Sepsis-associated neuroinflammation in the spinal cord

Akiko Hirotsu; Mariko Miyao; Kenichiro Tatsumi; Tomoharu Tanaka

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0269924

. 2022 Jun 13;17(6):e0269924. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0269924

Sepsis-associated neuroinflammation in the spinal cord

Akiko Hirotsu ¹, Mariko Miyao ¹, Kenichiro Tatsumi ¹, Tomoharu Tanaka ^1,^*

Editor: Rosanna Di Paola²

PMCID: PMC9191735 PMID: 35696412

Abstract

Septic patients commonly present with central nervous system (CNS) disorders including impaired consciousness and delirium. Today, the main mechanism regulating sepsis-induced cerebral disorders is believed to be neuroinflammation. However, it is unknown how another component of the CNS, the spinal cord, is influenced during sepsis. In the present study, we intraperitoneally injected mice with lipopolysaccharide (LPS) to investigate molecular and immunohistochemical changes in the spinal cord of a sepsis model. After LPS administration in the spinal cord, pro-inflammatory cytokines including interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-6, and tumor necrosis factor alpha mRNA were rapidly and drastically induced. Twenty-four-hour after the LPS injection, severe neuronal ischemic damage spread into gray matter, especially around the anterior horns, and the anterior column had global edematous changes. Immunostaining analyses showed that spinal microglia were significantly activated and increased, but astrocytes did not show significant change. The current results indicate that sepsis induces acute neuroinflammation, including microglial activation and pro-inflammatory cytokine upregulation in the spinal cord, causing drastic neuronal ischemia and white matter edema in the spinal cord.

1. Introduction

During sepsis, the host’s excess immune response can affect various organs [1]. Because of blood–brain barrier (BBB), the central nervous system (CNS) was previously thought to be isolated from systemic inflammation during sepsis [2]. However, recent studies have revealed that patients with severe sepsis commonly report brain-related symptoms such as delirium, seizures, and impaired consciousness even without direct infection in the brain [3, 4]. Those brain abnormalities have been collectively referred to as sepsis-associated encephalopathy (SAE) [5, 6]. Although the exact mechanism of SAE is still controversial, neuroinflammation is now regarded as one of the main factors [7]. In sepsis, brain residual glial cells, especially microglia, are activated in response to systemic inflammation. These cells produce pro-inflammatory cytokines such as interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-6, and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) [8, 9]. Additionally, the BBB can be damaged by systemic inflammation, with peripheral inflammatory cells infiltrating the brain [10]. Migrating peripheral cells and activated residual glial cells synergistically induce inflammation processes in the brain. This can damage neuronal functions and lead to SAE [11, 12].

Another component of the CNS, the spinal cord, has rarely been investigated in relation to sepsis. Neuroinflammation in the spinal cord is associated with injury [13], infection [14], and various degenerative diseases [15]. However, research is lacking as to whether neuroinflammation itself occurs in the spinal cord during sepsis, and how those changes could influence spinal functions. It is clinically common to observe impaired motor and sensory functions associated with sepsis [16], but those changes have been considered peripheral nerve and muscle disorders [17, 18]. The spinal cord has a similar anatomical structure to the brain, that is, isolated by the blood-spinal cord barrier (BSCB) and composed of neurons and glial cells [19]. In the present study, we used sepsis model mice to investigate how sepsis could affect the spinal cord molecularly and morphologically.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Animals

This study (Permit Number: Med Kyo 19543) was approved by the Animal Research Committee of Kyoto University (Kyoto. Japan). All experiments were conducted according to the institutional and National Institutes of Health guidelines for the care and the use of animals. BALB/c and C57BL6 male mice were purchased from Japan SLC Inc. (Shizuoka, Japan). All experiments were performed with BALB/c, but, for supplementary figure experiments, C57BL6 mice were used. Mice were maintained under a 24°C, 12-h light/dark controlled environment with ad libitum feeding. All surgery was performed under sevoflurane anesthesia, and all efforts were made to minimize suffering. At the time point of specimen collection, mice were euthanized by sevoflurane inhalation followed by cervical dislocation or decapitation.

2.2. Drugs and chemicals

Lipopolysaccharides (LPS) from Escherichia coli O55:B5 (L28880) were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA). Sevoflurane (PubChem CID: 5206) was obtained from Mylan Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (Osaka, Japan).

2.3. Establishment of mice sepsis model

The mouse sepsis model was established by LPS administration or cecal ligation and puncture (CLP). In the LPS-induced sepsis model, LPS or the same amount of saline were intraperitoneally administrated to C57BL6 male mice. The amount of LPS (1.25 or 2.5 mg/kg) was previously determined [20]. CLP was performed as follows: Mice were put in an anesthesia bottle and induced with sevoflurane. The mice were placed in a supine position, maintaining anesthesia by 2% sevoflurane with a nosecone cover on the face. Then, we shaved the abdomen, disinfected the skin with 70% alcohol, and made a midline abdominal incision of approximately 1.5 cm with a surgical knife. The cecum was carefully identified, ligated at 1 cm of its distal end, and sutured with No. 3–0 silk (Alfresa, Osaka, Japan). The tip of the ligated side was punctured using an 18-gauge needle and then replaced into the abdominal cavity. The peritoneum and skin scar were sutured with No. 3–0 and No. 4–0 silk, respectively. The nosecone cover was removed, and the mice were placed in their cage. The sham operation was a skin and peritoneal incision and cecum identification. During the procedure, the rectal temperature was maintained above 37°C.

2.4. Reverse transcription and real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR)

Total RNA was isolated from the spinal cords using a Nucleospin RNA II kit^® (Macherey-Nagel, Düren, Germany). First-strand cDNA synthesis and real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) were conducted with One Step CYBR™ RT-PCR Kit II (Takara Bio, Shiga, Japan) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. RT-PCR assays were conducted using the 7300 Real-Time PCR System (Applied Biosystems, CA, USA). The PCR primers of 18S and IL-6 for mice were obtained from Qiagen (Valencia, CA, USA) (Catalog Numbers: 18S mouse; QT02448075, IL-6 mouse; QT00098875). IL-1β, TNFα, COX-2, and IL-36γ were obtained from Invitrogen (CA, USA). Primer sequences were as follows: IL-1β 5′-ATGAGGACATGAGCACCTTC-3′ (forward) and 5′-CATTGAGTTGGAGAGCTTTC-3′ (reverse), TNFα 5′-TCGTAGCAAACCACCAAGTG-3′ (forward) and 5′-CCTTGAAGAGAACCTGGGAGT-3′ (reverse), COX-2 5’ -TGAGCAAC- TATTCCAAACCAGC-3’ (forward) and 5’ -GCACGTAGTCTTCGATCAC- TATC-3’ (reverse), and IL-36γ 5’ -AGAGTAACCCCAGTCAGCGTG-3’ (forward) and 5’ -AGGGTGGTGGTACAAATCCAA-3’ (reverse). For each target mRNA, the fold changes in expression were calculated relative to 18S rRNA.

2.5. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA)

Immediately after the euthanasia by decapitation, blood was sampled from the left ventricle. Sampled blood was centrifuged at 3,000 ×g for 15 min, and the supernatants were extracted and frozen at −20°C until the experiment was conducted. Serum IL-6 concentrations were assayed using an IL-6 ELISA kit (Abcam plc, Cambridge, UK) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Briefly, each 20 μl of serum was diluted fivefold with sample dilution buffer and was applied to IL-6 96-well microplate with concentration-regulated standard solutions. The plate was covered and incubated overnight at 4°C with gentle shaking. After washing four times with wash solution (300 μl each), 100 μl aliquots of biotinylated IL-6 detection antibody was added and incubated for 1 h at room temperature with gentle shaking. After washing four times, 100 μl aliquots of horseradish peroxidase (HRP)–streptavidin solution were added and incubated for 1 h at room temperature prior to washing four times again. Finally, 100 μl aliquots of 3,3′,5,5′-tetramethylbenzidine (TMB) one step substrate reagent was added to develop blue color. After incubating for 30 min at room temperature in the dark with gentle shaking, 50 μl aliquots of stop solution was added to each well to change the color from blue to yellow. Immediately, absorbance intensity was measured at 450 nm with a reference wavelength of 655 nm.

2.6. Histochemical analysis

Immediately after euthanasia by cervical dislocation, mice were transcardially perfused with PBS, followed by 4% paraformaldehyde (PFA). Then, the spinal cords from the upper thorax to the lower lumbar cord were harvested containing surrounding vertebra. The spinal cords were fixed with 4% PFA for 2 days at 4°C and penetrated into 10% EDTA-Na (pH 7.4) for vertebral decalcification. After decalcification, they were embedded in paraffin as transverse sections (10 μm thick). Then, we stained them with hematoxylin and eosin, followed by immunohistochemistry with anti-neuronal nuclei (NeuN) (MAB377, Merch Millipore, Darmstadt, Germany, diluted to 1:100 in PBS), a specific marker for neurons, anti-glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) (#3670, Cell Signaling, Danvers, MA, USA, diluted to 1:50 in PBS), a specific marker for astrocytes, and anti-ionized calcium binding adapter protein (IBA)-1 antibodies (ab107159, Abcam plc, Cambridge, UK, diluted to 1:2,000 in PBS) a specific marker for macrophage/microglia. Immunohistochemistry analysis was conducted as follows: Endogenous peroxidase activity was blocked by 0.3% H₂O₂ in methyl alcohol for 30 min. The glass slides were washed in PBS (six times, 5 min each) and mounted with 1% normal serum in PBS for 30 min. Subsequently, the primary antibodies were applied overnight at 4°C. They were incubated with biotinylated secondary antibodies diluted to 1:300 in PBS for 40 min, followed by washes in PBS (six times, 5 min). We then applied the avidin-biotin-peroxidase complex (ABC) (ABC-Elite, Vector Laboratories, Burlingame, CA) at a dilution of 1:100 in bovine serum albumin (BSA) for 50 min. After washing in PBS (six times, 5 min), the tissue was stained with DAB, and nuclei were counterstained with hematoxylin.

2.7. Immunoblot assay

Harvested spinal cord tissues were homogenized on ice into radio-immunoprecipitation assay (RIPA)-based buffer (Wako, Osaka, Japan) [RIPA buffer containing 2 mM dithiothreitol (DTT), 1 mM sodium orthovanadate (Na₃VO₄), and complete protease inhibitor (Roche Diagnostics, Basel, Switzerland)]. After the tissue was centrifuged at 10,000 ×g, the supernatants were extracted. The total protein concentration was measured via the modified Bradford assay using BSA as a standard. Aliquots with 100 μg of protein were fractionated by 10% SDS polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS/PAGE), and the separated proteins were electrotransferred to polyvinylidene difluoride membranes using a transfer buffer. The membrane was probed with the following primary antibodies overnight at 4°C: β-actin (A5316; Sigma-Aldrich) and NeuN (MAB377, Merch Millipore, Darmstadt, Germany). Subsequently, the membrane was incubated with HRP-conjugated anti-mouse immunoglobulin G (IgG) (GE Healthcare, Piscataway, NJ) or anti-rabbit IgG antibodies (GE Healthcare) for 1 h at room temperature. All antibodies were used according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The membranes were stripped and reblotted twice to detect loading controls, as follows: 5 ml of stripping buffer (stripping buffer component: 10% SDS 40 ml, 1 M Tris HCl at pH 6.8 12.5 ml, and distilled water 146 ml) with 40 μl of β-mercaptoethanol added to the PVDF membrane. Then, the membrane was incubated at 50°C for 30 min. All chemiluminescent signals were developed with enhanced chemiluminescence reagents (GE Healthcare).

2.8. Statistical analysis

All data are presented as means ± standard deviation. Statistical analysis was conducted using GraphPad Prism version 7.01, and a P value of <0.05 was considered significant. Differences between the two groups were analyzed with unpaired Mann–Whitney U-tests. The Kruskal–Wallis H-test, followed by the Mann–Whitney U-test with Bonferroni correction, was used to compare between three or more groups.

3. Results

3.1. Pro-inflammatory cytokine expression in the spinal cord is significantly upregulated in a murine sepsis model

LPS was administered intraperitoneally to 10-week-old BALB/c male mice, and the serum IL-6 concentration was verified to be significantly elevated (Fig 1A). To investigate the inflammatory change induced in the spinal cord during sepsis, pro-inflammatory cytokine expression was analyzed by qRT-PCR. Fig 1B–1D shows that IL-1β, IL-6, and TNFα were drastically enhanced 2 h after LPS administration. Those upregulations normalized with time and returned to near baseline levels after 24 h, except for TNFα (Fig 1B–1D). Pro-inflammatory cytokine dynamics in the spinal cord were similar to the brain (Fig 1E–1G). In order to exclude the possibility of the effect of mice species, we performed the experiments in C57BL6 mice to find no difference between the two species (S1 Fig). Among inflammation-related genes other than pro-inflammatory cytokines, COX-2 was upregulated, but IL-36γ was not induced in the spinal cord (S2 Fig). The same study was performed with CLP mice as another representative model of sepsis. Spinal pro-inflammatory cytokine expression was significantly upregulated, and those inflammatory changes remained 24 h after the CLP operation (Fig 2).

Fig 1 — LPS 1.25 or 2.5 mg/kg, or the same amount of normal saline, was intraperitoneally administrated to 10-week-old BALB/c male mice. (A) Two-hour after the LPS administration, serum IL-6 concentration was determined with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) (n = 4–5). mRNA expression levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines were determined in their spinal cords (B–D) and brains (E–G). 2, 6, and 24 h after LPS administration. Interleukin (IL)-1β (B and E), IL-6 (C and F), and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) (D and G) mRNA were assayed using real-time quantitative polymerase chain reactions (qRT-PCR; n = 4–7), and the expression levels were normalized to those of 18S rRNA and expressed relative to the mean in control mice. Data are presented as means ± standard deviations (S.D.); *P < 0.05 versus control; **P < 0.01 versus control; N.S., not significant.

Fig 2 — CLP or sham operation was performed on 10-week-old BALB/c male mice under isoflurane anesthesia. mRNA expression levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines were determined in their spinal cords 4 and 24 h after the procedure. IL-6 (A), IL-1β (B), and TNFα (C) mRNA were assayed using real-time qRT-PCR (n = 4–6), and the expression levels were normalized to those of 18S rRNA and expressed relative to the mean in control mice. Data are presented as means ± S.D. *P < 0.05 versus control; **P < 0.01 versus control.

3.2. Spinal morphological changes in LPS-treated mice

Histopathological analysis of the spinal cord sections stained with hematoxylin and eosin (HE) revealed that the morphology was almost normal in the control group (Fig 3). By contrast, the Th11 level of LPS-administered mice edematous change was confirmed especially in the anterior columns of LPS-treated mice so severe to be necrotic (Figs 3 and 4). In addition, densely stained ischemic neurons were widespread throughout the gray matter, especially around bilateral anterior horns (Fig 3). The nuclei of hyperchromatic cells were darker than the perikaryal, and the cytoplasm was shrunken (Fig 4). Despite these morphological changes in the spinal cord, infiltration of neutrophils and lymphocytes was not clearly observable under HE staining (Figs 3 and 4).

Fig 3 — LPS 2.5 mg/kg, or the same amount of normal saline, was intraperitoneally administrated to 10-week-old BALB/c male mice. The spinal cords were harvested 1 and 3 days after the administration, and Th 7, Th 11, and L3 transverse spinal sections were prepared and stained with hematoxylin and eosin (n = 4). A representative image of saline administrated mice was shown as control. Arrows indicate edematous changes of the anterior column and arrowheads depict densely stained cells. Scale bars, 200 μm (×100).

Fig 4 — High-magnification images of Fig 3 are shown. Arrows indicate edematous changes of the anterior column and arrowheads depict densely stained cells. Scale bars, 50 μm (×400).

3.3. Spinal microglial activation in LPS-treated mice

Microglia, the resident immune cells in the CNS, are well known to release inflammatory cytokines. Thus, spinal microglia were analyzed using immunohistochemical staining for the microglia-specific protein IBA-1. The number of IBA-1-positive cells significantly increased 1 day after LPS administration and returned to its normal state 3 days after LPS administration (Fig 5A–5C). In contrast, the astrocyte-specific protein GFAP-positive cells were not quantitatively nor qualitatively changed after LPS administration (Fig 5A and 5D). NeuN-positive cells drastically decreased 3 days after LPS administration (Fig 5A and 5E), but NeuN expression was unchanged as revealed by immunoblotting (Fig 5F).

Fig 5 — LPS 2.5 mg/kg, or the same amount of normal saline, was intraperitoneally administrated to 10-week-old BALB/c male mice and spinal cords were harvested 1 and 3 days after the administration. Lower thoracic transverse spinal sections were immunostained for ionized calcium-binding adaptor molecule (IBA-1), glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), and neuronal nuclei (NeuN) (A) and quantified (B–E) (n = 4). A representative image of saline administrated mice was shown as control. Scale bars, 200 μm (×100; IBA-1 and NeuN) and 50 μm (×400; GFAP). Data are presented as means ± S.D.; **P < 0.01, N.S., not significant. Thoracic and lumbar spinal cords of 10-week-old BALB/c mice 1 (1d), 3 (3d), and 10 (10d) days after LPS administration were analyzed with NeuN expression by immunoblot assay (F). CT; control. The figure is representative of three independent experiments.

4. Discussion

This present study assessed the biochemical and histopathological changes to the spinal cord during sepsis. Systemic LPS administration is a minimally invasive, controllable, and reproducible method that mimics the acute phase of Gram-negative sepsis [21, 22]. This study found that pro-inflammatory cytokines, including IL-1β, IL-6, and TNF-α, were drastically induced in the spinal cord as early as 2 h after LPS administration and almost alleviated within 24 h. This timeline is similar to that of the brain. Histopathological examination revealed that IBA-1-positive cells significantly proliferated. By contrast, no significant changes were observed in astrocytes. HE staining showed no infiltration of neutrophils and lymphocytes into the spinal cord. Actually, the expression of IL-36γ, induced by LPS in neutrophils [23], did not change in the spinal cord. Microglia are the major source of pro-inflammatory cytokines in the CNS in various neuroinflammatory diseases [24, 25]. In the current study, the largest induction of inflammatory cytokines occurred only 2 h after LPS administration; therefore, this reaction occurred within hours and was mainly caused by CNS residual microglia. On the other hand, peripheral inflammatory cells including monocyte-derived macrophage and neutrophils are reported to infiltrate into the CNS 24 h after LPS treatment [26, 27]. It is possible that peripheral cells are involved in the inflammatory changes that occurred afterward in the spinal cord. The degree of involvement of microglia and peripheral cells will need to be examined with more precise experiments like flow cytometry. Neuroinflammation is defined as the activation of the CNS’s innate immune system in response to an inflammatory challenge and is characterized by a host of cellular and molecular changes within the CNS [28, 29]. Consequently, these findings strongly suggest that neuroinflammation occurs in the spinal cord and the brain during sepsis.

In the brain, previous reports have revealed that microglia are activated after LPS administration [30]. Inflammatory mediators, including pro-inflammatory cytokines, prostaglandins, and NOs, can impair the BBB and transmit signals to activate cerebral microglia [10–12]. In this study, the blood concentration of IL-6 was significantly increased. Therefore, it is possible that these peripherally derived inflammatory substances disrupted the BSCB, as the BSCB is similar to the BBB in function and morphology [19]. Importantly, the BSCB is reported to be more permeable than the BBB with relatively low expression of tight junction proteins [31]. Thus, cytokines can pass through the BSCB with more ease than the BBB [32]. However, in this study, the induction of pro-inflammatory cytokines in the spinal cord was synergistic with the brain. The conduction of the stimulus from the periphery to the CNS may be via nerves, cerebrospinal fluid, or blood flow, but the precise mechanisms need to be investigated.

Histopathological analysis of LPS-treated mouse spinal cords revealed serious neuronal ischemic changes as indicated by hyperchromatic neurons and severe edema in the white matter. These lesions were widespread from the thorax to the lumbar spinal cord. A previous study that examined the histopathological cerebral changes with a septic murine model showed similar neuronal hyperchromatic alterations [5]. The altered cerebral circulation due to systemic hypotension, thrombus formation, and impaired cerebral vasoreactivity may induce neuronal ischemia and degeneration [33]. Therefore, the histological changes in the spinal cord can be induced by the same mechanism as in the brain, although the precise mechanism needs to be elucidated. It is possible that the alteration of the spinal cord was extremely widespread and severe since white matter edema was partially necrotic. With such drastic pathological changes, the function of the spinal cord could be impaired. Conversely, neuromuscular weakness and acute diffuse muscle weakness in critically ill patients, called ICU-acquired weakness (ICU-AW), occur during sepsis [34–36]. ICU-AW occurs in 46% of severely septic patients [35, 37], and the most common causes are likely critical illness polyneuropathy (CIP), critical illness myopathy (CIM), and the overlap of critical illness polyneuromyopathy (CIPNM) [38]. However, the involvement of the spinal cord in neuromuscular weakness has not been investigated, although spinal motor neuron excitability was reduced in a CLP model rat [39]. Considering there are few effective treatments for CIP, CIM, and CIPNM [40], the clinical impact could be significant if the involvement of spinal cord lesions is confirmed and therapeutic agents that target spinal microglia such as minocycline are effective. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify the extent of spinal cord involvement in sepsis-induced neuromuscular weakness.

One of the limitations of this study is that the animal model used is an LPS administration model. Sepsis is a very complex condition, and it is quite possible that the LPS model and actual sepsis may not always match. In fact, in another model utilized, i.e., CLP, the induction of inflammatory cytokines in the spinal cord was milder and lasted longer than the LPS model. Additionally, only short-term investigation of LPS administration, i.e., within 72 h, was conducted. This was due to the quick loss the LPS effect. During actual sepsis, the time course is usually longer, so it is necessary to observe animals over the longer time course. In addition, NeuN-positive cells were drastically decreased in LPS-treated mice. However, according to a previous report, loss of NeuN immunoreactivity after cerebral ischemia does not indicate neuronal cell loss [41]. In this study, the expression level of NeuN was not changed with LPS in immunoblotting. Therefore, as quantification of NeuN-positive cells might be influenced by inflammation-induced ischemia, other neuronal markers including MAP2, synaptophysin, and PSD95 may be more preferable. Moreover, the edematous change was confirmed by HE staining of the anterior columns. Therefore, immunohistochemical examination for neuronal network using chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans (CSPGs) may be useful. Finally, in sepsis, hypotension and accompanying increase in lactate level can occur [42, 43]. Therefore, in this study, secondary hemodynamic changes after LPS administration may have affected ischemic neuronal changes in the spinal cord. It may be necessary to investigate the cause of ischemic changes in the spinal cord in more detail by analyzing secondary changes including blood pressure and oxygenation.

In summary, inflammatory changes in the spinal cord were examined using a murine sepsis model. After LPS administration, drastic induction of inflammatory cytokines and a marked increase of activated microglia were observed in the spinal cord. Histologically, extensive edema and necrosis of the white matter and ischemic changes in the gray matter were observed. These findings strongly suggest that inflammatory changes occurred in the spinal cord during sepsis and that those changes may contribute to ICU-AW.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Effect of intraperitoneal lipopolysaccharide (LPS) administration on pro-inflammatory cytokine expression in C57BL6 mouse spinal cords.

LPS 1.25 or 2.5 mg/kg, or the same amount of normal saline, was intraperitoneally administrated to 10-week-old C57BL6 male mice. mRNA expression levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines were determined in their spinal cords (A-C). mRNA were assayed using real-time quantitative polymerase chain reactions (qRT-PCR; n = 3–5), and the expression levels were normalized to those of 18S rRNA and expressed relative to the mean in control mice. Data are presented as means ± standard deviations (S.D.); *P < 0.05 versus control; N.S., not significant.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(363.5KB, tif)}

S2 Fig. Effect of intraperitoneal lipopolysaccharide (LPS) administration on pro-inflammatory cytokine cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 and interleukin (IL)-36γ expression in mice spinal cords.

LPS 2.5 mg/kg, or the same amount of normal saline was intraperitoneally administrated to 10-week-old C57BL6 male mice. Pro-inflammatory cytokine COX-2 (A) and IL-36γ (B) mRNA expression were determined in their spinal cords 2 h after LPS administration. MRNA were assayed using real-time quantitative polymerase chain reactions (qRT-PCR; n = 4), and the expression levels were normalized to those of 18S rRNA and expressed relative to the mean in control mice. Data are presented as means ± standard deviations (S.D.); *P < 0.05 versus control; N.S., not significant.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(202.4KB, tif)}

S1 File

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(22.3KB, xlsx)}

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Center for Anatomical, Pathological and Forensic Medical Researches, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University for technical help for immunocytochemical analysis and advice.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

TT received the Grant-in Aid for Scientific Research (17K11076) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (Tokyo, Japan). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

1.Gotts JE, Matthay MA. Sepsis: pathophysiology and clinical management. Bmj. 2016;353:i1585. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i1585 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Tang Y, Soroush F, Sun S, Liverani E, Langston JC, Yang Q, et al. Protein kinase C-delta inhibition protects blood-brain barrier from sepsis-induced vascular damage. Journal of neuroinflammation. 2018;15(1):309. doi: 10.1186/s12974-018-1342-y ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6220469. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.Iwashyna TJ, Ely EW, Smith DM, Langa KM. Long-term cognitive impairment and functional disability among survivors of severe sepsis. Jama. 2010;304(16):1787–94. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.1553 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3345288. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Battle CE, Lovett S, Hutchings H. Chronic pain in survivors of critical illness: a retrospective analysis of incidence and risk factors. Critical care. 2013;17(3):R101. doi: 10.1186/cc12746 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4057262. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Gofton TE, Young GB. Sepsis-associated encephalopathy. Nat Rev Neurol. 2012;8(10):557–66. Epub 20120918. doi: 10.1038/nrneurol.2012.183 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Cecconi M, Evans L, Levy M, Rhodes A. Sepsis and septic shock. Lancet. 2018;392(10141):75–87. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30696-2 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Ren C, Yao RQ, Zhang H, Feng YW, Yao YM. Sepsis-associated encephalopathy: a vicious cycle of immunosuppression. Journal of neuroinflammation. 2020;17(1):14. doi: 10.1186/s12974-020-1701-3 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6953314. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Fukushima S, Furube E, Itoh M, Nakashima T, Miyata S. Robust increase of microglia proliferation in the fornix of hippocampal axonal pathway after a single LPS stimulation. Journal of neuroimmunology. 2015;285:31–40. doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroim.2015.05.014 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Westhoff D, Engelen-Lee JY, Hoogland ICM, Aronica EMA, van Westerloo DJ, van de Beek D, et al. Systemic infection and microglia activation: a prospective postmortem study in sepsis patients. Immunity & ageing: I & A. 2019;16:18. doi: 10.1186/s12979-019-0158-7 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6664744. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10.Comim CM, Vilela MC, Constantino LS, Petronilho F, Vuolo F, Lacerda-Queiroz N, et al. Traffic of leukocytes and cytokine up-regulation in the central nervous system in sepsis. Intensive care medicine. 2011;37(4):711–8. doi: 10.1007/s00134-011-2151-2 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Sharshar T, Polito A, Checinski A, Stevens RD. Septic-associated encephalopathy—everything starts at a microlevel. Critical care. 2010;14(5):199. doi: 10.1186/cc9254 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3219258. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Heming N, Mazeraud A, Verdonk F, Bozza FA, Chretien F, Sharshar T. Neuroanatomy of sepsis-associated encephalopathy. Critical care. 2017;21(1):65. doi: 10.1186/s13054-017-1643-z ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5360026. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.Alexander JK, Popovich PG. Neuroinflammation in spinal cord injury: therapeutic targets for neuroprotection and regeneration. Progress in brain research. 2009;175:125–37. doi: 10.1016/S0079-6123(09)17508-8 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Reece TB, Okonkwo DO, Ellman PI, Warren PS, Smith RL, Hawkins AS, et al. The evolution of ischemic spinal cord injury in function, cytoarchitecture, and inflammation and the effects of adenosine A2A receptor activation. The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery. 2004;128(6):925–32. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2004.08.019 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15.Amor S, Puentes F, Baker D, van der Valk P. Inflammation in neurodegenerative diseases. Immunology. 2010;129(2):154–69. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2567.2009.03225.x ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2814458. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16.Bolton CF, Gilbert JJ, Hahn AF, Sibbald WJ. Polyneuropathy in critically ill patients. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry. 1984;47(11):1223–31. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.47.11.1223 PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1028091. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17.Khan J, Harrison TB, Rich MM, Moss M. Early development of critical illness myopathy and neuropathy in patients with severe sepsis. Neurology. 2006;67(8):1421–5. doi: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000239826.63523.8e . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.Callahan LA, Supinski GS. Sepsis-induced myopathy. Critical care medicine. 2009;37(10 Suppl):S354–67. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181b6e439 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3967515. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.Bartanusz V, Jezova D, Alajajian B, Digicaylioglu M. The blood-spinal cord barrier: morphology and clinical implications. Annals of neurology. 2011;70(2):194–206. doi: 10.1002/ana.22421 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Sumbria RK, Grigoryan MM, Vasilevko V, Krasieva TB, Scadeng M, Dvornikova AK, et al. A murine model of inflammation-induced cerebral microbleeds. Journal of neuroinflammation. 2016;13(1):218. doi: 10.1186/s12974-016-0693-5 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5006574. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21.Copeland S, Warren HS, Lowry SF, Calvano SE, Remick D, Inflammation, et al. Acute inflammatory response to endotoxin in mice and humans. Clinical and diagnostic laboratory immunology. 2005;12(1):60–7. doi: 10.1128/CDLI.12.1.60-67.2005 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC540200. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22.Korneev KV. [Mouse Models of Sepsis and Septic Shock]. Molekuliarnaia biologiia. 2019;53(5):799–814. doi: 10.1134/S0026898419050100 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Koss CK, Wohnhaas CT, Baker JR, Tilp C, Przibilla M, Lerner C, et al. IL36 is a critical upstream amplifier of neutrophilic lung inflammation in mice. Communications biology. 2021;4(1):172. doi: 10.1038/s42003-021-01703-3 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7870940. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Streit WJ, Mrak RE, Griffin WS. Microglia and neuroinflammation: a pathological perspective. Journal of neuroinflammation. 2004;1(1):14. doi: 10.1186/1742-2094-1-14 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC509427. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.Kettenmann H, Hanisch UK, Noda M, Verkhratsky A. Physiology of microglia. Physiological reviews. 2011;91(2):461–553. doi: 10.1152/physrev.00011.2010 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26.Trzeciak A, Lerman YV, Kim TH, Kim MR, Mai N, Halterman MW, et al. Long-Term Microgliosis Driven by Acute Systemic Inflammation. Journal of immunology. 2019;203(11):2979–89. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1900317 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6868345. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27.Jeong HK, Jou I, Joe EH. Systemic LPS administration induces brain inflammation but not dopaminergic neuronal death in the substantia nigra. Experimental & molecular medicine. 2010;42(12):823–32. doi: 10.3858/emm.2010.42.12.085 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3015156. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28.Gendelman HE. Neural immunity: Friend or foe? Journal of neurovirology. 2002;8(6):474–9. doi: 10.1080/13550280290168631 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Shastri A, Bonifati DM, Kishore U. Innate immunity and neuroinflammation. Mediators of inflammation. 2013;2013:342931. doi: 10.1155/2013/342931 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3697414. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30.Szollosi D, Hegedus N, Veres DS, Futo I, Horvath I, Kovacs N, et al. Evaluation of Brain Nuclear Medicine Imaging Tracers in a Murine Model of Sepsis-Associated Encephalopathy. Molecular imaging and biology. 2018;20(6):952–62. doi: 10.1007/s11307-018-1201-3 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6244542. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31.Ge S, Pachter JS. Isolation and culture of microvascular endothelial cells from murine spinal cord. Journal of neuroimmunology. 2006;177(1–2):209–14. doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroim.2006.05.012 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Cardoso RFM, Basting RT, Franca FMG, Amaral F, Basting RT. Physicochemical characterization, water sorption and solubility of adhesive systems incorporated with titanium tetrafluoride, and its influence on dentin permeability. Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials. 2021;119:104453. doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2021.104453 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33.Yokoo H, Chiba S, Tomita K, Takashina M, Sagara H, Yagisita S, et al. Neurodegenerative evidence in mice brains with cecal ligation and puncture-induced sepsis: preventive effect of the free radical scavenger edaravone. PloS one. 2012;7(12):e51539. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0051539 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3517559. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34.Latronico N, Bolton CF. Critical illness polyneuropathy and myopathy: a major cause of muscle weakness and paralysis. The Lancet Neurology. 2011;10(10):931–41. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(11)70178-8 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35.Batt J, dos Santos CC, Cameron JI, Herridge MS. Intensive care unit-acquired weakness: clinical phenotypes and molecular mechanisms. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine. 2013;187(3):238–46. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201205-0954SO . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36.Zink W, Kollmar R, Schwab S. Critical illness polyneuropathy and myopathy in the intensive care unit. Nature reviews Neurology. 2009;5(7):372–9. doi: 10.1038/nrneurol.2009.75 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37.Stevens RD, Dowdy DW, Michaels RK, Mendez-Tellez PA, Pronovost PJ, Needham DM. Neuromuscular dysfunction acquired in critical illness: a systematic review. Intensive care medicine. 2007;33(11):1876–91. doi: 10.1007/s00134-007-0772-2 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38.Shepherd S, Batra A, Lerner DP. Review of Critical Illness Myopathy and Neuropathy. The Neurohospitalist. 2017;7(1):41–8. doi: 10.1177/1941874416663279 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5167093. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39.Nardelli P, Vincent JA, Powers R, Cope TC, Rich MM. Reduced motor neuron excitability is an important contributor to weakness in a rat model of sepsis. Experimental neurology. 2016;282:1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2016.04.020 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4912926. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40.Hermans G, De Jonghe B, Bruyninckx F, Van den Berghe G. Clinical review: Critical illness polyneuropathy and myopathy. Critical care. 2008;12(6):238. doi: 10.1186/cc7100 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2646339. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41.Unal-Cevik I, Kilinc M, Gursoy-Ozdemir Y, Gurer G, Dalkara T. Loss of NeuN immunoreactivity after cerebral ischemia does not indicate neuronal cell loss: a cautionary note. Brain research. 2004;1015(1–2):169–74. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2004.04.032 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42.Michaeli B, Martinez A, Revelly JP, Cayeux MC, Chiolero RL, Tappy L, et al. Effects of endotoxin on lactate metabolism in humans. Critical care. 2012;16(4):R139. doi: 10.1186/cc11444 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3580724. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43.Kumar A, Haery C, Paladugu B, Kumar A, Symeoneides S, Taiberg L, et al. The duration of hypotension before the initiation of antibiotic treatment is a critical determinant of survival in a murine model of Escherichia coli septic shock: association with serum lactate and inflammatory cytokine levels. The Journal of infectious diseases. 2006;193(2):251–8. doi: 10.1086/498909 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0269924.r001

Decision Letter 0

Rosanna Di Paola

11 Feb 2022

PONE-D-21-28822Sepsis-Associated Neuroinflammation in the Spinal CordPLOS ONE

Dear Dr.

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. 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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 10 days. 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,

Rosanna Di Paola, MD

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. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels.

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions

3. Please provide additional information within the Methods section regarding steps taken to alleviate suffering of the animals during the study. Furthermore , please provide a justification for the sample size used in your study, including any relevant power calculations (if applicable). And finally please indicate the timepoint at which the animals were scarified

4. "Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section:

"No"

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf."

5. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

[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: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

**********

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

**********

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: 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 manuscript investigated the impact of sepsis on the spinal cord and further presented the neuroinflammation of this tissue with a focus on pro-inflammatory cytokines and microglia. Based on an original idea, this article introduces potential new area of investigations into the effects of sepsis on central nervous system.

Major concerns:

- An isolation of microglia followed by qRT-PCR would provide a real added value using specific markers of inflammation or ROS. Moreover, the absence of neutrophils is surprising especially if the BSCB is broken down by LPS as expected. These leukocytes have already been observed in spinal cord using infectious models. Defined by a cytokine storm, the administration of LPS should induce an infiltration of these cells within 24 hours.

- Difficult to compare data obtained from an endotoxemic model using a relative low dose of LPS (with a high survival rate at 5 days) and a lethal CLP model (100 % of death within 72 hours). To compare your sepsis models, a puncture using a 23 or 25-gauge needle would be much better.

- Neuroinflammation in the spinal cord is recognized following infections and was expected after endotoxin injection. An analyze of more specific markers of the spinal cord such as CSPG would be positive.

- The effects of LPS on arterial pressure and lactate concentration should also be included in the article to confirm the sepsis model. One or two references would also get the job done.

Additional concerns:

- An analysis of the macrophages derived from monocytes would be interesting.

- 78: Lipopolyssacharide from E.Coli 055:B5 is designated as L28880 instead of L2880.

- 146: The target of anti-NeuN and anti-IBA1 antibodies should be explained directly after the first mention.

- 185-194: I have some concerns about statistics:

• Was an analysis of variance done on data families to avoid unsuitable comparisons?

• “Sample size was determined on the basis of a power analysis” -> What is the result of this power analysis?

• “Normality was tested using data from our recent similar studies” -> How can you use data not involved in this study to analyze normality of your results?

- 220: “there were no peripheral inflammatory cell infiltrations …. “: This sentence is too affirmative.

- 252: "it is natural to think that the inflammatory cytokines are mainly derived from microglia, although vascular endothelial cells may be another source of production”. Other cells are also implicated in inflammatory cytokines production. This sentence is also too affirmative.

- 268: “in our study, the induction of pro-inflammatory cytokines in the spinal cord was very synergistic with the brain, suggesting that there may be a mechanism for transmitting inflammatory stimuli from the spinal cord to the brain or vice versa”. How can you observe a mechanism transmitting inflammatory stimuli from the brain to the spinal cord if the BSCB is reported to be more permeable than the BBB and without BBB dysfunction observed?

**********

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

[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 Jun 13;17(6):e0269924. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0269924.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

15 Mar 2022

Dear Dr. Rosanna Di Paola

For possible publication in PLOS ONE, we wish to re-submit revised version of the manuscript entitled “Sepsis-Associated Neuroinflammation in the Spinal Cord” (PONE-D-21-28822) We substantially revised the manuscript in response to the comment of the editor and reviewer to address some of the issues raised in the evaluation of the original manuscript.

We wish to express our strong appreciation to the editor and reviewer for his or her insightful comments on our paper. We feel the comments have helped us significantly improve the paper.

The reviewer’s comments are indicated in point 8 bold face letter followed by our responses in point 10 letter.

Comments from the reviewer

Major points:

1. An isolation of microglia followed by qRT-PCR would provide a real added value using specific markers of inflammation or ROS. Moreover, the absence of neutrophils is surprising especially if the BSCB is broken down by LPS as expected. These leukocytes have already been observed in spinal cord using infectious models. Defined by a cytokine storm, the administration of LPS should induce an infiltration of these cells within 24 hours.

In this study, we mainly focus on whether sepsis induces neuroinflammation in the spinal cord or not. As the reviewer pointed out, we have to admit that we did not clarify the mechanism of inflammation in the spinal cord well, for example, what category of inflammatory cells are involved. In order to clarify that point, we added the RT-PCR experiment with another representative inflammation-related gene, COX-2 and neutrophil-specific gene, IL-36g to find that COX-2 was upregulated, but IL-36g was stable with LPS administration in the spinal cord (Supplementary figure). According to the past report, infiltration of peripheral inflammatory cells occurs within 24 hours of LPS administration, but, in our study, upregulation of inflammatory cytokines was found as early as 2 hours after LPS treatment. So, we think, at least, for the neuroinflammation observed at least within a few hours after LPS administration, the contribution of peripheral inflammatory cells may be small. The results of supplementary figure　are not definitive, but support that point. However, the involvement of these cells cannot be ruled out over a longer period of time. We have to admit that our data is not enough to conclude that what cells are main contributor of neuroinflammation in the spinal cord, and more detailed investigation will in need. We substantially revised the manuscript, especially in the 1st paragraph of discussion section in order to escape the misleading.

2) Difficult to compare data obtained from an endotoxemic model using a relative low dose of LPS (with a high survival rate at 5 days) and a lethal CLP model (100 % of death within 72 hours). To compare your sepsis models, a puncture using a 23 or 25-gauge needle would be much better.

In the preliminary experiment, we examined the CLP model with 24G needle, but systemic inflammation including elevation of plasma IL-6 did not occur. Therefore, we adopted 18G in our experiments. However, as the reviewer pointed out, the degree of inflammation in the spinal cord was very different between the two models. In the current study, we focused on the occurrence of neuroinflammation in the spinal cord, and conclude that happens with the finding of proinflammatory cytokine induction in both septic models. But, the CLP model should be examined more precisely in the future.

3) Neuroinflammation in the spinal cord is recognized following infections and was expected after endotoxin injection. An analyze of more specific markers of the spinal cord such as CSPG would be positive.

As the reviewer pointed out, immunohistochemical examination using specific markers of the spinal cord would be more informative, especially focusing on spinal neuronal networking. In the discussion section of revised manuscript (line327-330), we added the sentences as follows;

“Moreover, the edematous change was confirmed by HE staining of the anterior columns. Therefore, immunohistochemical examination for neuronal network using chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans (CSPGs) may be useful.”

Other comments:

4) The effects of LPS on arterial pressure and lactate concentration should also be included in the article to confirm the sepsis model. One or two references would also get the job done

As the reviewer pointed out, the secondary changes including hypotension and lactate accumulation induced by systemic inflammation in sepsis can affect spinal cord, especially its ischemic changes. Thus, we added the sentences in the discussion section (line330-335) as follows;

“Finally, in sepsis, hypotension and accompanying increase in lactate level can occur [42, 43]. Therefore, in this study, secondary hemodynamic changes after LPS administration may have affected ischemic neuronal changes in the spinal cord. It may be necessary to investigate the cause of ischemic changes in the spinal cord in more detail by analyzing secondary changes including blood pressure and oxygenation.”

Additional concerns:

- An analysis of the macrophages derived from monocytes would be interesting.

The reviewer’s suggestion is important. In the current study, we could not clarify the point, but we agree that point should be precisely examined in the future. In the 1st paragraph of discussion section, we described about that point.

- 78: Lipopolyssacharide from E.Coli 055:B5 is designated as L28880 instead of L2880.

- 146: The target of anti-NeuN and anti-IBA1 antibodies should be explained directly after the first mention

We corrected the description as the reviewer indicated.

- 185-194: I have some concerns about statistics:

• Was an analysis of variance done on data families to avoid unsuitable comparisons?

• “Sample size was determined on the basis of a power analysis” -> What is the result of this power analysis?

• “Normality was tested using data from our recent similar studies” -> How can you use data not involved in this study to analyze normality of your results?

The reviewer has raised an important indicate. In the preliminary experiment of proinflammatory cytokine upregulations in the spinal cord of LPS treated mice, we performed normality test to find the data was normally distributed. In addition, power analysis using 1.2 fold of the upregulation of cytokines as significant was performed. However, considering other experiments, it is practically difficult to perform normality test and power analysis. So, in order to avoid misunderstanding, we reexamined all data with non-parametric analysis. Thus, we described in the statistics section of the revised manuscript as follows;

“Differences between the two groups were analyzed with unpaired Mann–Whitney U-tests. The Kruskal–Wallis H-test, followed by the Mann–Whitney U-test with Bonferroni correction, was used to compare between three or more groups.”(line 195-201)

- 220: “there were no peripheral inflammatory cell infiltrations …. “: This sentence is too affirmative.

We agree the reviewer’s opinion about that point, so we redescribed that part as follows

”Despite these morphological changes in the spinal cord, infiltration of neutrophils and lymphocytes was not clearly observable under HE staining (Figs. 3 and 4).” (line230-232)

We agree the reviewer’s opinion about that point, so we redescribed that part as follows

“It is possible that peripheral cells are involved in the inflammatory changes that occurred afterward in the spinal cord. The degree of involvement of microglia and peripheral cells will need to be examined with more precise experiments like flow cytometry.” (revised manuscript line264-267)

In line with the reviewer’s comment, we deleted that part in the revised manuscript.

Finally, in addition to the reviewer’s comments, we revised the manuscript as follows;

1) In the original manuscript, we described all experiments were performed with C57BL6, but it was clerical error. We performed most experiments with BALB/c mice, but used C57BL6 mice for supplementary experiments, as BALB/c 10 week male mice were transiently difficult to purchase. As show in supplementary figure 1, the main finding of this study, LPS-induced proinflammatory cytokine upregulation, was common in C57BL6 as well as BALB/c mice.

2) We correctly rewritten the number of specimens.

We really appreciate the reviewer for giving us the opportunity to strengthen our manuscript with your valuable comments and queries. We trust that the revised manuscript is suitable for publication.

Sincerely yours,

Tomoharu Tanaka, MD. PhD.

Department of Anesthesia, Kyoto University Hospital, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8507, Japan.

Tel:+81-75-751-3436,Fax:+81-75-752-3259

Mail to:665tana@kuhp.kyoto-u.ac.jp

Attachment

Submitted filename: SC reply plosone4.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(27.8KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0269924.r003

Decision Letter 1

Rosanna Di Paola

1 Jun 2022

Sepsis-Associated Neuroinflammation in the Spinal Cord

PONE-D-21-28822R1

Dear Dr.

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.

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,

Rosanna Di Paola, MD

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 #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: the authors have fully addressed all the concerns raised by the reviewer anf therefoe the manuscript is now suitable for publciation

**********

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 #2: No

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0269924.r004

Acceptance letter

Rosanna Di Paola

3 Jun 2022

PONE-D-21-28822R1

Sepsis-Associated Neuroinflammation in the Spinal Cord

Dear Dr. Tanaka:

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. Rosanna Di Paola

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 Fig. Effect of intraperitoneal lipopolysaccharide (LPS) administration on pro-inflammatory cytokine expression in C57BL6 mouse spinal cords.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(363.5KB, tif)}

S2 Fig. Effect of intraperitoneal lipopolysaccharide (LPS) administration on pro-inflammatory cytokine cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 and interleukin (IL)-36γ expression in mice spinal cords.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(202.4KB, tif)}

S1 File

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(22.3KB, xlsx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: SC reply plosone4.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(27.8KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

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

[pone.0269924.ref001] 1.Gotts JE, Matthay MA. Sepsis: pathophysiology and clinical management. Bmj. 2016;353:i1585. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i1585 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269924.ref002] 2.Tang Y, Soroush F, Sun S, Liverani E, Langston JC, Yang Q, et al. Protein kinase C-delta inhibition protects blood-brain barrier from sepsis-induced vascular damage. Journal of neuroinflammation. 2018;15(1):309. doi: 10.1186/s12974-018-1342-y ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6220469. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269924.ref003] 3.Iwashyna TJ, Ely EW, Smith DM, Langa KM. Long-term cognitive impairment and functional disability among survivors of severe sepsis. Jama. 2010;304(16):1787–94. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.1553 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3345288. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269924.ref004] 4.Battle CE, Lovett S, Hutchings H. Chronic pain in survivors of critical illness: a retrospective analysis of incidence and risk factors. Critical care. 2013;17(3):R101. doi: 10.1186/cc12746 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4057262. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269924.ref005] 5.Gofton TE, Young GB. Sepsis-associated encephalopathy. Nat Rev Neurol. 2012;8(10):557–66. Epub 20120918. doi: 10.1038/nrneurol.2012.183 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269924.ref006] 6.Cecconi M, Evans L, Levy M, Rhodes A. Sepsis and septic shock. Lancet. 2018;392(10141):75–87. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30696-2 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269924.ref007] 7.Ren C, Yao RQ, Zhang H, Feng YW, Yao YM. Sepsis-associated encephalopathy: a vicious cycle of immunosuppression. Journal of neuroinflammation. 2020;17(1):14. doi: 10.1186/s12974-020-1701-3 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6953314. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269924.ref008] 8.Fukushima S, Furube E, Itoh M, Nakashima T, Miyata S. Robust increase of microglia proliferation in the fornix of hippocampal axonal pathway after a single LPS stimulation. Journal of neuroimmunology. 2015;285:31–40. doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroim.2015.05.014 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269924.ref009] 9.Westhoff D, Engelen-Lee JY, Hoogland ICM, Aronica EMA, van Westerloo DJ, van de Beek D, et al. Systemic infection and microglia activation: a prospective postmortem study in sepsis patients. Immunity & ageing: I & A. 2019;16:18. doi: 10.1186/s12979-019-0158-7 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6664744. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269924.ref010] 10.Comim CM, Vilela MC, Constantino LS, Petronilho F, Vuolo F, Lacerda-Queiroz N, et al. Traffic of leukocytes and cytokine up-regulation in the central nervous system in sepsis. Intensive care medicine. 2011;37(4):711–8. doi: 10.1007/s00134-011-2151-2 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269924.ref011] 11.Sharshar T, Polito A, Checinski A, Stevens RD. Septic-associated encephalopathy—everything starts at a microlevel. Critical care. 2010;14(5):199. doi: 10.1186/cc9254 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3219258. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269924.ref012] 12.Heming N, Mazeraud A, Verdonk F, Bozza FA, Chretien F, Sharshar T. Neuroanatomy of sepsis-associated encephalopathy. Critical care. 2017;21(1):65. doi: 10.1186/s13054-017-1643-z ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5360026. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269924.ref013] 13.Alexander JK, Popovich PG. Neuroinflammation in spinal cord injury: therapeutic targets for neuroprotection and regeneration. Progress in brain research. 2009;175:125–37. doi: 10.1016/S0079-6123(09)17508-8 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269924.ref014] 14.Reece TB, Okonkwo DO, Ellman PI, Warren PS, Smith RL, Hawkins AS, et al. The evolution of ischemic spinal cord injury in function, cytoarchitecture, and inflammation and the effects of adenosine A2A receptor activation. The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery. 2004;128(6):925–32. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2004.08.019 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269924.ref015] 15.Amor S, Puentes F, Baker D, van der Valk P. Inflammation in neurodegenerative diseases. Immunology. 2010;129(2):154–69. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2567.2009.03225.x ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2814458. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269924.ref016] 16.Bolton CF, Gilbert JJ, Hahn AF, Sibbald WJ. Polyneuropathy in critically ill patients. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry. 1984;47(11):1223–31. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.47.11.1223 PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1028091. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269924.ref017] 17.Khan J, Harrison TB, Rich MM, Moss M. Early development of critical illness myopathy and neuropathy in patients with severe sepsis. Neurology. 2006;67(8):1421–5. doi: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000239826.63523.8e . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269924.ref018] 18.Callahan LA, Supinski GS. Sepsis-induced myopathy. Critical care medicine. 2009;37(10 Suppl):S354–67. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181b6e439 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3967515. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269924.ref019] 19.Bartanusz V, Jezova D, Alajajian B, Digicaylioglu M. The blood-spinal cord barrier: morphology and clinical implications. Annals of neurology. 2011;70(2):194–206. doi: 10.1002/ana.22421 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269924.ref020] 20.Sumbria RK, Grigoryan MM, Vasilevko V, Krasieva TB, Scadeng M, Dvornikova AK, et al. A murine model of inflammation-induced cerebral microbleeds. Journal of neuroinflammation. 2016;13(1):218. doi: 10.1186/s12974-016-0693-5 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5006574. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269924.ref021] 21.Copeland S, Warren HS, Lowry SF, Calvano SE, Remick D, Inflammation, et al. Acute inflammatory response to endotoxin in mice and humans. Clinical and diagnostic laboratory immunology. 2005;12(1):60–7. doi: 10.1128/CDLI.12.1.60-67.2005 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC540200. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269924.ref022] 22.Korneev KV. [Mouse Models of Sepsis and Septic Shock]. Molekuliarnaia biologiia. 2019;53(5):799–814. doi: 10.1134/S0026898419050100 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269924.ref023] 23.Koss CK, Wohnhaas CT, Baker JR, Tilp C, Przibilla M, Lerner C, et al. IL36 is a critical upstream amplifier of neutrophilic lung inflammation in mice. Communications biology. 2021;4(1):172. doi: 10.1038/s42003-021-01703-3 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7870940. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269924.ref024] 24.Streit WJ, Mrak RE, Griffin WS. Microglia and neuroinflammation: a pathological perspective. Journal of neuroinflammation. 2004;1(1):14. doi: 10.1186/1742-2094-1-14 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC509427. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269924.ref025] 25.Kettenmann H, Hanisch UK, Noda M, Verkhratsky A. Physiology of microglia. Physiological reviews. 2011;91(2):461–553. doi: 10.1152/physrev.00011.2010 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269924.ref026] 26.Trzeciak A, Lerman YV, Kim TH, Kim MR, Mai N, Halterman MW, et al. Long-Term Microgliosis Driven by Acute Systemic Inflammation. Journal of immunology. 2019;203(11):2979–89. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1900317 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6868345. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269924.ref027] 27.Jeong HK, Jou I, Joe EH. Systemic LPS administration induces brain inflammation but not dopaminergic neuronal death in the substantia nigra. Experimental & molecular medicine. 2010;42(12):823–32. doi: 10.3858/emm.2010.42.12.085 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3015156. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269924.ref028] 28.Gendelman HE. Neural immunity: Friend or foe? Journal of neurovirology. 2002;8(6):474–9. doi: 10.1080/13550280290168631 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269924.ref029] 29.Shastri A, Bonifati DM, Kishore U. Innate immunity and neuroinflammation. Mediators of inflammation. 2013;2013:342931. doi: 10.1155/2013/342931 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3697414. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269924.ref030] 30.Szollosi D, Hegedus N, Veres DS, Futo I, Horvath I, Kovacs N, et al. Evaluation of Brain Nuclear Medicine Imaging Tracers in a Murine Model of Sepsis-Associated Encephalopathy. Molecular imaging and biology. 2018;20(6):952–62. doi: 10.1007/s11307-018-1201-3 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6244542. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269924.ref031] 31.Ge S, Pachter JS. Isolation and culture of microvascular endothelial cells from murine spinal cord. Journal of neuroimmunology. 2006;177(1–2):209–14. doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroim.2006.05.012 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269924.ref032] 32.Cardoso RFM, Basting RT, Franca FMG, Amaral F, Basting RT. Physicochemical characterization, water sorption and solubility of adhesive systems incorporated with titanium tetrafluoride, and its influence on dentin permeability. Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials. 2021;119:104453. doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2021.104453 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269924.ref033] 33.Yokoo H, Chiba S, Tomita K, Takashina M, Sagara H, Yagisita S, et al. Neurodegenerative evidence in mice brains with cecal ligation and puncture-induced sepsis: preventive effect of the free radical scavenger edaravone. PloS one. 2012;7(12):e51539. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0051539 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3517559. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269924.ref034] 34.Latronico N, Bolton CF. Critical illness polyneuropathy and myopathy: a major cause of muscle weakness and paralysis. The Lancet Neurology. 2011;10(10):931–41. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(11)70178-8 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269924.ref035] 35.Batt J, dos Santos CC, Cameron JI, Herridge MS. Intensive care unit-acquired weakness: clinical phenotypes and molecular mechanisms. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine. 2013;187(3):238–46. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201205-0954SO . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269924.ref036] 36.Zink W, Kollmar R, Schwab S. Critical illness polyneuropathy and myopathy in the intensive care unit. Nature reviews Neurology. 2009;5(7):372–9. doi: 10.1038/nrneurol.2009.75 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269924.ref037] 37.Stevens RD, Dowdy DW, Michaels RK, Mendez-Tellez PA, Pronovost PJ, Needham DM. Neuromuscular dysfunction acquired in critical illness: a systematic review. Intensive care medicine. 2007;33(11):1876–91. doi: 10.1007/s00134-007-0772-2 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269924.ref038] 38.Shepherd S, Batra A, Lerner DP. Review of Critical Illness Myopathy and Neuropathy. The Neurohospitalist. 2017;7(1):41–8. doi: 10.1177/1941874416663279 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5167093. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269924.ref039] 39.Nardelli P, Vincent JA, Powers R, Cope TC, Rich MM. Reduced motor neuron excitability is an important contributor to weakness in a rat model of sepsis. Experimental neurology. 2016;282:1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2016.04.020 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4912926. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269924.ref040] 40.Hermans G, De Jonghe B, Bruyninckx F, Van den Berghe G. Clinical review: Critical illness polyneuropathy and myopathy. Critical care. 2008;12(6):238. doi: 10.1186/cc7100 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2646339. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269924.ref041] 41.Unal-Cevik I, Kilinc M, Gursoy-Ozdemir Y, Gurer G, Dalkara T. Loss of NeuN immunoreactivity after cerebral ischemia does not indicate neuronal cell loss: a cautionary note. Brain research. 2004;1015(1–2):169–74. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2004.04.032 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269924.ref042] 42.Michaeli B, Martinez A, Revelly JP, Cayeux MC, Chiolero RL, Tappy L, et al. Effects of endotoxin on lactate metabolism in humans. Critical care. 2012;16(4):R139. doi: 10.1186/cc11444 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3580724. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269924.ref043] 43.Kumar A, Haery C, Paladugu B, Kumar A, Symeoneides S, Taiberg L, et al. The duration of hypotension before the initiation of antibiotic treatment is a critical determinant of survival in a murine model of Escherichia coli septic shock: association with serum lactate and inflammatory cytokine levels. The Journal of infectious diseases. 2006;193(2):251–8. doi: 10.1086/498909 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Sepsis-associated neuroinflammation in the spinal cord

Akiko Hirotsu

Mariko Miyao

Kenichiro Tatsumi

Tomoharu Tanaka

Roles

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Animals

2.2. Drugs and chemicals

2.3. Establishment of mice sepsis model

2.4. Reverse transcription and real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR)

2.5. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA)

2.6. Histochemical analysis

2.7. Immunoblot assay

2.8. Statistical analysis

3. Results

3.1. Pro-inflammatory cytokine expression in the spinal cord is significantly upregulated in a murine sepsis model

Fig 1. Effect of intraperitoneal lipopolysaccharide (LPS) administration on pro-inflammatory cytokine expression in mouse spinal cords.

Fig 2. Effect of cecal ligation puncture (CLP) on pro-inflammatory cytokine expression in mouse spinal cords.

3.2. Spinal morphological changes in LPS-treated mice

Fig 3. Histological changes in spinal cords after intraperitoneal LPS administration.

Fig 4. Histological changes in spinal cords after intraperitoneal LPS administration.

3.3. Spinal microglial activation in LPS-treated mice

Fig 5. Immunohistopathological changes in spinal cords after intraperitoneal LPS administration.

4. Discussion

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Rosanna Di Paola

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Rosanna Di Paola

Roles

Acceptance letter

Rosanna Di Paola

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases