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

Genetic Control of Myelin Plasticity after Chronic Psychosocial Stress

Mikaela A. Laine, Kalevi Trontti, Zuzanna Misiewicz, Ewa Sokolowska, Natalia Kulesskaya, Aino Heikkinen, Suvi Saarnio, Ingrid Balcells, Pierre Ameslon, Dario Greco, Pirkko Mattila, Pekka Ellonen, Lars Paulin, Petri Auvinen, Eija Jokitalo and Iiris Hovatta
eNeuro 2 July 2018, 5 (4) ENEURO.0166-18.2018; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0166-18.2018
Mikaela A. Laine
1Molecular and Integrative Biosciences Research Program, University of Helsinki, Helsinki FI-00014, Finland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kalevi Trontti
1Molecular and Integrative Biosciences Research Program, University of Helsinki, Helsinki FI-00014, Finland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Zuzanna Misiewicz
1Molecular and Integrative Biosciences Research Program, University of Helsinki, Helsinki FI-00014, Finland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ewa Sokolowska
1Molecular and Integrative Biosciences Research Program, University of Helsinki, Helsinki FI-00014, Finland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Natalia Kulesskaya
1Molecular and Integrative Biosciences Research Program, University of Helsinki, Helsinki FI-00014, Finland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Aino Heikkinen
1Molecular and Integrative Biosciences Research Program, University of Helsinki, Helsinki FI-00014, Finland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Suvi Saarnio
1Molecular and Integrative Biosciences Research Program, University of Helsinki, Helsinki FI-00014, Finland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ingrid Balcells
1Molecular and Integrative Biosciences Research Program, University of Helsinki, Helsinki FI-00014, Finland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Pierre Ameslon
1Molecular and Integrative Biosciences Research Program, University of Helsinki, Helsinki FI-00014, Finland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dario Greco
2Institute of Biotechnology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki FI-00014, Finland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Pirkko Mattila
3Finnish Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki FI-00014, Finland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Pekka Ellonen
3Finnish Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki FI-00014, Finland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lars Paulin
2Institute of Biotechnology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki FI-00014, Finland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Petri Auvinen
2Institute of Biotechnology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki FI-00014, Finland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Eija Jokitalo
2Institute of Biotechnology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki FI-00014, Finland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Eija Jokitalo
Iiris Hovatta
1Molecular and Integrative Biosciences Research Program, University of Helsinki, Helsinki FI-00014, Finland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Iiris Hovatta
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Extended Data
  • Figure1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Strong genetic background effect on the behavioral response to CSDS. A, Timeline of experiments. Each perpendicular line represents 1 d. B, SI ratios of the four strains in the SA test. Pie charts represent the proportion of resilient and susceptible mice in each mouse strain. 129, BALB, and D2 strains were highly susceptible to CSDS, while B6 strain was the most resilient to CSDS. Time spent in the IZ (C) and the corner zones (D) of the SA test during sessions with no social target (N) and a CD1 mouse as a social target (T). Susceptible mice of all strains spent less time in the IZ when the target was present compared to when it was not. E, Distance traveled during the no-target trial of the SA test. In the B6 strain, both susceptible and resilient mice had lower locomotor activity, while in the D2 strain only susceptible mice moved significantly less than controls; n (B–E, I) = 129: Con = 7, Res = 3, Sus = 13; C: Con = 34, Res = 10, Sus = 33; B6: Con = 72, Res = 70, Sus = 32; D2: Con = 39, Res = 2, Sus = 40. F, Distance traveled during the 5-min OF test. B6 resilient and D2 susceptible mice traveled significantly shorter distances than their same-strain control mice; n = 129: Con = 7, Res = 3, Sus = 13; C: Con = 18, Res = 6, Sus = 19; B6: Con = 20, Res = 19, Sus = 4; D2: Con = 19, Res = 1 (not analyzed), Sus = 22. G, Time B6 mice spent in the open area of the EZM. Susceptible mice spent significantly less time in the open zones compared to controls; n: Con = 20, Res = 29, Sus = 11. H, Immobility time of B6 mice during minutes 2–6 of the FST did not differ between groups; n = Con = 28, Res = 32, Sus = 21. I, Difference in body weight before and after CSDS. B6 defeated mice gained weight during CSDS similarly to their same-strain controls, BALB susceptible mice gained significantly less weight than controls, and both resilient and susceptible D2 mice lost weight. All figures depict mean ± 1 SEM; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, see Extended Data Figure 1-1 for exact p values. D2: DBA/2NCrl strain; BALB: Balb/cAnNCrl; 129: 129S2/SvPasCrl; B6: C57BL/6NCrl; Con: control; Res: resilient; Sus: susceptible; mPFC: medial prefrontal cortex; BNST: bed nucleus of the stria terminalis; vHPC: ventral hippocampus.

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

    RNA-seq implicates OLG-related gene expression changes after CSDS. A, Regions dissected for RNA-seq from D2 and B6 mice (for sample and RNA-seq details, see Extended Data Fig. 2-1). B, Overlap of 300 top downregulated and 300 top upregulated genes between stressed and control mice, separately for each brain region (see Extended Data Fig. 2-2 for top 300 differentially expressed genes and Extended Data Fig. 2-3A,B for overlap separately for upregulated and downregulated genes). C, Key to RRHO showing a hypothetical heatmap of two identical datasets (“FC sample 1 versus control” and “FC sample 2 versus control”). Following differential gene expression analysis, genes were ranked by their fold change (FC) and assigned to bins of 100 genes. Overlap of genes was then compared between each ranking matched bin of “sample 1 versus control” and “sample 2 versus control.” Heatmap color represents the significance of the overlap [-log10(p)] of genes between bins. Thus significant p values in the bottom-left corner indicate that the two datasets have shared upregulated genes, significant p values in the top-right corner indicate shared downregulated genes, and significant p values in the middle indicate genes not differentially expressed or with small FC. Significant p values in the top-left or bottom-right corner represent genes regulated in opposite directions between the two datasets. D, RRHO shows significant similarity in the gene expression response to CSDS between resilient and susceptible mice within strains (B6 mPFC and vHPC, D2 BNST) and between susceptible mice of B6 and D2 strains (vHPC). Scale bar = –log(p) of rank classes (n = 100), for each brain region separately. E, Circos plot showing the top five enriched gene sets overlapping between the brain regions in stress-resilient and susceptible mice compared to controls. Only normalized enrichment scores (NESs) achieving significance (pFDR < 0.05) are shown. A positive (or negative) NES for a given gene set indicates its overrepresentation at the top (or bottom, respectively) of the ranked list of upregulated (or downregulated, respectively) genes. See Extended Data Figures 2-4, 2-5 for GSEA and GO analyses, respectively; see Extended Data Figure 2-3C for expression FC for genes in the Lein OLG Markers gene set. F, G, Merged heat map showing the expression FC (logFC) and significance (p) of OPC-specific (F) and OLG-specific (G) genes. B6: C57BL/6NCrl strain; D2: DBA/2NCrl strain; Res: resilient; Sus: susceptible; mPFC: medial prefrontal cortex; BNST: bed nucleus of the stria terminalis; vHPC: ventral hippocampus; Lu Aging Brain Up: LU_AGING_BRAIN_UP; Lein OLG Markers: LEIN_OLIGODENDROCYTE_MARKERS; Aging Up: DEMAGALHAES_AGING_UP; KEGG Ribosome: KEGG_RIBOSOME; Cancer: GINESTIER_BREAST_CANCER_ZNF217_AMPLIFIED_DN.

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

    Strong correlation of gene expression levels of selected myelin-related genes determined by RNA-seq and q-RT-PCR. Box plots show the gene expression levels of five myelin-related genes (Ermn, Opalin, Mbp, Mobp, and Plp1) measured by RNA-seq (voom normalized number of reads, left y-axis, solid fill) and q-RT-PCR (right y-axis, striped fill). Pearson correlation coefficient (r) was calculated across the five (mPFC, vHPC) or six (BNST) group means. Box plots show distribution of values from min to max. mPFC: medial prefrontal cortex; vHPC: ventral hippocampus; BNST: bed nucleus of the stria terminalis; B6: C57BL/6NCrl: D2: DBA/2NCrl; Con: control; Res: resilient; Sus: susceptible.

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

    No generalized effects on OLG-related gene expression or corpus callosum thickness after CSDS. A–F, Bar graphs showing the normalized expression levels of myelin-related genes in the hypothalamus and two brain regions not critically influenced by CSDS [cortex (without mPFC) and dHPC]. B6 and D2 mice were analyzed 6–8 d following CSDS. Myelin-related gene expression did not differ between phenotype groups in any of the brain regions of either strain. Only Opalin was expressed at a lower level in the hypothalamus of D2 susceptible mice compared to controls as shown by post hoc analysis. Mean ± 1 SEM is shown. G, H, CSDS does not affect corpus callosum thickness in B6 or D2 mice. Myelin visualized by anti-CNPase staining. Atlas outline modified from Franklin and Paxinos (2008); n = B6: Con = 6, Res = 5, Sus = 4; D2: Con = 6, Res = 3, Sus = 8. Error bars = min – max; D2: DBA/2NCrl strain; B6: C57BL/6NCrl strain; Con: control; Res: resilient; Sus: susceptible; dHPC: dorsal hippocampus.

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

    CSDS influences g ratio, myelin thickness, and axon diameter as measured by TEM. A–F, Scatter plots of g ratio with mean indexed by a horizontal line. G ratio was lower in medium sized BNST axons of B6 susceptible mice compared to both control and resilient mice, and higher in all axon size categories in the mPFC of D2 resilient mice compared to susceptible mice. G–L, Bar graphs of mean myelin thickness. Concurrently to g ratio measurements, B6 susceptible mice had thicker myelin on medium sized axons in the BNST compared to resilient or control mice, and D2 resilient mice had thinner myelin on medium and large axons in the mPFC compared to susceptible mice. Additionally, myelin was thicker in the small axons of the mPFC in B6 resilient mice compared to controls and thinner in the small and large axons of the vHPC in B6 susceptible mice compared to controls; n = B6: Con = 3, Res = 4, Sus = 3; D2: Con = 6, Res = 3, Sus = 5. Error bars ± 1 SEM. See Extended Data Figure 5-1 for schematics of dissected regions, Extended Data Figure 5-2 for analyses without division of axons into size categories, and Extended Data Figure 5-3 for size category division criteria. All nominal p values surviving Bonferroni correction are shown. D2: DBA/2NCrl; B6: C57BL/6NCrl; mPFC: medial prefrontal cortex; BNST: bed nucleus of the stria terminalis; vHPC: ventral hippocampus; Con: control; Res: resilient; Sus: susceptible.

Tables

  • Figures
  • Extended Data
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Statistical table

    FigureData structureStatistical testStatistical significance (α)
    1BCategorical dataχ20.05
    1CNormal distributionMixed ANOVA0.0167
    1DNormal distributionMixed ANOVA0.0167
    1ENormal distributionOne-way ANOVA0.0167
    1FNormal distributionOne-way ANOVA (129, BALB and B6 strains), independent t test (D2 strain)0.0167
    1GNormal distributionOne-way ANOVA0.0167
    1HNormal distributionOne-way ANOVA0.0167
    1INormal distributionOne-way ANOVA (group comparisons), mixed ANOVA (within-group comparison of weight before and after CSDS)0.0167
    4A–FNormal distributionMixed ANOVA0.003 (B6)
    0.01 (D2)
    4H,INormal distributionOne-way ANOVA0.0167
    5A–LNormal distributionGeneralized estimating equations (GEEs)0.0167
    • Outline of statistical tests and significance levels applied for each experiment.

Extended Data

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Extended Data Figure 1-1

    Exact p values for all behavioral tests. The test used for each parameter depicted in Figure 1C–I are outlined along with results of post hoc contrasts. D2: DBA/2NCrl strain; BALB: Balb/cAnNCrl; 129: 129S2/SvPasCrl; B6: C57BL/6NCrl. Download Figure 1-1, XLSX file.

  • Extended Data Figure 2-1

    SI ratios, division of mice to phenotypic groups, library preparation and sequencing batches, and the number of analyzed RNA-seq reads. mPFC: medial prefrontal cortex; vHPC: ventral hippocampus; BNST: bed nucleus of the stria terminalis; B6: C57BL/6NCrl; D2: DBA/2NCrl. Download Figure 2-1, XLSX file.

  • Extended Data Figure 2-2

    Top 300 upregulated and top 300 downregulated genes as ranked by -log10(p)*|logFC| for each comparison shown in Figure 2B. mPFC: medial prefrontal cortex; vHPC: ventral hippocampus; BNST: bed nucleus of stria terminalis; B6: C57BL/6NCrl; D2: DBA/2NCrl; Res: resilient; Sus: susceptible; Con: control. Download Figure 2-2, XLSX file.

  • Extended Data Figure 2-3

    Overlap of the top differentially expressed and OLG-related genes after CSDS. A, B, Overlap of the top 300 downregulated (A) and top 300 upregulated (B) genes between resilient versus control and susceptible versus control mice, separately for each brain region (Fig. 2B). C, Merged heat map showing the expression fold change (FC) of resilient versus control and susceptible versus control groups. Genes belonging to the LEIN_OLIGODENDROCYTE_MARKERS gene set in the GSEA (Fig. 2E) are shown. FCs are shown only for genes with nominal p < 0.05. Genes which did not pass the cut-off are marked in grey (NA). mPFC: medial prefrontal cortex; vHPC: ventral hippocampus; BNST: bed nucleus of the stria terminalis; B6: C57BL/6NCrl; D2: DBA/2NCrl; Con: control; Res: resilient; Sus: susceptible. Download Figure 2-3, PDF file.

  • Extended Data Figure 2-4

    Pathway analysis results from GSEA for Figure 2E. Only pFDR < 0.05 are shown in the table. pFDR: a false discovery rate corrected p value; pFWER: familywise-error rate. mPFC: medial prefrontal cortex; vHPC: ventral hippocampus; BNST: bed nucleus of the stria terminalis; B6: C57BL/6NCrl; D2: DBA/2NCrl; Res: resilient; Sus: susceptible; Con: control. Download Figure 2-4, XLSX file.

  • Extended Data Figure 2-5

    Significantly (p < 0.05) enriched GO terms within the top 300 upregulated and top 300 downregulated genes for each comparison, converging with results from GSEA (Fig. 2E). mPFC: medial prefrontal cortex; vHPC: ventral hippocampus; BNST: bed nucleus of the stria terminalis; B6: C57BL/6NCrl; D2: DBA/2NCrl; Res: resilient; Sus: susceptible; Con: control; BP: biological process; CC: cellular component; MF: molecular function. Download Figure 2-5, XLSX file.

  • Extended Data Figure 5-1

    Regions dissected for TEM. Purple shaded squares outline the dissected samples from 200-µm sections. Atlas outlines are based on Franklin and Paxinos (2008), and the distance from the midline (sagittal) in millimeters is shown below each image. Download Figure 5-1, PDF file.

  • Extended Data Figure 5-2

    Effect of CSDS on g ratio (A) and myelin thickness (B) when comparing all axons without division into axon size categories (for results with division into small, medium, and large axon size categories, see Fig. 5) and on axon diameter (C). D, Representative TEM images for each group, scale bar = 0.5 µm. Error bars ± 1 SEM. All nominal p values surviving Bonferroni correction against α = 0.0167 are shown. Download Figure 5-2, PDF file.

  • Extended Data Figure 5-3

    Details of axons assessed by TEM (depicted in Fig. 5). Calculation of axon diameter category boundaries (small, medium, large) in each brain region, and the number of animals and axons per category and group. mPFC: medial prefrontal cortex; vHPC: ventral hippocampus; BNST: bed nucleus of the stria terminalis; B6: C57BL/6NCrl; D2: DBA/2NCrl; Res: resilient; Sus: susceptible; Con: control. Download Figure 5-3, XLSX file.

Back to top

In this issue

eneuro: 5 (4)
eNeuro
Vol. 5, Issue 4
July/August 2018
  • 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.
Genetic Control of Myelin Plasticity after Chronic Psychosocial Stress
(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
Genetic Control of Myelin Plasticity after Chronic Psychosocial Stress
Mikaela A. Laine, Kalevi Trontti, Zuzanna Misiewicz, Ewa Sokolowska, Natalia Kulesskaya, Aino Heikkinen, Suvi Saarnio, Ingrid Balcells, Pierre Ameslon, Dario Greco, Pirkko Mattila, Pekka Ellonen, Lars Paulin, Petri Auvinen, Eija Jokitalo, Iiris Hovatta
eNeuro 2 July 2018, 5 (4) ENEURO.0166-18.2018; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0166-18.2018

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
Genetic Control of Myelin Plasticity after Chronic Psychosocial Stress
Mikaela A. Laine, Kalevi Trontti, Zuzanna Misiewicz, Ewa Sokolowska, Natalia Kulesskaya, Aino Heikkinen, Suvi Saarnio, Ingrid Balcells, Pierre Ameslon, Dario Greco, Pirkko Mattila, Pekka Ellonen, Lars Paulin, Petri Auvinen, Eija Jokitalo, Iiris Hovatta
eNeuro 2 July 2018, 5 (4) ENEURO.0166-18.2018; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0166-18.2018
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
    • Visual Abstract
    • Abstract
    • Significance Statement
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
    • Synthesis
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • anxiety
  • chronic social defeat stress
  • inbred mouse strain
  • myelin
  • RNA-sequencing
  • transmission electron microscopy

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

  • Granule cells constitute one of the major neuronal subtypes in the molecular layer of the posterior cerebellum
  • AGING-ASSOCIATED COGNITIVE DECLINE IS REVERSED BY D-SERINE SUPPLEMENTATION
  • Histochemical characterization of the dorsal raphe-periaqueductal grey dopamine transporter neurons projecting to the extended amygdala
Show more New Research

Disorders of the Nervous System

  • Inhibition of Crmp1 phosphorylation at Ser522 ameliorates motor function and neuronal pathology in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis model mice
  • Synaptic Integration in CA1 Pyramidal Neurons Is Intact despite Deficits in GABAergic Transmission in the Scn1a Haploinsufficiency Mouse Model of Dravet Syndrome
  • Bisphenol A Exposure Induces Sensory Processing Deficits in Larval Zebrafish during Neurodevelopment
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 © 2022 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.