Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Mar 9;17(3):e0265084. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265084

Adjusting the neuron to astrocyte ratio with cytostatics in hippocampal cell cultures from postnatal rats: A comparison of cytarabino furanoside (AraC) and 5-fluoro-2’-deoxyuridine (FUdR)

Heiko M Lesslich 1,*,#, Lars Klapal 1,#, Justus Wilke 1, Annika Haak 2, Irmgard D Dietzel 1
Editor: Alexander A Mongin3
PMCID: PMC8906639  PMID: 35263366

Abstract

Cell culture studies offer the unique possibility to investigate the influence of pharmacological treatments with quantified dosages applied for defined time durations on survival, morphological maturation, protein expression and function as well as the mutual interaction of various cell types. Cultures obtained from postnatal rat brain contain a substantial number of glial cells that further proliferate with time in culture leading to an overgrowth of neurons with glia, especially astrocytes and microglia. A well-established method to decrease glial proliferation in vitro is to apply low concentrations of cytosine arabinoside (AraC). While AraC primarily effects dividing cells, it has been reported repeatedly that it is also neurotoxic, which is the reason why most protocols limit its application to concentrations of up to 5 μM for a duration of 24 h. Here, we investigated 5-fluoro-2’-deoxyuridine (FUdR) as a possible substitute for AraC. We applied concentrations of both cytostatics ranging from 4 μM to 75 μM and compared cell composition and cell viability in cultures prepared from 0-2- and 3-4-day old rat pups. Using FUdR as proliferation inhibitor, higher ratios of neurons to glia cells were obtained with a maximal neuron to astrocyte ratio of up to 10:1, which could not be obtained using AraC in postnatal cultures. Patch-clamp recordings revealed no difference in the amplitudes of voltage-gated Na+ currents in neurons treated with FUdR compared with untreated control cells suggesting replacement of AraC by FUdR as glia proliferation inhibitor if highly neuron-enriched postnatal cultures are desired.

Introduction

While experiments performed in vivo show the outcome of a particular treatment on the whole organism, cell culture experiments enable researchers to study effects of, for example, the application of defined concentrations of substances for given periods of time. Since brains do not function without glial cells, purified cultures of either cell type offer the unique opportunity to investigate the molecular interactions between glial cells and neurons.

Since its establishment in the 1970s [1], in vitro studies of neurons and glial cells have contributed to our understanding of receptor expression and activation of signal cascades in the different cell types of the central nervous system (CNS) in a defined environment. The preparation of neuronal cell cultures is particularly challenging, as neurons do not proliferate, whereas glial cells do. In postnatal primary cell cultures from mammalian brain, the resident glial cells in the CNS (microglia, astrocytes and oligodendrocytes) proliferate with a much higher rate, often overgrowing the neurons [2]. It is therefore necessary to either separate these cell types through, for instance, fluorescent activated cell sorting (FACS), which requires additional immunolabeling and is therefore another source of stress for the cells, or to decrease glial proliferation without decreasing the neuronal survival rate. Furthermore, as both microglia and astrocytes are capable of influencing neurons via secretion of various factors, such as neurotrophic factors (e.g., brain derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF)) [3], growth factors like basic fibroblast growth factor (FGF-2) [4], or cytokines (e.g., tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α)) [5], it is favorable to diminish uncontrolled influences of satellite cells. Recently, as an alternative to primary cell culture, the use of induced pluripotent stem cell-derived (iPSC) models has been established. While it is possible to obtain neuron cultures of high purity [6], it is also expensive and time-consuming to generate and characterize an iPSC line. Hence, primary cell culture is still an affordable source for in vitro basic research models.

The most commonly used cytostatic to inhibit glial proliferation in primary neuronal cell culture is cytosine arabinoside (AraC) at concentrations of 1 μM to 5 μM (see e.g., [7]). AraC is a cytosine analogue, which is converted to the corresponding triphosphate (araCTP) and subsequently incorporated into the DNA [8]. It inhibits DNA repair [9], thus resulting in DNA fragmentation, and eventually, cell death of mitotic cells. AraC also exhibits a cytotoxic effect on postmitotic neurons [10], which is mediated by oxidative stress through reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation [11]. The use of AraC therefore seems to be restricted to low concentrations, which limits the achievable neuron to glia ratio. A less frequently applied proliferation inhibitor in cell culture investigations is 5-fluoro-2’-deoxyuridine (FUdR, also known as FDUR or floxuridine). While its metabolite 5-fluorouracil (FUra) is incorporated into DNA to some extent and thus might cause DNA replication errors leading to cell death [12], its main mechanism of action differs strongly from that of AraC: FUdR inhibits thymidylate synthase (TS), which causes an imbalance of intracellular deoxyribonucleoside triphosphate (dNTP) pools [13, 14]. This subsequently induces cell death. While as a drug in treatment for neoplastic meningitis, no neurotoxic effect was observed for FUdR [15], in cultures from rat cerebral explants a neuronal death induced by FUdR has been reported [16]. However, in cultured Chinese hamster ovarian cells the potential as antiproliferative agent has been shown to be 20× higher compared to AraC [17], thus making it a promising antimitotic agent for primary neuronal cell culture.

Since we found no systematic investigation of the effects of various dosages of AraC on the cellular composition of postnatal cultures as well as a comparison with FUdR treatments, here we studied the effect of both cytostatics in postnatal primary cell cultures from rats. We varied the concentrations of the two different antimitotic agents from 4 to 75 μM and counted the resulting total cell numbers and βIII-tubulin-positive neurons as well as GFAP-positive astrocytes.

Since the viability of the surviving cells is important for the use of the cultures in further investigations, we additionally studied potential influences of both cytostatics on 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide conversion to formazan (MTT-Assay) as an indicator of mitochondrial activity. Finally, we investigated whether the treatment with FUdR, which led to the highest yield of neurons in the cultures, influences sodium currents, which are the main players shaping the upstroke velocity of the action potentials by employing patch-clamp recordings in whole cell configuration.

Materials and methods

Ethics statement

Animals were bred in the animal house of the Faculty for Medicine at the Ruhr-Universität Bochum and all procedures adhered to the German animal protection act. Since this publication is based on preliminary work included in the PhD thesis of Lars Klapal some identical, not explicitly cited sentences may be found in this thesis.

Cell culture

Cell cultures were obtained from brains of postnatal (day 0–4) Wistar-Hannover rats which were sacrificed by decapitation. Rats were divided into two age groups: postnatal day 0–2 (P0-2) and postnatal day 3–4 (P3-4). For each preparation hippocampi of 4–8 animals were collected in ice-cold phosphate buffered saline (PBS, 14190–144, Gibco) that additionally contained 10 mM glucose, 10 mM HEPES, 1 mM pyruvate (11360–070, Gibco), 1 mM glutamine (G7513, Sigma-Aldrich), as well as 25 U/mL penicillin and 25 μg/mL streptomycin (1% P/S; P0781, Sigma-Aldrich). 10 μg/mL desoxyribonuclease I (DN25, Sigma-Aldrich) and 2.5 mg/mL trypsin (T4549, Sigma-Aldrich) were added. The tissue was incubated under gentle agitation for 7 min at 37°C. 5% v/v heat inactivated fetal calf serum (FCS, 10270–106, Gibco) was added to stop enzymatic digestion. The suspension was gently triturated 15 times with a 1 mL pipette tip to mechanically dissociate the tissue. After centrifugation of the suspension at 180 g at 4°C for 10 min, the supernatant was discarded and the pellet was resuspended in 1 mL RPMI 1640 medium (21870–076, Gibco), supplemented with 10% v/v FCS, 1% P/S, and 1 mM glutamine (RPMI+). The number of cells in the suspension was evaluated using a Neubauer improved counting chamber. 100,000 cells were seeded into 1 cm diameter glass rings placed in the center of 3.5 cm diameter plastic Petri dishes (Nunc 153066, ThermoScientific) which had been coated in advance with 5 μg/mL poly-D-lysine (P6407, Sigma-Aldrich) for 1 h at 37°C. Cells were incubated at 37°C and 5% CO2 in a humidified atmosphere in a B5060 incubator (Heraeus).

After one day in vitro, RPMI+ medium was exchanged with Neurobasal medium (NB, 21103–049, Gibco) that contained 1% P/S, 1 mM glutamine, and 2% v/v of a custom version of B27 [18] using the recipe of the Hanna research group from the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel (https://hannalabweb.weizmann.ac.il). Our customized supplement did not include pipecolic acid and we omitted thyroid hormone 3,3’,5-Triiodo-L-thyronine (T3) to minimize potential influences on voltage-activated Na+ currents by astroglia-secreted factors [19]. Additionally, the medium was supplemented with the cytostatics AraC (C998100, TRC) or FUdR (F0503, Sigma-Aldrich) in various concentrations to be tested. On day 3 in culture, the medium was exchanged with fresh NB medium containing 1% P/S, 1 mM glutamine, and the modified B27 supplement without the addition of any cytostatic. On day 7, experiments were performed.

Immunocytochemistry

All following steps were carried out at room temperature. Culture media were discarded and cells were fixed in 750 μL paraformaldehyde solution (dissolved to 4% in PBS) for 15 min. Then, cells were rinsed once with 1 mL PBS. To permeabilize cell membranes and block unspecific binding sites, cell cultures were incubated for 5 min with 750 μL PBS containing 0.1% v/v Triton X-100 and 3% v/v goat serum. This step was repeated once. The supernatant was removed, and cells were rinsed once with 1 mL PBS. Then, cell cultures were incubated for 1 h under gentle shaking with 500 μL of primary antibody solution containing either mouse anti-β3-tubulin (T8660, Sigma-Aldrich) to identify neurons and rabbit anti GFAP (Z0334, DAKO) to label astrocytes. The primary antibodies were applied in dilutions of 1:500 in PBS. Afterwards, the supernatant was discarded, and cultures were rinsed once with 1 mL PBS. Cells were then incubated with 500 μL of secondary antibody solution for 1 h under gentle agitation and protected from light. The secondary antibody solution contained AlexaFluor 488 goat anti-mouse IgG (A11001, Invitrogen) and AlexaFluor 594 goat anti-rabbit IgG (A11012, Invitrogen); both were diluted 1:500 in PBS. Afterwards, the supernatant was removed, and cells were rinsed with 1 mL PBS. To quantify the total number of cells, nuclei were labeled with Hoechst 33258 staining solution (ab228550, Abcam). Cells were incubated for 30 min with 500 μL of 10 μg/mL Hoechst 33258 dye (B2883, Sigma-Aldrich) in PBS under gentle shaking in the dark.

The cultures were examined under an inverted epifluorescence microscope (IX51, Olympus, and IX81, Olympus) with a 20× objective (NA = 0.45; LUCPlanFLN, Olympus). Images were taken with a CCD camera (IX51: XC10, Olympus Soft Imaging Solutions; X81: F-View II, Soft Imaging System) and Olympus cellSens Standard software (version 1.15) at the IX51 microscope and CellM software (version 3.1, Olympus) at the IX81 microscope. The total number of cells as well as the numbers of neurons, astrocytes, and unspecified cells of 10 random fields of view with dimensions of 443.8 μm times 334.8 μm were counted and classified using the open-source software CellProfiler (version 4.2.1, Broad Institute, www.cellprofiler.org) [2023] and CellProfiler Analyst (version 3.0.4, Broad Institute, www.cellprofileranalyst.org) [2427]. A more detailed description of the applied CellProfiler pipelines and CellProfiler Analyst classification model can be found in the S2 File. Data were obtained from at least three independent preparations.

MTT assay

Changes in overall mitochondrial activity in the cultures were investigated with the MTT assay, where reduction of 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) to formazan is associated with various metabolic processes in the cells and thus provides a rough indication of the average mitochondrial function [2830]. For the MTT assay cells were cultured on poly-D-lysine coated 24-well plates at densities of 1 × 105 cells per well as described in the cell culture paragraph above. On the seventh day in vitro, the medium was exchanged with supplemented NB medium additionally containing 0.1 mg/mL MTT (ab146345, Abcam). Cultures were incubated for 3 h at 37°C and 5% CO2 in a humidified atmosphere. Then, the supernatant was discarded and 1 mL DMSO was added to solve water-insoluble formazan crystals which had formed intracellularly. After 15 min of rigorous shaking, all crystals had been dissolved and absorbance at 570 nm wavelength was measured in a CLARIOstar Plus (BMG Labtech) plate reader. Samples obtained under each condition were evaluated as quadruplicates. Four wells per experiment were measured as blank samples.

Patch-clamp recordings

Voltage-gated Na+ currents were quantified using whole cell patch-clamp recordings performed at room temperature. The maximum measurement period per cell culture dish was limited to 60 min to ensure comparable measurement conditions for all dishes. Currents were recorded with a Axopatch 200B amplifier (Molecular Devices) and acquired with the pCLAMP software (version 10.7, Molecular Devices) at sampling rates of 20 kHz. Signals were filtered with a 10 kHz lowpass filter and digitized with an Axon Digidata 1550B analog to digital converter (Molecular Devices). Patch pipettes were pulled from borosilicate glass capillaries (GB-150TF-8P, Science Products) using a PP-830 puller (Narishige). Electrodes had resistances of 2–4 MΩ and were filled with a solution containing (in mM): 0.1 CaCl2, 1.1 EGTA, 5 MgCl2, 5 NaCl, 10 HEPES, and 100 CsF. The extracellular solution contained (in mM): 0.5 CdCl2, 1 CaCl2, 1 MgCl2, 4 4-Aminopyridine, 10 glucose, 10 HEPES, 10 TEA-Cl, and 100 NaCl. Osmolarity of both pipette and extracellular solutions were adjusted to the NB/B22 medium using a semi-micro-osmometer (Knauer). Na+ currents were recorded starting from a holding potential of −77 mV (after liquid junction potential correction) in a series of depolarizing steps in increments of 5 mV. Maximum Na+ current densities were determined as peak currents at a test potential of −17 mV and normalized to membrane capacitance, which was calculated from the integral of the charging curve. Voltage-dependent inactivation of the Na+ currents was determined starting at an initial hyperpolarization of −82 mV and applying a series of prepulse steps of 200 ms duration in 5 mV increments, which were followed by a depolarization step to a test potential of −17 mV to evoke maximal Na+ currents. Peak Na+ currents I were normalized to the current elicited from the most negative prepulse potential I0. I / I0 was plotted as a function of the prepulse potential and fitted to the following Boltzmann equation: I / I0 = 1 / (1 + exp [(VmVIn1/2) / S]), where S is the slope, Vm is the prepulse potential, and VIn1/2 is the prepulse potential at which half of the channels are inactivated. Leakage and capacitive artifacts were subtracted using a P/4 protocol.

Recordings were included in the statistical evaluation if (1) leak currents were smaller than 100 pA; (2) series resistances lower than 20 MΩ; and (3) Na+ currents reached the maximum gradually in dependence on membrane depolarization over a voltage range of at least 20 mV to minimize errors of poor membrane voltage control. A liquid junction potential of 7 mV with respect to the extracellular solution was corrected offline.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed with OriginPro 2021 (OriginLab Corporation). One-way and two-way ANOVA were used to determine statistical significance in data from immunocytochemistry experiments. Tukey’s post hoc tests were used to search for significant differences between groups. Box plots show 25% to 75% quartiles. Data points were determined as outliers when they were outside 1.5 times the interquartile range. All data in the texts are represented as means ± SEM.

Results

Effects of FUdR and AraC on cell culture composition

Effects of pretreatments with FUdR or AraC were investigated in hippocampal cultures obtained from either postnatal day 0–2 (P0-2) or postnatal day 3–4 (P3-4) rats to include potential effects of the postnatal age at the time of preparation. Cultures were pretreated for 48 h with concentrations of 4, 10, 50 and 75 μM of either AraC or FUdR. Total cell numbers, as identified by staining with Hoechst 33258 dye, were compared for cultures obtained from P0-2 and P3-4 animals after 7 days in vitro (Fig 1). In accordance with previous reports, the treatment with both AraC and FUdR for two days reduced the total cell number significantly (p < 0.001 for all treatments compared to control cultures using ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post-hoc test) independent of the concentration of the cytostatic applied. In P0-2 cultures 48-68% less stained nuclei were found, while in P3-4 cultures the total cell number was reduced by 60-71%, compared with untreated cells. However, no significant differences of total cell counts between any of the treated cultures (p > 0.05) were found.

Fig 1. Concentration- and age-dependent effects of AraC and FUdR on total cell numbers.

Fig 1

(A) Phase contrast micrographs of (a) control cultures and cultures treated with 75 μM of either (b) AraC or (c) FUdR in neural cultures obtained from P0-2 rats. (d-f) Hoechst 33258 staining of the same fields of view. Scale bars represent 100 μm. (B) Number of cells per field of view in cultures obtained from early postnatal (P0-2) and older (P3-4) animals. Boxes represent 25% to 75% quartiles of the data. Squares and lines inside the boxes are means and medians, respectively. Outliers are shown as diamonds. Statistical significances of the decreases in cell numbers with respect to control cultures were p < 0.001 (***) for all concentrations.

In the following, we investigated the effect of different treatments with both cytostatics on the survival of neurons and astrocytes in culture. Compared with control counts of β3-tubulin-positive cells revealed that the number of neurons was not reduced significantly in cultures treated with concentrations up to 50 μM compared with control cultures (Fig 2B). In P0-2 cultures the number of neurons per field of view was significantly reduced from 28.6 ± 1.5 neurons to 16.9 ± 0.9 after treatment with 75 μM AraC (p < 0.001). While there was no significant difference between numbers of β3-tubulin positive cells in control and 75 μM FUdR treated cultures (p > 0.984), the number of neurons differed significantly after treatment with the two cytostatics at this concentration (p < 0.001). In P3-4 cultures we found similar results. The number of neurons was reduced from 26.6 ± 1.2 in control cultures to 20.5 ± 1.1 neurons in cultures treated with 75 μM AraC. This was significant reduction of the proportion of neurons by 23% (p > 0.038). Interestingly, in P3-4 cultures there was no significant difference between AraC and FUdR at 75 μM (p > 0.598).

Fig 2. Quantification of the neuron to astrocyte ratio.

