Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Jan 19;18(1):e0279029. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279029

Long-term potentiation and depression regulatory microRNAs were highlighted in Bisphenol A induced learning and memory impairment by microRNA sequencing and bioinformatics analysis

Mengxin Luo 1,2,#, Ling Li 3,#, Muyao Ding 1,#, Yurong Niu 3, Xuezhu Xu 3, Xiaoxia Shi 1, Ning Shan 2, Zewen Qiu 4,*, Fengyuan Piao 1,5,*, Cong Zhang 1,*
Editor: Alexandre Hiroaki Kihara6
PMCID: PMC9851566  PMID: 36656826

Abstract

The mechanisms of Bisphenol A (BPA) induced learning and memory impairment have still not been fully elucidated. MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are endogenous non-coding small RNA molecules involved in the process of toxicant-induced neurotoxicity. To investigate the role of miRNAs in BPA-induced learning and memory impairment, we analyzed the impacts of BPA on miRNA expression profile by high-throughput sequencing in mice hippocampus. Results showed that mice treated with BPA displayed impairments of spatial learning and memory and changes in the expression of miRNAs in the hippocampus. Seventeen miRNAs were significantly differentially expressed after BPA exposure, of these, 13 and 4 miRNAs were up- and downregulated, respectively. Bioinformatic analysis of Gene Ontology (GO) and pathway suggests that BPA exposure significantly triggered transcriptional changes of miRNAs associated with learning and memory; the top five affected pathways involved in impairment of learning and memory are: 1) Long-term depression (LTD); 2) Thyroid hormone synthesis; 3) GnRH signaling pathway; 4) Long-term potentiation (LTP); 5) Serotonergic synapse. Eight BPA-responsive differentially expressed miRNAs regulating LTP and LTD were further screened to validate the miRNA sequencing data using Real-Time PCR. The deregulation expression levels of proteins of five target genes (CaMKII, MEK1/2, IP3R, AMPAR1 and PLCβ4) were investigated via western blot, for further verifying the results of gene target analysis. Our results showed that LTP and LTD related miRNAs and their targets could contribute to BPA-induced impairment of learning and memory. This study provides valuable information for novel miRNA biomarkers to detect changes in impairment of learning and memory induced by BPA exposure.

Introduction

Bisphenol A (BPA) is an important industrial chemical used extensively worldwide in the production of polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins [1]. In 2015, the global volume consumption of BPA was estimated at 7.7 million metric tons, and could reach 10.6 million metric tons by 2022 with a compound annual growth rate of 4.8% [24]. BPA can seep into our foods and the environment during the manufacturing process or daily use [5]. Humans might be exposed to BPA from fetal to adult stages in various ways including water, air, soil environment, food contamination, etc [6]. The exposure routes of BPA could be oral intake, inhalation or dermal contact [7, 8]. A certain amount of studies performed in cellular cultures, rodents, and humans suggest that BPA overexposure exerts deleterious effects by different mechanisms [9]. BPA works as an agonist on estrogen receptors and antagonist on androgen receptors due to its capability to bind classical nuclear or genomic estrogen receptors [10, 11]. BPA can impair male reproductive function via damaging sperm DNA, decreasing testosterone levels and reducing semen quality [12]. In addition, several studies demonstrated that BPA exposure plays adverse health effects on liver function, increases risk of cardiovascular disease, affects glucose metabolism, disturbs immune function and induces several tumors through binding different receptors, modulating transcription factors, or inducing epigenetic changes [1316]. It was also found that BPA exposure during embryonic and infant periods may exert toxic impacts on a series of physiological processes such as development on nervous system and brain morphology [17, 18]. In addition, increasing evidence indicated that neurotoxic effects of children/adolescent animals could be induced by BPA exposure [19, 20]. Therefore, more studies on the alterations of behaviors due to the children/adolescent BPA exposure and the involved mechanisms are necessary.

Increasing evidence suggested that epigenetic alterations, including changes in histone modifications, DNA methylation and the expression of non-coding RNAs could be crucial regulators in the long-term effects of environmental toxicants [21, 22]. MicroRNAs (miRNAs), a short non-coding RNAs, regulate translation by binding to the 3′ untranslated region (UTR) of mRNAs [23]. miRNAs play crucial roles in almost all fundamental biological and metabolic processes [24]. Of all the mammalian miRNAs identified to date, more than 50% of them are expressed in the brain [25, 26]. Recent studies have addressed miRNAs to be involved in various central nervous system’s pathologies [27, 28]. Specifically, miRNAs play important roles in the development and progression of neurotoxicity induced by environment stress [29, 30]. Butler et al. reported that miRNA expression change in brain was critical in impairment of BPA-related changes in social-communication behaviors [31]. Kaur et al. demonstrated that altered miRNA levels were associated with BPA-induced anxiety and stereotypical behaviors [32].

Given the considering that miRNAs expression alteration is an important mediator of the BPA-induced impairment of learning and memory, in this study, we exposed young male mice to BPA in drinking water for 8 weeks and investigated the impact of BPA exposure on the miRNA expression profile of the hippocampus. The DIANA-miRPath v3.0 database was used for bioinformatic analysis. Real-Time PCR and western blot were performed for validation of miRNA expression and target genes’ protein levels. Our data would be valuable for revealing novel miRNA biomarkers and possible mechanisms related to impairment of learning and memory induced by BPA exposure.

Methods and materials

Animal handling and procedures used in this study were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Dalian Medical University (AEE21022). Housing of animals was in agreement with the guidelines of the Animal Care and Use Committee of Dalian Medical University. All procedures were performed under strict accordance with National Institute of Health Guide for Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, and all efforts were made to minimize suffering.

The treatment of animals

Eighty Kunming (KM) mice (Male, aged 4 weeks) weighing 22±2 g were obtained from the Experimental Animal Center of Dalian Medical University. They were housed five per cage under standard conditions, with a 12 h dark-light cycle (lights on at 7:00 a.m.) at 18–22°C and 50% humidity and were maintained on a standard diet with water available ad libitum. All mice were randomly assigned to four groups (n = 20 in each group), including the control group and three BPA exposure groups, according to their body weight. Mice in the four groups were received the following dosages of BPA in the drinking water: 0, 0.05, 0.5, and 5 mg/kg body weight. All treatments were continued for 8 weeks. The volumes of water consumed were measured every 2 days, the weights of the mice were measured every 1 week, and there were no significant differences in water consumption and the body weights of the mice between the BPA-exposed and control groups (Fig 1).

Fig 1.

Fig 1

Body weight (a) and water consumption (b) of mice (n = 20). Results are presented as mean ± SEM.

After 8 weeks of BPA treatment, the test of learning and memory ability was performed in all mice from each group (n = 15–20 in each group). Then, mice were euthanized and hippocampus tissues were collected. The hippocampus tissues of three mice in control group and 5mg/mg BPA group were used to construct miRNA expression profile by miRNA sequencing, the hippocampus tissues of other six mice in each group were used to Real-Time PCR and western blot analysis.

The concentrations of BPA exposure were set based on the Reference Dose (RfD) set by the Environmental Protection Agency (0.05 mg/kg body weight, the low BPA-exposed group), 10 times the RfD (0.5 mg/kg body weight, the medium BPA-exposed group) and 100 times the RfD (5 mg/kg, the high BPA-exposed group) [33].

Tests of animal learning and memory ability

Mice from each group were tested for their learning and memory ability using the MWM test as described in our previous research [34]. The device is a circular pool with a diameter of 100 cm, and is filled with water at 23 ± 2°C (depth of water: 40 cm). An escape platform (diameter: 10 cm) was submerged 1 cm below the water surface, was placed in the middle of one quadrant (target quadrant) during the spatial navigation test. Spatial visual cues were black and white geometric figures including triangle, square, circle and diamond placed around the pool in each quadrant. All tests were performed between 15:00 and 22:00, and the water was changed to fresh water daily. The water maze was surrounded by shading curtains for avoiding the interference of light on image acquisition. Briefly, the test included the spatial acquisition phase and probe trial [35, 36]. In spatial acquisition phase, mice were trained for 5 consecutive days. Daily training was starting at different quadrants of the pool in a predetermined pseudorandom order. The time spent to reach the platform (escape latency) within 60 s was recorded as acquisition latency. If the mouse failed to reach the platform within 60 s, it was gently guided onto the platform for 30 s and assigned a latency of 60 s. The escape latency to identify the hidden platform was measured.

On the sixth day, the mice were given a spatial probe test, in which the platform was taken away, and each mouse was placed at one point. The mouse was allowed to navigate freely in the pool for 60 s. The time of swimming in the target quadrant, which had previously contained the hidden platform, was recorded as an indicator of memory retention. The swim paths of mice were recorded and the crossings in the target quadrant were calculated by a smart video tracing system (NoldusEtho Vision system, version 5, Everett, WA, USA).

miRNA library construction and sequencing

Total RNA was extracted from hippocampal tissues by using RNAiso Plus according to the manufacturer’s instruction (Takara, Japan) and then quantified with the NanoPhotometer® spectrophotometer (IMPLEN, CA, USA). Only RNA samples with an A260/A280 of 1.8–2.2 were employed for reverse transcription. RNA concentration was measured using Qubit® RNA Assay Kit in Qubit® 2.0 Flurometer (Life Technologies, CA, USA). RNA integrity was assessed using the RNA Nano 6000 Assay Kit of the Agilent Bioanalyzer 2100 system (Agilent Technologies, CA, USA). 3 μg total RNA per sample was used for the small RNA library. Sequencing libraries were generated with NEBNext® Multiplex Small RNA Library Prep Set for Illumina® (NEB, USA) following manufacturer’s recommendations. The quality of library was evaluated by the Agilent Bioanalyzer 2100 system using DNA High Sensitivity Chips. The clustering of the index-coded samples was performed on a cBot Cluster Generation System using HiSeq Rapid Duo cBot Sample Loading Kit (Illumia) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. After cluster generation, the library preparations were sequenced on an Illumina Hiseq 2500 platform and 50 bp single-end reads were generated.

Bioinformatic evaluation

After miRNA reads were counted and normalized, fold change (FC) between the control and BPA-treated mice was calculated by R program (V3.6.2). The genes whose sum of readcount values of the two groups was less than 10 were filtered out. We selected the differentially expressed miRNAs according to the log2 (FC) and p value threshold. |log2 (FC) |≥ 1 and p value < 0.05 was considered as significant difference. The scatter map and clustering heat map of differential expression miRNAs were presented by R program (V3.6.2) and Python program.

After the differentially expressed miRNAs were screened out, bioinformatic evaluation was carried out for identifying potential functions and prediction of target genes as described previously [30]. The functional enrichment analysis was carried out by DIANA-miRPath v3.0. The Gene Ontology (GO) terms and KEGG pathway analysis were provided to obtain useful information regarding the functions of the altered miRNAs [3739]. The p-value reflects the significance of GO term enrichment and the pathways correlated to the conditions (The threshold of p-values corrected by false discovery rate (FDR) is 0.05).

The biological significance of altered miRNA expression is intimately associated with their gene targets. Potential target genes of all the differentially expressed miRNAs were predicted from data in the databases: miRDB, miRanda, miRWalk, TargetScan, DIANA-mirPath, and miRNA.org. Then, the results intersected from at least two different programs were retained as the final set of target genes.

Real-Time PCR

One microgram of total RNA was reverse transcribed to cDNA using miRNA Reverse Transcription reagent (Takara, Japan). Quantitative Real-Time PCR was performed with a SYBR Green PCR kit (Takara, Japan) using the TP800 Real-Time PCR Detection System (Takara, Japan). The Bulge-Loop miRNA primers for the selected miRNAs and U6 miRNA were designed and purchased from RiboBio (Guangzhou, China). The U6 small nuclear RNA was used as endogenous control. The primers for the selected genes are shown in S1 Table. The reaction conditions were set as follows: initial denaturation at 94°C for 2 min, followed by 5 cycles of 94°C for 30 s, 55°C for 30 s and 60°C for 30 s. The data were analyzed using the 2−△△CT method.

Western blot analysis

Western blot analysis was performed to detect the protein expression of CaMKII, MEK1/2, AMPAR1, IP3R and PLCβ4. GAPDH was used as a control. Briefly, samples were homogenized in ice-cold RIPA Tissue Protein Extraction Reagent (Biyuntian, China) supplemented with 1% proteinase inhibitor mix and incubated at 4°C for 1h. After incubation, debris was removed via centrifugation at 12,000×g for 15 min at 4°C, and the lysates were stored at -80°C until being used. The total protein concentration in the lysates was determined using a BCA protein assay kit (Biyuntian, China). The samples employed for western blot contained 50 μg of protein from tissues in each lane. The proteins were mixed with an equal volume of SDS-PAGE loading buffer, separated via SDS-PAGE under non-reducing conditions using 10% SDS-PAGE gels and electrotransferred to Hybond-P polyvinylidene fluoride membranes (Millipore, France). The membranes were blocked with blocking buffer containing defatted milk powder for 1 h and incubated overnight at 4°C with 1μg/ml of anti-rabbit CaMKII (1:1000, Abcam, catalog #ab181052), MEK1/2 (1:1000, Abcam, catalog #ab178876), IP3R (1:1000, Abcam, catalog #ab264281), AMPAR1 (1:1000, Cell signaling Technology, catalog #13185S) and PLCβ4 (1:1000, Absin, catalog #abs132943) antibodies. The membrane was washed three times with Tris-buffered saline containing 0.05% Tween-20 (TBST) for 15 min and then incubated at room temperature for 1 h with horseradish peroxidase-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG (1:3,000, Sigma-Aldrich, catalog #A0545). The resultant signals were visualized using an enhanced ECL chemiluminescence kit and quantified densitometrically using a UVP BioSpectrum Multispectral Imaging System (Ultra-Violet Products Ltd, Upland, CA). Finally, the band intensity of the target proteins was read using ImageJ software (Bethesda, MD, U.S.A.) against the control sample, GAPDH staining was performed in stripped membranes used to identify the target protein’s antibodies, and normalization was performed by the ratio from band intensity of target proteins against GAPDH.

Statistical analysis

Prior to analyses, we confirmed data normality and homogeneity of variances by D’Agostino–Pearson and Barlett’s tests, respectively. Difference among each group was analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by the Tukey’s multiple-comparison tests. All data set fellows a normal distribution, and are presented as the mean ± standard error of mean (SEM). In all instances a p-value of less than 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. All data were analyzed with SPSS 23.0 for Windows.

Results

BPA induces impairment of learning and memory

Though MWM test, we found that BPA exposure impaired the mice learning and memory abilities. The representative swimming routes of each group during the spatial acquisition phase (the 5th day) and probe trial were shown (Fig 2A). In the spatial acquisition phase, no significant differences were observed in 0.05 and 0.5 mg/kg BPA-treated mice compared with the control group. 5 mg/kg BPA-treated mice spent a longer time to find the hidden platform than the control mice from the second day (Fig 2B). In the probe test, compared with the control group, the mice in 5 mg/kg BPA-exposed group crossed the platform fewer times (Fig 2C), and stayed shorter in the target quadrant (Fig 2D).

Fig 2. Impairment of learning and memory in BPA-treated mice in the MWM (n = 15–20).

Fig 2

(A) Representative swimming routes of each group during the spatial acquisition phase (the 5th day) and probe trial in the MWM. The representative swimming routes belong to the same animal in each group. In spatial acquisition phase, the representative swimming routes of trail 1–3 are the paths for finding the platform in target quadrant from quadrant I, II or III, respectively. In the probe trial, the representative swimming routes of trail 4 are from the quadrant II to quadrant IV for navigating freely 60 s. (B) In spatial acquisition phase, the time spent to find the hidden platform of mice after exposure to BPA is shown. The data presented is the daily average of trainings in four different quadrants. In the probe trial, the total number of crossings over the platform (C) and the time spent (D) in the target quadrant of mice after exposure to BPA were shown. Results are presented as mean ± SEM. *P < 0.05, **P <0.01 compared with control group.

BPA promotes an alteration of miRNA expression profile in the mice hippocampus

Since BPA exposure at 5 mg/kg impairs learning and memory ability of mice, we investigated the possible expression alterations of miRNAs between the BPA treatment and the control groups in mouse hippocampus. We screened out miRNAs whose relative expression levels changed more than 2 fold between the BPA-treated and control groups. In Fig 3, it was shown that the expression of 17 miRNAs were significantly changed after the BPA treatment (p < 0.05, fold change ≥ 2), of these, 13 were upregulated and 4 were downregulated (Table 1). Variations in the expression of miRNAs between the BPA and control group was exhibited with the clustering heatmap (Fig 4).

Fig 3. Scatter plot of differentially expressed miRNAs in hippocampus between the BPA treatment group and the control group (n = 3).

Fig 3

Blue dots represent miRNAs with no differential expression; Red and green dots indicate up and downregulation of miRNA, respectively, relative to the control (log2-scaled, p < 0.05).

Table 1. miRNAs with statistical differences in expression between the BPA treatment and control groups.

miRNA Mean±SEM p-value
CON BPA
mmu-miR-615-3p 0.286±0.048 4.127±0.259 <0.001
mmu-miR-10b-3p 0.303±0.075 6.275±0.943 0.003
mmu-miR-3074-5p 4.711±0.373 1.561±0.261 0.002
mmu-miR-24-3p 4.968±0.341 2.201±0.202 0.002
mmu-miR-182-5p 0.242±0.059 1.459±0.266 0.011
mmu-miR-10a-5p 0.416±0.183 6.083±0.504 <0.001
mmu-miR-7039-5p 0.758±0.243 7.494±0.389 <0.001
mmu-miR-125a-3p 1.047±0.108 2.696±0.265 0.005
mmu-miR-7021-5p 4.318±0.536 0.571±0.169 0.003
mmu-miR-6901-5p 0.184±0.068 1.808±0.169 0.001
mmu-miR-96-5p 1.688±0.182 4.513±0.424 0.004
mmu-miR-10b-5p 0.367±0.099 4.729±0.749 0.004
mmu-miR-193a-3p 5.198±0.552 0.872±0.232 0.002
mmu-let-7c-5p 1.107±0.327 2.134±0.121 0.042
mmu-miR-7071-3p 0.147±0.032 1.429±0.118 <0.001
mmu-miR-495-3p 0.958±0.168 4.705±0.331 0.001
mmu-miR-183-5p 0.483±0.057 2.983±0.358 0.002

Fig 4. Heat map depicting the clustering of significantly differentially expressed miRNAs after BPA exposure.

Fig 4

Red represents high relative expression, and blue represents low relative expression.

Potential signaling pathways for BPA-affected dysregulated miRNA

To gain a better understanding about the function of the differentially expressed miRNAs, the Gene Ontology annotations and their molecular pathways were summarized via mirPath v.3 analysis [30]. The top 10 significantly changed GO terms (GOTERM BP FAT) biological process were highlighted in Table 2. The term “learning and memory” (p = 1.1E-4) showed the significant change.

Table 2. The top 10 GO terms significantly changed in biological process as seen in mice hippocampus after BPA exposure.

Term p-Value Ontology
Protein phosphorylation 8.7E-5 Biological process
Signal transduction 9.8E-5 Biological process
Learning or memory 1.1E-4 Biological process
Learning 1.3E-4 Biological process
Chemical synaptic transmission 1.4E-4 Biological process
Regulation of synaptic plasticity 1.7E-4 Biological process
MAPK cascade 2.9E-4 Biological process
Neurological system process 3.7E-4 Biological process
Negative regulation of neuron apoptotic process 6.6E-4 Biological process
Locomotory behavior 8.6E-4 Biological process

Furthermore, 8 KEGG pathways were significantly enriched by the dysregulated miRNAs (Table 3): including Long-term depression (LTD), Thyroid hormone synthesis, GnRH signaling pathway, Long-term potentiation (LTP), Serotonergic synapse, Neurotrophin signaling pathway, Glutamatergic synapse, MAPK Signaling Pathway.

Table 3. KEGG pathway analysis of the differentially expressed miRNAs between BPA and control groups.

Pathway term p-Value Differentially expressed miRNA
Long-term depression 5.54E-05 7
Thyroid hormone synthesis 0.00012 7
GnRH signaling pathway 0.006163717 10
Long-term potentiation 0.0111166809095 8
Serotonergic synapse 0.0245688634582 10
Neurotrophin signaling pathway 0.0300138847333 11
Glutamatergic synapse 0.0348900671113 10
MAPK signaling pathway 0.045426897 12

BPA exposure alters expression of LTP and LTD related miRNAs

As the top significantly affected pathway after BPA exposure, LTD is a long-lasting decrease in synaptic strength, together with long-lasting increase known as LTP, play crucial roles in the cellular and molecular mechanisms by which memories are formed and stored [40, 41]. Therefore, we focused on the miRNAs related to LTP and LTD.

In Table 4, it was shown that 8 differentially expressed miRNAs were associated with LTP, and 7 were related to LTD. Seven miRNAs play roles in both LTP and LTD, including miR-24-3p, miR-182-5p, miR-96-5p, miR-183-5p, miR-193a-3p, miR-125a-3p and miR-10b-3p; miR-10b-5p only related to LTP. After BPA exposure, miR-10b-3p, miR-182-5p, miR-96-5p, miR-183-5p, miR-10b-5p and miR-125a-3p were upregulated, whereas miR-24-3p and miR-193a-3p were downregulated in BPA group compared with control. We developed Real-Time PCR to confirm the results of miRNA sequencing, the expression levels of these 8 miRNAs displayed a similar regulation trend to the gene sequencing results (Fig 5).

Table 4. The differentially expressed miRNAs regulatory LTP and LTD between BPA and control groups.

Pathway term Differentially expressed miRNA Change direction
LTP LTD miR-24-3p Down
miR-193a-3p Down
miR-96-5p Up
miR-183-5p Up
miR-182-5p Up
miR-10b-3p Up
miR-125a-3p Up
miR-10b-5p Up

Fig 5. The differential relative expression of LTP and LTD related miRNAs after BPA treatment in hippocampus validated by Real-Time PCR.

Fig 5

The results are expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 6). *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 vs the control group.

BPA affected regulation of LTP and LTD regulatory miRNAs’ targets involved in neurotoxicity

We set out to further investigate the function of these 8 LTP and LTD regulatory miRNAs by miRNAs-target predictional algorithms, including miRanda, miRWalk, miRDB, TargetScan, miRNA.org and DIANA-mirPath. For minimizing the number of putative and maybe false positive targets, we select intersections from at least two different databases as miRNA’s targets [30, 42]. In Table 5, it was shown the detailed information of LTP and LTD regulatory target genes of differentially expressed miRNAs.

Table 5. Detail information of LTP and LTD regulatory miRNAs’ target gene.

Differentially expressed miRNA LTP and LTD regulatory miRNAs’ targets
miR-24-3p Camk2, Rap1a, Rap1b, Gria3, Pla2g4e
miR-193a-3p Kras
miR-96-5p Gnaq, Map2k1, Braf, Kras, Plcb4, Itpr1, Itpr2, Gria1, Camk4, Rps6ka3
miR-183-5p Plcb4, Rps6ka3
miR-182-5p Gnaq, Map2k1, Braf, Itpr1, Camk4, Prkacb
miR-10b-3p Grm1, Grm5, Prkca, Camk4, Grin2b, Rap1a, Rps6ka3, Prkacb, Gnai3, Gnaz, Gria3
miR-125a-3p Gnaq, Braf, Kras, Prkca, Prkcb, Gria1, Rap1a, Gnaz, Gria3
miR-10b-5p Camk2

Full name of miRNAs’ target genes shown in S2 Table.

The functional regulation pathway from BPA exposure to impairment of learning and memory was summarized using LTP and LTD-related miRNAs and their predicted target genes in Fig 6. Some miRNAs can work cooperatively on regulating the target expression. Several miRNAs might regulate more than one target gene in LTP and LTD.

Fig 6. The miRNAs and their target genes involved in the LTP and LTD.

Fig 6

The pathway is obtained from KEGG pathway and confirmed through NCBI PubMed. The target genes involved in LTP and LTD were predicted with at least two of the following databases: miRDB, miRanda, miRWalk, TargetScan, DIANA-mirPath, and miRNA.org. ER: endoplasmic reticulum; AMPAR: glutamate ionotropic α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methylisoxazole-4-propionic acid receptor; CaMKII: Calcium/calmodulin-dependent protein kinase II; CaMKIV: Calcium/calmodulin-dependent protein kinase IV; CREB: cAMP responsive element binding protei; ERK1/2: extracellular signal-regulated kinase; G: guanine nucleotide binding protein (G protein); Gq: guanine nucleotide binding protein q polypeptide; IP3R: Inositol 1,4,5-triphosphate receptor; MEK1/2: mitogen-activated protein kinase; mGLUR: metabotropic glutamate receptor; NMDAR: N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor; PLCβ4: Phospholipase Cβ4; PLA2: Phospholipase A2; PKC: protein kinase C; Rap1: RAS related protein 1; PKA: protein kinase A; RSK: ribosomal protein S6 kinase.

The confirmation of LTP and LTD regulatory miRNAs’ targets

CaMKII, MEK1/2, IP3R, AMPAR1 and PLCβ4 are important proteins in LTP and LTD, the protein levels of them were shown in Fig 7. Compared to the control group, all analyzed protein levels were decreased in the hippocampus of mice exposed to 5 mg/kg BPA; protein levels of CaMKII, MEK1/2, AMPAR1 and PLCβ4 were decreased in group exposed to 0.5 mg/kg BPA; however, protein levels have no significant changes in group exposed to 0.05 mg/kg BPA.

Fig 7. Western blot analysis of the protein levels of LTP and LTD related miRNAs’ target genes in hippocampus.

Fig 7

The results are expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 6). *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 vs the control group.

Discussion

As an endocrine-disrupting chemical, BPA crosses the blood-brain barriers due to its lipophilicity [3] and has suspected roles as a neuroxicant. BPA-induced neurotoxicity has been correlated with enhancement of a neuroinflammatory conditions and oxidative stress, disruption of axon guidance, and other critical cellular processes [4345]. Although many studies have shown that some miRNAs may contribute to BPA pathological effects [46], their function in BPA induced impairment on learning and memory ability remains to be explored.

In our present study, a brain region involved in learning and memory, hippocampus was selected for analysis the miRNAs expression after BPA exposure. We found that 17 miRNAs whose expression was changed in mice hippocampus by BPA. Bioinformatics analysis was conducted to further study the potential roles of the target genes regulated by these deregulated miRNAs [47]. GO analysis suggested that target genes of these miRNAs were closely associated with regulation of central nervous system structure and function, including several cognitive processes, especially the learning and memory. KEGG pathway analysis revealed the highly enriched learning and memory-associated pathways, interestingly, the top major pathway affected was LTD. It is widely LTP and LTD are two forms of synaptic plasticity in excitatory neurons [48, 49], known as crucial regulators of long-lasting increase and decrease in synaptic strength [49]. Protein synthesis is required for LTP and LTD [50, 51]. Even transcriptional regulation have largely accounted for the molecular mechanisms underlying characteristic changes in long-lasting synaptic plasticity, modulation of mRNA translation attracted more attention and supporting [50]. miRNAs are important small noncoding RNA molecules, they play important regulatory roles in repression of mRNA translation through binding target sites [52]. Our present study demonstrated that levels of 8 miRNAs related to LTP and LTD were affected by BPA treatment, including miR-10b-3p, miR-10b-5p, miR-182-5p, miR-24-3p, miR-96-5p, miR-193a-3p, miR-183-5p, and miR-125a-3p.

Most of these 8 regulated miRNAs were found to be involved in neural system function and neurological diseases. miR-10b-5p was strongly over-expressed in prefrontal cortex of patients with Huntington’s disease [53]. miR-182-5p and miR-183-5p have been shown that play a critical role in Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder [54]. miR-24-3p and miR-495-3p were shown to participant in pathogenesis of Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease [55, 56]. Dysfunctions in synaptic plasticity mechanisms can underlie the cognitive deficit in neurological diseases [57, 58]. Several miRNAs like miR-24-3p has been reported changed during LTP, which contributes to long-lasting modification of synaptic function [59]. Previous study found that LTP induction in the CA1 of mice hippocampus was impaired by environmentally low-dose BPA exposure [19]. BPA significantly modulates LTD in the adult rat hippocampus [60]. Our results might indicate that BPA could impair learning and memory ability through regulating these LTP and LTD related miRNAs.

As certral regulatory factors in epigenetic mechanisms, miRNAs have been proved that mediates excitatory synaptic plasticity via regulating local synaptic protein translation [61]. Protein synthesis and abundance of postsynaptic glutamate receptors, structural and signaling factors is crucial for the maintenance of the change in synaptic strength during LTP [62]. miRNAs can target mRNAs by pairing 3′ untranslated regions, inhibit mRNA stability and translation, regulate synaptic protein synthesis, and control synaptic transmission and plasticity [63]. The study by Stefanovic et al., have reported that miR-125a regulated expression of postsynaptic density 95 (PSD-95) [64]. Lee et al. found that miR-188 served as an important modulator for LTP by negatively targeting neuropilin-2 (Nrp-2) [65]. miR-182 regulated synaptic protein synthesis in long-lasting plasticity through Rac1 [66]. In addition, miR-135 acts by complexin-1/2 to manage the NMDAR induced LTD [67]. Since growing evidence reveal that miRNAs play important roles in the effect of toxicants [68], in our study we found that BPA could disturb the expression of miRNAs, then affect the expression of many crucial signals related to LTP and LTD, and finally induce neurotoxicity.

Interestingly, we noticed that genes encoding NMDAR, AMPAR and mGluRs were identified as targets of multiple miRNAs in LTP and LTD. Molecular events underlying the early phase of LTP / LTD include Ca2+ influx into a neuron through NMDAR and mGluRs, subsequent direct or indirect activation of CaMKII, and CaMKII-dependent insertion of AMPAR into the post-synaptic membrane [69]. A host of protein kinases, such as PLA2, PLCβ4, PKA, PKC, and MAPK, might be triggered and contributed to LTP in various ways. Our bioinformatics analysis showed that these pathways mentioned above may be all affected by BPA.

The CaMKII family consists of four isoforms (alpha, beta, gamma and delta), of which CaMK2A and CaMK2B are highly expressed in the brain and play roles in both hippocampal plasticity. We showed here that BPA could decrease protein level of CaMKII. Our results were consistent with the previous study of Viberg and Lee et al, in which they found that BPA suppressed the activation of CaMKII in mice hippocampus and cerebral cortex of adult male and female mice [70]. As an essential component of MAPK signal transduction pathway, MEK1/2 (MAPK kinase) is involved in many cellular processes such as differentiation, proliferation, transcription regulation, and development [71]. The over-expression of MEK1/2 can selectively activate the ERK1/2 signaling pathway [72, 73], a pathway involved in BPA-induced impairment of synaptic plasticity [74]. PLCβ4 is an important kinase mediate signals from mGluR1 that are crucial for the modulation of synaptic transmission and plasticity. As a downstream signaling pathway of PLCβ4, IP3R is mediating Ca2+ release from the endoplasmic reticulum [75]. The expression of PLCβ4 and IP3R were affected by neurotoxicants [49, 76]. Our work is the first report that expression of PLCβ4 and IP3R can be affected by BPA in brain.

We are finding that the AMPAR is regulating by miR-125a-3p, miR-96-5p, miR-182-5p and miR-24-3p; MEK1/2 and IP3R are the targets of both miR-182-5p and miR-96-5p; CaMKII is regulated by miR-10b-5p and miR-24-3p; PLCβ4 is regulated by miR-96-5p and miR-183-5p. These findings suggest that miRNAs can act cooperatively to regulate target expression in neurons. Our present results indicated that the impairment of learning and memory might be due to, or partly, the results of miRNAs’ co-regulation on LTP and LTD.

In addition, some proteins are involved in the regulation of multiple pathways. Such as MEK1/2 protein, belongs to MAPK family, was also identified as targets of the miRNAs in the other pathways, such as MAPK pathway. In the current study, besides the findings on BPA regulate LTP and LTD pathways, some other significantly differentially enriched pathways such as GnRH signaling pathway, Glutamatergic synapse pathway, Serotonergic synapse pathway, Neurotrophin signaling pathway, Glutamatergic synapse pathway, MAPK pathway might take part in the BPA mediated learning and memory impairment. Therefore, further studies are needed to confirm their function in neurotoxicity.

Conclusion

This is the first study to explore the miRNAs regulation in BPA-induced learning and memory impairment. The results indicate that the differentially expressed miRNAs identified in the hippocampus could be the targets of BPA, which may play function via LTP and LTD. Our present study not only provides new insights into the pathogenesis of BPA especially linking to impairment of learning and memory, but it also provides us clues for future mechanism exploring.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Primers used in Real-Time PCR.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Full name of miRNAs’ target genes.

(DOCX)

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China though a grant awarded to FP (No. 81773402). This work was also supported by the Liaoning Provincial Science and Technology Department Project through a grant awarded to XX (No.2021JH1/10400051).

