Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
eNeuro

eNeuro

Advanced Search

 

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT
PreviousNext
Research ArticleNew Research, Disorders of the Nervous System

Mixed Neurodevelopmental and Neurodegenerative Pathology in Nhe6-Null Mouse Model of Christianson Syndrome

Meiyu Xu, Qing Ouyang, Jingyi Gong, Matthew F. Pescosolido, Brandon S. Pruett, Sasmita Mishra, Michael Schmidt, Richard N. Jones, Ece D. Gamsiz Uzun, Sofia B. Lizarraga and Eric M. Morrow
eNeuro 26 December 2017, 4 (6) ENEURO.0388-17.2017; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0388-17.2017
Meiyu Xu
1Department of Molecular Biology, Cell Biology and Biochemistry, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912
2Brown Institute for Brain Science, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912
3Developmental Disorders Genetics Research Program, Emma Pendleton Bradley Hospital, East Providence, RI 02915
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Qing Ouyang
1Department of Molecular Biology, Cell Biology and Biochemistry, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912
2Brown Institute for Brain Science, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912
3Developmental Disorders Genetics Research Program, Emma Pendleton Bradley Hospital, East Providence, RI 02915
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jingyi Gong
1Department of Molecular Biology, Cell Biology and Biochemistry, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912
2Brown Institute for Brain Science, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Matthew F. Pescosolido
1Department of Molecular Biology, Cell Biology and Biochemistry, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912
2Brown Institute for Brain Science, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912
3Developmental Disorders Genetics Research Program, Emma Pendleton Bradley Hospital, East Providence, RI 02915
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Brandon S. Pruett
3Developmental Disorders Genetics Research Program, Emma Pendleton Bradley Hospital, East Providence, RI 02915
4Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI 02912
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Brandon S. Pruett
Sasmita Mishra
1Department of Molecular Biology, Cell Biology and Biochemistry, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912
2Brown Institute for Brain Science, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912
3Developmental Disorders Genetics Research Program, Emma Pendleton Bradley Hospital, East Providence, RI 02915
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael Schmidt
1Department of Molecular Biology, Cell Biology and Biochemistry, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912
2Brown Institute for Brain Science, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912
3Developmental Disorders Genetics Research Program, Emma Pendleton Bradley Hospital, East Providence, RI 02915
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Richard N. Jones
4Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI 02912
5Department of Neurology, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI 02912
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ece D. Gamsiz Uzun
6Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI 02912
7Center for Computational Molecular Biology, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sofia B. Lizarraga
8Department of Biological Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208
9Center for Childhood Neurotherapeutics, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Eric M. Morrow
1Department of Molecular Biology, Cell Biology and Biochemistry, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912
2Brown Institute for Brain Science, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912
3Developmental Disorders Genetics Research Program, Emma Pendleton Bradley Hospital, East Providence, RI 02915
4Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI 02912
10Hassenfeld Child Health Innovation Institute, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Brain region sizes in wild-type and Nhe6-null mice across the postnatal lifespan. A, C, E, G, Representative images of brains from wild-type (WT) and Nhe6-null (MUT) male littermates at 1, 2, 6, and 26 mo, respectively. Ruler markers represent millimeters. B, D, F, H, Graphs depicting quantitative analysis of total areas for whole brain and different brain regions at time points corresponding to respective images to the left. There are no significant differences in brain size between WT and Nhe6-null mice at 1 mo. For total areas at 2, 6, and 23–26 mo, male Nhe6-null mice exhibit significantly decreased whole-brain area (*, p = 0.018; ***, p = 0.00025; and ***, p = 0.00025, respectively), as well as cortical area (*, p = 0.029; *, p = 0.025; and *, p = 0.035, respectively), cerebellar area (**, p = 0.0067; ***, p = 7.5 × 10–5; and ***, p = 0.00012, respectively), and cerebellar + midbrain area (*, p = 0.021; ***, p = 0.00015; and ****, p = 0.000096, respectively), compared with male WT mice. CX, cortex; CB, cerebellum; MB, midbrain; WB, whole brain. I, Graphs depicting longitudinal representation of total areas for cortex (left) and cerebellum (right) in WT versus MUT mice of the indicated ages in months (m). Time points of analysis were P0 and 1, 2, 6, and 23–26 mo, which is plotted as 23 mo. WT n = 11, MUT n = 7 (B); WT n = 8, MUT n = 6 (D); WT n = 7, MUT n = 6 (F); WT n = 4, MUT n = 5 (H). Data are presented as mean ± SEM. Statistical analyses were conducted using two-tailed Student’s t tests.

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    Widespread reduction of neural tissue in aged Nhe6-null mice. A, C, E, G, I, Representative images of 30-μm brain sections from 22-mo-old WT and MUT male littermate mice after Nissl staining. Shown are coronal brain sections of cortex (A), striatum (C), and hippocampus (E) and sagittal sections of cerebellum (G) and spinal cord (I). Rightmost panels depict sections overlaid with anatomic labels for orientation purposes and blue lines indicating regions of measurement for assessment of atrophy. Two different anterior-posterior thicknesses of spinal cord (1 and 2) are shown and were analyzed (I). D, dorsal; L, lateral; V, ventral; M, medial; A, anterior; P, posterior. Scale bars, 200 μm. B, D, F, H, J, Graphs depicting quantification of thicknesses or areas of different brain regions in MUT male mice compared with WT male littermates, with each graph corresponding to the brain region reflected in the images to its left. WT n = 3, MUT n = 3 (B, D, and F); WT n = 2, MUT n = 4 (H); WT n = 2, MUT n = 2 (J). Data are presented as mean ± SEM. Statistical analyses were conducted using two-tailed Student’s t tests. *, p = 0.025 (B); ***, p = 0.00031 (D); **, p = 0.0098 (F); ****, p = 4.6 × 10–5 (H); #, p = 0.060 (J, Region 1); p = 0.24 (J, Region 2).

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    Trajectories of brain tissue changes in Nhe6-null mice from 2 mo to 2 yr. A, C, E, G, Representative images of 30-μm brain sections from 2-mo-old WT and MUT male littermate mice after Nissl staining. Coronal sections were used for cortex (A), striatum (C), and hippocampus (E), and sagittal sections were used for cerebellum (G). Measurements were performed as in Fig. 2. Scale bars, 200 μm. B, D, F, H, Graphs depicting quantification of thicknesses or areas of different brain regions in MUT male mice compared with WT male littermates at time points of 2 months (2 m) and 22 months (22 m; from Fig. 2). Each graph corresponds to the brain region reflected in the images to its left. WT n = 3, MUT n = 3 for each age group (B, D, and F); WT n = 3, MUT n = 3 for 2 m and WT n = 2, MUT n = 4 for 22 m (H). Data are presented as mean ± SEM. Statistical analyses were conducted using two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison tests to compare the means for each genotype at each time point to one another. See Results for details. *, p = 0.035 (B); **, p = 0.0020 (WT 2 m to 22 m; D); **, p = 0.0021 (22 m; D); *, p = 0.033 (WT 2 m to 22 m; F); **, p = 0.0036 (22 m; F); *, p = 0.034 (2 m; H); ***, p = 0.0002 (MUT 2 m to 22 m; H); ****, p < 0.0001 (22 m; H).

  • Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4.

    Temporal progression of PC loss in the primary fissure of the vermis in Nhe6-null cerebellum. A, Representative images of hematoxylin and eosin-stained midsagittal sections of the vermal primary fissure from 12-mo-old WT and MUT male mice. PCF, preculminate fissure; PRI, primary fissure; PPF, prepyramidal fissure; ML, molecular layer; PCL, Purkinje cell layer; GCL, granule cell layer. Scale bars, 200 μm (left panels) and 50 μm (right panels). B, C, Representative images of midsagittal sections of the vermal primary fissure immunostained with the PC marker calbindin (red) in WT and MUT male mice at ages 5 mo (B) and 11–13 mo (C). Nuclei were stained with DAPI (blue). Vermis folia are labeled with Roman numerals according to the Allen Mouse Brain Atlas (Lein et al., 2007). Scale bars, 50 μm. D, E, Graphs depicting quantification of PC density (D) and overall calbindin signal (E) in WT and MUT male mice 5 months of age (5 m) and 11–13 months of age (11–13 m). Nhe6-null male mice (MUT) display significantly decreased PC density at both 5 m (*, p = 0.03) and 11–13 m (***, p < 0.001), as well as significantly decreased overall calbindin signal at both ages (**, p = 0.002, 5 m; ***, p = 0.001, 11–13 m). Furthermore, Nhe6-null mice exhibit a progressive decrease in PC density (**, p = 0.006, D) and overall calbindin signal (**, p = 0.01, E) over the 5- to 11–13-mo time period, a decrease that was not observed in WT male mice. F, Graph depicting the trajectory of PC density of MUT male mice in comparison to age-matched WT male mice based on data collected from mice 2, 5, or 11–13 mo. WT n = 3, MUT n = 3 for 5 m and WT n = 5, MUT n = 4 for 11–13 m (D and F); WT n = 4, MUT n = 4 for 5 m and WT n = 6, MUT n = 4 for 11–13 m (E); WT n = 2, MUT n = 2 for 2 m (F). Data are presented as mean ± SEM. Statistical analyses were conducted using two-tailed Student’s t tests.

  • Figure 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5.

    Anatomic patterns of PC loss in Nhe6-null cerebellum. A, C, Representative images of midsagittal sections of the anterior lobe (lobules II and III), vermal primary fissure (lobules V and VI), and flocculonodular lobe (lobules IX and X) immunostained with the PC marker calbindin (red) in WT and MUT male mice at ages 5 mo (A) and 11–13 mo (C). Nuclei were stained with DAPI (blue). ML, molecular layer; PCL, Purkinje cell layer; GCL, granule cell layer. Scale bars, 50 μm. B, D, Graphs depicting quantification of PC density across cerebellar regions in WT and MUT male mice 5 mo (B) and 11–13 mo (D). At 5 mo, PC density is significantly decreased in the anterior lobe (**, p = 0.006) and primary fissure (*, p = 0.03, previously shown in Fig. 4B, D), but not the flocculonodular lobe (p = 0.17), in MUT male mice compared with WT male mice (B). Similarly, at 11–13 mo, MUT male mice show significantly decreased PC density in the anterior lobe (***, p < 0.001) and primary fissure (***, p < 0.001, previously shown in Fig. 4C, D), but not the flocculonodular lobe (p = 0.46), relative to WT male mice (D). Also, there is a statistically significant difference between cerebellar regions in Nhe6-null mice 11–13 mo of age [F(2,7) = 20.11, p = 0.001], but not in Nhe6-null mice 5 mo of age. WT n = 3, MUT n = 3 for vermal primary fissure and flocculonodular lobe (B); WT n = 3, MUT n = 4 for anterior lobe (B); WT n = 4, MUT n = 3 for anterior lobe and flocculonodular lobe (D); WT n = 5, MUT n = 4 for vermal primary fissure (D). Data are presented as mean ± SEM. Statistical analyses were conducted using two-tailed Student’s t tests for group comparisons and one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison tests for cerebellar region comparisons. Note that representative vermal primary fissure images from mice at ages 5 mo (A) and 11–13 mo (C) are the same as those for the respective time points in Fig. 4B, C.

  • Figure 6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 6.

    PC loss in the cerebellar vermis as opposed to lateral regions. A, B, Representative images of sagittal sections of whole cerebellar periphery immunostained with the PC marker calbindin (red) in WT and MUT male mice at 5 mo of age. Images in B reflect higher magnification of the respective boxed regions in A. Nuclei were stained with DAPI (blue). ML, molecular layer; PCL, Purkinje cell layer; GCL, granule cell layer. Scale bars, 500 μm (A) and 50 μm (B). C, Graph depicting quantitative analysis of PC density in the cerebellar vermis (from Fig. 4D) versus the cerebellar periphery in WT and MUT male mice of 5 mo of age. Differences in PC density in peripheral regions of the cerebellum are not detected in WT versus MUT male mice at this time point (p = 0.16). However, the peripheral cerebellum shows a significantly greater PC density compared with the cerebellar vermis at 5 mo in both WT mice (*, p = 0.02) and MUT mice (**, p = 0.006). As shown in Figs. 4 and 5, Nhe6-null male mice (MUT) at 5 mo of age display significantly decreased PC density in the primary fissure of the vermis (*, p = 0.03). WT n = 3, MUT n = 3 for each cerebellar region analyzed. Data are presented as mean ± SEM. Statistical analyses were conducted using two-tailed Student’s t tests.

  • Figure 7.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 7.

    Anatomic patterns of cerebellar PC loss in a new exons 2/3 Nhe6-null mouse model. A, Schematic of the targeting approach and vector for generating the exons 2/3 Nhe6-null mouse model. B, C, Loss of Nhe6 mRNA and NHE6 protein expression in the exons 2/3 Nhe6-null mouse model was confirmed via PCR, using mouse tail clippings as a sample source (B), and via Western blot, using whole-brain lysate as a sample source (C), respectively. For Western blotting, the membrane was first probed to detect NHE6, after which the membrane was stripped and reprobed for α-tubulin as a loading control. WT, wild-type; HET, heterozygous; MUT, exons 2/3 Nhe6-null mutant. D, E, Representative images of midsagittal sections of whole cerebellar vermis immunostained with the PC marker calbindin (red) in WT and exons 2/3 Nhe6-null MUT male mice at 6 mo of age. Lower-magnification images depicting lobules I through X are shown in D, and higher-magnification images depicting specific lobules and regions as indicated are shown in E. Nuclei were stained with DAPI (blue). ML, molecular layer; PCL, Purkinje cell layer; GCL, granule cell layer. Scale bars, 500 μm (D) and 50 μm (E). F, Graph depicting quantification of PC density across cerebellar regions in WT and MUT male mice at 6 mo of age. Compared with WT males, exons 2/3 MUT male mice exhibit significantly decreased PC density in the anterior lobe (*, p = 0.03) and primary fissure (*, p = 0.02), yet a statistically significant difference is not observed in the flocculonodular lobe (p = 0.75). Furthermore, MUT male mice exhibit a region-specific decrease in PC density in the primary fissure and anterior lobe, but not in the flocculonodular lobe [F(2,6) = 6.94, p = 0.03]. WT n = 2, MUT n = 3. Data are presented as mean ± SEM. Statistical analyses were conducted using two-tailed Student’s t tests for group comparisons and one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison tests for cerebellar region comparisons.

  • Figure 8.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 8.

    PC loss in Nhe6-null mouse cerebellum, female and male. A, B, Representative images of midsagittal sections of whole cerebellar vermis and the vermal primary fissure immunostained with the PC marker calbindin (red) in WT and MUT female (A) and male (B) mice at 5 mo of age. Lower-magnification images depicting lobules I through X are shown in the left and middle panels, and higher-magnification images depicting the primary fissure are shown in the rightmost panels. Nuclei were stained with DAPI (blue). ML, molecular layer; PCL, Purkinje cell layer; GCL, granule cell layer. Scale bars, 500 μm (left and middle panels) and 50 μm (right panels). C, D, Graphs depicting quantitative analysis of PC density (C) and overall calbindin signal (D) in the vermal primary fissure in WT and MUT female and male (from Fig. 4D, E) mice at 5 mo of age. Nhe6-null female mice display significantly decreased PC density (**, p = 0.007, C) and overall calbindin signal (***, p = 0.001, D) compared with WT female mice. As shown in Fig. 4D, E, Nhe6-null male mice at 5 mo of age display significantly decreased PC density (*, p = 0.03, C) and overall calbindin signal (**, p = 0.002, D), respectively, compared with WT male mice. There are no significant differences between Nhe6-null female and male mice. WT n = 3, MUT n = 4 for female (C and D); WT n = 3, MUT n = 3 for male (C); WT n = 4, MUT n = 4 for male (D). Data are presented as mean ± SEM. Statistical analyses were conducted using two-tailed Student’s t tests.

  • Figure 9.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 9.

    Microglia in the corpus callosum of aged Nhe6-null mouse brain. Representative images of 30-μm coronal brain sections through the CC from 22-mo-old WT and MUT male littermate mice after triple immunohistochemical staining with antibodies against NeuN (green), a marker for neurons; GFAP (red), a marker for reactive astrocytes; and Iba1 (blue), a marker for microglia. Shown are merged images and images of single channels for NeuN, GFAP, and Iba1, respectively. The images reveal strong reactivity of microglia and astrocytes in the CC of aged (22-mo-old) MUT male mice compared with WT male littermates. Scale bars, 200 μm.

  • Figure 10.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 10.

    Microglia in the cortex, striatum, and hippocampus of aged Nhe6-null mouse brain. A, B, C, Representative images of 30-μm coronal brain sections from 22-mo-old WT and MUT male littermate mice after triple immunohistochemical staining with antibodies against NeuN (green), a marker for neurons; GFAP (red), a marker for astrocytes; and Iba1 (blue), a marker for microglia. Shown are merged images and images of single channels for GFAP and Iba1, respectively, for sections of cortex (A), striatum (B), and hippocampus (C). The images reveal gliosis, as indicated by Iba1 immunostaining, in the respective brain regions of aged (22-mo-old) MUT male mice compared with WT male littermates. Scale bars, 50 μm (A and B) and 200 μm (C). Di-iii, Graphs depicting quantification of gliosis, based on the number of Iba1-positive cells in a region of defined size, in the cortex (Di), striatum (Dii), and hippocampus (Diii) of WT and MUT male littermate mice at 22 mo of age. Microglia density is significantly increased in MUT male mice compared with WT male littermates in the cortex (*, p = 0.019, Di), striatum (**, p = 0.0054, Dii), and CA region of the hippocampus (**, p = 0.0048, Diii) but not in the DG region of the hippocampus (p = 0.18). CA, cornu Ammonis; DG, dentate gyrus. Images similar to those shown in A, B, and C were used for quantitation, with the number of microglia in 228-μm2 regions being counted and summed across the total number of regions analyzed. The number of 228-μm2 regions analyzed for each brain region for each mouse brain were as follows: 16 (cortex), 36 (striatum), 4 (hippocampus, DG), and 6 (hippocampus, CA). WT n = 3, MUT n = 4. Data are presented as mean ± SEM. Statistical analyses were conducted using two-tailed Student’s t tests.

  • Figure 11.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 11.

    Microglia in the cerebellum and spinal cord of aged Nhe6-null mouse. A, B, Representative images of 30-μm sagittal sections from 22-mo-old WT and MUT male littermate mice after triple immunohistochemical staining with antibodies against NeuN (green), a marker for neurons; GFAP (red), a marker for astrocytes; and Iba1 (blue), a marker for microglia. Shown are merged images and images of single channels for GFAP and Iba1, respectively, for sections of cerebellum (A) and spinal cord (B). The images reveal gliosis, as indicated by Iba1 immunostaining, in the respective regions of aged (22-mo-old) MUT male mice compared with WT male littermates. Roman numerals overlaying images in A reflect the respective lobules of the vermis folia. GCL, granule cell layer; ML, molecular layer. Scale bars, 100 μm (A) and 200 μm (B).

  • Figure 12.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 12.

    Activated microglia in the corpus callosum of aged Nhe6-null mouse brain. Representative images of 30-μm coronal brain sections through the CC of 22-mo-old WT and MUT male littermate mice after triple immunohistochemical staining with antibodies against NeuN (green), a marker for neurons; CD68 (red), a marker for activated microglia; and Iba1 (blue), a marker for microglia. Shown are merged images and images of single channels for NeuN, CD68, and Iba1, respectively. The images reveal a more prominent presence of activated microglia, as indicated by microglia containing large CD68-positive puncta, in the CC of aged (22-mo-old) MUT male mice compared with WT male littermates. Scale bar, 50 μm.

  • Figure 13.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 13.

    Activated microglia in the cortex, striatum, hippocampus, and cerebellum of aged Nhe6-null mouse brain. A–D, Representative images of 30-μm brain sections from 22-mo-old WT and MUT male littermate mice after triple immunohistochemical staining with antibodies against NeuN (green), a marker for neurons; CD68 (red), a marker for activated microglia; and Iba1 (blue), a marker for microglia. Coronal sections were used for cortex (A), striatum (B), and hippocampus (C), and sagittal sections were used for cerebellum (D). Shown are merged images and single-channel images for CD68. ML, molecular layer; GCL, granule cell layer. Scale bars, 50 μm. E, Graph depicting quantification of microglial activation, based on the size of CD68-positive puncta in Iba1-positive cells. For hippocampus, the analysis was divided into two subregions, CA and DG. No CD68 size analysis was done in CA, since there were few CD68-positive microglia and the CD68-positive puncta that were present were very small in size. The size of CD68-positive puncta is significantly increased in MUT male mice compared with WT male littermates in cortex (*, p = 0.015). Although not reaching statistical significance, an increase in size is also noted in striatum (p = 0.11). For the DG of the hippocampus, the size of CD68-positive puncta is not statistically different between MUT male mice and WT male littermates (p = 0.34). WT n = 3, MUT n = 3. Data are mean ± SEM. Statistical analyses were conducted using two-tailed Student’s t tests.

  • Figure 14.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 14.

    Gliosis in other axonal tracts in aged Nhe6-null mouse. A–C, Representative images of 30-μm brain sections from 22-mo-old WT and MUT male littermate mice after triple immunohistochemical staining with antibodies against NeuN (green), a marker for neurons; CD68 (red), a marker for activated microglia; and Iba1 (blue), a marker for microglia. Shown are merged images for coronal sections of the anterior commissure (A) and medial septum (B), and sagittal sections of the spinal cord (C). The images reveal the presence of abnormal gliosis, as indicated by the strong immunostaining for CD68 and Iba1, in axonal tracts of various regions of aged (22-mo-old) MUT male mice compared with WT male littermates. Scale bars, 50 μm.

  • Figure 15.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 15.

    Glial activation in the cerebellum of Nhe6-null mice at 2 mo of age. A–Eii, Representative images of 30-μm brain sections from 2-mo-old WT and MUT male littermate mice after triple immunohistochemical staining with antibodies against NeuN (green), a marker for neurons; GFAP (red), a marker for astrocytes (A–Ei), or CD68 (red), a marker for activated microglia (Eii); and Iba1 (blue), a marker for microglia. Coronal sections were used for CC (A), cortex (B), striatum (C), CA region of the hippocampus (Di), and DG region of the hippocampus (Dii), and sagittal sections were used for cerebellum (Ei and Eii). The amount of gliosis appears similar between MUT male mice and WT male littermates in CC, cortex, striatum, and hippocampus at 2 mo of age (A–Dii). However, gliosis in the cerebellum, especially in the ML, is apparent at this age in MUT male mice. This is reflected in the strong signals for GFAP and Iba1 (Ei) and CD68 and Iba1 (Eii), the latter of which is indicative of activated microglia. ML, molecular layer; PCL, Purkinje cell layer; GCL, granule cell layer. Scale bars, 50 μm.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Summary of statistical analyses

    Wild-type (WT)Nhe6-null (MUT)
    Figure, statistical test, and measureBrain regionTime point, moMeanSEMnMeanSEMnStatistics
    Fig. 1
        Two-tailed Student’s t test
            Area (cm2)
    Whole brain00.3760.02190.3940.01112p = 0.42
    Whole brain11.0150.012111.0300.0307p = 0.61
    Whole brain21.2570.03381.1120.0426p = 0.018
    Whole brain61.3260.01171.2430.0116p = 0.00025
    Whole brain231.1050.01341.00680.00735p = 0.00025
    Cortex00.2440.01390.24990.008312p = 0.67
    Cortex10.75270.0074110.7660.0207p = 0.51
    Cortex20.9080.02780.8080.0306p = 0.029
    Cortex60.9490.01170.9070.0126p = 0.025
    Cortex230.77230.008940.75010.00315p = 0.035
    Cerebellum00.03160.002490.03230.001612p = 0.78
    Cerebellum10.21880.0050110.22100.00887p = 0.83
    Cerebellum20.29130.005680.2540.0116p = 0.0067
    Cerebellum60.30060.003770.25900.00596p = 7.5 × 10–5
    Cerebellum230.24830.007840.17600.00575p = 0.00012
    Cerebellum + midbrain00.1530.01490.14410.002912p = 0.49
    Cerebellum + midbrain10.26190.0062110.2640.0107p = 0.85
    Cerebellum + midbrain20.34840.008380.3040.0166p = 0.021
    Cerebellum + midbrain60.37760.001270.33650.00786p = 0.00015
    Cerebellum + midbrain230.31240.006440.23680.00685p = 0.000096
    Fig. 2
        Two-tailed Student’s t test
            Thickness (mm)Cortex221.2100.02931.0900.0183p = 0.025
            Area (mm2)
    Striatum224.6890.03034.0620.0453p = 0.00031
    Hippocampus222.4550.04732.0740.0683p = 0.0098
    Cerebellum227.1280.01424.5860.0894p = 4.6 × 10–5
            Width (mm)
    Spinal cord (Region 1)221.8900.07321.4910.0732p = 0.060
    Spinal cord (Region 2)221.9870.08021.8450.0332p = 0.24
    Fig. 3
        Two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison test
            Thickness (mm)
    Cortex21.1540.01831.1260.0293p = 0.84
    Cortex221.2100.02931.0900.0183p = 0.035
            Area (mm2)
    Striatum24.0600.07733.830.123p = 0.24
    Striatum224.6890.03034.0620.0453p = 0.0021
    Hippocampus22.1990.01132.1130.0623p = 0.66
    Hippocampus222.4550.04732.0740.0683p = 0.0036
    Cerebellum26.530.1535.910.163p = 0.034
    Cerebellum227.1280.01424.5860.0894p < 0.0001
        Slopes generated from linear regression
            Thickness (mm)
    Cortex2–220.00280.0017–0.00180.0017p = 0.10
            Area (mm2)
    Striatum2–220.03150.00410.01160.0066p = 0.034
    Hippocampus2–220.01280.0024–0.00200.0046p = 0.021
    Cerebellum2–220.03000.0097–0.06610.0085p < 0.0001
    Fig. 4
        Two-tailed Student’s t test
            PC densityCerebellar vermis: Primary fissure52.940.1331.990.243p = 0.03
            Calbindin signalCerebellar vermis: Primary fissure532.92.8415.51.74p = 0.002
            PC densityCerebellar vermis: Primary fissure11–133.280.2850.770.264p < 0.001
            Calbindin signalCerebellar vermis: Primary fissure11–1330.73.668.800.924p = 0.001
            PC densityCerebellar vermis: Primary fissure5 and 11–13——————p = 0.006
            Calbindin signalCerebellar vermis: Primary fissure5 and 11–13——————p = 0.01
    Fig. 5
        Two-tailed Student’s t test
            PC density
    Cerebellar vermis: Anterior lobe53.270.2430.740.444p = 0.006
    Cerebellar vermis: Flocculonodular lobe53.490.3632.420.523p = 0.17
    Cerebellar vermis: Anterior lobe11–133.220.3040.210.133p < 0.001
    Cerebellar vermis: Flocculonodular lobe11–133.310.4342.780.513p = 0.46
        One-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison test
            PC densityCerebellar vermis: Primary fissure, Anterior lobe, Flocculonodular lobe5 and 11–13——————11–13 mo MUT F(2,7) = 20.11
    p = 0.001
    Fig. 6
        Two-tailed Student’s t test
            PC density
    Periphery54.860.4533.950.273WT vs. MUT
    p = 0.16
    Periphery5Periphery vs. Vermis in WT
    p = 0.02
    Periphery5Periphery vs. Vermis in MUT
    p = 0.006
    Fig. 7
        Two-tailed Student’s t test
            PC density
    Cerebellar vermis: Primary fissure63.250.0721.020.383p = 0.02
    Cerebellar vermis: Anterior lobe63.800.1220.840.583p = 0.03
    Cerebellar vermis: Flocculonodular lobe63.510.4323.240.543p = 0.75
        One-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison test
            PC densityCerebellar vermis: Primary fissure, Anterior lobe, Flocculonodular lobe6——————F(2,6) = 6.94
    p = 0.03
    Fig. 8
        Two-tailed Student’s t test
            PC densityCerebellar vermis: Primary fissure53.050.3530.830.454p = 0.007
            Calbindin signalCerebellar vermis: Primary fissure532.12.5313.31.44p = 0.001
    Fig. 10
        Two-tailed Student’s t test
            Microglia cell count
    Cortex22159153219104p = 0.019
    Striatum22398.75.63568304p = 0.0054
    Hippocampus CA2274.04.43100.03.44p = 0.0048
    Hippocampus DG2256.06.7367.33.94p = 0.18
    Fig. 13
        Two-tailed Student’s t test
            Size of CD68-positive puncta in Iba1-positive cells (μm2)
    Cortex2219.760.49328.02.03p = 0.015
    Striatum2220.52.0329.94.03p = 0.11
    Hippocampus DG227.22.2310.82.53p = 0.34
    • CA, cornu Ammonis; CD68, cluster of differentiation 68; DG, dentate gyrus; Iba1, ionized calcium-binding adapter molecule 1; mo, month or months; MUT, Nhe6-null; PC, Purkinje cell; SEM, standard error of the mean; WT, wild-type.

    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Modeling of cortex and cerebellum growth and degeneration

    Wild-type (WT)Nhe6-null (MUT)
    Rate (cm2/mo)Coefficients (mo−1)Rate (cm2/mo)Undergrowth-only modelCoefficients (mo−1)Degeneration-only modelCoefficients (mo−1)
    Brain region and time pointMeanGDMeanGDGD
    Cortex
        0–1 mo0.50920.676400.5160.673700.67640.0027
        1–2 mo0.1560.171200.04150.051400.17120.1198
        2–6 mo0.01010.010600.02480.027400.0106–0.0168
        6–23 mo–0.0103700.0134–0.0092200.012300.0123
    Cerebellum
        0–1 mo0.18730.855800.18870.853700.85580.0021
        1–2 mo0.072430.248700.03320.130500.24870.1182
        2–6 mo0.002330.007800.00120.004700.00780.0031
        6–23 mo–0.0030800.0124–0.0048800.027700.0277
    • D, Degeneration coefficient; G, Growth coefficient; mo, month or months; MUT, Nhe6-null; WT, wild-type.

    • View popup
    Table 3.

    Summary of phenotypic findings

    Region and analysisBirth1 mo2 or 5 mo1 or 2 yr
    Whole brain
        GrossNo change (Fig. 1)No change (Fig. 1)At 2 mo, reduced size relative to control (Fig. 1)At 2 yr, reduced size relative to control and 2-mo time point (Fig. 1)
    Cerebellum
        GrossNo change (Fig. 1)No change (Fig. 1)At 2 mo, reduced size relative to control (Fig. 1)At 2 yr, reduced size relative to control and 2-mo time point (Fig. 1)
        Tissue area (histology)NANAAt 2 mo, reduced relative to control (Fig. 3)At 2 yr, reduced relative to control and 2-mo time point (Figs. 2 and 3)
        PC loss (IHC)NANAAt 2 mo, some potential loss of PC but highly variable (Fig. 4); at 5 mo, approximate 10% loss (Fig. 4)At 1 yr, approximate 80% loss (Fig. 4)
        Astrocytes/microglia (IHC)NANAAt 2 mo, increased (Fig. 15)At 2 yr, increased (Fig. 11)
        Activated microglia (IHC)NANAAt 2 mo, increased (Fig. 15)At 2 yr, increased (Fig. 13)
    Cortex/cerebrum
        GrossNo change (Fig. 1)No change (Fig. 1)At 2 mo, reduced size relative to control (Fig. 1)At 2 yr, reduced size relative to control and 2-mo time point (Fig. 1)
        Cortical thickness (histology)NANAAt 2 mo, similar thickness to control (Fig. 3)At 2 yr, reduced relative to control but not significantly reduced relative to 2-mo time point (Figs. 2 and 3)
        Astrocytes/microglia (IHC)NANAAt 2 mo, not increased (Fig. 15)At 2 yr, increased (Fig. 10)
        Activated microglia (IHC)NANANAAt 2 yr, increased (Fig. 13)
    Hippocampus
        Tissue area (histology)NANAAt 2 mo, similar area to control (Fig. 3)At 2 yr, reduced relative to control but not reduced relative to 2-mo time point (Figs. 2 and 3)
        Astrocytes/microglia (IHC)NANAAt 2 mo, not increased (Fig. 15)At 2 yr, increased in CA region (Fig. 10)
        Activated microglia (IHC)NANANAAt 2 yr, increased in DG region (not statistically significant; Fig. 13)
    Striatum
        Tissue area (histology)NANAAt 2 mo, similar area to control (Fig. 3)At 2 yr, reduced relative to control but not reduced relative to 2-mo time point (Figs. 2 and 3)
        Astrocytes/microglia (IHC)NANAAt 2 mo, not increased (Fig. 15)At 2 yr, increased (Fig. 10)
        Activated microglia (IHC)NANANAAt 2 yr, increased (not statistically significant; Fig. 13)
    Spinal cord
        Tissue area (histology)NANANAAt 2 yr, reduced relative to control (Fig. 2)
        Astrocytes/microglia (IHC)NANANAAt 2 yr, increased (Figs. 11 and 14)
        Activated microglia (IHC)NANANAAt 2 yr, increased (Fig. 14)
    Major axonal tracts
        Corpus callosum
            Astrocytes/microglia (IHC)  Activated microglia (IHC)Strong NHE6 protein expression (Ouyang et al., 2013)NAAt 2 mo, no increase in astrocytes/microglia (Fig. 15)At 2 yr, increased astrocytosis, microgliosis, and activated microglia (Figs. 9 and 12)
        Anterior commissure
            Microglia (IHC)  Activated microglia (IHC)Strong NHE6 protein expression (Ouyang et al., 2013)NANAAt 2 yr, increased microgliosis and activated microglia (Fig. 14)
        Medial septum
            Microglia (IHC)  Activated microglia (IHC)Strong NHE6 protein expression (Ouyang et al., 2013)NANAAt 2 yr, increased microgliosis and activated microglia (Fig. 14)
    • CA, cornu Ammonis; DG, dentate gyrus; IHC, immunohistochemistry; mo, month or months; NA, not applicable; PC, Purkinje cell; yr, year or years.

Back to top

In this issue

eneuro: 4 (6)
eNeuro
Vol. 4, Issue 6
November/December 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for sharing this eNeuro article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Mixed Neurodevelopmental and Neurodegenerative Pathology in Nhe6-Null Mouse Model of Christianson Syndrome
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from eNeuro
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in eNeuro.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Mixed Neurodevelopmental and Neurodegenerative Pathology in Nhe6-Null Mouse Model of Christianson Syndrome
Meiyu Xu, Qing Ouyang, Jingyi Gong, Matthew F. Pescosolido, Brandon S. Pruett, Sasmita Mishra, Michael Schmidt, Richard N. Jones, Ece D. Gamsiz Uzun, Sofia B. Lizarraga, Eric M. Morrow
eNeuro 26 December 2017, 4 (6) ENEURO.0388-17.2017; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0388-17.2017

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
Mixed Neurodevelopmental and Neurodegenerative Pathology in Nhe6-Null Mouse Model of Christianson Syndrome
Meiyu Xu, Qing Ouyang, Jingyi Gong, Matthew F. Pescosolido, Brandon S. Pruett, Sasmita Mishra, Michael Schmidt, Richard N. Jones, Ece D. Gamsiz Uzun, Sofia B. Lizarraga, Eric M. Morrow
eNeuro 26 December 2017, 4 (6) ENEURO.0388-17.2017; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0388-17.2017
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Significance Statement
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
    • Synthesis
    • Author Response
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • Christianson syndrome
  • Microglia
  • neurodegeneration
  • neurodevelopment
  • NHE6
  • SLC9A6

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

New Research

  • Glutamatergic and GABAergic receptor modulation present unique electrophysiological fingerprints in a concentration-dependent and region-specific manner
  • Behavioral and Functional Brain Activity Alterations Induced by TMS Coils with Different Spatial Distributions
  • Effects of cortical FoxP1 knockdowns on learned song preference in female zebra finches
Show more New Research

Disorders of the Nervous System

  • Characterization of the Tau Interactome in Human Brain Reveals Isoform-Dependent Interaction with 14-3-3 Family Proteins
  • Impaired AMPARs translocation into dendritic spines with motor skill learning in the Fragile X mouse model
  • Glycolytic System in Axons Supplement Decreased ATP Levels after Axotomy of the Peripheral Nerve
Show more Disorders of the Nervous System

Subjects

  • Disorders of the Nervous System

  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Issue Archive
  • Blog
  • Browse by Topic

Information

  • For Authors
  • For the Media

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
  • Feedback
(eNeuro logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2023 by the Society for Neuroscience.
eNeuro eISSN: 2373-2822

The ideas and opinions expressed in eNeuro do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the eNeuro Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in eNeuro should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in eNeuro.