DOCSLIB.ORG

Investigating Prenatal Stress in a Stem Cell Model of Human Neuronal Development

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Investigating Prenatal Stress in a Stem Cell Model of Human Neuronal Development INVESTIGATING PRENATAL STRESS IN A STEM CELL MODEL OF HUMAN NEURONAL DEVELOPMENT Lilia Papst Dissertation at the Graduate School of Systemic Neurosciences Ludwig‐Maximilians‐Universität München May, 2019 L. Papst Investigating prenatal stress in a stem cell model of human neuronal development Supervisor Prof. Dr. Dr. med. Elisabeth Binder Translational Research in Psychiatry Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry First Reviewer: Prof. Dr. Dr. med. Elisabeth Binder Second Reviewer: Prof. Dr. Moritz Rossner Third Reviewer: Prof. Dr. Edna Grünblatt Date of Submission: May 27th 2019 Date of Defense: September 23rd 2019 [2] L. Papst Investigating prenatal stress in a stem cell model of human neuronal development CONTENTS Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 7 List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................. 8 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 9 1.1 Theoretical Background ..................................................................................... 9 1.1.1 Epidemiology of Psychiatric Disorders ...................................................... 9 1.1.2 Prenatal Stress in Psychiatric Disorders .................................................... 9 1.1.2.1 Developmental Origins of Health and Disease ........................................... 9 1.1.2.2 Definition of Prenatal Stress ...........................................................................10 1.1.2.3 Prevalence of Prenatal Stress .........................................................................11 1.1.2.4 Impact on cognition and behaviour .............................................................12 1.1.2.5 Organisational effects on brain structure ..................................................15 1.1.2.6 Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal axis programming ............................17 1.1.2.7 Altered gene transcription and signaling pathways ..............................20 1.1.3 Prenatal brain development in vivo and in vitro .................................. 22 1.1.3.1 In vivo neurogenesis ...........................................................................................22 1.1.3.2 In vitro neurogenesis .........................................................................................25 1.1.3.3 The glucocorticoid receptor in embryogenesis .......................................27 1.2 Technical Background ...................................................................................... 28 1.2.1 hIPSC and hESC as model system ............................................................... 28 1.2.2 Illumina MethylationEPIC BeadChip Design .......................................... 29 1.2.3 Transcriptome analysis by 3’ RNA-Seq .................................................... 32 1.3 Confounders in High-Throughput Experiments ....................................... 35 1.4 Aim and scope of study ...................................................................................... 36 2. Pilot Studies ................................................................................................................... 37 2.1 Establishment of GR Expression and Translocation Assay ................... 37 [3] L. Papst Investigating prenatal stress in a stem cell model of human neuronal development 2.1.1 Background ................................................................................................................37 2.1.2 Methods .......................................................................................................................38 2.1.3 Results ..........................................................................................................................39 2.1.4 Discussion ...................................................................................................................42 2.2 Establishment Of Differentiation Protocol ................................................. 43 2.2.1 Background ................................................................................................................43 2.2.2 Methods .......................................................................................................................43 2.2.3 Results ..........................................................................................................................46 2.2.4 Discussion ...................................................................................................................51 2.3 Establishment of Dexamethasone Experiments ....................................... 52 2.3.1 Background ................................................................................................................52 2.3.2 Methods .......................................................................................................................52 2.3.3 Results ..........................................................................................................................53 2.3.4 Discussion ...................................................................................................................59 2.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 62 3. Methods........................................................................................................................... 63 3.1 Study Design .......................................................................................................... 63 3.2 Cell lines .................................................................................................................. 64 3.3 Cell Culture and hESC/ hiPSC Differentiation ............................................ 65 3.4 Dexamethasone Stimulation Experiments ................................................. 67 3.5 RNA extraction and library preparation ..................................................... 68 3.6 DNA extraction and EPIC methylation array ............................................. 68 3.7 Immunofluorescence assays ........................................................................... 68 3.8 Quantification of Glucocorticoid Receptor Translocation .................... 69 3.9 Western Blot.......................................................................................................... 70 3.10 qPCR ..................................................................................................................... 71 [4] L. Papst Investigating prenatal stress in a stem cell model of human neuronal development 3.11 Biostatistical Analyses of Differential Methylation ............................. 72 3.12 Biostatistical Analyses of Differential Gene Transcription .............. 88 4. Results ............................................................................................................................. 96 4.1 In vitro differentiating cells recapitulate embryonic neurogenesis.. 96 4.2 Endogenous and dexamethasone-induced glucocorticoid receptor action in neurogenesis ............................................................................................... 123 4.3 Effects of dexamethasone exposure on the methylome ..................... 128 4.4 Effects of dexamethasone exposure on the transcriptome ............... 143 5. Discussion .................................................................................................................... 154 5.1 Technical Aspects ............................................................................................. 156 5.1.1 Induced pluripotent stem cells as model system. .................................... 156 5.1.2 Microarray and sequencing-based techniques ......................................... 159 5.1.3 Statistical Considerations .................................................................................. 160 5.2 Theoretical Aspects ......................................................................................... 162 5.2.1 Intrinsic glucocorticoid receptor action in neurogenesis ..................... 162 5.2.2 Dexamethasone-induced differential methylation .................................. 164 5.2.3 Dexamethasone-induced differential gene expression.......................... 170 5.3 Limitations .......................................................................................................... 171 5.4 Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 173 5.5 Outlook ................................................................................................................. 173 6. References .................................................................................................................... 176 7. Supplementary Information ................................................................................. 233 7.1 Supplementary Analyses ............................................................................... 233 7.2 Reagents and Resources ................................................................................ 242 7.3 Supplementary Tables .................................................................................... 246 7.4 Supplementary Figures .................................................................................. 247 Disclosure of author contributions
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ncomms2254.Pdf
    ARTICLE Received 3 May 2012 | Accepted 5 Nov 2012 | Published 4 Dec 2012 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms2254 The RB family is required for the self-renewal and survival of human embryonic stem cells Jamie F. Conklin1,2,3, Julie Baker2,3 & Julien Sage1,2,3 The mechanisms ensuring the long-term self-renewal of human embryonic stem cells are still only partly understood, limiting their use in cellular therapies. Here we found that increased activity of the RB cell cycle inhibitor in human embryonic stem cells induces cell cycle arrest, differentiation and cell death. Conversely, inactivation of the entire RB family (RB, p107 and p130) in human embryonic stem cells triggers G2/M arrest and cell death through functional activation of the p53 pathway and the cell cycle inhibitor p21. Differences in E2F target gene activation upon loss of RB family function between human embryonic stem cells, mouse embryonic stem cells and human fibroblasts underscore key differences in the cell cycle regulatory networks of human embryonic stem cells. Finally, loss of RB family function pro- motes genomic instability in both human and mouse embryonic stem cells, uncoupling cell cycle defects from chromosomal instability. These experiments indicate that a homeostatic level of RB activity is essential for the self-renewal and the survival of human embryonic stem cells. 1 Department of Pediatrics, Stanford Medical School, Stanford, California 94305, USA. 2 Department of Genetics, Stanford Medical School, Stanford, California 94305, USA. 3 Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, Stanford Medical School, Stanford, California 94305, USA. Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to J.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Author Manuscript Faculty of Biology and Medicine Publication
    Serveur Académique Lausannois SERVAL serval.unil.ch Author Manuscript Faculty of Biology and Medicine Publication This paper has been peer-reviewed but does not include the final publisher proof-corrections or journal pagination. Published in final edited form as: Title: Sexual dimorphism in cancer. Authors: Clocchiatti A, Cora E, Zhang Y, Dotto GP Journal: Nature reviews. Cancer Year: 2016 May Volume: 16 Issue: 5 Pages: 330-9 DOI: 10.1038/nrc.2016.30 In the absence of a copyright statement, users should assume that standard copyright protection applies, unless the article contains an explicit statement to the contrary. In case of doubt, contact the journal publisher to verify the copyright status of an article. Sexual dimorphism in cancer Andrea Clocchiatti1+, Elisa Cora2+, Yosra Zhang1,2 and G. Paolo Dotto1,2* 1Cutaneous Biology Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown, MA 02129, USA; 2Department of Biochemistry, University of Lausanne, Epalinges, CH-1066, Switzerland + These authors contributed equally to the work * Corresponding author: G. Paolo Dotto email: [email protected] 1 Abstract The incidence of many cancer types is significantly higher in the male than female populations, with associated differences in survival. Occupational and/or behavioral factors are well known underlying determinants. However, cellular/molecular differences between the two sexes are also likely to be important. We are focusing here on the complex interplay that sexual hormones and sex chromosomes can have in intrinsic control of cancer initiating cell populations, tumor microenvironment and systemic determinants of cancer development like the immune system and metabolism. A better appreciation of these differences between the two sexes could be of substantial value for cancer prevention as well as treatment.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Autologous Ipsc–Derived Dopaminergic Progenitors Restore Motor Function in Parkinson’S Disease Models
    Human autologous iPSC–derived dopaminergic progenitors restore motor function in Parkinson’s disease models Bin Song, … , Jeffrey S. Schweitzer, Kwang-Soo Kim J Clin Invest. 2020;130(2):904-920. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI130767. Research Article Neuroscience Stem cells Graphical abstract Find the latest version: https://jci.me/130767/pdf RESEARCH ARTICLE The Journal of Clinical Investigation Human autologous iPSC–derived dopaminergic progenitors restore motor function in Parkinson’s disease models Bin Song,1,2 Young Cha,1,2 Sanghyeok Ko,1,2 Jeha Jeon,1,2 Nayeon Lee,1,2 Hyemyung Seo,1,2,3 Kyung-Joon Park,1 In-Hee Lee,4,5 Claudia Lopes,1,2 Melissa Feitosa,1,2 María José Luna,1,2 Jin Hyuk Jung,1,2 Jisun Kim,1,2,3 Dabin Hwang,1,2 Bruce M. Cohen,1 Martin H. Teicher,1 Pierre Leblanc,1,2 Bob S. Carter,6 Jeffrey H. Kordower,7 Vadim Y. Bolshakov,1 Sek Won Kong,4,5 Jeffrey S. Schweitzer,6 and Kwang-Soo Kim1,2 1Department of Psychiatry and 2Molecular Neurobiology Laboratory, McLean Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Belmont, Massachusetts, USA. 3Department of Molecular and Life Sciences, Hanyang University, Ansan, Korea. 4Department of Pediatrics, 5Computational Health Informatics Program, Boston Children’s Hospital, and 6Department of Neurosurgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 7Department of Neurological Sciences, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA. Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a neurodegenerative disorder associated with loss of striatal dopamine, secondary to degeneration of midbrain dopamine (mDA) neurons in the substantia nigra, rendering cell transplantation a promising therapeutic strategy.
    [Show full text]
  • Mediator of DNA Damage Checkpoint 1 (MDC1) Is a Novel Estrogen Receptor Co-Regulator in Invasive 6 Lobular Carcinoma of the Breast 7 8 Evelyn K
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.16.423142; this version posted December 16, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC 4.0 International license. 1 Running Title: MDC1 co-regulates ER in ILC 2 3 Research article 4 5 Mediator of DNA damage checkpoint 1 (MDC1) is a novel estrogen receptor co-regulator in invasive 6 lobular carcinoma of the breast 7 8 Evelyn K. Bordeaux1+, Joseph L. Sottnik1+, Sanjana Mehrotra1, Sarah E. Ferrara2, Andrew E. Goodspeed2,3, James 9 C. Costello2,3, Matthew J. Sikora1 10 11 +EKB and JLS contributed equally to this project. 12 13 Affiliations 14 1Dept. of Pathology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus 15 2Biostatistics and Bioinformatics Shared Resource, University of Colorado Comprehensive Cancer Center 16 3Dept. of Pharmacology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus 17 18 Corresponding author 19 Matthew J. Sikora, PhD.; Mail Stop 8104, Research Complex 1 South, Room 5117, 12801 E. 17th Ave.; Aurora, 20 CO 80045. Tel: (303)724-4301; Fax: (303)724-3712; email: [email protected]. Twitter: 21 @mjsikora 22 23 Authors' contributions 24 MJS conceived of the project. MJS, EKB, and JLS designed and performed experiments. JLS developed models 25 for the project. EKB, JLS, SM, and AEG contributed to data analysis and interpretation. SEF, AEG, and JCC 26 developed and performed informatics analyses. MJS wrote the draft manuscript; all authors read and revised the 27 manuscript and have read and approved of this version of the manuscript.
    [Show full text]
  • A Computational Approach for Defining a Signature of Β-Cell Golgi Stress in Diabetes Mellitus
    Page 1 of 781 Diabetes A Computational Approach for Defining a Signature of β-Cell Golgi Stress in Diabetes Mellitus Robert N. Bone1,6,7, Olufunmilola Oyebamiji2, Sayali Talware2, Sharmila Selvaraj2, Preethi Krishnan3,6, Farooq Syed1,6,7, Huanmei Wu2, Carmella Evans-Molina 1,3,4,5,6,7,8* Departments of 1Pediatrics, 3Medicine, 4Anatomy, Cell Biology & Physiology, 5Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, the 6Center for Diabetes & Metabolic Diseases, and the 7Herman B. Wells Center for Pediatric Research, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN 46202; 2Department of BioHealth Informatics, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN, 46202; 8Roudebush VA Medical Center, Indianapolis, IN 46202. *Corresponding Author(s): Carmella Evans-Molina, MD, PhD ([email protected]) Indiana University School of Medicine, 635 Barnhill Drive, MS 2031A, Indianapolis, IN 46202, Telephone: (317) 274-4145, Fax (317) 274-4107 Running Title: Golgi Stress Response in Diabetes Word Count: 4358 Number of Figures: 6 Keywords: Golgi apparatus stress, Islets, β cell, Type 1 diabetes, Type 2 diabetes 1 Diabetes Publish Ahead of Print, published online August 20, 2020 Diabetes Page 2 of 781 ABSTRACT The Golgi apparatus (GA) is an important site of insulin processing and granule maturation, but whether GA organelle dysfunction and GA stress are present in the diabetic β-cell has not been tested. We utilized an informatics-based approach to develop a transcriptional signature of β-cell GA stress using existing RNA sequencing and microarray datasets generated using human islets from donors with diabetes and islets where type 1(T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) had been modeled ex vivo. To narrow our results to GA-specific genes, we applied a filter set of 1,030 genes accepted as GA associated.
    [Show full text]
  • A Clinicopathological and Molecular Genetic Analysis of Low-Grade Glioma in Adults
    A CLINICOPATHOLOGICAL AND MOLECULAR GENETIC ANALYSIS OF LOW-GRADE GLIOMA IN ADULTS Presented by ANUSHREE SINGH MSc A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the University of Wolverhampton for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Brain Tumour Research Centre Research Institute in Healthcare Sciences Faculty of Science and Engineering University of Wolverhampton November 2014 i DECLARATION This work or any part thereof has not previously been presented in any form to the University or to any other body whether for the purposes of assessment, publication or for any other purpose (unless otherwise indicated). Save for any express acknowledgments, references and/or bibliographies cited in the work, I confirm that the intellectual content of the work is the result of my own efforts and of no other person. The right of Anushree Singh to be identified as author of this work is asserted in accordance with ss.77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. At this date copyright is owned by the author. Signature: Anushree Date: 30th November 2014 ii ABSTRACT The aim of the study was to identify molecular markers that can determine progression of low grade glioma. This was done using various approaches such as IDH1 and IDH2 mutation analysis, MGMT methylation analysis, copy number analysis using array comparative genomic hybridisation and identification of differentially expressed miRNAs using miRNA microarray analysis. IDH1 mutation was present at a frequency of 71% in low grade glioma and was identified as an independent marker for improved OS in a multivariate analysis, which confirms the previous findings in low grade glioma studies.
    [Show full text]
  • Cell Reprogramming Technologies for Treatment And
    CELL REPROGRAMMING TECHNOLOGIES FOR TREATMENT AND UNDERSTANDING OF GENETIC DISORDERS OF MYELIN by ANGELA MARIE LAGER Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Thesis advisor: Paul J Tesar, PhD Department of Genetics and Genome Sciences CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY May 2015 CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES We hereby approve the thesis/dissertation of Angela Marie Lager Candidate for the Doctor of Philosophy degree*. (signed) Ronald A Conlon, PhD (Committee Chair) Paul J Tesar, PhD (Advisor) Craig A Hodges, PhD Warren J Alilain, PhD (date) 31 March 2015 *We also certify that written approval has been obtained from any proprietary material contained therein. TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………….1 List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………4 Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………..7 Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………..8 Chapter 1: Introduction and Background………………………………………..11 1.1 Overview of mammalian oligodendrocyte development in the spinal cord and myelination of the central nervous system…………………..11 1.1.1 Introduction……………………………………………………..11 1.1.2 The establishment of the neuroectoderm and ventral formation of the neural tube…………………………………..12 1.1.3 Ventral patterning of the neural tube and specification of the pMN domain in the spinal cord……………………………….15 1.1.4 Oligodendrocyte progenitor cell production through the process of gliogenesis ………………………………………..16 1.1.5 Oligodendrocyte progenitor cell to oligodendrocyte differentiation…………………………………………………...22
    [Show full text]
  • Regulation of Adult Neurogenesis in Mammalian Brain
    International Journal of Molecular Sciences Review Regulation of Adult Neurogenesis in Mammalian Brain 1,2, 3, 3,4 Maria Victoria Niklison-Chirou y, Massimiliano Agostini y, Ivano Amelio and Gerry Melino 3,* 1 Centre for Therapeutic Innovation (CTI-Bath), Department of Pharmacy & Pharmacology, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK; [email protected] 2 Blizard Institute of Cell and Molecular Science, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London E1 2AT, UK 3 Department of Experimental Medicine, TOR, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”, 00133 Rome, Italy; [email protected] (M.A.); [email protected] (I.A.) 4 School of Life Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2HU, UK * Correspondence: [email protected] These authors contributed equally to this work. y Received: 18 May 2020; Accepted: 7 July 2020; Published: 9 July 2020 Abstract: Adult neurogenesis is a multistage process by which neurons are generated and integrated into existing neuronal circuits. In the adult brain, neurogenesis is mainly localized in two specialized niches, the subgranular zone (SGZ) of the dentate gyrus and the subventricular zone (SVZ) adjacent to the lateral ventricles. Neurogenesis plays a fundamental role in postnatal brain, where it is required for neuronal plasticity. Moreover, perturbation of adult neurogenesis contributes to several human diseases, including cognitive impairment and neurodegenerative diseases. The interplay between extrinsic and intrinsic factors is fundamental in regulating neurogenesis. Over the past decades, several studies on intrinsic pathways, including transcription factors, have highlighted their fundamental role in regulating every stage of neurogenesis. However, it is likely that transcriptional regulation is part of a more sophisticated regulatory network, which includes epigenetic modifications, non-coding RNAs and metabolic pathways.
    [Show full text]
  • Expression of Human Endogenous Retrovirus K Envelope Transcripts in Human Breast Cancer1
    Vol. 7, 1553–1560, June 2001 Clinical Cancer Research 1553 Advances in Brief Expression of Human Endogenous Retrovirus K Envelope Transcripts in Human Breast Cancer1 Feng Wang-Johanning, Andra R. Frost, breast tumor sample showed nucleotide sequence differ- Gary L. Johanning, M. B. Khazaeli, ences, suggesting that multiple loci may be transcribed. Conclusions: These data indicate that HERV-K tran- Albert F. LoBuglio, Denise R. Shaw, and scripts with coding potential for the envelope region are 2 Theresa V. Strong expressed frequently in human breast cancer. The Comprehensive Cancer Center and Division of Hematology Oncology, Departments of Medicine [F. W-J., M. B. K., A. F. L., Introduction D. R. S., T. V. S.], Pathology [A. R. F.], and Nutrition Sciences 3 [G. L. J.], University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, HERVs are stably inherited sequences thought to have Alabama 35294-3300 entered the germ line of their host more than a million years ago (1, 2). These elements are widely dispersed throughout the genome and are estimated to comprise Ͼ1% of the entire human Abstract genome. Most HERVs are defective because of multiple termi- Purpose: We investigated the expression of human en- nation codons and deletions (3), but some appear to contain all dogenous retroviral (HERV) sequences in breast cancer. structural features necessary for viral replication (4). HERVs are Experimental Design: Reverse transcription-PCR (RT- grouped into single- and multiple-copy families, usually classi- PCR) was used to examine expression of the envelope (env) fied according to the tRNA used for reverse transcription (2). region of ERV3, HERV-E4-1, and HERV-K in breast cancer The type K family (HERV-K) is present in an estimated 30–50 cell lines, human breast tumor samples, adjacent uninvolved copies/human genome and includes some elements with long breast tissues, nonmalignant breast tissues, and placenta.
    [Show full text]
  • Abbit Monoclonal Igg Antibody Against Human, Mouse SOX1
    Anti-Human SOX1 Antibody, Clone EPR4766 Antibodies Rabbit monoclonal IgG antibody against human, mouse SOX1 Catalog #60095 0.1 mL Product Description The EPR4766 antibody reacts with SOX1, also known as SRY (sex determining region Y)-box 1, an ~40 kDa nuclear transcription factor belonging to the SRY-related HMG-box family. SOX1 is involved in regulating development of the central nervous system and is an early marker for neuroectodermal differentiation in the embryo. Its expression is down-regulated during differentiation in many neuronal subtypes. SOX1 is also a useful marker for identifying embryonic and somatic neuronal progenitor cells (NPCs), in concert with other markers such as SOX2 and SOX9. SOX1 is thought to promote self-renewal in NPCs, whereas it functions in other cell types to promote differentiation. There is evidence that SOX1 plays a role in tumor suppression by binding to ß-catenin and attenuating the WNT signaling pathway, and in mice it plays an essential role in lens development by regulating expression of γ-crystallins. The EPR4766 antibody does not cross-react with rat SOX1. Target Antigen Name: SOX1 Alternative Names: Sox-1, SRY (sex determining region Y)-box 1, SRY-related HMG-box Gene ID: 6656 Species Reactivity: Human, Mouse Host Species: Rabbit Clonality: Monoclonal Clone: EPR4766 Isotype: IgG Immunogen: Synthetic peptide corresponding to the partial amino acid sequence of human SOX1 Conjugate: Unconjugated Applications Verified: ICC, IF, IHC, WB Reported: ICC, IF, IHC, WB Special Applications: This antibody clone has been verified for labeling neural stem and progenitor cells grown with STEMdiff™ Neural Induction Medium (Catalog #05835), STEMdiff™ Neural Progenitor Medium (Catalog #05833), NeuroCult™ NS-A Proliferation Kit (Human; Catalog #05751) and NeuroCult™ Proliferation Kit (Mouse; Catalog #05702).
    [Show full text]
  • How Relevant Are Bone Marrow-Derived Mast Cells (Bmmcs) As Models for Tissue Mast Cells? a Comparative Transcriptome Analysis of Bmmcs and Peritoneal Mast Cells
    cells Article How Relevant Are Bone Marrow-Derived Mast Cells (BMMCs) as Models for Tissue Mast Cells? A Comparative Transcriptome Analysis of BMMCs and Peritoneal Mast Cells 1, 2, 1 1 2,3 Srinivas Akula y , Aida Paivandy y, Zhirong Fu , Michael Thorpe , Gunnar Pejler and Lars Hellman 1,* 1 Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, Uppsala University, The Biomedical Center, Box 596, SE-751 24 Uppsala, Sweden; [email protected] (S.A.); [email protected] (Z.F.); [email protected] (M.T.) 2 Department of Medical Biochemistry and Microbiology, Uppsala University, The Biomedical Center, Box 589, SE-751 23 Uppsala, Sweden; [email protected] (A.P.); [email protected] (G.P.) 3 Department of Anatomy, Physiology and Biochemistry, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7011, SE-75007 Uppsala, Sweden * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +46-(0)18-471-4532; Fax: +46-(0)18-471-4862 These authors contributed equally to this work. y Received: 29 July 2020; Accepted: 16 September 2020; Published: 17 September 2020 Abstract: Bone marrow-derived mast cells (BMMCs) are often used as a model system for studies of the role of MCs in health and disease. These cells are relatively easy to obtain from total bone marrow cells by culturing under the influence of IL-3 or stem cell factor (SCF). After 3 to 4 weeks in culture, a nearly homogenous cell population of toluidine blue-positive cells are often obtained. However, the question is how relevant equivalents these cells are to normal tissue MCs. By comparing the total transcriptome of purified peritoneal MCs with BMMCs, here we obtained a comparative view of these cells.
    [Show full text]
  • Supplementary Table S4. FGA Co-Expressed Gene List in LUAD
    Supplementary Table S4. FGA co-expressed gene list in LUAD tumors Symbol R Locus Description FGG 0.919 4q28 fibrinogen gamma chain FGL1 0.635 8p22 fibrinogen-like 1 SLC7A2 0.536 8p22 solute carrier family 7 (cationic amino acid transporter, y+ system), member 2 DUSP4 0.521 8p12-p11 dual specificity phosphatase 4 HAL 0.51 12q22-q24.1histidine ammonia-lyase PDE4D 0.499 5q12 phosphodiesterase 4D, cAMP-specific FURIN 0.497 15q26.1 furin (paired basic amino acid cleaving enzyme) CPS1 0.49 2q35 carbamoyl-phosphate synthase 1, mitochondrial TESC 0.478 12q24.22 tescalcin INHA 0.465 2q35 inhibin, alpha S100P 0.461 4p16 S100 calcium binding protein P VPS37A 0.447 8p22 vacuolar protein sorting 37 homolog A (S. cerevisiae) SLC16A14 0.447 2q36.3 solute carrier family 16, member 14 PPARGC1A 0.443 4p15.1 peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma, coactivator 1 alpha SIK1 0.435 21q22.3 salt-inducible kinase 1 IRS2 0.434 13q34 insulin receptor substrate 2 RND1 0.433 12q12 Rho family GTPase 1 HGD 0.433 3q13.33 homogentisate 1,2-dioxygenase PTP4A1 0.432 6q12 protein tyrosine phosphatase type IVA, member 1 C8orf4 0.428 8p11.2 chromosome 8 open reading frame 4 DDC 0.427 7p12.2 dopa decarboxylase (aromatic L-amino acid decarboxylase) TACC2 0.427 10q26 transforming, acidic coiled-coil containing protein 2 MUC13 0.422 3q21.2 mucin 13, cell surface associated C5 0.412 9q33-q34 complement component 5 NR4A2 0.412 2q22-q23 nuclear receptor subfamily 4, group A, member 2 EYS 0.411 6q12 eyes shut homolog (Drosophila) GPX2 0.406 14q24.1 glutathione peroxidase
    [Show full text]