Skip to main content
PLOS Biology logoLink to PLOS Biology
. 2021 Jul 22;19(7):e3001337. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001337

BDNF produced by cerebral microglia promotes cortical plasticity and pain hypersensitivity after peripheral nerve injury

Lianyan Huang 1,2,*, Jianhua Jin 2, Kai Chen 3, Sikun You 2, Hongyang Zhang 2, Alexandra Sideris 1, Monica Norcini 1, Esperanza Recio-Pinto 1, Jing Wang 1, Wen-Biao Gan 1,4, Guang Yang 1,3,*
Editor: Mikael Simons5
PMCID: PMC8346290  PMID: 34292944

Abstract

Peripheral nerve injury–induced mechanical allodynia is often accompanied by abnormalities in the higher cortical regions, yet the mechanisms underlying such maladaptive cortical plasticity remain unclear. Here, we show that in male mice, structural and functional changes in the primary somatosensory cortex (S1) caused by peripheral nerve injury require neuron-microglial signaling within the local circuit. Following peripheral nerve injury, microglia in the S1 maintain ramified morphology and normal density but up-regulate the mRNA expression of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF). Using in vivo two-photon imaging and Cx3cr1CreER;Bdnfflox mice, we show that conditional knockout of BDNF from microglia prevents nerve injury–induced synaptic remodeling and pyramidal neuron hyperactivity in the S1, as well as pain hypersensitivity in mice. Importantly, S1-targeted removal of microglial BDNF largely recapitulates the beneficial effects of systemic BDNF depletion on cortical plasticity and allodynia. Together, these findings reveal a pivotal role of cerebral microglial BDNF in somatosensory cortical plasticity and pain hypersensitivity.


This study reveals that brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) from cerebral microglia contributes to nerve injury-induced synaptic remodeling and neuronal hyperactivity, and ultimately contributes to pain sensitivity in mice; removal of microglial BDNF has beneficial effects on cortical plasticity and pain.

Introduction

Neuropathic pain is caused by lesions and diseases of the somatosensory system and remains one of the most challenging problems in medicine [1]. The primary somatosensory cortex (S1) is critical for sensory processing, and its maladaptive plasticity has been implicated in mediating abnormal sensations associated with neuropathic pain, including the aversion to light touch (mechanical allodynia) [24]. Patients and animals under chronic pain states exhibit increased activation and somatotopic reorganization in the S1 [57], the extent of which are correlated with pain intensity levels [8,9]. Chronic pain states are also associated with synapse remodeling [10,11], increased pyramidal neuron activity [12,13], and decreased GABAergic inhibition in the S1 [13,14]. Furthermore, strategies to reduce cortical changes in the S1 show benefits against chronic pain [1116]. Despite the importance of S1 in pain processing, the precise mechanisms underlying somatosensory cortical plasticity associated with neuropathic pain remain unclear.

Increasing evidence suggests that immune cells play active roles in neuronal plasticity and chronic pain, and their involvement in pain modulation appears to be sexually dimorphic [1719]. For example, microglial signaling has been linked to neuropathic pain hypersensitivity in male rodents, while T cells are thought to be involved in females [20]. As resident immune cells, microglia occupy all regions of the mammalian central nervous system (CNS), including brain and spinal cord. Following peripheral nerve injury, microglia in the dorsal horn, the sensory processing region of the spinal cord, transform into reactive phenotypes, producing and releasing a variety of substances that modulate spinal neuron functions. Among those, brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) has been shown to drive disinhibition and hyperexcitation of dorsal horn neurons, ultimately resulting in pain hypersensitivity [21]. Consistently, pain hypersensitivity in male mice is reduced by depletion of spinal microglia or microglial BDNF [20,2224].

Despite the crucial role of microglia signaling in spinal mechanisms of chronic pain, the function of brain microglia in pain-related somatosensory plasticity is unclear. In contrast to spinal microglia, microglia in the S1 have been shown to maintain a surveillant morphological phenotype and a normal cell density after peripheral nerve injury [25]. Moreover, the expression of Bdnf mRNA is very low in microglia in the adult brain, as indicated by recent RNAseq data [26,27]. Whether cortical microglia increase BDNF expression and contribute to the pathogenesis of chronic pain is not known.

In this study, we investigated the link between cortical microglia, somatosensory cortical plasticity, and pain hypersensitivity in a mouse model of neuropathic pain [2830]. Using quantitative PCR and RNAscope fluorescence in situ hybridization, we show that microglia in the S1 up-regulate Bdnf expression after peripheral nerve injury. This increase of Bdnf mRNA is robust and lasting only in males. By performing in vivo two-photon imaging in Cx3cr1CreER/+:Bdnffl/fl male mice, we further show that either systemic or S1-targeted removal of microglial BDNF reduces peripheral nerve injury–induced structural synaptic remodeling and pyramidal neuron hyperactivity in the S1 and alleviates mechanical allodynia in mice. Together, our results demonstrate that BDNF derived from cortical microglia mediates neuronal plasticity in the somatosensory cortex and promotes neuropathic pain hypersensitivity.

Results

Microglia in the S1 increase Bdnf expression after peripheral nerve injury

To investigate changes of cortical microglia associated with neuropathic pain, we first performed in vivo two-photon imaging in the S1 of 2-month-old male mice expressing enhanced yellow fluorescent protein (EYFP) in microglia under the control of Cx3cr1 promotor [31]. To induce neuropathic pain, mice were subjected to spared sciatic nerve injury (SNI). Two days after injury, SNI mice exhibited a sustained reduction in the withdrawal threshold of the injured paw upon pressure application to the plantar surface by a von Frey filament, which lasted for >1 month (Fig 1A). We examined the morphology, cell density, and process motility of microglia in the S1 contralateral to the SNI side 1 week after surgery. Consistent with previous reports [25], we observed no differences in the morphology and density of microglia in the S1 between SNI and sham mice (Fig 1B and 1C). However, we found that the processes of microglia were less motile in SNI mice as compared to sham mice (Fig 1D and 1E).

Fig 1. Microglia maintain normal morphology and density in the S1 after peripheral nerve injury but increase gliotransmitter expression.

Fig 1

(A) Paw withdrawal threshold before and after SNI (n = 14 mice) or sham (n = 10 mice) surgery (F1,22 = 569.6, P < 0.001). (B) Coronal sections of S1 from 2- to 3-month-old Cx3cr1CreER-EYFP mice stained for EYFP. Scale bar, 50 μm. (C) Quantification of microglia (Cx3cr1-EYFP+ cell) density in the S1 of sham and SNI mice 1 week after surgery (t10 = 1.206, P = 0.2556; n = 6 mice per group). Individual circle represents data from a single animal. (D) Motility of microglial process in the S1 was measured by intravital two-photon imaging 1 week after surgery. Scale bar, 50 μm (top) and 10 μm (bottom). (E) Quantification of S1 microglial process extensions and retractions over 15 min in sham and SNI mice (t107 = 5.196, P < 0.0001; n = 6 mice per group). Individual circle represents data from a single cell. (F) Bdnf, Tnf-α, Il-6, and Il-1β mRNA expression in S1 microglia 1 week and 2 weeks after surgery (n = 8 mice per group). Summary data are presented as mean ± SEM. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001; by an unpaired t test (C, E), two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni multiple comparisons test (A), or one-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni multiple comparisons test (F). (B, D) Representative images from experiments carried out on at least 5 animals per group. The data underlying this figure can be found in S1 Data. EYFP, enhanced yellow fluorescent protein; SNI, spared sciatic nerve injury; S1, primary somatosensory cortex.

Next, we isolated microglia from the S1 using fluorescence-activated cell sorting and measured the mRNA levels of Bdnf and various cytokines. Quantitative PCR results indicate that SNI in male mice markedly increased Bdnf mRNA expression by 3- and 10-fold over 1 and 2 weeks, respectively (Fig 1F). The mRNA levels of Tnf-α, Il-6, and Il-1β in microglia were also significantly elevated in males 2 weeks after SNI. By contrast, female mice exhibited a transient elevation of Bdnf, Tnf-α, and Il-6 transcripts in microglia (Fig 1F). Two weeks after surgery, there was no difference in the mRNA expression of various gliotransmitters between SNI and sham groups in females. These results indicate that cortical microglia respond to peripheral nerve injury in a sex-dependent manner, consistent with the notion that the involvement of microglial signaling in the development of chronic pain is sexually dimorphic.

To confirm peripheral nerve injury–induced increases of Bdnf mRNA expression in cortical microglia, we used RNAscope fluorescence in situ hybridization to visualize Bdnf transcripts in brain sections. To do this, we utilized predesigned Bdnf RNAScope probes targeting Bdnf open reading frame (Fig 2A). To ensure their specificity, positive control probes targeting the housekeeping gene Polr2a and negative control probes targeting DapB were run alongside the Bdnf probes (Fig 2B and 2C). Once the specificity of the probes was confirmed, both contralateral and ipsilateral S1 were imaged from brain sections that were taken from mice in sham (n = 4) and SNI (n = 4) groups. As shown in Fig 2A, Bdnf mRNA was readily detectable in cortical slices. Consistent with the notion that neurons are the major source of BDNF, only a small fraction of Bdnf transcripts were colocalized with EYFP-labeled microglia. In line with previous studies [26], we found that Bdnf mRNA expression was very low in microglia under physiological conditions. In sham mice, Bdnf mRNA was detectable in only approximately 30% microglial cells (Fig 2A and 2D, S1 Fig). Among those positive cells, on average, 2 Bdnf mRNA puncta were identified per microglia (Fig 2A and 2E, S1 Fig). As compared to sham, SNI significantly increased the fraction of microglial cells expressing Bdnf mRNA, as well as the number of Bdnf mRNA puncta per microglia, in contralateral, but not ipsilateral S1 (Fig 2D and 2E). Together, these results indicate that cortical microglia up-regulate Bdnf mRNA expression after peripheral nerve injury.

Fig 2. Validation of microglial Bdnf through RNAscope fluorescence in situ hybridization.

Fig 2

(A) RNAscope fluorescence in situ hybridization in the S1. Red color represents Bdnf mRNA probe hybridization. Green color indicates Cx3cr1-EYFP+ microglia. Blue, DAPI. Arrows indicate Bdnf transcripts located within microglia. Scale bar, 10 μm. (B) Positive control probes for in situ hybridization, targeting mRNA for the ubiquitously expressed housekeeping gene Polr2a; images show representative signal in S1. (C) Negative control probes targeting mRNA for DapB, a gene expressed in Bacillus subtilis. (D) Percentages of microglia with the presence of Bdnf mRNA (n = 4 mice per group, F2, 9 = 12.49, P = 0.0025). (E) Number of Bdnf puncta per cell among microglia with detectable Bdnf transcripts (F2, 168 = 13.63, P < 0.0001). Summary data are presented as mean ± SEM. **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001, ns, not significant; by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey multiple comparisons test (D, E). (A–C) Representative images from experiments carried out on 4 animals per group. The data underlying this figure can be found in S1 Data. Bdnf, brain-derived neurotrophic factor; SNI, spared sciatic nerve injury; S1, primary somatosensory cortex.

Genetic depletion of microglial BDNF prevents injury-induced synapse remodeling

Previous studies in mice have shown that peripheral nerve injury elicits a rapid structural synaptic remodeling in the S1 within days [10]. To determine whether microglia-derived BDNF is critical for synaptic plasticity associated with chronic neuropathic pain in male mice, we examined the dynamics of postsynaptic dendritic spines in the S1 with transcranial two-photon microscopy. Two-month-old Thy1-YFP transgenic mice expressing yellow fluorescent protein (YFP) in layer 5 (L5) pyramidal neurons were repeatedly imaged before and 1 to 4 weeks after peripheral nerve injury (Fig 3A). In the region of S1 corresponding to the SNI surgery side, we found a significant increase in the elimination and formation rates of dendritic spines (Fig 3B and 3C). Within the first week after surgery, 7.7 ± 0.6% of dendritic spines were eliminated and 8.1 ± 0.5% were formed in sham mice, whereas 11.4 ± 1.1% and 11.9 ± 1.1% of dendritic spines were eliminated and formed in SNI mice, respectively. This abnormally high turnover of dendritic spines occurred in the S1 contralateral to the surgery site, but not in the ipsilateral S1 or in the visual cortex, a cortical area unrelated to pain perception (Fig 3C). There was a significant correlation between the percentages of dendritic spines eliminated and formed on individual dendrites in SNI mice (Fig 3D), and the total spine number in the S1 remained the same (S2 Fig). Furthermore, 2 to 4 weeks after SNI, the rates of spine elimination and formation remained elevated in comparison to sham mice (Fig 3E and 3F), indicating persistent synaptic remodeling in the S1 of mice with chronic neuropathic pain.

Fig 3. Persistent dendritic spine remodeling in the S1 after peripheral nerve injury.

Fig 3

(A) Schematic showing the timeline for transcranial two-photon imaging and SNI or sham operation. Imaging was performed in transgenic mice expressing YFP in L5 PYR neurons. (B) Representative two-photon images of dendritic spines on apical dendritic segments of L5 pyramidal neurons in the S1 of SNI and sham mice. Empty and filled arrow heads indicate spines that were eliminated or newly formed, respectively, on the same dendritic segment. Scale bar, 2 μm. (C) Percentages of dendritic spines eliminated and formed in various cortical areas 1 week after SNI or sham surgery (Elimination: F3, 21 = 9.455, P = 0.0004; Formation: F3, 21 = 11.54, P = 0.0001). Sham contra S1, 1,074 spines, n = 7 mice; SNI contra S1, 1,106 spines, n = 7 mice; SNI V1, 716 spines, n = 5 mice, SNI ipsi S1, 874 spines, n = 6 mice. (D) Correlation between the rates of spine elimination and spine formation 1 week after SNI (Pearson r = 0.77, P < 0.0001). (E) Percentages of dendritic spine elimination and formation 2 weeks after surgery (Elimination: F3, 21 = 10.7, P = 0.0002; Formation: F3, 21 = 13.84, P < 0.0001). (F) Percentages of dendritic spine elimination and formation 4 weeks after surgery (Elimination: F3, 21 = 17.25, P < 0.0001; Formation: F3, 21 = 18.49, P < 0.0001). Individual circles represent data from a single mouse. Summary data are presented as mean ± SEM. **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001; by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey multiple comparisons test (C, E, F). (B) Representative images from experiments carried out on at least 5 animals per group. The data underlying this figure can be found in S1 Data. L5, layer 5; PYR, pyramidal; SNI, spared sciatic nerve injury; S1, primary somatosensory cortex; YFP, yellow fluorescent protein.

To determine whether injury-induced dendritic spine remodeling involves microglial BDNF, we performed in vivo gene deletion by crossing Cx3cr1CreER mice with mice containing 1 or 2 floxed alleles of Bdnf (Bdnffl/+ or Bdnffl/fl) [32,33] (Fig 4). Specifically, Cx3cr1CreER/+;Bdnffl/+;Thy1-YFP or Cx3cr1CreER/+;Bdnffl/fl;Thy1-YFP males were given 2 doses of tamoxifen (P30 and 32). Tamoxifen-induced gene recombination removes one or both copies of the Bdnf gene from CX3CR1-expressing microglia [32]. As expected, no Bdnf mRNA was detected in the soma of microglia in tamoxifen-treated Cx3cr1CreER/+;Bdnffl/fl mice (S3 Fig). Interestingly, SNI-induced up-regulation of Tnf-α expression in microglia was also reduced in these mice depleted of microglial BDNF (S4 Fig). One month after the last tamoxifen treatment (i.e., P60), we performed SNI or sham surgery and examined the rates of dendritic spine elimination and formation in the S1 over the next 1 to 4 weeks (Fig 4A). Similar to wild-type mice, we found a marked increase in spine elimination and formation 1 week after SNI, in Cx3cr1CreER/+;Bdnffl/+ (hereafter referred to as Bdnffl/+) mice (Fig 4B and 4C). In contrast, in Cx3cr1CreER/+;Bdnffl/fl mice that removed both copies of the Bdnf gene from microglia (hereafter referred to as Bdnffl/fl), we found that SNI had no significant effects on the rates of dendritic spine elimination as compared to sham (6.8 ± 0.5% versus 5.4 ± 0.4%, P = 0.0747; Fig 4B and 4C). In Bdnffl/fl mice, there was a slight but significant increase of spine formation after SNI in comparison to sham (Fig 4C). However, the degree of SNI-induced spine formation in Bdnffl/fl mice was significantly lower than that in Bdnffl/+ mice (P < 0.0001). We also found that after SNI surgery, the rates of spine elimination and formation over 2 to 4 weeks were lower in Bdnffl/fl mice than that in Bdnffl/+ mice (Fig 4D and 4E). Together, these results indicate that depletion of BDNF from microglia reduces dendritic spine remodeling in the S1 after peripheral nerve injury.

Fig 4. Systemic depletion of microglial BDNF reduces dendritic spine remodeling in the S1 after peripheral nerve injury.

Fig 4

(A) Experimental timeline. (B) Representative two-photon images of dendritic segments in SNI mice with (Cx3cr1CreER/+;Bdnffl/+) or without microglial BDNF (Cx3cr1CreER/+;Bdnffl/fl). Empty and filled arrow heads indicate individual spines that were eliminated or newly formed, respectively, 1 week after SNI. Scale bar, 2 μm. (CE) Percentages of dendritic spines eliminated and formed 1 week (C), 2 weeks (D), or 4 weeks (E) after sham or SNI surgery. Sham Bdnff/+: n = 4–6 mice; SNI Bdnffl/+, n = 4–5 mice; sham Bdnffl/fl, n = 5 mice; SNI Bdnffl/fl, n = 5 mice. Throughout, individual circles represent data from a single mouse. Summary data are presented as mean ± SEM. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001; by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey multiple comparisons test (C–E). The data underlying this figure can be found in S1 Data. BDNF, brain-derived neurotrophic factor; SNI, spared sciatic nerve injury; S1, primary somatosensory cortex.

Genetic depletion of microglial BDNF prevents neuronal hyperactivation and mechanical allodynia

Next, we investigated the effect of microglial BDNF depletion on cortical activity after peripheral nerve injury. We first performed in vivo two-photon Ca2+ imaging in the somas of L5 pyramidal neurons expressing a genetically encoded Ca2+ indicator GCaMP6s in the S1 of awake, head-restrained wild-type mice (Fig 5A) [34]. Consistent with previous studies [13], we found that the spontaneous Ca2+ activity of S1 neurons was significantly higher in SNI mice than that in sham mice 1 week after surgery (Fig 5B–5D), indicating somatosensory cortical activation in mice with neuropathic pain. Mechanical stimulation of the hind paw using a 0.6-g von Frey hair elicited a marked increase of somatic Ca2+ responses in L5 neurons in SNI mice, but not in sham mice (Fig 5E and 5F). Furthermore, more L5 cells showed increased Ca2+ responses in SNI mice as compared with the sham group (Fig 5G). When stronger stimulation was delivered through a 1- or 2-g von Frey hair, increases in neuronal activity were observed in both SNI and sham mice in comparison to the resting condition (S5 Fig). With the same stimuli, the level of stimulation evoked Ca2+ in L5 somas was significantly higher in SNI mice than in sham mice (Fig 5H). In addition, 2 weeks after SNI surgery, both spontaneous and evoked Ca2+ activity in S1 L5 neurons remained elevated as compared to sham mice (Fig 5I, S5 Fig). Together, these data indicate that mice with increased mechanical pain sensitivity exhibit a persistent elevation of pyramidal neuronal activity in the S1.

Fig 5. Enhanced sensory-evoked pyramidal neuronal activity in the S1 after peripheral nerve injury.

Fig 5

(A) Cartoon depicting two-photon Ca2+ imaging in awake, head-restrained mice expressing GCaMP6s in L5 PYR neurons. (B) Representative two-photon images of L5 somas in the S1 of sham and SNI mice 1 week after surgery. Scale bar, 20 μm. (C) Representative fluorescence traces of L5 somas in SNI and sham mice 1 week after surgery. (D) Spontaneous Ca2+ activity of L5 somas over 2.5 min 1 week after surgery (sham: 18.26 ± 0.73%, n = 115 cells from 5 mice; SNI: 28.57 ± 1.18%, n = 179 cells from 7 mice; t292 = 6.501, P < 0.001). (E) Representative fluorescence traces of L5 somas in SNI and sham mice in response to mechanical stimulation applied by a 0.6-g vF hair. (F) Averaged Ca2+ activity over 10 s before or during 0.6-g vF stimulation (sham: 20.80 ± 1.52%, 24.57 ± 1.47%, P = 0.123; SNI: 27.55 ± 1.27%, 41.67 ± 2.17%, P < 0.001). (G) Percentages of L5 somas showing increased Ca2+ responses to 0.6-g stimuli in sham (n = 115 cells) and SNI (n = 179 cells) mice (P < 0.01, chi-squared test). Ca2+ activity was analyzed over 10 s. (H) vF stimulation–evoked somatic Ca2+ in L5 neurons 1 week after surgery (sham: n = 5 mice; SNI: n = 7 mice; 0 g: t292 = 6.501, P < 0.001; 0.6 g: t329 = 4.963, P < 0.001; 1.0 g: t265 = 1.981, P < 0.05; 2.0 g: t276 = 2.028, P < 0.05). (I) vF stimulation–evoked somatic Ca2+ in L5 neurons 2 weeks after surgery (sham: n = 5 mice; SNI: n = 5 mice; 0 g: t211 = 4.920, P < 0.001; 0.6 g: t238 = 4.983, P < 0.001; 1.0 g: t245 = 4.124, P < 0.001; 2.0 g: t190 = 2.421, P < 0.05). Throughout, individual circles represent data from a single cell. Data are presented as mean ± SEM. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001; by unpaired t test (D, H, I), paired t test (F). (B, C, E) Representative images and traces from experiments carried out on at least 5 animals per group. The data underlying this figure can be found in S1 Data. L5, layer 5; PYR, pyramidal; SNI, spared sciatic nerve injury; S1, primary somatosensory cortex; vF, von Frey.

To determine whether microglial BDNF depletion affects injury-induced pyramidal neuronal hyperactivity, we crossed Thy1-GCaMP6s mice with Cx3cr1CreER/+;Bdnffl/fl mice and administered 2 doses of tamoxifen on P30 and P32 by oral gavage (Fig 6A). One month after the last tamoxifen treatment, we performed SNI surgery and examined L5 pyramidal neuron activity in the S1. In contrast to the hyperactivation of pyramidal neurons in Cx3cr1CreER/+;Bdnffl/+ mice, we found that both spontaneous and sensory-evoked neuronal activity in mice depleted of microglial BDNF (Cx3cr1CreER/+;Bdnffl/fl) were reduced 1 week after SNI (Fig 6B and 6C). Two weeks after SNI, Bdnffl/fl mice continued to show lower activity in L5 cells as compared to Bdnffl/+ mice (Fig 6D). These data indicate that depletion of microglial BDNF is effective in mitigating peripheral nerve injury–induced S1 activation.

Fig 6. Systemic depletion of microglial BDNF reduces pyramidal neuronal hyperactivity and mechanical allodynia.

Fig 6

(A) Experimental timeline. (B) Representative fluorescence traces of L5 PYR somas expressing GCaMP6s in SNI mice with (Cx3cr1CreER/+;Bdnffl/+) or without (Cx3cr1CreER/+;Bdnffl/fl) microglial BDNF. Images were collected 1 week after surgery when mice were at rest or subjected to 0.6-g vF stimulation. (C) Averaged Ca2+ activity in L5 somas 1 week after SNI (Bdnffl/+, n = 4 mice; Bdnffl/fl, n = 5 mice; 0 g: t246 = 3.551, P < 0.001; 0.6 g: t220 = 5.143, P < 0.001; 1.0 g: t232 = 3.986, P < 0.001; 2.0 g: t244 = 4.751, P < 0.001). (D) Averaged Ca2+ activity in L5 somas 2 weeks after SNI (Bdnffl/+, n = 5 mice; Bdnffl/fl, n = 4 mice; 0 g: t171 = 2.666, P = 0.0084; 0.6 g: t177 = 3.913, P < 0.001; 1.0 g: t179 = 6.709, P < 0.001; 2.0 g: t174 = 6.918, P < 0.001). (E) Paw withdraw threshold in sham and SNI mice with or without microglial BDNF (sham Bdnffl/+, n = 7 mice; SNI Bdnffl/+, n = 9 mice; sham Bdnffl/fl, n = 9 mice, SNI Bdnffl/fl, n = 8 mice). (B) Representative traces from experiments carried out on at least 4 animals per group. Throughout, individual circle represents data from a single cell. Summary data are presented as means ± SEM. **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001; by unpaired t test (C, D) or two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni multiple comparisons test (E). The data underlying this figure can be found in S1 Data. BDNF, brain-derived neurotrophic factor; L5, layer 5; ns, not significant; PYR, pyramidal; SNI, spared sciatic nerve injury; vF, von Frey.

When paw withdrawal threshold was measured over time, we found that removal of BDNF from microglia attenuated mechanical allodynia in SNI mice as compared to nondeleted controls (Fig 6E). Four weeks after SNI, the withdrawal threshold of Bdnffl/fl mice remained higher than that of Bdnffl/+ controls, indicating that microglial BDNF deficiency attenuates pain hypersensitivity over long term.

S1-targeted gene recombination in microglia

The results above demonstrate that systemic depletion of BDNF from CNS microglia (both brain and spinal cord) reduces synaptic plasticity and neuronal hyperactivity in the S1 after peripheral nerve injury. Because spinal microglial BDNF is important for spinal neuronal plasticity and neuropathic pain in male mice [20,21], the effects of systemic BNDF depletion on somatosensory cortical plasticity could be due to the removal of microglial BDNF either in the spinal cord and/or in the cortex. To directly test the role of cortical microglial BDNF in nerve injury–induced neuronal plasticity, we developed a strategy to selectively manipulate microglia within the S1 (Fig 7). In this experiment, we injected 4-hydroxytamoxifen (4-OHT), the active metabolite of tamoxifen, into the S1 to induce CreER-mediated recombination in a spatially confined manner (Fig 7A). To validate the region specificity of gene recombination, we crossed Cx3cr1CreER-EYFP mice to Rosa26-stop-DsRed reporter mice (R26DsRed). When 4-OHT was locally delivered to the S1 hindlimb region, a large fraction (70.7% ± 3.9%) of Cx3cr1-EYFP+ microglia in this region (within 1 mm of the injection site) were found to coexpress DsRed. Importantly, essentially none of the microglia in the spinal cord were DsRed+ (Fig 7B and 7D). On the other hand, in Cx3cr1CreER/+;R26DsRed/+ mice subjected to systemic administration (oral gavage) of tamoxifen, we found that the majority (92.7% ± 3.0%) of cortical and spinal microglia were DsRed+ 4 weeks later (Fig 7C and 7D). Thus, intracranial injection of tamoxifen efficiently and region specifically induced CreER-mediated gene recombination in the cortex of Cx3cr1CreER/+ mice.

Fig 7. Strategy to selectively manipulate microglia in S1.

Fig 7

(A) Cartoon depicting the strategy to selectively manipulate microglia in the S1HL. (B) Representative coronal sections of brain and spinal cord in Cx3cr1CreER-EYFP/+;R26DsRed/+ mice 1 month after intracranial injection of 4-OHT into the S1HL. Scale bar, top, 1,000 μm; middle, 20 μm; bottom, 1,000 μm. (C) Representative coronal sections of brain and spinal cord of Cx3cr1CreER-EYFP/+; R26DsRed/+ mice after systemic administration of tamoxifen by oral gavage. (D) Quantification of Cx3cr1-EYFP+ cells expressing DsRed in S1HL and spinal cord after systemic (oral gavage) or local (intracranial injection) administration of tamoxifen (n = 6 mice per group). Summary data are presented as means ± SEM. ***P < 0.001 by unpaired t test. The data underlying this figure can be found in S1 Data. BDNF, brain-derived neurotrophic factor; EYFP, enhanced yellow fluorescent protein; S1, primary somatosensory cortex; S1HL, hindlimb region of S1; 4-OHT, 4-hydroxytamoxifen.

Cortical microglial BDNF mediates S1 plasticity and mechanical allodynia

Next, we intracranially administered 4-OHT into the contralateral S1 of Cx3cr1CreER/+;Bdnffl/fl and Cx3cr1CreER/+;Bdnffl/+ male mice. Four weeks later, we performed SNI surgery and examined dendritic spine remodeling, neuronal Ca2+ activity, and the animals’ mechanical paw withdrawal threshold over time (Fig 8A). Similar to what was observed in mice systemically depleted of microglial BDNF, we found that depletion of microglial BDNF within S1 significantly reduced the rates of dendritic spine formation and elimination 1 to 2 weeks after SNI (Fig 8B and 8C). Furthermore, SNI-induced neuronal hyperactivity, both spontaneous and sensory evoked, was substantially reduced in mice with cortical BDNF depletion as compared to nondepleted controls (Fig 8D–8F). Mechanical allodynia was also reduced in mice locally depleted of BDNF relative to nondepleted controls (Fig 8G). Thus, loss of microglial BDNF within the contralateral S1 largely recapitulates the effects on cortical plasticity and pain behavior observed in mice depleted of microglial BDNF in the entire CNS. These results indicate that cortical microglia-derived BDNF is crucial for cortical plasticity associated with neuropathic pain.

Fig 8. S1-targeted microglial BDNF depletion reduces somatosensory cortical plasticity and allodynia.

Fig 8

(A) Experimental timeline. (B, C) Percentages of dendritic spine elimination and formation 1 week (B) or 2 weeks (C) after SNI in mice with or without S1 microglial BDNF (Cx3cr1CreER/+;Bdnffl/+: 590 spines, n = 4 mice; Cx3cr1CreER/+;Bdnffl/fl: 594 spines, n = 4 mice). (D) Representative fluorescence traces of L5 PYR somas expressing GCaMP6s in SNI mice with (Cx3cr1CreER/+;Bdnffl/+) or without (Cx3cr1CreER/+;Bdnffl/fl) S1 microglial BDNF. (E) Averaged Ca2+ activity 1 week after SNI (0 g: t218 = 7.323, P < 0.001; 0.6 g: t195 = 9.555, P < 0.001; 1.0 g: t230 = 9.464, P < 0.001; 2.0 g: t220 = 6.399, P < 0.001). (F) Averaged Ca2+ activity 2 weeks after SNI (0 g: t154 = 7.903, P < 0.001; 0.6 g: t173 = 8.181, P < 0.001; 1.0 g: t172 = 10.21, P < 0.001; 2.0 g: t164 = 10.66, P < 0.001). (G) Mechanical paw withdrawal threshold in mice with or without microglial BDNF in the S1 (n = 10 mice for each group; F1,18 = 218.6, P < 0.001). *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001; by unpaired t test (B, C, E, F), two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni post hoc test (G). The data underlying this figure can be found in S1 Data. BDNF, brain-derived neurotrophic factor; L5, layer 5; PYR, pyramidal; SNI, spared sciatic nerve injury; S1, primary somatosensory cortex.

Discussion

Abnormal cortical plasticity is thought to be critical for chronic pain development after peripheral nerve injury, but the underlying mechanisms remain unclear. Here, we show that cortical microglia mediate neuropathic pain in male mice by promoting BDNF-dependent somatosensory cortical plasticity. Depletion of BDNF from microglia either across the entire CNS or specifically within the S1 reduces dendritic spine remodeling and neuronal hyperactivity in cortical pyramidal neurons, as well as mechanical allodynia in male mice. These findings underscore the important role of BDNF derived from cortical microglia in the development of neuropathic pain in males.

Recent findings have revealed that the contributing role of microglia in chronic pain is male biased [35,36]. In the spinal cord, activating Toll-like receptor 4, which is primarily expressed by microglia, by the agonist lipopolysaccharide, causes pain behavior in male but not female mice [37]. In rodent models of chronic inflammatory and neuropathic pain, there is a male-specific activation of microglial signaling in the spinal cord, which includes the up-regulation of P2X4 receptors [38], phosphorylation of p38−mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) [39], and subsequent synthesis and release of BDNF [20]. Whether such male-biased microglial pathways also exist in the brain, contributing to pain hypersensitivity, is less investigated. In the present study, we showed at the mRNA level that microglia in the S1 displayed a lasting increase of gliotransmitters after peripheral nerve injury. Two weeks after injury, the increase of microglial Bdnf, Tnf-α, Il-6, and Il-1β occurred only in males, indicating a sex difference in brain microglial responses to peripheral nerve injury, which is consistent with recent transcriptomic findings that microglia in the healthy adult brain are sexually differentiated [40,41].

Following nerve injury or inflammatory insults in peripheral tissues, BDNF is up-regulated in the ipsilateral dorsal root ganglia, in the dorsal horn of the spinal cord, as well as in pain-processing brain regions such as the S1 and the ACC [4246]. Although the major source of BDNF appears to be neurons, BDNF can also be detected in oligodendrocytes, astrocytes, and microglia [47]. Previous studies have shown that Bdnf transcript is at very low levels in microglia in both brain and spinal cord [26,27]. Accordingly, our RNAscope data show that Bdnf transcripts can only be visualized in a fraction of microglia in the S1, and most of these cells possess only a few Bdnf mRNA puncta under physiological conditions. Despite this low basal level of microglial Bdnf mRNA, we found that the count of Bdnf transcripts within microglia increased substantially after peripheral nerve injury. Moreover, the level of microglial Bdnf remains persistently elevated in males, consistent with the previous study that genetic deletion of microglial BDNF alleviates mechanical allodynia in male mice only [20].

BDNF acts as an activity-dependent neuromodulator and has potent effects on synaptic plasticity and neuronal network excitability [4850]. Previous studies have shown that microglial BDNF is important for learning and learning-dependent synapse formation in the motor cortex [32]. In this study, we showed that BDNF derived from cortical microglia facilitates the maladaptive plasticity of cortical neurons after peripheral nerve injury. This was demonstrated by in vivo gene deletion experiments using Cx3cr1CreER/+;Bdnffl/fl mice. Through conditional gene inactivation, we show that nerve injury–induced dendritic spine remodeling and pyramidal neuron hyperactivity in the contralateral S1 can be prevented either by removing BDNF from the entire CNS microglia population or by depleting BDNF selectively from microglia located within the S1 contralateral to the nerve injury side. Importantly, mice lacking microglial BDNF either across the CNS or within the S1 exhibit decreased mechanical allodynia after peripheral nerve injury. Together, these results underscore the importance of microglia-derived BDNF in the alterations of somatosensory cortical circuits as they relate to chronic neuropathic pain.

The mechanisms underlying microglial BDNF–dependent neuronal plasticity remain to be determined. In the spinal cord, nerve injury increases ATP release from dorsal horn neurons, which activates P2X4 receptors of spinal microglia, resulting in the phosphorylation and activation of p38−MAPK and subsequently the expression and release of BDNF [5153]. Secreted BDNF binds neuronal TrkB receptors, leading to the down-regulation of potassium chloride cotransporter, which decreases the efficacy of GABAA-mediated inhibition, resulting in the increased excitability of spinal neurons [21]. In the cortex, microglial processes are highly motile [54], located in close proximity to synaptic terminals, and have been implicated in synapse formation and pruning [55,56]. Under conditions of neuropathic pain, there is a substantial elevation of synaptic activity in apical dendrites of S1 pyramidal neurons [13]. Because ATP, a robust chemoattractant of microglial processes, can be released from nerve terminals [57], enhanced sensory input into the S1 may recruit local microglia processes via an ATP-dependent mechanism to synthesize and release BDNF. Microglial BDNF could facilitate structural and functional remodeling of cortical neurons via similar mechanisms as demonstrated in the spinal cord. In addition, we found that microglia in the S1 up-regulate the expression of proinflammatory cytokines, including TNF-α, after peripheral nerve injury, and depletion of microglial BDNF prevents the increase of TNF-α. Given the important role of TNF-α in synaptic plasticity [58,59], it is also possible that cortical microglial BDNF promotes the neuronal plasticity in the S1 through the regulation of glial TNF-α.

Increasing evidence suggests that cortical circuits in the S1 actively contribute to the development of mechanical allodynia [1114]. Because peripheral nerve injury results in maladaptive changes along the entire pain transmission pathway, it has been difficult to identify whether the changes observed in the S1 are simply a consequence of maladaptive changes in peripheral and spinal neurons or have an active role in pain chronicity. Through region-targeted and cell type–specific gene deletion strategy, we showed that the removal of BDNF solely from S1 microglia prevented structural and functional changes of S1 neurons after peripheral nerve injury. Importantly, these mice with reduced S1 plasticity after injury showed less mechanical allodynia. Because local injection of tamoxifen into the S1 does not affect microglia in other regions of CNS, including the spinal cord, these results provide direct evidence that local circuit changes within the S1 directly contribute to the development of mechanical allodynia after peripheral nerve injury. These results in mice resonate with the clinical findings that the strategies to reduce S1 hyperexcitation and reorganization show benefits against chronic pain [60,61], supporting a modulatory role of S1 in peripheral neuropathic pain.

In summary, our study identifies cortical microglia BDNF as a key regulator of cortical plasticity induced by peripheral nerve injury. The results provide direct evidence for the involvement of somatosensory cortical circuits in the pathogenesis of pain hypersensitivity. Although the precise signaling pathways underlying microglial BDNF function remain to be investigated in the SNI and other pain models, this finding might be of great interest for future studies aimed at developing innovative therapeutic strategies for chronic neuropathic pain by providing a valid alternative to harness neuron-glial communication.

Materials and methods

Ethics statement

All experimental protocols were conducted according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines for animal research and approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) at New York University Medical Center (IACUC protocol # 16116–02) and Columbia University Medical Center (IACUC protocol # AAAW7462).

Animals

Thy1-YFP mice (H line) were purchased from the Jackson Laboratory (Stock No: 003782). Thy1-GCaMP6s mice and Cx3cr1CreER;Bdnfflox mice were generated in the laboratory of Dr. Wenbiao Gan [32,62]. For all experiments involving removal of microglial BDNF, Thy1-YFP and Thy1-GCaMP6s mice were crossed to Cx3cr1CreER/+;Bdnffl/+ (nondepleted control) or Cx3cr1CreER/+;Bdnffl/fl (microglia BDNF–depleted mice). Mice were group housed in New York University Skirball animal facility and Columbia University Eye Institute animal facility.

Spared nerve injury

SNI of the sciatic nerve or sham operation was performed under sterile conditions [30]. Adult mice (8 to 16 weeks) were deeply anesthetized, and the sciatic nerve and peripheral branches (common peroneal, tibial, and sural nerves) were exposed by a small incision in the left thigh. The 8.0 nylon thread was slipped under the common peroneal and tibial nerves to make a ligation and cut. The nerve dissection was minimal, and any contact with the sural nerve was avoided, leaving the sural nerve intact.

Electronic von Frey measurements

Mechanical pain threshold was measured using an Electronic von Frey Anesthesiometer, which consisted of a handheld force transducer fitted with a polypropylene tip (IITC, Life Science Instruments, USA). Mice were placed in acrylic cages (12 × 20 × 17 cm) with a mesh floor. During testing, the tip of the von Frey meter was applied perpendicularly to the mouse footpad with a gradual increase in pressure, until a flexion reflex was elicited. The pressure was automatically recorded when the paw withdrawal occurred. For each animal, the recording was repeated 3 times with more than 5 min in between, and the mean value was defined as the animal’s mechanical withdrawal threshold. Von Frey tests were performed by the same researcher who was blind to the experimental conditions.

Real-time quantitative PCR

One week after sham or SNI surgery, mice were perfused with PBS and S1 cortical tissues were collected. Microglia were isolated using fluorescence-activated cell sorting, and RNA was extracted from sorted microglia with an RNeasy Plus Mini Kit (Qiagen, USA). Extracted RNA (1 μg) was reverse transcribed into first-strand cDNA using Superscript II with Oligo(dT) (Life Technologies, USA). Quantitative reverse transcriptase PCR (qRT-PCR) was performed on an Opticon 2 thermal cycler (Biorad, USA) with FastStart Universal SYBR Green Master for the indicated genes (Roche, USA). The primers were designed and synthesized as follows: Bdnf, 5′-ACC CAT GGGATTACACTTGG-3′, 5′-AGCTGAGCGTGTGTGACAGT-3′; Eef2, 5′-TGTCAGTCATCGCCCATGTG-3′, 5′-CATCCTTGCGAGTGTCAGTGA-3′. Il-1β, 5′-TGGAGAGTGTGGATCC CAAGCAAT-3′, 5′-TGTCCTGACCACTGTTGTTTCCCA-3′; Il-6, 5′-CTGCAAGA GACTTCCATCCAGTT-3′, 5′-AAGTAGGGAAGGCCGTGGTT-3′; Tnf-α, 5′-TCG TAGCAAACCACCAAGTG-3′, 5′-CCTTGAAGAGAACCTGGGAGT-3′. The expression of Bdnf was normalized against Eef2. Data were derived from cells of 3 independent experiments from 8 mice for each group.

RNAscope fluorescence in situ hybridization and data analysis

Fresh-frozen brains from Cx3cr1CreER-EYFP mice were sectioned into 12-μm thick slices. To visualize Bdnf or Tnf-α mRNA in sections of the S1, fluorescence in situ hybridization was performed according to manufacturers’ instructions using the RNAscope Multiplex Fluorescent Reagent Kit v2 (#323100, Advanced Cell Diagnosis, USA). Prior to probe incubation, slices were pretreated with hydrogen peroxide (10 min, room temperature), Target Retrieval Reagent (5 min, 99°C), and RNAscope protease III (30 min, 40°C). Slices were incubated with Bdnf mRNA probes (#457761, Advanced Cell Diagnostics) targeting regions between bases 662 and 1,403 within the open reading frame or Tnf-α mRNA probes (#311081, Advanced Cell Diagnostics), and then hybridized to Opal 690 (PerkinElmer FP1497001KT) for visualization. Positive control probes (#312481, Advanced Cell Diagnostics) and negative control probes (#310043, Advanced Cell Diagnostics) were used in the parallel experiments to confirm specificity of hybridization. To visualize microglia together with mRNA puncta, brain slices were incubated at 4°C overnight with a primary antibody against GFP (1:250, Abcam, USA) and then for 2 h with Alexa Fluor 488-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG (1:500, Life Technologies, USA). After rinsing with PBS, the slices were incubated with DAPI solution (1:50,000) and mounted with ProLong Gold Antifade Mountant (Invitrogen, USA).

The images were acquired with a 40× objective at a zoom of 3.0 using a Zeiss LSM 800 confocal microscope. For each microscopic field of view (66 μm × 66 μm), a stack of 18 image planes at 0.5 μm increments along the z-axis were collected using the ZEN software, yielding a full three-dimensional data set. Microglia were identified from three-dimensional image stacks [32]. A total of 180 to 250 microglia from 4 animals per condition were examined for the presence of Bdnf mRNA, and the number of puncta per cell was quantified using the NIH ImageJ software. The negative controls were used to define the background during data analysis.

In vivo imaging of dendritic spines and data analysis

The surgical procedure for performing transcranial two-photon imaging has been described previously [31]. In brief, mice were deeply anesthetized with 100 mg/kg ketamine and 15 mg/kg xylazine. After a midline incision in the scalp, a custom-made mounting plate with a central opening was glued to the skull surface with its opening right on top of the hindlimb region of S1 (0.5 mm posterior and 1.6 mm lateral from the bregma). A thinned-skull window (200 μm in diameter, 20 μm in thickness) was then created using a high-speed drill and a microsurgical blade. After that, the animal was placed under a two-photon microscope, and the laser was tuned to the optimal excitation wavelength of YFP (920 nm). A 60× water immersion objective (1.1 N.A.) was used to collect image stacks within a depth of 100 μm from the pial surface with a zoom of 1.0 to 3.0 and a resolution of 512 × 512 pixels. After imaging, the mouting plate was gently removed from the skull, and the scalp was sutured with 6–0 nylon. Mice were returned to their home cages until the next viewing.

Data analysis was performed with the NIH ImageJ software as described previously [63]. The same dendritic segments were identified from the three-dimensional data sets collected at different time points. The number and location of dendritic protrusions were identified in each view and compared between views. Filopodia were classfied as long and thin structures without enlarged heads. The rest of dendrtic protrusions were categorized as spines. Spines in the second view were considered different if they were >0.7 μm away from their expected position in the first view on the basis of their spatial relationship to nearby spines and local landmarks. The formation or elimination rates of spines were quantified as the number of spines formed or eliminated divided by the number of spines existing in the first view.

In vivo Ca2+ imaging and data analysis

Ca2+ imaging was performed in awake, head-restrained mice [34]. To enable the head-fixation, a custom-made head holder was permanently attached to the animal’s skull using both glue and dental acrylic cement while the mouse was under deep anesthesia. After the cement was dry, a cranial window was created over the hindlimb region of S1. The procedure for preparing a thinned-skull window for two-photon imaging has been described in detail in previous publications [31]. Upon completion, the window was covered with silicone elastomer and mice were returned to their home cages to recover for at least 24 h. Before imaging, mice with the head holder were habituated to a mounting device 3 times (10 min each) to minimize the potential stress related to the head-fixation.

During imaging, the head holder was screwed to the mounting device and the silicon elastomer was peeled off to expose the cranial window. The Ca2+ imaging experiments were performed using an Olympus two-photon system equipped with a DeepSee Ti:sapphire laser (Spectra Physics, USA). Images were collected at a frame rate of 2 Hz and a resolution of 256 × 512 pixels using a 25× water immersion objective (1.05 N.A.). Image acquisition was performed using Olympus FV1000 software and analyzed post hoc using the NIH ImageJ software. The fluorescence time course was measured by averaging all pixels within the regions of interest covering a soma after the correction of background. ΔF/F0 was calculated by (FF0) / F0, where F0 is the baseline fluorescence signal averaged over a 20-s period corresponding to the lowest fluorescence signal during the 2.5-min recording period. The mean AUC (area under the curve) over 2.5 min was presented as the somatic Ca2+ activity under various conditions. To determine stimulation-evoked neuronal responses, a von Frey filament was applied to the plantar surface of mouse paw for 10 s, and Ca2+ recording during this period was divided into 10 bins equally. A z-score for each bin was calculated relative to 10 bins of prestimulation period. Neurons were classified as showing increased responses if any stimulation bin exceeded 2. Neurons were classified as showing decreased responses if any stimulation bin exceeded −2.

Tamoxifen-induced recombination

All Cx3cr1CreER/+ mice received tamoxifen on P30 and P32. For systemic administration, tamoxifen (Sigma, USA) was dissolved in corn oil (Sigma, USA) and given to mice by oral gavage. Animals received 2 doses of 10 mg tamoxifen with 48 h in between. For intracranial administration, 4-OHT was solubilized in Cremophor EL (Sigma, USA) and delivered to the mouse cortex by stereotaxic microinjection. A total of 200 μM 4-OHT was diluted 10 times in artificial cerebrospinal fluid and slowly injected (Picospritzer III; 15 p.s.i., 10 ms, 0.5 Hz) over 30 to 45 min into L5 (depth of 500 to 800 μm) of the S1 using a glass microelectrode around the coordinates of 0.5 mm posterior and 1.8 mm lateral from the bregma.

Statistics

Prism software (GraphPad 7.05) was used to conduct the statistical analysis. Data were presented as mean ± SEM. Tests for differences between populations were performed using a two-tailed Student t test or a one- or two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni or Tukey tests as specified in the text. Significant levels were set at P < 0.05.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Confocal z-stack images showing Bdnf mRNA within the microglia.

Orthogonal sections from z-stack confocal images of microglia (green), Bdnf mRNA (red), and DAPI (blue) in sham (left) and SNI (right) groups. Bdnf, brain-derived neurotrophic factor; SNI, spared sciatic nerve injury.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Peripheral nerve injury has no effect on dendritic spine density in the S1.

(A) The net change of total spine number in the S1 at various time points after sham or SNI surgery. (B) Density of dendritic spines on the apical tuft dendrites of L5 pyramidal neurons from SNI and sham mice (sham: 1074 spines, n = 7 mice; SNI: 1,106 spines, n = 7 mice). Data are presented as means ± SEM unpaired t test. The data underlying this figure can be found in S1 Data. L5, layer 5; SNI, spared sciatic nerve injury; S1, primary somatosensory cortex.

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Absence of Bdnf mRNA in microglia in tamoxifen-treated Cx3cr1CreER/+;Bdnffl/fl mice.

(A) RNAscope fluorescence in situ hybridization in the S1 of Cx3cr1CreER/+;Bdnffl/fl mice. Red, Bdnf mRNA probe hybridization. Green, Cx3cr1-EYFP+ microglia. Blue, DAPI. Scale bar, 20 μm. (B) Normalized levels of Bdnf mRNA in microglia (n = 3 mice per group). **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001; by one-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni multiple comparisons test. The data underlying this figure can be found in S1 Data. Bdnf, brain-derived neurotrophic factor; S1, primary somatosensory cortex; S1HL, hindlimb region of S1.

(TIF)

S4 Fig. SNI-induced microglia Tnf-α expression was abolished by depletion of microglial BDNF.

(A) RNAscope fluorescence in situ hybridization in the S1 of sham and SNI mice with or without microglial BDNF. (upper) Sham Cx3cr1CreER/+;Bdnffl/+, (middle) SNI Cx3cr1CreER/+;Bdnffl/+, (bottom) SNI Cx3cr1CreER/+;Bdnffl/fl. Red color represents Tnf-α mRNA probe hybridization. Green color indicates Cx3cr1-EYFP+ microglia. Blue, DAPI. Scale bar, 10 μm. (B) Normalized levels of Tnf-α mRNA in microglia (n = 3 mice per group). *P < 0.05. **P < 0.01; by one-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni multiple comparisons test. The data underlying this figure can be found in S1 Data. BDNF, brain-derived neurotrophic factor; SNI, spared sciatic nerve injury; S1, primary somatosensory cortex.

(TIF)

S5 Fig. Enhanced sensory-evoked neuronal Ca2+ activity in the S1 of mice with neuropathic pain.

(A, B) Averaged somatic Ca2+ activity over 10 s in S1 PYR neurons before and during mechanical stimulation by 1 g (A) or 2 g (B) von Frey hair at 1 week after surgery (sham: 5 mice; SNI: 8 mice). (C–E) Averaged somatic Ca2+ activity over 10 s in S1 PYR neurons before and during 0.6 g (C), 1 g (D), or 2 g (E) paw stimulation at 2 weeks after surgery (sham: 5 mice; SNI: 5 mice). Throughout, individual circle represents data from a single cell. ***P < 0.001, ns, not significant; by paired t test. The data underlying this figure can be found in S1 Data. PYR, pyramidal; SNI, spared sciatic nerve injury; S1, primary somatosensory cortex.

(TIF)

S1 Data. Data underlying Figs 1A, 1C, 1E, 1F, 2D, 2E, 3C–3F, 4C–4E, 5D, 5F, 5H, 5I, 6C–6E, 7D, 8B, 8C, 8E–8G, S2A, S2B, S3B, S4B, and S5.

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We thank Gan lab and Yang lab members for helpful discussions.

Abbreviations

AUC

area under the curve

BDNF

brain-derived neurotrophic factor

CNS

central nervous system

EYFP

enhanced yellow fluorescent protein

IACUC

Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee

L5

layer 5

MAPK

mitogen-activated protein kinase

NIH

National Institutes of Health

qRT-PCR

quantitative reverse transcriptase PCR

SNI

spared sciatic nerve injury

S1

primary somatosensory cortex

YFP

yellow fluorescent protein

4-OHT

4-hydroxytamoxifen

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (https://www.nih.gov/) R21NS106469 (G.Y.), R35GM131765 (G.Y.), R01AA027108 (G. Y. and W.-B.G.) and R01GM115384 (J.W.). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Baron R. Neuropathic pain: a clinical perspective. Handb Exp Pharmacol 2009:(194):3–30. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-79090-7_1 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Costigan M, Scholz J, Woolf CJ. Neuropathic Pain: A Maladaptive Response of the Nervous System to Damage. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2009;32:1–32. doi: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.051508.135531 WOS:000268504100001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Kim W, Kim SK, Nabekura J. Functional and structural plasticity in the primary somatosensory cortex associated with chronic pain. J Neurochem. 2017;141(4):499–506. doi: 10.1111/jnc.14012 WOS:000400692200003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Liu Y, Latremoliere A, Li X, Zhang Z, Chen M, Wang X, et al. Touch and tactile neuropathic pain sensitivity are set by corticospinal projections. Nature. 2018;561(7724):547–50. Epub 2018/09/14. doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0515-2 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6163083. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Flor H, Braun C, Elbert T, Birbaumer N. Extensive reorganization of primary somatosensory cortex in chronic back pain patients. Neurosci Lett. 1997;224(1):5–8. doi: 10.1016/s0304-3940(97)13441-3 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Flor H, Elbert T, Knecht S, Wienbruch C, Pantev C, Birbaumer N, et al. Phantom-Limb Pain as a Perceptual Correlate of Cortical Reorganization Following Arm Amputation. Nature. 1995;375(6531):482–4. doi: 10.1038/375482a0 WOS:A1995RC18800046. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Kim CE, Kim YK, Chung G, Jeong JM, Lee DS, Kim J, et al. Large-scale plastic changes of the brain network in an animal model of neuropathic pain. Neuroimage. 2014;98:203–15. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.04.063 WOS:000339706700020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Peyron R, Schneider F, Faillenot I, Convers P, Barral FG, Garcia-Larrea L, et al. An fMRI study of cortical representation of mechanical allodynia in patients with neuropathic pain. Neurology. 2004;63(10):1838–46. doi: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000144177.61125.85 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Mao J, Mayer DJ, Price DD. Patterns of increased brain activity indicative of pain in a rat model of peripheral mononeuropathy. J Neurosci. 1993;13(6):2689–702. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.13-06-02689.1993 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Kim SK, Nabekura J. Rapid synaptic remodeling in the adult somatosensory cortex following peripheral nerve injury and its association with neuropathic pain. J Neurosci. 2011;31(14):5477–82. Epub 2011/04/08. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0328-11.2011 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Kim SK, Hayashi H, Ishikawa T, Shibata K, Shigetomi E, Shinozaki Y, et al. Cortical astrocytes rewire somatosensory cortical circuits for peripheral neuropathic pain. J Clin Invest. 2016;126(5):1983–97. doi: 10.1172/JCI82859 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4855913. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Eto K, Wake H, Watanabe M, Ishibashi H, Noda M, Yanagawa Y, et al. Inter-regional contribution of enhanced activity of the primary somatosensory cortex to the anterior cingulate cortex accelerates chronic pain behavior. J Neurosci. 2011;31(21):7631–6. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0946-11.2011 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Cichon J, Blanck TJJ, Gan WB, Yang G. Activation of cortical somatostatin interneurons prevents the development of neuropathic pain. Nat Neurosci. 2017;20(8):1122–32. Epub 2017/07/04. doi: 10.1038/nn.4595 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5559271. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Eto K, Ishibashi H, Yoshimura T, Watanabe M, Miyamoto A, Ikenaka K, et al. Enhanced GABAergic activity in the mouse primary somatosensory cortex is insufficient to alleviate chronic pain behavior with reduced expression of neuronal potassium-chloride cotransporter. J Neurosci. 2012;32(47):16552–9. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2104-12.2012 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.De Ridder D, De Mulder G, Menovsky T, Sunaert S, Kovacs S. Electrical stimulation of auditory and somatosensory cortices for treatment of tinnitus and pain. Prog Brain Res. 2007;166:377–88. doi: 10.1016/S0079-6123(07)66036-1 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Antal A, Brepohl N, Poreisz C, Boros K, Csifcsak G, Paulus W. Transcranial direct current stimulation over somatosensory cortex decreases experimentally induced acute pain perception. Clin J Pain. 2008;24(1):56–63. Epub 2008/01/09. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0b013e318157233b . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Grace PM, Hutchinson MR, Maier SF, Watkins LR. Pathological pain and the neuroimmune interface. Nat Rev Immunol. 2014;14(4):217–31. doi: 10.1038/nri3621 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Ji RR, Chamessian A, Zhang YQ. Pain regulation by non-neuronal cells and inflammation. Science. 2016;354(6312):572–7. doi: 10.1126/science.aaf8924 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Salter MW, Stevens B. Microglia emerge as central players in brain disease. Nat Med. 2017;23(9):1018–27. Epub 2017/09/09. doi: 10.1038/nm.4397 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Sorge RE, Mapplebeck JC, Rosen S, Beggs S, Taves S, Alexander JK, et al. Different immune cells mediate mechanical pain hypersensitivity in male and female mice. Nat Neurosci. 2015;18(8):1081–3. doi: 10.1038/nn.4053 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4772157. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Coull JA, Beggs S, Boudreau D, Boivin D, Tsuda M, Inoue K, et al. BDNF from microglia causes the shift in neuronal anion gradient underlying neuropathic pain. Nature. 2005;438(7070):1017–21. Epub 2005/12/16. doi: 10.1038/nature04223 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Peng J, Gu N, Zhou L, U BE, Murugan M, Gan WB, et al. Microglia and monocytes synergistically promote the transition from acute to chronic pain after nerve injury. Nat Commun. 2016;7:12029. doi: 10.1038/ncomms12029 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4931235. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Zhou LJ, Peng J, Xu YN, Zeng WJ, Zhang J, Wei X, et al. Microglia Are Indispensable for Synaptic Plasticity in the Spinal Dorsal Horn and Chronic Pain. Cell Rep. 2019;27(13):3844–59 e6. Epub 2019/06/27. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2019.05.087 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7060767. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Ferrini F, Trang T, Mattioli TA, Laffray S, Del’Guidice T, Lorenzo LE, et al. Morphine hyperalgesia gated through microglia-mediated disruption of neuronal Cl(−) homeostasis. Nat Neurosci. 2013;16(2):183–92. doi: 10.1038/nn.3295 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4974077. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Zhang F, Vadakkan KI, Kim SS, Wu LJ, Shang Y, Zhuo M. Selective activation of microglia in spinal cord but not higher cortical regions following nerve injury in adult mouse. Mol Pain. 2008;4:15. Epub 2008/04/22. doi: 10.1186/1744-8069-4-15 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2374773. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Bennett ML, Bennett FC, Liddelow SA, Ajami B, Zamanian JL, Fernhoff NB, et al. New tools for studying microglia in the mouse and human CNS. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113(12):E1738–46. Epub 2016/02/18. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1525528113 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4812770. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Denk F, Crow M, Didangelos A, Lopes DM, McMahon SB. Persistent Alterations in Microglial Enhancers in a Model of Chronic Pain. Cell Rep. 2016;15(8):1771–81. Epub 2016/05/18. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2016.04.063 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Decosterd I, Woolf CJ. Spared nerve injury: an animal model of persistent peripheral neuropathic pain. Pain. 2000;87(2):149–58. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3959(00)00276-1 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Bourquin AF, Suveges M, Pertin M, Gilliard N, Sardy S, Davison AC, et al. Assessment and analysis of mechanical allodynia-like behavior induced by spared nerve injury (SNI) in the mouse. Pain. 2006;122(1–2):14 e1–. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2005.10.036 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Cichon J, Sun L, Yang G. Spared Nerve Injury Model of Neuropathic Pain in Mice. Bio Protoc. 2018;8(6):e2777. doi: 10.21769/bioprotoc.2777 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Yang G, Pan F, Parkhurst CN, Grutzendler J, Gan WB. Thinned-skull cranial window technique for long-term imaging of the cortex in live mice. Nat Protoc. 2010;5(2):201–8. Epub 2010/02/06. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2009.222 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Parkhurst CN, Yang G, Ninan I, Savas JN, Yates JR 3rd, Lafaille JJ, et al. Microglia promote learning-dependent synapse formation through brain-derived neurotrophic factor. Cell. 2013;155(7):1596–609. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.11.030 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4033691. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Rios M, Fan G, Fekete C, Kelly J, Bates B, Kuehn R, et al. Conditional deletion of brain-derived neurotrophic factor in the postnatal brain leads to obesity and hyperactivity. Mol Endocrinol. 2001;15(10):1748–57. doi: 10.1210/mend.15.10.0706 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Yang G, Pan F, Chang PC, Gooden F, Gan WB. Transcranial two-photon imaging of synaptic structures in the cortex of awake head-restrained mice. Methods Mol Biol. 2013;1010:35–43. Epub 2013/06/12. doi: 10.1007/978-1-62703-411-1_3 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Halievski K, Ghazisaeidi S, Salter MW. Sex-Dependent Mechanisms of Chronic Pain: A Focus on Microglia and P2X4R. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2020;375(1):202–9. Epub 2020/03/03. doi: 10.1124/jpet.120.265017 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Saika F, Matsuzaki S, Kobayashi D, Ideguchi Y, Nakamura TY, Kishioka S, et al. Chemogenetic Regulation of CX3CR1-Expressing Microglia Using Gi-DREADD Exerts Sex-Dependent Anti-Allodynic Effects in Mouse Models of Neuropathic Pain. Front Pharmacol. 2020;11:925. Epub 2020/07/09. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2020.00925 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7318895. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Sorge RE, LaCroix-Fralish ML, Tuttle AH, Sotocinal SG, Austin JS, Ritchie J, et al. Spinal cord Toll-like receptor 4 mediates inflammatory and neuropathic hypersensitivity in male but not female mice. J Neurosci. 2011;31(43):15450–4. Epub 2011/10/28. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3859-11.2011 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3218430. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Mapplebeck JCS, Dalgarno R, Tu Y, Moriarty O, Beggs S, Kwok CHT, et al. Microglial P2X4R-evoked pain hypersensitivity is sexually dimorphic in rats. Pain. 2018;159(9):1752–63. Epub 2018/06/22. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001265 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Taves S, Berta T, Liu DL, Gan S, Chen G, Kim YH, et al. Spinal inhibition of p38 MAP kinase reduces inflammatory and neuropathic pain in male but not female mice: Sex-dependent microglial signaling in the spinal cord. Brain Behav Immun. 2016;55:70–81. Epub 2015/10/17. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2015.10.006 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5502100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Guneykaya D, Ivanov A, Hernandez DP, Haage V, Wojtas B, Meyer N, et al. Transcriptional and Translational Differences of Microglia from Male and Female Brains. Cell Rep. 2018;24(10):2773–83 e6. Epub 2018/09/06. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2018.08.001 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Villa A, Gelosa P, Castiglioni L, Cimino M, Rizzi N, Pepe G, et al. Sex-Specific Features of Microglia from Adult Mice. Cell Rep. 2018;23(12):3501–11. Epub 2018/06/21. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2018.05.048 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6024879. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Zhou XF, Chie ET, Deng YS, Zhong JH, Xue Q, Rush RA, et al. Injured primary sensory neurons switch phenotype for brain-derived neurotrophic factor in the rat. Neuroscience. 1999;92(3):841–53. doi: 10.1016/s0306-4522(99)00027-5 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Ha SO, Kim JK, Hong HS, Kim DS, Cho HJ. Expression of brain-derived neurotrophic factor in rat dorsal root ganglia, spinal cord and gracile nuclei in experimental models of neuropathic pain. Neuroscience. 2001;107(2):301–9. doi: 10.1016/s0306-4522(01)00353-0 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Thibault K, Lin WK, Rancillac A, Fan M, Snollaerts T, Sordoillet V, et al. BDNF-dependent plasticity induced by peripheral inflammation in the primary sensory and the cingulate cortex triggers cold allodynia and reveals a major role for endogenous BDNF as a tuner of the affective aspect of pain. J Neurosci. 2014;34(44):14739–51. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0860-14.2014 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Mannion RJ, Costigan M, Decosterd I, Amaya F, Ma QP, Holstege JC, et al. Neurotrophins: peripherally and centrally acting modulators of tactile stimulus-induced inflammatory pain hypersensitivity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999;96(16):9385–90. Epub 1999/08/04. doi: 10.1073/pnas.96.16.9385 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC17792. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Fukuoka T, Kondo E, Dai Y, Hashimoto N, Noguchi K. Brain-derived neurotrophic factor increases in the uninjured dorsal root ganglion neurons in selective spinal nerve ligation model. J Neurosci. 2001;21(13):4891–900. Epub 2001/06/27. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.21-13-04891.2001 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6762362. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Dougherty KD, Dreyfus CF, Black IB. Brain-derived neurotrophic factor in astrocytes, oligodendrocytes, and microglia/macrophages after spinal cord injury. Neurobiol Dis. 2000;7(6 Pt B):574–85. doi: 10.1006/nbdi.2000.0318 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Chao MV. Neurotrophins and their receptors: A convergence point for many signalling pathways. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2003;4(4):299–309. doi: 10.1038/nrn1078 WOS:000182021500017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Ferrini F, De Koninck Y. Microglia control neuronal network excitability via BDNF signalling. Neural Plast. 2013;2013:429815. Epub 2013/10/04. doi: 10.1155/2013/429815 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3780625. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Chakravarthy S, Saiepour MH, Bence M, Perry S, Hartman R, Couey JJ, et al. Postsynaptic TrkB signaling has distinct roles in spine maintenance in adult visual cortex and hippocampus. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006;103(4):1071–6. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0506305103 WOS:000234938300043. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Tsuda M, Shigemoto-Mogami Y, Koizumi S, Mizokoshi A, Kohsaka S, Salter MW, et al. P2X4 receptors induced in spinal microglia gate tactile allodynia after nerve injury. Nature. 2003;424(6950):778–83. doi: 10.1038/nature01786 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Ulmann L, Hatcher JP, Hughes JP, Chaumont S, Green PJ, Conquet F, et al. Up-regulation of P2X4 receptors in spinal microglia after peripheral nerve injury mediates BDNF release and neuropathic pain. J Neurosci. 2008;28(44):11263–8. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2308-08.2008 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Trang T, Beggs S, Wan X, Salter MW. P2X4-Receptor-Mediated Synthesis and Release of Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor in Microglia Is Dependent on Calcium and p38-Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase Activation. J Neurosci. 2009;29(11):3518–28. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5714-08.2009 WOS:000264342100019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Davalos D, Grutzendler J, Yang G, Kim JV, Zuo Y, Jung S, et al. ATP mediates rapid microglial response to local brain injury in vivo. Nat Neurosci. 2005;8(6):752–8. doi: 10.1038/nn1472 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Weinhard L, di Bartolomei G, Bolasco G, Machado P, Schieber NL, Neniskyte U, et al. Microglia remodel synapses by presynaptic trogocytosis and spine head filopodia induction. Nat Commun. 2018;9(1):1228. Epub 2018/03/28. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-03566-5 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5964317. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Miyamoto A, Wake H, Ishikawa AW, Eto K, Shibata K, Murakoshi H, et al. Microglia contact induces synapse formation in developing somatosensory cortex. Nat Commun. 2016;7:12540. Epub 2016/08/26. doi: 10.1038/ncomms12540 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5007295. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Burnstock G. Physiology and pathophysiology of purinergic neurotransmission. Physiol Rev. 2007;87(2):659–797. doi: 10.1152/physrev.00043.2006 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Stellwagen D, Malenka RC. Synaptic scaling mediated by glial TNF-alpha. Nature. 2006;440(7087):1054–9. Epub 2006/03/21. doi: 10.1038/nature04671 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Garre JM, Silva HM, Lafaille JJ, Yang G. CX3CR1(+) monocytes modulate learning and learning-dependent dendritic spine remodeling via TNF-alpha. Nat Med. 2017;23(6):714–22. Epub 2017/05/16. doi: 10.1038/nm.4340 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5590232. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Flor H, Denke C, Schaefer M, Grusser S. Effect of sensory discrimination training on cortical reorganisation and phantom limb pain. Lancet. 2001;357(9270):1763–4. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04890-X . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Lotze M, Grodd W, Birbaumer N, Erb M, Huse E, Flor H. Does use of a myoelectric prosthesis prevent cortical reorganization and phantom limb pain? Nat Neurosci. 1999;2(6):501–2. doi: 10.1038/9145 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Cichon J, Magrane J, Shtridler E, Chen C, Sun L, Yang G, et al. Imaging neuronal activity in the central and peripheral nervous systems using new Thy1.2-GCaMP6 transgenic mouse lines. J Neurosci Methods. 2020;334:108535. Epub 2020/01/24. doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2019.108535 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Yang G, Pan F, Gan WB. Stably maintained dendritic spines are associated with lifelong memories. Nature. 2009;462(7275):920–4. Epub 2009/12/01. doi: 10.1038/nature08577 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4724802. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Lucas Smith

24 Aug 2020

Dear Dr Huang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "Cerebral microglial BDNF promotes peripheral nerve injury-induced cortical plasticity and pain hypersensitivity" for consideration as a Research Article by PLOS Biology.

Your manuscript has now been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editorial staff as well as by an academic editor with relevant expertise and I am writing to let you know that we would like to send your submission out for external peer review.

However, before we can send your manuscript to reviewers, we need you to complete your submission by providing the metadata that is required for full assessment. To this end, please login to Editorial Manager where you will find the paper in the 'Submissions Needing Revisions' folder on your homepage. Please click 'Revise Submission' from the Action Links and complete all additional questions in the submission questionnaire.

Please re-submit your manuscript within two working days, i.e. by Aug 26 2020 11:59PM.

Login to Editorial Manager here: https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology

During resubmission, you will be invited to opt-in to posting your pre-review manuscript as a bioRxiv preprint. Visit http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/preprints for full details. If you consent to posting your current manuscript as a preprint, please upload a single Preprint PDF when you re-submit.

Once your full submission is complete, your paper will undergo a series of checks in preparation for peer review. Once your manuscript has passed all checks it will be sent out for review.

Given the disruptions resulting from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, please expect delays in the editorial process. We apologise in advance for any inconvenience caused and will do our best to minimize impact as far as possible.

Feel free to email us at plosbiology@plos.org if you have any queries relating to your submission.

Kind regards,

Lucas Smith, Ph.D.,

Associate Editor

PLOS Biology

Decision Letter 1

Lucas Smith

15 Oct 2020

Dear Dr Huang,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Cerebral microglial BDNF promotes peripheral nerve injury-induced cortical plasticity and pain hypersensitivity" for consideration as a Research Article at PLOS Biology. Your manuscript has been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editors, an Academic Editor with relevant expertise, and by several independent reviewers.

The reviews of your manuscript are appended below. As you will see from their detailed responses, the reviewers agree that the study presents potentially interesting findings, but argue that the findings need to be bolstered with additional data and analyses to be suitable for publication in PLOS Biology. In particular, all three reviewers raise concerns with the sole use of male mice, given the known sexual dimorphism of microglial BDNF in neuropathic pain. Having discussed the reviewers’ comments with an Academic Editor, we appreciate that the request to perform additional experiments in female mice is a large undertaking, however, we feel that adding such analyses is essential. Reviewers 1 and 2 additionally raised concerns with the RNAscope analysis in Figure 2, and Reviewer 2 asked for further analyses of other signaling molecules.

We will not be able to accept the current version of the manuscript, but we would welcome re-submission of a much-revised version that addresses the reviewers' comments. We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent for further evaluation by the reviewers.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within 3 months. However if you feel that some experiments may take longer than that, especially given the COVID-19 pandemic, and we would be happy to extend the time for revision.

Please email us (plosbiology@plos.org) if you have any questions or concerns, or would like to request an extension. At this stage, your manuscript remains formally under active consideration at our journal; please notify us by email if you do not intend to submit a revision so that we may end consideration of the manuscript at PLOS Biology.

**IMPORTANT - SUBMITTING YOUR REVISION**

Your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer. Please submit the following files along with your revised manuscript:

1. A 'Response to Reviewers' file - this should detail your responses to the editorial requests, present a point-by-point response to all of the reviewers' comments, and indicate the changes made to the manuscript.

*NOTE: In your point by point response to the reviewers, please provide the full context of each review. Do not selectively quote paragraphs or sentences to reply to. The entire set of reviewer comments should be present in full and each specific point should be responded to individually, point by point.

You should also cite any additional relevant literature that has been published since the original submission and mention any additional citations in your response.

2. In addition to a clean copy of the manuscript, please also upload a 'track-changes' version of your manuscript that specifies the edits made. This should be uploaded as a "Related" file type.

*Re-submission Checklist*

When you are ready to resubmit your revised manuscript, please refer to this re-submission checklist: https://plos.io/Biology_Checklist

To submit a revised version of your manuscript, please go to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/ and log in as an Author. Click the link labelled 'Submissions Needing Revision' where you will find your submission record.

Please make sure to read the following important policies and guidelines while preparing your revision:

*Published Peer Review*

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. Please see here for more details:

https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/05/plos-journals-now-open-for-published-peer-review/

*PLOS Data Policy*

Please note that as a condition of publication PLOS' data policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/data-availability) requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions arrived at in your manuscript. If you have not already done so, you must include any data used in your manuscript either in appropriate repositories, within the body of the manuscript, or as supporting information (N.B. this includes any numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.). For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5

*Blot and Gel Data Policy*

We require the original, uncropped and minimally adjusted images supporting all blot and gel results reported in an article's figures or Supporting Information files. We will require these files before a manuscript can be accepted so please prepare them now, if you have not already uploaded them. Please carefully read our guidelines for how to prepare and upload this data: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements

*Protocols deposition*

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/submission-guidelines#loc-materials-and-methods

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive thus far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Lucas Smith, Ph.D.,

Associate Editor,

lsmith@plos.org,

PLOS Biology

*****************************************************

REVIEWS:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Marie-Eve Tremblay

Reviewer #1: This is a very interesting paper to investigate the role of microglial BDNF in the S1 sensory cortex for neuropathic pain after spared nerve injury (SNI). The authors used several cutting-edge techniques such as in vivo two-photon imaging of morphological changes (dendrites) and functional changes (calcium increase) and Cx3cr1CreER:Bdnfflox mice. The data showed that conditional knockout of BDNF from microglia can prevent nerve injury-induced synaptic remodeling and pyramidal neuron hyperactivity in the S1, as well as pain hypersensitivity in mice. Finally, the authors showed that S1 targeted removal of microglial BDNF via intracranial administration of tamoxifen could largely reproduce the beneficial effects of systemic BDNF depletion on cortical plasticity and mechanical allodynia. Notably, the authors examined the morphology, cell density and process motility of microglia in the S1 after nerve injury and observed no differences in the morphology and density of microglia in the S1 between SNI and sham mice (Fig 1B, C). This result is important to suggest that microglia can regulate pain even in the absence of obvious morphological changes. Overall, this is well conducted study, and the findings are significant. The following issues should be addressed before the paper is accepted for publication.

1) The RNAscope data for BDNF in figure 2 is underwhelming. There seems to be a change in BDNF mRNA between sham and nerve injury, but it seems like most of the signal is outside of microglia and it is difficult to see if the signal is above or below the microglial cells. Please describe the way the images are acquired. It will be helpful to show a confocal Z-stack to show the RNA puncta within the microglia.

2) It is difficult to see Bdnf mRNA expression by 60% of microglia. In Fig. 2A with SNI, it looks only one microglial cell showing clear puncta in a field of 5 microglia.

3) If you only have 2 puncta per microglial cell, how is the background defined for RNAscope? I wonder if you did RNAscope using Cx3cr1CreER/+:Bdnffl/fl mice.

4) Fig. 2E. It is unclear how many animals were used for the quantification. How many sections were evaluated per animal? I wonder if the sample size is based on the number of sections or number of microglia instead of number of animals?

5) Male mice were used in this study. Spinal microglial BDNF signaling was shown to be male dominant in neuropathic pain. I wonder if there is sex difference in cortical microglia.

Other comments:

Discussion: "Following nerve injury or inflammation in peripheral tissues, BDNF is upregulated in the ipsilateral dorsal root ganglia, in the dorsal horn of the spinal cord, as well as in supraspinal regions and various cortical areas such as the S1 and the ACC (ref 37-39)". The authors may check earlier studies showing BDNF upregulation in DRG neurons in inflammatory pain and neuropathic pain (PMID: 10430952; PMID: 11425916).

Discussion: "targeting microglia-neuron signaling pathways in the somatosensory circuits could be an effective strategy to prevent and treat chronic neuropathic pain". It will be difficult to target this signaling pathway in the S1 cortex without causing side effects. This brain region is also difficult to access using non-invasive method. BDNF also has beneficial effects. Additional discussion will help the paper.

Reviewer #2: The present investigation by Huang et al was undertaken to identify a role of microglia in abnormal cortical plasticity associated with the spared nerve injury (SNI)-induced neuropathic pain. In this study, authors noted no change in the cortical microglia morphology and density, and a mild change in the motility of microglia processes post-SNI. Also, it was reported that the expression of Bdnf mRNA was upregulated in microglia of the contralateral primary somatosensory cortex (S1), assessed using qPCR and RNAscope fluorescence in situ hybridization. In a series of experiments involving the use of transgenic mice and two-photon imaging authors observed that the SNI mice show an increase in synapse remodeling (increase in elimination and formation of dendritic spines) and somatic Ca2+ responses in L5 neurons. However, upon genetic depletion of BDNF, synaptic remodeling, neuronal hyperactivation and mechanical allodynia was prevented. Based on the findings presented here, authors propose that microglia-neuron signaling involving BDNF is important for abnormal cortical plasticity pertaining to chronic pain caused by traumatic peripheral nerve injury.

Major Comments to the Authors:

1. Microglial BDNF involvement in SNI pain behavior has been reported to be restricted to male specific pain pathways (Sorge 2015, Zhou 2019, Saika 2020). Therefore the authors must test the necessity of microglial BDNF in S1 cortex in female mice with SNI. If there is no sex difference, this would be a highly intriguing finding. The Authors should also consider local tamoxifen-induced knockout of BDNF in the spinal cord to ascertain if spinal microglial-derived BDNF is dispensable for pain behaviors in male and female mice.

2. Molecular assessment was not performed on tamoxifen treated CX3CR1-BDNF(fl/fl) mice to determine whether Bdnf mRNA was indeed depleted. As in Figure 1F, the authors need to perform qPCR for Bdnf expression in isolated microglia from the knockout mice. Additionally, the Authors need to measure IL-6, IL-1beta and TNF-alpha as well in the knockout cells. Liu 2017 has shown that brain TNF-alpha from microglia regulates synaptic plasticity and spine formation after SNI, and Rossetti 2019 has shown that IL-1beta in some parts of the brain increases in expression in females after BDNF knockout. Therefore it is necessary for the Authors to assess if microglia from tamoxifen treated CX3CR1-BDNF(fl/fl) mice express these signaling transcripts differentially as any of these molecules may provide a mechanistic explanation for the observed dendritic spine remodeling.

3. The RNAscope assessment of Bdnf mRNA puncta is not convincing. The Bdnf mRNA puncta are distributed across the images but very few are localized over microglia somata. The'yellow' puncta could represent neuronal, or other, sources overlapping the soma of the microglia. The Authors need to show the side profiles for these images to show the readers whether the signals are present inside the soma of microglia. Additionally, the Authors need to perform RNAscope in brain sections from the microglia Bdnf knockout. It is surprising this was not done as it would provide irrefutable evidence supporting the validity of using RNAscope to detect Bdnf mRNA in microglia.

4. Regarding somatic Ca2+ recordings. The figure panels for the analyses unclear. For example, in figure 5C, it is not clear how percent change is calculated given that the 'baseline' is changing. Which part of these traces are used as baseline? Is the measured change the distance of peaks vs baseline? Why not calculate area under the curve? In the figure 5D, does 0% mean no change from baseline (ie, 100% equal to baseline)? For evoked Ca2+ measurements, it is mentioned in the method that the 10s prior to evoked stimulation is used as baseline. However, in all the figures showing raw traces during evoked stimulation, the baselines are cut off. The Authors should show at minimum a full 20s of traces prior to the evoked stimulation so that the readers can see what the baseline looked like. Area under the curve would seem to be a better measure of Ca2+ signal, doesn't require establishing a baseline and is easier to interpret.

5. Regarding Figure 8D,E. The Authors need to show spontaneous Ca2+ traces akin to Figure 6. Did local S1 depletion of Bdnf affect spontaneous Ca2+ transients in S1 neurons?

Other comments to the Authors:

1. Typo (text says 'BNDF' - it should be 'BDNF') under intro section - paragraph 3, results fig 7 description

2. Regarding Figure 1F. It is well known that activity of microglia affects expression of actin and actin regulatory molecules. The use of actin mRNA as a single reference for microglia gene expression is questionable. It is commonly accepted to use Hprt1, 18S, Eef2 or Abt1 as reference genes for microglia/macrophage cells. The authors should consider repeating the experiments in figure 1F with a more appropriate reference gene(s). Additionally, the figure includes the double normalized Sham groups (ddCT method). This is unnecessary and only the SNI can be displayed with a dashed line across the value of 1 to depict the doubly normalized sham values. Ideally the authors should display only the dCT values (singly normalized) for both the sham and SNI groups in order to show the readers the degree of variation present in the Sham groups and also the degree of detectability for each of the transcripts.

3. Regarding Figure 7B. Why is there no background signal in spinal cord DsRed panel? It seems the exposure was set far too low. Also, Figure 7c, the spinal cord section seems to be a thoracic segment, or at least does not appear to be L4/5 level which is expected to be shown for a hindpaw SNI model.

4. Regarding Figure 8. If i.t. injection of tamoxifen can deplete spinal microglial Bdnf, then the Authors should test pain behavior to ascertain if local spinal microglial Bdnf is required for pain behavior. This would add considerably to establishing necessity versus sufficiency of S1 microglial Bdnf involvement in SNI pain signaling.

Reviewer #3: This study by Huang et al. reveals that microglia play an important role in the structural and functional changes taking place in the primary somatosensory cortex (S1) after peripheral nerve injury in mouse. Following peripheral nerve injury, microglia in the S1 maintain a surveillant morphology and normal density but they up-regulate their mRNA expression level of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF). Using transcranial in vivo two-photon imaging and Cx3cr1CreER:Bdnfflox mice, the authors show that conditional knockout of BDNF from microglia prevents nerve injury-induced synaptic remodelling and pyramidal neuronal hyperactivity in the S1, as well as pain hypersensitivity in mice. In addition, S1 targeted removal of microglial BDNF largely recapitulated the beneficial effects of systemic BDNF depletion on cortical plasticity and allodynia. Together, these findings reveal an unexpected role of cerebral microglial BDNF in somatosensory cortical plasticity and pain hypersensitivity.

The study uses cutting-edge mouse models as well as technical approaches. It is elegantly designed and conducted.

I only have a few important requests for revision to strengthen the findings:

1) The rationale for performing experiments in male mice only should be explained, especially considering the important sexual dimorphism in microglial BDNF function that was reported (e.g. in models of neuropathic pain).

2) Throughout the manuscript, the microglial nomenclature should be revised based on the seminal findings, notably from co-author Wenbiao Gan, that microglia are not quiescent at steady state. Ramified or quiescent should thus be replaced by surveillant.

3) The LSD posthoc test is not stringent enough and it would be strongly recommended to use Bonferroni or Tukey instead.

4) The discussion is the weakest part of this manuscript. It would be important to elaborate further on the limitations of the study, including models used (e.g. Thy1-YFP mice display different responses to spinal injury versus wild-type mice; tamoxifen modulates the immune system including microglia)

5) It would be interesting to provide further discussion on how, by which mechanisms downstream of BDNF, microglia modulate the response to peripheral nerve injury.

Decision Letter 2

Lucas Smith

27 May 2021

Dear Dr Huang,

Thank you for submitting your revised Research Article entitled "Cerebral microglial BDNF promotes peripheral nerve injury-induced cortical plasticity and pain hypersensitivity" for publication in PLOS Biology. I have now obtained advice from the original reviewers and have discussed their comments with the Academic Editor. 

As you will see from their comments, the reviewers are satisfied with your revision and raise no additional concerns. Therefore, we will probably accept this manuscript for publication, provided you satisfactorily address the following data and other policy-related requests, outlined here:

1) FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES: Where possible, please provide the URL for each funder's website.

2) ETHICS REQUEST: Please note the approval number(s) of the animal use and care protocols approved by the IACUC at NYU and Columbia. Please also make sure to include the specific national or international regulations/guidelines to which your animal care and use protocol adhered. More information about this request can be found below my signature.

3) DATA REQUEST: Please provide as a supplementary file, or as a deposition in a publicly available repository, the data underling each figure in your manuscript. **Please also make sure to reference this file in each figure legend (including supplemental). For example, to each figure legend you might add a sentence saying "the data underlying this figure can be found in S1_Data." Please also ensure that this file has a legend. More information about this request can be found below my signature.

4) Having discussed the title of your manuscript within the team, we wonder if it might be edited slightly to improve its clarity. If you agree, we might suggest something like "BDNF produced by cerebral microglia promotes cortical plasticity and pain hypersensivity after peripheral nerve injury". However, we will ultimately leave it to you if and how to change the title.

As you address these items, please take this last chance to review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the cover letter that accompanies your revised manuscript.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within two weeks.

To submit your revision, please go to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/ and log in as an Author. Click the link labelled 'Submissions Needing Revision' to find your submission record. Your revised submission must include the following:

-  a cover letter that should detail your responses to any editorial requests, if applicable, and whether changes have been made to the reference list

-  a Response to Reviewers file that provides a detailed response to the reviewers' comments (if applicable)

-  a track-changes file indicating any changes that you have made to the manuscript. 

NOTE: If Supporting Information files are included with your article, note that these are not copyedited and will be published as they are submitted. Please ensure that these files are legible and of high quality (at least 300 dpi) in an easily accessible file format. For this reason, please be aware that any references listed in an SI file will not be indexed. For more information, see our Supporting Information guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/supporting-information  

*Published Peer Review History*

Please note that you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. Please see here for more details:

https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/05/plos-journals-now-open-for-published-peer-review/

*Early Version*

Please note that an uncorrected proof of your manuscript will be published online ahead of the final version, unless you opted out when submitting your manuscript. If, for any reason, you do not want an earlier version of your manuscript published online, uncheck the box. Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us as soon as possible if you or your institution is planning to press release the article.

*Protocols deposition*

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Lucas Smith, Ph.D.,

Associate Editor,

lsmith@plos.org,

PLOS Biology

------------------------------------------------------------------------

ETHICS STATEMENT:

-- Please the approved number of the animal care and use protocol/permit/project license approved by the IACUCS at NYU and Columbia.

-- Please include the specific national or international regulations/guidelines to which your animal care and use protocol adhered. Please note that institutional or accreditation organization guidelines (such as AAALAC) do not meet this requirement.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

DATA POLICY:

You may be aware of the PLOS Data Policy, which requires that all data be made available without restriction: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/data-availability. For more information, please also see this editorial: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001797 

Note that we do not require all raw data. Rather, we ask that all individual quantitative observations that underlie the data summarized in the figures and results of your paper be made available in one of the following forms:

1) Supplementary files (e.g., excel). Please ensure that all data files are uploaded as 'Supporting Information' and are invariably referred to (in the manuscript, figure legends, and the Description field when uploading your files) using the following format verbatim: S1 Data, S2 Data, etc. Multiple panels of a single or even several figures can be included as multiple sheets in one excel file that is saved using exactly the following convention: S1_Data.xlsx (using an underscore).

2) Deposition in a publicly available repository. Please also provide the accession code or a reviewer link so that we may view your data before publication. 

Regardless of the method selected, please ensure that you provide the individual numerical values that underlie the summary data displayed in the following figure panels as they are essential for readers to assess your analysis and to reproduce it:

Fig 1A,C,E-F; Fig 2D-E; Fig 3C-F; Fig 4 C-E; Fig 4D-I; Fig 6C-E; Fig 7D; Fig 8 B-C,E-G; Fig S2A-B; Fig S3B; Fig S4B; Fig S5.

NOTE: the numerical data provided should include all replicates AND the way in which the plotted mean and errors were derived (it should not present only the mean/average values).

**IMPORTANT: Please also ensure that figure legends in your manuscript include information on where the underlying data can be found, and ensure your supplemental data file/s has a legend.

**IMPORTANT: Please ensure that your Data Statement in the submission system accurately describes where your data can be found.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reviewer remarks:

Reviewer #1: The authors have conducted additional experiments and included new data to show 1) detailed analysis of Bdnf expression in microglia and 2) sex-dependent changes in cortical microglia. I have no further comments.

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed a sufficient number of my concerns to make the paper acceptable.

Reviewer #3: Thank you for your revision, which addresses all my concerns. I am happy to recommend publication of your manuscript.

Decision Letter 3

Lucas Smith

22 Jun 2021

Dear Dr Huang,

On behalf of my colleagues and the Academic Editor, Mikael Simons, I am pleased to say that we can in principle offer to publish your Research Article "BDNF produced by cerebral microglia promotes cortical plasticity and pain hypersensitivity after peripheral nerve injury" in PLOS Biology, provided you address any remaining formatting and reporting issues. These will be detailed in an email that will follow this letter and that you will usually receive within 2-3 business days, during which time no action is required from you. Please note that we will not be able to formally accept your manuscript and schedule it for publication until you have made the required changes.

As you address these last requests, we also ask that you add to your methods section information on the the national or international regulations/guidelines to which their animal care and use protocol adhered. Please note that institutional or accreditation organization guidelines (such as AAALAC) do not meet this requirement. An example of guidelines that would fit this category would be the NIH Guide for the care and use of laboratory animals.

Please take a minute to log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information to ensure an efficient production process.

PRESS

We frequently collaborate with press offices. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximise its impact. If the press office is planning to promote your findings, we would be grateful if they could coordinate with biologypress@plos.org. If you have not yet opted out of the early version process, we ask that you notify us immediately of any press plans so that we may do so on your behalf.

We also ask that you take this opportunity to read our Embargo Policy regarding the discussion, promotion and media coverage of work that is yet to be published by PLOS. As your manuscript is not yet published, it is bound by the conditions of our Embargo Policy. Please be aware that this policy is in place both to ensure that any press coverage of your article is fully substantiated and to provide a direct link between such coverage and the published work. For full details of our Embargo Policy, please visit http://www.plos.org/about/media-inquiries/embargo-policy/.

Thank you again for choosing PLOS Biology for publication and supporting Open Access publishing. We look forward to publishing your study. 

Sincerely, 

Lucas Smith, Ph.D. 

Associate Editor 

PLOS Biology

lsmith@plos.org

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Confocal z-stack images showing Bdnf mRNA within the microglia.

    Orthogonal sections from z-stack confocal images of microglia (green), Bdnf mRNA (red), and DAPI (blue) in sham (left) and SNI (right) groups. Bdnf, brain-derived neurotrophic factor; SNI, spared sciatic nerve injury.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Peripheral nerve injury has no effect on dendritic spine density in the S1.

    (A) The net change of total spine number in the S1 at various time points after sham or SNI surgery. (B) Density of dendritic spines on the apical tuft dendrites of L5 pyramidal neurons from SNI and sham mice (sham: 1074 spines, n = 7 mice; SNI: 1,106 spines, n = 7 mice). Data are presented as means ± SEM unpaired t test. The data underlying this figure can be found in S1 Data. L5, layer 5; SNI, spared sciatic nerve injury; S1, primary somatosensory cortex.

    (TIF)

    S3 Fig. Absence of Bdnf mRNA in microglia in tamoxifen-treated Cx3cr1CreER/+;Bdnffl/fl mice.

    (A) RNAscope fluorescence in situ hybridization in the S1 of Cx3cr1CreER/+;Bdnffl/fl mice. Red, Bdnf mRNA probe hybridization. Green, Cx3cr1-EYFP+ microglia. Blue, DAPI. Scale bar, 20 μm. (B) Normalized levels of Bdnf mRNA in microglia (n = 3 mice per group). **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001; by one-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni multiple comparisons test. The data underlying this figure can be found in S1 Data. Bdnf, brain-derived neurotrophic factor; S1, primary somatosensory cortex; S1HL, hindlimb region of S1.

    (TIF)

    S4 Fig. SNI-induced microglia Tnf-α expression was abolished by depletion of microglial BDNF.

    (A) RNAscope fluorescence in situ hybridization in the S1 of sham and SNI mice with or without microglial BDNF. (upper) Sham Cx3cr1CreER/+;Bdnffl/+, (middle) SNI Cx3cr1CreER/+;Bdnffl/+, (bottom) SNI Cx3cr1CreER/+;Bdnffl/fl. Red color represents Tnf-α mRNA probe hybridization. Green color indicates Cx3cr1-EYFP+ microglia. Blue, DAPI. Scale bar, 10 μm. (B) Normalized levels of Tnf-α mRNA in microglia (n = 3 mice per group). *P < 0.05. **P < 0.01; by one-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni multiple comparisons test. The data underlying this figure can be found in S1 Data. BDNF, brain-derived neurotrophic factor; SNI, spared sciatic nerve injury; S1, primary somatosensory cortex.

    (TIF)

    S5 Fig. Enhanced sensory-evoked neuronal Ca2+ activity in the S1 of mice with neuropathic pain.

    (A, B) Averaged somatic Ca2+ activity over 10 s in S1 PYR neurons before and during mechanical stimulation by 1 g (A) or 2 g (B) von Frey hair at 1 week after surgery (sham: 5 mice; SNI: 8 mice). (C–E) Averaged somatic Ca2+ activity over 10 s in S1 PYR neurons before and during 0.6 g (C), 1 g (D), or 2 g (E) paw stimulation at 2 weeks after surgery (sham: 5 mice; SNI: 5 mice). Throughout, individual circle represents data from a single cell. ***P < 0.001, ns, not significant; by paired t test. The data underlying this figure can be found in S1 Data. PYR, pyramidal; SNI, spared sciatic nerve injury; S1, primary somatosensory cortex.

    (TIF)

    S1 Data. Data underlying Figs 1A, 1C, 1E, 1F, 2D, 2E, 3C–3F, 4C–4E, 5D, 5F, 5H, 5I, 6C–6E, 7D, 8B, 8C, 8E–8G, S2A, S2B, S3B, S4B, and S5.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to the reviewer-R1.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS Biology are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES