Abstract

In utero exposure to maternal immune activation (MIA) is an environmental risk factor for neurodevelopmental and neuropsychiatric disorders. Animal models provide an opportunity to identify mechanisms driving neuropathology associated with MIA. We performed time course transcriptional profiling of mouse cortical development following induced MIA via poly(I:C) injection at E12.5. MIA-driven transcriptional changes were validated via protein analysis, and parallel perturbations to cortical neuroanatomy were identified via imaging. MIA-induced acute upregulation of genes associated with hypoxia, immune signaling, and angiogenesis, by six hours following exposure. This acute response was followed by changes in proliferation, neuronal and glial specification, and cortical lamination that emerged at E14.5 and peaked at E17.5. Decreased numbers of proliferative cells in germinal zones and alterations in neuronal and glial populations were identified in the MIA-exposed cortex. Overall, paired transcriptomic and neuroanatomical characterization revealed a sequence of perturbations to corticogenesis driven by mid-gestational MIA.

Data availability

Sequencing data (raw and gene-count data for RNA-seq) have been deposited in GEO under accession number GSE166376. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE166376Data analysis code is available at: https://github.com/NordNeurogenomicsLab/Publications/tree/master/Canales_eLife_2021Detailed DE analysis are included in the manuscript and supporting files (Supplementary files 1-15) and can be visualized using our interactive online browser at: https://nordlab.shinyapps.io/mia_browser/.

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Cesar P Canales

    Center for Neuroscience, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2505-8367
  2. Myka L Estes

    Center for Neuroscience, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Karol Cichewicz

    Center for Neuroscience, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Kartik Angara

    Department of Pediatrics & Human Development, Michigan State University, Grand Rapids, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. John Paul Aboubechara

    Center for Neuroscience, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Scott Cameron

    Center for Neuroscience, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Kathryn Prendergast

    Center for Neuroscience, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Linda Su-Feher

    Center for Neuroscience, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Iva Zdilar

    Center for Neuroscience, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Ellie J Kreun

    Center for Neuroscience, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Emma C Connolly

    Center for Neuroscience, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Jin Myeong Seo

    Center for Neuroscience, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Jack B Goon

    Center for Neuroscience, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Kathleen Farrelly

    Center for Neuroscience, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Tyler W Stradleigh

    Center for Neuroscience, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Deborah van der List

    Department of Physiology and Membrane Biology, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Lory Haapanen

    Div. of Rheumatology/Allergy and Clin. Immunol, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Judy Van de Water

    Div. of Rheumatology/Allergy and Clin. Immunol, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Daniel Vogt

    Department of Pediatrics & Human Development, Michigan State University, Grand Rapids, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Kim McAllister

    Center for Neuroscience, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    For correspondence
    kmcallister@ucdavis.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  21. Alex S Nord

    Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    For correspondence
    asnord@ucdavis.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4259-7514

Funding

National Institute of Mental Health (2T32MH073124-16)

  • Cesar P Canales

National Institute of Mental Health (5R21MH116681-02)

  • Kim McAllister
  • Alex S Nord

Brain Research Foundation

  • Alex S Nord

The UCD Clinical Translational Science Center

  • Kim McAllister
  • Alex S Nord

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM119831)

  • Alex S Nord

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

Ethics

Animal experimentation: This study was conducted in compliance with NIH guidelines and approved protocols from the University of California Davis Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) protocol #20229

Copyright

© 2021, Canales 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

  • 2,651
    views
  • 343
    downloads
  • 22
    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. Cesar P Canales
  2. Myka L Estes
  3. Karol Cichewicz
  4. Kartik Angara
  5. John Paul Aboubechara
  6. Scott Cameron
  7. Kathryn Prendergast
  8. Linda Su-Feher
  9. Iva Zdilar
  10. Ellie J Kreun
  11. Emma C Connolly
  12. Jin Myeong Seo
  13. Jack B Goon
  14. Kathleen Farrelly
  15. Tyler W Stradleigh
  16. Deborah van der List
  17. Lory Haapanen
  18. Judy Van de Water
  19. Daniel Vogt
  20. Kim McAllister
  21. Alex S Nord
(2021)
Sequential perturbations to mouse corticogenesis following in utero maternal immune activation
eLife 10:e60100.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.60100

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.60100

Further reading

    1. Genetics and Genomics
    Yi-Ting Tsai, Nogayhan Seymen ... Mohammad M Karimi
    Research Article

    Retrotransposons (RTEs) have been postulated to reactivate with age and contribute to aging through activated innate immune response and inflammation. Here, we analyzed the relationship between RTE expression and aging using published transcriptomic and methylomic datasets of human blood. Despite no observed correlation between RTE activity and chronological age, the expression of most RTE classes and families except short interspersed nuclear elements (SINEs) correlated with biological age-associated gene signature scores. Strikingly, we found that the expression of SINEs was linked to upregulated DNA repair pathways in multiple cohorts. We also observed DNA hypomethylation with aging and the significant increase in RTE expression level in hypomethylated RTEs except for SINEs. Additionally, our single-cell transcriptomic analysis suggested a role for plasma cells in aging mediated by RTEs. Altogether, our multi-omics analysis of large human cohorts highlights the role of RTEs in biological aging and suggests possible mechanisms and cell populations for future investigations.

    1. Evolutionary Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Hanna Tutaj, Katarzyna Tomala ... Ryszard Korona
    Research Article

    The loss of a single chromosome in a diploid organism halves the dosage of many genes and is usually accompanied by a substantial decrease in fitness. We asked whether this decrease simply reflects the joint damage caused by individual gene dosage deficiencies. We measured the fitness effects of single heterozygous gene deletions in yeast and combined them for each chromosome. This predicted a negative growth rate, that is, lethality, for multiple monosomies. However, monosomic strains remained alive and grew as if much (often most) of the damage caused by single mutations had disappeared, revealing an exceptionally large and positive epistatic component of fitness. We looked for functional explanations by analyzing the transcriptomes. There was no evidence of increased (compensatory) gene expression on the monosomic chromosomes. Nor were there signs of the cellular stress response that would be expected if monosomy led to protein destabilization and thus cytotoxicity. Instead, all monosomic strains showed extensive upregulation of genes encoding ribosomal proteins, but in an indiscriminate manner that did not correspond to their altered dosage. This response did not restore the stoichiometry required for efficient biosynthesis, which probably became growth limiting, making all other mutation-induced metabolic defects much less important. In general, the modular structure of the cell leads to an effective fragmentation of the total mutational load. Defects outside the module(s) currently defining fitness lose at least some of their relevance, producing the epiphenomenon of positive interactions between individually negative effects.