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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Anita Bhattacharyya, University of Wisconsin, Madison, United States

Version history

  1. Received: June 16, 2020
  2. Accepted: March 2, 2021
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: March 5, 2021 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: March 19, 2021 (version 2)

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

  • 2,439
    Page views
  • 313
    Downloads
  • 13
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

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. Evolutionary Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Thomas A Sasani, Aaron R Quinlan, Kelley Harris
    Research Article

    Maintaining germline genome integrity is essential and enormously complex. Although many proteins are involved in DNA replication, proofreading, and repair, mutator alleles have largely eluded detection in mammals. DNA replication and repair proteins often recognize sequence motifs or excise lesions at specific nucleotides. Thus, we might expect that the spectrum of de novo mutations – the frequencies of C>T, A>G, etc. – will differ between genomes that harbor either a mutator or wild-type allele. Previously, we used quantitative trait locus mapping to discover candidate mutator alleles in the DNA repair gene Mutyh that increased the C>A germline mutation rate in a family of inbred mice known as the BXDs (Sasani et al., 2022, Ashbrook et al., 2021). In this study we developed a new method to detect alleles associated with mutation spectrum variation and applied it to mutation data from the BXDs. We discovered an additional C>A mutator locus on chromosome 6 that overlaps Ogg1, a DNA glycosylase involved in the same base-excision repair network as Mutyh (David et al., 2007). Its effect depends on the presence of a mutator allele near Mutyh, and BXDs with mutator alleles at both loci have greater numbers of C>A mutations than those with mutator alleles at either locus alone. Our new methods for analyzing mutation spectra reveal evidence of epistasis between germline mutator alleles and may be applicable to mutation data from humans and other model organisms.

    1. Evolutionary Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Ban Wang, Alexander L Starr, Hunter B Fraser
    Research Article

    Although gene expression divergence has long been postulated to be the primary driver of human evolution, identifying the genes and genetic variants underlying uniquely human traits has proven to be quite challenging. Theory suggests that cell-type-specific cis-regulatory variants may fuel evolutionary adaptation due to the specificity of their effects. These variants can precisely tune the expression of a single gene in a single cell-type, avoiding the potentially deleterious consequences of trans-acting changes and non-cell type-specific changes that can impact many genes and cell types, respectively. It has recently become possible to quantify human-specific cis-acting regulatory divergence by measuring allele-specific expression in human-chimpanzee hybrid cells—the product of fusing induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells of each species in vitro. However, these cis-regulatory changes have only been explored in a limited number of cell types. Here, we quantify human-chimpanzee cis-regulatory divergence in gene expression and chromatin accessibility across six cell types, enabling the identification of highly cell-type-specific cis-regulatory changes. We find that cell-type-specific genes and regulatory elements evolve faster than those shared across cell types, suggesting an important role for genes with cell-type-specific expression in human evolution. Furthermore, we identify several instances of lineage-specific natural selection that may have played key roles in specific cell types, such as coordinated changes in the cis-regulation of dozens of genes involved in neuronal firing in motor neurons. Finally, using novel metrics and a machine learning model, we identify genetic variants that likely alter chromatin accessibility and transcription factor binding, leading to neuron-specific changes in the expression of the neurodevelopmentally important genes FABP7 and GAD1. Overall, our results demonstrate that integrative analysis of cis-regulatory divergence in chromatin accessibility and gene expression across cell types is a promising approach to identify the specific genes and genetic variants that make us human.