Knockdown of lncRNA TUG1 alleviates diabetic retinal vascular dysfunction through regulating miR-524-5p/FGFR2.

Long noncoding RNAs (LncRNAs) have been shown to play critical roles in the development of diabetic retinopathy (DR), which is often regarded as the most frequent cause of visual loss in the world. This study investigated the effect and mechanism of lncRNA taurine-upregulated gene 1 (TUG1) in DR. Quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) revealed that TUG1 was upregulated in streptozotocin (STZ)-induced rat model of DR and human retinal microvascular endothelial cells (hRMECs) incubated with high glucose (HG). TUG1 suppression decreased the proliferation, migration, and angiogenesis of HG-induced hRMECs. TUG1 sponges miR-524-5p, which is downregulated in hyperglycemia. Additionally, the fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) was verified as a miR-524-5p target gene and was overexpressed in HG-treated hRMECs. More notably, overexpression of FGFR2 has been shown to significantly reduce the impact of miR-524-5p overexpression. Additionally, TUG1 silencing ameliorates diabetes mellitus-induced retinal vascular impairment in vivo. Taken together, suppressing TUG1 impairs vascular function in diabetic retinas via controlling miR-524-5p and FGFR2, suggesting a possible therapy method for DR.

Highlights

LncRNA TUG1 was highly expressed in DR rat model and hRMECs under HG condition.

Downregulation of TUG1 was able to suppress cell survival, migration, and tube formation in HRMECs treated with HG.

HRMEC survival, migration and tube formation under HG condition were all inhibited by TUG1 knockdown through the miR-524-5p/FGFR2 axis.

Knockdown of lncRNA TUG1 alleviates diabetes mellitus‐induced retinal vascular dysfunction in vivo.

Introduction

The fundamental hallmark of a glucolipid metabolic illness is a high blood sugar concentration, which is what is known as diabetes mellitus (DM) [1,2]. Hyperglycemia may cause tissue damage over time, especially in those who are predisposed to it genetically [3]. The retina may be badly injured as a result of DM complications, and this is one of the most critical organs that can be affected [4]. Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a distinct and frequent microvascular consequence of diabetes that may lead to significant vision impairment in individuals [5]. 38–70% of DM patients are found to have DR, according to the latest data [6]. Patients with DM who have concomitant DR have a 5-percent chance of becoming blind as their condition progresses [7]. As a pathological manifestation, high blood glucose levels in the patient causes selective apoptosis of cells surrounding the retinal capillaries, resulting in thickening of the fundus microvessel basement membranes and proliferation of endothelial cells, altering the structure and function of the retinal blood vessels [8,9]. Despite recent advances in the treatment of DR using photocoagulation and glycemic management, DR still worsens the condition of diabetes.

A wide range of physiological and pathological processes may be affected by long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs), which are RNA transcripts longer than 200 nucleotides and lacking the ability to code for proteins [10]. The increasing lncRNAs are involved in play an important regulatory role in DR [11,12]. Endothelial cell activity in DR is regulated by lncRNA myocardial infarction-associated transcript (MIAT) through a feedback loop involving VEGF and miR-150-5p in the case of DR [13]. LncRNA TUG1 was discovered in taurine-treated retinas of mice retinal cells for the first time. An abundant lncRNA, TUG1, is implicated in cancer, metabolic problems, and cardiovascular diseases [14]. lncRNA TUG1 was shown to influence mitochondrial activity in podocytes in diabetes conditions [15]. However, the mechanisms regulating TUG1 expression in DR remains to be elucidated.

Based on the above evidence, we hypothesized that TUG1 may play a critical role in the progression of DR. In the present study, we aimed to investigate the biological function and molecular mechanism of TUG1 in DR, which may suggest a novel insight into the development of efficient therapeutics for DR patients.

Materials and methods

Animals and diabetic retinopathy (DR) model

We used streptozotocin (STZ)-injected Sprague-Dawley rats (8 weeks old, 200–250 g body weight) as experimental rats models of DR. The SD rats were obtained from the Weitong Lihua, Inc. (Beijing, China) and kept at 25 ± 3°C in a room equipped with light/dark cycles of 12 h. Animals were randomly divided to two groups: sham group (n = 8), STZ group (n = 8). As previously reported [16], 65 mg/kg STZ was injected intraperitoneally for 5 days continuously, with citrate buffer used as a blank. The rats with glucose levels >16.7 mmol/L were considered as diabetes and used for further experiments. This study was approved by the Animal Care and Use Committee of The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University.

Cell culture and transfection

BeNa Culture Collection supplied the hRMECs (BNCC, Beijing) and cultured them in an endothelial cell medium (ECM) containing 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS) with 5% CO2 at 37°C. Glucose 30 mM cell stimulation (high-glucose, HG). According to the manufacturer’s recommendations, hRMECs were separated into groups for transfection with Lipofectamine 3000 (Invitrogen).

RNA Fluorescent In Situ Hybridization (FISH) assay

The TUG1 probe used was as follows: 5'-DIG- AGTGCTGGTGGTAGTGCTTGCTCAGTCGTTGT-DIG-3'. The miR-29a-3p probe used was as follows: 5'-DIG-GAGAAAGTGCTTCCCTTTGTAG-DIG-3'. The cell slides were fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde for 20 min and washed 3 times. After cell digestion, drop the pre-hybridization solution into a 37°C incubator for 1 h, dump the pre-hybridization solution, drop the hybridization solution (including probe concentration), and hybridize overnight at 37°C. After hybridization, the nucleus was washed and stained by DAPI. Finally, the images were observed and collected under fluorescence microscope.

Cell viability assay

CCK-8 kit (Meilunbio) was utilized to detect cell viability. After exposure to HG and transfection with different segments, hRMECs were seeded onto 96-well culture plates and incubated for 4 hours with 10 μl of CCK 8 solution. The data were measured at 490 nm using a microplate reader [17].

Cell migration assays

The wound healing test was used to track the movement of hRMECs, as previously described [18]. After being scraped with a pipette tip, the cells were imaged 24 hours later. Percentage of wound closure used as a measure of cell migration to wounds: % of wound closure = [(A t = 0 h -A t = Δh)/A t = 0 h] * 100%.

Transwell migration assay

A Transwell chamber equipped with an 8 µm polycarbonate pore membrane was used to evaluate the migration of hRMECs [19]. For 6 hours, the hRMECs were placed in serum-free DMEM. Following that, the cells were seeded in the top wells (4.0 × 104 cells/200 µL serum-free DMEM), and the bottom wells were filled with 800 µL DMEM containing 20% fetal bovine serum (FBS). After six hours, the migrating hRMECs were fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde and stained with crystal violet.

Capillary-like tube formation assay

In the tubule formation experiment, hRMECs were seeded onto 24-well culture plates, which were precoated with 30 μL per well Matrigel (BD Biosciences) matrix adhesive. Then the capillary structures formed after inoculation for 4 h were photographed to calculate the number of branch points [20].

Dual-luciferase reporter assay

Wild type (WT) or mutant (MUT) TUG1 or FGFR2 fragment containing miR-524-5p binding site was amplified and inserted into pGL3 reporter vector to form TUG1/FGFR2-WT and TUG1/FGFR2-MUT. Cells were co-transfected with a luciferase reporter vector and miR-524-5p mimics or NC control with Lipofectamine 3000 (Invitrogen). 48 hours after transfection, luciferase activity was detected by a double luciferase reporter analysis system.

Periodic acid–Schiff (PAS) staining

Before mounting and staining with PAS (Servicebio) and hematoxylin, the nonvascular mass was cut away from all of the blood vessels. The images were looked at for their retinal morphology, and in particular, for the loss of pericytes and acellular capillaries, as well as for other changes.

Real-time quantified polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR)

The cells were lysed with Trizol to extract total RNA from hRMECs, and the concentration and mass (A260/A280) were determined by microspectrophotometer nanodrop-2000. Reverse transcription was performed according to the reverse transcription instructions, and the obtained cDNA was stored in a refrigerator at −20°C for later use. qRT-PCR system was 25 μL an ABI 7500 PCR System and programmed at 95°C for 30 sec, followed by 40 cycles of 5 sec at 95°C and 34 sec at 60.0°C. The 2−△△Ct technique was used to determine the gene expression, with U6 and glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH) acting as endogenous controls. The primer sequences were listed in the below.

TUG1: forward: 5′-GGCGGCTCTTTCTCCTG-3′

TUG1: reverse: 5′-CGAATCGCAAACGCATAG-3′

miR-524-5p: forward: 5′-TGCGG CTACAAAGGGAAGCACTTT-3′

miR-524-5p: reverse: 5′- CCAGTGCAGGGTCCGAGGT −3′

FGFR2: forward: 5′-AGCACCATACTGGACCAACAC-3′

FGFR2: reverse: 5′-GGCAGCGAAACTTGACAGTG-3′

GAPDH: forward: 5′-GACCTGACCTGCCGTCTA-3′

GAPDH: reverse: 5′-AGGAGTGGGTGTCGCTGT-3′

U6: forward: 5′-GCTCGCTTCGGCAGCACA-3′

U6: reverse: 5′-AACGCTTCACGAATTTGCGTG-3′

Western blot assay

HRMECs were collected in each group during a logarithmic growth phase, and RIPA lysate was added for lysis and centrifugation to extract total cell proteins. Cell protein concentration was determined by BCA method, protein samples of 40 μg were thoroughly mixed with loading buffer, separated by SDS-PAGE, transferred and sealed, GAPDH, and FGFR2 antibody (1:1000) were added, incubated for 24 h at 4°C, then the membrane was washed by TBST, secondary antibodies (Abcam, 1:10,000) for 2 h at room temperature, and the membrane was washed by TBST. ECL development was performed, and the protein bands were analyzed by the automatic gel imaging system.

Statistical analysis

Using GraphPad Prism 8.1, all data was analyzed and displayed as mean ± SD. Data was analyzed using Student’s t-tests and one-way ANOVAs, followed by Tukey’s multiple comparisons tests. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

In this study, we investigated the role of TUG1 and molecular mechanism via which it regulates DR development. We found TUG1 was increased in STZ-induced rat model of DR and HG-stimulated hRMECs, and knockdown of TUG1 notably alleviates diabetic retinal vascular dysfunction by regulating miR-524-5p/FGFR. Our study might offer a novel insight into the pathogenesis of DR.

lncRNA TUG1 is up-regulated in streptozotocin-induced diabetic retinopathy tissues and high glucose-induced hRMECs

TUG1 levels in the retinas of diabetic rats were found to be considerably greater than those in the sham group, according to qRT-PCR analysis (Figure 1(a)). In addition, TUG1 was similarly observed to be considerably elevated in hRMECs under HG circumstances compared to the control group (Figure 1(b)). Expression of the host gene is regulated by lncRNAs in two ways: transcriptionally and post-transcriptionally. The nucleus is where transcription occurs, whereas the cytoplasm is where post-transcription occurs. As a result, RNA fluorescence in situ hybridization was used to determine the location of TUG1 (FISH) (Figure 1(c)).

Figure 1.

TUG1 is high-expressed in STZ-induced DR tissues and hRMECs under HG conditions. (a) qRT-PCR was used to identify TUG1 expression in STZ-induced DR tissues. N = 8. (b) qRT-PCR was used to identify TUG1 expression in HG-induced hRMECs. (c) FISH was used to study the TUG1 subcellular distribution in hRMECs exposed to HG for 48 hours. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.

lncRNA TUG1 regulates the migration and vascularization of hRMECs under high glucose conditions in vitro

To elucidate TUG1ʹs involvement further, we altered its expression level and assessed the resulting impact on angiogenesis. As predicted, inhibition of TUG1 reversed the upregulation of TUG1 in hRMECs produced by HG (Figure 2(a)). The findings of the CCK-8 experiment indicated that HG administration greatly increased cell proliferation, but TUG1 inhibition reversed the effect (Figure 2(b)). Similarly, as seen in Figure 2(c,d), wound healing and transwell test findings suggested that HG enhanced the migratory potential of hRMECs and that TUG1 inhibitor inhibited this effect. Additionally, it was observed that blocking TUG1 enhanced the capacity of hRMECs to form capillaries in an HG environment (Figure 2(e)). Taken together, our findings suggest that silencing TUG1 inhibits HG’s influence on hRMEC proliferation, migration, and angiogenesis.

Figure 2.

TUG1 affects function of hRMECs under HG conditions. (a) Relative expression of TUG1 were measured using qRT-PCR. (b) CCK-8 analysis showing that TUG1 knockdown inhibited the proliferation of hRMECs under HG condition. (c) TUG1 knockdown inhibited the migration of hRMECs under HG conditions, as shown by the Transwell experiment. (d) Representative images of wound scratch assays in different groups. (e) The effect of TUG1 knockdown on angiogenesis was examined using a tube formation test. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.

LncRNA TUG1, a sponge of miR-524-5p in hRMECs

Figure 3(a) shows the binding areas between TUG1 and miR-524-5p, which were discovered using RegRNA 2.0 and starBase. Next, we discovered that the levels of miR-524-5p in HG-treated hRMECs were dramatically decreased (Figure 3(b)). Dual-luciferase reporter gene experiments confirmed that TUG1-WT had reduced luciferase activity than the matching MUT group, validating the bioinformatics prediction that TUG1 and miR-524-5p have a binding interaction (Figure 3(c)). TUG1 and miR-524-5p were shown to co-localize in hRMECs using FISH assays (Figure 3(d)). According to these results, TUG1 can target miR-524-5p.

Figure 3.

TUG1, a sponge of miR-524-5p in hRMECs. (a) The binding sites between TUG1 and miR-524-5p. (b) Relative expression of miR-524-5p was examined by qRT-PCR. (c) Luciferase activity analyses in hRMECs co‐transfected with miR-524-5p mimic, miR-524-5p inhibitor and luciferase reporters containing WT‐TUG1 or MUT 3’‐UTR. (d) RNA FISH for TUG1 and miR-524-5p was detected in hRMECs. Nuclei were stained blue (DAPI), TUG1 was stained green, miR-524-5p was stained red. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.

TUG1 regulates hRMECs function through targeting miR-524-5p

To further investigate the relationship between miR-524-5p and TUG1, TUG1 shRNA and miR-524-5p inhibitor were co-transfections in hRMECs. Figure 4(a) shows that TUG1 silencing significantly elevated miR-524-5p levels. Besides, CCK-8, transwell assays, wound healing assay, and tube formation highlighted that transfection of miR-524-5p inhibitor abolished shTUG1 suppression effects on cell viability, migration, and tube formation (Figure 4(b-e)).

Figure 4.

TUG1 regulates hRMECs function through targeting miR-524-5p (a) Relative expression of miR-524-5p was examined by qRT-PCR. (b) Assays for cell viability were performed at 48 hours following transfection. (c) Transwell assays and combined with statistic quantification were used to determine the number of migrated cells. (d) Wound healing assays were determined and quantified. (e) Representative images and quantitative analysis of hRMEC tube formation. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.

miR-524-5p targets the 3ʹUTR of FGFR2

Next, we looked for the direct target of miR-524-5p in DR. TargetScan, starBase, and microRNA.org are three of the most common bioinformatics prediction tools. We used them to find the target. The fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) was one of the probable targets on the top list (Figure 5(a)). Additionally, FGFR2 expression was significantly increased in hRMECs treated with HG (Figure 5(b)). To substantiate this idea, luciferase reporter assays revealed that reintroduction of miR-524-5p significantly decreased luciferase activity in hRMECs transfected with FGFR2 3′UTR-WT but not FGFR2 3′UTR-MUT relative to miR-NC) (Figure 5(c)). Additionally, transfection of miR-524-5p mimics into hRMECs resulted in a reduction in FGFR2 mRNA and protein levels, as determined by qRT-PCR and Western blot analysis, respectively (Figure 5(c,d)).

Figure 5.

miR-524-5p targets the 3ʹUTR of FGFR2. (a) A 3’-UTR region of FGFR2 was cloned downstream of the reporter gene vector carrying the WT or mutant miR-524-5p binding site. (b) qRT-PCR was used to determine the levels of FGFR2 mRNA. (c) Luciferase activity of wild-type or mutant FGFR2 3’-UTR luciferase vectors in the presence of miR-524-5p. (d) qRT-PCR and western blot were used to determine the levels of FGFR2 mRNA and (e) protein. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.

miR-524-5p regulates hRMECs function through targeting FGFR2

Mechanism research was conducted to clarify the relationship between miR-524-5p and FGFR2. As shown in Figure 6(a,b), miR-524-5p mimics reduced the mRNA and protein levels of FGFR2, which was restored by overexpression of FGFR2. Furthermore, overexpression of FGFR2 might reverse the effects of miR-524-5p mimics on cell viability, migration, and tube formation (Figure 6(c-e)).

Figure 6.

miR-524-5p regulates hRMECs function through targeting FGFR2. (a) Levels of FGFR2 mRNA and (b) protein were measured using qRT-PCR and western blot, respectively. (c) Assays for cell viability were performed at 48 hours following transfection. (d) Transwell assays and combined with statistic quantification were used to determine the number of migrated cells. (e) hRMECs tube formation is shown and analyzed quantitatively. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.

Knockdown of lncRNA TUG1 alleviates diabetes mellitus‐induced retinal vascular dysfunction in vivo

To figure out how TUG1/miR-524-5p/FGFR2 affects retinal vascular function in rats, adeno-associated viral (AAV) TUG1 was injected intravitreally into rats that had been exposed to STZ. We discovered that STZ injection enhanced TUG1 and FGFR2 expression but decreased miR-524-5p expression. TUG1 inhibition prevented STZ-induced alterations (Figure 7(a)). After that, H&E staining showed that diabetes caused a decrease in the thickness of the retina. Intravitreal injection of AAV-sh-TUG1 reversed these morphological changes in the retinas (Figure 7(b)). By labeling the retinal vasculature with PAS, we assessed the formation of acellular capillaries in diabetic retinas. Compared to the Sham+AAV-NC group, acellular capillaries were increased in the STZ+AAV-NC group. However, few acellular capillaries were found in the STZ+AAV-sh-TUG1 group (Figure 7(c)). These results showed that downregulation of TUG1 attenuated histological abnormalities of retinas.

Figure 7.

Knockdown of TUG1 alleviates diabetes mellitus-induced retinal vascular dysfunction in vivo. The levels of TUG1, miR-524-5p and FGFR2 were detected by qRT-PCR in STZ-induced diabetic SD rats (N = 8). (b) HE staining shows the thickness of retinas. (c)The retinal vascular network was stained with PAS and quantitation of acellular capillaries in the retina. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.

Discussion

Diabetic microangiopathy is one of the leading causes of blindness in diabetic individuals, and DR is its most prominent manifestation [21,22]. So far, there have been a lot of ways to manage DR, but it still can’t be cured because it has a complicated pathogenesis that makes it hard to fix. In the present study, we demonstrated that TUG1 was found to be overexpressed in the DR rat model and hRMECs treated with HG. hRMEC survival, migration, and tube formation under HG conditions were all inhibited by TUG1 knockdown through the miR-524-5p/FGFR2 axis, which suggests that TUG1 might be used as a new method and therapeutic target for treating DR clinically.

LncRNAs play a very important role in the regulation of DR. In diabetic retinopathy, the long noncoding RNA H19 inhibits the endothelial-mesenchymal transition [23]. BANCR is overexpressed in diabetic retinopathy patients and has been shown to cause apoptosis of retinal pigment epithelial cells [24]. After being exposed to high levels of HG, hRMECs lost their capacity to survive, migrate, and form tubes. Our research found that TUG1 downregulation restored cellular activities. TUG1 has been shown to compete with endogenous RNA (ceRNA) for miRNA binding, therefore restoring downstream mRNA production and function. Chen et al revealed that silencing LncMEG3 acted as a sponge for miR-6720-5p, which suppressed hRMEC proliferation and migration and angiogenesis [25]. A novelty of this study is that we clarifying the regulatory mechanism between TUG1 and miR-524-5p in HG-treated hRMECs. Suppressing TUG1 could improve miR-524-5p expression, exerting protective effects against HG-induced aberrant proliferation, migration and tube formation in hRMECs.

LncRNAs work by interfering with miRNA targets through ceRNA [26]. The results of bioinformatics analysis and luciferase assay verified that miR-524-5p can interact with the 3′-UTR of FGFR2. The FGFR2 gene encodes a protein that is a member of the fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) family [27]. FGFR2 was shown to be involved in biological processes such as cell proliferation, migration, tube formation and anti-inflammation in previous studies [28,29]. Our data revealed that overexpression of FGFR2 restored hRMECs function under HG and miR-524-5p overexpression conditions. A recent study found FGFR-2 overexpression might impair mouse pre-implantation embryo development in maternal diabetes [30]. Our data demonstrate that TUG1 may positively regulate FGFR2 expression in DR by acting as a ceRNA for miR-524-5p, implying the possibility of TUG1–miR–524-5p–FGFR2 axis-based diagnostics and therapies.

Conclusion

Taken together, TUG1 expression was highly expressed in DR tissues and hRMECs exposed to HG, and and downregulation of TUG1 was found to be effective in slowing the progression of diabetic retinopathy by impairing the inhibitory effects of miR-524-5p on FGFR2, providing a new perspective on the pathogenesis of diabetic retinopathy and supporting future investigation of the TUG1/miR-524-5p/FGFR2.