MiR-302d inhibits TGFB-induced EMT and promotes MET in primary human RPE cells

Xiaonan Hu; Maximilian Binter; Karsten Hufendiek; Jan Tode; Carsten Framme; Heiko Fuchs

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0278158

. 2022 Nov 28;17(11):e0278158. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278158

MiR-302d inhibits TGFB-induced EMT and promotes MET in primary human RPE cells

Xiaonan Hu ¹, Maximilian Binter ¹, Karsten Hufendiek ¹, Jan Tode ¹, Carsten Framme ¹, Heiko Fuchs ^1,^*

Editor: Olaf Strauß²

PMCID: PMC9704570 PMID: 36441751

Abstract

Purpose

Transforming growth factor-beta (TGFB)-mediated epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) plays a crucial role in the pathogenesis of retinal fibrosis, which is one of the leading causes of impaired vision. Current approaches to treating retinal fibrosis focus, among other things, on inhibiting the TGFB signaling pathway. Transient expression of microRNAs (miRNAs) is one way to inhibit the TGFB pathway post-transcriptionally. Our previous study identified the miRNA miR-302d as a regulator of multiple TGFB-related genes in ARPE-19 cells. To further explore its effect on primary cells, the effect of miR-302d on TGFB-induced EMT in primary human retinal pigment epithelium (hRPE) was investigated in vitro.

Methods

hRPE cells were extracted from patients receiving enucleation. Transfection of hRPE cells with miR-302d was performed before or after TGFB1 stimulation. Live-cell imaging, immunocytochemistry staining, Western blot, and ELISA assays were utilized to identify the alterations of cellular morphology and EMT-related factors expressions in hRPE cells.

Results

hRPE cells underwent EMT by TGFB1 exposure. The transfection of miR-302d inhibited the transition with decreased production of mesenchymal markers and increased epithelial factors. Meanwhile, the phosphorylation of SMAD2 activated by TGFB1 was suppressed. Moreover, miR-302d expression promoted TGFB1-induced fibroblast-like hRPE cells to revert towards an epithelial stage. As confirmed by ELISA, miR-302d reduced TGFB receptor 2 (TGFBR2) and vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGFA) levels 48 hours after transfection.

Conclusions

The protective effect of miR-302d might be a promising approach for ameliorating retinal fibrosis and neovascularization. MiR-302d suppresses TGFB-induced EMT in hRPE cells via downregulation of TGFBR2, even reversing the process. Furthermore, miR-302d reduces the constitutive secretion of VEGFA from hRPE cells.

Introduction

Fibrosis is a repairing process in response to tissue damage [1]. It is characterized by an excessive deposition and remodeling of the extracellular matrix (ECM) and infiltration of myofibroblasts [2]. Retinal fibrosis manifests as the end-stage of many ocular diseases, including proliferative vitreoretinopathy (PVR), wet age-related macular degeneration (wAMD), proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR), retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), and choroidal neovascularization (CNV) [3]. The major pathological event is the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE)’s epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT), resulting in transdifferentiation into myofibroblasts [4]. Subsequently, these epithelium-originated fibroblast-like cells proliferate and migrate over the retina, promoting ECM production and wound contraction, resulting in distorted tissue structure and malfunction [1, 5].

During EMT, RPE cells undergo several changes. They experience the loss of polarity, disruption of intercellular tight junctions (TJs), characterized by the loss of Zonula Occludens 1 (ZO-1) and Occludin, and following "cadherin switch" from the expression of E-cadherin to N-cadherin [4, 6–11]. Remodeling the cellular cytoskeleton into stress fibers gives the RPE cell layer migratory and contractile properties [4, 7, 9, 10]. The release of cytokines and matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) causes damage and degradation of the basement membrane, allowing mesenchymal RPE cells to migrate away and invade [4, 8, 12].

The transforming growth factor-beta (TGFB) family participates in numerous physiological and pathological conditions [13, 14]. It is also a potent inducer of EMT in retinal fibrosis [4, 13–15]. Through binding to cell surface receptors (TGFBR1 and TGFBR2), TGFB activates its canonical SMAD signaling pathway and plenty of non-canonical signaling pathways, resulting in increased activation, expression, and nuclear translocation of transcriptional factors such as Snail1, Snail2, Twist1, and Zeb1, which are critical regulators of EMT [12, 13, 16]. It is widely verified that inhibiting TGFB signaling pathways at different levels can efficiently suppress cancer and fibrosis [14]. Current approaches include antagonizing TGFB ligands, blocking TGFB receptors, and inhibiting TGFB signaling-related proteins [6, 14]. As small RNAs’ involvement in eye diseases has been more and more elucidated, mediating TGFB function in EMT of RPE cells by applying small RNAs has become a relatively novel method [6, 14, 17].

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are small, non-coding, single-stranded RNAs that bind to the 3’UTR of their target genes by imperfect pairing and inhibit their protein synthesis [18]. Depending on their binding affinity, miRNAs can also destabilize the mRNA of their target genes [19]. More than 2000 miRNAs are reported to involve in cell proliferation, differentiation, signaling, and multiple diseases [17]. Emerging evidence shows that some miRNAs play a positive role in the pathogenesis of several ocular diseases, such as PVR, AMD, and PDR [6, 17, 20]. Our previous study demonstrated that transient overexpression of miR-302d or miR-93 could inhibit TGFB-induced EMT and vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGFA) secretion in ARPE-19 cells and trigger mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET) in dedifferentiated ARPE-19 cells [6]. Though the ARPE-19 cell line is a widely used alternative for primary human RPE (hRPE) cells, it may lack some critical properties of native hRPE cells [21–23].

Therefore, our study aims to identify the protective effect of miR-302d on EMT in primary hRPE cells.

Methods

Cell isolation and culture

Primary hRPE cells were obtained from two female patients who received enucleations suffering from an early stage of painful Phthisis bulbi. Patients with previous eye disorders involving the retina were excluded. The eyeballs were packed in ROTI^®Cell Hanks’ BSS (HBSS, Carl Roth #9117.1) on ice and processed to harvest RPE cells within 1–2 hours after surgery. The procedures were carried out following the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki, with the consent of the ethics committee of the Hannover Medical School. An informed written agreement was obtained from all subjects. The eyeball was briefly dipped in 70% ethanol for disinfection. Next, it was cut perpendicular to the equator in a petri dish filled with HBSS using a stereomicroscope. The anterior segment, vitreous body, and retina were removed. The RPE sheet was peeled off with forceps and then digested with 1 ml TrypLE™ Express Enzyme (Gibco #12604–021) on a thermo-shaker for 30 min, 37°C, and 600 rpm. The detached RPE cells were collected by centrifugation and then resuspended and cultured in a 6-well plate with Minimum Essential Medium Eagle media (MEM, Sigma-Aldrich #M8042) supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS, Pan-Biotech #P40-39500), 1% GlutaMAX^™ (Gibco #3505–061), and 1% Penicillin-Streptomycin (Pen-Strep, Gibco #15140–122). The same RPE sheet was digested two more times for 30 min each, and the RPE cells were transferred to different wells. Sequential digestion was performed to avoid over digestion of already detached cells, resulting in poor attachment. When the cells were confluent, they were examined with a phase-contrast and brightfield microscope (Leica DMi1) regarding their epithelial properties and degree of pigmentation. Wells showing RPE cells with similar morphology were pooled in passage 1 with 400 μl TrypLE™, and cells of passages 4–5 were used for experiments. It should be mentioned that RPE cells seeded at low density changed to a mesenchymal state. Therefore, the cells were seeded at a density of 50% to maintain their epithelial state, i.e., the cells of one confluent 6-well were divided into two 6-wells.

RNA isolation and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR)

6 x 10⁴ RPE cells were seeded in each well of a 6-well plate until they reached confluence. Total RNA was isolated with TRI-Reagent (Sigma #T9424) based on the manufacturer’s protocol with some minor modifications. Briefly, 5PRIME Phase Lock Gel–Heavy tube (Quantabio #2302830) was used for phase separation, and 1 ml instead of 0.5 ml of Isopropanol was used for miRNA/RNA precipitation.

Complementary DNA (cDNA) was synthesized from 1 μg total RNA using customized specific primers and the TaqMan^® MicroRNA RT Kit (Thermo Fisher #4366596) in a thermal cycler under the condition of 16°C for 30 minutes, 42°C for 30 minutes, 85°C for 5 minutes, and 4°C on hold. MiRNA qPCR was performed on a CFX96 Touch™ Real-Time PCR Cycler (Bio-Rad) under the following condition: 10 minutes of enzyme activation followed by 40 cycles of denaturing (95°C for 15 minutes) and extension (60°C for 1 minute). FAM fluorescence was recorded, and the result was analyzed using the CFX™ Maestro Software. Samples with Cq values > 35 were classified as not available (N/A). All samples were measured in four technical and three biological replicates.

miRNA transfection and TGFB treatment

2 x 10⁴ primary hRPE cells were seeded in each well of a 24-well plate with a complete medium to reach 70–80% confluency one day before the transfection. Before transfection, the medium was changed to MEM with 2% FBS without Pen-Strep. The cells were transfected with 1X phosphate-buffered saline (PBS, Biowest #L0615) as the mock group, 5 pmol miRNA mimic negative control (NC, Ambion #4464058), 5 pmol miR-302d (Ambion #4464066) or 10 μM SB431542 (Selleckchem #S1067), a TGFBR1 inhibitor, using Lipofectamine^® RNAiMAX (Invitrogen #13778075) according to the manufacturer’s protocol.

For TGFB treatment, 10–20 ng/ml recombinant human TGFB1 (Peprotech #100–21) was added to the medium, depending on the cell confluency.

Immunocytochemistry (ICC) staining and uptake of green fluorescent microbeads

hRPE cells were seeded on 13 mm diameter microscope cover glasses (Glaswarenfabrik Karl Hecht #41001113) in a 24-well plate. 0.5 μl green fluorescent microbeads (SPHERO™ #FL-2052-2) were added to the medium for 96 h to verify the phagocytic property of the RPE cells. Before fixation, the RPE cells were washed three times with 500 μl PBS to remove unincorporated microbeads.

For the other treatments, cells were washed twice with 500 μl PBS, then fixed with ROTI^®Histofix 4% (Carl Roth #P087.4) for 30 min at room temperature (RT). The fixed cells were permeabilized and blocked with a blocking solution containing 0.1% Triton^™X-100 (Sigma-Aldrich #X-100), 2% goat serum (Millipore #S26-100ML), 1% bovine serum albumin (BSA, Sigma-Aldrich #A2153), and 0.05% Tween^®20 (Sigma-Aldrich #P9416) in PBS for 30 min at RT. Cells were then incubated with primary antibodies of RPE65 Mouse mAb (Invitrogen #MA1-16578), Vimentin Rabbit mAb (VIM, Cell Signaling #5741S), ZO-1 Rabbit mAb (Cell Signaling #13663S), Fibronectin 1 Rabbit mAb (FN1, Cell Signaling #26836S), or alpha-smooth muscle actin Rabbit mAb (αSMA, ACTA2, Cell Signaling #19245S), which were diluted 1:1000 in the blocking solution, overnight at 4°C. Following incubation with 1:1000 diluted Alexa Fluor™ 488 or Alexa Fluor™ 546 goat anti-mouse or anti-rabbit secondary antibody (Invitrogen #A11029, #A11008, #A11035) and 1:500 Alexa Fluor™ 488- or rhodamine-conjugated phalloidin (Invitrogen #A12379, #R415) in PBST (0.1% Tween^®20 in PBS) at RT for two hours, the coverslips were mounted upside down on a microscope slide with ROTI^®Mount FluorCare DAPI (Carl Roth #HP20.1). Images were taken with Observer Z.1 microscope (Carl Zeiss) and ZEN-Blue analysis software (Carl Zeiss). Additionally, the Apotome2 device was used to record the uptake of fluorescent beads.

Western blot

hRPE cells were lysed with 1X Laemmli Sample Buffer (Bio-Rad #1610737) containing a 1X protease inhibitor cocktail (PI, Cell signaling #5871S). The lysates were mixed with 2-Mercaptoethanol (Sigma-Aldrich #60-24-2), denatured at 95°C for 5 min, and stored at -20°C. The samples were loaded on gels made by TGX Stain-Free^™ Fast-Cast^™ Acrylamide Kit (Bio-Rad #1610181). After 100–120 V electrophoresis, the resolved proteins were transferred to an ethanol-activated Mini-size LF PVDF membrane (Bio-Rad #10026934) with Trans-Blot^®Turbo^™ Transfer System at 1.3 mA, 25 V for 7 min or 1.3 mA, 25 V for 10 min for high molecular weight proteins. The PVDF membrane was blocked with 5% milk powder (Carl Roth #T145.2) in 1X Tris-buffered saline (TBS) at RT for one hour, followed by incubation with 1:1000 diluted primary FN1 antibody (Cell Signaling #26836S) overnight at 4°C. After incubation with 1:1000 diluted goat anti-rabbit secondary antibody StarBright^™ Blue 700 (Bio-Rad #12004162) at RT for one hour, the fluorescent signal was detected with ChemiDoc MP Imaging System (Bio-Rad) at a measurement wavelength of 660–720 nm. ImageLab 6 software (Bio-Rad) was used for normalization and quantification.

ELISA assay

Before cell lysis, the media from hRPE cells were stored after centrifugation to detect extracellular VEGFA. hRPE cells were then lysed with 1X radioimmunoprecipitation assay buffer (RIPA, Abcam #ab156034) containing 1X PI. The lysates were centrifuged at 14000 RCF for 15 min, and the supernatants were stored at -80°C for future analysis of TGFBR2.

Pierce™ BCA Protein Assay Kit (Thermo Scientific #23225) was used to normalize total protein concentrations according to the manufacturer’s protocol. TGFBR2 level in the lysate supernatants and VEGFA level in the media were measured with Human TGF-beta RII DuoSet ELISA Kit (R&D Systems #DY241) and Human VEGF Quantikine ELISA Kit (R&D Systems #DVE00) respectively according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The color change was measured using a Tecan Spark^® M10 plate reader. All samples were measured in four technical replicates and three biological triplicates.

Live-cell imaging and analysis

Live-cell imaging was performed using BioTek^® Lionheart™ FX automated microscope. The settings were performed as previously described with minor modifications [6]. Briefly, the 24-well plate was placed in the humidity chamber with 5% CO₂ and 37°C. The program was set to phase-contrast channel and 4X PL FL objective. Default autofocus and autoexposure images were taken at 30 min intervals.

The analysis of images was performed with Gen5 Image prime 3.05 software. The images were first processed to flatten the background. The background was set to "Light" and "Image smoothing strength" to 20 "Cycles of 3x3 average filter". The "Rolling Ball diameter" was set to 20 μm and "Priority" to "Fine results". For advanced analysis of processed pictures, the "Threshold" was configured to 1000, "Rolling Ball diameter" to 100 μm, "Image smoothing strength" to 3 "Cycles of 3x3 average filter", and the background was evaluated on 5% of lowest pixels. The object size was set between 20–200 μm with the options of "Include primary edge objects", "Analyze entire image", "Fill holes in masks" and "Split touching objects" selected. Metrics of "object length" and "object width" were calculated.

Wound-healing assay

hRPE cells transfected with miR-302d or NC were seeded in a 24-well plate. A scratch was performed with a 200-μl pipette tip when cells reached confluency. After 2 PBS rinses, serum-free medium with or without 10 ng/ml TGFB1 was supplemented. The scratch was imaged under Live-cell imaging for 3 days. The wound area was measured using Gen5 Image prime 3.05 software. The wound confluency was calculated as the percentage of the original wound area covered by migrating cells using Microsoft Excel 2010 and GraphPad Prism 9.

Statistical analysis

All experiments were performed in three independent replicates, and the data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel 2010 and GraphPad Prism 9. Differences were evaluated by unpaired two-tailed t-test, one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparisons test or two-way ANOVA with Fisher’s LSD test as the post hoc test. A p value < 0.05 was considered significantly different.

Results

Identification of primary hRPE cells

In order to identify hRPE cells, some specific characteristics were examined. ICC staining revealed abundant expression of RPE65, a native marker of RPE cells, in extracted cells. Moreover, fluorescent microbeads were added into the medium for four days to test the phagocytic property of RPE cells. The green fluorescent microbeads were visible within the cytoplasm, which was confirmed by the coexistence with Filamentous actin (F-actin). The findings validated that primary hRPE cells were successfully extracted (Fig 1A).

Fig 1 — (A) hRPE cells were immunostained for RPE65 and green fluorescent microbeads. The scale bar represents 50 μm for RPE65 and 20 μm for microbeads. (B) Mean Cq values of miR-17, miR-27a, miR-27b, miR-302d, and RNU19 of TaqMan^® MicroRNA assay. Cq values > 35 were classified as not available. One-sample t-tests (n = 3) were performed to detect differences between mean Cq values and 35. The error bars represent SD. N/A, not available, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001.

In addition, a TaqMan^® MicroRNA assay was performed to determine whether hRPE cells endogenously express miR-302d. MiR-17, miR-27a, and miR-27b were used as controls, as their expressions were reported in RPE cells, and RNU19 was used as the housekeeping gene [24, 25]. According to the results, hRPE cells do not endogenously express miR-302d (Fig 1B).

miR-302d inhibits TGFB-induced fibroblastic morphological change in hRPE cells

Primary hRPE cells were exposed to TGFB1 24 h after transfection with mock, NC, or miR-302d to verify the inhibitory function of miR-302d on TGFB-induced mesenchymal alterations. Phase-contrast live-cell imaging was performed for the next 120 h to document the morphological alteration. At the end of the recording, hRPE cells transfected with mock or NC appeared elongated and spindle-like. In contrast, cells transfected with miR-302d maintained a similar appearance to cells not exposed to TGFB1 (Fig 2A).

Fig 2 — hRPE cells were supplemented with or without TGFB1 for 5 d 24 h after transfection with mock, NC, or miR-302d. (A) The morphology of transfected hRPE cells at the beginning of TGFB1 exposure and 5 d later (S1 Video). The scale bar represents 1000 μm. (B) Mean length-width ratio changes of hRPE cells after TGFB1 exposure. Unpaired two-tailed t-tests (n = 3) were performed. The error bars represent SD. ns, non-significant, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ****p < 0.0001.

In addition, the mean length-width ratio of hRPE cells was measured using Gen5 software to quantify the morphology change. After 5 d treatment of TGFB1, the mean length-width ratio of hRPE cells transfected with mock or NC increased from 2.6 and 2.5 to 2.9 and 3.1. In contrast, the ratio of miR-302d transfected cells increased subtly from 2.4 to 2.5. A significant difference between control groups and miR-302d could be observed already after 24 h (p = 0.0046, Fig 2B).

miR-302d inhibits TGFB-induced EMT in hRPE cells

Besides live-cell imaging, ICC staining was performed to localize the distributions of EMT-related factors. In the absence of TGFB1, VIM localized around the nucleus, while TGFB1 caused wide spreading of VIM in the cytoplasm in control groups. Phalloidin staining revealed the stress fiber formation in response to TGFB1. F-actin was rearranged from a radial to a parallel distribution in mock or NC transfected cells. The expression of ZO-1, an epithelial marker in intercellular TJs, decreased after 4 d exposure to TGFB1, whereas the deposition of mesenchymal factor αSMA increased. In contrast to the control groups, miR-302d transfected cells retained an epithelial phenotype similar to those without TGFB1 treatment (Fig 3). In agreement with the above data, immunoblot and immunostaining confirmed that miR-302d could suppress the increased production of FN1 protein under TGFB1 exposure (p = 0.0198 compared with "mock + TGFB1" group, p = 0.0294 compared with "NC + TGFB1" group, Fig 4).

Fig 3 — hRPE cells were treated with or without TGFB1 24 h after transfection with mock, NC, or miR-302d. Cells were immunostained for VIM, F-actin, TJP1, and ACTA2 4 d later. The scale bar represents 50 μm.

Fig 4 — (A) ICC staining and (B) representative Western blot of FN1 in transfected hRPE cells after 3 d incubation of TGFB1. The scale bar represents 50 μm. (C) The relative expression of FN1 normalized to total proteins (S1 Raw images). The values were further normalized to the "wo TGFB1" group. One-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparisons tests (n = 3) were performed. The error bars represent SD. ns, non-significant, *p < 0.05.

We performed a wound-healing assay to examine cell motility, another important EMT feature. TGFB1 treatment enhanced the wound closure speed significantly after 24 h, reaching confluency around 84% at 72 h. By contrast, the migratory ability was significantly suppressed (around 56% confluency at 72 h, p = 0.0359) with the expression of miR-302d, comparable to that in cells without TGFB treatment (Fig 5).

Fig 5 — A scratch was generated in the monolayer of hRPE cells transfected with miR-302d or NC using a 200-μl pipette tip. Serum-free medium with or without TGFB1 was added and monitored for 72 h. (A) Representative scratch image after background subtraction with Gen5 software at the beginning and 48 h. The scale bar represents 1000 μm. (B) (C) The wound confluency over time. Two-way ANOVA with Fisher’s LSD tests (n = 3) were performed. The error bars represent SD. ns, non-significant, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.

miR-302d reverts TGFB-induced mesenchymal hRPE cells toward an epithelial state

To investigate whether miR-302d can reverse TGFB-induced EMT, hRPE cells were pretreated with TGFB1 for four days and then transfected with mock, NC, miR-302d, or the TGFBR1 inhibitor SB431542 for 3 d. Phase-contrast pictures were recorded, and the mean length-width ratio was calculated to show the transformation of hRPE cells. 72 h later, hRPE cells with control transfections remained elongated, and the mean length-width ratio was slightly reduced due to proliferation. In contrast, cells transfected with miR-302d shifted to an epithelial and rounded morphology with a significantly reduced length-width ratio from 3.8 to 2.9, more evident than SB431542 (p < 0.0001, Fig 6).

Fig 6 — Following 4 d incubation of TGFB1, hRPE cells were transfected with mock, NC, miR-302d, or exposed to SB431542. (A) The morphology of hRPE cells at the beginning of transfection and 3 d later (S2 Video). The scale bar represents 1000 μm. (B) The mean length-width ratio changes of hRPE cells after transfection. Unpaired two-tailed t-tests (n = 3) were performed. The error bars represent SD. ns, non-significant, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001.

The expressions of EMT-related factors were visualized by ICC staining. With the transfection of miR-302d or SB431542 exposure, VIM and F-actin in cells shifted from a mesenchymal state to an epithelial distribution, and the immunofluorescence of αSMA was strongly attenuated (Fig 7). A significant reduction in FN1 protein level was also achieved by miR-302d in both ICC staining and Western blot (p < 0.0001 compared with "TGFB1 + mock" group, p = 0.0085 compared with "TGFB1 + NC" group, Fig 8).

Fig 7 — hRPE cells were incubated with TGFB1 for 4 d to achieve a mesenchymal state. Cells were then transfected with mock, NC, miR-302d, or exposed to SB431542. ICC staining for VIM, F-actin, and ACTA2 was performed 3 d post-transfection. The scale bar represents 50 μm.

Fig 8 — (A) ICC staining and (B) representative Western blot of FN1 in hRPE cells after 4 d TGFB1 treatment and 3 d transfection. The scale bar represents 50 μm. (C) The relative expression of FN1 normalized to total proteins (S1 Raw images). The values were further normalized to the "TGFB1 + mock" group. One-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparisons tests (n = 3) were performed. The error bars represent SD. ns, non-significant, **p < 0.01, ****p < 0.0001.

miR-302d suppresses TGFB-induced phosphorylation of SMAD2 in hRPE cells

In our previous study, SMAD2 and TGFBR2 were confirmed to be target genes of miR-302d and miR-302d prevented TGFB-induced phosphorylation of SMAD2 in ARPE-19 cells [6]. For verification in native hRPE cells, ICC staining detecting p-SMAD2 (pSMAD2) was performed 30, 60, and 90 min after TGFB1 stimulation 24 h post-transfection. For all time points, pSMAD2 was hardly detectable in the cells without TGFB1, whereas distinct elevation and nuclear translocation of pSMAD2 in both control groups were observed upon TGFB1 exposure. On the contrary, miR-302d inhibited the phosphorylation and nuclear localization of pSMAD2. As confirmed by Western blot, the pSMAD2 expression was reduced by around 64%, 73%, and 82% after 30, 60, and 90 min of TGFB1 exposure (p = 0.004 at 30 min, Fig 9, S1 and S2 Figs).

Fig 9 — hRPE cells were treated with or without TGFB1 for 30 min 24 h after transfection with mock, NC, or miR-302d. (A) DAPI (blue) and pSMAD2 (green) staining in hRPE cells. The scale bar represents 50 μm. (B) Representative Western blot of pSMAD2 30 min after initial TGFB1 exposure. (C) The relative expression of pSMAD2 normalized to total proteins (S1 Raw images). The values were further normalized to the "wo TGFB1" group. One-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparisons tests (n = 3) were performed. The error bars represent SD. ns, non-significant, **p < 0.01.

miR-302d downregulates TGFBR2 and constitutive secretion of VEGFA in hRPE cells

As mentioned above, TGFBR2 and VEGFA were confirmed as target genes of miR-302d [6]. To verify the inhibition of TGFBR2 protein by miR-302d in hRPE cells, cell lysates were collected 48 and 72 hours after transfection, and TGFBR2 protein was measured by ELISA. Compared to the NC group, the TGFBR2 level in miR-302d transfected cells declined approximately 2-fold (p < 0.0001 at 48 h, p = 0.0102 at 72 h, Fig 10A).

Fig 10 — (A) ELISA for TGFBR2 protein levels 48 and 72 h after transfection with miR-302d relative to NC. The TGFBR2 protein was related to the total protein amounts determined by BCA assay. The amounts at 48 h were 10.35 ± 6.09 pg/mg in the NC group and 5.44 ± 3.49 pg/mg in the miR-302d group. The amounts at 72 h were 10.79 ± 4.31 in the NC group and 6.92 ± 3.45 in the miR-302d group. The values were further normalized to the NC group. (B) ELISA for secreted VEGFA protein levels 48 and 72 h after transfection with miR-302d relative to NC. The concentrations at 48 h were 423.93 ± 26.18 pg/ml in the NC group and 288.79 ± 26.18 pg/ml in the miR-302d group. The concentrations at 72 h were 658.87 ± 48.11 pg/ml in the NC group and 523.93 ± 44.09 pg/ml in the miR-302d group. The values were further normalized to the NC group. Unpaired two-tailed t-tests (n = 3) were performed. The error bars represent SD. ns, non-significant, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ****p < 0.0001.

In addition, the media were also collected and detected to quantify the concentration of VEGFA. Compared to NC, VEGFA expression declined around 20–30% with miR-302d (p < 0.0001 at 48 h, p = 0.0015 at 72 h, Fig 10B). The result suggested that miR-302d could reduce the endogenous secretion of VEGFA from hRPE cells.

Discussion

EMT is a process by which polarized epithelial cells acquire mesenchymal properties through increased motility and invasiveness, cytoplasmic restructuring, overproduction of ECM components, and reduced matrix degradation [8]. It is a physiological process in normal embryogenesis and organ development [8, 26, 27]. However, it can be anomalously evoked by multiple factors such as inflammation, wounding, and cytokines and finally involved in pathological conditions, especially fibrosis and cancer [7, 27]. In fibrotic models of liver, lung, and kidney, which are primarily investigated, hepatocytes, alveolar and tubular epithelial cells transform into myofibroblasts [28–31]. In ocular diseases like corneal opacification, glaucoma, posterior capsular opacification, PVR, wAMD, and orbital fibrosis, transdifferentiation of myofibroblasts is also reported [4]. As an aberrant wound healing outcome of various posterior eye diseases, retinal fibrosis can disrupt normal RPE, photoreceptors, and vascular structures, causing permanent vision loss and treatment failures [5].

Numerous factors are reported to be capable of driving EMT, such as hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF1), epidermal growth factor (EGF), platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), and connective tissues growth factor (CTGF) [12, 13]. The TGFB family is reported as a primary inducer [12, 13, 27, 32]. It is found to cause increased myofibroblast-like epithelial cells in the lung, kidney, and breast, and it correlates with the above alterations in fibroproliferative diseases in the eye [4, 27, 32, 33]. Of different TGFB isoforms, TGFB1 and TGFB2 are the major ones in RPE. While nontransformed RPE cells secrete TGFB2 predominantly, transformed RPE cells express higher levels of TGFB1 [34]. In addition, TGFB1 promotes the formation of epiretinal membranes and PVR and induces a significant mesenchymal transition in ARPE-19 cells starting from a dose of 10 ng/ml [3, 6, 35–37]. Therefore, this study used 10–20 ng/ml TGFB1 to stimulate transition in primary hRPE cells.

Recent non-surgical methods for retinal fibrosis treatment focus on administering antimetabolic drugs and blocking EMT by targeting the TGFB signaling pathway [32, 33]. EMT regulation is a complicated mechanism involving multiple genes, including epigenetic regulation, transcriptional control, and alternative splicing. Therefore, modulating EMT at the post-transcriptional level might be a promising approach [13, 16, 26]. With the function of regulating expressions of numerous genes, miRNAs as a therapeutic target or biomarker have become the focus of ophthalmologic research. For example, an increased level of miR-148 in the vitreous fluid seems to be associated with the severity of retinal detachment [38]. MiR-124 regulated EMT in ARPE-19 cells by TGFB/RHOG signaling pathway [36]. In our previous study, we screened miR-302d against multiple genes involved in TGFB signaling [6]. Here, we examined the effect of miR-302d on TGFB-induced changes in primary hRPE cells (Fig 11).

The transient expression of miR-302d repressed TGFB-induced EMT by keeping cells with a cobble-stone morphology with a stable length-width ratio and preventing cytoskeletal rearrangement, migration, and mesenchymal factors depositions. Targeting TGFBR2 and SMAD2 phosphorylation by miR-302d was confirmed with ELISA, ICC staining, and Western blot.

After exposure to TGFB1, hRPE cells underwent a mesenchymal transition. Transient expression of miR-302d restored the cells to their epithelial phenotype. This further demonstrated the therapeutic value of miR-302d by promoting MET.

Another non-negligible and critical factor elevated in the pathological process is VEGFA, which can be stimulated by TGFB through different signaling pathways in RPE cells [39]. VEGFA is a well-known pro-angiogenic element and contributes to retinal angiogenesis. In wAMD, ruptured blood-retinal barrier and leaky neovasculature lead to an aberrant microenvironment aggregated with inflammatory cells, immune cells, growth factors, and cytokines, resulting in a fibrovascular lesion with eventual fibrosis [4, 40–42]. Our ELISA showed a statistically significant decline in VEGFA secretion 48 h after cells were transfected with miR-302d, which indicated that miR-302d could reduce the constitutive release of VEGFA from hRPE cells.

Although TGFB contributes significantly to inflammation suppression and ocular immune privilege, it may play a different role in the development of retinal fibrosis [43]. Histological studies reveal that immune elements, including macrophages, lymphocytes, and complement proteins, infiltrate retinal fibrosis [40]. Apart from transforming local cells in the retina, like endothelial cells and RPE cells, TGFB promotes the conversion of macrophages into myofibroblasts [12, 44]. Further research is required to understand the role of TGFB in the immune response to retinal fibrosis.

Taken together, miR-302d can inhibit TGFB-induced EMT and constitutive VEGFA secretion in primary hRPE cells by directly targeting TGFBR2 and disrupting the canonical TGFB/SMAD signaling cascade. Furthermore, it can promote MET to revert TGFB-induced fibroblast-like hRPE cells to an epithelial state. These findings support miR-302d as a putative therapeutic approach to (i) inhibit EMT, (ii) reverse proliferative retinal diseases, and (iii) assist in controlling angiogenesis in ocular neovascular disorders. Its dual function on fibrosis and neovascularization makes it a feasible option, especially for CNV-related diseases.

Supporting information

S1 Raw images

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(423.3KB, pdf)}

S1 Fig. miR-302d suppresses TGFB-induced phosphorylation of SMAD2 in hRPE cells.

hRPE cells were treated with or without TGFB1 for 60 min 24 h after transfection with mock, NC, or miR-302d. (A) DAPI (blue) and pSMAD2 (green) staining in hRPE cells. The scale bar represents 50 μm. (B) Representative Western blot of pSMAD2 60 min after initial TGFB1 exposure. (C) The relative expression of pSMAD2 normalized to total proteins (S1 Raw images). The values were further normalized to the "wo TGFB1" group.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(319.7KB, TIF)}

S2 Fig. miR-302d suppresses TGFB-induced phosphorylation of SMAD2 in hRPE cells.

hRPE cells were treated with or without TGFB1 for 90 min 24 h after transfection with mock, NC, or miR-302d. (A) DAPI (blue) and pSMAD2 (green) staining in hRPE cells. The scale bar represents 50 μm. (B) Representative Western blot of pSMAD2 90 min after initial TGFB1 exposure. (C) The relative expression of pSMAD2 normalized to total proteins (S1 Raw images). The values were further normalized to the "wo TGFB1" group.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(366.8KB, TIF)}

S1 Video. A time-lapse movie of dynamic morphological change of hRPE cells after TGFB1 exposure 24 h post-transfection with NC or miR-302d.

(MP4)

Click here for additional data file.^{(14MB, mp4)}

S2 Video. A time-lapse movie of dynamic morphological change of hRPE cells after transfection with NC or miR-302d following 4 d TGFB1 exposure.

(MP4)

Click here for additional data file.^{(12.1MB, mp4)}

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

1.Wynn TA. Common and unique mechanisms regulate fibrosis in various fibroproliferative diseases. J Clin Invest. 2007;117: 524–529. doi: 10.1172/JCI31487 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Gabbiani G. The myofibroblast in wound healing and fibrocontractive diseases: The myofibroblast. J Pathol. 2003;200: 500–503. doi: 10.1002/path.1427 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.Choi K, Lee K, Ryu S-W, Im M, Kook KH, Choi C. Pirfenidone inhibits transforming growth factor-β1-induced fibrogenesis by blocking nuclear translocation of Smads in human retinal pigment epithelial cell line ARPE-19. Molecular Vision. 2012; 11. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Shu DY, Lovicu FJ. Myofibroblast transdifferentiation: The dark force in ocular wound healing and fibrosis. Progress in Retinal and Eye Research. 2017;60: 44–65. doi: 10.1016/j.preteyeres.2017.08.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Ishikawa K, Kannan R, Hinton DR. Molecular mechanisms of subretinal fibrosis in age-related macular degeneration. Experimental Eye Research. 2016;142: 19–25. doi: 10.1016/j.exer.2015.03.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Fuchs HR, Meister R, Lotke R, Framme C. The microRNAs miR-302d and miR-93 inhibit TGFB-mediated EMT and VEGFA secretion from ARPE-19 cells. Experimental Eye Research. 2020;201: 108258. doi: 10.1016/j.exer.2020.108258 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Kalluri R, Neilson EG. Epithelial-mesenchymal transition and its implications for fibrosis. J Clin Invest. 2003;112: 1776–1784. doi: 10.1172/JCI20530 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Kalluri R, Weinberg RA. The basics of epithelial-mesenchymal transition. J Clin Invest. 2009;119: 1420–1428. doi: 10.1172/JCI39104 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Saito A. EMT and EndMT: regulated in similar ways? The Journal of Biochemistry. 2013;153: 493–495. doi: 10.1093/jb/mvt032 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10.Taylor MA, Parvani JG, Schiemann WP. The Pathophysiology of Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition Induced by Transforming Growth Factor-β in Normal and Malignant Mammary Epithelial Cells. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia. 2010;15: 169–190. doi: 10.1007/s10911-010-9181-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Wheelock MJ, Shintani Y, Maeda M, Fukumoto Y, Johnson KR. Cadherin switching. Journal of Cell Science. 2008;121: 727–735. doi: 10.1242/jcs.000455 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Shu DY, Butcher E, Saint-Geniez M. EMT and EndMT: Emerging Roles in Age-Related Macular Degeneration. IJMS. 2020;21: 4271. doi: 10.3390/ijms21124271 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.Lamouille S, Xu J, Derynck R. Molecular mechanisms of epithelial–mesenchymal transition. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2014;15: 178–196. doi: 10.1038/nrm3758 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Pennison M, Pasche B. Targeting transforming growth factor-β signaling. Current Opinion in Oncology. 2007;19: 579–585. doi: 10.1097/CCO.0b013e3282f0ad0e [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15.Hinton DR, He S, Jin ML, Barron E, Ryan SJ. Novel growth factors involved in the pathogenesis of proliferative vitreoretinopathy. Eye. 2002;16: 422–428. doi: 10.1038/sj.eye.6700190 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16.Zou H, Shan C, Ma L, Liu J, Yang N, Zhao J. Polarity and epithelial-mesenchymal transition of retinal pigment epithelial cells in proliferative vitreoretinopathy. PeerJ. 2020;8: e10136. doi: 10.7717/peerj.10136 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17.Kaneko H, Terasaki H. Biological Involvement of MicroRNAs in Proliferative Vitreoretinopathy. Trans Vis Sci Tech. 2017;6: 5. doi: 10.1167/tvst.6.4.5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.Bartel DP. Metazoan MicroRNAs. Cell. 2018;173: 20–51. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.03.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.Bartel DP. MicroRNAs: genomics, biogenesis, mechanism, and function. Cell. 2004;116: 281–297. doi: 10.1016/s0092-8674(04)00045-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Ding Y, Hu Z, Luan J, Lv X, Yuan D, Xie P, et al. Protective effect of miR-200b/c by inhibiting vasohibin-2 in human retinal microvascular endothelial cells. Life Sciences. 2017;191: 245–252. doi: 10.1016/j.lfs.2017.09.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21.Maminishkis A, Chen S, Jalickee S, Banzon T, Shi G, Wang FE, et al. Confluent monolayers of cultured human fetal retinal pigment epithelium exhibit morphology and physiology of native tissue. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47: 3612–3624. doi: 10.1167/iovs.05-1622 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22.Samuel W, Jaworski C, Postnikova OA, Kutty RK, Duncan T, Tan LX, et al. Appropriately differentiated ARPE-19 cells regain phenotype and. Molecular Vision. 2017; 30. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Tian J. The expression of native and cultured human retinal pigment epithelial cells grown in different culture conditions. British Journal of Ophthalmology. 2005;89: 1510–1517. doi: 10.1136/bjo.2005.072108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Tian B, Maidana DE, Dib B, Miller JB, Bouzika P, Miller JW, et al. miR-17-3p Exacerbates Oxidative Damage in Human Retinal Pigment Epithelial Cells. Ablonczy Z, editor. PLoS ONE. 2016;11: e0160887. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0160887 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.Ren C, Hu W, Wei Q, Cai W, Jin H, Yu D, et al. MicroRNA-27a Promotes Oxidative-Induced RPE Cell Death through Targeting FOXO1. Tsai F-M, editor. BioMed Research International. 2021;2021: 1–17. doi: 10.1155/2021/6666506 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26.Nieto MA, Huang RY-J, Jackson RA, Thiery JP. EMT: 2016. Cell. 2016;166: 21–45. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2016.06.028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27.O’Connor JW, Gomez EW. Biomechanics of TGFβ‐induced epithelial‐mesenchymal transition: implications for fibrosis and cancer. Clinical and Translational Medicine. 2014;3. doi: 10.1186/2001-1326-3-23 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28.Marmai C, Sutherland RE, Kim KK, Dolganov GM, Fang X, Kim SS, et al. Alveolar epithelial cells express mesenchymal proteins in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. American Journal of Physiology-Lung Cellular and Molecular Physiology. 2011;301: L71–L78. doi: 10.1152/ajplung.00212.2010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Rastaldi MP, Ferrario F, Giardino L, Dell’Antonio G, Grillo C, Grillo P, et al. Epithelial-mesenchymal transition of tubular epithelial cells in human renal biopsies. Kidney International. 2002;62: 137–146. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1755.2002.00430.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30.Rowe RG, Lin Y, Shimizu-Hirota R, Hanada S, Neilson EG, Greenson JK, et al. Hepatocyte-Derived Snail1 Propagates Liver Fibrosis Progression. Mol Cell Biol. 2011;31: 2392–2403. doi: 10.1128/MCB.01218-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31.Willis BC, Borok Z. TGF-β-induced EMT: mechanisms and implications for fibrotic lung disease. American Journal of Physiology-Lung Cellular and Molecular Physiology. 2007;293: L525–L534. doi: 10.1152/ajplung.00163.2007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Mallone F, Costi R, Marenco M, Plateroti R, Minni A, Attanasio G, et al. Understanding Drivers of Ocular Fibrosis: Current and Future Therapeutic Perspectives. IJMS. 2021;22: 11748. doi: 10.3390/ijms222111748 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33.Saika S, Yamanaka O, Okada Y, Tanaka S-I, Miyamoto T, Sumioka T, et al. TGF beta in fibroproliferative diseases in the eye. Front Biosci (Schol Ed). 2009;1: 376–390. doi: 10.2741/S32 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34.Kvanta A. Expression and secretion of transforming growth factor-beta in transformed and nontransformed retinal pigment epithelial cells. Ophthalmic Res. 1994;26: 361–367. doi: 10.1159/000267502 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35.Stepp MA, Menko AS. Immune responses to injury and their links to eye disease. Translational Research. 2021;236: 52–71. doi: 10.1016/j.trsl.2021.05.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36.Jun JH, Joo C-K. MicroRNA-124 Controls Transforming Growth Factor b1– Induced Epithelial–Mesenchymal Transition in the Retinal Pigment Epithelium by Targeting RHOG.: 11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37.Li D, Zhang J, Liu Z, Gong Y, Zheng Z. Human umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cell-derived exosomal miR-27b attenuates subretinal fibrosis via suppressing epithelial–mesenchymal transition by targeting HOXC6. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2021;12: 24. doi: 10.1186/s13287-020-02064-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38.Tsunekawa T, Kaneko H, Takayama K, Hwang S-J, Oishi A, Nagasaka Y, et al. Correlation between miR-148 Expression in Vitreous and Severity of Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment. BioMed Research International. 2017;2017: 1–8. doi: 10.1155/2017/3427319 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39.Bian Z-M, Elner SG, Elner VM. Regulation of VEGF mRNA expression and protein secretion by TGF-beta2 in human retinal pigment epithelial cells. Exp Eye Res. 2007;84: 812–822. doi: 10.1016/j.exer.2006.12.016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40.Murakami Y, Ishikawa K, Nakao S, Sonoda K-H. Innate immune response in retinal homeostasis and inflammatory disorders. Progress in Retinal and Eye Research. 2020;74: 100778. doi: 10.1016/j.preteyeres.2019.100778 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41.Roberts PK, Zotter S, Montuoro A, Pircher M, Baumann B, Ritter M, et al. Identification and Quantification of the Angiofibrotic Switch in Neovascular AMD. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2019;60: 304. doi: 10.1167/iovs.18-25189 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42.Tenbrock L, Wolf J, Boneva S, Schlecht A, Agostini H, Wieghofer P, et al. Subretinal fibrosis in neovascular age-related macular degeneration: current concepts, therapeutic avenues, and future perspectives. Cell Tissue Res. 2022;387: 361–375. doi: 10.1007/s00441-021-03514-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43.Sugita S. Role of ocular pigment epithelial cells in immune privilege. Arch Immunol Ther Exp. 2009;57: 263–268. doi: 10.1007/s00005-009-0030-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44.Little K, Llorián-Salvador M, Tang M, Du X, Marry S, Chen M, et al. Macrophage to myofibroblast transition contributes to subretinal fibrosis secondary to neovascular age-related macular degeneration. J Neuroinflammation. 2020;17: 355. doi: 10.1186/s12974-020-02033-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278158.r001

Decision Letter 0

Olaf Strauß

2 Aug 2022

PONE-D-22-20602MiR-302d inhibits TGFB-induced EMT and promotes MET in primary human RPE cellsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Fuchs,

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.

Both reviewers see significant impact for the RPE research in your paper. There are a couple of changes and improvements required. mostly at the level methods description and performance. Some RPE markers in the IHC would useful. Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 16 2022 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,

Olaf Strauß

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. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

3. 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.

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

"The authors received no specific funding for this work."

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.

[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: Yes

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: Yes

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: In this manuscript, Hu et al., demonstrated that miR-302d inhibits TGFB-induced epithelial–mesenchymal transition in primary human retinal pigment epithelial cells by targeting TGFBR2. Below are my major comments,

1. In abstract: The authors have directly mentioned the purpose of the study which is to assess whether microRNA (miR-302d) inhibits EMT in primary human RPE cells without giving a brief rationale as why have they selected miR-302d.

2. Authors should address what is absolute amount of miR-302d in primary human RPE cells. Or at least, author should demonstrate relative abundance of miR-302d in cells compared to other well-known microRNAs by qPCR or analyzing publicly available NGS data in primary human RPE cells.

3. As we known, many inflammatory cytokines, such as TGF-β and TNF-α, act as potent inducers of the EMT in RPE cells, which is implicated in the pathogenesis of PVR. TGF-β is known to have three isoforms: TGF-β1, TGF-β2, and TGF-β3. Authors should address the rationale about why this study used TGF-β1 instead of other isoforms in the subsequent experiments.

4. RPE cells activated by growth factors and cytokines subsequently undergo EMT, and the resulting dedifferentiated RPE cells migrate, proliferate, and transform into proliferative migratory spindle cells, resulting in PVR. Authors should address more about EMT features by using scratch-wound healing, modified Boyden chamber assay, or collagen gel contraction assay in this study.

5. Most of data authors observed are from the effects of miR-302d overexpression in RPE cells. However, as overexpressed microRNA could have significant off-target issue, which are not biology relevance. To solve this issue, at least, authors should treat the RPE cells with miR-302d inhibitor. This should be done across all the experiment design.

6. Authors should add a model in last figure depicting the take home message of this manuscript. Discuss the model in discussion part. It will be helpful for readers to understand the global message.

Reviewer #2: In their study, the authors show how the MiR-302d interferes with the mesenchymal transition of primary human RPE cells. The study is of great interest. I have some comments, mainly concerning the methods, which need to addressed.

Methods

Cell isolation and culture

Please give the approximate time between enucleation and RPE preparation. Cultures from how many patients were obtained and how much passages (if any) were conducted with each culture? Were their any exclusion criteria? Why were the eyes enucleated? RPE sheet, were this exclusively RPE cells or RPE/choroid tissue (as suggested by the description in the method section).

Line 125/126, I am not sure I understand the sentence. Was the same RPE sheet digested for three times in total? If so, were the cells pooled? In what kind of plate were the cells seeded and how long were their cultured before experimentation? How was the quality and morphology/differentiation of the cells assessed? If RPE/choroid sheets were used, identity of the RPE should be verified. This is especially important if eyes of uveal melanoma patients were used.

If the cells were passaged, how was the passage conducted?

Line 131 “one day in advance”, one day before the transfection, please rephrase. Were these cells seeded directly from the preparation or from passaged cells, if so, which passage?

Transfection, how was the success of the transfection verified? Please elaborate

Please explain the concentration of TGFB used (reference?).

IHC, were any RPE marker included?

Western blot, please mention the time of treatment before harvest of the cells.

Western blot, please mention the wavelength of measurement and the software used for the calculation of the concentration.

ELiSA, please mention how long the supernatant was collected.

Statistical analysis, it is not clear how many independent experiments were conducted, please specify.

Results and figures, please give the sample size (n) for all experiments in the figure legends.

Line 310, please mention in text what SB431542 is inhibiting

Line 370, following, please give the mean and range of concentration you measured for VEGF and TGFBR2.

Discussion

Please discuss the results concerning the current literature, not just reiterate the findings.

RPE cells secrete quite high amounts of TGFß which are important for the immune privilege of the retina. Please discuss your findings also in relation to this.

**********

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 Nov 28;17(11):e0278158. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278158.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

27 Sep 2022

Responses to the Reviewer #1 comments.

In this manuscript, Hu et al., demonstrated that miR-302d inhibits TGFB-induced epithelial–mesenchymal transition in primary human retinal pigment epithelial cells by targeting TGFBR2. Below are my major comments,

Answer:

We revised the abstract (Line 19-22): “Our previous study identified the miRNA miR-302d as a regulator of multiple TGFB-related genes in ARPE-19 cells. To further explore its effect on primary cells, the effect of miR-302d on TGFB-induced EMT in primary human retinal pigment epithelium (hRPE) was investigated in vitro.”

Answer:

We added qPCR assay testing the amount of miR-302d and other miRNAs such as miR-17, miR-27a, miR-27b, which have been reported to be expressed in RPE cells and used RNU19 as a housekeeping gene. The result showed that hRPE cells do not endogenously express miR-302d (Line 250-254): “In addition, a TaqMan® MicroRNA assay was performed to determine whether hRPE cells endogenously express miR-302d. MiR-17, miR-27a, and miR-27b were used as controls, as their expressions were reported in RPE cells, and RNU19 was used as the housekeeping gene [24,25]. According to the results, hRPE cells do not endogenously express miR-302d (Fig 1B).”

Answer:

The reason that TGFB1 was used is added in the Discussion section (Line 437-445): “The TGFB family is reported as a primary inducer [12,13,27,32]. It is found to cause increased myofibroblast-like epithelial cells in the lung, kidney, and breast, and it correlates with the above alterations in fibroproliferative diseases in the eye [4,27,32,33]. Of different TGFB isoforms, TGFB1 and TGFB2 are the major ones in RPE. While nontransformed RPE cells secrete TGFB2 predominantly, transformed RPE cells express higher levels of TGFB1 [34]. In addition, TGFB1 promotes the formation of epiretinal membranes and PVR and induces a significant mesenchymal transition in ARPE-19 cells starting from a dose of 10 ng/ml [3,6,35–37]. Therefore, this study used 10-20 ng/ml TGFB1 to stimulate transition in primary hRPE cells.”

Answer:

We added a wound healing assay to exhibit the feature of EMT and the function of miR-302d (Line 302-306 and Fig 5): “We performed a wound-healing assay to examine cell motility, another important EMT feature. TGFB1 treatment enhanced the wound closure speed significantly after 24 h, reaching confluency around 84% at 72 h. By contrast, the migratory ability was significantly suppressed (around 56% confluency at 72 h, p = 0.0359) with the expression of miR-302d, comparable to that in cells without TGFB treatment (Fig 5).”

Answer:

We do not see any point in treating cells with a miR-302d inhibitor because of the following reasons:

1. For transient miRNA overexpression, we always try to keep the applied miRNA concentration as low as possible in order not to hinder miRNA maturation of endogenous miRNAs, which could lead to off-target effects. To exclude this, we performed a scrambled negative control and a mock transfection for our initial experiments. Our experience has shown remarkable effects can also be achieved with a scrambled negative control transfection if too high concentrations are used, overloading the RNAi-induced silencing complex so endogenous miRNAs can no longer become active.

2. According to the literature, miR-302d is activated together with four other microRNAs (mir-302a, miR-302b, miR-302c and mir-367) as a polycytronic cluster of pluripotency-associated transcription factors such as OCT4, SOX2 and Nanog. This microRNA cluster is thus expressed in embryonic stem cells and inhibits genes that initiate differentiation, such as TGFBR2, promoting stem cell commitment.

3. However, our TaqMan microRNA assay confirmed that hRPE cells do not endogenously express miR-302d, in contrast to miR-17, miR-27a or miR-27b, and we included these data in Fig 1.

6. Authors should add a model in last figure depicting the take home message of this manuscript. Discuss the model in discussion part. It will be helpful for readers to understand the global message.

Answer:

We added a model in the last figure discussed in the Discussion section (Fig 11, Line 487-494): “Taken together, miR-302d can inhibit TGFB-induced EMT and constitutive VEGFA secretion in primary hRPE cells by directly targeting TGFBR2 and disrupting the canonical TGFB/SMAD signaling cascade. Furthermore, it can promote MET to revert TGFB-induced fibroblast-like hRPE cells to an epithelial state. These findings support miR-302d as a putative therapeutic approach to (i) inhibit EMT, (ii) reverse proliferative retinal diseases, and (iii) assist in controlling angiogenesis in ocular neovascular disorders. Its dual function on fibrosis and neovascularization makes it a feasible option, especially for CNV-related diseases.”

Responses to the Reviewer #2 comments

In their study, the authors show how the MiR-302d interferes with the mesenchymal transition of primary human RPE cells. The study is of great interest. I have some comments, mainly concerning the methods, which need to addressed.

Methods

Cell isolation and culture

Please give the approximate time between enucleation and RPE preparation. Cultures from how many patients were obtained and how much passages (if any) were conducted with each culture? Were there any exclusion criteria? Why were the eyes enucleated? RPE sheet, were this exclusively RPE cells or RPE/choroid tissue (as suggested by the description in the method section).

Answer:

It was only the RPE sheet that was peeled off for cell culture as suggested in the manuscript. The details of cell isolation and culture, including selection criteria of patients were added in the Methods section (Line 93-97): “Primary hRPE cells were obtained from two female patients who received enucleations suffering from an early stage of painful Phthisis bulbi. Patients with previous eye disorders involving the retina were excluded. The eyeballs were packed in ROTI®Cell Hanks' BSS (HBSS, Carl Roth #9117.1) on ice and processed to harvest RPE cells within 1-2 hours after surgery.”

Answer:

1. We modified the Methods and Results sections in response to this comment (line 102-118), stating: “The RPE sheet was peeled off with forceps and then digested with 1 ml TrypLE™ Express Enzyme (Gibco #12604-021) on a thermo-shaker for 30 min, 37°C, and 600 rpm. The detached RPE cells were collected by centrifugation and then resuspended and cultured in a 6-well plate with Minimum Essential Medium Eagle media (MEM, Sigma-Aldrich #M8042) supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS, Pan-Biotech #P40-39500), 1% GlutaMAX™ (Gibco #3505-061), and 1% Penicillin-Streptomycin (Pen-Strep, Gibco #15140-122). The same RPE sheet was digested two more times for 30 min each, and the RPE cells were transferred to different wells. Sequential digestion was performed to avoid over digestion of already detached cells, resulting in poor attachment. When the cells were confluent, they were examined with a phase-contrast and brightfield microscope (Leica DMi1) regarding their epithelial properties and degree of pigmentation. Wells showing RPE cells with similar morphology were pooled in passage 1 with 400 µl TrypLE™, and cells of passages 4-5 were used for experiments. It should be mentioned that RPE cells seeded at low density changed to a mesenchymal state. Therefore, the cells were seeded at a density of 50% to maintain their epithelial state, i.e., the cells of one confluent 6-well were divided into two 6-wells.”

2. The identification of extracted hRPE cells was confirmed by ICC staining of its classic marker, RPE65, and its phagocytic function. The Results section elucidated the results (Line 243-249), stating: “In order to identify hRPE cells, some specific characteristics were examined. ICC staining revealed abundant expression of RPE65, a native marker of RPE cells, in extracted cells. Moreover, fluorescent microbeads were added into the medium for four days to test the phagocytic property of RPE cells. The green fluorescent microbeads were visible within the cytoplasm, which was confirmed by the coexistence with Filamentous actin (F-actin). The findings validated that primary hRPE cells were successfully extracted (Fig 1A).”.

If the cells were passaged, how was the passage conducted?

Answer:

We revised the Methods section in response to this comment (Line 114-118), stating: “Wells showing RPE cells with similar morphology were pooled in passage 1 with 400 µl TrypLE™, and cells of passages 4-5 were used for experiments. It should be mentioned that RPE cells seeded at low density changed to a mesenchymal state. Therefore, the cells were seeded at a density of 50% to maintain their epithelial state, i.e., the cells of one confluent 6-well were divided into two 6-wells.”

Line 131 “one day in advance”, one day before the transfection, please rephrase. Were these cells seeded directly from the preparation or from passaged cells, if so, which passage?

Answer:

1. We rephrased the text to stress that (Line 139-140), stating: “2 x 104 primary hRPE cells were seeded in each well of a 24-well plate with a complete medium to reach 70-80% confluency one day before the transfection.”

2. The cells of passages 4-5 were used for experiments, which was added in the Methods section (Line 114-116), stating: “Wells showing RPE cells with similar morphology were pooled in passage 1 with 400 µl TrypLE™, and cells of passages 4-5 were used for experiments.”

Transfection, how was the success of the transfection verified? Please elaborate.

Answer:

The added TaqMan microRNA assay showed that hRPE cells do not endogenously express miR-302d. Therefore, the comparison between miR-302d-transfected cells and negative control-transfected cells in our results could prove the success of the transfection.

Please explain the concentration of TGFB used (reference?).

Answer:

The reason of the concentration we used was added in the Discussion section (Line 440-445), stating: “Of different TGFB isoforms, TGFB1 and TGFB2 are the major ones in RPE. While nontransformed RPE cells secrete TGFB2 predominantly, transformed RPE cells express higher levels of TGFB1 [34]. In addition, TGFB1 promotes the formation of epiretinal membranes and PVR and induces a significant mesenchymal transition in ARPE-19 cells starting from a dose of 10 ng/ml [3,6,35–37]. Therefore, this study used 10-20 ng/ml TGFB1 to stimulate transition in primary hRPE cells.”

IHC, were any RPE marker included?

Answer:

ICC staining of the classic RPE marker, RPE65, and its phagocytic function was added. The results were elucidated in the Results section (Line 243-249), stating: “In order to identify hRPE cells, some specific characteristics were examined. ICC staining revealed abundant expression of RPE65, a native marker of RPE cells, in extracted cells. Moreover, fluorescent microbeads were added into the medium for four days to test the phagocytic property of RPE cells. The green fluorescent microbeads were visible within the cytoplasm, which was confirmed by the coexistence with Filamentous actin (F-actin). The findings validated that primary hRPE cells were successfully extracted (Fig 1A).”

Western blot, please mention the time of treatment before harvest of the cells.

Answer:

The respective time was added in the figure legends (Line 312-314, 360-362 and 385-386), stating: “(A) ICC staining and (B) representative Western blot of FN1 in transfected hRPE cells after 3 d incubation of TGFB1.”, “(A) ICC staining and (B) representative Western blot of FN1 in hRPE cells after 4 d TGFB1 treatment and 3 d transfection.”, and “(B) Representative Western blot of pSMAD2 30 min after initial TGFB1 exposure.”

Western blot, please mention the wavelength of measurement and the software used for the calculation of the concentration.

Answer:

1. We revised the Methods section in response to this comment (Line 187-191), stating: “After incubation with 1:1000 diluted goat anti-rabbit secondary antibody StarBright™ Blue 700 (Bio-Rad #12004162) at RT for one hour, the fluorescent signal was detected with ChemiDoc MP Imaging System (Bio-Rad) at a measurement wavelength of 660-720 nm. ImageLab 6 software (Bio-Rad) was used for normalization and quantification.”

2. The data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel 2010 and GraphPad Prism 9, as mentioned in the Statistical analysis section (Line 235-239), stating: “All experiments were performed in three independent replicates, and the data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel 2010 and GraphPad Prism 9. Differences were evaluated by unpaired two-tailed t-test, one-way ANOVA with Tukey's multiple comparisons test or two-way ANOVA with Fisher's LSD test as the post hoc test. A p value < 0.05 was considered significantly different.”

ELiSA, please mention how long the supernatant was collected.

Answer:

This was mentioned in the figure legend of Fig 10B (Line 406-407), stating: “(B) ELISA for secreted VEGFA protein levels 48 and 72 h after transfection with miR-302d relative to NC.”

Statistical analysis, it is not clear how many independent experiments were conducted, please specify.

Answer:

We revised the text to stress that (Line 235), stating: “All experiments were performed in three independent replicates, and the data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel 2010 and GraphPad Prism 9.”

Results and figures, please give the sample size (n) for all experiments in the figure legends.

Answer:

We added respective statistical methods and sample sizes in figure legends (Line 260-261, 279, 316-317, 324-325, 344, 364-365, 388-389, 411), stating: “One-sample t-tests (n=3) were performed to detect differences between mean Cq values and 35.”, “Unpaired two-tailed t-tests (n=3) were performed.”, “One-way ANOVA with Tukey's multiple comparisons tests (n=3) were performed.”, “Two-way ANOVA with Fisher's LSD tests (n=3) were performed.”, “Unpaired two-tailed t-tests (n=3) were performed.”, “One-way ANOVA with Tukey's multiple comparisons tests (n=3) were performed.”, “One-way ANOVA with Tukey's multiple comparisons tests (n=3) were performed.”, “Unpaired two-tailed t-tests (n=3) were performed.”.

Line 310, please mention in text what SB431542 is inhibiting

Answer:

We modified the text to that (Line 331) and mentioned it in the Methods section (Line 145), stating: “… the TGFBR1 inhibitor SB431542”.

Line 370, following, please give the mean and range of concentration you measured for VEGF and TGFBR2.

Answer:

The ranges of concentrations for VEGF and TGFBR2 were added in figure legends (Line 402-410), stating: “The TGFBR2 protein was related to the total protein amounts determined by BCA assay. The amounts at 48 h were 10.35 ± 6.09 pg/mg in the NC group and 5.44 ± 3.49 pg/mg in the miR-302d group. The amounts at 72 h were 10.79 ± 4.31 in the NC group and 6.92 ± 3.45 in the miR-302d group. The values were further normalized to the NC group. (B) ELISA for secreted VEGFA protein levels 48 and 72 h after transfection with miR-302d relative to NC. The concentrations at 48 h were 423.93 ± 26.18 pg/ml in the NC group and 288.79 ± 26.18 pg/ml in the miR-302d group. The concentrations at 72 h were 658.87 ± 48.11 pg/ml in the NC group and 523.93 ± 44.09 pg/ml in the miR-302d group.”

Discussion

Please discuss the results concerning the current literature, not just reiterate the findings.

RPE cells secrete quite high amounts of TGFß which are important for the immune privilege of the retina. Please discuss your findings also in relation to this.

Answer:

We revised the Discussion section to make it more concise (451-486), stating: “With the function of regulating expressions of numerous genes, miRNAs as a therapeutic target or biomarker have become the focus of ophthalmologic research. For example, an increased level of miR-148 in the vitreous fluid seems to be associated with the severity of retinal detachment [38]. MiR-124 regulated EMT in ARPE-19 cells by TGFB/RHOG signaling pathway [36]. In our previous study, we screened miR-302d against multiple genes involved in TGFB signaling [6]. Here, we examined the effect of miR-302d on TGFB-induced changes in primary hRPE cells (Fig 11).

Another non-negligible and critical factor elevated in the pathological process is VEGFA, which can be stimulated by TGFB through different signaling pathways in RPE cells [39]. VEGFA is a well-known pro-angiogenic element and contributes to retinal angiogenesis. In wAMD, ruptured blood-retinal barrier and leaky neovasculature lead to an aberrant microenvironment aggregated with inflammatory cells, immune cells, growth factors, and cytokines, resulting in a fibrovascular lesion with eventual fibrosis [4,40–42]. Our ELISA showed a statistically significant decline in VEGFA secretion 48 h after cells were transfected with miR-302d, which indicated that miR-302d could reduce the constitutive release of VEGFA from hRPE cells.

Although TGFB contributes significantly to inflammation suppression and ocular immune privilege, it may play a different role in the development of retinal fibrosis [43]. Histological studies reveal that immune elements, including macrophages, lymphocytes, and complement proteins, infiltrate retinal fibrosis [40]. Apart from transforming local cells in the retina, like endothelial cells and RPE cells, TGFB promotes the conversion of macrophages into myofibroblasts [12,44]. Further research is required to understand the role of TGFB in the immune response to retinal fibrosis.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(131.4KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278158.r003

Decision Letter 1

Olaf Strauß

11 Nov 2022

MiR-302d inhibits TGFB-induced EMT and promotes MET in primary human RPE cells

PONE-D-22-20602R1

Dear Dr. Fuchs,

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,

Olaf Strauß

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: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: Thank you for submitting your manuscript, which was very interesting and adequately describes the MiR-302d inhibits TGFB-induced EMT and promotes MET in primary human RPE cells. However, I felt there still lacks evidence in fulfilling the whole story, specifically animal studies. I believe after the author has completed the animal study, this manuscript will be complete.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

**********

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278158.r004

Acceptance letter

Olaf Strauß

15 Nov 2022

PONE-D-22-20602R1

MiR-302d inhibits TGFB-induced EMT and promotes MET in primary human RPE cells

Dear Dr. Fuchs:

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

Professor Olaf Strauß

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 Raw images

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(423.3KB, pdf)}

S1 Fig. miR-302d suppresses TGFB-induced phosphorylation of SMAD2 in hRPE cells.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(319.7KB, TIF)}

S2 Fig. miR-302d suppresses TGFB-induced phosphorylation of SMAD2 in hRPE cells.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(366.8KB, TIF)}

S1 Video. A time-lapse movie of dynamic morphological change of hRPE cells after TGFB1 exposure 24 h post-transfection with NC or miR-302d.

(MP4)

Click here for additional data file.^{(14MB, mp4)}

S2 Video. A time-lapse movie of dynamic morphological change of hRPE cells after transfection with NC or miR-302d following 4 d TGFB1 exposure.

(MP4)

Click here for additional data file.^{(12.1MB, mp4)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(131.4KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

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

[pone.0278158.ref001] 1.Wynn TA. Common and unique mechanisms regulate fibrosis in various fibroproliferative diseases. J Clin Invest. 2007;117: 524–529. doi: 10.1172/JCI31487 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278158.ref002] 2.Gabbiani G. The myofibroblast in wound healing and fibrocontractive diseases: The myofibroblast. J Pathol. 2003;200: 500–503. doi: 10.1002/path.1427 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278158.ref003] 3.Choi K, Lee K, Ryu S-W, Im M, Kook KH, Choi C. Pirfenidone inhibits transforming growth factor-β1-induced fibrogenesis by blocking nuclear translocation of Smads in human retinal pigment epithelial cell line ARPE-19. Molecular Vision. 2012; 11. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278158.ref004] 4.Shu DY, Lovicu FJ. Myofibroblast transdifferentiation: The dark force in ocular wound healing and fibrosis. Progress in Retinal and Eye Research. 2017;60: 44–65. doi: 10.1016/j.preteyeres.2017.08.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278158.ref005] 5.Ishikawa K, Kannan R, Hinton DR. Molecular mechanisms of subretinal fibrosis in age-related macular degeneration. Experimental Eye Research. 2016;142: 19–25. doi: 10.1016/j.exer.2015.03.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278158.ref006] 6.Fuchs HR, Meister R, Lotke R, Framme C. The microRNAs miR-302d and miR-93 inhibit TGFB-mediated EMT and VEGFA secretion from ARPE-19 cells. Experimental Eye Research. 2020;201: 108258. doi: 10.1016/j.exer.2020.108258 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278158.ref007] 7.Kalluri R, Neilson EG. Epithelial-mesenchymal transition and its implications for fibrosis. J Clin Invest. 2003;112: 1776–1784. doi: 10.1172/JCI20530 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278158.ref008] 8.Kalluri R, Weinberg RA. The basics of epithelial-mesenchymal transition. J Clin Invest. 2009;119: 1420–1428. doi: 10.1172/JCI39104 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278158.ref009] 9.Saito A. EMT and EndMT: regulated in similar ways? The Journal of Biochemistry. 2013;153: 493–495. doi: 10.1093/jb/mvt032 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278158.ref010] 10.Taylor MA, Parvani JG, Schiemann WP. The Pathophysiology of Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition Induced by Transforming Growth Factor-β in Normal and Malignant Mammary Epithelial Cells. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia. 2010;15: 169–190. doi: 10.1007/s10911-010-9181-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278158.ref011] 11.Wheelock MJ, Shintani Y, Maeda M, Fukumoto Y, Johnson KR. Cadherin switching. Journal of Cell Science. 2008;121: 727–735. doi: 10.1242/jcs.000455 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278158.ref012] 12.Shu DY, Butcher E, Saint-Geniez M. EMT and EndMT: Emerging Roles in Age-Related Macular Degeneration. IJMS. 2020;21: 4271. doi: 10.3390/ijms21124271 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278158.ref013] 13.Lamouille S, Xu J, Derynck R. Molecular mechanisms of epithelial–mesenchymal transition. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2014;15: 178–196. doi: 10.1038/nrm3758 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278158.ref014] 14.Pennison M, Pasche B. Targeting transforming growth factor-β signaling. Current Opinion in Oncology. 2007;19: 579–585. doi: 10.1097/CCO.0b013e3282f0ad0e [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278158.ref015] 15.Hinton DR, He S, Jin ML, Barron E, Ryan SJ. Novel growth factors involved in the pathogenesis of proliferative vitreoretinopathy. Eye. 2002;16: 422–428. doi: 10.1038/sj.eye.6700190 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278158.ref016] 16.Zou H, Shan C, Ma L, Liu J, Yang N, Zhao J. Polarity and epithelial-mesenchymal transition of retinal pigment epithelial cells in proliferative vitreoretinopathy. PeerJ. 2020;8: e10136. doi: 10.7717/peerj.10136 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278158.ref017] 17.Kaneko H, Terasaki H. Biological Involvement of MicroRNAs in Proliferative Vitreoretinopathy. Trans Vis Sci Tech. 2017;6: 5. doi: 10.1167/tvst.6.4.5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278158.ref018] 18.Bartel DP. Metazoan MicroRNAs. Cell. 2018;173: 20–51. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.03.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278158.ref019] 19.Bartel DP. MicroRNAs: genomics, biogenesis, mechanism, and function. Cell. 2004;116: 281–297. doi: 10.1016/s0092-8674(04)00045-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278158.ref020] 20.Ding Y, Hu Z, Luan J, Lv X, Yuan D, Xie P, et al. Protective effect of miR-200b/c by inhibiting vasohibin-2 in human retinal microvascular endothelial cells. Life Sciences. 2017;191: 245–252. doi: 10.1016/j.lfs.2017.09.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278158.ref021] 21.Maminishkis A, Chen S, Jalickee S, Banzon T, Shi G, Wang FE, et al. Confluent monolayers of cultured human fetal retinal pigment epithelium exhibit morphology and physiology of native tissue. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47: 3612–3624. doi: 10.1167/iovs.05-1622 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278158.ref022] 22.Samuel W, Jaworski C, Postnikova OA, Kutty RK, Duncan T, Tan LX, et al. Appropriately differentiated ARPE-19 cells regain phenotype and. Molecular Vision. 2017; 30. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278158.ref023] 23.Tian J. The expression of native and cultured human retinal pigment epithelial cells grown in different culture conditions. British Journal of Ophthalmology. 2005;89: 1510–1517. doi: 10.1136/bjo.2005.072108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278158.ref024] 24.Tian B, Maidana DE, Dib B, Miller JB, Bouzika P, Miller JW, et al. miR-17-3p Exacerbates Oxidative Damage in Human Retinal Pigment Epithelial Cells. Ablonczy Z, editor. PLoS ONE. 2016;11: e0160887. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0160887 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278158.ref025] 25.Ren C, Hu W, Wei Q, Cai W, Jin H, Yu D, et al. MicroRNA-27a Promotes Oxidative-Induced RPE Cell Death through Targeting FOXO1. Tsai F-M, editor. BioMed Research International. 2021;2021: 1–17. doi: 10.1155/2021/6666506 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278158.ref026] 26.Nieto MA, Huang RY-J, Jackson RA, Thiery JP. EMT: 2016. Cell. 2016;166: 21–45. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2016.06.028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278158.ref027] 27.O’Connor JW, Gomez EW. Biomechanics of TGFβ‐induced epithelial‐mesenchymal transition: implications for fibrosis and cancer. Clinical and Translational Medicine. 2014;3. doi: 10.1186/2001-1326-3-23 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278158.ref028] 28.Marmai C, Sutherland RE, Kim KK, Dolganov GM, Fang X, Kim SS, et al. Alveolar epithelial cells express mesenchymal proteins in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. American Journal of Physiology-Lung Cellular and Molecular Physiology. 2011;301: L71–L78. doi: 10.1152/ajplung.00212.2010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278158.ref029] 29.Rastaldi MP, Ferrario F, Giardino L, Dell’Antonio G, Grillo C, Grillo P, et al. Epithelial-mesenchymal transition of tubular epithelial cells in human renal biopsies. Kidney International. 2002;62: 137–146. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1755.2002.00430.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278158.ref030] 30.Rowe RG, Lin Y, Shimizu-Hirota R, Hanada S, Neilson EG, Greenson JK, et al. Hepatocyte-Derived Snail1 Propagates Liver Fibrosis Progression. Mol Cell Biol. 2011;31: 2392–2403. doi: 10.1128/MCB.01218-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278158.ref031] 31.Willis BC, Borok Z. TGF-β-induced EMT: mechanisms and implications for fibrotic lung disease. American Journal of Physiology-Lung Cellular and Molecular Physiology. 2007;293: L525–L534. doi: 10.1152/ajplung.00163.2007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278158.ref032] 32.Mallone F, Costi R, Marenco M, Plateroti R, Minni A, Attanasio G, et al. Understanding Drivers of Ocular Fibrosis: Current and Future Therapeutic Perspectives. IJMS. 2021;22: 11748. doi: 10.3390/ijms222111748 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278158.ref033] 33.Saika S, Yamanaka O, Okada Y, Tanaka S-I, Miyamoto T, Sumioka T, et al. TGF beta in fibroproliferative diseases in the eye. Front Biosci (Schol Ed). 2009;1: 376–390. doi: 10.2741/S32 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278158.ref034] 34.Kvanta A. Expression and secretion of transforming growth factor-beta in transformed and nontransformed retinal pigment epithelial cells. Ophthalmic Res. 1994;26: 361–367. doi: 10.1159/000267502 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278158.ref035] 35.Stepp MA, Menko AS. Immune responses to injury and their links to eye disease. Translational Research. 2021;236: 52–71. doi: 10.1016/j.trsl.2021.05.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278158.ref036] 36.Jun JH, Joo C-K. MicroRNA-124 Controls Transforming Growth Factor b1– Induced Epithelial–Mesenchymal Transition in the Retinal Pigment Epithelium by Targeting RHOG.: 11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278158.ref037] 37.Li D, Zhang J, Liu Z, Gong Y, Zheng Z. Human umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cell-derived exosomal miR-27b attenuates subretinal fibrosis via suppressing epithelial–mesenchymal transition by targeting HOXC6. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2021;12: 24. doi: 10.1186/s13287-020-02064-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278158.ref038] 38.Tsunekawa T, Kaneko H, Takayama K, Hwang S-J, Oishi A, Nagasaka Y, et al. Correlation between miR-148 Expression in Vitreous and Severity of Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment. BioMed Research International. 2017;2017: 1–8. doi: 10.1155/2017/3427319 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278158.ref039] 39.Bian Z-M, Elner SG, Elner VM. Regulation of VEGF mRNA expression and protein secretion by TGF-beta2 in human retinal pigment epithelial cells. Exp Eye Res. 2007;84: 812–822. doi: 10.1016/j.exer.2006.12.016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278158.ref040] 40.Murakami Y, Ishikawa K, Nakao S, Sonoda K-H. Innate immune response in retinal homeostasis and inflammatory disorders. Progress in Retinal and Eye Research. 2020;74: 100778. doi: 10.1016/j.preteyeres.2019.100778 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278158.ref041] 41.Roberts PK, Zotter S, Montuoro A, Pircher M, Baumann B, Ritter M, et al. Identification and Quantification of the Angiofibrotic Switch in Neovascular AMD. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2019;60: 304. doi: 10.1167/iovs.18-25189 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278158.ref042] 42.Tenbrock L, Wolf J, Boneva S, Schlecht A, Agostini H, Wieghofer P, et al. Subretinal fibrosis in neovascular age-related macular degeneration: current concepts, therapeutic avenues, and future perspectives. Cell Tissue Res. 2022;387: 361–375. doi: 10.1007/s00441-021-03514-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278158.ref043] 43.Sugita S. Role of ocular pigment epithelial cells in immune privilege. Arch Immunol Ther Exp. 2009;57: 263–268. doi: 10.1007/s00005-009-0030-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278158.ref044] 44.Little K, Llorián-Salvador M, Tang M, Du X, Marry S, Chen M, et al. Macrophage to myofibroblast transition contributes to subretinal fibrosis secondary to neovascular age-related macular degeneration. J Neuroinflammation. 2020;17: 355. doi: 10.1186/s12974-020-02033-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

MiR-302d inhibits TGFB-induced EMT and promotes MET in primary human RPE cells

Xiaonan Hu

Maximilian Binter

Karsten Hufendiek

Jan Tode

Carsten Framme

Heiko Fuchs

Roles

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Introduction

Methods

Cell isolation and culture

RNA isolation and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR)

miRNA transfection and TGFB treatment

Immunocytochemistry (ICC) staining and uptake of green fluorescent microbeads

Western blot

ELISA assay

Live-cell imaging and analysis

Wound-healing assay

Statistical analysis

Results

Identification of primary hRPE cells

Fig 1. Identification of hRPE cells and miR-302d expression.

miR-302d inhibits TGFB-induced fibroblastic morphological change in hRPE cells

Fig 2. miR-302d inhibits TGFB-induced fibroblastic morphological changes in hRPE cells.

miR-302d inhibits TGFB-induced EMT in hRPE cells

Fig 3. miR-302d inhibits TGFB-induced changes of EMT-related factors in hRPE cells.

Fig 4. miR-302d suppresses TGFB-induced production of FN1.

Fig 5. miR-302d suppresses TGFB-induced migration in hRPE cells.

miR-302d reverts TGFB-induced mesenchymal hRPE cells toward an epithelial state

Fig 6. miR-302d reverts TGFB-induced mesenchymal hRPE cells towards an epithelial morphology.

Fig 7. miR-302d reverts TGFB-induced EMT in hRPE cells.

Fig 8. miR-302d inhibits the FN1 level in mesenchymal hRPE cells.

miR-302d suppresses TGFB-induced phosphorylation of SMAD2 in hRPE cells

Fig 9. miR-302d suppresses TGFB-induced phosphorylation of SMAD2 in hRPE cells.

miR-302d downregulates TGFBR2 and constitutive secretion of VEGFA in hRPE cells

Fig 10. miR-302d downregulates TGFBR2 and constitutive secretion of VEGFA in hRPE cells.

Discussion

Fig 11. An overall model depicts the effect of miR-302d on TGFB-induced EMT in hRPE cells.

Supporting information

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Olaf Strauß

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Olaf Strauß

Roles

Acceptance letter

Olaf Strauß

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases