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

  • 2,321
    views
  • 433
    downloads
  • 51
    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
    Gordon H Petty, Randy M Bruno
    Research Article

    Each sensory modality has its own primary and secondary thalamic nuclei. While the primary thalamic nuclei are well understood to relay sensory information from the periphery to the cortex, the role of secondary sensory nuclei is elusive. We trained head-fixed mice to attend to one sensory modality while ignoring a second modality, namely to attend to touch and ignore vision, or vice versa. Arrays were used to record simultaneously from the secondary somatosensory thalamus (POm) and secondary visual thalamus (LP). In mice trained to respond to tactile stimuli and ignore visual stimuli, POm was robustly activated by touch and largely unresponsive to visual stimuli. A different pattern was observed when mice were trained to respond to visual stimuli and ignore touch, with POm now more robustly activated during visual trials. This POm activity was not explained by differences in movements (i.e. whisking, licking, pupil dilation) resulting from the two tasks. Post hoc histological reconstruction of array tracks through POm revealed that subregions varied in their degree of plasticity. LP exhibited similar phenomena. We conclude that behavioral training reshapes activity in secondary thalamic nuclei. Secondary nuclei respond to the same behaviorally relevant, reward-predicting stimuli regardless of stimulus modality.

    1. Neuroscience
    Friedrich Schuessler, Francesca Mastrogiuseppe ... Omri Barak
    Research Article

    The relation between neural activity and behaviorally relevant variables is at the heart of neuroscience research. When strong, this relation is termed a neural representation. There is increasing evidence, however, for partial dissociations between activity in an area and relevant external variables. While many explanations have been proposed, a theoretical framework for the relationship between external and internal variables is lacking. Here, we utilize recurrent neural networks (RNNs) to explore the question of when and how neural dynamics and the network’s output are related from a geometrical point of view. We find that training RNNs can lead to two dynamical regimes: dynamics can either be aligned with the directions that generate output variables, or oblique to them. We show that the choice of readout weight magnitude before training can serve as a control knob between the regimes, similar to recent findings in feedforward networks. These regimes are functionally distinct. Oblique networks are more heterogeneous and suppress noise in their output directions. They are furthermore more robust to perturbations along the output directions. Crucially, the oblique regime is specific to recurrent (but not feedforward) networks, arising from dynamical stability considerations. Finally, we show that tendencies toward the aligned or the oblique regime can be dissociated in neural recordings. Altogether, our results open a new perspective for interpreting neural activity by relating network dynamics and their output.