| Literature DB >> 35921115 |
Maria I Avrutsky1, Jacqueline M Lawson1, Jade E Smart1, Claire W Chen1, Carol M Troy1,2,3.
Abstract
Purpose: To characterize postnatal ocular pathology in a Ndufs4-/- mouse model of complex I deficiency using noninvasive retinal imaging and visual testing.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35921115 PMCID: PMC9360534 DOI: 10.1167/tvst.11.8.5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol ISSN: 2164-2591 Impact factor: 3.048
Figure 1.Ndufs4 model of complex I deficiency. Schematic shows how Ndufs4 deficiency impairs complex I assembly and mitochondrial electron transport chain function. Ndufs4 is a subunit of complex I, which catalyzes the transfer of electrons from NADH to coenzyme Q10 and helps establish the mitochondrial membrane potential by pumping H+ ions across the inner mitochondrial membrane. In Ndufs4 cells, the N module failed to assemble, and complex I remained errantly associated with assembly factors NDUFAF1 (NADH:ubiquinone oxidoreductase complex assembly factor 1) and NDUFAF2 (NADH:ubiquinone oxidoreductase complex assembly factor 2). Figure made with BioRender.com.
Figure 2.Animal weights and ophthalmic imaging parameters. (A) Weight (in grams) of Ndufs4 (n for each genotype is indicated in the legend at 3, 5, and 7 weeks). Data are presented as mean ± SEM. Differences between groups were analyzed by two-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey's multiple comparisons test. (B) Representative H&E staining of ocular sections from 7-week-old WT and Ndufs4 littermates. Scale bars: 250 µm (main image) and 50 µm (inset). Schema demonstrate ocular dimension measurements L and L. (C) Quantification of ocular dimensions (measured as L × L) of WT (n = 12) and Ndufs4 (n = 10) eyes at week 7. Differences between groups were evaluated by unpaired t-test. (D) Representative view of ocular positioning and 1.5-mm spot size for ERG recording. (E) Representative fundus and OCT imaging demonstrates the positioning of four OCT scans in the same eye. The location of each OCT scan is indicated by a green line on the associated fundus image. (F) Representative image of excessive corneal opacity that precludes OCT layer thickness analysis. (G) Representative image of corneal opacity that is acceptable for OCT measurement of retinal layer thicknesses but precludes evaluation of outer retinal reflectivity.
Figure 3.OCT imaging reveals IPL atrophy in 7-week-old Ndufs4 mice. (A) Schematic diagram (made with Biorender.com) depicting neuronal distribution in different retinal layers and representative OCT images of WT and Ndufs4 littermates at 3, 5, and 7 weeks. (B–H) The total retinal (B), GCL (C), IPL (D), INL (E), OPL (F), outer nuclear layer (ONL) (G), and RPE (H) thickness in WT and Ndufs4 eyes at 3, 5, and 7 weeks. Data are presented as mean ± SEM (n at each timepoint is indicated on the graphs). Differences between groups were analyzed by two-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey's multiple comparisons test. Multiple comparisons plots are shown in Supplementary Figure S1. IS/OS, inner segment/outer segment.
Figure 4.Outer retinal hyporeflectivity in Ndufs4 mice. (A) Representative OCT images and reflectivity profiles of hyperreflective outer retinal bands in WT and Ndufs4 littermates. (B–E) The ELM (B), EZ (C), RPE (D), and CC (E) reflectivity in WT and Ndufs4 eyes at 3, 5, and 7 weeks (n at each timepoint is indicated on the graphs). Data are presented as mean ± SEM. Differences between groups were analyzed by two-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey's multiple comparisons test. One W5 WT outlier removed by Grubbs’ outlier test is shown in (B). Multiple comparisons plots are shown in Supplementary Figure S2. (F) Linear regression between inner retinal thickness and ELM reflectivity in WT and Ndufs4 retinas. (G) Linear regression between IPL thickness and ELM reflectivity in WT and Ndufs4 retinas. (H) Linear regression between inner retinal thickness and EZ reflectivity in WT and Ndufs4 retinas. (I) Linear regression between IPL thickness and EZ reflectivity in WT and Ndufs4 retinas.
Summary of Observed Ndufs4−/− Ocular Phenotypes and Power Analysis
| Phenotype | Week 3 | Week 5 | Week 7 |
|---|---|---|---|
| ERG: b-wave Flash: 2.3 log (cd·s/m2) | |||
| WT (µV), mean (SD) | 225.7 (77.0) | 150.1 (60.0) | 235.8 (101.4) |
| | 127.5 (53.8) | 60.1 (50.2) | 88.4 (62.2) |
| Power: | 7 | 6 | 5 |
| Power: 50% improvement, | 19 | 20 | 17 |
| ERG: a-wave Flash: 2.3 log (cd·s/m2) | |||
| WT (µV), mean (SD) | −107.2 (40.3) | −59.5 (23.1) | −104.3 (43.0) |
| | −70.4 (33.6) | −34.5 (25.3) | −45.7 (27.2) |
| Power: | 16 | 15 | 6 |
| Power: 50% improvement, | 52 | 68 | 13 |
| ERG: OP Flash: 2.3 log (cd·s/m2) | |||
| WT (µV), mean (SD) | 133.8 (76.2) | 109.6 (68.4) | 173.7 (109.6) |
| | 72.4 (61.5) | 25.5 (29.6) | 39.6 (41.5) |
| Power: | 20 | 5 | 5 |
| Power: 50% improvement, | 54 | 8 | 9 |
| ERG: OP1 Flash: 2.3 log (cd·s/m2) | |||
| WT (µV), mean (SD) | 40.2 (19.4) | 37.7(19.5) | 46.3 (32.4) |
| | 19.8 (15.51) | 7.6 (7.9) | 12.9 (12.8) |
| Power: | 12 | <5 | <5 |
| Power: 50% improvement, | 37 | 5 | 10 |
| OCT: IPL | |||
| WT (µm), mean (SD) | 49.3 (1.8) | 47.5 (2.1) | 45.4 (1.0) |
| | 48.8 (2.4) | 46.5 (1.9) | 39.1 (3.6) |
| Power: | — | 57 | <5 |
| Power: 50% improvement, | — | >100 | 20 |
| OCT: ELM reflectivity | |||
| WT (a.u.), mean (SD) | 1.30 (0.11) | 1.3 (0.08) | 1.19 (0.08) |
| | 1.25 (0.09) | 1.20 (0.09) | 1.11 (0.08) |
| Power: | 63 | 11 | 16 |
| Power: 50% improvement, | >100 | 54 | 61 |
| OCT: EZ reflectivity | |||
| WT (a.u.), mean (SD) | 2.26 (0.39) | 2.50 (0.35) | 2.39 (0.35) |
| | 2.06 (0.28) | 1.99 (0.33) | 1.82 (0.41) |
| Power: | 44 | 7 | 7 |
| Power: 50% improvement, | >100 | 27 | 31 |
| OMR: acuity | |||
| WT (cycles/degree), mean (SD) | 160.6 (16.4) | 148.7 (16.4) | 154.4 (14.9) |
| | 158.0 (13.0) | 125.7 (16.2) | 83.3 (58.5) |
| Power: | — | 8 | <5 |
| Power: 50% improvement, | — | 31 | 42 |
| OMR: contrast | |||
| WT (% contrast), mean (SD) | 4.0 (3.9) | 4.8 (1.7) | 2.7 (2.3) |
| | 4.6 (2.5) | 12.2 (15.5) | 58.7 (49.1) |
| Power: | — | 11 | <5 |
| Power: 50% improvement, | — | >100 | 48 |
Summary Ndufs4 ocular pathologies captured by OCT imaging, ERG imaging, and OMR testing. Power analysis is based on a normal distribution, two-sided test (α = 0.05; power, 0.8).
aPower analysis (n/group) for distinguishing between Ndufs4 and WT littermate mice.
Power analysis (n/group) for detecting a therapeutic effect that reduces pathology by 50%.
Figure 5.ERG deficits measure functional impairment in Ndufs4 mice. (A) Representative ERG traces (top) and OP traces (bottom) in 3-, 5-, and 7-week-old littermates showed attenuated a-wave, b-wave, and OP amplitudes and delayed b-wave implicit times in Ndufs4 mice. (B–I) The b-wave amplitude (B), a-wave amplitude (C), b/a ratio (D), OP1 amplitude (E), sum oscillatory potentials amplitude (F), a-wave implicit time (G), OP1 implicit time (H), and b-wave implicit time (I) measurements in WT and Ndufs4 littermates at 3, 5, and 7 weeks (n at each timepoint is indicated on the graphs). Data are presented as mean ± SEM. Differences between groups were analyzed by two-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey's multiple comparisons test. One W3 Ndufs4 outlier removed by Grubbs’ outlier test is shown in (G). Multiple comparisons plots are shown in Supplementary Figure S3.
Figure 6.ERG correlates and OMR measures of contrast and acuity perception deficits. (A) Linear regression between a- and b-wave amplitudes in WT and Ndufs4 littermates. (B) Linear regression between OP3 and b-wave amplitudes in WT and Ndufs4 littermates. (C) Linear regression between OP3 and b-wave implicit time in WT and Ndufs4 littermates. (D) Linear regression between b-wave and b-wave implicit time in WT and Ndufs4 littermates. (E–H) Linear regressions between IPL thickness and a-wave amplitude (E), OP amplitude (F), b-wave amplitude (G), and b-wave implicit time (H). (I) Schematic demonstrating grating patterns with increasing difficulty of acuity or contrast perception. (J) Acuity sensitivity threshold (cycles/degree) in WT and Ndufs4 mice. (K) Contrast sensitivity threshold (% contrast) in WT and Ndufs4 mice (n at each timepoint is indicated on the graphs). Data are presented as mean ± SEM. Differences between groups were analyzed by two-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey's multiple comparisons test. Multiple comparisons plots are shown in Supplementary Figure S4. Linear regression between IPL thickness (WT, n = 18; Ndufs4, n = 18) and acuity (L) or contrast sensitivity (M) at 7 weeks. Linear regression between EZ reflectivity (WT, n = 18; Ndufs4, n = 18) and acuity (N) or contrast sensitivity (O) at 7 weeks.
Figure 7.Integrated summary of retinal pathology in Ndufs4 mouse. Schematic summarizing timeline of retinal pathologies observed in Ndufs4 mice in published literature and in the present study. ERG impairment secondary to energetic deficits occurred throughout the entire study period (weeks 3–7), and acuity and contrast deficits appeared in 5- to 7-week-old mice. The early phase (week 3) of retinal pathology in Ndufs4 mice featured RGC dendritic atrophy, amacrine and bipolar cell loss,, and ELM and EZ hyporeflectivity. At 5 weeks, Ndufs4 mice exhibited RGC firing deficits, RGC cell loss, and microgliosis., During the terminal phase of disease progression (weeks 6–7), Ndufs4 mice displayed astrogliosis, loss of GAD67 immunoreactivity in IPL, and IPL atrophy. Figure made with Biorender.com.