Fig 2

(A) Images taken from (a) control P0-2 cultures and cultures treated with 75 μM (b) AraC or (c) FUdR. Neurons are labeled in green with anti-β3-tubulin antibodies and astrocytes in magenta with anti-GFAP antibodies. Nuclei are visualized in blue by Hoechst 33258 staining. Scale bars represent 100 μm. Concentration-dependent effects of AraC and FUdR on (B) the number of β3-tubulin-positive neurons, and (C) the number of GFAP-positive astrocytes. (D) Ratio of β3-tubulin-positive cells to GFAP-positive cells. Left column shows data obtained from P0-2 cultures, right column data from P3-4 cultures. Data from control cultures labeled in grey, AraC–treated cultures in purple, and FUdR-treated cultures in orange. Boxes represent 25% to 75% quartiles. Squares and lines inside the boxes are means and medians, respectively. Outliers are shown as diamonds. Significant differences in neuron numbers are labeled with * (p < 0.05), ** (p < 0.01), and *** (p < 0.005). Numbers of GFAP-positive astrocytes were consistently significantly smaller with respect to numbers of astrocytes from control cultures (p < 0.001) for all cytostatic concentrations tested (not shown in C for clarity).

In contrast to neurons, the number of astrocytes was significantly reduced compared to control cultures following treatment with both cytostatics at all concentrations (p < 0.001). However, at low concentrations of cytostatics (4 and 10 μM), FUdR inhibited astrocyte proliferation more efficiently than AraC resulting in reductions of astrocytes to about 20% of the control level already at a very low concentration of the cytostatic (Fig 2C). The differences between treatments with AraC and FUdR were significant at 4 μM (p < 0.001) and 10 μM (p < 0.0013) in P0-2 cultures and in cultures obtained from P3-4 animals (4 μM: p < 0.006; 10 μM: p < 0.004). A further increase of AraC concentration led to lower astrocytes numbers down to the level obtained after FUdR treatment. At concentrations of 50 μM or higher both antimitotic agents seem to be equally efficient in astrocyte reduction reaching about 20% of control levels.

Fig 2D compares the concentration-dependent effect of AraC and FUdR on the ratio of β3-tubulin-positive neurons to GFAP-positive astrocytes. A significant increase of the neuron to glia ratio was observed (two-way ANOVA, p < 0.001) for all concentrations tested, which was dependent, however, to some extent on the age of the animals at the time of preparation. In P0-2 cultures with increasing concentration of antimitotic agent the neuron to glia ratio increased to a maximum of about 10.1 ± 0.7 neurons per astrocytes after a preincubation with 75 μM FUdR. This was significantly higher than after treatment with 75 μM AraC (p < 0.001). Interestingly, in P3-4 cultures treated with AraC (4–10 μM) the neuron to glia ratio was roughly 1.4 ± 0.1 neuron per astrocyte whereas cultures treated with low concentrations of FUdR showed a significantly higher neuron to astrocyte ratio of about 5.9 ± 0.8neurons per astrocyte (p < 0.001). However, at high concentrations (50 and 75 μM) no significant differences between the effects of the two cytostatics were found in P3-4 cultures.

Whereas in control cultures about 33–38% of all cells were neither GFAP nor β3-tubulin positive, these unidentified cell types almost completely disappeared in cultures treated with an antimitotic agent (Fig 3A). The numbers of unlabeled cells were significantly reduced for all concentrations tested (p < 0.001). In contrast to the differential effect of low concentrations of FUdR and AraC on GFAP-positive astrocytes, both FUdR and AraC were equally effective in inhibiting proliferation of GFAP-negative glial cells with no significant differences between the two cytostatics.

Fig 3. Effect of AraC and FUdR on the population of unlabeled satellite cells.

Fig 3

Number of unlabeled (GFAP-negative and β3-tubulin-negative) cells in (A) P0-2 and in (B) P3-4 cultures. This population was significantly reduced in all cytostatic-treated cultures (p < 0.001) with respect to control cultures (not indicated by asterisks to enhance clarity). Boxes represent 25% to 75% quartiles of the data. Squares and lines inside the boxes are means and medians, respectively. Outliers are shown as diamonds. Decreases in unlabeled cell counts with respect to control cultures (p < 0.001) were consistently significantly smaller for all cytostatic concentrations tested (not shown for clarity).

Cell viability at low and high concentrations of cytostatics

The preceding experiments showed that concentrations of 10 μM or lower of FUdR were more efficient than AraC in reducing glia cell numbers. Additionally, in P0-2 cultures treated with 75 μM FUdR significantly more neurons were present compared to 75 μM AraC. Although neurons with elaborate networks were found in cultures pretreated with either AraC or FUdR, we wondered to what extend the metabolic function of the surviving cultures was affected by pretreatment with the cytostatics. We compared MTT assays of P0-2 cultures in untreated cells with those after treatment with 75 μM of AraC and FUdR (Fig 4A). These concentrations were chosen because they had led to the largest differences in glial cell reduction for both cytostatics applied. Optical density at 570 nm was reduced significantly in cultures after pretreatment with 75 μM AraC compared with control cultures (p < 0.006). The absorbance in 75 μM FUdR was 19% lower than in control cultures, however, the effect was not significant (p > 0.262). In Fig 4B we normalized the mean absorbance to the corresponding average of total cell numbers using the cell count data from Fig 1B to yield an estimate of the metabolic activity per cell. Interestingly, in cultures treated with either 75 μM AraC or 75 μM FUdR the absorbance per cell was significantly larger compared with the absorbance of control cultures (AraC: p < 0.023; FUdR: p < 0.001). Moreover, there was a significant difference of the absorbance per cell between AraC and FUdR treated cultures (p < 0.023).

Fig 4. Assessment of mitochondrial activity after pretreatment with AraC and FUdR using the MTT assay.

Fig 4

(A) Absorbance values at 570 nm, indicating formazan production of untreated cultures and cultures treated with 75 μM of either AraC or FUdR. (B) Absorbance values at 570 nm normalized to the corresponding average total cell numbers taken from Fig 1B. Boxes represent 25% to 75% quartiles of the data. Squares and lines inside the boxes are means and medians, respectively. Outliers are shown as diamonds. Significant differences are marked with * (p < 0.05), ** (p < 0.01), and *** (p < 0.005).

Effects of FUdR on neuronal Na+ currents

While the MTT assay provided an indication of the mitochondrial activity in the cultures, additional patch-clamp investigations were carried out to study potential functional impairments of neurons by a pretreatment with cytostatics. To focus on the most severe effects, we investigated whether a pretreatment with the maximal dosage of AraC and FUdR affected neuronal Na+ currents, which generate the action potential upstroke. Fig 5A shows original recordings of families of sodium currents in pyramid-shaped cells in control and pretreated cultures obtained from P0-2 rats and investigated after a total of 7 days in cultures. In Fig 5B Na+ peak currents normalized to membrane capacitance (INa/C) in bipolar and pyramidal cells are summarized. One-way ANOVA revealed no significant differences in Na+ current densities between treated and untreated cells. We also compared cell membrane capacitances but found no significant differences (Fig 5B). Fig 5D and 5E compare the respective average current versus voltage (I/V)-relationships for bipolar and pyramid-shaped cells in control and pretreated cultures. For both cells types no significant differences between the Na+ current densities of neurons treated with either 75 μM AraC or FUdR were observed in comparison with untreated neurons. Fig 5F and 5G show the voltage-dependence of the inactivation of the Na+ channels. No significant differences between the steady-state inactivation of Na+ channels of the treated and untreated bipolar and pyramid-shaped neurons were observed.

Fig 5. Comparison of Na+ current recordings in control cultures compared with cultures treated with FUdR or AraC prepared from P0-2 rat pups.

Fig 5

(A) Series of original Na+ current recordings from pyramidal neurons elicited by step depolarizations in 5 mV increments starting from a holding potential of −77 mV. (B) Peak Na+ current densities of neurons from control cultures and from neurons cultured in the presence of either 75 μM AraC or 75 μM FUdR for two days measured at test potentials of −17 mV starting from holding potentials of −77 mV. (C) Cell membrane capacitances calculated from the area beneath the capacitive current after applying a test potential of 20 mV from a holding potential of −77 mV. Average current versus voltage relationships for Na+ currents normalized to capacitance. of (D) bipolar and (E) pyramidal cells. Steady-state inactivation of Na+ currents in control, AraC and FUdR treated cultures recorded from (F) bipolar and (G) pyramidal cells. Solid lines represent fits to the Boltzmann equation (see Materials and methods). Recordings from control cells: grey squares, 75 μM AraC: purple circles, 75 μM FUdR: orange triangles. Boxes represent 25% to 75% quartiles of the data. Squares and lines inside the boxes are means and medians, respectively. Outliers are shown as diamonds. No significant differences were found. Data obtained from at least 15 cells per condition from 5 independent preparations.

Discussion

Treatment with AraC and FUdR increases the neuron to astrocyte ratio

To investigate neuron-glia interactions as well as to study pharmacological effects on different cell types in isolation, cultures with defined neuron to glia ratio are desirable. Treatment of neural cultures with the antimitotic agents AraC and FUdR are known to efficiently inhibit glial proliferation in vitro as has been shown in previous studies [16, 31]. In protocols for preparation of primary neuronal cultures AraC is added in most cases as a mitotic inhibitor to limit glial proliferation. However, not only astrocytes and other types of glial cells are affected by AraC treatment but neuronal cell death elicited by oxidative stress has been reported to be caused by cytostatics as well [11]. Our present findings show that AraC can be used at much higher concentrations than suggested in many cell culture protocols. AraC concentrations up to 50 μM for 48 h did not lead to significantly decreased numbers of neurons after 7 days in culture under the present conditions. This is in good agreement with results from one report in which the EC50 of AraC has been quantified to be 60 μM [32]. Differences from our results to most other studies that report high neurotoxicity might be explained by the formulation of the culture medium. AraC neurotoxicity has been shown to be mediated by ROS and this effect was demonstrated to be dependent on glutathione [11]. In the present study, serum containing RPMI was exchanged to a defined neurobasal medium after one day in vitro. This medium contained among others the antioxidants superoxide dismutase and glutathione, which might have been able to eliminate ROS generated upon AraC treatment. However, Dessi et al. determined the EC50 of AraC to be 60 μM in cerebellar neurons obtained from 8-day-old rats cultured in serum-containing medium without further addition of antioxidants [32]. For FUdR we did not observe any significant reduction in neuronal cell. Even at 75 μM FUdR no changes in numbers of neurons were detected. This finding contradicts previous observations [16], where a decrease in the number of neurons up to ~30% of control was observed in cerebral explants from 20-day old fetal rats after application of 10 μM FUdR on days 4-7 in vitro with measurements performed after 18 days in vitro. It remains to be investigated, whether the increased application period of 10 μM FUdR, the longer culture period or the age of the rats, at which the preparation took place, are the cause for the differences of the results.

Although it has been reported that the ratio of neuronal to non-neuronal cells in the hippocampus of rats at postnatal days 0 to 4 only scarcely changes [33], we subdivided rat preparations into two age groups to investigate an influence of the preparation day on culture composition. Our findings show that even a delay of two days of the time point of preparation might lead to slightly different cell culture compositions. In P3-4 cultures, the addition of 75 μM FUdR in various concentrations led to results similar to that of P0-2 cultures, that is numbers of neurons were reduced by about10%. In contrast, in cultures pretreated with 75 μM AraC neuron numbers compared to control were up to 40% smaller in P0-2 cultures while in P3-4 cultures a reduction by maximally 28% was observed. Not only might the age of the prepared animals exert a major influence on the neurotoxicity of AraC, but also the time of mitotic inhibitor addition, antioxidants in the culture medium and the incubation period. Although we cannot fully explain the discrepancies of the studies published so far, our results show, that AraC is tolerated by neurons up to concentrations of 50 μM in our cultures and that below this concentration no significant neurotoxic effect was found. The most significant finding of our present study is, that FUdR reduces the number of GFAP-positive astrocytes consistently at much lower concentrations than AraC, leading to neuron to astrocyte ratios of up to 10:1. In cultures treated with low concentrations of FUdR (< 25 μM) the number of neurons per astrocytes are at least twice as high compared to AraC treatment.

We observed that in control cultures nearly 33–38% of all cells were neither β3-tubulin- nor GFAP-positive. This percentage decreased in cultures after treatment with cytostatics to less than 5% (Fig 3). To what extend GFAP-negative astrocytes [34], activated microglia, or oligodendrocytes and their precursors contribute to the unlabeled cell population had not been clarified in the present study. However, it is remarkable that even low concentrations of cytostatics nearly extinct these cell types. Furthermore, it should be kept in mind, that the low osmolarity of the neurobasal culture medium used in the present study contributed to decrease the number of oligodendrocytes in the present cultures [35]. Irrespective of the exact composition of the β3-tubulin- and GFAP-negative cell population we observed no significant differences between the numbers of the 5% surviving residual cells following treatment with either cytostatic.

Effects of the pretreatment with the cytostatics on average metabolic activity and sodium current density in the cultures

We further investigated whether AraC and FUdR treatments exerted conspicuous effects on mitochondrial function in cultures, which could signal impairments of cellular viability. Cultures treated with cytostatics showed lower numbers of cells compared with control cultures (Fig 1). This explains the lower formazan production observed in cultures treated with cytostatics compared to control cultures. Whereas no significant difference in the reduction of total cell numbers were observed between AraC and FUdR at 75 μM, a decrease in optical density of the reaction product was only significant in cultures treated with 75 μM AraC (p < 0.006). Metabolic activity measured as change in optical density by conversion of MTT to formazan correlates to the number of cells [36] and is therefore sometimes used to estimate the cell number in cultures. A comparison with the results shown in Fig 1 reveals, that the more time-consuming direct cell counts offer much more sensitive and significant results, however. If the MTT assay only reflects the number of cells in the culture under the presently studied conditions, a normalization to cell counts under the different culture conditions should result in equal numbers. Interestingly, the treatment with cytostatics resulted higher formazan production per cell, which was especially prominent after treatment with 75 μM FUdR (p < 0.023). This effect might be explained by the higher percentage of excitable neurons in the culture which need to produce more ATP to decrease their Na+-load.

Since our observations showed, that a pretreatment with 75 μM FUdR led to significantly more neurons and tendentially preserved metabolic function better than a treatment with AraC, we performed further investigations on potential effects of the cytostatics on functional properties of the neurons, recorded after 7 days in culture. Among many potential parameters, which could be investigated we concentrated on the comparison of voltage-activated sodium currents from AraC- or FUdR-treated to control neurons, since these currents are the main determinants of action potential upstroke velocity. To further differentiate between the main neuronal subtypes, we split the recorded cells into two groups: bipolar, as characteristic for inhibitory, and pyramid-shaped neurons, representing potentially excitatory neurons. No statistically significant differences concerning sodium current density, cell membrane capacitance, which is a measure of the soma-near membrane surface, and current versus voltage relationships as well as voltage-dependence of inactivation were observed in both bipolar and pyramidal cells, indicating that treatment with either AraC or FUdR for 48 h did not change the functional properties and soma size of the cells.

Conclusion

Primary neuronal cell culture is an intensively used tool to investigate the effects of drugs on purified cell populations. We compared the efficiency of two antimitotic agents to minimize glia content in a dose-dependent manner to obtain highly enriched neuronal cultures. To the best of our knowledge, we present the first direct comparison of the effects of AraC and FUdR on the neuron to astrocyte ratio in neuronal cell cultures obtained from hippocampi from postnatal rats. In cerebellar neurons from postnatal rats the EC50 of AraC has been found to be 60 μM [32]. However, in commonly used protocols only much lower concentrations of AraC are used (see e.g., [3739]). Under our presently used culture conditions containing antioxidants, AraC was used to enrich neurons without exerting significant neurotoxic effects up to concentrations of 50 μM, resulting in up to 6 neurons per astrocytes. In contrast, at low concentrations FUdR was much more effective at inhibiting glial proliferation leading to about 50% less astrocytes than in AraC treated cultures, thus resulting in even purer postnatal neuron cultures with neuron to astrocyte ratios of up to 10:1. Both cytostatics equally inhibited the non-GFAP-positive glia populationfrom 33–38% to less than 5% of total cell count.

In conclusion, FUdR seems to be the cytostatic of choice when high neuron to astrocyte ratios are required. Additionally, no significant reduction of neurons was observed in FUdR-treated cultures compared to control cultures even at the highest concentration investigated in the present study. In case that experimental conditions require mixed cultures, low concentrations of AraC are preferred yielding neuron to astrocyte ratios of 1:1 to 2:1. Thus, the desired composition can be adjusted by varying antimitotic agents and their concentration. Despite previous studies reporting high neurotoxicity elicited from AraC, we were able to increase the neuron to astrocyte ratio with AraC to a maximum of 6 neurons per astrocyte at 50 μM without significant neuronal loss. The reasons for this contradicting results, however, have to be explored in futures studies.

Supporting information

S1 File. Minimum dataset.

(XLSX)

S2 File. Description of CellProfiler pipelines and CellProfiler Analyst classification model.

(ZIP)

Acknowledgments

We thank Stephanie Koll and Heidrun Breuker-Siraj for assistance in the laboratory, the RUBION for granting us access to their IX81 fluorescence microscope and Thomas Günther-Pomorski for the support of our research group.

Abbreviations

AraC

Cytosine arabinoside

FUdR

5-fluoro-2’-deoxyuridine

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

AH was supported by funding from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) ‒ project number: 411517989. Furthermore, we acknowledge support by the DFG Open Access Publication Funds of the Ruhr-Universität Bochum.

