| Literature DB >> 36091373 |
Evagelia C Laiakis1,2, Maisa Pinheiro3, Tin Nguyen4, Hung Nguyen4, Afshin Beheshti5,6, Sucharita M Dutta7, William K Russell8, Mark R Emmett8,9, Richard A Britten10,11,12.
Abstract
NASA's planned mission to Mars will result in astronauts being exposed to ∼350 mSv/yr of Galactic Cosmic Radiation (GCR). A growing body of data from ground-based experiments indicates that exposure to space radiation doses (approximating those that astronauts will be exposed to on a mission to Mars) impairs a variety of cognitive processes, including cognitive flexibility tasks. Some studies report that 33% of individuals may experience severe cognitive impairment. Translating the results from ground-based rodent studies into tangible risk estimates for astronauts is an enormous challenge, but it would be germane for NASA to use the vast body of data from the rodent studies to start developing appropriate countermeasures, in the expectation that some level of space radiation (SR) -induced cognitive impairment could occur in astronauts. While some targeted studies have reported radiation-induced changes in the neurotransmission properties and/or increased neuroinflammation within space radiation exposed brains, there remains little information that can be used to start the development of a mechanism-based countermeasure strategy. In this study, we have employed a robust label-free mass spectrometry (MS) -based untargeted quantitative proteomic profiling approach to characterize the composition of the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) proteome in rats that have been exposed to 15 cGy of 600 MeV/n28Si ions. A variety of analytical techniques were used to mine the generated expression data, which in such studies is typically hampered by low and variable sample size. We have identified several pathways and proteins whose expression alters as a result of space radiation exposure, including decreased mitochondrial function, and a further subset of proteins differs in rats that have a high level of cognitive performance after SR exposure in comparison with those that have low performance levels. While this study has provided further insight into how SR impacts upon neurophysiology, and what adaptive responses can be invoked to prevent the emergence of SR-induced cognitive impairment, the main objective of this paper is to outline strategies that can be used by others to analyze sub-optimal data sets and to identify new information.Entities:
Keywords: medial prefrontal cortex; proteomics; quantitative; rats; space radiation
Year: 2022 PMID: 36091373 PMCID: PMC9459391 DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2022.971282
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Physiol ISSN: 1664-042X Impact factor: 4.755
FIGURE 1Effect of 600 MeV/n28Si -irradiation on performance of individual rats within the SD stage of the ATSET test (A). Individual attempts to reach completion criterion (ATRC) values for sham-irradiated rats (circles) or rats exposed to 15 cGy 600 MeV/n28Si (squares); horizontal bar denotes median ATRC value within a cohort. Closed symbols denotes rats that were used for the proteomic analysis. Cohort abbreviations: 0: all Sham-irradiated rats; 0/P: representative Sham-irradiated rats used for proteomic analysis; 15: all rats exposed to 15 cGy 600 MeV/n28Si; 15/P: rats exposed to 15 cGy 600 MeV/n28Si rats used for proteomic analysis. The Venn diagram (B) shows the number of proteins detected in the various groups.
FIGURE 2Multivariate data analysis. Panel (A) A 3D PCA scores plot shows that radiation is the main driver of the proteomic differences. Panel (B) Fold changes (1.5 cut-off) between exposed and sham. Panel (C) Volcano plot of exposed vs sham with fold-change of 1.5 cut-off and an FDR p-value of <0.1. Panel (D) Heatmap of the top 50 proteins and STRING network analysis of those proteins.
Proteins from volcano Plot.
| Uniprot ID | Protein name | Fold change | log2(FC) | raw.pval | p.adjusted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P84083 | ADP-ribosylation factor 5 | 0.033197 | −4.9128 | 6.15E-04 | 0.089974 |
| D3ZC84 | Ubiquitin specific peptidase 9, X chromosome (Predicted) | 16.401 | 4.0357 | 4.29E-04 | 0.089974 |
| P52303 | AP-1 complex subunit beta-1 | 0.09273 | −3.4308 | 2.43E-04 | 0.089974 |
| P11884 | Aldehyde dehydrogenase, mitochondrial | 0.13865 | −2.8505 | 3.63E-04 | 0.089974 |
| P63170 | Dynein light chain 1, cytoplasmic | 0.19775 | −2.3383 | 6.10E-04 | 0.089974 |
| D3ZE17 | Caskin-1 | 4.8736 | 2.285 | 6.21E-04 | 0.089974 |
| Q05982 | Nucleoside diphosphate kinase A | 0.2105 | −2.2481 | 1.56E-04 | 0.089974 |
| Q5U2N3 | Membrane-associated phosphatidylinositol transfer protein 1 | 6.4259 | 2.6839 | 7.79E-04 | 0.098894 |
FIGURE 3Mitochondrial OXPHOS complex proteins regulation comparing 15 cGy 600 MeV/n 28Si irradiated rats with sham. Heatmap of the protein expression for individual samples for each protein are shown on the left. Lollipop plots on the right, show the log2(Fold-Change) values with the adjusted p-values represented by the size of the size of the symbols and the shape of the symbols represent whether the proteins are the structural subunits (•), Assembly factors (■), or neither (▲). All complexes that are present with the data are shown.
FIGURE 4MitoCarta 3.0 genes overlapped with the proteins present for comparing 15 cGy 600 MeV/n28Si irradiated rats with sham. Heatmap of the protein expression for the MitoCarta 3.0 genes that are present for individual samples (top plot). The Main Pathway color bar represents the general MitoPathway categories for each protein. The Sub Pathway color bars show the detailed sub-categories for each pathway. Lollipop plots (bottom plots) show the log2(Fold-Change) values with the adjusted p-values represented by the size of the symbols for each of the proteins. The side facet represents the main pathway groups, while the background is colored to represent the Sub Pathways. Same color scheme is utilized for the lollipop plots as the heatmaps.
FIGURE 5Consensus pathway analysis and visualization of enriched pathways with a GSEA<0.5 and a minimum of four statistically significant proteins per pathway. Higher enrichment is depicted through the border thickness. The colors blue, yellow, and red represent the significance of the three analyses: i) Functional versus Sham, ii) Impaired versus Sham, and iii) Functional + Impaired (both grouped as irradiated) versus Sham, respectively.
FIGURE 6Pathway enrichment analysis and visualization of the protein interactions with a protein-protein interaction (PPI) network of five pathways selected from the CPA analysis. Fold changes are depicted by bars, representing change in either direction.