Environmental stimuli shape microglial plasticity in glioma

  1. Stefano Garofalo
  2. Alessandra Porzia
  3. Fabrizio Mainiero
  4. Silvia Di Angelantonio
  5. Barbara Cortese
  6. Bernadette Basilico
  7. Francesca Pagani
  8. Giorgio Cignitti
  9. Giuseppina Chece
  10. Roberta Maggio
  11. Eve Tremblay
  12. Julie Savage
  13. Kanchan Bisht
  14. Vincenzo Esposito
  15. Giovanni Bernardini
  16. Thomas Seyfried
  17. Jakub Mieczkowski
  18. Karolina Stepniak
  19. Bozena Kaminska
  20. Angela Santoni
  21. Cristina Limatola  Is a corresponding author
  1. IRCCS Neuromed, Italy
  2. Sapienza University, Italy
  3. Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Italy
  4. Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Italy
  5. Université Laval, Canada
  6. Boston College, United States
  7. Nencki Institute of Experimental Biology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Poland

Abstract

In glioma, microglia and infiltrating macrophages are exposed to factors that force them to produce cytokines and chemokines, contributing to tumor growth and maintaining a pro-tumorigenic, immunosuppressed microenvironment. We demonstrate that housing glioma-bearing mice in enriched environment (EE) reverts the immunosuppressive phenotype of infiltrating myeloid cells, by modulating inflammatory gene expression. Under these conditions, branching and patrolling activity of myeloid cells is increased, and their phagocytic activity is promoted. Modulation of gene expression depends on interferon-(IFN) g produced by natural killer (NK) cells, disappearing in mice depleted of NK cells or lacking IFN-g, and was mimicked by exogenous interleukin-15 (IL-15). Further, we describe a key role for BDNF produced in the brain of mice housed in EE in mediating the expression of IL-15 in CD11b+ cells. These data define novel mechanisms linking environmental cues to the acquisition of a pro-inflammatory, anti-tumor microenvironment in mouse brain.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Stefano Garofalo

    IRCCS Neuromed, Pozzilli, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Alessandra Porzia

    IRCCS Neuromed, Pozzilli, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Fabrizio Mainiero

    Department of Experimental Medicine, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Silvia Di Angelantonio

    Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1434-3648
  5. Barbara Cortese

    Institute of Nanotechnology, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Rome, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Bernadette Basilico

    Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Francesca Pagani

    Center for Life Nanoscience, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Rome, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Giorgio Cignitti

    Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Giuseppina Chece

    Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Roberta Maggio

    Department of Experimental Medicine, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Eve Tremblay

    Département de médecine moléculaire, Université Laval, Quebec City, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Julie Savage

    Département de médecine moléculaire, Université Laval, Quebec City, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Kanchan Bisht

    Département de médecine moléculaire, Université Laval, Quebec City, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Vincenzo Esposito

    IRCCS Neuromed, Pozzilli, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Giovanni Bernardini

    IRCCS Neuromed, Pozzilli, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Thomas Seyfried

    Biology department, Boston College, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Jakub Mieczkowski

    Neurobiology Center, Nencki Institute of Experimental Biology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Karolina Stepniak

    Neurobiology Center, Nencki Institute of Experimental Biology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Bozena Kaminska

    Neurobiology Center, Nencki Institute of Experimental Biology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Angela Santoni

    IRCCS Neuromed, Pozzilli, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  21. Cristina Limatola

    IRCCS Neuromed, Pozzilli, Italy
    For correspondence
    cristina.limatola@uniroma1.it
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7504-8197

Funding

Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro (AIRC2015 IG16699)

  • Cristina Limatola

Ministero Istruzione Università Ricerca (PRIN 2015)

  • Cristina Limatola

CRCHU (Starting Grant)

  • Eve Tremblay

European Commission (Euronanomed2: Nanoglio)

  • Angela Santoni

Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro (AIRC2014 IG16014)

  • Angela Santoni

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: The protocol was approved by the Ministry of Health of Italy in accordance with the guidelines on the ethical use of animals from the EC council directive of September 22, 2010 (2010/63/EU).

Copyright

© 2017, Garofalo et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 2,363
    views
  • 436
    downloads
  • 55
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Stefano Garofalo
  2. Alessandra Porzia
  3. Fabrizio Mainiero
  4. Silvia Di Angelantonio
  5. Barbara Cortese
  6. Bernadette Basilico
  7. Francesca Pagani
  8. Giorgio Cignitti
  9. Giuseppina Chece
  10. Roberta Maggio
  11. Eve Tremblay
  12. Julie Savage
  13. Kanchan Bisht
  14. Vincenzo Esposito
  15. Giovanni Bernardini
  16. Thomas Seyfried
  17. Jakub Mieczkowski
  18. Karolina Stepniak
  19. Bozena Kaminska
  20. Angela Santoni
  21. Cristina Limatola
(2017)
Environmental stimuli shape microglial plasticity in glioma
eLife 6:e33415.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.33415

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.33415

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Diellor Basha, Amirmohammad Azarmehri ... Igor Timofeev
    Research Article

    Memory consolidation during sleep depends on the interregional coupling of slow waves, spindles, and sharp wave-ripples (SWRs), across the cortex, thalamus, and hippocampus. The reuniens nucleus of the thalamus, linking the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) and the hippocampus, may facilitate interregional coupling during sleep. To test this hypothesis, we used intracellular, extracellular unit and local field potential recordings in anesthetized and head restrained non-anesthetized cats as well as computational modelling. Electrical stimulation of the reuniens evoked both antidromic and orthodromic intracellular mPFC responses, consistent with bidirectional functional connectivity between mPFC, reuniens and hippocampus in anesthetized state. The major finding obtained from behaving animals is that at least during NREM sleep hippocampo-reuniens-mPFC form a functional loop. SWRs facilitate the triggering of thalamic spindles, which later reach neocortex. In return, transition to mPFC UP states increase the probability of hippocampal SWRs and later modulate spindle amplitude. During REM sleep hippocampal theta activity provides periodic locking of reuniens neuronal firing and strong crosscorrelation at LFP level, but the values of reuniens-mPFC crosscorrelation was relatively low and theta power at mPFC was low. The neural mass model of this network demonstrates that the strength of bidirectional hippocampo-thalamic connections determines the coupling of oscillations, suggesting a mechanistic link between synaptic weights and the propensity for interregional synchrony. Our results demonstrate the presence of functional connectivity in hippocampo-thalamo-cortical network, but the efficacy of this connectivity is modulated by behavioral state.

    1. Neuroscience
    Maxine K Loh, Samantha J Hurh ... Mitchell F Roitman
    Research Article

    Mesolimbic dopamine encoding of non-contingent rewards and reward-predictive cues has been well established. Considerable debate remains over how mesolimbic dopamine responds to aversion and in the context of aversive conditioning. Inconsistencies may arise from the use of aversive stimuli that are transduced along different neural paths relative to reward or the conflation of responses to avoidance and aversion. Here, we made intraoral infusions of sucrose and measured how dopamine and behavioral responses varied to the changing valence of sucrose. Pairing intraoral sucrose with malaise via injection of lithium chloride (LiCl) caused the development of a conditioned taste aversion (CTA), which rendered the typically rewarding taste of sucrose aversive upon subsequent re-exposure. Following CTA formation, intraoral sucrose suppressed the activity of ventral tegmental area dopamine neurons (VTADA) and nucleus accumbens (NAc) dopamine release. This pattern of dopamine signaling after CTA is similar to intraoral infusions of innately aversive quinine and contrasts with responses to sucrose when it was novel or not paired with LiCl. Dopamine responses were negatively correlated with behavioral reactivity to intraoral sucrose and predicted home cage sucrose preference. Further, dopamine responses scaled with the strength of the CTA, which was increased by repeated LiCl pairings and weakened through extinction. Thus, the findings demonstrate differential dopamine encoding of the same taste stimulus according to its valence, which is aligned to distinct behavioral responses.