Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Feb 24;18(2):e0279736. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279736

Lymphocyte deficiency alters the transcriptomes of oligodendrocytes, but not astrocytes or microglia

Mitchell C Krawczyk 1, Lin Pan 1, Alice J Zhang 1, Ye Zhang 1,2,3,4,*
Editor: Stella E Tsirka5
PMCID: PMC9956607  PMID: 36827449

Abstract

Though the brain was long characterized as an immune-privileged organ, findings in recent years have shown extensive communications between the brain and peripheral immune cells. We now know that alterations in the peripheral immune system can affect the behavioral outputs of the central nervous system, but we do not know which brain cells are affected by the presence of peripheral immune cells. Glial cells including microglia, astrocytes, oligodendrocytes, and oligodendrocyte precursor cells (OPCs) are critical for the development and function of the central nervous system. In a wide range of neurological and psychiatric diseases, the glial cell state is influenced by infiltrating peripheral lymphocytes. However, it remains largely unclear whether the development of the molecular phenotypes of glial cells in the healthy brain is regulated by lymphocytes. To answer this question, we acutely purified each type of glial cell from immunodeficient Rag2-/- mice. Interestingly, we found that the transcriptomes of microglia, astrocytes, and OPCs developed normally in Rag2-/- mice without reliance on lymphocytes. In contrast, there are modest transcriptome differences between the oligodendrocytes from Rag2-/- and control mice. Furthermore, the subcellular localization of the RNA-binding protein Quaking, is altered in oligodendrocytes. These results demonstrate that the molecular attributes of glial cells develop largely without influence from lymphocytes and highlight potential interactions between lymphocytes and oligodendrocytes.

Introduction

The immune system and the nervous system are two vital and intricate biological systems. In recent decades an additional layer in their complexity is emerging as accumulating evidence suggests how these two systems interact and influence one another. Although the brain has been traditionally considered an immune-privileged organ, researchers have reported the presence of immune cells in the protective layers surrounding the brain, the meninges, as well as in the perivascular space and choroid plexus [14]. Some meningeal immune cells are produced locally in the skull bone marrow and display different properties than immune cells derived from the periphery, suggesting brain-specific roles for the immune cells that occupy this niche [5, 6]. These meningeal immune cells are poised for direct signaling to the brain through secreted factors or indirect signaling via border cells. Several lines of evidence implicate meningeal immune cells in homeostatic brain function. Limiting immune cell migration across the blood-meningeal barrier using VLA-4 integrin antibody results in cognitive impairment, and disrupting meningeal T cells via eliminating the deep cervical lymph nodes also impairs learning [79]. One recent study found that meningeal γδ T cells induce anxiety-like behavior through the secretion of IL-17a through activation of receptors on glutamatergic cortical neurons [10]. As the peripheral immune cells influence the brain, the brain in turn regulates the immune system in several ways, including the production of hormones. Activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis results in the secretion of corticosteroids that inhibit many immune responses [11, 12].

Although the impact of peripheral immune cells on the behavioral output of the central nervous system (CNS) has been demonstrated, how immune cells affect the cellular state in the CNS remains elusive. Glial cells including microglia, astrocytes, oligodendrocytes, and oligodendrocyte precursor cells (OPCs) make up a large portion of brain cells and play key roles in the development and function of the CNS [1329]. Of particular note in this study, microglia are CNS-resident innate immune cells and key players in CNS pathogen defense, homeostasis, and developmental synapse engulfment and neural circuit refinement [3039]. Oligodendrocytes form insulating myelin sheaths around axons, accelerate the propagation of action potentials along axons, and provide metabolic support to axons [4048]. Under pathological conditions in a wide range of neurological disorders, such as stroke, trauma, and CNS autoimmunity, infiltrating peripheral immune cells release cytokines that impact levels of neuroinflammation and glial cell states [49]. State changes of glial cells in turn contribute to neuroinflammation, tissue homeostasis, and neural repair [50]. A long-standing question that remains largely unanswered is whether the cellular states of glial cells are regulated by immune cells under homeostatic conditions in the healthy brain.

Like glia, lymphocytes play a powerful role in many neurological pathologies. Most notably, lymphocytes have been implicated in the prototypic inflammatory disease, multiple sclerosis (MS). Lymphocytes are implicated in the causal pathology of MS due to a variety of experimental observations [51]. Activated myelin-specific T lymphocytes are sufficient to generate brain lesions in the popular mouse model of MS, experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) [52]. Though exceedingly rare in homeostasis, peripheral immune cells can migrate into the brain in a variety of neurological disease states, including stroke, cancer, where they become central players in the pathology [53, 54]. Peripheral myeloid cells and neutrophils can be found in the brains of Alzheimer disease patients, and peripheral immune composition shows changes in Parkinson disease [55, 56]. Inflammation, and therefore immune cells, are known or suspected to play a role in a huge array of CNS diseases. While their many roles in disease garner widespread attention, relatively little is known about how immune cells effect the brain in the absence of disease.

Rag2-/- mice are a particularly useful tool for assessing the impact of peripheral immune cells on the CNS as they lack mature lymphocytes, the central players in adaptive immunity. Lymphocytes, including T and B cells, serve to recognize potentially hazardous antigens, and they accomplish this task by expressing a great diversity of receptors to identify the many possible antigens they may need to detect. Rather than expressing an impossibly large number of distinct receptor genes, this receptor diversity is accomplished by physical recombination of a small number of antigen receptor genes; Rag1 and Rag2 are the recombinase enzymes required for this recombination [57]. In the absence of Rag2, this recombination cannot take place, so lymphocytes will not create the appropriate receptor array and therefore fail to mature into functional T and B cells [58]. In the absence of these lymphocytes, researchers have reported a diverse set of changes in learning and behavior. When trained to associate a tone with a foot shock, Rag2-/- mice show significantly less freezing when presented with the tone, indicating a fear learning deficit [59]. The freezing response was partially recovered in Rag2-/- that had been reconstituted with CD4+ T-cells. In a social interaction test, Rag2-/- mice spent significantly less time interacting with a conspecific mouse than wildtype mice, and this phenotype was also rescued with reconstitution of functional lymphocytes [60]. Reconstituted Rag2-/- also showed less anxiety behavior than naïve Rag2-/- mice, as measured by time in the open arm of an elevated plus maze. These studies demonstrate that lymphocytes can shape behavior outside of pathological conditions, though it remains unclear how this influence is exerted.

In this study we sought to determine whether the homeostatic transcriptome states of CNS glial cells require signals from lymphocytes. To that end, we acutely purified cortical oligodendrocytes, OPCs, astrocytes, and microglia by the immunopanning method from immunodeficient Rag2-/- mice and immunocompetent littermates. We performed RNA-sequencing to characterize the transcriptome profiles of each of the glial cell types. We found modest changes in gene expression among oligodendrocytes, though gross myelin development appears normal. However, we did identify altered localization of an RNA-binding protein, Quaking, in oligodendrocytes, which binds transcripts for a key myelin gene, MBP [61]. Microglia, OPCs, and astrocytes show little to no alterations in gene expression in the cortex, despite a previous study suggesting that lymphocyte depletion altered microglial gene signatures [62]. Overall, we find little evidence that lymphocytes influence CNS function by majorly altering the transcriptome profiles of microglia, astrocytes, and OPCs in the healthy cortex.

Methods

Experimental animals

All animal care and experimentation were approved by the Animal Research Committee at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) under the approved protocol #R-16-080. We obtained Rag2-/- mice from Jackson Laboratory (B6.Cg-Rag2tm1.1Cgn/J, #008449) and crossed with C57BL/6J to establish the breeding colony used in all sequencing and immunostaining experiments. We ordered 8-week-old male Rag2-/- mice (B6.Cg-Rag2tm1.1Cgn/J, #008449) and controls (C57BL/6J, #000664) from Jackson Laboratory for western blot experiments. Mice were housed in autoclaved cages and received sterilized food and water. Both male and female mice were used for experimentation. We used 3-month-old mice for RNA-sequencing experiments, and approximately 1-year-old mice for RNAscope experiments.

Purification of brain cells

Four classes of brain cells (microglia, OPCs, oligodendrocytes, and astrocytes) were purified using immunopanning, as described in Zhang 2016 and Zhang 2014 [63, 64]. Briefly, we anesthetized animals with isofluorane and performed transcardial perfusions with phosphate buffered saline (PBS) and subsequently dissected cortical grey matter. The tissue was digested enzymatically with papain (12 units/mL) at 34.5°C for 45 minutes, followed by mechanical trituration to generate a single cell suspension. Cells were treated with enzymatic inhibitor to end digestion. We incubated this single cell suspension for 10–15 minutes at room temperature on a series of petri dishes that were pre-coated with cell-specific antibodies. After incubation, we washed each dish with PBS to remove contaminants, applied TRIzol to release the RNA, and flash froze the resulting sample in liquid nitrogen for storage at -80°C. We used the following series of antibodies to purify each cell class in this order: microglia, anti-CD45 x3 plates (BD Pharmingen 550539); OPCs, anti-PDGFRα x1 plate (BD Sciences 558774) (harvested for RNA-sequencing) and O4 hybridoma x2 plates (to further deplete OPCs, not harvested for RNA-sequencing); oligodendrocytes, GalC hybridoma x2-3 plates; astrocytes, HepaCAM x1 plate (R&D Systems MAB4108). Of note, anti-CD45 can also bind a population of peripheral macrophages, though this population was reduced by perfusion prior to brain dissection. The following sample sizes were collected for each cell class: astrocyte n = 12 [6 control, 6 Rag2-knockout (KO)], microglia n = 12 (6 control, 6 KO), OPC = 11 (6 control, 5 KO), and oligodendrocyte = 8 (4 control, 4 KO). Samples also included both males and females: astrocyte 7 male, 5 female; microglia 7 male, 5 female; OPC 7 male, 4 female; oligodendrocyte 5 male, 3 female.

RNA-sequencing library construction and sequencing

RNA was purified from frozen samples using the miRNeasy kit (Qiagen 217004) according to the manufacturer’s protocol. The resulting RNA was converted to cDNA and amplified using the Nugen Ovation RNAseq System V2 (Nugen 7102–32), and fragmented using a Covaris S220 focused-ultrasonicator (Covaris 500217). Final libraries were prepared using the NEB Next Ultra RNA Library Prep Kit (New England Biolabs E7530S) and NEBNext multiplex oligos for Illumina (NEB E7335S) according to manufacturer’s protocol. Libraries from the same cell type from all mice were pooled and sequenced on the same lane using the Illumina NovaSeq 600 System to obtain 23.2 ± 5.74 (s.d.) million 2x50 bp reads per sample. RNA integrity was measured using the 2200 TapeStation System (Agilent G2964AA) and the RNA high sensitivity assay (Agilent 5067–5579). All samples had RIN > 7, though some samples were out of the measurable range.

Read alignment and quantification

We mapped the reads using the STAR package v2.7.8a and genome assembly GRCm39 (Ensembl, release 104) [65]. Samples had 73.7% ± 2.97 (s.d.) uniquely aligned reads. Reads were quantified using HTSeq v0.13.5 to obtain counts for downstream analysis [66]. Quantified RNA-seq data can be found in S1 File.

Differential gene expression analysis with DESeq2

We analyzed differential gene expression of each cell type using gene counts and the DESeq2 (v1.26.0) package in R [67]. We built our linear model using only two binary variables: sex and genotype. Full differential gene expression results are reported in the S2 and S3 Files. Male- and female-enriched genes in oligodendrocytes were also passed into the online database STRING to identify functional enrichment of these gene sets [68].

Gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA)

We downloaded GSEA software from www.gsea-msigdb.org, version 4.2.3 [69, 70]. We used the default settings with the following exceptions. We entered normalized counts for our expression data, which we calculated using the DESeq2 functions estimateSizeFactors() and counts(). “Permutation type” was set to “gene_set”. We built our own gene sets based on scRNAseq analysis published in Pasciuto 2020 [62]. They sequenced cells from MHCII knock-out mice which have a different form of lymphocyte deficiency [71]. We extracted the genes they found to be differentially expressed among all MHCII-/- microglia vs all control microglia. We made one gene set of upregulated genes and one gene set of downregulated genes. The gene sets were trimmed to the top 500 genes ranked by p-values to meet the recommended gene set size.

Principal components analysis

Principal components analysis (PCA) was performed to visualize RNAseq results in a low-dimensional space. In R, we converted raw read counts using a log2 transformation with the function “rlogcounts” followed by PCA using the function “prcomp”. Resulting plots are shown in supplemental data, S2 Fig.

RNAscope in situ hybridization

In situ hybridization of microglial markers was performed using the RNAscope Multiplex Fluorescent V2 Assay (ACDBio 323100). Brain tissue was harvested from approximately 1 year old mice (3 Rag2+/+, 3 Rag2-/-) after anesthetization with isoflurane and 10-minute transcardial perfusion with 4% paraformaldehyde. Brains were postfixed overnight in 4% PFA at 4°C, then dehydrated in 30% sucrose at 4°C until brains sank. Finally, brains were embedded in OCT compound (Fisher Scientific 23-730-571) and sectioned at 15 μm thickness and mounted onto Superfrost Plus slides (Fisher Scientific 12-550-15) before proceeding to the RNAscope assay. The assay was conducted as per the manufacturer’s protocol. We used the following probes, formulated by ACD Bio: Mm-Tmem119 (cat. 472901), Mm-C1qa-C2 (cat. 441221-C2), and Mm-Junb-O1-C3 (cat. 584761-C3). The cerebral cortex was imaged with a 20x objective in both the upper cortex (layers 2–3) and lower cortex (layers 4–6) in both the motor and dorsal somatosensory regions. Images were quantified using ImageJ (2.0.0-rc-61/1.51n with Java 1.8.0_66) [72]. To quantify fluorescence intensity, regions of interest were manually drawn around microglial soma using microglia-specific markers Tmem119 and C1qa, and intensity was measured using the “Measure” tool. For microglial-specific markers Tmem119 and C1qa, we also quantified the area of staining by first applying an equal threshold to all images before measuring area with the “Measure” tool. Welch’s t test was used to assess differences between Rag2+/+ and Rag2-/- tissue.

Data deposition

We deposited all gene expression data to the Gene Expression Omnibus, accession number GSE210580. To review the dataset, please go to https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE210580 and use token mtivisuenjgrxkf.

Immunohistochemistry

Brain tissue was fixed and embedded as described for RNAscope. Brains were sectioned at 15–20 μm and directly mounted onto Superfrost Plus slides (Fisher Scientific 12-550-15). Sections were permeabilized with a blocking solution made of 0.2% Triton-X and 10% donkey serum in PBS at room temperature for 30 minutes, then they were rinsed and incubated with primary antibody diluted in blocking solution overnight at 4°C. The following day, sections were washed 3 times in PBS and incubated with secondary antibody at room temperature for 90 minutes, followed by 3 PBS washes. Finally, coverslips were added with a mounting solution containing DAPI. Primary antibodies: anti-MBP, 1:200 (Abcam ab7349), anti-APC clone CC1 (Millipore Sigma OP80); Secondary antibodies: anti-rat 647 (Invitrogen A48272), anti-rat 594 (Invitrogen A-21209), anti-mouse 488 (Invitrogen SA5-10166). Staining was quantified in 1-year-old mice (n = 3/group). MBP was quantified in coronal sections approaching the crossing of the anterior commissure (bregma 0 mm to 0.1 mm).

Western blot

Whole-cell lysates from 2-month-old mouse cortex were lysed RIPA buffer (Thermo Fisher, cat #89901) containing EDTA-free protease inhibitor cocktail (Sigma, cat #4693159001), and centrifuged at 12,000 × g for 10 min to remove cell debris. Whole-cell lysates were then mixed with sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) sample buffer (Fisher, cat # AAJ60660AC) and 2-mercaptoethanol before boiling for 5 min. Samples were separated by SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis, followed by transfer to polyvinylidene difluoride membranes (Thermo Fisher, 88520) via wet transfer at 300 mA for 1.5 hours. Membranes were blocked with clear milk-blocking buffer (Fisher, cat #PI37587) for 1 hour at room temperature and incubated with primary antibodies against MBP (Abcam, cat #ab7349, dilution 1:1000), GAPDH (Sigma, cat #CB1001, dilution 1:5000), and PLP1 (Millipore, cat #MAB388, dilution 1:500) at 4°C overnight. Membranes were washed with tris-buffered saline with Tween 20 (TBST) three times and incubated with either horseradish peroxidase-conjugated secondary antibodies (Mouse, Cell Signaling, cat #7076S; Rat, Cell Signaling, cat #7077S) (for MBP and PLP1) or Donkey anti-Mouse IgG (H+L) Highly Cross-Adsorbed Secondary Antibody, Alexa Fluor™ Plus 647 (Fisher, cat # PIA32787,1:1000) (for GAPDH) for 1 hour at room temperature. After three washes in the TBST buffer, SuperSignal™ West Femto Maximum Sensitivity Substrate (Fisher, cat #PI34095) was added to the membranes, and these signals were visualized using a ChemiDocTM MP Imaging system (BIO-RAD). Images were quantified in ImageJ using the plugin “bandandPeakQuantification” and normalized to Gapdh expression.

Statistics

Differential gene expression and associated statistical testing was performed using DESeq2. Gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) was performed using GSEA software v4.3.2, as described above. All other statistical comparisons were performed using Welch’s t-test in Excel.

Results

RNA-sequencing of glia from Rag2-/- mice

Rag2-/- immunodeficient mice and wildtype immunocompetent control mice are typically housed in facilities with different levels of pathogen exposures and other environmental variables. To compare glial cell states in Rag2-/- and control mice with minimal environmental confounding factors, we established a single colony of Rag2+/- heterozygous mice housed in a clean facility for immunodeficient mice. We crossed heterozygous parents to generate Rag2-/- and Rag2+/+ littermate pairs raised with the same maternal care in the same environment for RNA-sequencing (Fig 1A).

Fig 1. Acute purification of glial cell populations from immunodeficient mice.

Fig 1

A) Breeding schematic; Rag2+/- parents bore offspring that were immunocompetent (Rag2+/+ and Rag2+/-) or immunodeficient (Rag2-/-). All immunodeficient mice and littermate controls were maintained in the same environment. B) Immunopanning schematic; a single-cell suspension was generated from the cerebral cortex, then passed over a series of plates coated with cell type specific antibodies to enrich for specific glial cell populations. C) Heatmap showing enrichment of cell-specific markers (rows) among the glial samples that we harvested and sequenced (columns); gene expression is quantified as transcripts per million (TPM), and each gene was further normalized to a z-score, defined as (expression in the sample—the average expression across all samples)/standard deviation; i.e., the number of standard deviations from the average.

We purified each glial cell type from the mouse cerebral cortex using an immunopanning technique [63, 64]. Cells were separated into a single-cell suspension and then passed over plates coated with cell type specific antibodies that pull down the cell types of interest (Fig 1B). Compared with the traditional method of culturing glial cells in serum-containing media and separating them based on the layers in which each cell type is enriched, immunopanning allows acute purification of glial cells without exposure to serum and allows cells to remain much closer to a physiological state [63, 64]. Using this method, we collected microglia (anti-CD45), astrocytes (anti-HepaCAM), oligodendrocytes (GalC hybridoma), and OPCs (anti-PDGFRA) from 4–6 littermate pairs of Rag2-/- and Rag2+/+ mice and performed RNA-sequencing. Using a panel of cell type-enriched genes, we found that glial samples enriched via immunopanning have low levels of contamination from other cell types (Fig 1C).

Lymphocyte deficiency affects the oligodendrocyte transcriptome and Quaking RNA-binding protein localization

We analyzed each cell type for differential gene expression using DESeq2. We found five or fewer differentially expressed genes (multiple comparison adjusted p-value <0.05) in astrocytes, OPCs, and microglia from immunocompetent vs. immunodeficient Rag2-/- mice. Of note, the gene Iftap (encoding intraflagellar transport associated protein) overlaps with Rag2 in the genome, and Iftap is significantly downregulated in all four cell types analyzed. This observation suggests that the coding and/or regulatory sequences of Iftap is disrupted in Rag2-/- mice.

In contrast to the other three cell classes, oligodendrocytes showed more differentially expressed genes: 19 upregulated and 180 downregulated genes, of which 16 upregulated genes and 71 downregulated genes are protein-coding (Fig 2A). This suggests a role of peripheral lymphocytes in maintaining some aspect of oligodendrocyte molecular signatures.

Fig 2. Differential gene expression of glial cells in Rag2-/- mice.

Fig 2

A) Volcano plots displaying differential gene expression analysis of oligodendrocytes (top-left), OPCs (top-right), astrocytes (bottom-left), and microglia (bottom-right). Differential gene expression was analyzed using DESeq2, and the resulting fold change and statistical significance are plotted on the x and y axes respectively. Red: p < 0.05; gray line: p = .05. B) Loss of CC1 expression in cellular processes. Top: Representative images of CC1 in the corpus callosum of control (left) and Rag2-/- (right) mice; Bottom: Insets of control showing CC1+ processes extending from a CC1+ cell bodies and KO showing only CC1+ soma. Right: Quantification of CC1+ process density, normalized to average control levels (right, p = 0.0034; mean[control, KO] = 1.0, 0.1246; SD[control, KO] = 0.157, 0.081; error bars = SEM). Scale bar = 50 μm.

Among the downregulated genes is Man1a2, a gene encoding an enzyme involved in N-glycosylation of peptides. N-glycosylation occurs on many important peptides expressed by oligodendrocytes, including myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG) [73]. Rag2-/- oligodendrocytes also downregulate Spx, which encodes the neuropeptide spexin, also known as neuropeptide Q. Spexin has been implicated in a variety of functions, including nociception and feeding behaviors, though its role in oligodendrocytes has not been described [74].

The upregulated genes include Sema3b, a member of the semaphorin family of genes that encode axon guidance cues. Interestingly, we also see observed differential expression of Ppia, which encodes an enzyme that catalyzes isomerization of peptide bonds. Ppia is sometimes referred to as a housekeeping gene and used as a reference gene in real time quantitative PCR, so its differential expression is interesting to note [75].

Upon further inspection of oligodendrocytes in the immunodeficient mice at the protein level, we found a striking change in CC1, a canonical marker of mature oligodendrocytes. We find that Rag2-/- show altered cellular distribution of CC1 within white matter (Fig 2B). In control mice, CC1 labels oligodendrocyte soma, as well as a number of processes. Somatic expression of CC1 remains in Rag2-/- mice, but CC1+ processes virtually disappear. CC1 antibodies specifically recognize the RNA-binding protein Quaking (QKI), specifically isoform 7 [76]. QKI in oligodendrocytes is known to bind myelin basic protein (MBP) mRNA, and QKI disruption was previously shown to prevent MBP export to cytoplasmic processes, ultimately altering myelination [61].

To assess whether MBP levels were altered in conjunction with QKI localization, we performed immunohistochemistry experiments and measured MBP in three myelin-rich regions: the corpus callosum (p = 0.44, mean[control, KO] = 922.6, 762.4, SD[control, KO] = 288.1, 46.3), anterior commissure (p = 0.46, mean[control, KO] = 809.7, 762.0, SD[control, KO] = 80.1, 61.6), and striatum (p = 0.32, mean[control, KO] = 729.7, 698.6, SD[control, KO] = 41.2, 10.1). We found no difference between immunocompetent and immunocompromised mice in any of these regions (Fig 3A). To assess myelin protein levels using another method, we used western blots. Again, we found no difference in expression in MBP (p = 0.69, mean[control, KO] = 4.25, 4.38, SD[control, KO] = 0.55, 0.33) or another key myelin protein, myelin proteolipid protein, PLP (p = 0.61, mean[control, KO] = 0.20, 0.19, SD[control, KO] = 0.018, 0.021; Fig 3B). This suggests that lymphocytes are not required for gross myelination.

Fig 3. Normal myelin proteins and microglial gene signature in Rag2-/- mice.

Fig 3

A) Immunostaining of MBP. Top: representative images of MBP immunofluorescence in control (left) and Rag2-/- (right) mice. Bottom: quantification of MBP fluorescence in 3 myelin rich regions; no significant differences. B) Western blots of key myelin proteins MBP and PLP. Left: Images of Western blot of MBP (top), PLP (middle), and reference protein GAPDH (bottom), Right: Quantification of signal intensity for MBP and PLP, normalized to GAPDH signal. No significant differences. All error bars = SEM. C) GSEA output of genes upregulated (left) or downregulated (right) in MHCII KO microglia reported in Pasciuto 2020. Neither MHCII KO up- nor downregulated genes are significantly enriched in a comparison of Rag2+/+ vs. Rag2-/- microglia (p = 1, 0.93); NES = normalized enrichment score, FWER = family wise error rate.

Sexual dimorphism in glial gene expression

Given the increased incidence of autoimmune disorders in women compared to men, we also examined differential gene expression associated with sex in our dataset. We found genes that were significantly associated with sex in each cell type, many of which were located on the X or Y chromosome (e.g. Kdm5d, Uty, Eif2s3y). Interestingly, oligodendrocytes again showed the most robust difference with 143 female-enriched genes, and 136 male-enriched genes (S3 File). Using a database of protein-protein interactions, STRING, we found that male-enriched genes showed functional enrichment for SNAP/SNARE and endosome terms, while female-enriched genes had functional enrichment for voltage-gated channel and neuronal system terms [68]. Among the other cell types we found the following numbers of female-enriched/male-enriched protein-coding genes: astrocytes 1/13, microglia 3/4, OPCs 2/6. We observed that Kdm6a expression was significantly higher in female astrocytes compared to males, which agrees with our previous findings from RNAseq of human astrocytes [77].

Lymphocyte deficiency does not affect the maturation of microglia

Our RNA-sequencing data revealed that the expression of mature microglia markers such as Cx3cr1, Tmem119, P2ry12, and Aif1 do not significantly differ between immunocompetent vs. immunodeficient Rag2-/- mice. This is somewhat surprising given microglia are the brain resident immune cells, and they express high levels of receptors for immune signaling molecules that peripheral lymphocytes could use to pass signals into the brain. To further assess markers of microglia in immune-compromised mice, we performed RNA and protein level analysis of microglial markers. First, we reanalyzed our RNAseq data by identifying a panel of microglial genes, and we generated an aggregate expression score for each sample (Panel C in S1 Fig). There were no differences between Rag2-/- and control mice. Second, we performed RNAscope in situ hybridization to visualize the expression of genes found in mature microglia: Tmem119, C1qa, and Junb. Once again, we found no differences in gene expression (Panels A, B in S1 Fig). Lastly, we performed immunohistochemistry to assess protein levels of the microglial markers Iba1, P2ry12, and Cd68, and we continued to detect no differences in the Rag2-/- mice (Panel D in S1 Fig).

Given the striking lack of aberration among these brain resident immune cells, we asked whether microglia responded to other changes in peripheral immunity. One such animal model knocks out a set of major histocompatibility complex class II (MHCII) genes, which results in the loss of CD4+ T cells [71]. Rag2-/- mice, in contrast, lack all mature lymphocytes, including all T cells and B cells for a more complete depletion of adaptive immune cells. MHCII-/- animals show substantial differences in microglia transcription, including downregulation of highly expressed microglial genes including P2ry12, Itgb5, and Tgfb1 [62]. To make a direct comparison between microglial gene expression in total lymphocyte-deficient Rag2-/- mice and CD4+ T lymphocyte-deficient MHCII-knockout mice in Pasciuto 2020, we took a more systematic approach to assess whether the microglial differential gene expression signature observed in T lymphocyte-deficient MHCII-knockout mice is enriched in microglia from Rag2-/- mice. We took all the differentially expressed genes in microglia from MHCII-knockout mice from the Pasciuto study and performed gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) using our RNA-seq data [62]. We found that the up- and down-regulated genes identified in their study did not show global enrichment in our dataset (Fig 2C). That is to say, upregulated genes in MHCII-knockout microglia did not trend toward higher expression in Rag2-/- microglia, nor did downregulated genes in MHCII-knockout microglia trend toward higher expression in immunocompetent microglia in this current study. This contrast suggests that the exact complement of peripheral lymphocytes can exert highly varied and perhaps surprising changes in the brain.

Discussion

We generated transcriptomic data of acutely purified glial cells from mice lacking adaptive immune cells and their immunocompetent littermates. We found differentially expressed genes among oligodendrocytes, while the transcriptome of microglia, astrocytes, and OPCs remained largely unaltered by the lack of lymphocytes. In oligodendrocytes, we found altered localization of the RNA-binding protein QKI. Given previous reports of microglia changes in immune-compromised mice [62], we validated our sequencing results with in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry of microglial markers and found no differences in Rag2-/- mice. We also performed a bioinformatic analysis of the microglia that failed to detect the previously reported gene signature found in a different T lymphocyte deficiency model. Together, these data shed light on the impacts of peripheral immune cells on the brain, and suggest underappreciated interactions between oligodendrocytes and lymphocytes.

Molecular profile of oligodendrocytes in the absence of adaptive immunity

Oligodendrocytes were the only cell class in this study to show appreciable differential expression in Rag2-/- mice. The differentially expressed genes have a wide variety of functional roles in the brain that defy easy classification. Pathway analysis of gene expression, including gene ontology and gene set enrichment analysis, failed to identify larger patterns among these genes. Among the differentially expressed genes were axon guidance cues (Sema3b), glycosylation enzymes (Man1a2), neuropeptides (Spx), transcription factors (Gli1), and proteasome components (Psmd5).

At the protein level, we found differences in the expression of RNA-binding protein Quaking isoform 7, as shown with the classical oligodendrocyte marker CC1. QKI is important for trafficking various mRNAs, including the key myelin protein gene MBP. In Rag2-/- white matter, QKI7 no longer enters the processes, which may be relevant for delivering important oligodendrocyte transcripts like MBP to sites of myelination. We find that the overall levels of MBP do not change in adult Rag2-/- mice, but future studies could investigate potential changes during myelination in development that may underlie the behavioral phenotypes observed in these mice.

The link between peripheral immune state and oligodendrocyte transcription may provide a fruitful new avenue for understanding their interactions under pathological conditions. Lymphocyte interactions with oligodendrocytes and their myelin sheaths have long been suspected to be central to the demyelinating pathology of multiple sclerosis [51]. To our knowledge, this is the first evidence that oligodendrocytes are affected by lymphocytes in the healthy brain. Further elucidation of the interactions between oligodendrocytes and lymphocytes in homeostatic conditions could improve our understanding of how these interactions become maladaptive in a disease state.

Homeostatic microglia are unaltered in total lymphocyte deficiency

In this study, we find that microglia in adult Rag2-/- mice under homeostatic conditions are indistinguishable from microglia in immunocompetent mice in their transcriptome profiles. This finding comes in surprising contrast to a previously published report that CD4+ T-cells were required for microglial maturation [62]. In that study, investigators used an MHCII knockout mouse model that lacks several genes that make protein products for the major histocompatibility complex 2. MHCII-/- mice specifically lack CD4+ T-cells, while maintaining other lymphocyte populations including CD8+ T-cells and B cells [71]. Single-cell sequencing of these cells found that MHCII-/- microglia downregulated highly expressed microglial markers including P2ry12, Itgb5, and Tgfb1. They therefore conclude that microglia from MHCII-/- mice are arrested in an immature state.

In contrast, the Rag2-/- model used in the current study results in the loss of all mature lymphocytes, including CD4+ T cells, CD8+ T cells, and B cells [58]. Despite a more comprehensive loss of adaptive immune cells, microglia from these mice did not show major transcriptional perturbations. The divergence in these two immunodeficiency models poses several interesting possibilities that should be explored in future studies. First, various lymphocyte classes may exert different or even opposing influences on brain cells. Perhaps the MHCII-/- microglia are altered not just by the absence of CD4+ T-cells, but also the influence of remaining T-cells and B-cells that would otherwise face regulation by CD4+ T-cells. This model could be compatible with unperturbed Rag2-/- microglia, where the relative balance of lymphocyte classes is maintained (i.e. all present or all absent). Alternatively, MHCII-/- may directly alter microglia. Microglia can express MHCII genes and become antigen presenting cells, whereas Rag2 is a lymphocyte-specific protein. However, microglial MHCII expression is largely thought to occur in pathological conditions, and little if any MHCII protein expression has been found in homeostatic microglia. Furthermore, Pasciuto et al. show that reintroduction of CD4+ T-cells to MHCII-/- slice culture can partially rescue some downregulated microglia genes, which argues for a causal role of lymphocytes in MHCII-/- microglia. Still, loss of MHCII genes may exert direct effects on microglia that are absent in the Rag2-/- model. The distinctions between the MHCII and Rag2 models serve as a fruitful ground for further dissection of lymphocytic influence in the brain.

Neuro-immune interactions represent an exciting frontier of neurobiology that was previously overlooked. While modern studies now suggest influential roles of peripheral immune cells in brain function and behavior [4, 10, 59, 60, 78], it is important to understand the extent and the limits of this influence. These data provide important insight into which brain cells might interface with adaptive immune cells in non-pathological conditions. Of equal importance, this study also points to limits of adaptive immune influence in the central nervous system, and it insinuates that various peripheral immune cells may wield distinct influences within the central nervous system that remain to be explored.

Supporting information

S1 File. Rag2 glia gene expression.

Gene expression of glia (astrocytes, microglia, oligodendrocytes, and OPCs) from Rag2-/- mice and immunocompetent controls, quantified by transcripts per million (TPM).

(XLSX)

S2 File. Rag2 glia differential gene expression by genotype.

Differential gene expression analysis results comparing glia (astrocytes, microglia, oligodendrocytes, and OPCs) from Rag2-/- mice and immunocompetent controls using DESeq2.

(XLSX)

S3 File. Rag2 glia differential gene expression by sex.

Differential gene expression analysis results comparing glia (astrocytes, microglia, oligodendrocytes, and OPCs) from females vs. males.

(XLSX)

S1 Fig. Normal microglial markers at the RNA and protein levels.

A) Example RNAscope images of microglial markers Tmem119 (green), C1qa (orange), and Junb (red) and composites including DAPI (blue) in the cerebral cortex. Top: Rag2+/+ immunocompetent; bottom: Rag2-/- immunodeficient. Scale bar = 100 μm. B) Quantification of RNAscope based on fluorescence intensity (top row) or area (bottom row) of microglial genes Tmem119 (Mean fluorescence: p = 0.79, mean[control, KO] = 10.6, 10.0, SD[control, KO] = 0.54, 3.34; Area: p = 0.68, mean[control, KO] = 74.9%, 66.0%, SD[control, KO] = 18.3, 28.6), C1qa (Mean fluorescence: p = 0.43, mean[control, KO] = 63.9, 72.0, SD[control, KO] = 8.0, 13.5; Area: p = 0.77, mean[control, KO] = 87.7%, 83.9%, SD[control, KO] = 15.2, 14.4), and Junb (Mean fluorescence: p = 0.63, mean[control, KO] = 5.67, 4.56, SD[control, KO] = 3.37, 0.74) from Rag2-/- and control mice (n = 3 KO, 3 WT). Error bars = SEM. C) Expression of microglia marker genes. Left: Heatmap of expression of 12 microglial marker genes, shown as transcripts per million (TPM) with z-score normalization across all samples, defined as (expression in the sample—the average expression across all samples)/standard deviation. Right: Microglial maturation score quantification, defined as the average z-score across all genes for each sample (p = 0.81, mean[control, KO] = -0.065, 0.065, SD[control, KO] = 1.03, 0.35). D) Immunostaining of microglial proteins. Top: representative images of Iba1, P2ry12, and Cd68 from Rag2+/+ and Rag2-/- mice. Scale bar = 50 μm. Bottom: Quantification of fluorescence intensity for Iba1 (p = 0.67, mean[control, KO] = 712, 743, SD[control, KO] = 15.8, 122.4), P2ry12 (p = 0.57, mean[control, KO] = 466, 506, SD[control, KO] = 77.1, 80.6), and Cd68 (p = 0.89, mean[control, KO] = 373, 363, SD[control, KO] = 17.6, 99.1). Error bars = SEM.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. PCA plots of Rag2 glia.

PCA of RNA sequencing data from glia from Rag2-/- and control mice. Red = female, blue = male.

(TIF)

Acknowledgments

We thank Michael Sofroniew, Baljit Khakh, Michael Gandal, and Jessica Rexach for advice. We thank the Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research, UCLA BioSequencing Core Facility for their services.

Data Availability

All RNA-sequencing data from this study are available via the Gene Expression Omnibus, accession number GSE210580. The outputs of additional analyses are available in the Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This work is supported by the Achievement Rewards for College Scientists Foundation Los Angeles Founder Chapter and the National Institute of Mental Health of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Award T32MH073526 to M.C.K, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke of the National Institute of Health (NIH) R00NS089780, R01NS109025, the National Institute of Aging of the NIH R03AG065772, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development P50HD103557, National Center for Advancing Translational Science UCLA CTSI Grant UL1TR001881, the W. M. Keck Foundation Junior Faculty Award, UCLA Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research (BSCRC) Innovation Award, the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center and BSCRC Ablon Scholars Program, and the Friends of the Semel Institute for Neuroscience & Human Behavior Friends Scholar Award to Y. Z. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Kivisakk P, Mahad DJ, Callahan MK, Trebst C, Tucky B, Wei T, et al. Human cerebrospinal fluid central memory CD4+ T cells: evidence for trafficking through choroid plexus and meninges via P-selectin. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100(14):8389–94. Epub 2003/06/28. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1433000100 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC166239. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Qing Z, Sewell D, Sandor M, Fabry Z. Antigen-specific T cell trafficking into the central nervous system. J Neuroimmunol. 2000;105(2):169–78. Epub 2000/04/01. doi: 10.1016/s0165-5728(99)00265-9 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Alves de Lima K, Rustenhoven J, Kipnis J. Meningeal Immunity and Its Function in Maintenance of the Central Nervous System in Health and Disease. Annu Rev Immunol. 2020;38:597–620. Epub 2020/04/29. doi: 10.1146/annurev-immunol-102319-103410 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Rustenhoven J, Drieu A, Mamuladze T, de Lima KA, Dykstra T, Wall M, et al. Functional characterization of the dural sinuses as a neuroimmune interface. Cell. 2021;184(4):1000–16 e27. Epub 2021/01/29. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.12.040 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8487654. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Cugurra A, Mamuladze T, Rustenhoven J, Dykstra T, Beroshvili G, Greenberg ZJ, et al. Skull and vertebral bone marrow are myeloid cell reservoirs for the meninges and CNS parenchyma. Science. 2021;373(6553). Epub 2021/06/05. doi: 10.1126/science.abf7844 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8863069. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Mazzitelli JA, Smyth LCD, Cross KA, Dykstra T, Sun J, Du S, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid regulates skull bone marrow niches via direct access through dural channels. Nat Neurosci. 2022;25(5):555–60. Epub 2022/03/19. doi: 10.1038/s41593-022-01029-1 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC9081158. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Radjavi A, Smirnov I, Derecki N, Kipnis J. Dynamics of the meningeal CD4(+) T-cell repertoire are defined by the cervical lymph nodes and facilitate cognitive task performance in mice. Mol Psychiatry. 2014;19(5):531–3. Epub 2013/06/12. doi: 10.1038/mp.2013.79 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3773254. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Derecki NC, Cardani AN, Yang CH, Quinnies KM, Crihfield A, Lynch KR, et al. Regulation of learning and memory by meningeal immunity: a key role for IL-4. J Exp Med. 2010;207(5):1067–80. Epub 2010/05/05. doi: 10.1084/jem.20091419 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2867291. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Herz J, Fu Z, Kim K, Dykstra T, Wall M, Li H, et al. GABAergic neuronal IL-4R mediates T cell effect on memory. Neuron. 2021;109(22):3609–18 e9. Epub 2021/11/19. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2021.10.022 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC9116260. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Alves de Lima K, Rustenhoven J, Da Mesquita S, Wall M, Salvador AF, Smirnov I, et al. Meningeal gammadelta T cells regulate anxiety-like behavior via IL-17a signaling in neurons. Nat Immunol. 2020;21(11):1421–9. Epub 2020/09/16. doi: 10.1038/s41590-020-0776-4 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8496952. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Smith SM, Vale WW. The role of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis in neuroendocrine responses to stress. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2006;8(4):383–95. Epub 2007/02/13. doi: 10.31887/DCNS.2006.8.4/ssmith ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3181830. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Ashwell JD, Lu FW, Vacchio MS. Glucocorticoids in T cell development and function*. Annu Rev Immunol. 2000;18:309–45. Epub 2000/06/03. doi: 10.1146/annurev.immunol.18.1.309 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Chung WS, Clarke LE, Wang GX, Stafford BK, Sher A, Chakraborty C, et al. Astrocytes mediate synapse elimination through MEGF10 and MERTK pathways. Nature. 2013;504(7480):394–400. Epub 2013/11/26. doi: 10.1038/nature12776 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3969024. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Olsen ML, Sontheimer H. Functional implications for Kir4.1 channels in glial biology: from K+ buffering to cell differentiation. J Neurochem. 2008;107(3):589–601. Epub 2008/08/12. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2008.05615.x ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2581639. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Rothstein JD, Dykes-Hoberg M, Pardo CA, Bristol LA, Jin L, Kuncl RW, et al. Knockout of glutamate transporters reveals a major role for astroglial transport in excitotoxicity and clearance of glutamate. Neuron. 1996;16(3):675–86. Epub 1996/03/01. doi: 10.1016/s0896-6273(00)80086-0 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Papouin T, Dunphy JM, Tolman M, Dineley KT, Haydon PG. Septal Cholinergic Neuromodulation Tunes the Astrocyte-Dependent Gating of Hippocampal NMDA Receptors to Wakefulness. Neuron. 2017;94(4):840–54 e7. Epub 2017/05/10. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2017.04.021 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5484087. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Nagai J, Yu X, Papouin T, Cheong E, Freeman MR, Monk KR, et al. Behaviorally consequential astrocytic regulation of neural circuits. Neuron. 2021;109(4):576–96. Epub 2021/01/02. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2020.12.008 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7897322. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Blanco-Suarez E, Liu TF, Kopelevich A, Allen NJ. Astrocyte-Secreted Chordin-like 1 Drives Synapse Maturation and Limits Plasticity by Increasing Synaptic GluA2 AMPA Receptors. Neuron. 2018;100(5):1116–32 e13. Epub 2018/10/23. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2018.09.043 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6382071. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Allen NJ, Bennett ML, Foo LC, Wang GX, Chakraborty C, Smith SJ, et al. Astrocyte glypicans 4 and 6 promote formation of excitatory synapses via GluA1 AMPA receptors. Nature. 2012;486(7403):410–4. Epub 2012/06/23. doi: 10.1038/nature11059 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3383085. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Stogsdill JA, Ramirez J, Liu D, Kim YH, Baldwin KT, Enustun E, et al. Astrocytic neuroligins control astrocyte morphogenesis and synaptogenesis. Nature. 2017;551(7679):192–7. Epub 2017/11/10. doi: 10.1038/nature24638 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5796651. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Vainchtein ID, Chin G, Cho FS, Kelley KW, Miller JG, Chien EC, et al. Astrocyte-derived interleukin-33 promotes microglial synapse engulfment and neural circuit development. Science. 2018;359(6381):1269–73. Epub 2018/02/09. doi: 10.1126/science.aal3589 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6070131. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Yu X, Taylor AMW, Nagai J, Golshani P, Evans CJ, Coppola G, et al. Reducing Astrocyte Calcium Signaling In Vivo Alters Striatal Microcircuits and Causes Repetitive Behavior. Neuron. 2018;99(6):1170–87 e9. Epub 2018/09/04. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2018.08.015 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6450394. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Anderson MA, Burda JE, Ren Y, Ao Y, O’Shea TM, Kawaguchi R, et al. Astrocyte scar formation aids central nervous system axon regeneration. Nature. 2016;532(7598):195–200. Epub 2016/03/31. doi: 10.1038/nature17623 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5243141. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Ma Z, Stork T, Bergles DE, Freeman MR. Neuromodulators signal through astrocytes to alter neural circuit activity and behaviour. Nature. 2016;539(7629):428–32. Epub 2016/11/10. doi: 10.1038/nature20145 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5161596. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Lee JH, Kim JY, Noh S, Lee H, Lee SY, Mun JY, et al. Astrocytes phagocytose adult hippocampal synapses for circuit homeostasis. Nature. 2021;590(7847):612–7. Epub 2020/12/29. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-03060-3 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Young KM, Psachoulia K, Tripathi RB, Dunn SJ, Cossell L, Attwell D, et al. Oligodendrocyte dynamics in the healthy adult CNS: evidence for myelin remodeling. Neuron. 2013;77(5):873–85. Epub 2013/03/12. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2013.01.006 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3842597. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Bergles DE, Richardson WD. Oligodendrocyte Development and Plasticity. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2015;8(2):a020453. Epub 2015/10/23. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a020453 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4743079. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Hill RA, Patel KD, Goncalves CM, Grutzendler J, Nishiyama A. Modulation of oligodendrocyte generation during a critical temporal window after NG2 cell division. Nat Neurosci. 2014;17(11):1518–27. Epub 2014/09/30. doi: 10.1038/nn.3815 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4275302. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Kang SH, Fukaya M, Yang JK, Rothstein JD, Bergles DE. NG2+ CNS glial progenitors remain committed to the oligodendrocyte lineage in postnatal life and following neurodegeneration. Neuron. 2010;68(4):668–81. Epub 2010/11/26. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.09.009 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2989827. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Nimmerjahn A, Kirchhoff F, Helmchen F. Resting microglial cells are highly dynamic surveillants of brain parenchyma in vivo. Science. 2005;308(5726):1314–8. Epub 2005/04/16. doi: 10.1126/science.1110647 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Paolicelli RC, Bolasco G, Pagani F, Maggi L, Scianni M, Panzanelli P, et al. Synaptic pruning by microglia is necessary for normal brain development. Science. 2011;333(6048):1456–8. Epub 2011/07/23. doi: 10.1126/science.1202529 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Schafer DP, Lehrman EK, Kautzman AG, Koyama R, Mardinly AR, Yamasaki R, et al. Microglia sculpt postnatal neural circuits in an activity and complement-dependent manner. Neuron. 2012;74(4):691–705. Epub 2012/05/29. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.03.026 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3528177. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Badimon A, Strasburger HJ, Ayata P, Chen X, Nair A, Ikegami A, et al. Negative feedback control of neuronal activity by microglia. Nature. 2020;586(7829):417–23. Epub 2020/10/02. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2777-8 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7577179. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Squarzoni P, Oller G, Hoeffel G, Pont-Lezica L, Rostaing P, Low D, et al. Microglia modulate wiring of the embryonic forebrain. Cell Rep. 2014;8(5):1271–9. Epub 2014/08/28. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2014.07.042 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Block CL, Eroglu O, Mague SD, Smith CJ, Ceasrine AM, Sriworarat C, et al. Prenatal environmental stressors impair postnatal microglia function and adult behavior in males. Cell Rep. 2022;40(5):111161. Epub 2022/08/05. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2022.111161 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Cardona AE, Pioro EP, Sasse ME, Kostenko V, Cardona SM, Dijkstra IM, et al. Control of microglial neurotoxicity by the fractalkine receptor. Nat Neurosci. 2006;9(7):917–24. Epub 2006/05/30. doi: 10.1038/nn1715 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Krasemann S, Madore C, Cialic R, Baufeld C, Calcagno N, El Fatimy R, et al. The TREM2-APOE Pathway Drives the Transcriptional Phenotype of Dysfunctional Microglia in Neurodegenerative Diseases. Immunity. 2017;47(3):566–81 e9. Epub 2017/09/21. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2017.08.008 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5719893. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Ulland TK, Song WM, Huang SC, Ulrich JD, Sergushichev A, Beatty WL, et al. TREM2 Maintains Microglial Metabolic Fitness in Alzheimer’s Disease. Cell. 2017;170(4):649–63 e13. Epub 2017/08/13. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.07.023 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5573224. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Gunner G, Cheadle L, Johnson KM, Ayata P, Badimon A, Mondo E, et al. Sensory lesioning induces microglial synapse elimination via ADAM10 and fractalkine signaling. Nat Neurosci. 2019;22(7):1075–88. Epub 2019/06/19. doi: 10.1038/s41593-019-0419-y ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6596419. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Lee Y, Morrison BM, Li Y, Lengacher S, Farah MH, Hoffman PN, et al. Oligodendroglia metabolically support axons and contribute to neurodegeneration. Nature. 2012;487(7408):443–8. Epub 2012/07/18. doi: 10.1038/nature11314 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3408792. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Nave KA, Werner HB. Myelination of the nervous system: mechanisms and functions. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2014;30:503–33. Epub 2014/10/08. doi: 10.1146/annurev-cellbio-100913-013101 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Funfschilling U, Supplie LM, Mahad D, Boretius S, Saab AS, Edgar J, et al. Glycolytic oligodendrocytes maintain myelin and long-term axonal integrity. Nature. 2012;485(7399):517–21. Epub 2012/05/25. doi: 10.1038/nature11007 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3613737. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Larson VA, Mironova Y, Vanderpool KG, Waisman A, Rash JE, Agarwal A, et al. Oligodendrocytes control potassium accumulation in white matter and seizure susceptibility. Elife. 2018;7. Epub 2018/03/30. doi: 10.7554/eLife.34829 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5903864. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Mukherjee C, Kling T, Russo B, Miebach K, Kess E, Schifferer M, et al. Oligodendrocytes Provide Antioxidant Defense Function for Neurons by Secreting Ferritin Heavy Chain. Cell Metab. 2020;32(2):259–72 e10. Epub 2020/06/13. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2020.05.019 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7116799. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Saab AS, Tzvetavona ID, Trevisiol A, Baltan S, Dibaj P, Kusch K, et al. Oligodendroglial NMDA Receptors Regulate Glucose Import and Axonal Energy Metabolism. Neuron. 2016;91(1):119–32. Epub 2016/06/14. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2016.05.016 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC9084537. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Schirmer L, Mobius W, Zhao C, Cruz-Herranz A, Ben Haim L, Cordano C, et al. Oligodendrocyte-encoded Kir4.1 function is required for axonal integrity. Elife. 2018;7. Epub 2018/09/12. doi: 10.7554/eLife.36428 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6167053. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Simons M, Nave KA. Oligodendrocytes: Myelination and Axonal Support. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2015;8(1):a020479. Epub 2015/06/24. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a020479 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4691794. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Gibson EM, Purger D, Mount CW, Goldstein AK, Lin GL, Wood LS, et al. Neuronal activity promotes oligodendrogenesis and adaptive myelination in the mammalian brain. Science. 2014;344(6183):1252304. Epub 2014/04/15. doi: 10.1126/science.1252304 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4096908. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Gonzalez H, Elgueta D, Montoya A, Pacheco R. Neuroimmune regulation of microglial activity involved in neuroinflammation and neurodegenerative diseases. J Neuroimmunol. 2014;274(1–2):1–13. Epub 2014/08/06. doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroim.2014.07.012 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Bernaus A, Blanco S, Sevilla A. Glia Crosstalk in Neuroinflammatory Diseases. Front Cell Neurosci. 2020;14:209. Epub 2020/08/28. doi: 10.3389/fncel.2020.00209 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7403442. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.van Langelaar J, Rijvers L, Smolders J, van Luijn MM. B and T Cells Driving Multiple Sclerosis: Identity, Mechanisms and Potential Triggers. Front Immunol. 2020;11:760. Epub 2020/05/28. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.00760 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7225320. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Stromnes IM, Goverman JM. Passive induction of experimental allergic encephalomyelitis. Nat Protoc. 2006;1(4):1952–60. Epub 2007/05/10. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2006.284 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Iadecola C, Anrather J. The immunology of stroke: from mechanisms to translation. Nat Med. 2011;17(7):796–808. Epub 2011/07/09. doi: 10.1038/nm.2399 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3137275. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Ratnam NM, Gilbert MR, Giles AJ. Immunotherapy in CNS cancers: the role of immune cell trafficking. Neuro Oncol. 2019;21(1):37–46. Epub 2018/05/18. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noy084 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6303437. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Zenaro E, Pietronigro E, Della Bianca V, Piacentino G, Marongiu L, Budui S, et al. Neutrophils promote Alzheimer’s disease-like pathology and cognitive decline via LFA-1 integrin. Nat Med. 2015;21(8):880–6. Epub 2015/07/28. doi: 10.1038/nm.3913 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Tansey MG, Wallings RL, Houser MC, Herrick MK, Keating CE, Joers V. Inflammation and immune dysfunction in Parkinson disease. Nat Rev Immunol. 2022;22(11):657–73. Epub 2022/03/06. doi: 10.1038/s41577-022-00684-6 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8895080. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Oettinger MA, Schatz DG, Gorka C, Baltimore D. RAG-1 and RAG-2, adjacent genes that synergistically activate V(D)J recombination. Science. 1990;248(4962):1517–23. Epub 1990/06/22. doi: 10.1126/science.2360047 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Shinkai Y, Rathbun G, Lam KP, Oltz EM, Stewart V, Mendelsohn M, et al. RAG-2-deficient mice lack mature lymphocytes owing to inability to initiate V(D)J rearrangement. Cell. 1992;68(5):855–67. Epub 1992/03/06. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(92)90029-c . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Clark SM, Soroka JA, Song C, Li X, Tonelli LH. CD4(+) T cells confer anxiolytic and antidepressant-like effects, but enhance fear memory processes in Rag2(-/-) mice. Stress. 2016;19(3):303–11. Epub 2016/06/15. doi: 10.1080/10253890.2016.1191466 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4960826. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Clark SM, Vaughn CN, Soroka JA, Li X, Tonelli LH. Neonatal adoptive transfer of lymphocytes rescues social behaviour during adolescence in immune-deficient mice. Eur J Neurosci. 2018;47(8):968–78. Epub 2018/02/13. doi: 10.1111/ejn.13860 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5902418. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Larocque D, Pilotte J, Chen T, Cloutier F, Massie B, Pedraza L, et al. Nuclear retention of MBP mRNAs in the quaking viable mice. Neuron. 2002;36(5):815–29. Epub 2002/12/07. doi: 10.1016/s0896-6273(02)01055-3 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Pasciuto E, Burton OT, Roca CP, Lagou V, Rajan WD, Theys T, et al. Microglia Require CD4 T Cells to Complete the Fetal-to-Adult Transition. Cell. 2020;182(3):625–40 e24. Epub 2020/07/24. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.06.026 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Zhang Y, Chen K, Sloan SA, Bennett ML, Scholze AR, O’Keeffe S, et al. An RNA-sequencing transcriptome and splicing database of glia, neurons, and vascular cells of the cerebral cortex. J Neurosci. 2014;34(36):11929–47. Epub 2014/09/05. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1860-14.2014 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4152602. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Zhang Y, Sloan SA, Clarke LE, Caneda C, Plaza CA, Blumenthal PD, et al. Purification and Characterization of Progenitor and Mature Human Astrocytes Reveals Transcriptional and Functional Differences with Mouse. Neuron. 2016;89(1):37–53. Epub 2015/12/22. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2015.11.013 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4707064. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Dobin A, Davis CA, Schlesinger F, Drenkow J, Zaleski C, Jha S, et al. STAR: ultrafast universal RNA-seq aligner. Bioinformatics. 2013;29(1):15–21. Epub 2012/10/30. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts635 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3530905. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Anders S, Pyl PT, Huber W. HTSeq—a Python framework to work with high-throughput sequencing data. Bioinformatics. 2015;31(2):166–9. Epub 2014/09/28. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu638 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4287950. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Love MI, Huber W, Anders S. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biol. 2014;15(12):550. Epub 2014/12/18. doi: 10.1186/s13059-014-0550-8 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4302049. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Szklarczyk D, Gable AL, Nastou KC, Lyon D, Kirsch R, Pyysalo S, et al. The STRING database in 2021: customizable protein-protein networks, and functional characterization of user-uploaded gene/measurement sets. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021;49(D1):D605–D12. Epub 2020/11/26. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkaa1074 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7779004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Mootha VK, Lindgren CM, Eriksson KF, Subramanian A, Sihag S, Lehar J, et al. PGC-1alpha-responsive genes involved in oxidative phosphorylation are coordinately downregulated in human diabetes. Nat Genet. 2003;34(3):267–73. Epub 2003/06/17. doi: 10.1038/ng1180 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Subramanian A, Tamayo P, Mootha VK, Mukherjee S, Ebert BL, Gillette MA, et al. Gene set enrichment analysis: a knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102(43):15545–50. Epub 2005/10/04. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0506580102 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1239896. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Madsen L, Labrecque N, Engberg J, Dierich A, Svejgaard A, Benoist C, et al. Mice lacking all conventional MHC class II genes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999;96(18):10338–43. Epub 1999/09/01. doi: 10.1073/pnas.96.18.10338 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC17889. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Schneider CA, Rasband WS, Eliceiri KW. NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat Methods. 2012;9(7):671–5. Epub 2012/08/30. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2089 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5554542. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Clements CS, Reid HH, Beddoe T, Tynan FE, Perugini MA, Johns TG, et al. The crystal structure of myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein, a key autoantigen in multiple sclerosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100(19):11059–64. Epub 2003/09/10. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1833158100 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC196926. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Lv SY, Zhou YC, Zhang XM, Chen WD, Wang YD. Emerging Roles of NPQ/Spexin in Physiology and Pathology. Front Pharmacol. 2019;10:457. Epub 2019/05/28. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2019.00457 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6514225. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Munoz JJ, Anauate AC, Amaral AG, Ferreira FM, Watanabe EH, Meca R, et al. Ppia is the most stable housekeeping gene for qRT-PCR normalization in kidneys of three Pkd1-deficient mouse models. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):19798. Epub 2021/10/07. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-99366-x ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8492864. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Bin JM, Harris SN, Kennedy TE. The oligodendrocyte-specific antibody ’CC1’ binds Quaking 7. J Neurochem. 2016;139(2):181–6. Epub 2016/07/28. doi: 10.1111/jnc.13745 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Krawczyk MC, Haney JR, Pan L, Caneda C, Khankan RR, Reyes SD, et al. Human Astrocytes Exhibit Tumor Microenvironment-, Age-, and Sex-Related Transcriptomic Signatures. J Neurosci. 2022;42(8):1587–603. Epub 2022/01/07. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0407-21.2021 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8883850. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Radjavi A, Smirnov I, Kipnis J. Brain antigen-reactive CD4+ T cells are sufficient to support learning behavior in mice with limited T cell repertoire. Brain Behav Immun. 2014;35:58–63. Epub 2013/09/10. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2013.08.013 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3858511. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Stella E Tsirka

3 Oct 2022

PONE-D-22-23915Lymphocyte deficiency alters the transcriptomes of oligodendrocytes, but not astrocytes or microgliaPLOS 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.

As you can see from both reviewers' comments, there are concerns about the statistics and analysis of the results, and the relationship between the Rag2 and MHCII KOs, and importantly the lack of description of the most significant changes mentioned in the manuscript, regarding the oligodendrocytes.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 17 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,

Stella E. Tsirka

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. 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.

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

"I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: Ye Zhang consulted for Ono Pharmaceutical."

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: ""This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. 

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 

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

"This work is supported by the Achievement Rewards for College Scientists Foundation Los Angeles Founder Chapter and the National Institute of Mental Health of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Award T32MH073526 to M.C.K, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke of the National Institute of Health (NIH) R00NS089780, R01NS109025, the National Institute of Aging of the NIH R03AG065772, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development P50HD103557, National Center for Advancing Translational Science UCLA CTSI Grant UL1TR001881, the W. M. Keck Foundation Junior Faculty Award, UCLA Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research (BSCRC) Innovation Award, the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center and BSCRC Ablon Scholars Program, and the Friends of the Semel Institute for Neuroscience & Human Behavior Friends Scholar Award to Y. Z"

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

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

"This work is supported by the Achievement Rewards for College Scientists Foundation Los Angeles Founder Chapter and the National Institute of Mental Health of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Award T32MH073526 to M.C.K, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke of the National Institute of Health (NIH) R00NS089780, R01NS109025, the National Institute of Aging of the NIH R03AG065772, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development P50HD103557, National Center for Advancing Translational Science UCLA CTSI Grant UL1TR001881, the W. M. Keck Foundation Junior Faculty Award, UCLA Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research (BSCRC) Innovation Award, the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center and BSCRC Ablon Scholars Program, and the Friends of the Semel Institute for Neuroscience & Human Behavior Friends Scholar Award to Y. Z. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

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

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: The authors set out to investigate whether in the healthy brain, lymphocytes play a role in the transcriptomic phenotype of glial cells. The study has solid foundation in the idea that adaptive immune changes correlate with changes to glial cells in various disease states. To answer the question the authors use lymphocyte (Rag2-/-) deficient mice in naïve states as well as control mice and conduct RNA sequencing on acutely purified microglia, astrocytes, OPCs, and oligodendrocytes. The sequencing reveals that once lymphocytes are eliminated there are no transcriptomic differences in glia except for modest differences seen in the oligodendrocytes, though gross morphology of WM remains the same. Although there is space and need for a publication of this kind, as it stands the publication is lacking clarity as to the overall impact of the findings and the authors must expand on the topic.

Reviewer #2: In this study, the authors sought to investigate whether lymphocytes are regulating the molecular phenotypes of glial cells (OPCs, oligodendrocytes, microglia, and astrocytes) in the healthy brain. They used a Rag2-/- mouse model (which results to the loss of all mature lymphocytes, including CD4+ T cells, CD8+ T cells, and B cells) to characterize the molecular phenotype of glial cells through RNA sequencing. The authors reported no changes in the molecular signatures of the majority of the glial cells, with the exception of oligodendrocytes. Considering the emerging interest on neuroimmune interactions (either innate or adaptive immune system) and the critical role they have upon the brain homeostasis and behavior, this study will help to further delve into potential connections between lymphocytes and glial cells in the CNS.

However, there are some major concerns as well as minor suggestions about the study:

1. The authors in the introduction section (and specifically lines 44-52) focus on studies related to meningeal lymphocyte roles in the brain. It is understandable that they should be distinguished from the peripherally recruited lymphocytes, however there is no other reference of the meningeal lymphocytes again in the manuscript and no distinction of them in the experiments they performed. Is there a specific reason the authors are underscoring this lymphocytic population? If not, then I would recommend using this space for the following suggestions (see end of comment 1).

Moreover, in the next paragraph (lines 56-72), the authors provide a general background about functions of glial cells in health and disease. I agree that it is important to introduce the glial cells, since it is an important aspect of this study, however It should not be narrated as a glial section from a review paper. My recommendation would be to focus on the neuroimmune interactions and the effects they have on glial cells and brain homeostasis, and importantly provide more information about the roles of lymphocytes in CNS health and disease-since this is the central scope of the paper (should be significantly expanded more than just the 81-83 lines). Along the same lines the authors should provide more information about the Rag2-/- animal model in the introductory section, and specifically discuss previous findings regarding the cellular, molecular and behavioral mechanisms shown in the literature (i.e. refs 61-62). The reader should be able to understand the current gap in knowledge and how this paper seeks to contribute on that.

2. The authors mention in lines 92-94: «Overall, we find little evidence that lymphocytes influence CNS function by majorly contributing to the cellular states of glial cell types in the healthy brain». I find this inaccurate for 3 reasons: i) this study focuses only in tissue isolated from cerebral cortex (excluding the remaining brain areas), ii) the RNA sequencing analysis portrays molecular signatures and not cellular states of glial cells, and iii) the molecular changes found in the oligodendrocyte populations should have been further characterized to be able to conclude on that (as later will be discussed).

3. In the materials & methods section (line 116), the anti-CD45 also targets a small population of resident macrophages (~1-3%). This should be depicted in the manuscript.

4. With regard to Figure 1 data the authors:

- Have not included information regarding either in figure legend or in the methods what z-score depicts and based on which control group the heatmap scale was made (increase or reduction of TPM compared to what control).

- I would recommend including more marker genes (at least 4 more classic markers) for each glial cluster.

- I would recommend the authors to provide a dot-plot analysis displaying the average expression levels (Change to avg. exp. scale), as well as the percentage of cells within each cell cluster expressing each marker gene (% Expression), split in groups of Rag2-/- vs Rag2+/+ mice. This information is needed to grasp the molecular signature of each group as well as whether the % of cells expressing the markers changes.

5. As in Figure 1, in Figure 2 more information about the volcano-plots should be included in the figure legend and the material & methods section.

6. The authors demonstrate an important finding depicting that lymphocyte deficiency dramatically affects the oligodendrocyte transcriptome. However, instead of focusing on this novel finding and try to strengthen their hypothesis with supplementary experiments, they only use one and a half panel [2A (Oligodendrocytes) and 2B] and they conclude in lines 244-245 that: «Despite the change in gene expression, gross patterns of myelin appear unchanged in Rag2-/- mice based on immunofluorescence of myelin basic protein (Fig 2B)».

Therefore, there are some major points that the authors should improve for this section:

i) Perform RNA expression analysis (i.e. RT-qPCR) to validate some things that showed up in their RNA sequencing analysis.

ii) Then the next step would be to check protein expression (i.e. immunoblot analysis of some classic myelin or generally mature oligodendrocyte markers).

iii) The authors provide 2 representative immunofluorescent staining for MBP, which brings up several issues:

- There are no graphs or statistics to support their claims

- These images actually depict a decrease in Rag2-/- mice

- But even if the representative images are wrongly selected, there is no information which area of the cortex is this. The white matter can be dramatically different depending on the area and the bregma coordinates these sections are from.

- The reader should be able to appreciate a larger cortical area (use lower magnification image and include insets with higher magnification)

- I would strongly recommend quantification, if there has not been performed already, which should be normalized per area (or use integrated analysis).

7. As mentioned in comment 6, the authors decided to not follow the innovative results they had from the RNA sequencing (Figs 1 and 2), but instead they used the whole Figure 3 to compare their findings on microglia with the previous publication of Pasciuto et al., Cell (2020). In my opinion the purpose and the flow of experiments in a study should not be determined by another study but on the hypothesis the authors have. On many occasions (lines 254-259) in the results section the authors compared their results with the previous study (it is more usual to do so in the discussion section), feeling as the sole purpose of this study was to prove the Pasciuto publication wrong. I would have been a lot more supportive on the narrative that the authors decided to take in Figure 3, if there was conclusive data of no effects of Lymphocytes upon the Oligodendrocytes (and as a consequence the authors sought investigate the microglia in more depth). However, the authors performed only a superficial characterization of Oligodendrocytes, and therefore decided to neglect the novel findings of their RNAseq study, making hard to follow the exact hypothesis of the study.

8. Regarding Figure 3, as previously mentioned in comment 6, the authors should also include either in the figure legend or the materials section, the following information:

- How the quantification of RNAscope analysis was performed.

- Which area of the cortex was analyzed

- It should also be depicted on the y axis of the graphs that the mean fluorescent intensity was normalized to the area.

9. The authors in the first sentence of the discussion (lines 313-314): In this study, we find that microglia in adult Rag2-/- mice under homeostatic conditions are indistinguishable from microglia in immunocompetent mice. However, apart from the RNA sequencing data and the RNA expression of Tmem119 and C1qa, there is no other support for the “indistinguishable” phenotype the authors claim. I would recommend characterization of supplementary microglial markers not only on a RNA level (some classic markers for RT-qPCR: P2RY12, PTPRC, CX3CR1, CTSS, LPAR6, CD68, ARHGAP24, ITGAM, AIF1), but most importantly for protein expression experiments. In my point of view, what the authors depict on this study is that there is only an indication of no substantial molecular signature differences in microglia during lymphocyte deficiency, which remains to be further examined with the aforementioned experiments (especially when comparing these results with the Pasciuto et al. publication, which has dedicated a large palette of experimental approaches to conclude to their findings).

10. Furthermore, in Fig.3a-b based on the RNAscope in situ hybridization in Rag2-/- and Rag2+/+ brains, the authors conclude that the maturation of microglia is unaffected by the lymphocyte deficiency. However, again this cannot be concluded just by fluorescent quantification of just three RNA expression markers, and no protein analysis. I would at least request the authors to utilize their RNAseq expression dataset to complement these findings with a comparative transcriptional analysis using a wide range of microglial maturation genes from Rag2-/- vs the Rag2+/+ mice, in order to get a general score.

11. Of importance, a clarification is required for the Fig.3c. The authors took all the differentially expressed genes in microglia from the MHCII-knockout mice from the Pasciuto study and performed gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) using their RNA-seq data. Based on that the authors found that the up- and down-regulated genes identified in this study did not show global enrichment in this dataset. The question is, was the whole cluster of microglia used for this GSEA analysis or just the microglial subcluster 3 that is mentioned in the Pasciuto study?

12. In the discussion the authors suggest possible explanations of the different results shown on this study compared to the Pasciuto et al., publication. To this end, it would be important to further describe the differences between the Rag2 KO mice and the MHCII KO used on the other study. This way the reader would be able to appreciate the findings of this study and the deviations between the studies.

13. The authors should include a statistics section in the methods. Also, summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: A.G. Kokkosis

**********

[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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviews.docx

PLoS One. 2023 Feb 24;18(2):e0279736. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279736.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


21 Nov 2022

Response to Review:

We would like to express our gratitude for the fair, thoughtful, and critical feedback from the reviewers that greatly improved our manuscript. After carefully reading their comments, we made the following changes to our manuscript. First, we will highlight the major new findings, followed by a point-by-point response to each review.

Major Revisions

1. We found a protein level change in Rag2-/- oligodendrocytes, which coincides with the transcriptomic differences we find in this cell class. Oligodendrocyte marker CC1 is detected in oligodendrocyte soma as well as processes in wildtype mice, but they are restricted to the soma in Rag2-/- mice. CC1 labels the RNA-binding protein Quaking[1], which regulates the transport of transcripts for the key myelination gene MBP. Page 13-14, Fig 2B.

2. We deepened our characterization of Rag2-/- microglia with immunostaining of microglial proteins P2ry12, Iba1, and Cd68 as well as a new analysis of microglial marker expression in our transcriptomic dataset. Along with our in situ hybridization results, we find no changes in Rag2-/- microglia on the RNA or protein levels. Page 15, Fig S4.

Reviewer #1:

The authors set out to investigate whether in the healthy brain, lymphocytes play a role in the transcriptomic phenotype of glial cells. The study has solid foundation in the idea that adaptive immune changes correlate with changes to glial cells in various disease states. To answer the question the authors use lymphocyte (Rag2-/-) deficient mice in naïve states as well as control mice and conduct RNA sequencing on acutely purified microglia, astrocytes, OPCs, and oligodendrocytes. The sequencing reveals that once lymphocytes are eliminated there are no transcriptomic differences in glia except for modest differences seen in the oligodendrocytes, though gross morphology of WM remains the same. Although there is space and need for a publication of this kind, as it stands the publication is lacking clarity as to the overall impact of the findings and the authors must expand on the topic.

We thank the reviewer for acknowledging the need for a publication to address the impact of lymphocyte deficiency on glia. To clarify the impact of our findings, tandem with input from Reviewer 2, we took several steps to focus our narrative. First, we included a new finding: localization of the RNA-binding protein Quaking changes in oligodendrocytes, which provides a concrete launching point for further mechanistic study (Pg 13-14, Fig 2B). Second, we included new data that identifies sex-associated differences in gene expression in all four glial cell classes we examined in this study (Pg 15, S3 File). Third, we added context to our study by including a new paragraph in the introduction to demonstrate the widely studied roles of lymphocytes in neurological disease, which stands in contrast to the little that is known about their roles in homeostatic brain function (Pg 4). We also expand our description of lymphocytic impacts on behavior in the introduction to demonstrate the need to identify the molecular mechanisms underlying these changes (Pg 5).

Synopsis: The authors set out to investigate whether in the healthy brain, lymphocytes play a role in the transcriptomic phenotype of glial cells. The study has solid foundation in the idea that adaptive immune changes correlate with changes to glial cells in various disease states. To answer the question the authors use lymphocyte (Rag2-/-) deficient mice in naïve states as well as control mice and conduct RNA sequencing on acutely purified microglia, astrocytes, OPCs, and oligodendrocytes. The sequencing reveals that once lymphocytes are eliminated there are no transcriptomic differences in glia except for modest differences seen in the oligodendrocytes, though gross morphology of WM remains the same. Although there is space and need for a publication of this kind, as it stands the publication is lacking clarity as to the overall impact of the findings and the authors must expand on the topic (see below).

• Given there were no differences or very slight differences found (in the case of the OLs) all analysis possibilities should be exhausted.

We thank the reviewer for encouraging us to further expand upon our original data. We performed gene ontology term enrichment analysis, protein-protein interaction network analysis, and Gene Set Enrichment Analysis of our oligodendrocyte RNAseq data and did not identify enriched gene ontology terms. On the other hand, as mentioned above, we have now identified a protein-level difference in Rag2-/- oligodendrocytes that could have repercussions for RNA transport of genes that encode key myelin proteins (Pg 13-14, Fig 2B) [2, 3]. Per the reviewer’s next suggestion, we also leveraged our existing sequencing data to identify sex-associated gene expression in all four glial cell types (Pg 15, S3 File).

• Authors provide numbers of mice in each group but not specific numbers of male and female mice used. Was the transcriptomic data striated by sex? Did this elucidate any differences?

We thank the author for this actionable suggestion for generating new findings from our existing data. We now include differential gene expression analysis that identifies small to modest amounts of sex-associated gene expression in all four cell types (Page 15, S3 File). We found an unusually long list of sex-associated genes among oligodendrocytes, whose sexual dimorphism is not widely recognized at the transcriptomic level.

• Further, the immunopanning for oligodendroglia is conducted using two antibodies for OPCs and one for Mature OLs. Although O4 classically marks “OPCs”, it more specifically marks the stage of the lineage from committed OPCs to pre-myelinating OLs. Have the Authors tried separating the O4 and PDGFRα panned cells? Did this make a difference transcriptomically?

We agree with the reviewer that there are important differences in selecting OPCs using PDGFRα vs. O4. We only collected OPC RNA from PDGFRα panned cells to avoid any contamination from immature oligodendrocytes. O4 plates were only used to further deplete OPCs and immature oligodendrocytes before collecting other cell types. We added language to the Methods and Results section to make our study design more explicit (Pg 6, 12).

• Figure 2A: Could the authors run a PCA on the data to get an overall view of gene expression changes between groups?

We thank the reviewer for their suggestion to include more information for the reader. We have now included PCA plots for all four cell types in the supplemental materials (S5 Figure). However, we do not see obvious grouping by genotype when we plot the first two PCs of each cell type.

• Figure 2B: where were the images taken (more specifically)? Bregma? Were other myelin-rich regions checked? Can the authors include a quantification?

We thank the reviewer for suggesting a more thorough examination of MBP in the Rag2 model. We now include quantification of MBP immunostaining in three white matter rich regions (corpus callosum, anterior commissure, and striatum) (Pg 14, Fig 3A). In response to comments from Reviewer 2, we also performed further quantification of MBP and another myelin protein, PLP, using western blots (Pg 14, Fig 3B). Across all these analyses, we continue to find no differences between Rag2-/- and control mice. We clarified the location where the images were taken, including distance to Bregma (Line 224).

• Lines 248-259: Microglial “maturation” occurs during developing stages when primitive macrophages progenitors migrate to the developing neural tube and become microglia. From that point on microglia clonally expand in response to insult or injury. The use of “maturation” when referring to microglia makes little sense, it must be clarified.

We thank the reviewer for their suggestion. We agree that the vast majority of microglial maturation occurs in earlier embryonic stages though changes in microglial gene signatures can still be observed after birth. The language of “maturation” was borrowed from the dataset we used to compare MHCII-/- microglia[4]. To avoid confusion, we have eliminated all references to microglia “maturation”, and we simply refer to the “gene signature” of the MHCII-/- microglia.

• Figure 3A: if the authors had already shown no difference between RAG negative and positive mice in the RNA seq of microglia, there is little need for the RNA scope to be included as a main figure.

We thank the reviewer for identifying an opportunity to focus our narrative by moving negative data into supplemental materials. We now include all comparisons of Rag2 microglia in a new supplemental figure, Figure S4.

• Lines 254-259: Microglia are antigen-presenting cells that express MHCII. The comparison between their Rag2 negative and a lymphocyte-deficient MHCII KO model (Pasciuto) seems weird as one would affect microglia and the other wouldn’t. Please explain rationale.

We agree with the reviewer that the use of an MHCII KO could directly impact microglia. We edited the text to clarify the rationale of comparing our results with a previous report (Pg 17). Previously, Pasciuto et al. published a paper concluding that microglia require lymphocytes to complete fetal-to-adult transition (maturation) using MHCII KO mice[4]. Here, we wanted to assess whether our results are consistent with the previously published statement that microglia require lymphocytes to mature. We found that microglia development is normal in the absence of all lymphocytes. The differences between our findings and previous reports could be caused by a direct role of MHC II in microglia development or the differences in the complement of immune cells between Rag2 and MHCII models. We have amended the Discussion to include these important points (Pg 20).

• Lines 223-245: Were these upregulations confirmed via RNA scope or even immunofluorescence? Are these upregulations physiologically significant given gross myelin patterns appear normal? Please refer to comment on Figure 2B: can the authors provide further staining of myelinated regions w/ quantifications?

We thank the reviewer for raising the important point of validating our RNAseq findings in oligodendrocytes in order to determine the true biological relevance of these findings. After several attempts at qPCR validation, we were unable to get quantitative results (Cq values in the upper 30’s) due to low RNA concentrations in our immunopanning purified oligodendrocyte samples. Our RNAseq data was obtained using a kit specifically designed to amplify low concentrations of RNA (Nugen Ovation V2). Instead, we focused on pursuing protein-level differences in Rag2 mice, resulting in our finding that the RNA-binding protein Quaking is differently localized in Rag2-/- mice compared with controls. Quaking is known to bind MBP mRNA, which could have implications for myelination[2, 3]. As we described in the response to your previous point, we do not see evidence that the amount of myelin is changed in Rag2-/- mice.

• Lines 272-282: In the GSEA the authors are again comparing a model which involves knocking out a microglial protein (MHCII) to their model which leaves microglia intact. Please explain rationale.

We agree this is an important point to clarify. We have expanded our comparison of MHCII and Rag2 models in the Discussion, as we detail in our response to the reviewer’s previous comment above (Pg 20).

Reviewer #2: In this study, the authors sought to investigate whether lymphocytes are regulating the molecular phenotypes of glial cells (OPCs, oligodendrocytes, microglia, and astrocytes) in the healthy brain. They used a Rag2-/- mouse model (which results to the loss of all mature lymphocytes, including CD4+ T cells, CD8+ T cells, and B cells) to characterize the molecular phenotype of glial cells through RNA sequencing. The authors reported no changes in the molecular signatures of the majority of the glial cells, with the exception of oligodendrocytes. Considering the emerging interest on neuroimmune interactions (either innate or adaptive immune system) and the critical role they have upon the brain homeostasis and behavior, this study will help to further delve into potential connections between lymphocytes and glial cells in the CNS.

We thank the reviewer for acknowledging the impact of this study through its contribution to the rapidly growing interest in neuroimmune interactions.

However, there are some major concerns as well as minor suggestions about the study:

1. The authors in the introduction section (and specifically lines 44-52) focus on studies related to meningeal lymphocyte roles in the brain. It is understandable that they should be distinguished from the peripherally recruited lymphocytes, however there is no other reference of the meningeal lymphocytes again in the manuscript and no distinction of them in the experiments they performed. Is there a specific reason the authors are underscoring this lymphocytic population? If not, then I would recommend using this space for the following suggestions (see end of comment 1).

We thank the reviewer for identifying a point that required further clarification in our text. We raise the notion of lymphocytes that specifically populate the meninges because the existence of these specialized cells in proximity to the brain suggests that they may have significant interactions that impact brain function. This directly speaks to the importance of this study, namely to demonstrate the impact (or lack thereof) that peripheral lymphocytes exert on brain cells. We also include citations that describe a molecular mechanism whereby meningeal lymphocytes regulate behavior via neuronal signaling; our manuscript seeks to identify whether lymphocytes can exert influence on other brain cells, i.e. glia. We added text to the Introduction to reflect this reasoning (Pg 3). If the reviewer feels that introducing meningeal lymphocyte distract from the main message of the manuscript, we can remove these sentences.

Moreover, in the next paragraph (lines 56-72), the authors provide a general background about functions of glial cells in health and disease. I agree that it is important to introduce the glial cells, since it is an important aspect of this study, however It should not be narrated as a glial section from a review paper. My recommendation would be to focus on the neuroimmune interactions and the effects they have on glial cells and brain homeostasis, and importantly provide more information about the roles of lymphocytes in CNS health and disease-since this is the central scope of the paper (should be significantly expanded more than just the 81-83 lines).

We thank the reviewer for identifying another opportunity to sharpen the narrative of our manuscript. In the Introduction, we have reduced the general background on glia by eliminating background that specifically covers the functions of astrocytes and OPCs, as they are not the focus of this study. In addition, we include an entirely new paragraph that describes the involvement of lymphocytes in neurological disease, in order to demonstrate the extent to which these cells participate in brain function under pathological conditions (Pg 4). This stands in contrast to the paucity of understanding of lymphocytic roles during homeostasis, particularly regarding glia.

Along the same lines the authors should provide more information about the Rag2-/- animal model in the introductory section, and specifically discuss previous findings regarding the cellular, molecular and behavioral mechanisms shown in the literature (i.e. refs 61-62). The reader should be able to understand the current gap in knowledge and how this paper seeks to contribute on that.

We significantly expanded the description of these previous studies in the Introduction to more concretely illustrate the regulation of lymphocytes on animal behavior (Pg 5).

2. The authors mention in lines 92-94: «Overall, we find little evidence that lymphocytes influence CNS function by majorly contributing to the cellular states of glial cell types in the healthy brain». I find this inaccurate for 3 reasons: i) this study focuses only in tissue isolated from cerebral cortex (excluding the remaining brain areas),

ii) the RNA sequencing analysis portrays molecular signatures and not cellular states of glial cells, and iii) the molecular changes found in the oligodendrocyte populations should have been further characterized to be able to conclude on that (as later will be discussed).

We thank the reviewer for the insightful point and modified the sentence to be more accurate. Now it reads “Overall, we find little evidence that lymphocytes influence CNS function by majorly altering the transcriptome profiles of microglia, astrocytes, and OPCs in the healthy cortex” (Lines 115-117). As we will address in response to later points, we now include a protein-level difference that further validates the impact of lymphocytes on oligodendrocyte populations.

3. In the materials & methods section (line 116), the anti-CD45 also targets a small population of resident macrophages (~1-3%). This should be depicted in the manuscript.

We thank the reviewer for this important clarification. We have added this caveat to our Methods (Lines 145-146).

4. With regard to Figure 1 data the authors:

- Have not included information regarding either in figure legend or in the methods what z-score depicts and based on which control group the heatmap scale was made (increase or reduction of TPM compared to what control).

Z-scores were defined as (expression in the sample - the average expression across all samples)/standard deviation. This language has been added to the figure legend (Line 267).

- I would recommend including more marker genes (at least 4 more classic markers) for each glial cluster.

We have added 4 markers (7-8 markers total) for each cell type to the heatmap to better demonstrate the purity of our samples (Fig 1C). This did not change our conclusion that we obtained highly pure samples, with the exception of oligodendrocyte contamination in the astrocyte samples.

- I would recommend the authors to provide a dot-plot analysis displaying the average expression levels (Change to avg. exp. scale), as well as the percentage of cells within each cell cluster expressing each marker gene (% Expression), split in groups of Rag2-/- vs Rag2+/+ mice. This information is needed to grasp the molecular signature of each group as well as whether the % of cells expressing the markers changes.

This study utilizes bulk RNA sequencing, and we therefore do not have expression data from individual cells, which means we are unable to calculate the percent of cells expressing a given gene. What we plot in Figure 1 is the maximum level of granularity, as each sample only has one data point per gene.

5. As in Figure 1, in Figure 2 more information about the volcano-plots should be included in the figure legend and the material & methods section.

We have expanded the text describing volcano-plots used in Figure 2 (Line 296).

6. The authors demonstrate an important finding depicting that lymphocyte deficiency dramatically affects the oligodendrocyte transcriptome. However, instead of focusing on this novel finding and try to strengthen their hypothesis with supplementary experiments, they only use one and a half panel [2A (Oligodendrocytes) and 2B] and they conclude in lines 244-245 that: «Despite the change in gene expression, gross patterns of myelin appear unchanged in Rag2-/- mice based on immunofluorescence of myelin basic protein (Fig 2B)».

Therefore, there are some major points that the authors should improve for this section:

i) Perform RNA expression analysis (i.e. RT-qPCR) to validate some things that showed up in their RNA sequencing analysis.

We agree that further validation of RNAseq data is ideal. Unfortunately, our immunopanning purified oligodendrocyte RNA samples had concentrations too low to obtain reliable qPCR data when we attempted to validate several differentially expressed genes. Our RNAseq pipeline had been optimized for very low input through the use of a kit specifically designed for that purpose. In light of this, we refocused our energies on protein-level differences in Rag2-/- oligodendrocytes, and we found these cells alter the localization of the RNA-binding protein, Quaking (Pg 13-14, Fig 2B). Quaking protein isoform 7 is detected in the soma and processes of control oligodendrocytes but only in the soma of Rag2-/- oligodendrocytes. Quaking is known to bind the key myelin transcript MBP. This observation is the first report of a lymphocyte-dependent subcellular localization change of an oligodendrocyte protein, to the best of our knowledge.

ii) Then the next step would be to check protein expression (i.e. immunoblot analysis of some classic myelin or generally mature oligodendrocyte markers).

We thank the reviewer for this actionable suggestion. We performed western blots to measure the levels of two major myelin proteins, MBP and PLP (Fig 3B). As with our immunostaining, we did not find evidence that the protein level of these myelin markers differs in Rag2-/- mice.

iii) The authors provide 2 representative immunofluorescent staining for MBP, which brings up several issues:

- There are no graphs or statistics to support their claims

- These images actually depict a decrease in Rag2-/- mice

- But even if the representative images are wrongly selected, there is no information which area of the cortex is this. The white matter can be dramatically different depending on the area and the bregma coordinates these sections are from.

- The reader should be able to appreciate a larger cortical area (use lower magnification image and include insets with higher magnification)

- I would strongly recommend quantification, if there has not been performed already, which should be normalized per area (or use integrated analysis).

We now include quantification of MBP immunostaining and new representative images that demonstrate a more comprehensive view of the MBP signal (Fig 3A). We quantified MBP signal from three myelin-rich regions: corpus callosum, anterior commissure, and striatum. Consistent with our original observation and new western blot data, we do not detect any differences between Rag2-/- and control mice. Information on bregma is also included in the Methods (Line 224).

7. As mentioned in comment 6, the authors decided to not follow the innovative results they had from the RNA sequencing (Figs 1 and 2), but instead they used the whole Figure 3 to compare their findings on microglia with the previous publication of Pasciuto et al., Cell (2020). In my opinion the purpose and the flow of experiments in a study should not be determined by another study but on the hypothesis the authors have. On many occasions (lines 254-259) in the results section the authors compared their results with the previous study (it is more usual to do so in the discussion section), feeling as the sole purpose of this study was to prove the Pasciuto publication wrong. I would have been a lot more supportive on the narrative that the authors decided to take in Figure 3, if there was conclusive data of no effects of Lymphocytes upon the Oligodendrocytes (and as a consequence the authors sought investigate the microglia in more depth). However, the authors performed only a superficial characterization of Oligodendrocytes, and therefore decided to neglect the novel findings of their RNAseq study, making hard to follow the exact hypothesis of the study.

We thank the reviewer for identifying opportunities to focus the narrative of our study. As mentioned above, we expanded our analyses of oligodendrocyte proteins and identified an interesting subcellular localization difference in Quaking in Rag2-/- vs. control mice (Pg 13-14, Fig 2B) and no change in MBP or PLP proteins (Fig 3B). We edited the text to reemphasize our oligodendrocyte results and clarified the rationale for including the comparison with the Pasciuto publication (Pg 17). We have deemphasized our microglial results by moving nearly all negative data describing microglia in our study into a new supplemental figure (Figure S4), and we have expanded the Discussion to elaborate on a unifying hypothesis consistent with the results of both studies and points to future directions of exploration (Pg 20).

8. Regarding Figure 3, as previously mentioned in comment 6, the authors should also include either in the figure legend or the materials section, the following information:

- How the quantification of RNAscope analysis was performed.

- Which area of the cortex was analyzed

- It should also be depicted on the y axis of the graphs that the mean fluorescent intensity was normalized to the area.

We have added text to the Methods to better describe our RNAscope experiments, including specifying the regions examined (both upper and lower cortex in the motor and somatosensory regions, Lines 199-201). For clarification, we did not explicitly normalize the mean fluorescence intensity to the area, that is included by definition in “mean fluorescence”, as “mean” signifies that individual fluorescence values were averaged across all pixels, which are themselves a measure of area. We did separately quantify signal area, but that is an entirely different measurement; our fluorescence measure assessed the signal across the whole image, and our area measure assessed what proportion of the image showed fluorescence that passed a given threshold.

9. The authors in the first sentence of the discussion (lines 313-314): In this study, we find that microglia in adult Rag2-/- mice under homeostatic conditions are indistinguishable from microglia in immunocompetent mice. However, apart from the RNA sequencing data and the RNA expression of Tmem119 and C1qa, there is no other support for the “indistinguishable” phenotype the authors claim. I would recommend characterization of supplementary microglial markers not only on a RNA level (some classic markers for RT-qPCR: P2RY12, PTPRC, CX3CR1, CTSS, LPAR6, CD68, ARHGAP24, ITGAM, AIF1), but most importantly for protein expression experiments. In my point of view, what the authors depict on this study is that there is only an indication of no substantial molecular signature differences in microglia during lymphocyte deficiency, which remains to be further examined with the aforementioned experiments (especially when comparing these results with the Pasciuto et al. publication, which has dedicated a large palette of experimental approaches to conclude to their findings).

We performed a new analysis and a new experiment to more thoroughly examine microglia in Rag2-/- and control mice. First (and in reference to the reviewer’s next comment), we returned to our RNAseq data to extract the expression of a large panel of microglial genes and created a general score of microglial gene expression, which showed no differences between groups (Fig S4C). Second, we performed immunostaining of three highly expressed microglial proteins, Iba1, P2ry12, and Cd68. Once again, we saw no differences in the Rag2-/- mice compared with controls (Fig S4D). Together, we now show microglia do not change at the RNA level (in bulk sequencing or in situ) or the protein level, using a variety of microglial markers. We also edited the text to more accurately describe our findings. It now reads “we find that microglia in adult Rag2-/- mice under homeostatic conditions are indistinguishable from microglia in immunocompetent mice in their transcriptome profiles” (Line 457).

10. Furthermore, in Fig.3a-b based on the RNAscope in situ hybridization in Rag2-/- and Rag2+/+ brains, the authors conclude that the maturation of microglia is unaffected by the lymphocyte deficiency. However, again this cannot be concluded just by fluorescent quantification of just three RNA expression markers, and no protein analysis. I would at least request the authors to utilize their RNAseq expression dataset to complement these findings with a comparative transcriptional analysis using a wide range of microglial maturation genes from Rag2-/- vs the Rag2+/+ mice, in order to get a general score.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion to generate further insight from the data we have already collected. We created a panel of 12 genes highly expressed in microglia, then we converted the gene expression (TPM values) to z-scores, based on the mean expression across all samples (Fig S4C). Importantly, to avoid bias, we did not iteratively test various panels of genes; we compiled a single panel of genes that were highly expressed in microglia using an independent, previously published RNAseq of glia. We then created a single microglia expression score by taking the average z-score for each sample. In supplemental figure S4C, we show a heatmap depicting all genes for each sample. Reassuringly, we observe similar z-scores within each individual sample. When we plot our combined expression scores, we do not find differences between genotypes.

11. Of importance, a clarification is required for the Fig.3c. The authors took all the differentially expressed genes in microglia from the MHCII-knockout mice from the Pasciuto study and performed gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) using their RNA-seq data. Based on that the authors found that the up- and down-regulated genes identified in this study did not show global enrichment in this dataset. The question is, was the whole cluster of microglia used for this GSEA analysis or just the microglial subcluster 3 that is mentioned in the Pasciuto study?

We reference the Pasciuto analysis that compared all MHCII-/- microglia to all control microglia. We have added text to specify which comparison we are using in our analysis (Lines 180-181).

12. In the discussion the authors suggest possible explanations of the different results shown on this study compared to the Pasciuto et al., publication. To this end, it would be important to further describe the differences between the Rag2 KO mice and the MHCII KO used on the other study. This way the reader would be able to appreciate the findings of this study and the deviations between the studies.

We thank the reviewer for encouraging us to provide a more thorough explanation of this key point in order to fully demonstrate the importance of our study. We expanded this section of our Discussion describing these two models, and we go into greater detail on the conclusions we have drawn based on their distinct outcomes (Pg 20).

13. The authors should include a statistics section in the methods. Also, summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available.

We thank the reviewer for ensuring greater transparency in our dataset. We now include the group means and standard deviation for each experiment along with the exact p-value, either in the Results or the associated figure legend. We also add a statistics section to the Methods (Pg 11).

References

1. Bin JM, Harris SN, Kennedy TE. The oligodendrocyte-specific antibody 'CC1' binds Quaking 7. J Neurochem. 2016;139(2):181-6. Epub 2016/07/28. doi: 10.1111/jnc.13745. PubMed PMID: 27454326.

2. Larocque D, Pilotte J, Chen T, Cloutier F, Massie B, Pedraza L, et al. Nuclear retention of MBP mRNAs in the quaking viable mice. Neuron. 2002;36(5):815-29. Epub 2002/12/07. doi: 10.1016/s0896-6273(02)01055-3. PubMed PMID: 12467586.

3. Li Z, Zhang Y, Li D, Feng Y. Destabilization and mislocalization of myelin basic protein mRNAs in quaking dysmyelination lacking the QKI RNA-binding proteins. J Neurosci. 2000;20(13):4944-53. Epub 2000/06/24. PubMed PMID: 10864952; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC6772302.

4. Pasciuto E, Burton OT, Roca CP, Lagou V, Rajan WD, Theys T, et al. Microglia Require CD4 T Cells to Complete the Fetal-to-Adult Transition. Cell. 2020;182(3):625-40 e24. Epub 2020/07/24. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.06.026. PubMed PMID: 32702313.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_clean.docx

Decision Letter 1

Stella E Tsirka

14 Dec 2022

Lymphocyte deficiency alters the transcriptomes of oligodendrocytes, but not astrocytes or microglia

PONE-D-22-23915R1

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,

Stella E. Tsirka

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 adequately responded to all questions provided. The paper was scientifically sound to begin with, but required some clarifications in wording and a few extra experiments.

**********

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

Stella E Tsirka

15 Feb 2023

PONE-D-22-23915R1

Lymphocyte deficiency alters the transcriptomes of oligodendrocytes, but not astrocytes or microglia

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. Stella E. Tsirka

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Rag2 glia gene expression.

    Gene expression of glia (astrocytes, microglia, oligodendrocytes, and OPCs) from Rag2-/- mice and immunocompetent controls, quantified by transcripts per million (TPM).

    (XLSX)

    S2 File. Rag2 glia differential gene expression by genotype.

    Differential gene expression analysis results comparing glia (astrocytes, microglia, oligodendrocytes, and OPCs) from Rag2-/- mice and immunocompetent controls using DESeq2.

    (XLSX)

    S3 File. Rag2 glia differential gene expression by sex.

    Differential gene expression analysis results comparing glia (astrocytes, microglia, oligodendrocytes, and OPCs) from females vs. males.

    (XLSX)

    S1 Fig. Normal microglial markers at the RNA and protein levels.

    A) Example RNAscope images of microglial markers Tmem119 (green), C1qa (orange), and Junb (red) and composites including DAPI (blue) in the cerebral cortex. Top: Rag2+/+ immunocompetent; bottom: Rag2-/- immunodeficient. Scale bar = 100 μm. B) Quantification of RNAscope based on fluorescence intensity (top row) or area (bottom row) of microglial genes Tmem119 (Mean fluorescence: p = 0.79, mean[control, KO] = 10.6, 10.0, SD[control, KO] = 0.54, 3.34; Area: p = 0.68, mean[control, KO] = 74.9%, 66.0%, SD[control, KO] = 18.3, 28.6), C1qa (Mean fluorescence: p = 0.43, mean[control, KO] = 63.9, 72.0, SD[control, KO] = 8.0, 13.5; Area: p = 0.77, mean[control, KO] = 87.7%, 83.9%, SD[control, KO] = 15.2, 14.4), and Junb (Mean fluorescence: p = 0.63, mean[control, KO] = 5.67, 4.56, SD[control, KO] = 3.37, 0.74) from Rag2-/- and control mice (n = 3 KO, 3 WT). Error bars = SEM. C) Expression of microglia marker genes. Left: Heatmap of expression of 12 microglial marker genes, shown as transcripts per million (TPM) with z-score normalization across all samples, defined as (expression in the sample—the average expression across all samples)/standard deviation. Right: Microglial maturation score quantification, defined as the average z-score across all genes for each sample (p = 0.81, mean[control, KO] = -0.065, 0.065, SD[control, KO] = 1.03, 0.35). D) Immunostaining of microglial proteins. Top: representative images of Iba1, P2ry12, and Cd68 from Rag2+/+ and Rag2-/- mice. Scale bar = 50 μm. Bottom: Quantification of fluorescence intensity for Iba1 (p = 0.67, mean[control, KO] = 712, 743, SD[control, KO] = 15.8, 122.4), P2ry12 (p = 0.57, mean[control, KO] = 466, 506, SD[control, KO] = 77.1, 80.6), and Cd68 (p = 0.89, mean[control, KO] = 373, 363, SD[control, KO] = 17.6, 99.1). Error bars = SEM.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. PCA plots of Rag2 glia.

    PCA of RNA sequencing data from glia from Rag2-/- and control mice. Red = female, blue = male.

    (TIF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviews.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_clean.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All RNA-sequencing data from this study are available via the Gene Expression Omnibus, accession number GSE210580. The outputs of additional analyses are available in the Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES