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 ArticleMethods/New Tools, Novel Tools and Methods

Embryonic Neocortical Microglia Express Toll-Like Receptor 9 and Respond to Plasmid DNA Injected into the Ventricle: Technical Considerations Regarding Microglial Distribution in Electroporated Brain Walls

Yuki Hattori and Takaki Miyata
eNeuro 16 November 2018, 5 (6) ENEURO.0312-18.2018; https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0312-18.2018
Yuki Hattori
Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya 466-8550, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Yuki Hattori
Takaki Miyata
Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya 466-8550, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Takaki Miyata
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

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

    IUE disturbs microglial distribution in the developing cerebral cortex. A, Experimental design of IUE. Plasmid DNA (pEFX2-Lyn-mCherry) was injected into the right lateral ventricle of an E12 CX3CR1-GFP mouse, and then electrical pulses were applied. After 2 d (E14), the brain was fixed and subjected to immunohistochemical analysis. B, Illustration showing the approximate region of pallium, choroid plexus, and ventricular lumen for immunohistochemical analyses. C, Representative immunostaining to detect GFP (CX3CR1) and RFP (Lyn-mCherry) in pallium, choroid plexus, and ventricular lumen of control and IUE brains. Broken lines show the apical surface of the pallium in the top and bottom, and the choroid plexus in the middle. Yellow arrowheads indicate microglia accumulated near the apical surface of the pallium, on the choroid plexus and in the ventricular lumen. Scale bar, 100 µm. D, Bin definition for immunohistochemical analyses is shown. Each section in the cerebral wall was numbered from the ventricle side (bins 1–6, 40 µm each). E–G, Graphs depicting numbers of microglia in each bin (40 µm × 300 µm square; E), the total number within 240 µm from the apical surface of the pallium (F), and the number of meningeal microglia (G). H, Density of microglia adhered to the choroid plexus in control versus IUE brains. For statistical analyses, n = 10 samples obtained from five embryos (2 sections, each) were quantified. One or two littermates per dam were subjected to a series of tests. Data represent mean ± SD. ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, or n.s., not significant; Mann–Whitney U test.

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

    Plasmid DNA injection into the ventricle, without electrical pulses, results in abnormal microglial distribution. A, Representative immunostaining for CX3CR1-GFP in the pallium and choroid plexus of mouse brains subjected to puncture with a glass capillary needle, injection of plasmid DNA (shown as pDNA) into the lateral ventricle, electrical pulses, or injection of Tris-EDTA solution (10 mm Tris-HCl, 1 mm EDTA, pH 8.0) alone without plasmid DNA. Yellow arrowheads indicate microglia accumulated near the apical surface of the cerebral wall or adhered to the choroid plexus. Broken lines show the apical surface of the pallium in the top and the choroid plexus in the bottom. Scale bar, 100 µm. B, C, Graphs depicting the number of microglia positioned in each 40 µm bin (B) and the total number of these cells within 240 µm from the apical surface (C) in brains that were subjected to each procedure. D, Density of microglia adhered to the choroid plexus. For statistical analyses, n = 10 samples obtained from five embryos (2 sections, each) were quantified. One or two littermates per dam were subjected to a series of tests. Data represent mean ± SD. ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, or n.s., not significant; Steel–Dwass test.

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

    Sensitivity of microglial response to intraventricularly injected plasmid DNAs. A, CX3CR1-GFP immunostaining showing microglial accumulation in brains injected with the indicated amount of plasmid DNA (0.25, 0.13, 0.06, and 0.03 µg). Yellow arrowheads indicate microglia accumulated near the apical surface of the pallium and on the choroid plexus. Scale bar, 100 µm. B, C, Graphs depicting the number of microglia positioned in each 40 µm bin (B) and the total number of these cells within 240 µm from the apical surface (C) in brains that were injected with plasmid DNA. D, Density of microglia adhered to the choroid plexus. For statistical analyses, n = 10 samples obtained from five embryos (2 sections, each) were quantified. One or two littermates per dam were subjected to a series of tests. Data represent mean ± SD. ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, or n.s., not significant; Steel–Dwass test.

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

    Microglia immediately sense plasmid DNAs injected into the ventricle. A, Representative immunostaining of CX3CR1-GFP in E14 brain fixed soon (4 h) after administration of 0.5 µg plasmid DNA. Yellow arrowheads show microglia accumulated near the apical surface of the pallium and on the choroid plexus. Scale bar, 100 µm. B, Graph showing the number of pallial microglia positioned in each 40 µm bin in control and plasmid-injected brains. C, Graph comparing density of microglia adhered to choroid plexus. D, The total number of pallial microglia within 240 µm from the apical surface. For statistical analyses, n = 10 samples obtained from five embryos (2 sections, each) were quantified. Two or three littermates per dam were subjected to a series of tests. Data represent mean ± SD. ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, or n.s., not significant; Mann–Whitney U test.

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

    Intraventricular administration of TLR9 antagonist decreases microglial infiltration induced by plasmid DNA injection. A, Relative expression of TLR9 (normalized against GAPDH) in FACS-isolated CX3CR1- and CX3CR1+ cells derived from the cerebral wall of E14 CX3CR1-GFP mice. Data represent mean ± SD (n = 4 samples obtained from independent experiments; p = 0.0286, Mann–Whitney U test). B, Experimental design for ODN 2088 treatment. ODN 2088 was injected together with plasmid DNA into the lateral ventricle of E12 CX3CR1-GFP mice, and after 2 d (E14) the embryonic brains were fixed. C, Immunofluorescence with anti-GFP antibody, showing the distribution of microglia in the pallium and choroid plexus. Yellow arrowheads indicate microglia aberrantly accumulated on the apical surface of the pallium or in the choroid plexus. Cyan arrowheads show microglia which were almost homogenously distributed in the cerebral wall. Scale bar, 100 µm. D, E, Graphs indicate the number of CX3CR1-GFP+ cells in each 40 µm bin of the pallium (D) and density of microglia directly adhered to the choroid plexus (E), comparing control, only ODN 2088-treated, plasmid DNA-injected, and plasmid DNA + ODN 2088 coinjected brains. F, Graph showing the total number of pallial microglia within 240 µm from the apical surface. G, Double-immunofluorescence for GFP (CX3CR1) and RFP (Lyn-mCherry) in the cortex of IUE E14 brain treated with ODN 2088. Microglia exhibited a normal distribution pattern in the Lyn-mCherry expressing region where IUE succeeded (Movies 1). Scale bar, 100 µm. For statistical analyses in D–F, n = 16 samples obtained from eight embryos (2 sections, each) were quantified. Two or three littermates per dam were subjected to a series of tests. Data represent mean ± SD. ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, or n.s., not significant; Steel–Dwass test.

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

    Endotoxins trigger microglial aberrant accumulation. A, Relative expression of TLR4 (normalized against GAPDH) in FACS-isolated CX3CR1− and CX3CR1+ cells derived from the cerebral wall of E14 CX3CR1-GFP mice. Data represent mean ± SD (n = 4 samples obtained from independent experiments; p = 0.0286, Mann–Whitney U test). B, Immunofluorescence with anti-GFP antibody, showing the distribution of microglia in the pallium and choroid plexus in brains injected with the indicated amount of LPS (2.5 ng, 250 pg, 25 pg, and 2.5 pg). Yellow arrowheads indicate microglia accumulated near the apical surface of the pallium and on the choroid plexus. Scale bar, 100 µm. C, D, Graphs depicting the number of pallial microglia positioned in each bin (C) and density of microglia adhered to the choroid plexus (D) in brains treated with various amounts of LPS. E, The total number of pallial microglia within 240 µm from the apical surface. For statistical analyses in C–E, n = 10 samples obtained from five embryos (2 sections, each) were quantified. One or Two littermates per dam were subjected to a series of tests. Data represent mean ± SD. ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, or n.s., not significant; Steel–Dwass test.

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

    Plasmid DNA itself elicits microglial response via TLR9. A, Immunofluorescence with anti-GFP antibody, showing the distribution of microglia in the pallium and choroid plexus in brains injected with the indicated amount of endotoxin-free plasmid DNA (0.5, 0.25, and 0.13 µg). Yellow arrowheads show microglia accumulated near the apical surface and on the choroid plexus. Scale bar, 100 µm. B, C, Graphs depicting the number of pallial microglia positioned in each 40 µm bin (B) and the total number of these cells within 240 µm from the apical surface (C). D, Density of microglia adhered to the choroid plexus. For statistical analyses in B–D, n = 10 samples obtained from five embryos (2 sections, each) were quantified. Two or three littermates per dam were subjected to a series of tests. Data represent mean ± SD. ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, or n.s., not significant; Steel–Dwass test (Fig. 7-1). E, Experimental design for administration of ODN 2088 together with endotoxin-free plasmid DNA. F, CX3CR1-GFP immunostaining showing microglial distribution in brains injected with endotoxin-free plasmid DNA and ODN 2088 coinjected brains. Yellow arrowhead indicates microglia adhered to the choroid plexus. Cyan arrowheads show microglia which were almost homogenously distributed in the cerebral wall. Scale bar, 100 µm. G, H, Graphs depicting the number of pallial microglia positioned in each bin (G) and the total number of these cells within 240 µm from the apical surface (H). I, Density of microglia adhered to the choroid plexus. For statistical analyses in G–I, n = 16 samples obtained from eight embryos (2 sections, each) were quantified. Two or three littermates per dam were subjected to a series of tests. Data represent mean ± SD. ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, or n.s. not significant; Steel–Dwass test (Fig. 7-2).

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

    Schematic summary. Schematic illustration showing the mechanism underlying the aberrant distribution of microglia in the cerebral wall of IUE-performed brain. The presence of exogenously derived plasmid DNAs induced microglia to accumulate along the apical surface of the cerebral wall and aggregate in the choroid plexus. This effect was independent of capillary needle puncture of the brain wall, or application of electrical pulses. Such microglial response is mediated by activation of TLR9, which is expressed intracellularly in microglia.

Tables

  • Figures
  • Movies
  • Extended Data
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Statistics for Figure 1

    GraphData structureType of testp
    Fig. 1ENonparametricMann–Whitney U testBin 1: 1.1 × 10−5
    Bin 2: 0.0022
    Bin 3: 0.0307
    Bin 4: 0.0014
    Bin 5: 0.4281
    Bin 6: 0.0495
    Fig. 1FNonparametricMann–Whitney U test0.6835
    Fig. 1GNonparametricMann–Whitney U test0.1021
    Fig. 1HNonparametricMann–Whitney U test1.1 × 10−5
    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Statistics for Figure 2

    GraphData structureType of testp
    Fig. 2B, bin 1NonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs Puncture only, p = 0.9990;
    Cont vs pDNA injection, p = 0.0011;
    Cont vs Electrical shock only, p = 0.9973;
    Cont vs TE buffer injection, p = 0.9871
    Fig. 2B, bin 2NonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs Puncture only, p = 0.9781;
    Cont vs pDNA injection, p = 0.0369;
    Cont vs Electrical shock only, p = 0.9937;
    Cont vs TE buffer injection, p = 0.9996
    Fig. 2B, bin 3NonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs Puncture only, p = 1.0000;
    Cont vs pDNA injection, p = 0.0055;
    Cont vs Electrical shock only, p = 0.9976;
    Cont vs TE buffer injection, p = 0.9976
    Fig. 2B, bin 4NonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs Puncture only, p = 0.9992;
    Cont vs pDNA injection, p = 0.0154;
    Cont vs Electrical shock only, p = 0.9964;
    Cont vs TE buffer injection, p = 0.9996
    Fig. 2B, bin 5NonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs Puncture only, p = 0.9473;
    Cont vs pDNA injection, p = 0.1056;
    Cont vs Electrical shock only, p = 0.9976;
    Cont vs TE buffer injection, p = 1.0000
    Fig. 2B, bin 6NonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs Puncture only, p = 0.9998;
    Cont vs pDNA injection, p = 0.3261;
    Cont vs Electrical shock only, p = 0.9962;
    Cont vs TE buffer injection, p = 1.0000
    Fig. 2CNonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs Puncture only, p = 0.9994;
    Cont vs pDNA injection, p = 1.0000;
    Cont vs Electrical shock only, p = 0.9969;
    Cont vs TE buffer injection, p = 0.9981
    Fig. 2DNonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs Puncture only, p = 0.9989;
    Cont vs pDNA injection, p = 0.0015;
    Cont vs Electrical shock only, p = 0.9994;
    Cont vs TE buffer injection, p = 0.9913
    • View popup
    Table 3.

    Statistics for Figure 3

    GraphData structureType of testp
    Fig. 3B, bin 1NonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs 0.25 µg, p = 0.0013;
    Cont vs 0.13 µg, p = 0.0013;
    Cont vs 0.06 µg, p = 0.0028;
    Cont vs 0.03 µg, p = 0.8787
    Fig. 3B, bin 2NonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs 0.25 µg, p = 0.0693;
    Cont vs 0.13 µg, p = 0.0453;
    Cont vs 0.06 µg, p = 0.9317;
    Cont vs 0.03 µg, p = 0.9990
    Fig. 3B, bin 3NonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs 0.25 µg, p = 0.1044;
    Cont vs 0.13 µg, p = 0.2141;
    Cont vs 0.06 µg, p = 0.8898;
    Cont vs 0.03 µg, p = 0.8352
    Fig. 3B, bin 4NonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs 0.25 µg, p = 0.0098;
    Cont vs 0.13 µg, p = 0.0196;
    Cont vs 0.06 µg, p = 0.3581;
    Cont vs 0.03 µg, p = 0.9985
    Fig. 3B, bin 5NonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs 0.25 µg, p = 0.8286;
    Cont vs 0.13 µg, p = 0.7255;
    Cont vs 0.06 µg, p = 0.8286;
    Cont vs 0.03 µg, p = 1.0000
    Fig. 3B, bin 6NonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs 0.25 µg, p = 0.4412;
    Cont vs 0.13 µg, p = 0.4412;
    Cont vs 0.06 µg, p = 0.9667;
    Cont vs 0.03 µg, p = 0.9999
    Fig. 3CNonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs 0.25 µg, p = 0.6147;
    Cont vs 0.13 µg, p = 0.9493;
    Cont vs 0.06 µg, p = 0.7574;
    Cont vs 0.03 µg, p = 0.9162
    Fig. 3DNonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs 0.25 µg, p = 0.0015;
    Cont vs 0.13 µg, p = 0.0015;
    Cont vs 0.06 µg, p = 0.0015;
    Cont vs 0.03 µg, p = 0.1825
    • View popup
    Table 4

    Statistics for Figure 4

    GraphData structureType of testp
    Fig. 4BNonparametricMann–Whitney Ubin 1: 1.1 × 10−5
    bin 2: 0.0074
    bin 3: 0.1023
    bin 4: 0.0058
    bin 5: 0.0837
    bin 6: 0.0275
    Fig. 4CNonparametricMann–Whitney U0.9869
    Fig. 4DNonparametricMann–Whitney U0.2789
    • View popup
    Table 5

    Statistics for Figure 5

    GraphData structureType of testp
    Fig. 5D, bin 1NonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs ODN 2088, p = 0.8335;
    Cont vs pDNA, p = 5.6 × 10−6;
    pDNA vs. pDNA + ODN 2088, p = 2.4 × 10−4;
    Cont vs pDNA + ODN 2088, p = 2.1 × 10−5
    Fig. 5D, bin 2NonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs ODN 2088, p = 0.6401;
    Cont vs pDNA, p = 1.3 × 10−5;
    pDNA vs. pDNA + ODN 2088, p = 0.0627;
    Cont vs pDNA + ODN 2088, p = 0.0163
    Fig. 5D, bin 3NonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs ODN 2088, p = 0.9781;
    Cont vs pDNA, p = 8.2 × 10−5;
    pDNA vs. pDNA + ODN 2088, p = 4.7 × 10−4;
    Cont vs pDNA + ODN 2088, p = 0.5691
    Fig. 5D, bin 4NonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs ODN 2088, p = 0.9746;
    Cont vs pDNA, p = 0.0102;
    pDNA vs. pDNA + ODN 2088, p = 0.1967;
    Cont vs pDNA + ODN 2088, p = 0.3568
    Fig. 5D, bin 5NonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs ODN 2088, p = 0.9276;
    Cont vs pDNA, p = 0.0610;
    pDNA vs. pDNA + ODN 2088, p = 0.7661;
    Cont vs pDNA + ODN 2088, p = 0.5053
    Fig. 5D, bin 6NonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs ODN 2088, p = 0.9955;
    Cont vs pDNA, p = 0.9158;
    pDNA vs. pDNA + ODN 2088, p = 0.7539;
    Cont vs pDNA + ODN 2088, p = 0.9840
    Fig. 5ENonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs ODN 2088, p = 0.8121;
    Cont vs pDNA, p = 8.4 × 10−6;
    pDNA vs. pDNA + ODN 2088, p = 0.0374;
    Cont vs pDNA + ODN 2088, p = 8.4 × 10−6
    Fig. 5FNonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs ODN 2088, p = 0.9966;
    Cont vs pDNA, p = 0.9982;
    pDNA vs. pDNA + ODN 2088, p = 0.6688;
    Cont vs pDNA + ODN 2088, p = 0.7716
    • View popup
    Table 6

    Statistics for Figure 6

    GraphData structureType of testp
    Fig. 6C, bin 1NonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs 2.5 ng, p = 0.0012;
    Cont vs 250 pg, p = 0.0021;
    Cont vs 25 pg, p = 0.0055;
    Cont vs 2.5 pg, p = 0.7868
    Fig. 6C, bin 2NonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs 2.5 ng, p = 0.4164;
    Cont vs 250 pg, p = 0.8867;
    Cont vs 25 pg, p = 1.0000;
    Cont vs 2.5 pg, p = 0.9924
    Fig. 6C, bin 3NonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs 2.5 ng, p = 0.3094;
    Cont vs 250 pg, p = 0.9889;
    Cont vs 25 pg, p = 0.8691;
    Cont vs 2.5 pg, p = 0.9998
    Fig. 6C, bin 4NonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs 2.5 ng, p = 0.7372;
    Cont vs 250 pg, p = 0.9700;
    Cont vs 25 pg, p = 0.3816;
    Cont vs 2.5 pg, p = 0.9811
    Fig. 6C, bin 5NonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs 2.5 ng, p = 1.0000;
    Cont vs 250 pg, p = 0.8700;
    Cont vs 25 pg, p = 1.0000;
    Cont vs 2.5 pg, p = 0.9986
    Fig. 6C, bin 6NonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs 2.5 ng, p = 0.9278;
    Cont vs 250 pg, p = 0.6779;
    Cont vs 25 pg, p = 0.3559;
    Cont vs 2.5 pg, p = 0.9514
    Fig. 6DNonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs 2.5 ng, p = 0.0015;
    Cont vs 250 pg, p = 0.0015;
    Cont vs 25 pg, p = 0.0026;
    Cont vs 2.5 pg, p = 0.5054
    Fig. 6ENonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs 2.5 ng, p = 0.0190;
    Cont vs 250 pg, p = 0.0845;
    Cont vs 25 pg, p = 1.0000;
    Cont vs 2.5 pg, p = 0.9994
    • View popup
    Table 7

    Statistics for Figure 7

    GraphData structureType of testp
    Fig. 7B, bin 1NonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs 0.5 µg, p = 7.4 × 10−4;
    Cont vs 0.25 µg, p = 0.0017;
    Cont vs 0.13 µg, p = 0.9880;
    Fig. 7B, bin 2NonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs 0.5 µg, p = 0.0018;
    Cont vs 0.25 µg, p = 0.0557;
    Cont vs 0.13 µg, p = 0.9880;
    Fig. 7B, bin 3NonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs 0.5 µg, p = 0.0018;
    Cont vs 0.25 µg, p = 0.5785;
    Cont vs 0.13 µg, p = 1.0000;
    Fig. 7B, bin 4NonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs 0.5 µg, p = 0.1122;
    Cont vs 0.25 µg, p = 0.6280;
    Cont vs 0.13 µg, p = 0.9880;
    Fig. 7B, bin 5NonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs 0.5 µg, p = 0.5457;
    Cont vs 0.25 µg, p = 0.3241;
    Cont vs 0.13 µg, p = 0.8824;
    Fig. 7B, bin 6NonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs 0.5 µg, p = 0.9691;
    Cont vs 0.25 µg, p = 0.9887;
    Cont vs 0.13 µg, p = 0.9773;
    Fig. 7CNonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs 0.5 µg, p = 0.9011;
    Cont vs 0.25 µg, p = 0.9593;
    Cont vs 0.13 µg, p = 0.9994;
    Fig. 7DNonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs 0.5 µg, p = 9.0 × 10−4;
    Cont vs 0.25 µg, p = 9.0 × 10−4;
    Cont vs 0.13 µg, p = 0.7593
    Fig. 7G, bin 1NonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs pDNA, p = 3.0 × 10−6;
    pDNA vs. pDNA + ODN 2088, p = 5.2 × 10−6;
    Cont vs pDNA + ODN 2088, p = 0.0429
    Fig. 7G, bin 2NonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs pDNA, p = 7.0 × 10−6;
    pDNA vs. pDNA + ODN 2088, p = 1.1 × 10−5;
    Cont vs pDNA + ODN 2088, p = 0.4461
    Fig. 7G, bin 3NonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs pDNA, p = 6.9 × 10−5;
    pDNA vs. pDNA + ODN 2088, p = 4.3 × 10−4;
    Cont vs pDNA + ODN 2088, p = 0.2716
    Fig. 7G, bin 4NonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs pDNA, p = 0.0047;
    pDNA vs. pDNA + ODN 2088, p = 0.0900;
    Cont vs pDNA + ODN 2088, p = 0.2895
    Fig. 7G, bin 5NonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs pDNA, p = 0.5717;
    pDNA vs. pDNA + ODN 2088, p = 0.3952;
    Cont vs pDNA + ODN 2088, p = 0.8520
    Fig. 7G, bin 6NonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs pDNA, p = 0.9469;
    pDNA vs. pDNA + ODN 2088, p = 0.9472;
    Cont vs pDNA + ODN 2088, p = 0.9965
    Fig. 7HNonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs pDNA, p = 0.6872;
    pDNA vs. pDNA + ODN 2088, p = 0.9550;
    Cont vs pDNA + ODN 2088, p = 0.7672
    Fig. 7INonparametricSteel–DwassCont vs pDNA, p = 2.6 × 10−5;
    pDNA vs. pDNA + ODN 2088, p = 0.5896;
    Cont vs pDNA + ODN 2088, p = 9.2 × 10−5

Movies

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Extended Data
  • Movie 1.

    Live-imaging of microglia in plasmid DNA-treated brains. Live imaging of microglia in a cortical slice derived from a CX3CR1-GFP mouse brain transfected with Lyn-mCherry. Time-lapse imaging covers a period of 10 h (1 image/10 min). Green, CX3CR1-GFP; magenta, Lyn-mCherry. Scale bar, 100 µm.

  • Movie 2.

    Live-imaging of microglia in plasmid DNA and ODN 2088 coinjected brains. Live imaging of microglia in a cortical slice derived from a CX3CR1-GFP mouse brain transfected Lyn-mCherry with coadministration of ODN 2088. Time-lapse imaging covers a period of 10 h (1 image/10 min). Green, CX3CR1-GFP; magenta, Lyn-mCherry. Scale bar, 100 µm.

Extended Data

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Movies
  • Figure 7-1.

    Graph depicting the number of pallial microglia positioned in each 40 µm bin comparing six groups: Fig. 5D Cont., Fig. 5D plasmid DNA, Fig. 5D plasmid DNA + ODN 2088, Fig. 7G Cont., Fig. 7G endotoxin-free plasmid DNA, and Fig. 7G endotoxin-free plasmid DNA + ODN 2088. Data represent mean ± SD (Steel–Dwass test). Download Figure 7-1, EPS file.

  • Figure 7-2.

    Graph showing density of microglia adhered to the choroid plexus comparing six groups, Fig. 5E Cont., Fig. 5E plasmid DNA, Fig. 5E plasmid DNA + ODN 2088, Fig. 7I Cont., Fig. 7I endotoxin-free plasmid DNA, and Fig. 7I endotoxin-free plasmid DNA + ODN 2088. Data represent mean ± SD (Steel–Dwass test). Download Figure 7-2, EPS file.

Back to top

In this issue

eneuro: 5 (6)
eNeuro
Vol. 5, Issue 6
November/December 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.
Embryonic Neocortical Microglia Express Toll-Like Receptor 9 and Respond to Plasmid DNA Injected into the Ventricle: Technical Considerations Regarding Microglial Distribution in Electroporated Brain Walls
(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
Embryonic Neocortical Microglia Express Toll-Like Receptor 9 and Respond to Plasmid DNA Injected into the Ventricle: Technical Considerations Regarding Microglial Distribution in Electroporated Brain Walls
Yuki Hattori, Takaki Miyata
eNeuro 16 November 2018, 5 (6) ENEURO.0312-18.2018; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0312-18.2018

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
Embryonic Neocortical Microglia Express Toll-Like Receptor 9 and Respond to Plasmid DNA Injected into the Ventricle: Technical Considerations Regarding Microglial Distribution in Electroporated Brain Walls
Yuki Hattori, Takaki Miyata
eNeuro 16 November 2018, 5 (6) ENEURO.0312-18.2018; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0312-18.2018
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

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

Keywords

  • in utero electroporation
  • live-imaging
  • microglia
  • TLR4
  • TLR9
  • toll-like receptor

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

Methods/New Tools

  • Superficial Bound of the Depth Limit of Two-Photon Imaging in Mouse Brain
  • A Toolbox of Criteria for Distinguishing Cajal–Retzius Cells from Other Neuronal Types in the Postnatal Mouse Hippocampus
  • Assessment of Spontaneous Neuronal Activity In Vitro Using Multi-Well Multi-Electrode Arrays: Implications for Assay Development
Show more Methods/New Tools

Novel Tools and Methods

  • Rhythms and Background (RnB): The Spectroscopy of Sleep Recordings
  • The Odor Delivery Optimization Research System (ODORS): An Open-Source Olfactometer for Behavioral Assessments in Tethered and Untethered Rodents
  • Development of a Modified Weight-Drop Apparatus for Closed-Skull, Repetitive Mild Traumatic Brain Injuries in a Mouse Model
Show more Novel Tools and Methods

Subjects

  • Novel Tools and Methods
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Follow SFN on BlueSky
  • 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 Notice
  • Contact
  • Feedback
(eNeuro logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2026 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.