References

  • 1.Banker GA, Cowan WM (1977) Rat hippocampal neurons in dispersed cell culture. Brain Research 126 (3): 397–425. doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(77)90594-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Altman J (1963) Autoradiographic investigation of cell proliferation in the brains of rats and cats. The Anatomical record 145: 573–591. doi: 10.1002/ar.1091450409 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Jean YY, Lercher LD, Dreyfus CF (2008) Glutamate elicits release of BDNF from basal forebrain astrocytes in a process dependent on metabotropic receptors and the PLC pathway. Neuron glia biology 4 (1): 35–42. doi: 10.1017/S1740925X09000052 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Madiai F, Hussain S-RA, Goettl VM, Burry RW, Stephens RL, et al. (2003) Upregulation of FGF-2 in reactive spinal cord astrocytes following unilateral lumbar spinal nerve ligation. Experimental brain research 148 (3): 366–376. doi: 10.1007/s00221-002-1286-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Olmos G, Lladó J (2014) Tumor necrosis factor alpha: a link between neuroinflammation and excitotoxicity. Mediators of inflammation 2014: 861231. doi: 10.1155/2014/861231 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Sato T, Imaizumi K, Watanabe H, Ishikawa M, Okano H (2021) Generation of region-specific and high-purity neurons from human feeder-free iPSCs. Neuroscience letters 746: 135676. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2021.135676 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Park YH, Snook JD, Zhuang I, Shen G, Frankfort BJ (2020) Optimized culture of retinal ganglion cells and amacrine cells from adult mice. PloS one 15 (12): e0242426. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242426 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Kufe DW, Major PP (1982) Studies on the mechanism of action of cytosine arabinoside. Medical and pediatric oncology 10 Suppl 1: 49–67. doi: 10.1002/mpo.2950100708 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Fram RJ, Kufe DW (1985) Inhibition of DNA excision repair and the repair of X-ray-induced DNA damage by cytosine arabinoside and hydroxyurea. Pharmacology & Therapeutics 31 (3): 165–176. doi: 10.1016/0163-7258(85)90021-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Wallace TL, Johnson EM (1989) Cytosine arabinoside kills postmitotic neurons: evidence that deoxycytidine may have a role in neuronal survival that is independent of DNA synthesis. J. Neurosci. 9 (1): 115–124. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.09-01-00115.1989 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Geller HM, Cheng KY, Goldsmith NK, Romero AA, Zhang AL, et al. (2001) Oxidative stress mediates neuronal DNA damage and apoptosis in response to cytosine arabinoside. Journal of neurochemistry 78 (2): 265–275. doi: 10.1046/j.1471-4159.2001.00395.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Danenberg PV, Heidelberger C, Mulkins MA, Peterson AR (1981) The incorporation of 5-fluoro-2′-deoxyuridine into DNA of mammalian tumor cells. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 102 (2): 654–658. doi: 10.1016/s0006-291x(81)80182-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Yoshioka A, Tanaka S, Hiraoka O, Koyama Y, Hirota Y, et al. (1987) Deoxyribonucleoside triphosphate imbalance. 5-Fluorodeoxyuridine-induced DNA double strand breaks in mouse FM3A cells and the mechanism of cell death. Journal of Biological Chemistry 262 (17): 8235–8241. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kakutani T, Ebara Y, Kanja K, Hidaka M, Matsumoto Y, et al. (1998) Different modes of cell death induced by 5-fluoro-2’-deoxyuridine in two clones of the mouse mammary tumor FM3A cell line. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 247 (3): 773–779. doi: 10.1006/bbrc.1998.8797 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Yamada M, Nakagawa H, Fukushima M, Shimizu K, Hayakawa T, et al. (1998) In vitro study on intrathecal use of 5-fluoro-2’-deoxyuridine (FdUrd) for meningeal dissemination of malignant brain tumors. Journal of neuro-oncology 37 (2): 115–121. doi: 10.1023/a:1005869226496 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Oorschot DE (1989) Effect of fluorodeoxyuridine on neurons and non-neuronal cells in cerebral explants. Experimental brain research 78 (1): 132–138. doi: 10.1007/BF00230692 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Senderoff RI, Weber PA, Smith DR, Sokoloski TD (1990) Evaluation of antiproliferative agents using a cell-culture model. Investigative ophthalmology & visual science 31 (12): 2572–2578. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Brewer GJ, Torricelli JR, Evege EK, Price PJ (1993) Optimized survival of hippocampal neurons in B27-supplemented Neurobasal, a new serum-free medium combination. Journal of neuroscience research 35 (5): 567–576. doi: 10.1002/jnr.490350513 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Igelhorst BA, Niederkinkhaus V, Karus C, Lange MD, Dietzel ID (2015) Regulation of neuronal excitability by release of proteins from glial cells. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences 370 (1672). doi: 10.1098/rstb.2014.0194 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Stirling DR, Swain-Bowden MJ, Lucas AM, Carpenter AE, Cimini BA, et al. (2021) CellProfiler 4: improvements in speed, utility and usability. BMC bioinformatics 22 (1): 433. doi: 10.1186/s12859-021-04344-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.McQuin C, Goodman A, Chernyshev V, Kamentsky L, Cimini BA, et al. (2018) CellProfiler 3.0: Next-generation image processing for biology. PLoS biology 16 (7): e2005970. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2005970 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Kamentsky L, Jones TR, Fraser A, Bray M-A, Logan DJ, et al. (2011) Improved structure, function and compatibility for CellProfiler: modular high-throughput image analysis software. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 27 (8): 1179–1180. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr095 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Carpenter AE, Jones TR, Lamprecht MR, Clarke C, Kang IH, et al. (2006) CellProfiler: image analysis software for identifying and quantifying cell phenotypes. Genome biology 7 (10): R100. doi: 10.1186/gb-2006-7-10-r100 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Stirling DR, Carpenter AE, Cimini BA (2021) CellProfiler Analyst 3.0: Accessible data exploration and machine learning for image analysis. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England). doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btab634 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Jones TR, Carpenter AE, Lamprecht MR, Moffat J, Silver SJ, et al. (2009) Scoring diverse cellular morphologies in image-based screens with iterative feedback and machine learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106 (6): 1826–1831. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0808843106 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Dao D, Fraser AN, Hung J, Ljosa V, Singh S, et al. (2016) CellProfiler Analyst: interactive data exploration, analysis and classification of large biological image sets. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 32 (20): 3210–3212. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btw390 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Jones TR, Kang IH, Wheeler DB, Lindquist RA, Papallo A, et al. (2008) CellProfiler Analyst: data exploration and analysis software for complex image-based screens. BMC bioinformatics 9: 482. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-9-482 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Mosmann T (1983) Rapid colorimetric assay for cellular growth and survival: Application to proliferation and cytotoxicity assays. Journal of Immunological Methods 65 (1–2): 55–63. doi: 10.1016/0022-1759(83)90303-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Liu Y, Peterson DA, Kimura H, Schubert D (1997) Mechanism of cellular 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) reduction. Journal of neurochemistry 69 (2): 581–593. doi: 10.1046/j.1471-4159.1997.69020581.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Surin AM, Sharipov RR, Krasil’nikova IA, Boyarkin DP, Lisina OY, et al. (2017) Disruption of Functional Activity of Mitochondria during MTT Assay of Viability of Cultured Neurons. Biochemistry. Biokhimiia 82 (6): 737–749. doi: 10.1134/S0006297917060104 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Oorschot DE, Jones DG (1986) Effect of cytosine arabinoside on the composition of the nonneuronal cell population in cerebral explants. Experimental Neurology 92 (2): 404–412. doi: 10.1016/0014-4886(86)90092-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Dessi F, Pollard H, Moreau J, Ben-Ari Y, Charriaut-Marlangue C (1995) Cytosine arabinoside induces apoptosis in cerebellar neurons in culture. Journal of neurochemistry 64 (5): 1980–1987. doi: 10.1046/j.1471-4159.1995.64051980.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Bandeira F, Lent R, Herculano-Houzel S (2009) Changing numbers of neuronal and non-neuronal cells underlie postnatal brain growth in the rat. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106 (33): 14108–14113. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0804650106 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Walz W, Lang MK (1998) Immunocytochemical evidence for a distinct GFAP-negative subpopulation of astrocytes in the adult rat hippocampus. Neuroscience letters 257 (3): 127–130. doi: 10.1016/s0304-3940(98)00813-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Kleinsimlinghaus K, Marx R, Serdar M, Bendix I, Dietzel ID (2013) Strategies for repair of white matter: influence of osmolarity and microglia on proliferation and apoptosis of oligodendrocyte precursor cells in different basal culture media. Frontiers in cellular neuroscience 7: 277. doi: 10.3389/fncel.2013.00277 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Campling BG, Pym J, Galbraith PR, Cole SPC (1988) Use of the mtt assay for rapid determination of chemosensitivity of human leukemic blast cells. Leukemia Research 12 (10): 823–831. doi: 10.1016/0145-2126(88)90036-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Dugan LL, Bruno VM, Amagasu SM, Giffard RG (1995) Glia modulate the response of murine cortical neurons to excitotoxicity: glia exacerbate AMPA neurotoxicity. J. Neurosci. 15 (6): 4545–4555. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.15-06-04545.1995 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Nicole O, Ali C, Docagne F, Plawinski L, MacKenzie ET, et al. (2001) Neuroprotection Mediated by Glial Cell Line-Derived Neurotrophic Factor: Involvement of a Reduction of NMDA-Induced Calcium Influx by the Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase Pathway. J. Neurosci. 21 (9): 3024–3033. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.21-09-03024.2001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Henriquez B, Bustos FJ, Aguilar R, Becerra A, Simon F, et al. (2013) Ezh1 and Ezh2 differentially regulate PSD-95 gene transcription in developing hippocampal neurons. Molecular and cellular neurosciences 57: 130–143. doi: 10.1016/j.mcn.2013.07.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Alexander A Mongin

21 Oct 2021

PONE-D-21-30899Adjusting the neuron to astrocyte ratio with cytostatics in hippocampal cell cultures from postnatal rats: A comparison of cytarabino furanoside (AraC) and 5-fluoro-2’-deoxyuridine (FUdR)PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Leßlich,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. Your work has been evaluated by two experts in the field.  After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

In your revised manuscript, please be sure to address technical and substantive comments of both reviewers on:

  • Potential bias of cell count procedures (via either detailed information on blinding procedures or validation with automated counts)

  • Quantitative/statistical validity of your conclusions (several comments by both reviewers, which are included below)

  • Your ability to discriminate between two markers whose fluorescence appears to be captured in the same channel

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 30 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. 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.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alexander A. Mongin, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. If anesthesia, euthanasia, or any kind of animal sacrifice is part of the study, please include briefly in your statement which substances and/or methods were applied.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

"AH was supported by funding from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) ‒ project number: 411517989. Furthermore, we acknowledge financial support by the Open Access Publication Funds of the

Ruhr-Universität Bochum."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

"The author(s) received no specific funding for this work."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. 

5. Please 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 rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors of this paper investigated the use of AraC and FUdR at varying concentrations on reducing numbers of glia in cultures from P0-2 and P3-4 rats. They claim that FUdR is favorable at reducing glial cell numbers at low concentrations while increasing the number of neurons as compared to AraC. They also demonstrate that using FUdR at high concentrations doesn’t impact neuronal cell function through Na+ current measurements.

This study focuses on an interesting and relevant area that is useful for in vitro studies looking at neuron-glia interactions. The study aims to address an issue in the field, where reductions in glia in cell cultures are necessary to prevent their overgrowth and to prevent reductions in neuronal cells. The methods used in the study are scientifically sound, however, the claims made from the findings are not supported by the data and statistical analysis. The background information relating to what is known about FUdR, specifically the caveats, is lacking. The discussion also fails to expand upon some of their assumptions and how other literature supports these conclusions. Despite my disagreement with their major findings, I believe the addition of key experiments may help to support some of these claims. However, the likely major finding of this manuscript is on reporting that AraC is not cytotoxic at higher concentrations when using antioxidants but this would need to be further developed.

Major points:

Fig. 2:

1. Authors mention that astrocyte and neuron morphology are not affected and then show representative images but give no further information on how that was determined. It would be helpful to describe how this was decided (i.e. specific morphological features, size, etc.). Quantifying morphology would increase the rigor for this claim.

2. The authors frequently mention that neuronal numbers are increased in Fig 2B, however, no significant differences were shown. There may be a trend for increase in the P3-4 age cultures at low concentrations for FUdR, but this distinction is not made throughout the text.

3. The authors claim that 4 μM FUdR reduces GFAP+ cells more significantly than AraC, however, they fail to distinguish that this is only the case in the P3-4 cultures but not for the P0-2 cultures.

4. Overall, FUdR and AraC treatment appear to be equally effective at all concentrations for P0-2 except when comparing the neuron to astrocyte ratio (this difference isn’t seen on individual numbers of neurons in 2B and astrocytes in 2C). The only notable difference in cell numbers appears to be the effect on reducing astrocytes at low concentrations of AraC at P3-4. What could explain this discrepancy in no change in neurons and astrocytes in 2B and 2C, yet a significantly higher ratio of neurons vs. astrocytes in 2D?

5. The text states “In P0-2 cultures with increasing concentration of antimitotic agent the neuron to glia ratio increased to a maximum of about 6:1” suggesting that this is a dose-dependent mechanism but the data does not support this claim (significant differences at 10 μM and again at 75 μM).

6. Perhaps the most important finding of the paper lies within these graphs, and it’s that AraC is not effective at reducing astrocytes at low concentrations only in older P3-4 cultures, but at high concentrations at all ages, it is effective and doesn’t appear to be cytotoxic to neurons. This information is valuable and needs to be further explored.

Fig. 3:

1. Authors state that “unlabelled cells almost disappear after treatment” which is not followed up by any quantification or p-value.

2. Quantification of microglia was done using TMEM119, however, in the figure it is stated that both BIII-tubulin and TMEM119 are both in green. How were they separated for analysis if under the same channel?

3. The text discusses reductions in microglia and GFAP negative glial cells but doesn’t have any graph or data supporting this. Please include this figure.

4. The text states “The preceding experiments showed that concentrations of 10 μM or lower of FUdR were more efficient than AraC in reducing glia cell numbers” this is only true in the case of P3-4 cultures, but not for P0-2 cultures.

5. The discussion states “Judged by morphology, the further unlabeled cells in our cultures might be GFAP-negative astrocytes [28], activated microglia, less well stained with TMEM119, or oligodendrocytes and their precursors.” This can be determined using other markers for these cell types, including NG2 for OPCs, A2B5 for pre-oligos, and Iba1 or CXCL4 for microglia. Also, TMEM119 is developmentally regulated and doesn’t arise until later postnatal time points up to P14 so some negative cells can exist, whereas Iba1 or CXCL4 will identify all microglia (Bennett, ML et al., 2016, PNAS).

Fig. 4:

1. The text states “There was, however, an insignificant tendency for the highest absorbance per cell in the cultures treated with 50 μM FUdR, which contain the highest number of neurons (see Fig 2D).” this isn’t supported by the data in 2B which quantifies numbers of neurons.

2. The authors report that 50 μM FUdR treatment condition causes increased formazan production which does not reach statistical significance. They claim that this may be due to increased mitochondrial activity in neurons due to Na+ load from higher neuronal cell numbers. As stated previously, the data does not support that there is an increase in neuronal cells, however there is indeed a reduction in glia. Including an additional analysis of the higher FUdR concentrations will be helpful to see if any changes to overall cell viability are occurring. Furthermore, investigating the effects on astrocytes as a whole is essential, including the possibility of excitotoxicity due to reduced astrocyte coverage.

Fig. 5:

1. The authors only investigated the effects of FUdR on the Na+ currents in these cultures but did not look at the effect of AraC. The text is lacking in rationale for why they left this out. It is especially relevant given that the field believes AraC to be cytotoxic at higher doses, where this paper proves this not to be the case.

Minor points:

6. Fig. 1: The text says that you look at 6 μM for AraC and 25 μM for FUdR but then figure 1 shows all concentrations and throughout the rest of the text, 6 μM for AraC is never mentioned again.

7. Fig 2 : The text says that AraC is in orange and FUdR is in purple but in 2A, the text shows AraC in purple and FUdR in orange.

8. Fig 3: Fig 3E, pink arrow on bottom right is pointing to a GFAP positive cell.

9. Fig 4: Figure legend for 4A says “shown as circles” but there are no circles.

Reviewer #2: In this manuscript the authors proposed FUdR as an alternative cytostatic that can be used instead of AraC to increase the ratio of neurons to astrocytes. They compared different doses of both treatments and found that at high doses both cytostatic have similar effects, but at low doses FUdR is more effective in killing astrocytes and therefore enriching neuronal cultures.

The research is important in the field as in vitro tools are still required to evaluate molecular mechanisms. There are, however, some weakness in the analysis of the data and some changes are suggested to improve quality of the manuscript.

1. In financial disclosure: Is stated that the author(s) received no specific funding for this work, however in acknowledge section some funding is mentioned

2. The cells were manually counted, and the cell numbers is key to the conclusions of the paper, the reviewer would suggest either an automatic cell counting (several plugins published for Image J allow automatic cell counting), a clear description of how the analyzer was blind to the culture condition, or ideally both

3. Add was found at the end of first paragraph of results… however, no significant differences of total cell count between any of the treated cultures was found (p>0.05).

4. Figure legend 1. Should indicate how many independent cultures were analyzed instead of numbers of dishes

5. Pooling data together from different drug concentrations is not a valid comparison and should be removed

6. I recommend changing the color of the ICC-IF since red, green colour blindness is the most common form of colour vision deficiency

7. Page 15, line 274 Treatment with 4 uM FUdR, however, inhibited astrocyte proliferation more efficiently than AraC in cultures prepared from P3-4 rats, resulting in a reduction of astrocytes to about 20% of the control level.

It needs to specify P3-4 since the difference is not significant for P0-2 culture, also eliminate already at a very low concentration of the cytostatic as the concentration is already mentioned.

8. Page 15, lines 284-286. There was “almost” no difference between the two age groups… or there was a significant age-dependent effect??

9. Page 16, line 287. In P0-2 cultures with increasing concentration of antimitotic agent the neuron to glia… be specific, replace antimitotic agent by FUdR

10. Using the same color for two different markers (in this case, TMEM119 and beta3-tubulin) is not acceptable. The authors need to repeat this staining if the same secondary was used or image the ICC-IFs again using a microscope with more cubes or lasers to be able to separate the 4 markers used.

11. Re-write page 17 lines 318-320 to improve readability. The sentence “To assess cell…” is repetitive and unclear

12. Remove sentence “There was, however, an insignificant tendency…” in page 17 lines 328. Insignificant tendency = no difference

13. Figure legends 4 and 5 states “shown as circles/single data point plotted as circles” no circles are shown in the figures

14. Page 23 lines 452-455, and 456-457. The authors make conclusions based on no significative effects. Slightly higher (p>0.1856), slightly improved, tendentially preserved… These need to be removed from the text as are not statistical significative effects and only distract the reader of the main conclusion of the paper that is clearly stated in Page 21 lines 416-418.

15. In conclusion, page 25, line 473 replace “minimize interaction with glia” for “minimize glia content” and “highly purified neuronal cultures” for “highly enriched neuronal cultures”

16. Page 25, line 489 replace “experimental conditions require more astrocytes to be present in the neuronal vicinity, low…” for “experimental conditions require mix cultures, low…”

********** 

6. 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

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Mar 9;17(3):e0265084. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265084.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


27 Jan 2022

Rebuttal letter

Dear editor, dear reviewers,

first of all, and most importantly, we want to thank you for thoroughly reviewing our manuscript and giving us constructive feedback. The reviewers’ comments were more than helpful and we feel they greatly improved our manuscript: After revising the text, refining the data and statistical analysis, and by repeating some of the experiments, we were able to improve the quality of our manuscript and hope that it is now suitable for publication in your journal.

In the following, we address the editor’s and reviewers’ comments. We hope that we explained all changes and answered all questions sufficiently. Thank you again for the constructive feedback.

Kind regards

Heiko Leßlich

Editor: Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

Authors: We checked all file names and we have followed the style requirements given by PLOS ONE to the best of our abilities.

Editor: If anesthesia, euthanasia, or any kind of animal sacrifice is part of the study, please include briefly in your statement which substances and/or methods were applied.

Authors: We have included a statement mentioning that rats were killed by decapitation.

Editor: We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

Authors: We have removed funding information from the manuscript and included a request in the cover letter to change the funding statement.

Editor: Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

Authors: We have moved the ethics statement to the Methods section.

Editor: Please 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 rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Authors: We added some more information about FUdR in the introduction. Therefore, one additional reference was cited:

Senderoff RI, Weber PA, Smith DR, Sokoloski TD (1990) Evaluation of antiproliferative agents using a cell-culture model. Investigative ophthalmology & visual science 31 (12): 2572–2578.

Authors: We cited several reports in the methods section about CellProfiler and CellProfiler Analyst. As these tools were used to automatically analyze the immunocytochemical stained images:

Stirling DR, Swain-Bowden MJ, Lucas AM, Carpenter AE, Cimini BA et al. (2021) CellProfiler 4: improvements in speed, utility and usability. BMC bioinformatics 22 (1): 433.

McQuin C, Goodman A, Chernyshev V, Kamentsky L, Cimini BA et al. (2018) CellProfiler 3.0: Next-generation image processing for biology. PLoS biology 16 (7): e2005970.

Kamentsky L, Jones TR, Fraser A, Bray M-A, Logan DJ et al. (2011) Improved structure, function and compatibility for CellProfiler: modular high-throughput image analysis software. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 27 (8): 1179–1180.

Carpenter AE, Jones TR, Lamprecht MR, Clarke C, Kang IH et al. (2006) CellProfiler: image analysis software for identifying and quantifying cell phenotypes. Genome biology 7 (10): R100.

Stirling DR, Carpenter AE, Cimini BA (2021) CellProfiler Analyst 3.0: Accessible data exploration and machine learning for image analysis. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England).

Jones TR, Carpenter AE, Lamprecht MR, Moffat J, Silver SJ et al. (2009) Scoring diverse cellular morphologies in image-based screens with iterative feedback and machine learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106 (6): 1826–1831.

Dao D, Fraser AN, Hung J, Ljosa V, Singh S et al. (2016) CellProfiler Analyst: interactive data exploration, analysis and classification of large biological image sets. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 32 (20): 3210–3212.

Jones TR, Kang IH, Wheeler DB, Lindquist RA, Papallo A et al. (2008) CellProfiler Analyst: data exploration and analysis software for complex image-based screens. BMC bioinformatics 9: 482.

Authors: The following reference has been removed because the experiments using the fixation method described by Richter et al and labeling with TMEM199 are no longer part of the manuscript:

Richter KN, Revelo NH, Seitz KJ, Helm MS, Sarkar D et al. (2018) Glyoxal as an alternative fixative to formaldehyde in immunostaining and super-resolution microscopy. The EMBO journal 37 (1): 139–159.

Bennett ML, Bennett FC, Liddelow SA, Ajami B, Zamanian JL et al. (2016) New tools for studying microglia in the mouse and human CNS. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 113 (12): E1738-46.

Reviewer #1: Fig. 2: Authors mention that astrocyte and neuron morphology are not affected and then show representative images but give no further information on how that was determined. It would be helpful to describe how this was decided (i.e. specific morphological features, size, etc.). Quantifying morphology would increase the rigor for this claim.

Authors: We did not perform any quantitative analysis of morphological features. We do not think that cell size, number of processes, or their length have changed significantly in our cultures. However, we understand that we shouldn’t make statements about cell morphology if there was no quantitative morphology analysis. We omitted all statements regarding cell morphology. A quantitative analysis of such features might be interesting in a future project in combination with scanning probe microscopy techniques.

Reviewer #1: Fig. 2: The authors frequently mention that neuronal numbers are increased in Fig 2B, however, no significant differences were shown. There may be a trend for increase in the P3-4 age cultures at low concentrations for FUdR, but this distinction is not made throughout the text.

Authors: We removed all statements mentioning that neuronal numbers are increased as they were not statistically significant.

Reviewer #1: Fig. 2: The authors claim that 4 μM FUdR reduces GFAP+ cells more significantly than AraC, however, they fail to distinguish that this is only the case in the P3-4 cultures but not for the P0-2 cultures.

Authors: After re-analyzing the data with CellProfiler (Analyst), we found that 4 µM FUdR is more efficient than 4 µM AraC in reducing GFPA+ cells in both P0-2 and P3-4 cultures.

Reviewer #1: Fig. 2: Overall, FUdR and AraC treatment appear to be equally effective at all concentrations for P0-2 except when comparing the neuron to astrocyte ratio (this difference isn’t seen on individual numbers of neurons in 2B and astrocytes in 2C). The only notable difference in cell numbers appears to be the effect on reducing astrocytes at low concentrations of AraC at P3-4. What could explain this discrepancy in no change in neurons and astrocytes in 2B and 2C, yet a significantly higher ratio of neurons vs. astrocytes in 2D?

Authors: This discrepancy is due to the nature of fractions. Even though the differences between AraC and FUdR treated cultures concerning the numbers of GFAP+ and betaIII-tubulin+ cells were marginal (hundreds), this small margin has a big impact on the calculated fractions/ratios. From 50 to 75 µM neuron counts changed in AraC (-900) and FUdR (+2000) treated cultures, while simultaneously astrocyte counts decreased by 300 in each culture treatment condition. Therefore, the neuron per astrocyte ratio effectively increased in the FUdR treated cultures. However, after re-evaluating the data with CellProfiler (and CellProfiler Analyst), we also found a statistically significant reduction in the neuron numbers for 75 µM AraC.

Reviewer #1: Fig. 2: The text states “In P0-2 cultures with increasing concentration of antimitotic agent the neuron to glia ratio increased to a maximum of about 6:1” suggesting that this is a dose-dependent mechanism but the data does not support this claim (significant differences at 10 μM and again at 75 μM).

Authors: We agree with the reviewer and have removed this statement.

Reviewer #1: Fig. 2: Perhaps the most important finding of the paper lies within these graphs, and it’s that AraC is not effective at reducing astrocytes at low concentrations only in older P3-4 cultures, but at high concentrations at all ages, it is effective and doesn’t appear to be cytotoxic to neurons. This information is valuable and needs to be further explored.

Authors: After re-analyzing the data with CellProfiler and CellProfiler Analyst the results slightly changed. The results from P3-4 cultures are now consistent with those obtained from P0-2, i.e. AraC seems to be indeed slightly neurotoxic at the highest concentration (75 µM) investigated in the present study. However, AraC is significantly less efficient in reducing GFAP+ cells than FUdR at 4 µM. Yet, both cytostatics significantly reduced GFAP+ cells compared with control.

Reviewer #1: Fig. 3: 1. Authors state that “unlabelled cells almost disappear after treatment” which is not followed up by any quantification or p-value.

Authors: We added a p-value.

Reviewer #1: Fig. 3: 2. Quantification of microglia was done using TMEM119, however, in the figure it is stated that both BIII-tubulin and TMEM119 are both in green. How were they separated for analysis if under the same channel?

Authors: TMEM119-labeled cells were not quantified. The experiments in Fig3B were just meant to indicate that almost all of the previously unlabeled cells were likely microglia. If nearly all GFAP- and beta-III-tubulin-negative (unlabeled) cells had disappeared after an additional TMEM119 staining, it would have indicated that most of the unlabeled cells in Fig2A must have been microglia. However, we understand that this experiment is too preliminary and confusing and have removed it from the manuscript.

Reviewer #1: Fig. 3: To 1 and 2: 3. The text discusses reductions in microglia and GFAP negative glial cells but doesn’t have any graph or data supporting this. Please include this figure.

Authors: We have not gone into a detailed analysis of the residual cell types and reduced Figure 3 A (p0-2) and B(p3-4) to show the changes in unlabeled, non GFAP, non bIII-tubulin positive cells after different treatment conditions.

Reviewer #1: Fig. 3: 4. The text states “The preceding experiments showed that concentrations of 10 μM or lower of FUdR were more efficient than AraC in reducing glia cell numbers” this is only true in the case of P3-4 cultures, but not for P0-2 cultures.

Authors: We have updated the respective parts of the text.

Reviewer #1: Fig. 3: 5. The discussion states “Judged by morphology, the further unlabeled cells in our cultures might be GFAP-negative astrocytes [28], activated microglia, less well stained with TMEM119, or oligodendrocytes and their precursors.” This can be determined using other markers for these cell types, including NG2 for OPCs, A2B5 for pre-oligos, and Iba1 or CXCL4 for microglia. Also, TMEM119 is developmentally regulated and doesn’t arise until later postnatal time points up to P14 so some negative cells can exist, whereas Iba1 or CXCL4 will identify all microglia (Bennett, ML et al., 2016, PNAS).

Authors: We have removed the TMEM119 experiments and removed all speculations about the cell type of the unlabeled cells. Unfortunately, we do not have the capacity to repeat these experiments with the suggested markers at the moment. However, we really appreciate the advice and might investigate the effects of cytostatics on microglia in more detail in future.

Reviewer #1: Fig. 4: 1. The text states “There was, however, an insignificant tendency for the highest absorbance per cell in the cultures treated with 50 μM FUdR, which contain the highest number of neurons (see Fig 2D).” this isn’t supported by the data in 2B which quantifies numbers of neurons.

and

Reviewer #1: Fig. 4: 2. The authors report that 50 μM FUdR treatment condition causes increased formazan production which does not reach statistical significance. They claim that this may be due to increased mitochondrial activity in neurons due to Na+ load from higher neuronal cell numbers. As stated previously, the data does not support that there is an increase in neuronal cells, however there is indeed a reduction in glia. Including an additional analysis of the higher FUdR concentrations will be helpful to see if any changes to overall cell viability are occurring. Furthermore, investigating the effects on astrocytes as a whole is essential, including the possibility of excitotoxicity due to reduced astrocyte coverage.

Authors: We re-did the MTT and patch clamp experiments with 75 µM FUdR and AraC on p0-2 as it was suggested by the reviewers to analyze higher FUdR concentrations in the MTT assays and to present patch clamp data from treatment with both cytostatics. The figures now only show the results of these experiments and the body text was updated respectively.

Reviewer #1: Fig. 5: The authors only investigated the effects of FUdR on the Na+ currents in these cultures but did not look at the effect of AraC. The text is lacking in rationale for why they left this out. It is especially relevant given that the field believes AraC to be cytotoxic at higher doses, where this paper proves this not to be the case.

Authors: We performed a new series of patch clamp recordings. For reasons of consistency, we exchanged 100 µM FUdR for 75 µM FUdR and added 75 µM AraC as treatment condition. The text has been updated to match the new data.

Reviewer #1: Fig. 1: The text says that you look at 6 μM for AraC and 25 μM for FUdR but then figure 1 shows all concentrations and throughout the rest of the text, 6 μM for AraC is never mentioned again.

Authors: We removed the data for 6 µM AraC and 25 µM FUdR from the manuscript as during the time course of the experiments we only investigated these concentrations with one of the cytostatics but not both. Since the removal of these two treatment conditions did not change the overall findings of the experiments, we think that the readability of the manuscript benefits from a reduction of the data at this point.

Reviewer #1: Fig 2: The text says that AraC is in orange and FUdR is in purple but in 2A, the text shows AraC in purple and FUdR in orange.

Authors: This has been corrected.

Reviewer #1: Fig 3: Fig 3E, pink arrow on bottom right is pointing to a GFAP positive cell.

Authors: This figure has been removed as it was part of the TMEM119 experiments, which were removed from the manuscript as explained above.

Reviewer #1: Fig 4: Figure legend for 4A says “shown as circles” but there are no circles.

Authors: This has been corrected.

Reviewer #2: In financial disclosure: Is stated that the author(s) received no specific funding for this work, however in acknowledge section some funding is mentioned

Authors: We have removed the funding information from the Acknowledgment and asked the editor in the cover letter to add this information to the financial disclosure section. It is not possible for us to change the original submission form now (Note from the editor: ‘Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf’).

Reviewer #2: The cells were manually counted, and the cell numbers is key to the conclusions of the paper, the reviewer would suggest either an automatic cell counting (several plugins published for Image J allow automatic cell counting), a clear description of how the analyzer was blind to the culture condition, or ideally both

Authors: Data analysis has been repeated. This time CellProfiler and CellProfiler Analyst have been used to count the cells. Unlike suggested, Image J has not been used for automated data analysis, as not only automated counting but also classification was needed. Automated classification on our images required machine learning algorithms. With deepImageJ an ImageJ plugin for this has been published at the end of last year (Sept 30th 2021). However, as it was completely new and we had no prior experiences using the plugin, but have worked with CellProfiler and its extension CellProfilerAnalyst before, we opted for these open-source programs to automate our data analysis. A detailed description of the automated analysis as well as the used CellProfiler pipelines and result tables can be found in the supplementary material.

Reviewer #2: Add was found at the end of first paragraph of results… however, no significant differences of total cell count between any of the treated cultures was found (p>0.05).

Authors: This has been corrected.

Reviewer #2: Figure legend 1. Should indicate how many independent cultures were analyzed instead of numbers of dishes

Authors: This has been corrected.

Reviewer #2: Pooling data together from different drug concentrations is not a valid comparison and should be removed

Authors: These parts in the text have been removed.

Reviewer #2: I recommend changing the color of the ICC-IF since red, green colour blindness is the most common form of colour vision deficiency

Authors: We have changed red to magenta in the ICC images to make our figures more accessible for readers with color vision impairments.

Reviewer #2: Page 15, line 274 Treatment with 4 uM FUdR, however, inhibited astrocyte proliferation more efficiently than AraC in cultures prepared from P3-4 rats, resulting in a reduction of astrocytes to about 20% of the control level.

It needs to specify P3-4 since the difference is not significant for P0-2 culture, also eliminate already at a very low concentration of the cytostatic as the concentration is already mentioned.

Authors: This has been updated.

Reviewer #2: Page 15, lines 284-286. There was “almost” no difference between the two age groups… or there was a significant age-dependent effect??

Authors: This sentence has been rewritten to improve readability.

Reviewer #2: Page 16, line 287. In P0-2 cultures with increasing concentration of antimitotic agent the neuron to glia… be specific, replace antimitotic agent by FUdR

Authors: It is now specified that this was the case in FUdR-treated cultures.

Reviewer #2: Using the same color for two different markers (in this case, TMEM119 and beta3-tubulin) is not acceptable. The authors need to repeat this staining if the same secondary was used or image the ICC-IFs again using a microscope with more cubes or lasers to be able to separate the 4 markers used.

Authors: We agree. The experiments were conducted to show that almost all of the previously unlabeled cells were likely microglia. If nearly all GFAP- and beta-III-tubulin-negative (unlabeled) cells had disappeared after an additional TMEM119 staining, it would have indicated that most of the unlabeled cells in Fig2A must have been microglia. We were aware that this is questionable for quantification and therefore did not quantify cells stained with TMEM119 and beta-III-tubulin in these images. However, we completely understand that this experiment is flawed and confusing and have removed it from the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: Re-write page 17 lines 318-320 to improve readability. The sentence “To assess cell…” is repetitive and unclear

Authors: This sentence has been rewritten to improve readability.

Reviewer #2: Remove sentence “There was, however, an insignificant tendency…” in page 17 lines 328. Insignificant tendency = no difference

Authors: We agree with the reviewer and have removed this sentence.

Reviewer #2: Figure legends 4 and 5 states “shown as circles/single data point plotted as circles” no circles are shown in the figures

Authors: This has been corrected.

Reviewer #2: Page 23 lines 452-455, and 456-457. The authors make conclusions based on no significative effects. Slightly higher (p>0.1856), slightly improved, tendentially preserved… These need to be removed from the text as are not statistical significative effects and only distract the reader of the main conclusion of the paper that is clearly stated in Page 21 lines 416-418.

Authors: We agree with the reviewer and have removed these passages.

Reviewer #2: In conclusion, page 25, line 473 replace “minimize interaction with glia” for “minimize glia content” and “highly purified neuronal cultures” for “highly enriched neuronal cultures”

Authors: We changed the text as proposed by the reviewer.

Reviewer #2: Page 25, line 489 replace “experimental conditions require more astrocytes to be present in the neuronal vicinity, low…” for “experimental conditions require mix cultures, low…”

Authors: We changed the text as proposed by the reviewer.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Alexander A Mongin

23 Feb 2022

Adjusting the neuron to astrocyte ratio with cytostatics in hippocampal cell cultures from postnatal rats: A comparison of cytarabino furanoside (AraC) and 5-fluoro-2’-deoxyuridine (FUdR)

PONE-D-21-30899R1

Dear Dr. Leßlich,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

Please make sure that during the final preparation of your manuscript, you incorporated all textual revisions requested by Reviewer #2.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Alexander A. Mongin, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The authors did a good job addressing my comments on the first round of revision. Now I only suggest minor changes:

- Last two sentences of methods immunocytochemistry are repetitive, erase one.

- For consistency use the same format for the p values through the paper. Currently sometimes p<0.001 is used, others p=exact value, others p<0.006, p<0.004 ….

- Page 17, line 330 … however, the effect was not significant (p=0.262), page 17, line 334-336 Moreover, there was a significant difference of the … (p=0.24). Why p=0.262 is not significant and p=0.24 is it?

- Page 25, line 487, erase including microglia since TMEM119 staining was removed

**********

7. 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

Acceptance letter

Alexander A Mongin

28 Feb 2022

PONE-D-21-30899R1

Adjusting the neuron to astrocyte ratio with cytostatics in hippocampal cell cultures from postnatal rats: A comparison of cytarabino furanoside (AraC) and 5-fluoro-2’-deoxyuridine (FUdR)

Dear Dr. Lesslich:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Alexander A. Mongin

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Minimum dataset.

    (XLSX)

    S2 File. Description of CellProfiler pipelines and CellProfiler Analyst classification model.

    (ZIP)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES