| Literature DB >> 35694175 |
Anaïs Virenque1, Hennariikka Koivisto2, Salli Antila3, Emma Zub4, Erin Jane Rooney1, Diana Miszczuk2, Adrian Müller2, Enija Stoka1, Nicola Marchi4, Kari Alitalo3, Heikki Tanila2, Francesco Mattia Noe1,2.
Abstract
Understanding the pathological mechanisms unfolding after chronic traumatic brain injury (TBI) could reveal new therapeutic entry points. During the post-TBI sequel, the involvement of cerebrospinal fluid drainage through the meningeal lymphatic vessels was proposed. Here, we used K14-VEGFR3-Ig transgenic mice to analyze whether a developmental dysfunction of meningeal lymphatic vessels modifies post-TBI pathology. To this end, a moderate TBI was delivered by controlled cortical injury over the temporal lobe in male transgenic mice or their littermate controls. We performed MRI and a battery of behavioral tests over time to define the post-TBI trajectories. In vivo analyses were integrated by ex-vivo quantitative and morphometric examinations of the cortical lesion and glial cells. In post-TBI K14-VEGFR3-Ig mice, the recovery from motor deficits was protracted compared to littermates. This outcome is coherent with the observed slower hematoma clearance in transgenic mice during the first two weeks post-TBI. No other genotype-related behavioral differences were observed, and the volume of cortical lesions imaged by MRI in vivo, and confirmed by histology ex-vivo, were comparable in both groups. However, at the cellular level, post-TBI K14-VEGFR3-Ig mice exhibited an increased percentage of activated Iba1 microglia in the hippocampus and auditory cortex, areas that are proximal to the lesion. Although not impacting or modifying the structural brain damage and post-TBI behavior, a pre-existing dysfunction of meningeal lymphatic vessels is associated with morphological microglial activation over time, possibly representing a sub-clinical pathological imprint or a vulnerability factor. Our findings suggest that pre-existing mLV deficits could represent a possible risk factor for the overall outcome of TBI pathology.Entities:
Keywords: Behavioral dysfunctions; CCI, Controlled Cortical Injury; Chronic traumatic brain injury; Cortical lesion development; Meningeal lymphatic vessels; Neuroinflammation; TBI, Traumatic Brain Injury; mLV, Meningeal Lymphatic Vessel
Year: 2022 PMID: 35694175 PMCID: PMC9184565 DOI: 10.1016/j.bbih.2022.100466
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Brain Behav Immun Health ISSN: 2666-3546
Fig. 2Analysis of acute and subacute TBI-related functional impairments in WT-CCI and TG-CCI. CCI is characterized by a strong and transient acute impairment of motor functions, however the lack of mLVs does not affect the long-term outcome. (A) Study design of the behavioral test battery to analyze the development of neurological dysfunctions after TBI. (B) Simplified Composite Neuroscore tested at the pre-injury baseline and at 2, 7, and 10 dpi. Both TG-CCI and WT-CCI groups showed a transient impairment of motor functions after TBI. However, a prolonged deficit in the longitudinal recovery of motor functions was observed in TG-CCI mice. ¤p < 0.05 WT-CCI vs. WT-SHAM. *p < 0.05 TG-CCI vs. TG-SHAM. (C–E) Box plot illustrating the genotype effect on Catwalk-related parameters. A genotype effect is visible in the analysis of stride length, with TG mice showing a longer stride in the front paws (C,D). A TBI-related difference is present in the analysis of the base of support area (BoS) of hind paws, which is narrower in both CCI groups compared to SHAM animals (E). All the other evaluated parameters for the Catwalk gait analysis did not show differences related to the genotype or the injury. (F) No genotype or injury effect are visible from the analysis of time spent on the Rotarod. (G) Transmission of auditory sensory information to the nervous system, and associated sensorimotor processing, was assessed by pre-pulse inhibition (PPI) of startle reflex. No injury effect on sensory gating was observed. A significant genotype effect on the startle reflex was measured in TG mice, possibly due to partial hearing loss. For statistical data, see the main text and Supplementary Table 1. Data analyses: linear mixed-effect model (lme) with Sidak correction. dpi: days post injury, LP: left paw, RP: right paw, BoS: base of support area, RR: rotarod, PPI: pre-pulse inhibition. P-values are reported for the genotype effect analysis.
Statistical analyses of analyzed behavioural tasks.
| Task | Variable | Source | df | F | Chi-Square | p-value | Mean difference | 95% CI (difference) | Statistical Test | Adjustment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Neuroscore | Linear Mixed Effect Model | Bonferroni | ||||||||
| genotype | 0,500 | 0,377 | 0,383 | −2,997–3,763 | ||||||
| treatment | 26,625 | 0,001 | 8,793 | 5,413–12,174 | ||||||
| genotype*treatment | 4,417 | 0,240 | ||||||||
| Impairment | Univariate GLM | Bonferroni | ||||||||
| genotype | 1 | 0,084 | 0,774 | −0,201 | −1,607–1,205 | |||||
| treatment | 1 | 18,363 | 0,001 | 2,974 | 1,568–4,380 | |||||
| genotype*treatment | 1 | 0,001 | 0,973 | |||||||
| Error | 37 | |||||||||
| Recovery | Univariate GLM | Bonferroni | ||||||||
| genotype | 1 | ,0956 | 0,634 | 0,306 | −0,984–1,595 | |||||
| treatment | 1 | 42,764 | 0,003 | 2,044 | 0,775–3,334 | |||||
| genotype*treatment | 1 | 11,404 | 0,106 | |||||||
| Error | 37 | |||||||||
| Catwalk Gait | Static Data | |||||||||
| Base of Support (Front paws) | Univariate GLM | Bonferroni | ||||||||
| genotype | 1 | 2,760 | 0,105 | −0,084 | −0,187–0,019 | |||||
| treatment | 1 | 0,047 | 0,829 | −0,011 | −0,114–0,092 | |||||
| genotype*treatment | 1 | 0,005 | 0,947 | |||||||
| Error | 37 | |||||||||
| Base of Support (Hind paws) | Univariate GLM | Bonferroni | ||||||||
| genotype | 1 | 0,052 | 0,820 | −0,013 | −0,125–0,100 | |||||
| treatment | 1 | 4,324 | 0,045 | 0,115 | 0,227–0,003 | |||||
| genotype*treatment | 1 | 1,151 | 0,290 | |||||||
| Error | 37 | |||||||||
| Stride length (Front Right) | Univariate GLM | Bonferroni | ||||||||
| genotype | 1 | 5,509 | 0,024 | 0,495 | 0,068–0,923 | |||||
| treatment | 1 | 1,885 | 0,178 | 0,290 | −0,138–0,717 | |||||
| genotype*treatment | 1 | 0,221 | 0,641 | |||||||
| Error | 37 | |||||||||
| Stride length (Front Left) | Univariate GLM | Bonferroni | ||||||||
| genotype | 1 | 5,675 | 0,022 | 0,500 | 0,075–0,925 | |||||
| treatment | 1 | 2,140 | 0,152 | 0,307 | −0,118–0,732 | |||||
| genotype*treatment | 1 | 0,006 | 0,937 | |||||||
| Error | 37 | |||||||||
| Stride length (Rear Right) | Univariate GLM | Bonferroni | ||||||||
| genotype | 1 | 3,935 | 0,055 | 0,531 | −0,011–1,074 | |||||
| treatment | 1 | 1,107 | 0,300 | 0,282 | −0,261–0,825 | |||||
| genotype*treatment | 1 | 0,790 | 0,380 | |||||||
| Error | 37 | |||||||||
| Stride length (Rear Left) | Univariate GLM | Bonferroni | ||||||||
| genotype | 1 | 3,224 | 0,080 | 0,483 | −0,060–1,027 | |||||
| treatment | 1 | 0,585 | 0,449 | 0,205 | −0,338–0,749 | |||||
| genotype*treatment | 1 | 0,092 | 0,763 | |||||||
| Error | 37 | |||||||||
| Max contact area (Front Right) | Univariate GLM | Bonferroni | ||||||||
| genotype | 1 | 0,051 | 0,822 | 0,010 | −0,076–0,095 | |||||
| treatment | 1 | 0,089 | 0,767 | −0,013 | −0,098–0,073 | |||||
| genotype*treatment | 1 | 0,008 | 0,929 | |||||||
| Error | 37 | |||||||||
| Max contact area (Front Left) | Univariate GLM | Bonferroni | ||||||||
| genotype | 1 | 0,006 | 0,939 | −0,003 | −0,080–0,074 | |||||
| treatment | 1 | 0,106 | 0,747 | −0,012 | −0,089–0,065 | |||||
| genotype*treatment | 1 | 0,001 | 0,986 | |||||||
| Error | 37 | |||||||||
| Max contact area (Rear Right) | Univariate GLM | Bonferroni | ||||||||
| genotype | 1 | 0,011 | 0,918 | 0,005 | −0,090–0,100 | |||||
| treatment | 1 | 0,544 | 0,465 | −0,035 | −0,130–0,061 | |||||
| genotype*treatment | 1 | 0,126 | 0,724 | |||||||
| Error | 37 | |||||||||
| Max contact area (Rear Left) | Univariate GLM | Bonferroni | ||||||||
| genotype | 1 | 0,001 | 0,995 | 0,000 | −0,094–0,094 | |||||
| treatment | 1 | 0,344 | 0,561 | −0,027 | −0,121–0,067 | |||||
| genotype*treatment | 1 | 0,022 | 0,918 | |||||||
| Error | 37 | |||||||||
| Dynamic Data | ||||||||||
| Run Duration | Univariate GLM | Bonferroni | ||||||||
| genotype | 1 | 0,151 | 0,699 | −0,050 | −0,312–0,212 | |||||
| treatment | 1 | 0,001 | 0,977 | −0,004 | −0,266–0,258 | |||||
| genotype*treatment | 1 | 0,043 | 0,837 | |||||||
| Error | 37 | |||||||||
| Step cycle (Front Right) | Univariate GLM | Bonferroni | ||||||||
| genotype | 1 | 0,421 | 0,520 | 0,008 | −0,017–0,033 | |||||
| treatment | 1 | 1,101 | 0,301 | 0,013 | −0,012–0,037 | |||||
| genotype*treatment | 1 | 0,069 | 0,795 | |||||||
| Error | 37 | |||||||||
| Step cycle (Front Left) | Univariate GLM | Bonferroni | ||||||||
| genotype | 1 | 0,099 | 0,755 | 0,004 | −0,022–0,030 | |||||
| treatment | 1 | 1,885 | 0,178 | 0,018 | −0,008–0,044 | |||||
| genotype*treatment | 1 | 0,550 | 0,463 | |||||||
| Error | 37 | |||||||||
| Step cycle (Rear Right) | Univariate GLM | Bonferroni | ||||||||
| genotype | 1 | 0,820 | 0,371 | 0,010 | −0,012–0,032 | |||||
| treatment | 1 | 0,850 | 0,363 | 0,010 | −0,012–0,032 | |||||
| genotype*treatment | 1 | 0,049 | 0,826 | |||||||
| Error | 37 | |||||||||
| Step cycle (Rear Left) | Univariate GLM | Bonferroni | ||||||||
| genotype | 1 | 0,390 | 0,536 | 0,006 | −0,013–0,025 | |||||
| treatment | 1 | 0,355 | 0,555 | |||||||
| genotype*treatment | 1 | 0,001 | 0,933 | |||||||
| Error | 37 | |||||||||
| Swing speed (Front Right) | Univariate GLM | Bonferroni | ||||||||
| genotype | 1 | 0,006 | 0,940 | 0,219 | −5,671–6,108 | |||||
| treatment | 1 | 0,123 | 0,728 | 1,019 | −4,870–6,909 | |||||
| genotype*treatment | 1 | 0,037 | 0,849 | |||||||
| Error | 37 | |||||||||
| Swing speed (Front Left) | Univariate GLM | Bonferroni | ||||||||
| genotype | 1 | 0,343 | 0,562 | 1,626 | −4,000–7,252 | |||||
| treatment | 1 | 0,285 | 0,597 | 1,483 | −4,144–7,109 | |||||
| genotype*treatment | 1 | 0,002 | 0,962 | |||||||
| Error | 37 | |||||||||
| Swing speed (Rear Right) | Univariate GLM | Bonferroni | ||||||||
| genotype | 1 | 0,079 | 0,780 | 0,787 | −4,872–6,446 | |||||
| treatment | 1 | 0,001 | 0,989 | −0,039 | −5,697–5,620 | |||||
| genotype*treatment | 1 | 0,123 | 0,728 | |||||||
| Error | 37 | |||||||||
| Swing speed (Rear Left) | Univariate GLM | Bonferroni | ||||||||
| genotype | 1 | 0,137 | 0,713 | −1,050 | −6,798–4,698 | |||||
| treatment | 1 | 0,127 | 0,723 | −1,012 | −6,760–4,736 | |||||
| genotype*treatment | 1 | 0,241 | 0,626 | |||||||
| Error | 37 | |||||||||
| RotaRod | ||||||||||
| Time spent on the rod | Univariate GLM | Bonferroni | ||||||||
| genotype | 1 | 0,048 | 0,828 | −5,123 | −52,599–42,354 | |||||
| treatment | 1 | 0,056 | 0,815 | 5,523 | −41,954–52,999 | |||||
| genotype*treatment | 1 | 1,345 | 0,254 | |||||||
| Error | 37 | |||||||||
| Number of rotations | Negative binomial | Bonferroni | ||||||||
| genotype | 1 | 0,939 | 0,332 | |||||||
| treatment | 1 | 0,007 | 0,931 | |||||||
| genotype*treatment | 1 | 0,670 | 0,413 | |||||||
| Sensory Motor Gating | Linear Mixed Effect Model | Bonferroni | ||||||||
| genotype | 13,890 | 0,001 | 7,211 | 3,387–11,035 | ||||||
| treatment | 0,444 | 0,506 | 1,289 | −2,536–5,113 | ||||||
| genotype*treatment | 3,656 | 0,058 | ||||||||
| Averaged Startle Force | Univariate GLM | Bonferroni | ||||||||
| genotype | 1 | 4,274 | 0,046 | 7,174 | 0,143–14,204 | |||||
| treatment | 1 | 0,143 | 0,708 | 1,131 | −5,719–8,341 | |||||
| genotype*treatment | 1 | 1,135 | 0,294 | |||||||
| Error | 37 | |||||||||
| Open Field | Time in the center field | Univariate GLM | Bonferroni | |||||||
| genotype | 1 | 1,485 | 0,231 | 22,501 | −14,918–59,920 | |||||
| treatment | 1 | 0,181 | 0,673 | 7,866 | −29,553–45,284 | |||||
| genotype*treatment | 1 | 0,047 | 0,830 | |||||||
| Error | 37 | |||||||||
| Travelled distance | Univariate GLM | Bonferroni | ||||||||
| genotype | 1 | 0,315 | 0,578 | −343,435 | −1583,965–897,096 | |||||
| treatment | 1 | 1,791 | 0,189 | −819,347 | −2059,878–421,184 | |||||
| genotype*treatment | 1 | 0,697 | 0,409 | |||||||
| Error | 37 | |||||||||
| Morris Water Maze | ACQUISITION | |||||||||
| Mean swim speed | Univariate GLM | Bonferroni | ||||||||
| genotype | 1 | 0,040 | 0,842 | 0,145 | −1,322–1,611 | |||||
| treatment | 1 | 3,672 | 0,063 | −1,387 | −2,853–0,080 | |||||
| genotype*treatment | 1 | 0,004 | 0,952 | |||||||
| Error | 37 | |||||||||
| Escape latency | Linear Mixed Effect Model | Bonferroni | ||||||||
| genotype | 0,540 | 0,4632 | 1,466 | −2,491–5,423 | ||||||
| treatment | 11,231 | 0,001 | 6,646 | 2,689–10,603 | ||||||
| genotype*treatment | 0,183 | 0,670 | ||||||||
| Escape path lenght | Linear Mixed Effect Model | Bonferroni | ||||||||
| genotype | 0,119 | 0,730 | 13,178 | −62,130–88,486 | ||||||
| treatment | 4,167 | 0,043 | 77,891 | 2,583–153,199 | ||||||
| genotype*treatment | 0,001 | 0,974 | ||||||||
| Thigmotaxis | Linear Mixed Effect Model | Bonferroni | ||||||||
| genotype | 0,945 | 0,333 | 1,139 | 1,177–3,456 | ||||||
| treatment | 9,732 | 0,002 | 3,656 | 1,339–5,973 | ||||||
| genotype*treatment | 0,061 | 0,805 | ||||||||
| Mean distance to the platform | Linear Mixed Effect Model | Bonferroni | ||||||||
| genotype | 0,095 | 0,759 | 0,281 | −1,521–2,083 | ||||||
| treatment | 13,827 | 0,001 | 3,395 | 1,593–5,197 | ||||||
| genotype*treatment | 0,024 | 0,877 | ||||||||
| PROBE TRIAL (Day5) | ||||||||||
| Time spent in the platform zone (Day 5) | Univariate GLM | Bonferroni | ||||||||
| genotype | 1 | 0,033 | 0,857 | −0,24 | −3,808–3,328 | |||||
| treatment | 1 | 2,928 | 0,095 | −2,188 | −5,756–1,380 | |||||
| genotype*treatment | 1 | 0,018 | 0,894 | |||||||
| Error | 37 | |||||||||
| N of crosses of platform zone (Day 5) | Negative binomial | Bonferroni | ||||||||
| genotype | 1 | 0,009 | 0,927 | |||||||
| treatment | 1 | 0,403 | 0,526 | |||||||
| genotype*treatment | 1 | 0,002 | 0,965 | |||||||
| Mean distance to the platform (Day 5) | Univariate GLM | Bonferroni | ||||||||
| genotype | 1 | 0,321 | 0,575 | 1,609 | −4,147–7,365 | |||||
| treatment | 1 | 2,169 | 0,149 | 4,183 | −1,573–9,940 | |||||
| genotype*treatment | 1 | 0,068 | 0,796 | |||||||
| Error | 37 | |||||||||
| Mean swim speed (Day 5) | Univariate GLM | Bonferroni | ||||||||
| genotype | 1 | 0,104 | 0,749 | −0,301 | −2,193–1,592 | |||||
| treatment | 1 | 2,535 | 0,120 | −1,487 | −3,380–0,405 | |||||
| genotype*treatment | 1 | 1,515 | 0,226 | |||||||
| Error | 37 | |||||||||
| Passive Avoidance | Linear Mixed Effect Model | Bonferroni | ||||||||
| genotype | 1,268 | 0,267 | −3,544 | −9,917–2,828 | ||||||
| treatment | 0,686 | 0,413 | 2,607 | −3,766–8,979 | ||||||
| genotype*treatment | 0,098 | 0,756 |
Fig. 1Formation of cortical lesion and hematoma regression after TBI are not affected by the pre-existing mLV dysfunction. (A) Representative coronal (upper panels) and axial (lower panels) reconstructed T1-weighted MRI images showing the hemorrhage extension in WT CCI and TG CCI brains, as recorded at 1 and 14 days post-TBI induction (dpi). Hematoma is visible at 1 dpi, and mostly regress by 14 dpi, in both TG and WT mice. (B–C) In vivo analysis of lesion formation. Longitudinal analyses of cortical and subcortical lesion volume ipsilateral to the site of injury and edema formation (swelling) show no genotype related differences. (D) Regression of the hematoma volume in TG and WT mice, analyzed at 1, 7 and 14 days after TBI. For the definitions of the hematoma volume see the main text. (E) Unfolded cortical map showing the mean lesion extension in WT- (orange) and TG-CCI (blue) mice. In both genotypes, CCI induction resulted in a similar lesion affecting prevalently the visual and somatosensory cortices. (F–G) Post-mortem histological analyses at 2 month post-TBI show similar lesions in the two genotypes. (F) Evaluation of the cortical area affected by the brain injury (unfolded cortical map quantification). (G) Cortical volume loss as evaluated ex vivo. Data analyses: Kruskal Wallis test with Sidak correction. A linear mixed-effect model (lme) was applied to assess statistical differences in the analysis of hematoma volume regression. dpi: days post injury, ML: mid line. For cortical area annotation, refer to Franklin and Paxinos mouse brain atlas (Franklin and Paxinos, 2007). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
Fig. 3Developmental mLV dysfunction does not exacerbate anxiety and learning-memory deficits in the early chronic phase post-TBI. (A) Open field task was used to evaluate anxiety in CCI and SHAM control mice. No genotype or injury differences were visible in the time spent in the center of the open field. (B–F) Learning and memory were assessed using the Morris swim task (‘water maze’). The different parameters analyzed show a significant injury effect, but no differences between TG and WT mice. (B) Swimming speed; (C) Escape latency; (D) Average distance to the platform; (E) Wall-hugging (thigmotaxis); (F) Time spent in the platform zone on the probe trial (day 5). (G) No significant differences were observed in the passive avoidance task related to TBI induction or developmental deficits in the mLVs. Data analyses: linear mixed-effect model (lme) with Sidak correction. OF: open field, MWM: Morris water maze, PaAvo: passive avoidance. P-values are reported for the genotype effect analysis.
Fig. 4Effect of developmental mLV dysfunction on TBI-related chronic microglia activation. (A) Representative photomicrographs (green; original magnification: × 10; scale bar = 1000 μm) showing Iba1-positive cells in cortical and subcortical areas of sham and CCI mice, 2 months post-TBI induction. Inserts in each panel show magnified microglial cells in representative areas of interest (original magnification, × 25; scale bar = 20 μm). (B, C) Quantitative analysis of number of Iba1-positive cells in the hippocampi (B) and in the auditory cortex (C) of WT-CCI and TG-CCI mice. (D) Quantitative analysis of percentage of ramified and activated microglia in the hippocampi of WT-CCI and TG-CCI mice. (E) Quantitative analysis of percentage of ramified and activated microglia in the auditory cortex of WT-CCI and TG-CCI mice. Data analyses: general linear model (GLM) with Sidak correction. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)