References

  • 1.Santoro A, Chianese R, Troisi J, Richards S, Nori SL, Fasano S, et al. Neuro-toxic and Reproductive Effects of BPA. Current neuropharmacology. 2019;17(12):1109–32. Epub 2019/08/01. doi: 10.2174/1570159X17666190726112101 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7057208. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Sonavane M, Gassman NR. Bisphenol A co-exposure effects: a key factor in understanding BPA’s complex mechanism and health outcomes. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2019;49(5):371–86. doi: 10.1080/10408444.2019.1621263 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Wang H, Chang L, Aguilar JS, Dong S, Hong Y. Bisphenol-A exposure induced neurotoxicity in glutamatergic neurons derived from human embryonic stem cells. Environment international. 2019;127:324–32. Epub 2019/04/07. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2019.01.059 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Research and Markets. The world’s largest market research store 2022. [cited 2022 July 26]. Available from: https://www.researchandmarkets.com/. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Zhang H, Wang Z, Meng L, Kuang H, Liu J, Lv X, et al. Maternal exposure to environmental bisphenol A impairs the neurons in hippocampus across generations. Toxicology. 2020;432:152393. Epub 2020/02/07. doi: 10.1016/j.tox.2020.152393 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Pang W, Lian FZ, Leng X, Wang SM, Li YB, Wang ZY, et al. Microarray expression profiling and co-expression network analysis of circulating LncRNAs and mRNAs associated with neurotoxicity induced by BPA. Environmental science and pollution research international. 2018;25(15):15006–18. Epub 2018/03/20. doi: 10.1007/s11356-018-1678-y . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Chianese R, Troisi J, Richards S, Scafuro M, Fasano S, Guida M, et al. Bisphenol A in Reproduction: Epigenetic Effects. Curr Med Chem. 2018;25(6):748–70. Epub 2017/10/11. doi: 10.2174/0929867324666171009121001 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Vandenberg LN, Hauser R, Marcus M, Olea N, Welshons WV. Human exposure to bisphenol A (BPA). Reprod Toxicol. 2007;24(2):139–77. Epub 2007/09/11. doi: 10.1016/j.reprotox.2007.07.010 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Cimmino I, Fiory F, Perruolo G, Miele C, Beguinot F, Formisano P, et al. Potential Mechanisms of Bisphenol A (BPA) Contributing to Human Disease. International journal of molecular sciences. 2020;21(16). Epub 2020/08/17. doi: 10.3390/ijms21165761 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7460848. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Richter CA, Birnbaum LS, Farabollini F, Newbold RR, Rubin BS, Talsness CE, et al. In vivo effects of bisphenol A in laboratory rodent studies. Reproductive toxicology (Elmsford, NY). 2007;24(2):199–224. Epub 2007/08/09. doi: 10.1016/j.reprotox.2007.06.004 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2151845. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Wetherill YB, Akingbemi BT, Kanno J, McLachlan JA, Nadal A, Sonnenschein C, et al. In vitro molecular mechanisms of bisphenol A action. Reproductive toxicology (Elmsford, NY). 2007;24(2):178–98. Epub 2007/07/14. doi: 10.1016/j.reprotox.2007.05.010 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Meeker JD, Ehrlich S, Toth TL, Wright DL, Calafat AM, Trisini AT, et al. Semen quality and sperm DNA damage in relation to urinary bisphenol A among men from an infertility clinic. Reproductive toxicology (Elmsford, NY). 2010;30(4):532–9. Epub 2010/07/27. doi: 10.1016/j.reprotox.2010.07.005 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2993767. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Martella A, Silvestri C, Maradonna F, Gioacchini G, Allarà M, Radaelli G, et al. Bisphenol A Induces Fatty Liver by an Endocannabinoid-Mediated Positive Feedback Loop. Endocrinology. 2016;157(5):1751–63. Epub 2016/03/26. doi: 10.1210/en.2015-1384 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6285285. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Provvisiero DP, Pivonello C, Muscogiuri G, Negri M, de Angelis C, Simeoli C, et al. Influence of Bisphenol A on Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2016;13(10). Epub 2016/10/27. doi: 10.3390/ijerph13100989 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5086728. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Xu J, Huang G, Guo TL. Developmental Bisphenol A Exposure Modulates Immune-Related Diseases. Toxics. 2016;4(4). Epub 2017/10/21. doi: 10.3390/toxics4040023 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5606650. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Weinhouse C, Anderson OS, Bergin IL, Vandenbergh DJ, Gyekis JP, Dingman MA, et al. Dose-dependent incidence of hepatic tumors in adult mice following perinatal exposure to bisphenol A. Environmental health perspectives. 2014;122(5):485–91. Epub 2014/02/04. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1307449 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4014767 interests. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Wolstenholme JT, Rissman EF, Connelly JJ. The role of Bisphenol A in shaping the brain, epigenome and behavior. Hormones and behavior. 2011;59(3):296–305. Epub 2010/10/30. doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2010.10.001 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3725332. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Wu D, Wu F, Lin R, Meng Y, Wei W, Sun Q, et al. Impairment of learning and memory induced by perinatal exposure to BPA is associated with ERα-mediated alterations of synaptic plasticity and PKC/ERK/CREB signaling pathway in offspring rats. Brain research bulletin. 2020;161:43–54. Epub 2020/05/08. doi: 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2020.04.023 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Zhou Y, Wang Z, Xia M, Zhuang S, Gong X, Pan J, et al. Neurotoxicity of low bisphenol A (BPA) exposure for young male mice: Implications for children exposed to environmental levels of BPA. Environ Pollut. 2017;229:40–8. Epub 2017/06/04. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.05.043 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Hong SB, Hong YC, Kim JW, Park EJ, Shin MS, Kim BN, et al. Bisphenol A in relation to behavior and learning of school-age children. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2013;54(8):890–9. Epub 2013/03/01. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.12050 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Barouki R, Melén E, Herceg Z, Beckers J, Chen J, Karagas M, et al. Epigenetics as a mechanism linking developmental exposures to long-term toxicity. Environ Int. 2018;114:77–86. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2018.02.014 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.McLachlan JA. Environmental signaling: from environmental estrogens to endocrine-disrupting chemicals and beyond. Andrology. 2016;4(4):684–94. Epub 2016/05/28. doi: 10.1111/andr.12206 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Filipowicz W, Bhattacharyya SN, Sonenberg N. Mechanisms of post-transcriptional regulation by microRNAs: are the answers in sight? Nat Rev Genet. 2008;9(2):102–14. Epub 2008/01/17. doi: 10.1038/nrg2290 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Ambros V. The functions of animal microRNAs. Nature. 2004;431(7006):350–5. Epub 2004/09/17. doi: 10.1038/nature02871 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kleaveland B, Shi CY, Stefano J, Bartel DP. A Network of Noncoding Regulatory RNAs Acts in the Mammalian Brain. Cell. 2018;174(2):350–62 e17. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.05.022 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Chakraborty S, Islam MR, Ali MM, Nabi A. Evolutionary Divergence of Brain-specific Precursor miRNAs Drives Efficient Processing and Production of Mature miRNAs in Human. Neuroscience. 2018;392:141–59. Epub 2018/10/03. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2018.09.010 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Cao DD, Li L, Chan WY. MicroRNAs: Key Regulators in the Central Nervous System and Their Implication in Neurological Diseases. International journal of molecular sciences. 2016;17(6). Epub 2016/05/31. doi: 10.3390/ijms17060842 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4926376. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Meza-Sosa KF, Valle-García D, Pedraza-Alva G, Pérez-Martínez L. Role of microRNAs in central nervous system development and pathology. Journal of neuroscience research. 2012;90(1):1–12. Epub 2011/09/17. doi: 10.1002/jnr.22701 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Zhan Y, Guo Z, Zheng F, Zhang Z, Li K, Wang Q, et al. Reactive oxygen species regulate miR-17-5p expression via DNA methylation in paraquat-induced nerve cell damage. Environ Toxicol. 2020;35(12):1364–73. Epub 2020/07/22. doi: 10.1002/tox.23001 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Piao F, Chen Y, Yu L, Shi X, Liu X, Jiang L, et al. 2,5-hexanedione-induced deregulation of axon-related microRNA expression in rat nerve tissues. Toxicology letters. 2020;320:95–102. Epub 2019/11/25. doi: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2019.11.019 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Butler MC, Long CN, Kinkade JA, Green MT, Martin RE, Marshall BL, et al. Endocrine disruption of gene expression and microRNA profiles in hippocampus and hypothalamus of California mice: Association of gene expression changes with behavioural outcomes. J Neuroendocrinol. 2020;32(5):e12847. doi: 10.1111/jne.12847 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Kaur S, Kinkade JA, Green MT, Martin RE, Willemse TE, Bivens NJ, et al. Disruption of global hypothalamic microRNA (miR) profiles and associated behavioral changes in California mice (Peromyscus californicus) developmentally exposed to endocrine disrupting chemicals. Hormones and behavior. 2021;128:104890. Epub 2020/11/23. doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2020.104890 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7897400. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.United States Environmental Protection Agency. Chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 2012. [updated July 22, 2022; cited 2022 July 26]. Available from: www.epa.gov/oppt/exposure/presentations/efast/usepa1997efh.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Wang D, Wang X, Liu X, Jiang L, Yang G, Shi X, et al. Inhibition of miR-219 Alleviates Arsenic-Induced Learning and Memory Impairments and Synaptic Damage Through Up-regulating CaMKII in the Hippocampus. Neurochemical research. 2018;43(4):948–58. Epub 2018/02/27. doi: 10.1007/s11064-018-2500-4 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Nicholls RE, Alarcon JM, Malleret G, Carroll RC, Grody M, Vronskaya S, et al. Transgenic mice lacking NMDAR-dependent LTD exhibit deficits in behavioral flexibility. Neuron. 2008;58(1):104–17. Epub 2008/04/11. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2008.01.039 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Bilgic Y, Demir EA, Bilgic N, Dogan H, Tutuk O, Tumer C. Detrimental effects of chia (Salvia hispanica L.) seeds on learning and memory in aluminum chloride‑induced experimental Alzheimer’s disease. Acta Neurobiol Exp (Wars). 2018;78(4):322–31. Epub 2019/01/10. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Ashburner M, Ball CA, Blake JA, Botstein D, Butler H, Cherry JM, et al. Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. The Gene Ontology Consortium. Nat Genet. 2000;25(1):25–9. doi: 10.1038/75556 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Humphreys BD. Mechanisms of Renal Fibrosis. Annu Rev Physiol. 2018;80:309–26. Epub 2017/10/27. doi: 10.1146/annurev-physiol-022516-034227 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Jantzen SG, Sutherland BJ, Minkley DR, Koop BF. GO Trimming: Systematically reducing redundancy in large Gene Ontology datasets. BMC Res Notes. 2011;4:267. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-4-267 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Manabe T. Two forms of hippocampal long-term depression, the counterpart of long-term potentiation. Rev Neurosci. 1997;8(3–4):179–93. Epub 1997/07/01. doi: 10.1515/revneuro.1997.8.3-4.179 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Bliss TV, Collingridge GL. A synaptic model of memory: long-term potentiation in the hippocampus. Nature. 1993;361(6407):31–9. Epub 1993/01/07. doi: 10.1038/361031a0 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Zhang QL, Dong ZX, Xiong Y, Li HW, Guo J, Wang F, et al. Genome-wide transcriptional response of microRNAs to the benzo(a)pyrene stress in amphioxus Branchiostoma belcheri. Chemosphere. 2019;218:205–10. Epub 2018/11/25. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.11.119 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Akintunde JK, Akintola TE, Adenuga GO, Odugbemi ZA, Adetoye RO, Akintunde OG. Naringin attenuates Bisphenol-A mediated neurotoxicity in hypertensive rats by abrogation of cerebral nucleotide depletion, oxidative damage and neuroinflammation. Neurotoxicology. 2020;81:18–33. Epub 2020/08/19. doi: 10.1016/j.neuro.2020.08.001 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Pang Q, Li Y, Meng L, Li G, Luo Z, Fan R. Neurotoxicity of BPA, BPS, and BPB for the hippocampal cell line (HT-22): An implication for the replacement of BPA in plastics. Chemosphere. 2019;226:545–52. Epub 2019/04/07. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.03.177 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Nguyen U, Tinsley B, Sen Y, Stein J, Palacios Y, Ceballos A, et al. Exposure to bisphenol A differentially impacts neurodevelopment and behavior in Drosophila melanogaster from distinct genetic backgrounds. Neurotoxicology. 2021;82:146–57. doi: 10.1016/j.neuro.2020.12.007 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Farahani M, Rezaei-Tavirani M, Arjmand B. A systematic review of microRNA expression studies with exposure to bisphenol A. Journal of applied toxicology: JAT. 2021;41(1):4–19. Epub 2020/07/15. doi: 10.1002/jat.4025 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Tian T, Zhang Y, Wu T, Yang L, Chen C, Li N, et al. miRNA profiling in the hippocampus of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder rats. Journal of cellular biochemistry. 2019;120(3):3621–9. Epub 2018/10/03. doi: 10.1002/jcb.27639 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Chen WR, Lee S, Kato K, Spencer DD, Shepherd GM, Williamson A. Long-term modifications of synaptic efficacy in the human inferior and middle temporal cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996;93(15):8011–5. doi: 10.1073/pnas.93.15.8011 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Zhang C, Li S, Sun Y, Dong W, Piao F, Piao Y, et al. Arsenic downregulates gene expression at the postsynaptic density in mouse cerebellum, including genes responsible for long-term potentiation and depression. Toxicology letters. 2014;228(3):260–9. Epub 2014/05/17. doi: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2014.05.007 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Kelleher RJ 3rd, Govindarajan A, Tonegawa S. Translational regulatory mechanisms in persistent forms of synaptic plasticity. Neuron. 2004;44(1):59–73. Epub 2004/09/29. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2004.09.013 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Costa-Mattioli M, Sossin WS, Klann E, Sonenberg N. Translational control of long-lasting synaptic plasticity and memory. Neuron. 2009;61(1):10–26. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2008.10.055 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Bartel DP. MicroRNAs: genomics, biogenesis, mechanism, and function. Cell. 2004;116(2):281–97. Epub 2004/01/28. doi: 10.1016/s0092-8674(04)00045-5 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Hoss AG, Labadorf A, Latourelle JC, Kartha VK, Hadzi TC, Gusella JF, et al. miR-10b-5p expression in Huntington’s disease brain relates to age of onset and the extent of striatal involvement. BMC Med Genomics. 2015;8:10. doi: 10.1186/s12920-015-0083-3 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Piña R, Rozas C, Contreras D, Hardy P, Ugarte G, Zeise ML, et al. Atomoxetine Reestablishes Long Term Potentiation in a Mouse Model of Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Neuroscience. 2020;439:268–74. Epub 2019/12/07. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2019.10.040 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Rahman MR, Islam T, Zaman T, Shahjaman M, Karim MR, Huq F, et al. Identification of molecular signatures and pathways to identify novel therapeutic targets in Alzheimer’s disease: Insights from a systems biomedicine perspective. Genomics. 2020;112(2):1290–9. Epub 2019/08/05. doi: 10.1016/j.ygeno.2019.07.018 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Uwatoko H, Hama Y, Iwata IT, Shirai S, Matsushima M, Yabe I, et al. Identification of plasma microRNA expression changes in multiple system atrophy and Parkinson’s disease. Mol Brain. 2019;12(1):49. doi: 10.1186/s13041-019-0471-2 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Li W, Liu H, Yu M, Zhang X, Zhang Y, Liu H, et al. Folic Acid Alters Methylation Profile of JAK-STAT and Long-Term Depression Signaling Pathways in Alzheimer’s Disease Models. Mol Neurobiol. 2016;53(9):6548–56. Epub 2016/11/01. doi: 10.1007/s12035-015-9556-9 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Minhas PS, Latif-Hernandez A, McReynolds MR, Durairaj AS, Wang Q, Rubin A, et al. Restoring metabolism of myeloid cells reverses cognitive decline in ageing. Nature. 2021;590(7844):122–8. Epub 2021/01/22. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-03160-0 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Ryan MM, Ryan B, Kyrke-Smith M, Logan B, Tate WP, Abraham WC, et al. Temporal profiling of gene networks associated with the late phase of long-term potentiation in vivo. PLoS One. 2012;7(7):e40538. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0040538 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Hasegawa Y, Ogiue-Ikeda M, Tanabe N, Kimoto T, Hojo Y, Yamazaki T, et al. Bisphenol A significantly modulates long-term depression in the hippocampus as observed by multi-electrode system. Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2013;34(2):129–34. Epub 2013/05/07. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Sambandan S, Akbalik G, Kochen L, Rinne J, Kahlstatt J, Glock C, et al. Activity-dependent spatially localized miRNA maturation in neuronal dendrites. Science (New York, NY). 2017;355(6325):634–7. Epub 2017/02/12. doi: 10.1126/science.aaf8995 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Biever A, Donlin-Asp PG, Schuman EM. Local translation in neuronal processes. Current opinion in neurobiology. 2019;57:141–8. Epub 2019/03/13. doi: 10.1016/j.conb.2019.02.008 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Schratt G. microRNAs at the synapse. Nature reviews Neuroscience. 2009;10(12):842–9. Epub 2009/11/06. doi: 10.1038/nrn2763 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Stefanovic S, Bassell GJ, Mihailescu MR. G quadruplex RNA structures in PSD-95 mRNA: potential regulators of miR-125a seed binding site accessibility. RNA (New York, NY). 2015;21(1):48–60. Epub 2014/11/20. doi: 10.1261/rna.046722.114 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4274637. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Lee K, Kim JH, Kwon OB, An K, Ryu J, Cho K, et al. An activity-regulated microRNA, miR-188, controls dendritic plasticity and synaptic transmission by downregulating neuropilin-2. The Journal of neuroscience: the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience. 2012;32(16):5678–87. Epub 2012/04/20. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.6471-11.2012 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5010781. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Griggs EM, Young EJ, Rumbaugh G, Miller CA. MicroRNA-182 regulates amygdala-dependent memory formation. The Journal of neuroscience: the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience. 2013;33(4):1734–40. Epub 2013/01/25. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2873-12.2013 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3711533. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Hu Z, Yu D, Gu QH, Yang Y, Tu K, Zhu J, et al. miR-191 and miR-135 are required for long-lasting spine remodelling associated with synaptic long-term depression. Nature communications. 2014;5:3263. Epub 2014/02/19. doi: 10.1038/ncomms4263 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3951436. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Yu HW, Cho WC. The role of microRNAs in toxicology. Archives of toxicology. 2015;89(3):319–25. Epub 2015/01/15. doi: 10.1007/s00204-014-1440-2 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Duda P, Wójtowicz T, Janczara J, Krowarsch D, Czyrek A, Gizak A, et al. Fructose 1,6-Bisphosphatase 2 Plays a Crucial Role in the Induction and Maintenance of Long-Term Potentiation. Cells. 2020;9(6). Epub 2020/06/05. doi: 10.3390/cells9061375 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7349836. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Viberg H, Lee I. A single exposure to bisphenol A alters the levels of important neuroproteins in adult male and female mice. Neurotoxicology. 2012;33(5):1390–5. Epub 2012/09/18. doi: 10.1016/j.neuro.2012.09.002 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Wooten MW, Seibenhener ML, Neidigh KB, Vandenplas ML. Mapping of atypical protein kinase C within the nerve growth factor signaling cascade: relationship to differentiation and survival of PC12 cells. Mol Cell Biol. 2000;20(13):4494–504. doi: 10.1128/MCB.20.13.4494-4504.2000 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Zhou C, Li C, Li D, Wang Y, Shao W, You Y, et al. BIG1, a brefeldin A-inhibited guanine nucleotide-exchange protein regulates neurite development via PI3K-AKT and ERK signaling pathways. Neuroscience. 2013;254:361–8. Epub 2013/10/05. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2013.09.045 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Zhou Y, Pernet V, Hauswirth WW, Di Polo A. Activation of the extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1/2 pathway by AAV gene transfer protects retinal ganglion cells in glaucoma. Mol Ther. 2005;12(3):402–12. Epub 2005/06/25. doi: 10.1016/j.ymthe.2005.04.004 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Yang Y, Fang Z, Dai Y, Wang Y, Liang Y, Zhong X, et al. Bisphenol-A antagonizes the rapidly modulating effect of DHT on spinogenesis and long-term potentiation of hippocampal neurons. Chemosphere. 2018;195:567–75. Epub 2017/12/27. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.12.086 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Nakamura M, Sato K, Fukaya M, Araishi K, Aiba A, Kano M, et al. Signaling complex formation of phospholipase Cbeta4 with metabotropic glutamate receptor type 1alpha and 1,4,5-trisphosphate receptor at the perisynapse and endoplasmic reticulum in the mouse brain. Eur J Neurosci. 2004;20(11):2929–44. Epub 2004/12/08. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2004.03768.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Dusza HM, Cenijn PH, Kamstra JH, Westerink RHS, Leonards PEG, Hamers T. Effects of environmental pollutants on calcium release and uptake by rat cortical microsomes. Neurotoxicology. 2018;69:266–77. Epub 2018/07/30. doi: 10.1016/j.neuro.2018.07.015 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Alexandre Hiroaki Kihara

15 Jun 2022

PONE-D-22-07675Long term potentiation and depression regulatory microRNAs were highlighted in Bisphenol A induced learning and memory impairment by microRNA sequencing and bioinformatics analysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhang,

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.

 

I recommend addressing all points raised by the reviewers. Moreover, to increase the implication of the findings, consider the inclusion and discussion of the references below:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35615589/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35441941/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34712129/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34274347/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24385256/

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 30 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,

Alexandre Hiroaki Kihara, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

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

2.  Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files

3. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ.

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

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

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

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

6. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

7. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“NO”

At this time, please address the following queries:

a)        Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

b)        State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c)        If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d)        If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

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

8. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

- https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jcb.27639

- https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4409/9/6/1375/htm

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Luo, et. al. uses BPA in the drinking water of young male mice to investigate how this compound affects learning and memory impairment by exploring changes in microRNA expressed in hippocampus. Behavioral changes were observed using the Morris maze test. They report alterations in microRNAs that target genes related to modulation of synaptic plasticity, among other pathways. Some proteins related to synaptic plasticity, which were predicted targets of regulation of the altered microRNAs found, were downregulated in animals exposed to BPA. Although the subject is relevant, this work lacks some critical methodological and result information that needs to be addressed. Also, some more proteins could be analyzed, including glutamatergic receptors.

Major concerns:

• In lines 50 and 51 the phrase “In 2015, the global consumption of BPA reached 7.7 million metric tons” is also found in another paper (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.01.059 ). It is mandatory to rewrite and include this citation.

• In line 78 and 79 include the references of the studies.

• There is plenty of literature describing the harmful effects of BPA and information about the underlying mechanisms. Please add more details about the deleterious effects of BPA overexposure and the already known targets (i.e. estrogen receptors).

• Please check the writing and revise the grammar (i.e. change long term potentiation or depression for long-term potentiation and long-term depression).

• It is recommended to standardize the writing text adopting a space between number and the respective unit and correct possible mistakes (i.e. line 150, “3μg” change for “3 μg”; line 203 in “4C” include 4 °C).

• Information regarding the animal’s age during and after the treatment is not clear. Data regarding animal age during the BPA treatment (start - end); and when the animals were submitted to behavior test and hippocampal extraction is missing. Also, the data about the water consumption and the weight recorded every two days is not reported. This information helps to clarify the effects of the treatment on the animal’s water consumption.

• Please, include the full name of the animal strain and the number of animals used to compound the four described groups. There is no information about which time dark/light cycle initiate-end. Also, it is not specified if all animal were submitted to behavior tests and/or hippocampal extraction.

• In the section “2.3 Hippocampus tissue collections” of materials and methods, it is necessaire to describe whether the hippocampus was collected bilaterally and how the mentioned coordinates were based (i.e. Bregma). Please let it clear whether other brain regions could be collected together with the hippocampus by this method.

• In the section “2.2 Tests of animal learning and memory ability” it is not indicating each time (or period) of the day the experiments were conducted. Characteristics of the maze and the environment is not disclosed (i.e. size of the maze, size of the run, visual clues, etc). Also it is not described how the result was computed since each training day has 4 section of 60 s.

• The section “2.4 miRNA library construction and sequencing” is not informed the method of RNA extraction and the exact number of sequenced microRNA.

• In the section “2.5 Bioinformatic evaluation” It is necessary to include more details about the analyses. If it is possible, the author could indicate the result of each step from the evaluation procedure that could complement the figure 2.

• In the section “2.7 Western blot analyses” the catalog number of the antibodies used is not reported. It is described that primary antibodies were made in rabbit and secondary antibodies were goat anti-mouse IgG. Please check this information. Also, there is a lack of information regarding the method of analysis and the normalizing procedure. It is necessary to disclose the entire blot membranes, not just the area where the bands are.

• In the result section and the figure legends are not informing the values and the statistical analysis adopted for each analyses (i.e. mean value, standard error, etc).

• Many figures' information is hard to visualize due to the small font size adopted in some cases.

• In the section “3.5 BPA affected regulation of LTP and LTD regulatory miRNAs’ targets involved in neurotoxcity”, change “neurotoxciy” for neurotoxicity. In line 277 it says that 8 microRNAs are shown in the table 3 associated with LTP and LTD, but only seven microRNAs is reported for LPT. In the line 280-281 “In addition, miR-10b-5p and regulate LTP not LTD.” It seems that some information is missing. Also, it requires a full description of microRNA modulation on their targets in the legend or in this result section.

• In line 292 change “gorithm” for algorithm

• In line 314 correct the “neutoxicant”.

• In line 319, include citation about the impact of BPA on microRNA expression (i.e. https://doi.org/10.1002/jat.4025)

• In line 321, correct “major control center” for a more appropriate term such as brain region related to learning and memory.

• In line 329 change “neurobehaviors” for a more appropriate term such as cognitive process.

• In line 338-340 correct the sentence “Characteristic changes in synapses that occur LTP or LTD cannot be accounted for by global upregulation of translation.”

• The conclusion is too long and seems like a summary of the result section. It should bring the hypothesis and the main results that supported or not it.

• The conclusion is very long and looks like a summary of the results section. The conclusion must bring the hypothesis and the main results that support it or not. In addition, this session may contain possibilities raised from the main findings.

Reviewer #2: In this manuscript the authors assess whether delivery of BPA in drinking water can affect learning and memory (as assessed via the Morris Water Maze) and microRNA expression (as assessed by smallRNA-Seq and qRT-PCR) and microRNA target levels (via western blot). The authors show that BPA impairs learning at the highest tested dose and they find that there are associated changes in microRNA.

The work is not rigourously presented or interpreted. The bioinformatics are not presented in a systematic manner and are not convincing. Little effort is taken to draw in existing literature regarding alteration in microRNA following LTP-induction. Little consideration is taken as to the direction of change and how that might help explain the biology in focus here. The Discussion is weak and does not shed a great deal of new light on this field. The authors have used RNA-Seq of whole tissue. The field has really moved away from such analyses. The authors miss the opportunity to interpret their microRNA findings with mRNA data which could have been derived from these samples (or perhaps exist in the literature).

Abstract:

“…that regulate the expression and degradation of proteins.” Incorrect

“Seventeen miRNAs were significantly regulated by BPA.” By what test?

“Bioinformatic analysis of GOTERM_BP_FAT” What does this mean?

“Protein levels of CaMKII,…” Why?

“novel miRNA biomarkers” in what way?

There is no mention of the MWM data

Methods:

Include a justification of the doses of BPA used.

“Total RNA was isolated” how?

“purity was evaluated using the NanoPhotometer®…” What parameters were considered acceptable?

“(a p-value < 0.05 is recommended)” is this what was used?

2.5 Bioinformatic evaluation: this section is not written with clarity- rewrite

“and the final targets were integrated from at least two different programs” How were they chosen? What systematic approach was taken?

Provide the RT-PCR methods in standard format (not as a recipe)

Define: CaMKII, MEK1/2, IP3R and PLCβ4 and other abbreviations.

ß-actin is not a suitable control as actin dynamics have been shown numerous times to contribute to synaptic plasticity.

Why were nonreducing conditions used for the western blot analyses?

Provide the catalogue numbers of the Abcam, USA antibodies.

Statistical Section: How was multiple testing controlled for?

Explicitly state the ‘n’ used in each experiment and whether the RNA-Seq and qRT-PCR were carried out using the same tissue.

Results:

“the total number of crossings over the platform and time spent in the target quadrant in

5mg/kg BPA exposed group was significantly shorter compared with the control group (Fig.1C and D). Correct the syntax here.

Can the degree of impairment be correlated with the alteration in microRNA?

3.2: should explain how the data were generated. There is no indication of standard deviation/error

Fig.2 Legend should describe the statistical approach used.

3.4: “To gain a better understanding…We list the significantly changed GO terms (GOTERM BP FAT) related to learning or memory ” Were GO terms related to other pathways identified? This should be exploratory, but seems to be used to forefeel the authors hypothesis. If this is hypothesis driven research, then the authors should explore the existing literature of LTP and LTD-related microRNA and test whether these are regulated in their model.

As the same microRNA are grouped under the LTD and LTP banner, some consideration to the direction of change should be given.

Fig.3: “three independent experiments” Are these the same animals from the smallRNA-Seq work?

“The target genes involved in LTP and LTD were screened out in Fig. 4, which were predicted with at least 2 different algorithms.” This sentence is not clear.

Define ‘AMPARs’ etc

Fig.4: what is the source of this figure? How were miRs ‘screened’?

For example, AMPAR was regulated by miR-96-5p,

miR-182-5p and miR-125a-3p and miR-24-3p, CaMKIV was regulated

by miR-182-5p, miR-96-5p and miR-10b-3p, CaMKII was regulated by

miR-24-3p and miR-10b-5p, MEK1/2 was reglulated by miR-96-5p and

miR-182-5p, etc.

Fig.5: B’actin control is extremely overexposed. These type of data are unusable. This image must be replaced by one taken in the linear range of the film and the data reassessed.

Discussion: weak, not insightful

Consider how BPA might regulate microRNA expression.

**********

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: Yes: Guilherme Shigueto Vilar Higa

Reviewer #2: Yes: Joanna Williams

[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. 2023 Jan 19;18(1):e0279029. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279029.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


30 Jul 2022

The responses to the academic editor’ comments (Journal Requirements) are as following:

Journal Requirements:

Comment 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

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have modified our format according to PLOS ONE's style requirements.

Comment 2: Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have included our tables as part of our main manuscript and removed the individual files, and noted that supplementary tables should be uploaded as separate "supporting information" files.

Comment 3: Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have included our full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of our manuscript.

Comment 4: PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ.

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We ensure that we have an ORCID iD and it is validated in Editorial Manager.

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

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

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

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

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. All relevant data and the minimal data set are available in Supporting Information files, and our Data Availability statement has been provided in our cover letter.

Comment 6: We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We ensure that we provide the correct grant numbers.

Comment 7: Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“NO”

At this time, please address the following queries:

a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

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

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. This work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81273038). The funder is Fengyuan Piao. He took part in conceiving and designing this experiments. We have added this information in our cover letter.

Comment 8: We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

- https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jcb.27639

- https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4409/9/6/1375/htm

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have cited all our sources (including our own works), and quoted or rephrased any duplicated text outside the methods section.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

________________________________________

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

________________________________________

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Luo, et al., uses BPA in the drinking water of young male mice to investigate how this compound affects learning and memory impairment by exploring changes in microRNA expressed in hippocampus. Behavioral changes were observed using the Morris maze test. They report alterations in microRNAs that target genes related to modulation of synaptic plasticity, among other pathways. Some proteins related to synaptic plasticity, which were predicted targets of regulation of the altered microRNAs found, were downregulated in animals exposed to BPA. Although the subject is relevant, this work lacks some critical methodological and result information that needs to be addressed. Also, some more proteins could be analyzed, including glutamatergic receptors.

Response: Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript and giving us so many useful suggestions. Your comments have helped us to improve our article significantly. We highlighted all changes in yellow in our revised manuscript. In addition, protein analysis of glutamatergic receptor was added in the part of western blot test.

Major concerns:

Comment 1: In lines 50 and 51 the phrase “In 2015, the global consumption of BPA reached 7.7 million metric tons” is also found in another paper (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.01.059 ). It is mandatory to rewrite and include this citation.

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have rewrote this sentence and included the citation of Wang et al.

Comment 2: In line 78 and 79 include the references of the studies.

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have added the references of the studies.

Comment 3: There is plenty of literature describing the harmful effects of BPA and information about the underlying mechanisms. Please add more details about the deleterious effects of BPA overexposure and the already known targets (i.e. estrogen receptors).

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have added more details about the deleterious effects of BPA overexposure and the already known targets.

Comment 4: Please check the writing and revise the grammar (i.e. change long term potentiation or depression for long-term potentiation and long-term depression).

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have checked the writing and revise the grammar.

Comment 5: It is recommended to standardize the writing text adopting a space between number and the respective unit and correct possible mistakes (i.e. line 150, “3μg” change for “3 μg”; line 203 in “4C” include 4 °C).

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have standardized our writing text.

Comment 6: Information regarding the animal’s age during and after the treatment is not clear. Data regarding animal age during the BPA treatment (start - end); and when the animals were submitted to behavior test and hippocampal extraction is missing. Also, the data about the water consumption and the weight recorded every two days is not reported. This information helps to clarify the effects of the treatment on the animal’s water consumption.

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. BPA treatment started at the 4 weeks of mice, and ended after 8 weeks administration. After 8 weeks of BPA treatment, the morris water maze (MWM) test was performed. After MWM test, mice were euthanized and hippocampus tissues were collected.

We are sorry that we measure weight of mice every week, but we wrote it every two days. We have revised this information in the revised manuscript: The volumes of water consumption were measured every 2 days, the weights of the mice were measured every 1 week, and there were no significant differences in water consumption and the body weights of the mice between the BPA-exposed and control groups. In addition, the information of water consumption and weight was added in the revised manuscript (Fig 1).

Comment 7: Please, include the full name of the animal strain and the number of animals used to compound the four described groups. There is no information about which time dark/light cycle initiate-end. Also, it is not specified if all animal were submitted to behavior tests and/or hippocampal extraction.

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have added the full name of the animal strain (Kunming mice) and the number of mice used in four groups (n = 20 in each group). The time dark/light cycle initiate at 7:00 a.m. and end at 7:00 p.m. After 8 weeks of BPA treatment, the morris water maze (MWM) test was performed in all mice from each group. After MWM test, mice were euthanized and hippocampus tissue were collected. We have added these information in our revised manuscript.

Comment 8: In the section “2.3 Hippocampus tissue collections” of materials and methods, it is necessaire to describe whether the hippocampus was collected bilaterally and how the mentioned coordinates were based (i.e. Bregma). Please let it clear whether other brain regions could be collected together with the hippocampus by this method.

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. Hippocampal CA1 samples were collected from the both side according to the following coordinates relative to the bregma: −2 mm at the anterior/posterior axis, ±1.8 mm at the lateral/medial axis and −1.5 mm at the dorsal/ventral axis. We have added this description in our revised manuscript.

Comment 9: In the section “2.2 Tests of animal learning and memory ability” it is not indicating each time (or period) of the day the experiments were conducted. Characteristics of the maze and the environment is not disclosed (i.e. size of the maze, size of the run, visual clues, etc). Also it is not described how the result was computed since each training day has 4 section of 60 s.

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have added the period of the day the MWM tests, the characteristics of the maze and the environment of the experiment in our revised manuscript. The mean value of the time that mice needed to find the platform (4 sections of starting at different quadrants of the pool) was defined as the escape latency, so the data presented is the daily average of four trials.

Comment 10: The section “2.4 miRNA library construction and sequencing” is not informed the method of RNA extraction and the exact number of sequenced microRNA.

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have added method of RNA extraction in our method part and the exact number of sequenced microRNA in S1 Table.

Comment 11: In the section “2.5 Bioinformatic evaluation” It is necessary to include more details about the analyses. If it is possible, the author could indicate the result of each step from the evaluation procedure that could complement the figure 2.

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have added more details about our analyses, including the steps of evaluation for complementing the figure 2.

Comment 12: In the section “2.7 Western blot analyses” the catalog number of the antibodies used is not reported. It is described that primary antibodies were made in rabbit and secondary antibodies were goat anti-mouse IgG. Please check this information. Also, there is a lack of information regarding the method of analysis and the normalizing procedure. It is necessary to disclose the entire blot membranes, not just the area where the bands are.

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We are sorry for our mistakes. We have corrected the information of primary and secondary antibodies. Information regarding the method of analysis and the normalizing procedure have been added. The entire blot membranes of all proteins were provided in supplementary data.

Comment 13: In the result section and the figure legends are not informing the values and the statistical analysis adopted for each analyses (i.e. mean value, standard error, etc).

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have added the values and the statistical analysis in the result section and figure legends.

Comment 14: Many figures' information is hard to visualize due to the small font size adopted in some cases.

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have checked all of our figures and corrected them more clearly.

Comment 15: In the section “3.5 BPA affected regulation of LTP and LTD regulatory miRNAs’ targets involved in neurotoxcity”, change “neurotoxciy” for neurotoxicity. In line 277 it says that 8 microRNAs are shown in the table 3 associated with LTP and LTD, but only seven microRNAs is reported for LPT. In the line 280-281 “In addition, miR-10b-5p and regulate LTP not LTD.” It seems that some information is missing. Also, it requires a full description of microRNA modulation on their targets in the legend or in this result section.

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We are sorry for us mistake of the miRNA’s amount and us inaccurate use of words. We have already corrected them in our revised manuscript. The full description of microRNA modulation on their targets have been added in Table 4.

Comment 16: In line 292 change “gorithm” for algorithm

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have corrected the word.

Comment 17: In line 314 correct the “neutoxicant”.

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have corrected the word.

Comment 18: In line 319, include citation about the impact of BPA on microRNA expression (i.e. https://doi.org/10.1002/jat.4025)

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have cited this reference.

Comment 19: In line 321, correct “major control center” for a more appropriate term such as brain region related to learning and memory.

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have corrected the word.

Comment 20: In line 329 change “neurobehaviors” for a more appropriate term such as cognitive process.

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have changed the word.

Comment 21: In line 338-340 correct the sentence “Characteristic changes in synapses that occur LTP or LTD cannot be accounted for by global upregulation of translation.”

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have corrected the sentence.

Comment 22: The conclusion is too long and seems like a summary of the result section. It should bring the hypothesis and the main results that supported or not it.

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have rewrote our conclusion in the revised manuscript, and we hope it gets better.

Comment 23: The conclusion is very long and looks like a summary of the results section. The conclusion must bring the hypothesis and the main results that support it or not. In addition, this session may contain possibilities raised from the main findings.

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. That’s so kind of you for helping us to write the conclusion. We have tried to write it again, and we hope it gets better.

Reviewer #2: In this manuscript the authors assess whether delivery of BPA in drinking water can affect learning and memory (as assessed via the Morris Water Maze) and microRNA expression (as assessed by smallRNA-Seq and qRT-PCR) and microRNA target levels (via western blot). The authors show that BPA impairs learning at the highest tested dose and they find that there are associated changes in microRNA.

The work is not rigourously presented or interpreted. The bioinformatics are not presented in a systematic manner and are not convincing. Little effort is taken to draw in existing literature regarding alteration in microRNA following LTP-induction. Little consideration is taken as to the direction of change and how that might help explain the biology in focus here. The Discussion is weak and does not shed a great deal of new light on this field. The authors have used RNA-Seq of whole tissue. The field has really moved away from such analyses. The authors miss the opportunity to interpret their microRNA findings with mRNA data which could have been derived from these samples (or perhaps exist in the literature).

Response: Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript and giving us so many useful suggestions. In our new manuscript, we have corrected all the issues according to your suggestions. We are sorry for us inaccurate description, the tissue we used for RNA-Seq is hippocampus CA1 because we take the material according to its anatomical position (Please see “Hippocampus tissue collection” in materials and methods). More details on bioinformatics information were presented, such as the change direction of the differentially expressed miRNAs, significantly changed GO terms and miRNAs’ target genes linked to LTP and LTD. And we have tried to discuss more and deeper about the miRNA and synaptic plasticity. We hope the revised manuscript would be better.

Abstract

Comment 1::“…that regulate the expression and degradation of proteins.” Incorrect

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We corrected to “miRNAs control physiological and pathological processes by inhibiting translation, and promoting mRNA degradation”.

Comment 2: “Seventeen miRNAs were significantly regulated by BPA.” By what test?

Response: Thank you for your question. We analyzed the impacts of BPA on miRNA expression profile by high-throughput sequencing in mice hippocampus, seventeen miRNAs were significantly differentially expressed after BPA exposure, of these, 13 and 4 miRNAs were up- and downregulated, respectively.

Comment 3: “Bioinformatic analysis of GOTERM_BP_FAT” What does this mean?

Response: Thank you for your question. We are sorry for us inaccurate use of terms, we have corrected “GOTERM_BP_FAT” to “Gene Ontology (GO)”.

Comment 4: “Protein levels of CaMKII,…” Why?

Response: Thank you for your question. The expression levels of proteins of five target genes (CaMKII, MEK1/2, IP3R, AMPAR1 and PLCβ4) were investigated via western blot, for further verifying the results of gene target analysis.

Comment 5: “novel miRNA biomarkers” in what way?

Response: Thank you for your question. This study provides valuable information for novel miRNA biomarkers to detect changes in impairment of learning and memory induced by BPA exposure.

Comment 5: There is no mention of the MWM data.

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have added the MWM data in our revised abstract.

Methods:

Comment 6: Include a justification of the doses of BPA used.

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. The justification of the doses of BPA used were included in our revised abstract.

Comment 7: “Total RNA was isolated” how?

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. Total RNA was extracted from hippocampal CA1 tissues by using RNAiso Plus according to the manufacturer’s instruction (Takara, Japan). We have corrected in our revised manuscript.

Comment 8: “purity was evaluated using the NanoPhotometer®…” What parameters were considered acceptable?

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We are sorry for us inaccurate use of words. Total RNA was quantified with the NanoPhotometer® spectrophotometer (IMPLEN, CA, USA). Only RNA samples with an A260/A280 of 1.8–2.2 were employed for reverse transcription. We have corrected in our revised manuscript.

Comment 9: “(a p-value < 0.05 is recommended)” is this what was used?

Response: Thank you for your question. We are sorry for us unclear descriptions. We have rewrote this part in our revised bioinformatic evaluation paragraph.

We selected the differentially expressed miRNAs according to the log2 (FC) and p value threshold. |log2 (FC) |≥ 1 and p value < 0.05 was considered as significant difference.

Comment 10: Bioinformatic evaluation: this section is not written with clarity- rewrite

“and the final targets were integrated from at least two different programs” How were they chosen? What systematic approach was taken?

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We are sorry for us unclear decrciption. We have rewrote the section of bioinformatic evalution. The targets of miRNAs were selected by the following two steps: 1. Potential target genes of all the differentially expressed miRNAs were predicted from data in the databases: miRDB, miRanda, miRWalk, TargetScan, DIANA-mirPath, and miRNA.org. 2. The results intersected from at least two different programs were retained as the final set of target genes.

Comment 11: Provide the RT-PCR methods in standard format (not as a recipe)

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have tried to provide the Real Time-PCR methods in standard format, and we hope it gets better.

Comment 12: Define: CaMKII, MEK1/2, IP3R and PLCβ4 and other abbreviations.

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have defined all the abbreviations in S2 Table and Fig 5 legend.

Comment 13: ß-actin is not a suitable control as actin dynamics have been shown numerous times to contribute to synaptic plasticity.

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. The GADPH has been used instead of ß-actin in our revised manuscript.

Comment 14: Why were nonreducing conditions used for the western blot analyses? Provide the catalogue numbers of the Abcam, USA antibodies.

Response: Thank you for your question. If some antibody target sites contain disulfide bond, the reductant condition will open the disulfide bond and become sulfhydryl and such antibodies will not be recognized. Therefore, nonreducing conditions were used for the western blot analyses. The catalogue numbers have been provided in our revised manuscript.

Comment 15: Statistical Section: How was multiple testing controlled for?

Explicitly state the ‘n’ used in each experiment and whether the RNA-Seq and qRT-PCR were carried out using the same tissue.

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. Prior to analyses, we confirmed data normality and homogeneity of variances by D’Agostino–Pearson and Barlett’s tests, respectively. Difference among each group was analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by the Tukey’s multiple-comparison tests.

We have stated the ‘n’ used in each experiment. The RNA from the hippocampus of mice (three from control group and three from 5mg/mg BPA group) were used to construct miRNA expression profile by RNA-Seq (n=3). The RNA from the hippocampus of the other 6 mice in each group were used to verify the miRNA expression by Real Time-PCR (n=6). Therefore, we have added this information in Materials part and figure legend.

Results:

Comment 16: “the total number of crossings over the platform and time spent in the target quadrant in 5mg/kg BPA exposed group was significantly shorter compared with the control group (Fig.1C and D). Correct the syntax here.

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have corrected the syntax in the revised manuscripts.

Comment 17: Can the degree of impairment be correlated with the alteration in microRNA?

Response: Thank you for your question. In our study, the impairment of learning and memory was shown in mice exposed at 5mg/kg BPA, and no significant change in mice exposed at 0.05 and 0.5 mg/kg BPA. However, the alteration of some miRNAs was not only found in mice hippocampus which exposed at 5mg/kg BPA, but also found in 0.5 mg/kg BPA exposure group. It may be that BPA exposure caused genetic changes first, and then behavioral changes, which we need to explore in the future.

Comment 18: should explain how the data were generated. There is no indication of standard deviation/error

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have explained how the data were generated and added the indication of standard error.

Comment 19: Fig.2 Legend should describe the statistical approach used.

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We selected the differentially expressed miRNAs according to the log2 (FC) and p value threshold. |log2 (FC) |≥ 1 and p value < 0.05 was considered as significant difference. We have described the statistical approach used in figure legend.

Comment 20: “To gain a better understanding…We list the significantly changed GO terms (GOTERM BP FAT) related to learning or memory” Were GO terms related to other pathways identified? This should be exploratory, but seems to be used to forefeel the authors hypothesis. If this is hypothesis driven research, then the authors should explore the existing literature of LTP and LTD-related microRNA and test whether these are regulated in their model.

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We are sorry for using our hypothesis here (because there are more than 20 GO terms significantly changed, we selected the terms). We listed out the top 10 GO terms in our revised manuscript as following table:

Term p-Value Ontology

Protein phosphorylation

8.7E-5 Biological process

Signal transduction

9.8E-5 Biological process

Learning or memory

1.1E-4 Biological process

Learning

1.3E-4 Biological process

Chemical synaptic transmission

1.4E-4 Biological process

Regulation of synaptic plasticity

1.7E-4 Biological process

MAPK cascade

2.9E-4 Biological process

Neurological system process

3.7E-4 Biological process

Negative regulation of neuron apoptotic process

6.6E-4 Biological process

Locomotory behavior

8.6E-4 Biological process

Comment 21: As the same microRNA are grouped under the LTD and LTP banner, some consideration to the direction of change should be given.

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. Among the miRNAs are under the LTP and LTD, two of them are downregulated, six of them are upregulated by BPA treatment. We have added the change direction of them in Table 3 in our revised manuscript.

Comment 22: Fig.3: “three independent experiments” Are these the same animals from the smallRNA-Seq work?

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We are sorry for us unclear statement. We meant to say “n= 6 from three independent experiments and performed in triplicates”. These are not the same animals from the smallRNA-Seq work. We have corrected and clarified it in our revised manuscript.

Comment 23: “The target genes involved in LTP and LTD were screened out in Fig. 4, which were predicted with at least 2 different algorithms.” This sentence is not clear.

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We are sorry for us unclear statement. For minimizing the number of putative and maybe false positive targets, we select intersections from at least two different databases as miRNA’s targets.

Comment 24: Define ‘AMPARs’ etc

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have defined ‘AMPARs’ and other abbreviations in the legend of Fig.4.

Comment 25:Fig.4: what is the source of this figure? How were miRs ‘screened’? For example, AMPAR was regulated by miR-96-5p, miR-182-5p and miR-125a-3p and miR-24-3p, CaMKIV was regulated by miR-182-5p, miR-96-5p and miR-10b-3p, CaMKII was regulated by miR-24-3p and miR-10b-5p, MEK1/2 was reglulated by miR-96-5p and miR-182-5p, etc.

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. The pathway is obtained from KEGG pathway and confirmed through an NCBI PubMed. The miRNAs was screened by miRNAs-target predictional algorithms, including miRanda, miRWalk, miRDB, TargetScan, miRNA.org and DIANA-mirPath. For minimizing the number of putative and maybe false positive targets, we select intersections from at least two different databases as miRNA’s targets for minimizing the number of putative and maybe false positive targets. In Table 4, it was shown the detailed information of target genes of miRNA.

The functional regulation pathway from BPA exposure to impairment of learning and memory was summarized using LTP and LTD-related miRNAs and their predicted target genes in Fig.5.

Comment 26: Fig.5: ß-actin control is extremely overexposed. These type of data are unusable. This image must be replaced by one taken in the linear range of the film and the data reassessed.

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have used GAPDH as control instead of ß-actin, therefore the data reassessed in our revised version.

Comment 27: Discussion: weak, not insightful

Consider how BPA might regulate microRNA expression.

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have rewrote the part of discussion about how BPA might regulate microRNA expression in our revised manuscript and marked it yellow. We hope it gets better.

________________________________________

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: Yes: Guilherme Shigueto Vilar Higa

Reviewer #2: Yes: Joanna Williams

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Alexandre Hiroaki Kihara

20 Sep 2022

PONE-D-22-07675R1Long term potentiation and depression regulatory microRNAs were highlighted in Bisphenol A induced learning and memory impairment by microRNA sequencing and bioinformatics analysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhang,

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

Please,  carefully consider all comments from reviewer. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 04 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,

Alexandre Hiroaki Kihara, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

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: (No Response)

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: The authors have addressed most of the previous comments. Unfortunately, some issues remain to be clarified.

(1) It is described in the section “Hippocampus tissue collection” of Material and Methods that tissue from coordinate -2 mm AP, ±1.8 mm M/L, and 1.5 DV was collected, which corresponds to a small portion of CA1 (sub pyramidal part of CA1 stratum radiatum). Please describe whether only this portion of CA1 was collected or other regions were also included. If the entire hippocampus were collected, it is not necessary to cite the coordinates. Please, make it clear.

(2) In the “Western Blot” section, it is not clear how the normalization by GAPDH was performed. Please describe if the GAPDH staining was performed in stripped membranes used to identify the target protein’s antibodies. Also, inform whether the normalization was performed by the ratio from band intensity of target proteins against GAPDH. The blotting membrane provided in the supplementary section seems to be cut and does not contain the entire sample used for quantification (only four bands for each target protein). Besides that, it does not present the standard protein ladder, which aids the identification of the right band to be quantified. Please, it is necessary to disclose the entire membrane with all samples used in the present work.

(3) In the “Statistical analysis”, it is described that data was submitted to homogeneity and normality test. If all data set follows a normal distribution, please indicate it in the text. If it is not the case, please report the statistical test employed.

(4) In figure 2A, please indicate which trial (i.e., trial 1-4) the representative swimming route belongs to and if it was obtained from the same animal.

(5) The miRNA analysis may have been impacted by the low number of samples employed in the analyzed groups, now indicated by the authors. It is possible that the change in miRNA expression after treatment with BPA was affected by the small size sample since some displaced miRNA indicated in the scatter plot were not significant in the statistical test. Please justify the small sample size for the groups.

(6) In the result section, please indicate in the text values of the mean and SEM represented in the graphs.

Minor issues

(1) Line 26-28 Change “Results showed that mice treated with BPA displayed impairments of spatial learning and memory, and the expression of miRNAs in hippocampus changed.” For “Results showed that mice treated with BPA displayed impairments of spatial learning and memory and changes in the expression of miRNAs in the hippocampus.”

(2) Line 99- change “BPA induced learning and memory..” for BPA-induced

(3) Line 101- idem

(4) Line 556-557- idem

(5) Line 211 – correct the word “normalrized”

(6) Line 213 – Correct the verb tense

(7) Line 253- Change “4 C for 1h” to “4 °C for 1 h”

(8) Line 271- Please include the antibody’s company full name and the catalog number of the product.

(9) In figure 3A, please insert the information in the legend about the blue dots.

(10) Line 427- Change “all of them protein levels..” for “all analyzed protein levels…”

(11) Line 447 changes “manipulation” to “involved in”

**********

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: Yes: Guilherme Shigueto Vilar Higa

**********

[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. 2023 Jan 19;18(1):e0279029. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279029.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


14 Oct 2022

The responses to the reviewers’ comments are as following:

Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: The authors have addressed most of the previous comments. Unfortunately, some issues remain to be clarified.

Response: Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript and giving us so many useful suggestions. Your comments have helped us to improve our article significantly. We highlighted all changes in yellow in our revised manuscript.

Comment 1: It is described in the section “Hippocampus tissue collection” of Material and Methods that tissue from coordinate -2 mm AP, ±1.8 mm M/L, and 1.5 DV was collected, which corresponds to a small portion of CA1 (sub pyramidal part of CA1 stratum radiatum). Please describe whether only this portion of CA1 was collected or other regions were also included. If the entire hippocampus were collected, it is not necessary to cite the coordinates. Please, make it clear.

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We are sorry that we did not understand reviewer’s opinion well and wrote the location of hippocampus last time. In our study, the entire hippocampus was collected, because the hippocampus CA1 of mice was too small to collect. We removed the coordinates in this revised manuscript.

Comment 2:In the “Western Blot” section, it is not clear how the normalization by GAPDH was performed. Please describe if the GAPDH staining was performed in stripped membranes used to identify the target protein’s antibodies. Also, inform whether the normalization was performed by the ratio from band intensity of target proteins against GAPDH. The blotting membrane provided in the supplementary section seems to be cut and does not contain the entire sample used for quantification (only four bands for each target protein). Besides that, it does not present the standard protein ladder, which aids the identification of the right band to be quantified. Please, it is necessary to disclose the entire membrane with all samples used in the present work.

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. In western blot, GAPDH staining was performed in stripped membranes used to identify the target protein’s antibodies, and normalization was performed by the ratio from band intensity of target proteins against GAPDH. We added this information in our revised manuscript.

We are sorry for that we didn’t present the standard protein ladder and disclose the entire membrane before (Our western blot were conducted with old developing equipment which could not merge the protein ladder and gray target bands, therefore we only took the photo of gray target bands, and cut the blotting membrane for saving the antibodies). We really value your suggestion, so we did the western blot again and used new developing equipment from other laboratories this time, and the data were afford in our revised supplement data.

Comment 3:In the “Statistical analysis”, it is described that data was submitted to homogeneity and normality test. If all data set follows a normal distribution, please indicate it in the text. If it is not the case, please report the statistical test employed.

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. In our study, all data set fellows a normal distribution. We have added this information in our revised manuscript.

Comment 4:In figure 2A, please indicate which trial (i.e., trial 1-4) the representative swimming route belongs to and if it was obtained from the same animal.

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. The representative swimming routes in figure 2A, we have indicated the representative swimming route of trial 1-4. The representative swimming routes belong to the same animal in each group. We have added this information in our revised manuscript.

Comment 5: The miRNA analysis may have been impacted by the low number of samples employed in the analyzed groups, now indicated by the authors. It is possible that the change in miRNA expression after treatment with BPA was affected by the small size sample since some displaced miRNA indicated in the scatter plot were not significant in the statistical test. Please justify the small sample size for the groups.

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. As you suggestion, we performed the statistical analysis for the displaced miRNAs indicated in the scatter plot. All the displaced miRNAs were significantly changed, however, the P value varies from 0.042 to <0.001. Therefore, chip or sequencing is the first step to screen differentially expressed miRNAs, Real Time-PCR is used to verify the miRNA expression which screened out. In Table 1 of our revised manuscript, we added the p-value of miRNAs with statistical differences in expression between the BPA treatment and control groups.

Comment 6:In the result section, please indicate in the text values of the mean and SEM represented in the graphs.

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have indicated the mean and SEM represented in miRNA analysis in Table 1 of our revised manuscript.

Minor issues

Comment 1: Line 26-28 Change “Results showed that mice treated with BPA displayed impairments of spatial learning and memory, and the expression of miRNAs in hippocampus changed.” For “Results showed that mice treated with BPA displayed impairments of spatial learning and memory and changes in the expression of miRNAs in the hippocampus.”

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have corrected this sentence.

Comment 2: Line 99- change “BPA induced learning and memory..” for BPA-induced

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have changed “BPA induced learning and memory..” for BPA-induced.

Comment 3: Line 101- idem

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have added “-”.

Comment 4: Line 556-557- idem

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have added “-”.

Comment 5: Line 211 – correct the word “normalrized”

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have correct the word to “normalized”.

Comment 6: Line 213 – Correct the verb tense

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have correct the verb tense. Comment 7: Line 253- Change “4 C for 1h” to “4 °C for 1 h”

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have correct “4 C for 1h” to “4 °C for 1 h”.

Comment 8: Line 271- Please include the antibody’s company full name and the catalog number of the product.

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have added the antibody’s company full name and the catalog number.

Comment 9: In figure 3A, please insert the information in the legend about the blue dots.

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have insert the information in the legend about the blue dots.

Comment 10: Line 427- Change “all of them protein levels..” for “all analyzed protein levels…”

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have Changed “all of them protein levels..” for “all analyzed protein levels…”

Comment 11: Line 447 changes “manipulation” to “involved in”

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have changed “manipulation” to “involved in”.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Alexandre Hiroaki Kihara

29 Nov 2022

Long term potentiation and depression regulatory microRNAs were highlighted in Bisphenol A induced learning and memory impairment by microRNA sequencing and bioinformatics analysis

PONE-D-22-07675R2

Dear Dr. Zhang,

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,

Alexandre Hiroaki Kihara, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: The authors have addressed most of the previous comments. Procedures are clearly described in this version of the manuscript, making it adequate for publication.

However, some comments were not fully implemented in the new version of the manuscript. It is recommended to consider the suggestions to improve the presentation of the paper.

Specifics issues

1)Regarding comment 6, the authors have included the mean and SEM of miRNA analysis in table 1. I suggest including these values for all presented results, as recommended in the last revision.

2)The authors have provide the full manbrane pictures from representative western blot results whith the standard protein ladder. I suggest to include the molecular weight of each protein ladder band in the suplementar figure.

**********

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

**********

Acceptance letter

Alexandre Hiroaki Kihara

23 Dec 2022

PONE-D-22-07675R2

Long-term potentiation and depression regulatory microRNAs were highlighted in Bisphenol A induced learning and memory impairment by microRNA sequencing and bioinformatics analysis

Dear Dr. Zhang:

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

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

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

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

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Alexandre Hiroaki Kihara

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 Table. Primers used in Real-Time PCR.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Full name of miRNAs’ target genes.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES