Caspase-2 mRNA levels are not elevated in mild cognitive impairment, Alzheimer's disease, Huntington's disease, or Lewy Body dementia.

Caspase-2 is a member of the caspase family that exhibits both apoptotic and non-apoptotic properties, and has been shown to mediate synaptic deficits in models of several neurological conditions, including Alzheimer's disease (AD), Huntington's disease (HD), and Lewy Body dementia (LBD). Our lab previously reported that caspase-2 protein levels are elevated in these diseases, leading us to hypothesize that elevated caspase-2 protein levels are due to increased transcription of caspase-2 mRNA. There are two major isoforms of caspase-2 mRNA, caspase-2L and caspase-2S. We tested our hypothesis by measuring the levels of these mRNA isoforms normalized to levels of RPL13 mRNA, a reference gene that showed no disease-associated changes. Here, we report no increases in caspase-2L mRNA levels in any of the three diseases studied, AD (with mild cognitive impairment (MCI)), HD and LBD, disproving our hypothesis. Caspase-2S mRNA showed a non-significant downward trend in AD. We also analyzed expression levels of SNAP25 and βIII-tubulin mRNA. SNAP25 mRNA was significantly lower in AD and there were downward trends in MCI, LBD, and HD. βIII-tubulin mRNA expression remained unchanged between disease groups and controls. These findings indicate that factors besides transcriptional regulation cause increases in caspase-2 protein levels. The reduction of SNAP25 mRNA expression suggests that presynaptic dysfunction contributes to cognitive deficits in neurodegeneration.

Introduction

Caspase-2 is one of the most conserved members of the cysteine aspartic protease (caspase) family of enzymes [1]. Despite being highly conserved, caspase-2 does not fall neatly into the canonical categories of the caspase family: inflammatory (caspase-1, -4, -5), initiation (caspase -8, -9, -10) and executioner (caspase -3, -6, -7) caspases. Caspase-2 activation leading to apoptosis occurs when a cell undergoes DNA damage [2], cytoskeletal disruption [3], and oxidative damage [4], and is also found in several neurological conditions [5]. In addition to its pro-apoptotic role, caspase-2 has several non-apoptotic functions, including tumor suppression [6], cell cycle regulation [7], autophagy [8], DNA repair [9], and synaptic plasticity [10].

Caspase-2 has been implicated in Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Knocking-out or downregulating caspase-2 renders hippocampal neurons resistant to Aβ42 toxicity [11]. When crossed with the amyloid precursor protein (APP) transgenic mouse model J20, transgene-positive caspase-2 knock-out mice resist synaptic degeneration and behavior deficits [12]. Caspase-2 protein is increased in brains of subjects with AD and MCI [13, 14]. In addition, the N-terminal tau fragment Δtau314, which forms when caspase-2 cleaves tau at aspartate-314, is elevated in AD and MCI brain samples [14, 15]. Experiments in rTg4510 mice, a model expressing the FTDP-17 tau mutation P301L, have shown the formation of Δtau314 leads to the accumulation of tau in dendritic spines, the internalization of AMPA receptors, and the impairment of postsynaptic excitatory neurotransmission [15, 16]. Lowering caspase-2 levels in these animals restored spatial reference memory function in mice with preexisting deficits.

In addition to AD, caspase-2 is also involved in Huntington’s disease (HD). Enhanced caspase-2 immunoreactivity has been observed in neurons of the cortex and striatum from human post-mortem HD samples and brains of the HD mouse model YAC72 [17]. In a different HD model, YAC128, which exhibits behavioral and motor deficits, knocking-out caspase-2 improved both types of deficits [18]. Recently, we showed elevated Δtau314 and caspase-2 levels in the striatum and prefrontal cortex in HD patients compared with non-HD controls [19].

Studies from our laboratory have also implicated caspase-2 in Lewy Body Dementia (LBD). We showed increased Δtau314 and caspase-2 protein levels in the superior temporal gyrus of LBD patients compared with non-demented Parkinson’s disease patients [20]. Thus, while it has been established that caspase-2 protein levels are elevated in multiple forms of dementia, it is not clear if the increases in the protein levels are regulated at the genetic level through increased transcription, or at the post-translational level.

In 2003, Pompl et al. showed increases in caspase-1, -2, -3, -5, -6, -7, -8 and -9 messenger RNA (mRNA) levels in the entorhinal cortex of patients with severe AD (CDR = 5) [21]. They also showed that caspase mRNA levels correlated more strongly with tau tangles than plaque density. A subsequent study showed that caspase-7 and -8, but not caspase-3 or -9, mRNA levels are elevated in the temporal cortex of AD patients [22].

To assess the contribution of transcriptional regulation on elevated caspase-2 protein levels in dementia, we used quantitative real time PCR (RT-qPCR) to measure mRNA levels of the pro-apoptotic long form, caspase-2L, and the anti-apoptotic short form, caspase-2S, in samples of patients with AD, MCI, LBD and HD, and controls. We also analyzed mRNA levels of the presynaptic and neuronal markers, SNAP25 and βIII-tubulin, respectively. Accurate RT-qPCR values rely on use of proper reference genes. Traditional housekeeping genes such as GAPDH or actin may fluctuate between disease groups, leading to inaccurate results [23]. We analyzed two reference genes, peptidylprolyl isomerase A (PPIA) and ribosomal protein L13 (RPL13), to find a gene whose expression was stable across all disease types and controls. We performed RNA integrity analyses on all samples to minimize the potential effects of RNA degradation on mRNA measurements.

Materials and methods

Human brain collection

Human brain tissue from de-identified subjects with three separate neurodegenerative diseases, Alzheimer’s Disease (AD), Lewy Body Disease (LBD), and Huntington’s Disease (HD), was obtained from disease-specific brain banks. Informed consent for brain donation was obtained from all participants and/or their legal guardians during enrollment. Frozen tissue was stored at − 80°C prior to shipment to the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, Minnesota.

For the AD studies, we used frozen post-mortem specimens from the inferior temporal gyrus (Brodmann area 20) from 90 elderly individuals enrolled in the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging. Neuropathological assessments included scoring for Braak stage and CERAD plaque density. Subjects were categorized as cognitively normal (CN), mild-cognitive impairment (MCI), or Alzheimer’s disease (AD).

For the HD studies, we used frozen post-mortem specimens from the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (BA 8) of 24 subjects curated by the NIH NeuroBioBank, and the dorsolateral medial prefrontal cortex (BA 9) of 20 non-HD subjects curated by the NYBB at Columbia University, New York City, New York.

For the LBD studies, we used frozen post-mortem specimens from the superior temporal gyrus (Brodmann area 22) of 22 LBD subjects and 12 non-demented PD subjects curated at the Pacific Udall Center, the Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, and the Adult Changes in Thought Study at the University of Washington. Neuropathological diagnoses of AD, LBD, vascular disease, and other disorders were made using the latest diagnostic guidelines. LBD specimens were selected based on the following criteria: presence of Lewy bodies in the brainstem, limbic area, or neocortex; absence of a “moderate” or “frequent” CERAD neuritic amyloid plaque score; and few or no microvascular lesions. A clinical diagnosis of dementia was assigned based on psychometric testing and formal review at consensus conferences. The 22 LBD and 12 PD specimens met these criteria.

Ethics statement

All procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) of their respective Institutions: HUB-ICO-IDIBELL Biobank (Spain), the Columbia University, the

University of Miami, the Department of Veterans Affairs–Los Angeles, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN), and the University of Minnesota. All research was performed in accordance with the guidelines and regulations of the respective IRBs. All patients gave consent, either a signed advance directive for autopsy or written consent. If written consent was not possible, verbal consent was taken and audio records were obtained. Consent procedures were approved by respective IRB boards. The University of Minnesota Institutional Review Board declared this study does not meet the regulatory of research with human subjects and does not fall under the IRB’s purview for the following reason: The use of specimens being examined for this study does not constitute human research.

RNA isolation and cDNA synthesis

147 brain samples were processed for total RNA: 81 for the AD study (30 CN, 28 MCI, and 23 AD); 31 for the LBD study (19 LBD and 12 PD); and 26 for the HD study (13 non-HD and 13 HD). Nine samples had unmeasurable RNA integrity numbers (RINs) and were excluded from the analysis (7 from AD, and 1 each from the LBD and HD studies), leaving 138 samples. The post-mortem interval (PMI) was unavailable for one LBD control sample.

Total RNA extraction was performed using the Qiagen RNeasy Lipid Tissue Mini Kit according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Prior to RNA extraction, brain samples were homogenized using a MagNA Lyser instrument (Roche Diagnostics) and the related MagNA Lyser green beads (Roche) at 1 × 6.5 k rpm for 50 seconds in 1 ml pre-cooled Qiazol reagent supplied with the extraction kit, followed by chloroform extraction. RNA concentration was assessed using a NanoDrop 2100 (Thermo Scientific). RNA quality was assessed using the Agilent 4200 TapeStation using RNA ScreenTape (Agilent Technologies) by the University of Minnesota (UMN) Genomics Center. RNA concentrations ranged from 0.01–0.6 μg/μl and RINs from 1.2–6.1. All RNA samples were subjected to DNase digestion using RNase-free DNaseI (New England Biolabs) and normalized to 100 ng/μl. Single-stranded cDNA was synthesized from 250 ng of total RNA using iScript cDNA synthesis kit (Bio Rad) following the manufacturer’s instructions.

Reverse Transcriptase Semi-Quantitative Real-time PCR (RT-qPCR)

All samples were run in triplicate. Briefly, RT-qPCR reactions were carried out on a LightCycler 480 (Roche Diagnostics) using PrimeTime Gene Expression master mix (IDT, Coralville, IA). The final volume for each reaction was 20 μl with 1 μl of each probe assay mix containing primers (500 nM) and probes (250 nM), and 2.5 μl of total cDNA. A positive control/calibrator cDNA sample synthesized from total RNA extracted from a commercially available SH-SY5Y human cell line (ATCC) was included on each plate. A negative water control was included in each run. Thermal cycling was initiated at 95°C for 3 min followed by 35–45 cycles at 95°C for 5 s and 60°C for 30 s. A single fluorescence acquisition was obtained for both 5’ Fluorescein (FAM) or Hexachloro-Fluorescein (HEX) dyes during the primer annealing step. An advanced relative expression analysis was performed by the ΔΔCt method using default settings in the Roche LightCycler480 software (LCS480 version 1.5.0.39) employing color compensation for the overlapping emission spectra of FAM and HEX dyes.

Primer and probe sequences

Commercially available PrimeTime qPCR probe assays (S1 Table) were obtained from IDT (Coralville, IA) for the following mRNAs: caspase-2L (caspase-2 long isoform), caspase-2S (short isoform), SNAP25 (synaptosome-associated protein 25), TUBB3 (βIII-tubulin), PPIA (peptidyl-prolyl cis-trans isomerase A, a.k.a. cyclophilin A), and RPL13 (ribosomal protein L13). All assays contained predesigned primers and probes premixed at a ratio of 2:1. Probes contained either a FAM or HEX dye and a ZEN/Iowa Black FQ double quencher. Assays were reconstituted at 20X concentration using standard Tris-EDTA buffer (10 mM Tris·Cl, pH 8.0, 1mM EDTA).

Statistics and graphs

All statistical analyses and graphs were generated in GraphPad Prism 9.3.1 for Windows® (Microsoft Corporation). Simple linear regression was performed on RINs and RT-qPCR crossing points (Cp) to find an appropriate RIN cutoff threshold. Spearman’s rank correlation was used to evaluate the relationship between PMI and RIN. RT-qPCR data were analyzed using non-parametric Mann-Whittney or Kruskal-Wallis tests for comparisons of two or three groups, respectively. Dunn’s multiple comparisons test was used to calculate post-hoc p-values for Kruskal-Wallis analyses. A P-value < 0.05 was considered significant. Lines and whiskers on the graphs represent the median and interquartile ranges. Expression data were normalized to the control groups by dividing the mean of each group by the mean of the control group.

Results

Sample demographics

A total of N = 138 samples (81 for the AD study, 31 for the LBD study, and 26 for the HD study) were used (Table 1), and had a mean RIN of 3.8 (range 1.3 to 6.1). There were no significant differences in the average RIN between the three studies (Kruskal-Wallis test statistic = 2.498, P = 0.2869). There were N = 137 recorded PMIs with an average of 12.1 hrs (range 1.9 to 44.0 hrs). The average PMI (5.9 hrs) of the LBD study was significantly lower than those of the AD (14.0 hrs) and HD (13.5 hrs) studies (Kruskal-Wallis test statistic = 27.61, P < 0.0001). However, we found was no significant relationship between PMI and RIN (Spearman’s rho = -0.097, P = 0.2588).

Table 1

Comparison of demographic characteristics of AD, LBD, HD patients and non-demented controls from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging, the Pacific Udall Center, the Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, and the Adult Changes in Thought Study, the NIH NeuroBioBank, and the New York brain bank.

	AD	MCI	AD/MCI controls	P-value	LBD	LBD controls	P-Value	HD	HD controls	P-value
Sample Size (N)	24	33	33		21	12		13	14
Age
Mean	90.5	89.0	87.0	0.022	77.3	82.8	0.19	65	71.5	0.12
Range	82–99	75–103	61–99		42–96	57–98		50–77	57–89
Sex
Male	7	18	14	0.16	17	7	0.23	4	6	0.69
Female	17	15	19		14	5		9	8
PMI
Mean	12.25	12.0	12.8	0.793	6.3	5.5	0.45	12	12.6	0.68
Range	2–44	2–35	2–26		2–16.3	1.9–11		6–21.7	9–20.5

mRNA Crossing Point (Cp) values are negatively correlated with RNA integrity number

Post-mortem brain samples are subject to varying degrees of degradation, which can adversely affect the quality of extracted total RNA. To assess mRNA quality and explore its potential impact on the RT-qPCR results, we performed correlation analyses between RIN and Cp-values, with smaller Cp-values representing higher concentrations of cDNA in the sample, for reference genes PPIA, RPL13, and caspase-2L (Fig 1A–1C). In each disease group, we found significant (P < 0.0001) negative relationships (negative slope and large R2 values) between RIN and Cp-values, indicating a significant effect of RNA degradation on mRNA level. We found that establishing an RIN cutoff value of 3.9 eliminated this negative relationship (P > 0.05), as reflected in regression lines with slopes of zero and non-significant R2 values (Fig 1D–1F). The remaining experiments included only samples with RINs ≥ 3.9, resulting in new group sizes of 38 for the AD study (20 CN, 9 MCI, and 9 AD); 14 for the LBD study (9 LBD and 5 PD); and 16 for the HD study (5 non-HD and 11 HD), see S2 Table.

Fig 1

RT-qPCR crossing points correlate with RNA integrity numbers.

Crossing point (Cp) values for housekeeping genes RPL13 (A) and PPIA (B), and caspase-2L (C) are significantly correlated with RIN number. RPL13 (D), PPIA (E) and caspase-2L (F) Cp-values after a cutoff of RIN ≥ 3.9 no longer show a significant negative correlation.

PPIA, but not RPL13, crossing points differ between cognitively impaired and cognitively normal samples

Selecting the correct reference genes in studies of neurodegenerative diseases is an essential but potentially problematic undertaking. Improper gene selection will lead to inaccurate results and misleading conclusions. In this analysis, we stratified samples into cognitively normal (CN) and cognitively impaired (CI) groups. PPIA Cp-values were significantly higher in CI groups compared to CN (P = 0.0357) (Fig 2A), making it an unsuitable reference gene. RPL13 Cp-values between CI and CN groups did not differ (P = 0.3630), making it a suitable reference gene. Therefore, we normalized specific mRNA levels to RPL13 mRNA levels (Fig 2B).

Fig 2

Cp-values for housekeeping genes.

(A) Cp-values for PPIA are significantly higher in cognitively impaired individuals (CI) compared to cognitively normal controls (CN). (B) Cp-values for RPL13 do not differ between CI and CN groups.

Caspase-2 mRNA levels in MCI, AD, LBD, and HD are not elevated

We previously showed increases in caspase-2 protein levels in MCI, AD, LBD, and HD. Here we tested the hypothesis that increases in caspase-2 protein levels are transcriptionally regulated and associated with increases in caspase-2 mRNA. We normalized expression ratios of each target gene of interest to the reference gene (RPL13) using the ΔΔCt method, where the average difference between Cp-values of the target and reference gene were normalized to a calibrator sample included on each plate. Caspase-2L and RPL13 Cp-values did not differ significantly between AD, MCI, and cognitively normal samples (Fig 3A and 3B). Cp-values of caspase-2L normalized to RPL13 were not significantly different (Fig 3C). Likewise, the Cp-values of caspase-2L normalized to RPL13 between LBD and non-demented PD controls (Fig 3D–3F) and between HD and non-HD subjects (Fig 3G–3I) did not differ significantly.

Fig 3

Relative mRNA expression levels for caspase-2L in neurological disease.

Caspase-2L Cp-values (A), RPL13 Cp-values (B), and relative caspase-2L mRNA expression levels (C) do not differ in MCI and AD samples compared to controls. Caspase-2L Cp-values (D), RPL13 Cp-values (E), and relative caspase-2L mRNA expression levels (F) do not differ in LBD compared to non-demented PD controls. Caspase-2L Cp-values (G), RPL13 Cp-values (H), and relative caspase-2L mRNA expression levels (I) do not differ in HD compared to controls.

Caspase-2S levels are unchanged in LBD and HD but trend lower in AD

In addition to measuring caspase-2L mRNA levels, we also analyzed the anti-apoptotic short form of caspase-2 (caspase-2S). Relative caspase-2S mRNA levels in CN, MCI, and AD samples did not differ significantly; however, there was a downward trend for AD compared to CN (Fig 4A). There were no changes in caspase-2S levels between LBD or HD and their respective control groups (Fig 4B and 4C).

Fig 4

Caspase-2S relative mRNA expression levels in neurological disease.

(A) Caspase-2S mRNA expression levels trend lower in AD but not MCI compared to CN controls. Caspase-2S mRNA do not differ in LBD (B) or HD (C) compared to controls.

SNAP-25 mRNA levels are significantly lower in AD

SNAP-25 is a member of the SNARE protein family and assembles with synaptobrevin and syntaxin-1 to form the SNARE complex which is responsible for presynaptic membrane fusion and exocytosis of synaptic vesicles [24]. There is a loss of SNAP-25 in multiple neurological conditions, including AD and LBD [25]. We found significantly less SNAP-25 mRNA in AD compared to CN subjects, and there was a downward trend in the MCI group (Fig 5). We observed a similar downward trend in SNAP-25 mRNA levels in LBD and HD (Fig 5B and 5C).

Fig 5

SNAP-25 relative mRNA expression levels in neurological disease.

(A) SNAP-25 mRNA levels are significantly lower in AD and trend lower in MCI, LBD (B), and HD (C).

βIII-tubulin mRNA levels are unchanged in neurodegeneration

We previously showed that βIII-tubulin protein levels are significantly lower in LBD compared to non-demented PD controls [20]. In the current study, we did not see a decrease in βIII-tubulin mRNA levels in MCI, AD, or HD (Fig 6A–6C) compared to controls, suggesting that neuronal cell bodies remained intact.

Fig 6

βIII-tubulin relative mRNA expression levels in neurological disease.

βIII-tubulin mRNA levels do not differ in AD and MCI (A), LBD (B) or HD (C) compared to controls.

Discussion

mRNA is a relatively unstable and short-lived molecule that is rapidly degraded by ribonucleases (RNases). Postmortem mRNA degradation of human samples can be affected by many factors, including brain pH, age at death, and postmortem intervals (PMI) [26]. While mRNA degradation may be low in the cerebral cortex compared with other areas of the human body, it is nonetheless important to access the integrity of the RNA in sample preparations [27]. Historically, RNA integrity is inferred from the 28S:18S band intensity ratio (approximately 2:1) of ribosomal RNA determined using agarose gel electrophoresis. However, this method has been shown to be inaccurate and inconsistent [28]. A more consistent measurement of RNA quality is the RNA integrity number (RIN) [29], which can be assessed by multiple techniques. Here, we used an Agilent 4200 TapeStation using RNA ScreenTape (Agilent Technologies) that provides an electropherogram to measure RNA integrity on a scale from 1 (very degraded) to 10 (not degraded), and found that the crossing points of two housekeeping genes, PPIA and RPL13, were negatively correlated with the RIN of our samples. Establishing a cutoff point of a RIN ≥ 3.9 eliminated the correlation, but at the expense of group sizes. RNA integrity is a critical factor in the design of reproducible and reliable experiments.

One of the challenges of analyzing gene or protein expression in neurodegenerative diseases is picking the appropriate housekeeping genes or proteins for normalization. Historically, GAPDH and β-actin have been the most commonly used housekeeping genes for RT-qPCR mRNA measurements. However, these genes are unreliable because of the high variability between tissues and subjects [30-32]. For this study, we chose two reference genes, PPIA and RPL13, which are relatively stable in the cerebral cortex across many neurodegenerative diseases [23]. We found that PPIA Cp-values levels were significantly higher in cognitively impaired individuals, indicating less PPIA cDNA in samples from impaired subjects, which could potentially falsely elevate normalized mRNA measurements in impaired subjects. However, the stability of RPL13 in cognitively normal and impaired groups made it a suitable reference gene, consistent with previous reports [23]. Reference gene selection may have contributed to the previous report of increases in caspase-2L and caspase-2S in late-stage AD [21].

There are several possible explanations for why caspase-2L protein, but not mRNA, levels were elevated in our published and current studies. The discrepancy is not due to the use of different brain specimens, because we used the same specimens to measure caspase-2 protein and mRNA. One possible mechanism involves non-coding micro-RNAs (miRNAs), which have been reported to modulate caspase-2 protein levels in pancreatic islet cells, bladder cells, hepatocytes, fibroblasts, splenocyte cells, and dorsal root ganglion cells [33-38]. For example, Aß application causes the downregulation of miR-34a, leading to an increase in caspase-2 protein. It is currently unclear the effects this has on caspase-2 mRNA [35]. miRNAs repress protein translation, which is not necessarily accompanied by mRNA degradation [39].

Besides transcript concentration, protein levels may depend on protein trafficking [40]. Differences in the subcellular localization of caspase-2 protein and mRNA provide another possible explanation for discrepancies between caspase-2 protein and mRNA levels. In our previous studies, we measured caspase-2 protein in aqueous (TBS)-soluble fractions, which sample proteins primarily in the cytosol rather than the nucleus [41], mitochondria [42], or endoplasmic reticulum [43] where caspase-2 proteins also reside. It is possible, therefore, that in neurodegenerative diseases, caspase-2 protein redistributes to the cytosol, explaining the increases in levels we measured.

Alternative splicing of CASP2 leads to the generation of caspase-2L and caspase-2S [44, 45]. Caspase-2S is generated by the inclusion of Exon 9, which contains a stop codon leading to the generation of a shorter protein due to premature termination. Caspase-2S protein harbors the catalytic cysteine but lacks the p12 subunit. Caspase-2S antagonizes apoptosis through mechanisms that appear to depend on the hydrolysis of proteins, because mutating the catalytic cysteine abolishes this ability [46]. Several mechanisms have been proposed to explain its anti-apoptotic properties. Caspase-2S binds to Ich-1S (caspase-2S)-binding protein (ISBP), which antagonizes caspase-2L [47]. Caspase-2S binds to procaspase-3, inhibiting its activity [48]. Caspase-2S mRNA is made at the expense of caspase-2L mRNA [49]. Caspase-2S binds Fodrin, blocking its cleavage and stabilizing the cytoskeleton thereby counteracting apoptosis; intact Fodrin may also interact with and inhibit caspase-2L [50]. In the current study, we show that relative caspase-2S mRNA levels trend lower in MCI and AD, which could reduce the inhibition of apoptotic pathways.

We confirmed a previously reported finding of decreased SNAP-25 mRNA levels in AD [51]. There were downward trends in LBD and HD. Larger sample sizes may show significant differences; our current group sizes were 9 LBD versus 5 PD and 11 HD versus 5 non-HD, and the estimated sizes to obtain an 80% chance of showing significant differences are n = 17 for both cohorts.

Interestingly, we did not see changes in neuron specific βIII-tubulin mRNA levels, even though we previously reported lower βIII-tubulin protein levels in LBD [20]. This discrepancy may reflect the loss of neuronal processes containing tubulin proteins, in contrast to the preservation of neuronal cell bodies containing βIII-tubulin mRNA.

The strengths of our study include the use of RIN cutoffs whereby we included only mRNAs that were minimally degraded. Our selection of a housekeeping gene that did not differ across disease status likely improved the reliability and reproducibility of our study. One limitation of our study is that group sizes in the LBD and HD studies were smaller than those estimated to observe significant changes. Larger groups sizes may reveal reductions in SNAP-25 mRNA in LBD and HD, paralleling the SNAP-25 protein losses observed in AD (60), LBD (24), and HD (61). Larger sample sizes may also show significant decreases in caspase-2S in AD and MCI.

Conclusion

In summary, we conclude that levels of caspase-2 mRNA do not change significantly in this set of MCI, AD, LBD or HD brain samples. Our findings differ from previously published results, probably because, unlike ours, those studies failed to control for group-differences in the reference genes. Our results may indicate that post-transcriptional mechanisms regulate the elevated caspase-2 protein levels observed in AD, LBD and HD. The precise mechanisms involved in regulating caspase-2 protein levels will require future studies to reveal.

IDT PrimeTime qPCR probe assays used in this study.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Revised patient demographics of samples with RIN > = 3.9.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

17 Jun 2022

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Krishna Moorthi Bhat, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please amend your current ethics statement to address the following concerns:

a) Did participants provide their written or verbal informed consent to participate in this study?

b) If consent was verbal, please explain i) why written consent was not obtained, ii) how you documented participant consent, and iii) whether the ethics committees/IRB approved this consent procedure.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

"Sources of funding for this study include the T. and P. Grossman Family Foundation (K.H.A.), B. Grossman (K.H.A.) and K. Moe (K.H.A.). We thank Dr. Jean P. Vonsattel (Columbia University) for supplying HD samples and Dr. Dirk Keene (Washington University) for supplying LBD samples. We also acknowledge our collaboration Dr. David Knopman and the ADRC and MCSA of the Mayo Clinic for supplying AD/MCI samples (funding supported by National institutes of Health; NIA: U01 AG006786, P30AG062677, R01AG034676)."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

"Sources of funding for this study include the T. and P. Grossman Family Foundation (K.H.A.), B. Grossman (K.H.A.) and K. Moe (K.H.A.),  ADRC and MCSA of the Mayo Clinic  (funding supported by National institutes of Health; NIA: U01 AG006786, P30AG062677, R01AG034676). "

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Dr. Smith,

Thank you for submitting your work to PLoS One. It has been now looked at by two reviewers who I know and I respect. Both have liked your work, and I myself have looked at the results and believe findings such as the ones you have reported are important to the general researcher community. Therefore, I am asking you to revise the work as per the guidance given buy the reviewers taking into account all their comments.

Please provide a letter along with the resubmission addressing point-by-point all the critiques and the revisions made. The revised work has to be looked at by the reviewers before a final decision could be made.

Again, thank you for submitting the work and I look forward to receiving your revision.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Simple and well written manuscript. emphasizes the concerns that should be taken with mRNA analysis studies. It is good to see that the authors are showing data that contradicts their own previous work, and explain this with analysis of the RNA preparations.

there are minor corrections suggested.

1. in the methods line 169 it stats P-values > 0.05 are statistically different, this should be <

2. in the table (or generation of another table) it would be good to show the new n for each group after the cut off for RIN 3.9. this should then also include the sex of the patients, could also give the new age variation too.

Reviewer #2: This paper aims to study the mRNA transcript levels of CASP2 in neurodegeneration diseases, such as AD, LBD, and HD. It is important to confirm the previously reported increased Caspase-2 protein in these diseases and potentially reveal other mechanisms related to transcriptional changes.

Q1: The title of this paper is too broad and the conclusion drawn from this single study is exaggerated. Please consider narrowing down your findings and phrase appropriately.

Q2: The CASP2 mRNA assessment needs an alternative approach that is different from traditional qRT-PCR. Although the authors claimed a good rationale and strategy to exclude highly degraded RNA samples (RIM <3.9), however, this also biassed excluded many samples from the total population. Considering the low quality of this RNA (RINs: 1.2-6.1), I would highly recommend a different approach to measure the CASP2 transcript level in all samples, such as nCounter digital imaging of RNA molecules developed by NanoString. It's even possible to simultaneously detect the protein and mRNA of CASP2 in the same samples.

Q3: The authors discussed the potential role of miRNAs in increasing Caspase-2 protein in respect of the unchanged mRNA level. Can you give a few examples to address this point further? Are you available to measure some of these critical miRNAs in your samples?

Q4: The authors discussed that protein trafficking from the nucleus, mitochondria, and ER might have contributed to the increased cytosol accumulation of Caspase-2 in these diseases. Are you able to perform subcellular protein fractionation for these samples to validate this?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Chao Ma

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

17 Aug 2022

Reviewer 1

1. In the methods line 169 it stats P-values > 0.05 are statistically different, this should be <.

Thank you for catching this mistake. We have corrected the error in the resubmitted manuscript.

2. In the table (or generation of another table) it would be good to show the new n for each group after the cut off for RIN 3.9. this should then also include the sex of the patients, could also give the new age variation too.

We agree and have submitted a supplementary table to include this information.

Reviewer 2

1: The title of this paper is too broad and the conclusion drawn from this single study is exaggerated. Please consider narrowing down your findings and phrase appropriately.

We agree with Reviewer 2 that the initial version of the paper was too broad. We have amended the title to reflect the changes suggested. We have also narrowed the conclusion to include only the diseases and samples that we tested here (Title Page and Conclusion Section (Page 18).

2: The CASP2 mRNA assessment needs an alternative approach that is different from traditional qRT-PCR. Although the authors claimed a good rationale and strategy to exclude highly degraded RNA samples (RIM <3.9), however, this also biased excluded many samples from the total population. Considering the low quality of this RNA (RINs: 1.2-6.1), I would highly recommend a different approach to measure the CASP2 transcript level in all samples, such as nCounter digital imaging of RNA molecules developed by NanoString. It's even possible to simultaneously detect the protein and mRNA of CASP2 in the same samples.

We would like to thank Reviewer 2 for bringing nCounter to our attention. We explored the possibility of using nCounter and were told that while it is very good at measuring RNA in multiple stages of degradation; the system is for multiplexing many RNA targets, not just 1 and a housekeeping gene. We were told the current extraction would not be suitable for nCounter. Unfortunately, we have exhausted many of the samples that were used for this, and previous, publications and can not repeat the experiment using a different method. In the future, we will explore the possibility of using new, more advanced methods.

We initially hypothesized that there would be increases in caspase-2 mRNA levels due to previously published literature that used rtPCR. We believe it is important to disprove this hypothesis using the same techniques as papers used in the past.

Q3: The authors discussed the potential role of miRNAs in increasing Caspase-2 protein in respect of the unchanged mRNA level. Can you give a few examples to address this point further? Are you available to measure some of these critical miRNAs in your samples?

This is an excellent point brought up by Reviewer number 2. We have expanded on the potential roles of miRNA in regulating caspase-2 protein levels (Page 16). We would like to research this hypothesis in the future to discover the precise roles of miRNAs in neurodegeneration. Unfortunately, that will have to be on a new set of samples when they can be obtained. Additionally, we feel this is beyond the scope of this paper, which is to report the discrepancies of our findings to published works and to disprove hypotheses that were discussion points in our previous papers.

Q4: The authors discussed that protein trafficking from the nucleus, mitochondria, and ER might have contributed to the increased cytosol accumulation of Caspase-2 in these diseases. Are you able to perform subcellular protein fractionation for these samples to validate this?

We agree with Reviewer 2 that this would be an excellent experiment that will add to the understanding of caspase-2 biology. Unfortunately, we do not have enough of the brain samples used for this study to do these experiments.

Submitted filename: Response To Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

6 Sep 2022

Caspase-2 mRNA Levels Are Not Elevated  In Mild Cognitive Impairment, Alzheimer’s Disease, Huntington’s Disease, or Lewy Body Dementia.

PONE-D-22-13921R1

Dear Dr. Smith,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

We also ask you to include all the raw data as supplementary file.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Krishna Moorthi Bhat, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Please make every attempt to include all the relevant raw data as part of the supplementary file.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: Thanks for addressing all the comments. I think this publication is ready for publication. Thanks for correcting the title and the conclusion.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: Yes: Chao Ma

**********

12 Sep 2022

PONE-D-22-13921R1

Caspase-2 mRNA Levels Are Not Elevated In Mild Cognitive Impairment, Alzheimer’s Disease, Huntington’s Disease, or Lewy Body Dementia.

Dear Dr. Smith:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Krishna Moorthi Bhat

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE