| Literature DB >> 36211346 |
Huiqing Long1,2, Li Yan3, Juncai Pu1,4, Yiyun Liu1,4, Xiaogang Zhong1,4, Haiyang Wang1,4, Lu Yang1,2, Fangzhi Lou1,2, Shihong Luo1,2, Yingying Zhang1,2, Yang Liu1,2, Peng Xie1,4, Ping Ji1,2, Xin Jin1,2.
Abstract
The oral epithelium's normal morphological structure and function play an important role in maintaining oral homeostasis, among which microbiota and chronic stress are key contributing factors. However, the effects of microbiota and chronic stress on the morphological structures and molecular function of oral homeostasis remain unclear. In this study, morphological staining was used to compare the tongue structure of specific pathogen-free and germ-free mice, and an integrated multi-omics analysis based on transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics was performed to investigate the regulatory mechanisms of microbiota and chronic stress on oral homeostasis. We found that the morphological structure of the tongue in germ-free mice was disordered compared with in specific pathogen-free mice, especially in the epithelium. Multi-omics analysis indicated that differentially expressed molecules of the tongue between germ-free and specific pathogen-free mice were significantly enriched in the mitochondrial metabolic process and immune response. Interestingly, microbiota also significantly influenced the permeability of the oral epithelial barrier, represented by the differential expression of keratinization, and cell adhesion molecules. It was worth noting that the above changes in the tongue between specific pathogen-free and germ-free mice were more significant after chronic stress. Collectively, this is the first study to reveal that the microbiota might maintain oral homeostasis by reshaping the structure of the oral epithelial barrier and changing the function of molecular biology, a process that may be driven by the immune response and mitochondrial metabolic process of oral tissue. Furthermore, chronic stress can enhance the regulatory effects of microbiota on oral homeostasis.Entities:
Keywords: homeostasis; immunity; metabolome; microbiota; proteome; tongue; transcriptome
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36211346 PMCID: PMC9533175 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.1005992
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Immunol ISSN: 1664-3224 Impact factor: 8.786
Figure 1Flowchart of this study. (n=4/SPF group; n=4/GF group; n=4/SPF + chronic stress group; n=4/GF + chronic stress group). SPF mice, specific pathogen-free mice; GF mice, germ-free mice.
Figure 2Microbiota regulates the morphological structure of the lingual epithelium. (A, B) HE staining of the anterior and middle regions of the lingual dorsum of SPF mice. The black arrows in Figures A and B represent the Fip and Fup on the lingual dorsum of SPF mice, respectively. (C, D) HE staining of the posterior region of the lingual dorsum in SPF mice. The black arrows in Figures C and D represent the Fop and Cip on the lingual dorsum of SPF mice, respectively. (E, F) HE staining of the anterior and middle regions of the lingual dorsum of GF mice. The black arrows in Figures E and F represent the Fip and Fup on the lingual dorsum of GF mice, respectively. (G, H) HE staining of the posterior region of the lingual dorsum in GF mice. The black arrows in Figures G and H represent the Fop and Cip on the lingual dorsum of GF mice, respectively. (I) The epithelial structure of Fip on the lingual dorsum of SPF mice. (J) The epithelial structure of Fip of the lingual dorsum of GF mice. (K) The morphological structure of tongue epithelium in SPF mice. (L) The morphological structure of tongue epithelium in SPF mice under chronic stress. (M)The morphological structure of tongue epithelium in GF mice. (N) The morphological structure of tongue epithelium in GF mice under chronic stress. (O) The bar graph of stratum corneum thickness of tongue epithelium in four groups of mice. Fip, filiform papillae; Fup, fungiform papillae; Fop, foliate papillae; Cip, circumvallate papillae. Scale bar: 100 or 50μm. The experiments were performed at least three times independently. *p < 0.05 vs SPF group; **p < 0.01 vs SPF group; ***p < 0.001 vs SPF group; #p <0.05 vs GF group; # #p < 0.01 vs GF group; # # #p < 0.001 vs GF group.
Figure 3Multi-omics analysis reveals that microbiota can regulate oral homeostasis. (A–C) PCA of the transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics of the tongue in SPF and GF mice. (D) Histogram showing the number of differentially expressed molecules in the tongues of SPF and GF mice during multi-omics analysis. (E–G) GO/KEGG/Reactome enrichment analysis of integrated transcriptomics and proteomics of the tongue in SPF and GF mice. (H) KEGG pathway enrichment analysis of multi-omics of the tongue in SPF and GF mice. (I, J) IPA of multi-omics of the tongue in SPF and GF mice. The bold fonts represent the molecules of particular interest in the enrichment pathway. PCA, Principal Component Analysis; IPA, Ingenuity Pathway Analysis; GO, Gene Ontology; KEGG, Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes.
Figure 4Multi-omics analysis suggests that chronic stress may enhance the regulation of microbiota on oral homeostasis. (A) Histogram showing the number of differentially expressed molecules during the tongues of SPF and GF mice in multi-omics analysis under chronic stress. (B–D) GO/KEGG/Reactome enrichment analysis of combined transcriptomics and proteomics of the tongue in SPF and GF mice under chronic stress. (E) KEGG pathway enrichment analysis of multi-omics of the tongue in SPF and GF mice under chronic stress. (F, G) IPA of multi-omics of the tongue in SPF and GF mice under chronic stress. (H) The bar graph of mRNA expression representing oral epithelial permeability in four groups of mice. The bold fonts represent the molecules of particular interest in the enrichment pathway. Scale bar: 50μm. The experiment of qPCR was performed at least three times independently. *p < 0.05 vs SPF group; **p < 0.01 vs SPF group; ***p < 0.001 vs SPF group; #p <0.05 vs GF group; ##p < 0.01 vs GF group; ###p < 0.001 vs GF group; &p < 0.05 vs SPF + stress group; &&p < 0.01 vs SPF + stress group; &&&p < 0.001 vs SPF + stress group.
Figure 5Schematic diagram of oral epithelial barrier resistance to microbial invasion.