCID: PMC9023741 DOI: 10.3389/fcell.2022.841090
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Cell Dev Biol ISSN: 2296-634X
FIGURE 1Digital spatial profiling of EC cells from human colon biopsy. (A) Schematic workflow of digital spatial profiling. Biopsy specimens were collected and assembled into TMAs. The sections were incubated with immunofluorescence antibodies (for cell type identification) and RNA probes with UC-cleavable barcodes. After ROI selection, barcodes within each ROI were cleaved from probes by a fine beam of UV ray and collected for NGS sequencing. (B) Average raw count of targets in each ROI. The y-axis was log2-transformed. EC-Con, EC cells from healthy participants; Epi-Con, epithelium (excluding EC) from healthy participants; EC-UC, EC cells from patients with ulcerative colitis; Epi-UC, epithelium from patients with UC. # indicates QC failure. (C) To determine how many genes were detected in each ROI, the number of targets above the limit of quantification (LOQ) in each ROI was calculated. (D) Principal component analysis (PCA) of ROIs from each group. (E,F) Expression levels of TPH1 and CHGA. Differences between groups were analyzed using Student’s t-test (two-tailed). *p < 0.05 and **p < 0.01.
Demographic and clinical characteristics of the participants in each group.
| Con-EC ( | Con-Epi ( | UC-EC ( | UC-Epi ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex, | ||||
| Male |
|
|
|
|
| Female |
|
|
|
|
| Age, years, mean ± SD |
|
|
|
|
| BMI, mean ± SD |
|
|
|
|
| Location of biopsy, | ||||
| Sigmoid Colon |
|
|
|
|
| Rectum |
|
|
|
|
| Disease duration, months, mean ± SD | N.A. | N.A. |
|
|
| Disease extent, | ||||
| E1 (proctitis) |
|
| ||
| E2 (left sided) | N.A. | N.A. |
|
|
| E3 (extensive) |
|
| ||
| Concomitant medication, | ||||
| 5-ASA |
|
| ||
| Corticoids | N.A. | N.A. |
|
|
| None |
|
| ||
| Mayo endoscopic score, mean ± SD | N.A. | N.A. |
|
|
| Mayo score, mean ± SD | N.A. | N.A. |
|
|
The data was displayed either as mean ± SD, or number (percentage). BMI, body mass index. 5-ASA, 5-aminosalicylic acid.
FIGURE 2Comparison between EC cells and background epithelium in healthy participants, revealing the distinctive expression patterns of EC cells. Participants, revealing the distinctive expression patterns of EC cells. (A) Volcano plot of the analysis of differential expression between the EC-Con and Epi-Con groups. Vertical dotted lines represent log2FoldChange values of 1 and −1. The horizontal dotted line represents adjusted P = 0.05. P adj, adjusted p-value. (B) Heatmap of DEGs between EC cells and background epithelium in healthy participants. (C–F) Results of GSEA comparing the EC-Con and Epi-Con groups. Analysis was performed using the Gene Ontology categories of biological process (C), molecular function (D), and cellular component (E), as well as KEGG pathways (F). The length of each bar indicates the normalized enrichment score, and the color indicates q values of each term.
FIGURE 3Identification of coexpression networks and hub genes of EC cells using WGCNA. (A) Cluster dendrogram of 149 coexpression modules detected by WGCNA. The color row underneath the dendrogram shows the module assignment determined by the dynamic tree cut (B) Associations between coexpression modules and sample parameters (group and cell type). Module names are represented by colors. The upper number in each block is the correlation coefficient, and the lower number in parentheses is the p-value. Only modules with at least one significant association (p-value < 0.05) were shown. (C) Correlations between module membership and gene significance weight for genes in the Green3 module, indicating that hub genes of the Green3 module also tend to be highly correlated with weight. cor, correlation; P, p-value. (D) Overrepresentation analysis (ORA) of genes in the Green3 module, analyzed using GO terms. Size of the rounds indicates gene count for each term, whereas the color indicates the P adj (adjusted p-value) of each term. (E) Coexpression network of the genes in Green3. Orange indicates hub genes for EC cells; the other genes are plotted in yellow. Ellipse size represents the weight of the gene in the network, and the transparency of lines between genes represents the strength of gene interaction.
FIGURE 4DEG analysis of EC cells in patients with ulcerative colitis. (A) Comparison of the transcriptomes of EC cells between patients with UC and controls. Vertical dotted lines represent log2FoldChange values of 1 and −1. The horizontal dotted line represents adjusted P = 0.05. P adj, adjusted p-value. (B) Comparison of the transcriptomes of EC cells and background epithelium in patients with UC. (C) Overall heatmap of genes identified in DEG analyses (EC-Con vs. Epi-Con, EC-UC vs. Epi-UC, and EC-UC vs. EC-Con). (D) Overlap of DEGs identified in the three analyses mentioned above. The upregulation (Up, in red) and downregulation (Down, in blue) of DEGs was shown, respectively. No genes were downregulated in EC-UC compared to EC-Con.
The results of transcriptive factor enrichment analysis from ChEA3, compared between EC-UC and EC-Con.
| Rank | TF | Score | Overlapping genes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | MYRFL | 7 | SPINK4, MUC2, GMDS, DMBT1, REG4, PLA2G2A, TFF3, CLCA1, OLFM4 |
| 2 | IRF9 | 7.5 | CD74, IFITM1, HLA-B, HLA-C, HLA-A, HLA-F, SUPT7L, HLA-E, PSME1, TNFSF10, LCN2, PPIB, B2M |
| 3 | ISX | 9.333 | SPINK4, FCGBP, GPX2, SPINK1, REG4, PLA2G2A, ITLN1, OLFM4, MUC2, DMBT1, GMDS, CEACAM5, TFF3, LCN2, CLCA1, CHGB |
| 4 | IRF7 | 13.67 | CD74, IFITM1, HLA-B, PSME1, TNFSF10, LCN2, HLA-C, HLA-A, HLA-F, B2M, HLA-E |
| 5 | BATF2 | 17.67 | CD74, IFITM1, HLA-B, PSME1, TNFSF10, LCN2, HLA-C, HLA-A, HLA-F, B2M, HLA-E |
| 6 | CDX1 | 17.67 | SPINK4, FCGBP, CD74, GPX2, SPINK1, REG4, PLA2G2A, ITLN1, OLFM4, MUC2, GMDS, DMBT1, CEACAM5, TFF3, CLCA1 |
| 7 | IRF1 | 23 | PDIA3, CD74, IFITM1, SPINK1, HLA-B, HLA-C, HLA-A, HLA-F, SAT1, HLA-E, RPS25, TNFSF10, PSME1, ANKRD10, B2M |
| 8 | SP100 | 23.67 | CD74, IFITM1, PSME1, TNFSF10, HLA-DRA, HLA-A, HLA-F, B2M, HLA-DRB1, HLA-E |
| 9 | ATOH1 | 24.33 | SPINK4, FCGBP, SMOC2, MUC2, REG4, CEACAM5, PLA2G2A, TFF3, CLCA1, OLFM4, CHGB |
| 10 | ARID5A | 25.5 | CD74, IFITM1, HLA-B, HLA-C, HLA-A, HLA-F, B2M, HLA-DRB1, HLA-E |
The results were ranked according to the mean rank method. TF, transcriptive factor.
FIGURE 5Enrichment analysis revealing a functional shift of EC cells in patients with UC. (A–D) Results of the GSEA comparing EC-UC and EC-Con. Analysis was performed using the Gene Ontology categories of biological process (A), molecular function (B), and cellular component (C), and KEGG pathways (D). The length of each bar indicates the normalized enrichment score, and the color indicates q values of each term. (E,F) GSEA enrichment plot of two KEGG pathways: “antigen processing and presentation” and “olfactory transduction.” NES, normalized enrichment score. P adj, adjusted p-value.
FIGURE 6Data validation using single-cell transcriptomic data and immunofluorescence staining. (A) UMAP (Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection) plot of enteroendocrine cells, including 271 EC cells, 167 cells for the EEC1 group, and 166 cells for the EEC2 group. (B) Markers of enteroendocrine cells plotted on the UMAP plot. (C) Venn diagram of genes enriched in EC cells as determined by single-cell RNA-seq, genes enriched in EC cells as determined by DSP, and genes in the Green3 module associated with EC cells as identified by WGCNA. (D) Representative immunofluorescence staining of CHGB and RGS2 in colonoscopic biopsy samples from healthy participants. The results indicated a significant co-localization of EC cells (5-HT positive), and CHGB and RGS2, respectively. Scale bar = 100 μm; magnification, ×400. (E) Violin plot of DEGs between EC cells from the inflamed mucosa of patients with UC and controls. Con, control. Inf, inflamed mucosa of patients with UC. Non-inf, non-inflamed mucosa of patients with UC. (F) The expression level of CHGB in patients with UC was confirmed by qRT-PCR. Differences between groups were analyzed using Student’s t-test (two-tailed). *p < 0.05. (G) Boxplot showing the ratios of EC cells to all cells (left) and to epithelial cells (right).