Journal Home > Volume 11 , Issue 4
Journal of Neurorestoratology 2023, 11(4): 100082 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnrt.2023.100082
Original Research | Open Access | Issue | Published: 14 October 2023

Comparison on gene expression profiles between different models of spinal cord injury

Show Author's Information Haoru Donga,b,1,  Xingyu Chenb,1,  Longnian Zhoub,  Yiming Taob,  Jian Yub( ),  Rong Xiea,b( )
Department of Neurosurgery, National Regional Medical Center, Huashan Hospital Fujian Campus, Fudan University, The First Affiliated Hospital Binhai Campus of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou 350209, Fujian, China
Department of Neurosurgery, National Center for Neurological Disorders, Neurosurgical Institute of Fudan University, Shanghai Clinical Medical Center of Neurosurgery, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Brain Function and Restoration and Neural Regeneration, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai 200040, China

1 These authors contributed equally to this study.

Keywords:
Transcriptome, Murine models, Pathway analysis, GEO database
Cite this article:
Dong H, Chen X, Zhou L, et al. Comparison on gene expression profiles between different models of spinal cord injury. Journal of Neurorestoratology, 2023, 11(4): 100082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnrt.2023.100082
Download citation
EndNote(RIS)
BibTeX

210

Views

33

Downloads

Citations

0

Crossref

0

WoS

0

Scopus

N/A

CSCD

Abstract Full text About this article
Background

Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a devastating disease with no clear molecular mechanisms or effective treatments. Murine models of SCI have been widely used to explore its pathogenesis.

Methods

In this study, a comprehensive bioinformatic analysis using GEO datasets was performed to evaluate the characteristics of different SCI models.

Results

We found that the contusion model was similar to the compression model, with inflammation and apoptosis significantly enriched, while more complex biological processes existed in hemisection and transection model. Inflammatory markers can be used as a primary evaluation index of SCI models not only in the acute and subacute phases, but also in the chronic phase. In the meantime, apoptosis markers are more suitable for evaluating mouse SCI models while inflammatory markers are more suitable for rat SCI models. In addition, SCI models with different ages, genders, injury positions, and injury levels were also analyzed.

Conclusion

Our findings indicate that SCI is a heterogeneous disease and play an instructive role in model selecting.


menu
Abstract
Full text
Outline
About this article

Comparison on gene expression profiles between different models of spinal cord injury

Show Author's information Haoru Donga,b,1, Xingyu Chenb,1, Longnian Zhoub, Yiming Taob, Jian Yub( ), Rong Xiea,b( )
Department of Neurosurgery, National Regional Medical Center, Huashan Hospital Fujian Campus, Fudan University, The First Affiliated Hospital Binhai Campus of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou 350209, Fujian, China
Department of Neurosurgery, National Center for Neurological Disorders, Neurosurgical Institute of Fudan University, Shanghai Clinical Medical Center of Neurosurgery, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Brain Function and Restoration and Neural Regeneration, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai 200040, China

1 These authors contributed equally to this study.

Abstract

Background

Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a devastating disease with no clear molecular mechanisms or effective treatments. Murine models of SCI have been widely used to explore its pathogenesis.

Methods

In this study, a comprehensive bioinformatic analysis using GEO datasets was performed to evaluate the characteristics of different SCI models.

Results

We found that the contusion model was similar to the compression model, with inflammation and apoptosis significantly enriched, while more complex biological processes existed in hemisection and transection model. Inflammatory markers can be used as a primary evaluation index of SCI models not only in the acute and subacute phases, but also in the chronic phase. In the meantime, apoptosis markers are more suitable for evaluating mouse SCI models while inflammatory markers are more suitable for rat SCI models. In addition, SCI models with different ages, genders, injury positions, and injury levels were also analyzed.

Conclusion

Our findings indicate that SCI is a heterogeneous disease and play an instructive role in model selecting.

Keywords: Transcriptome, Murine models, Pathway analysis, GEO database

References(42)

1

Simard JM, Woo SK, Norenberg MD, et al. Brief suppression of Abcc8 prevents autodestruction of spinal cord after trauma. Sci Transl Med. 2010;2(28):28ra29.
DOI Google Scholar
2
Koda M, Hanaoka H, Fujii Y, et al. Randomized trial of granulocyte colonystimulating factor for spinal cord injury. Brain. 2021;144(3):789–799[published correction appears in Brain. 2022;145(3):e17].
3

Bratman GN, Anderson CB, Berman MG, et al. Nature and mental health: an ecosystem service perspective. Sci Adv. 2019;5(7):eaax0903.
DOI Google Scholar
4

Bratman GN, Hamilton JP, Daily GC. The impacts of nature experience on human cognitive function and mental health. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2012;1249:118–136.
DOI Google Scholar
5

Su ZD, Niu WZ, Liu ML, et al. In vivo conversion of astrocytes to neurons in the injured adult spinal cord. Nat Commun. 2014;5:3338.
DOI Google Scholar
6

Ye F, Baligand C, Keener JE, et al. Hindlimb muscle morphology and function in a new atrophy model combining spinal cord injury and cast immobilization. J Neurotrauma. 2013;30(3):227–235.
DOI Google Scholar
7

Kjell J, Olson L. Rat models of spinal cord injury: from pathology to potential therapies. Dis Model Mech. 2016;9(10):1125–1137.
DOI Google Scholar
8

Adhikary S, Li H, Heller J, et al. Modulation of inflammatory responses by a cannabinoid-2-selective agonist after spinal cord injury. J Neurotrauma. 2011;28(12):2417–2427.
DOI Google Scholar
9

Chamankhah M, Eftekharpour E, Karimi-Abdolrezaee S, et al. Genome-wide gene expression profiling of stress response in a spinal cord clip compression injury model. BMC Genom. 2013;14:583.
DOI Google Scholar
10

Wang Z, Gerstein M, Snyder M. RNA-Seq: a revolutionary tool for transcriptomics. Nat Rev Genet. 2009;10(1):57–63.
DOI Google Scholar
11

Kukurba KR, Montgomery SB. RNA sequencing and analysis. Cold Spring Harb Protoc. 2015;2015(11):951–969.
DOI Google Scholar
12

Germain PL, Sonrel A, Robinson MD. pipeComp, a general framework for the evaluation of computational pipelines, reveals performant single cell RNA-seq preprocessing tools. Genome Biol. 2020;21(1):227.
DOI Google Scholar
13

Tian XP, Zhang ZW, Yang TT, et al. Comparative genomics analysis of streptomyces species reveals their adaptation to the marine environment and their diversity at the genomic level. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:998.
DOI Google Scholar
14

Wang SY, Gao J, Song YH, et al. Identification of potential gene and MicroRNA biomarkers of acute kidney injury. BioMed Res Int. 2021;2021:8834578.
DOI Google Scholar
15

Dong HR, Zhang C, Shi DL, et al. Ferroptosis related genes participate in the pathogenesis of spinal cord injury via HIF-1 signaling pathway. Brain Res Bull. 2023;192:192–202.
DOI Google Scholar
16

Davis S, Meltzer PS. GEOquery: a bridge between the gene expression Omnibus (GEO) and BioConductor. Bioinformatics. 2007;23(14):1846–1847.
DOI Google Scholar
17

Ramírez F, Dündar F, Diehl S, et al. deepTools: a flexible platform for exploring deep-sequencing data. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42(Web Server issue):W187–W191.
DOI Google Scholar
18

Robinson MD, McCarthy DJ, Smyth GK. edgeR: a Bioconductor package for differential expression analysis of digital gene expression data. Bioinformatics. 2010;26(1):139–140.
DOI Google Scholar
19

Ritchie ME, Phipson B, Wu D, et al. Limma powers differential expression analyses for RNA-sequencing and microarray studies. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43(7):e47.
DOI Google Scholar
20

Ashburner M, Ball CA, Blake JA, et al. Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. The Gene Ontology Consortium. Nat Genet. 2000;25(1):25–29.
DOI Google Scholar
21

Kanehisa M, Goto S. KEGG: kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2000;28(1):27–30.
DOI Google Scholar
22

Subramanian A, Tamayo P, Mootha VK, et al. Gene set enrichment analysis: a knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102(43):15545–15550.
DOI Google Scholar
23

Barbiellini Amidei C, Salmaso L, Bellio S, et al. Epidemiology of traumatic spinal cord injury: a large population-based study. Spinal Cord. 2022;60(9):812–819.
DOI Google Scholar
24

Stefanova EE, Scott AL. Purinergic signaling systems across comparative models of spinal cord injury. Neural Regen Res. 2022;17(11):2391–2398.
DOI Google Scholar
25

Adeel M, Lin BS, Chen HC, et al. Motor neuroplastic effects of a novel paired stimulation Technology in an incomplete spinal cord injury animal model. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23(16):9447.
DOI Google Scholar
26

Allen AR. Surgery of experimental lesion of spinal cord equivalent to crush injury of fracture dislocation of spinal column: a preliminary report. JAMA. 1911;LVⅡ(11):878–880.
DOI Google Scholar
27

Choo AM, Liu J, Lam CK, Dvorak M, Tetzlaff W, Oxland TR. Contusion, dislocation, and distraction: primary hemorrhage and membrane permeability in distinct mechanisms of spinal cord injury. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;6(3):255–266.
DOI Google Scholar
28

Pineau I, Lacroix S. Proinflammatory cytokine synthesis in the injured mouse spinal cord: multiphasic expression pattern and identification of the cell types involved. J Comp Neurol. 2007;500(2):267–285.
DOI Google Scholar
29

Rivlin AS, Tator CH. Effect of duration of acute spinal cord compression in a new acute cord injury model in the rat. Surg Neurol. 1978;10(1):38–43.
Google Scholar
30

Wynn MM, Acher CW. A modern theory of spinal cord ischemia/injury in thoracoabdominal aortic surgery and its implications for prevention of paralysis. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2014;28(4):1088–1099.
DOI Google Scholar
31

Palandi J, Bobinski F, de Oliveira GM. Neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury and physical exercise in animal models: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2020;108:781–795.
DOI Google Scholar
32

Fan BY, Wei ZJ, Feng SQ. Progression in translational research on spinal cord injury based on microenvironment imbalance. Bone Res. 2022;10(1):35.
DOI Google Scholar
33

Xu PF, Yang XL. The efficacy and safety of mesenchymal stem cell transplantation for spinal cord injury patients: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Cell Transplant. 2019;28(1):36–46.
DOI Google Scholar
34

Pastrana E, Moreno-Flores MT, Gurzov EN, et al. Genes associated with adult axon regeneration promoted by olfactory ensheathing cells: a new role for matrix metalloproteinase 2. J Neurosci. 2006;26(20):5347–5359.
DOI Google Scholar
35

Rosenzweig ES, McDonald JW. Rodent models for treatment of spinal cord injury: research trends and progress toward useful repair. Curr Opin Neurol. 2004;17(2):121–131.
DOI Google Scholar
36

Li X, Liu DY, Xiao ZF, et al. Scaffold-facilitated locomotor improvement post complete spinal cord injury: motor axon regeneration versus endogenous neuronal relay formation. Biomaterials. 2019;197:20–31.
DOI Google Scholar
37

Brown AR, Martinez M. Thoracic spinal cord hemisection surgery and openfield locomotor assessment in the rat. J Vis Exp. 2019;(148):e59738.
DOI Google Scholar
38

Green DR. The coming decade of cell death research: five riddles. Cell. 2019;177(5):1094–1107.
DOI Google Scholar
39

Zhao YY, Yuan Y, Chen Y, et al. Histamine promotes locomotion recovery after spinal cord hemisection via inhibiting astrocytic scar formation. CNS Neurosci Ther. 2015;21(5):454–462.
DOI Google Scholar
40

Li Y, He XL, Kawaguchi R, et al. Microglia-organized scar-free spinal cord repair in neonatal mice. Nature. 2020;587(7835):613–618.
DOI Google Scholar
41

Ghosh D, Pinto S, Danglot L, et al. VAMP7 regulates constitutive membrane incorporation of the cold-activated channel TRPM8. Nat Commun. 2016;7:10489.
DOI Google Scholar
42

Onifer SM, Nunn CD, Decker JA, et al. Loss and spontaneous recovery of forelimb evoked potentials in both the adult rat cuneate nucleus and somatosensory cortex following contusive cervical spinal cord injury. Exp Neurol. 2007;207(2):238–247.
DOI Google Scholar
Publication history
Copyright
Acknowledgements
Rights and permissions

Publication history

Received: 28 July 2023
Revised: 29 September 2023
Accepted: 08 October 2023
Published: 14 October 2023
Issue date: December 2023

Copyright

© 2023 The Authors.

Acknowledgements

The analyses of this study were supported by the Medical Research Data Center of Fudan University. We acknowledge the generous support of the HOME for researchers (https://www.home-for-researchers.com/static/index.html#/).

Rights and permissions

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Return