Decreased Astrocytic CCL5 by MiR-324-5p Ameliorates Ischemic Stroke Injury via CCR5/ERK/CREB Pathway

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Here, the authors attempt to show that CCL5 is increased after stroke, possibly due to decreased miR-324, and that this is a modifiable system to decrease stroke damage. By bidirectionally manipulating CCL5 levels through direct injection of CCL5; a CCL5 blocking antibody; miR324; miR324 antagomir; or CCR5-blocking Maraviroc, they broadly show improvement with lower CCL5 levels. This includes infarct size, behavioral analysis, and immunohistochemical analysis of astrocytes, microglia, and neurons. They further try to mechanistically tie miR324 and CCL5 in astrocytes specifically to stroke-induced changes using a neuronal/astrocytic coculture system. They argue that decreasing CCL5 leads to increased ERK and CREB phosphorylation as a potential neuroprotective mechanism. CCL5 is one potential ligand for CCR5, and recent work identified CCR5 as a targetable mechanism by clinically-approved drug Maraviroc to enhance stroke recovery. Particularly given the high level of interest in CCR5 in stroke recovery, the focus on CCL5 - one of CCR5's potential ligands - and its miR regulation is an exciting expansion of this area of stroke biology.

Strengths:

The authors' findings that decreasing CCL5 acutely after stroke shows behavioral improvement appear robust. This broadly replicates work from other groups, although the finding that miR324 manipulation can phenocopy direct CCL5 manipulation is novel and intriguing. However, many of their other claims are difficult to evaluate based on a combination of missing methodological information, inappropriate statistical testing, and a flawed culture system.

Weaknesses:

Broadly speaking, the manuscript takes a zoomed-out view of what is fundamentally highly localized biology.

(1) miRNA-based regulation, by definition, has to include miR and mRNA in the same cell type; as the authors note, CCL5 is expressed in many cells. It is therefore impossible to propose any interaction on the basis of the tissue-level changes described; any evidence of in vivo cell-type specificity would dramatically improve the claims.

(2) The authors treat an extensive area of ipsilesional cortex uniformly as "IP". Astrocytic and microglial responses to localized injuries such as stroke are highly location-dependent and undoubtedly change dramatically within this area. The presented data cannot be interpreted without confirmation that these were taken at identical distances from the injury, and what that distance was. These do not appear to be adjacent to the injury, where the responses would presumably be the most informative. Similarly, it is difficult to interpret the neuronal Sholl and spine data without more information on where within the large IP region these neurons were found.

The authors attempt to narrow in on cell-type specificity via culture. However, astrocytes are notoriously prone to a dramatic change in culture and require careful methods (immunopanning; see eg doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2011.07.022) to maintain much resemblance to their in vivo counterpart. It is difficult to conclude much about the role of astrocytes in the CCL5 pathway based on the use of this shaking-based culture system, particularly in the absence of cell-type specific validation in vivo.

There is missing methodological information, including infarct size measurements, TUNEL staining, and statistical testing. The TTC figures look very odd, like a collection of overlapping stars have been placed on the images rather than the natural relatively smooth infarct edges one would expect. It is unclear if the infarct volume measurements accounted for edema, as is standard; there is no description of the protocol used for quantification. It is also unclear if the infarct volume measurement comparisons were also done with t-tests vs ANOVA, as the statistical test used is not listed in the figure legends. In numerous cases where statistical testing is listed, repeated t-tests between subgroups are used vs the more appropriate ANOVA (assuming normality; nonparametric testing as appropriate), making it difficult to have confidence in the results.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The authors presented evidence from various in vivo and in vitro experiments demonstrating the mutual interaction between CCL5 and astrocytic miR-342-5p in the ipsilateral core of cerebral ischemia. However, miR-342-5p was downregulated only late after MCAO (D3-7). Additionally, this downregulation was observed not only in the ipsilateral core but also in the ipsilateral penumbra and contralateral sides. Therefore, it is not convincing that the upregulation of CCL5 in the ipsilateral core at later time points (D3 and D7) is attributable to the decreased expression of miR-342-5p. In particular, infarct injury was already evident within a short time period (say 24 h) following MCAO.

(1) The temporal and spatial expression patterns of miR-324-5p do not match those of CCL-5, especially at D1 and D3 (see Figure 1C, 1D). Despite the inverse relationship between miR-324-5p and CCL-5 expression at D7 after MCAO, what was the purpose of administering miR-324-5p agomir (or antagomir) at D1 post-MCAO? If the connection cannot be clearly established, the conclusion reached at the end will be difficult to accept.

(2) Would administering miR-342-5p or anti-CCL5 at later time points (e.g., after D3) reduce infarct size or improve functional recovery? If this is not the case, the effect of CCL5 on neuronal cell damage (infarct size formation) must occur within a very short time after MCAO. Additionally, if the increased CCL5 expression is due to the downregulation of miR-342-5p, its impact would likely be less significant.

(3) While the study offers valuable insights into the roles of CCL5 and its connection with the regulation of miR-342-5p (though this connection is somewhat weak), it is recommended that the authors explore potential translational applications of these findings.

Overall, given the experimental designs and results, it is difficult to support the conclusions drawn in the manuscript.