CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 41

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

microRNA-132 regulates gene expression programs involved in microglial homeostasis

Walgrave, Hannah, Penning, Amber, Tosoni, Giorgia, Snoeck, Sarah, Davie, Kristofer, Davis, Emma, Wolfs, Leen, Sierksma, Annerieke, Mars, Mayte, Bu, Taofeng, Thrupp, Nicola, Zhou, Lujia, Moechars, Diederik, Mancuso, Renzo, Fiers, Mark, Howden, Andrew J.M., De Strooper, Bart, Salta, Evgenia·2023·iScience
DOI 10.1016/j.isci.2023.106829PMC PMC10213004
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.isci.2023.106829

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Graphical abstract
Graphical abstract CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 1 Identification and possible function of miR-132 predicted targets in brain (A) Schematic representation of the identification strategy of predicted miR-132 targets, using an intersection of two target prediction algorithms and a high-confidence threshold for experimental data from AGO-CLIP-seq experiments.62 (B) All significantly enriched GO biological processes and KEGG pathways for 384 predicted miR-132 targets. Color indicates significance (Fisher’s Exact test, p values corrected with false discovery rate (FDR), adjusted p value <0.05 considered significant). (C) Circos plot depicting cell type-specific expression profiles of predicted miR-132 targets. (D) Schematic representation of experimental outline. MG, Microglia; OPC, oligodendrocyte precursor cell; NFOL, newly formed oligodendrocyte; OL, oligodendrocyte; AST, astrocyte; RGL, radial-glia like cell; EN, endothelia; NPC, neuronal precursor cell; NB, neuroblast; ExN, excitatory neuron; InN, inhibitory/GABAergic neuron; CR, Cajal-Retzius neuron. See also Table S1.
Figure 1 Identification and possible function of miR-132 predicted targets in brain (A) Schematic representation of the identification strategy of predicted miR-132 targets, using an intersection of two target prediction algorithms and a high-confidence threshold for experimental data from AGO-CLIP-seq experiments.62 (B) All significantly enriched GO biological processes and KEGG pathways for 384 predicted miR-132 targets. Color indicates significance (Fisher’s Exact test, p values corrected with false discovery rate (FDR), adjusted p value <0.05 considered significant). (C) Circos plot depicting cell type-specific expression profiles of predicted miR-132 targets. (D) Schematic representation of experimental outline. MG, Microglia; OPC, oligodendrocyte precursor cell; NFOL, newly formed oligodendrocyte; OL, oligodendrocyte; AST, astrocyte; RGL, radial-glia like cell; EN, endothelia; NPC, neuronal precursor cell; NB, neuroblast; ExN, excitatory neuron; InN, inhibitory/GABAergic neuron; CR, Cajal-Retzius neuron. See also Table S1.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Impact of miR-132 depletion in the hippocampus (A) Differentially expressed proteins upon miR-132 KD presented in a volcano plot. The top 5% of proteins anticorrelated to miR-132 are indicated in red. (B) Identification of putative miR-132 targets from intersection with 5% most upregulated proteins and the list of identified predicted miR-132 targets. (C) UMAP visualization of 19,705 isolated mouse hippocampal miR-132 KD and corresponding control single-cell transcriptomes. Cells are colored by identified cell type. NFOL, newly formed oligodendrocyte; NPC, neuronal precursor cell; OPC, oligodendrocyte precursor cell. (D) UMAP plots colored by the normalized expression level of cell type-specific marker genes used for cluster annotation. Arrows indicate the cell cluster of interest. (E) Number of cells, number of significant DEGs (Wilcoxon rank-sum test using Bonferroni for p value correction, adjusted p value <0.05 considered significant), or amount of putative miR-132 targets identified by intersection with predicted miR-132 targets, as included in the scRNAseq analysis. Counts correspond to all cells pseudo-bulked together (All) or to each cell type. (F) GO biological processes significantly enriched in differentially expressed proteins (Prot) or genes (Trans) in distinct cell types. Count represents the % of included proteins/genes that are part of each process. Color represents significance, top 20 GO terms are displayed (Fisher’s Exact test, p values corrected with FDR, adjusted p value <0.05 considered significant). AST, astrocyte; GC, granule cell; NB, neuroblast; MG, microglia; CR, Cajal-Retzius neuron; NPC, neuronal precursor cell; OL, oligodendrocyte; InN, inhibitory/GABAergic neuron; PyN, hippocampal pyramidal neuron. See also Figures S1, S2, Tables S2, and S3.
Figure 2 Impact of miR-132 depletion in the hippocampus (A) Differentially expressed proteins upon miR-132 KD presented in a volcano plot. The top 5% of proteins anticorrelated to miR-132 are indicated in red. (B) Identification of putative miR-132 targets from intersection with 5% most upregulated proteins and the list of identified predicted miR-132 targets. (C) UMAP visualization of 19,705 isolated mouse hippocampal miR-132 KD and corresponding control single-cell transcriptomes. Cells are colored by identified cell type. NFOL, newly formed oligodendrocyte; NPC, neuronal precursor cell; OPC, oligodendrocyte precursor cell. (D) UMAP plots colored by the normalized expression level of cell type-specific marker genes used for cluster annotation. Arrows indicate the cell cluster of interest. (E) Number of cells, number of significant DEGs (Wilcoxon rank-sum test using Bonferroni for p value correction, adjusted p value <0.05 considered significant), or amount of putative miR-132 targets identified by intersection with predicted miR-132 targets, as included in the scRNAseq analysis. Counts correspond to all cells pseudo-bulked together (All) or to each cell type. (F) GO biological processes significantly enriched in differentially expressed proteins (Prot) or genes (Trans) in distinct cell types. Count represents the % of included proteins/genes that are part of each process. Color represents significance, top 20 GO terms are displayed (Fisher’s Exact test, p values corrected with FDR, adjusted p value <0.05 considered significant). AST, astrocyte; GC, granule cell; NB, neuroblast; MG, microglia; CR, Cajal-Retzius neuron; NPC, neuronal precursor cell; OL, oligodendrocyte; InN, inhibitory/GABAergic neuron; PyN, hippocampal pyramidal neuron. See also Figures S1, S2, Tables S2, and S3.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Impact of miR-132 overexpression in hippocampal cells (A) Differentially expressed proteins upon miR-132 OE presented in a volcano plot. The top 5% of proteins anticorrelated to miR-132 are indicated in red. (B) Identification of putative miR-132 targets from intersection with 5% most downregulated proteins and the list of identified predicted miR-132 targets. (C) UMAP visualizing 12,893 isolated mouse hippocampal miR-132 OE and corresponding control single-cell transcriptomes. Cells are colored by identified cell type. NFOL, newly formed oligodendrocyte; NPC, neuronal precursor cell; OPC, oligodendrocyte precursor cell. (D) UMAP plots colored by the normalized expression levels of cell type-specific marker genes used for cluster annotation. Arrows indicate the cell cluster of interest. (E) Number of cells, number of significant DEGs (Wilcoxon rank-sum test using Bonferroni for p value correction, adjusted p value <0.05 considered significant), or amount of putative miR-132 targets identified by intersection with predicted miR-132 targets, as included in the scRNAseq analysis. Counts correspond to all cells pseudo-bulked together (All) or to each cell type. (F) GO biological processes significantly enriched in differentially expressed proteins (Prot) or genes (Trans) in distinct cell types. Count represents the % of included proteins/genes that are part of each process. Color represents significance, top 20 GO terms are displayed (Fisher’s Exact test, p values corrected with FDR, adjusted p value <0.05 considered significant). AST, astrocyte; GC, granule cell; NB, neuroblast; MG, microglia; CR, Cajal-Retzius neuron; NPC, neuronal precursor cell; OL, oligodendrocyte; InN, inhibitory/GABAergic neuron; PyN, hippocampal pyramidal neuron. See also Figures S1, S2, Tables S2, and S3.
Figure 3 Impact of miR-132 overexpression in hippocampal cells (A) Differentially expressed proteins upon miR-132 OE presented in a volcano plot. The top 5% of proteins anticorrelated to miR-132 are indicated in red. (B) Identification of putative miR-132 targets from intersection with 5% most downregulated proteins and the list of identified predicted miR-132 targets. (C) UMAP visualizing 12,893 isolated mouse hippocampal miR-132 OE and corresponding control single-cell transcriptomes. Cells are colored by identified cell type. NFOL, newly formed oligodendrocyte; NPC, neuronal precursor cell; OPC, oligodendrocyte precursor cell. (D) UMAP plots colored by the normalized expression levels of cell type-specific marker genes used for cluster annotation. Arrows indicate the cell cluster of interest. (E) Number of cells, number of significant DEGs (Wilcoxon rank-sum test using Bonferroni for p value correction, adjusted p value <0.05 considered significant), or amount of putative miR-132 targets identified by intersection with predicted miR-132 targets, as included in the scRNAseq analysis. Counts correspond to all cells pseudo-bulked together (All) or to each cell type. (F) GO biological processes significantly enriched in differentially expressed proteins (Prot) or genes (Trans) in distinct cell types. Count represents the % of included proteins/genes that are part of each process. Color represents significance, top 20 GO terms are displayed (Fisher’s Exact test, p values corrected with FDR, adjusted p value <0.05 considered significant). AST, astrocyte; GC, granule cell; NB, neuroblast; MG, microglia; CR, Cajal-Retzius neuron; NPC, neuronal precursor cell; OL, oligodendrocyte; InN, inhibitory/GABAergic neuron; PyN, hippocampal pyramidal neuron. See also Figures S1, S2, Tables S2, and S3.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Characterization of putative miR-132 targets and miR-132 binding sites (A) List of 52 experimentally identified miR-132 targets linked to the dataset they were derived from. Trans, Transcriptomics; Prot, Proteomics. (B) Identification of putative miR-132 targets from proteomic and transcriptomic datasets by intersection with the list of in silico predicted miR-132 targets (Figure 1A). (C) Circos plot showing cell type-specific expression of 52 identified putative miR-132 targets. (D and E) Percentage of different types of miR-132 binding sites present in miR-132 targets that are derived from proteomic (Proteomics) or transcriptomic (Transcriptomics) datasets, or that are predicted miR-132 targets but not changing in any of the datasets (Non-changing targets). (F) Each data point represents the total amount of miR-132 binding sites present per target. (G) Proportions of different types of binding sites present per target. Each data point represents the proportion of the indicated binding site type per target. Proteomics, N = 15; Transcriptomics, N = 37; Non-changing targets, N = 28. Values are presented as mean ± SEM. See also Table S1.
Figure 4 Characterization of putative miR-132 targets and miR-132 binding sites (A) List of 52 experimentally identified miR-132 targets linked to the dataset they were derived from. Trans, Transcriptomics; Prot, Proteomics. (B) Identification of putative miR-132 targets from proteomic and transcriptomic datasets by intersection with the list of in silico predicted miR-132 targets (Figure 1A). (C) Circos plot showing cell type-specific expression of 52 identified putative miR-132 targets. (D and E) Percentage of different types of miR-132 binding sites present in miR-132 targets that are derived from proteomic (Proteomics) or transcriptomic (Transcriptomics) datasets, or that are predicted miR-132 targets but not changing in any of the datasets (Non-changing targets). (F) Each data point represents the total amount of miR-132 binding sites present per target. (G) Proportions of different types of binding sites present per target. Each data point represents the proportion of the indicated binding site type per target. Proteomics, N = 15; Transcriptomics, N = 37; Non-changing targets, N = 28. Values are presented as mean ± SEM. See also Table S1.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 miR-132 drives microglial cell state transitions (A and C) Subset microglial population from miR-132 KD (A) or miR-132 OE (C) and corresponding control cells visualized on UMAP, colored according to identified clusters. (B and D) UMAP plots colored based on the signature score of the combined gene set that characterizes each individual microglial subpopulation in miR-132 KD (B) or miR-132 OE (D). Top 5 unique GO biological processes of significantly enriched genes are provided per subtype; color is indicated according to significance (Fisher’s Exact test, p values corrected with FDR, adjusted p value <0.05 considered significant). (E and G) Normalized percentage of cells present in distinct cellular states per condition in miR-132 KD (E) or miR-132 OE (G). (F and H) Normalized percentage of cells present in distinct cellular states per cellular state in miR-132 KD (F) or miR-132 OE (H). Significance indicated with an asterisk (Chi-squared test, miR-132 KD DAM: p value = 0.0062; miR-132 OE DAM: p value = 0.0000004; miR-132 OE IRM: p value = 0.0007). The number of cells present in miR-132 KD/OE or control condition is depicted on the graph. (I) Volcano plot showing DEGs comparing miR-132 KD cells to their corresponding controls in the DAM state. Significant DEGs indicated in red (Wilcoxon rank-sum test using Bonferroni for p value correction, adjusted p value <0.05 considered significant). (J) GO biological processes significantly enriched in the top 500 most DEGs, with color indicating significance (Fisher’s Exact test, p values corrected with FDR, adjusted p value <0.05 considered significant). (K) AD GWAS gene (adapted from153), p value cutoff set at 0.01) (Apoe, Tpt1, Ms4a6d, Sdf2l1, Itgam, Siglech) expression comparing miR-132 KD or OE cells with corresponding controls in the microglial population. Adjusted p values indicated (Wilcoxon rank-sum test using Bonferroni for p value correction, adjusted p value <0.05 considered significant). (L) Single-cell trajectories of microglial cells obtained by pseudotime ordering using Palantir. Color according to identified clusters. (M) UMAP plots colored based on the signature score of combined gene sets defining microglial cellular states. Arrows indicate populations of interest. (N) Gene expression of the DAM-associated genes Lgals3 and Apoc1 along pseudotime. Color represents the pseudotime branch and type of line the experimental condition. Homeostatic/Hom, homeostatic microglia; DAM, disease-associated microglia; IRM, interferon-response microglia; CRM, cytokine-response microglia; Cycling, cycling microglia. See also Figure S3 and Table S4.
Figure 5 miR-132 drives microglial cell state transitions (A and C) Subset microglial population from miR-132 KD (A) or miR-132 OE (C) and corresponding control cells visualized on UMAP, colored according to identified clusters. (B and D) UMAP plots colored based on the signature score of the combined gene set that characterizes each individual microglial subpopulation in miR-132 KD (B) or miR-132 OE (D). Top 5 unique GO biological processes of significantly enriched genes are provided per subtype; color is indicated according to significance (Fisher’s Exact test, p values corrected with FDR, adjusted p value <0.05 considered significant). (E and G) Normalized percentage of cells present in distinct cellular states per condition in miR-132 KD (E) or miR-132 OE (G). (F and H) Normalized percentage of cells present in distinct cellular states per cellular state in miR-132 KD (F) or miR-132 OE (H). Significance indicated with an asterisk (Chi-squared test, miR-132 KD DAM: p value = 0.0062; miR-132 OE DAM: p value = 0.0000004; miR-132 OE IRM: p value = 0.0007). The number of cells present in miR-132 KD/OE or control condition is depicted on the graph. (I) Volcano plot showing DEGs comparing miR-132 KD cells to their corresponding controls in the DAM state. Significant DEGs indicated in red (Wilcoxon rank-sum test using Bonferroni for p value correction, adjusted p value <0.05 considered significant). (J) GO biological processes significantly enriched in the top 500 most DEGs, with color indicating significance (Fisher’s Exact test, p values corrected with FDR, adjusted p value <0.05 considered significant). (K) AD GWAS gene (adapted from153), p value cutoff set at 0.01) (Apoe, Tpt1, Ms4a6d, Sdf2l1, Itgam, Siglech) expression comparing miR-132 KD or OE cells with corresponding controls in the microglial population. Adjusted p values indicated (Wilcoxon rank-sum test using Bonferroni for p value correction, adjusted p value <0.05 considered significant). (L) Single-cell trajectories of microglial cells obtained by pseudotime ordering using Palantir. Color according to identified clusters. (M) UMAP plots colored based on the signature score of combined gene sets defining microglial cellular states. Arrows indicate populations of interest. (N) Gene expression of the DAM-associated genes Lgals3 and Apoc1 along pseudotime. Color represents the pseudotime branch and type of line the experimental condition. Homeostatic/Hom, homeostatic microglia; DAM, disease-associated microglia; IRM, interferon-response microglia; CRM, cytokine-response microglia; Cycling, cycling microglia. See also Figure S3 and Table S4.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6 Human iPSC-derived microglia acquire a homeostatic phenotype upon miR-132 supplementation (A) Schematic representation of the differentiation protocol of human iPSCs into microglia. Cells were treated with cholesterol-conjugated miR-132 mimic or corresponding control oligonucleotide (1500 nM) for one week. (B) Semi-quantitative real-time PCR of miR-132 levels along microglial differentiation. N = 2–6 biological replicates. (C) Semi-quantitative real-time PCR of miR-132 levels in differentiated microglia after one week of treatment with a miR-132 mimic. N = 8 biological replicates. (D and E) Semi-quantitative real-time PCR of marker genes characteristic of homeostatic microglia (P2RY12 and CX3CR1) (D) or DAM (APOC1, CD9 and LGALS3) (E) N = 7–8 biological replicates. (F) Semi-quantitative real-time PCR of predicted miR-132 targets identified in the scRNAseq miR-132 OE experiment, as either downregulated in the microglial population (SSH2, PDIA3, DDX5, SEC62) or in the pseudo-bulked cells and also highly expressed in microglia (MAF and CD164).72 N = 8 biological replicates. (G) Immunolabeling of IBA1 (green) and DAPI (blue) in miR-132- or control-treated iPSC-derived microglia. Merge indicates images obtained from overlaying images separately acquired with distinct channels. (H) Morphological analysis of miR-132- or control-treated human iPSC-derived microglia, as quantified by the number of endpoints per cell. Each data point represents the average number of endpoints of 50 quantified cells, derived from two independent iPSC-to-microglia differentiations. (I) Semi-quantitative real-time PCR of apoptosis-related genes comparing miR-132-treated human iPSC-derived microglia to controls. N = 8 biological replicates. Values are presented as mean ± SEM. In B, one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni correction was applied. In C, F and H, Student’s t test was used. In D, E and I two-way ANOVA with Tukey’s correction was used. See also Figure S1.
Figure 6 Human iPSC-derived microglia acquire a homeostatic phenotype upon miR-132 supplementation (A) Schematic representation of the differentiation protocol of human iPSCs into microglia. Cells were treated with cholesterol-conjugated miR-132 mimic or corresponding control oligonucleotide (1500 nM) for one week. (B) Semi-quantitative real-time PCR of miR-132 levels along microglial differentiation. N = 2–6 biological replicates. (C) Semi-quantitative real-time PCR of miR-132 levels in differentiated microglia after one week of treatment with a miR-132 mimic. N = 8 biological replicates. (D and E) Semi-quantitative real-time PCR of marker genes characteristic of homeostatic microglia (P2RY12 and CX3CR1) (D) or DAM (APOC1, CD9 and LGALS3) (E) N = 7–8 biological replicates. (F) Semi-quantitative real-time PCR of predicted miR-132 targets identified in the scRNAseq miR-132 OE experiment, as either downregulated in the microglial population (SSH2, PDIA3, DDX5, SEC62) or in the pseudo-bulked cells and also highly expressed in microglia (MAF and CD164).72 N = 8 biological replicates. (G) Immunolabeling of IBA1 (green) and DAPI (blue) in miR-132- or control-treated iPSC-derived microglia. Merge indicates images obtained from overlaying images separately acquired with distinct channels. (H) Morphological analysis of miR-132- or control-treated human iPSC-derived microglia, as quantified by the number of endpoints per cell. Each data point represents the average number of endpoints of 50 quantified cells, derived from two independent iPSC-to-microglia differentiations. (I) Semi-quantitative real-time PCR of apoptosis-related genes comparing miR-132-treated human iPSC-derived microglia to controls. N = 8 biological replicates. Values are presented as mean ± SEM. In B, one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni correction was applied. In C, F and H, Student’s t test was used. In D, E and I two-way ANOVA with Tukey’s correction was used. See also Figure S1.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 123

  1. Bartel, 2009, MicroRNAs: target recognition and regulatory functions, Cell, 136, 215, 10.1016/j.cell.2009.01.002 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Chen, 2011, Mechanisms of deadenylation-dependent decay, Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. RNA, 2, 167, 10.1002/wrna.40 · DOI
  3. Isik, 2016, MicroRNA mir-34 provides robustness to environmental stress response via the DAF-16 network in C. elegans, Sci. Rep., 6, 36766, 10.1038/srep36766 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Li, 2009, A MicroRNA imparts robustness against environmental fluctuation during development, Cell, 137, 273, 10.1016/j.cell.2009.01.058 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Barca-Mayo, 2014, Convergent microRNA actions coordinate neocortical development, Cell. Mol. Life Sci., 71, 2975, 10.1007/s00018-014-1576-5 · DOI
  6. Eacker, 2013, The interplay of microRNA and neuronal activity in health and disease, Front. Cell. Neurosci., 7, 136, 10.3389/fncel.2013.00136 · DOI
  7. Olsen, 2009, MicroRNAs show mutually exclusive expression patterns in the brain of adult male rats, PLoS One, 4, 10.1371/journal.pone.0007225 · DOI
  8. Cummings, 2019, Treatment combinations for Alzheimer’s disease: current and future pharmacotherapy options, J. Alzheimers Dis., 67, 779, 10.3233/JAD-180766 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Fang, 2020, Harnessing endophenotypes and network medicine for Alzheimer’s drug repurposing, Med. Res. Rev., 40, 2386, 10.1002/med.21709 · DOI
  10. Hampel, 2018, Precision pharmacology for Alzheimer’s disease, Pharmacol. Res., 130, 331, 10.1016/j.phrs.2018.02.014 · DOI
  11. Salloway, 2020, Advancing combination therapy for Alzheimer’s disease, Alzheimers Dement., 6, e12073
  12. Walgrave, 2021, The promise of microRNA-based therapies in Alzheimer’s disease: challenges and perspectives, Mol. Neurodegener., 16, 76, 10.1186/s13024-021-00496-7 · DOI
  13. Arora, 2022, Dysregulated miRNAs in progression and pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease, Mol. Neurobiol., 59, 6107, 10.1007/s12035-022-02950-z · DOI · Paper page
  14. Herrera-Espejo, 2019, A systematic review of MicroRNA expression as biomarker of late-onset Alzheimer’s disease, Mol. Neurobiol., 56, 8376, 10.1007/s12035-019-01676-9 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Lau, 2013, Alteration of the microRNA network during the progression of Alzheimer’s disease, EMBO Mol. Med., 5, 1613, 10.1002/emmm.201201974 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Lukiw, 2007, Micro-RNA speciation in fetal, adult and Alzheimer??s disease hippocampus, Neuroreport, 18, 297, 10.1097/WNR.0b013e3280148e8b · DOI · Paper page
  17. Pichler, 2017, The miRNome of Alzheimer’s disease: consistent downregulation of the miR-132/212 cluster, Neurobiol. Aging, 50, 167, 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2016.09.019 · DOI · Paper page
  18. El Fatimy, 2018, MicroRNA-132 provides neuroprotection for tauopathies via multiple signaling pathways, Acta Neuropathol., 136, 537, 10.1007/s00401-018-1880-5 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Salta, 2017, microRNA-132: a key noncoding RNA operating in the cellular phase of Alzheimer’s disease, FASEB J. Off. Publ. Fed. Am. Soc. Exp. Biol., 31, 424
  20. Hansen, 2016, Targeted deletion of miR-132/-212 impairs memory and alters the hippocampal transcriptome, Learn. Mem., 23, 61, 10.1101/lm.039578.115 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Hernandez-Rapp, 2015, Memory formation and retention are affected in adult miR-132/212 knockout mice, Behav. Brain Res., 287, 15, 10.1016/j.bbr.2015.03.032 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Kawashima, 2010, Glucocorticoid attenuates brain-derived neurotrophic factor-dependent upregulation of glutamate receptors via the suppression of microRNA-132 expression, Neuroscience, 165, 1301, 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2009.11.057 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Magill, 2010, microRNA-132 regulates dendritic growth and arborization of newborn neurons in the adult hippocampus, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 107, 20382, 10.1073/pnas.1015691107 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Mellios, 2011, miR-132, an experience-dependent microRNA, is essential for visual cortex plasticity, Nat. Neurosci., 14, 1240, 10.1038/nn.2909 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Remenyi, 2013, miR-132/212 knockout mice reveal roles for these miRNAs in regulating cortical synaptic transmission and plasticity, PLoS One, 8, 10.1371/journal.pone.0062509 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Salta, 2016, miR-132 loss de-represses ITPKB and aggravates amyloid and TAU pathology in Alzheimer’s brain, EMBO Mol. Med., 8, 1005, 10.15252/emmm.201606520 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Smith, 2015, miR-132/212 deficiency impairs tau metabolism and promotes pathological aggregation in vivo, Hum. Mol. Genet., 24, 6721, 10.1093/hmg/ddv377 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Vo, 2005, A cAMP-response element binding protein-induced microRNA regulates neuronal morphogenesis, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 102, 16426, 10.1073/pnas.0508448102 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Walgrave, 2021, Restoring miR-132 expression rescues adult hippocampal neurogenesis and memory deficits in Alzheimer’s disease, Cell Stem Cell, 28, 1805, 10.1016/j.stem.2021.05.001 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Wayman, 2008, An activity-regulated microRNA controls dendritic plasticity by down-regulating p250GAP, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 105, 9093, 10.1073/pnas.0803072105 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Wei, 2020, Environmental enrichment prevents Aβ oligomer-induced synaptic dysfunction through mirna-132 and hdac3 signaling pathways, Neurobiol. Dis., 134, 10.1016/j.nbd.2019.104617 · DOI
  32. Wong, 2013, De-repression of FOXO3a death axis by microRNA-132 and -212 causes neuronal apoptosis in Alzheimer’s disease, Hum. Mol. Genet., 22, 3077, 10.1093/hmg/ddt164 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Patrick, 2017, Dissecting the role of non-coding RNAs in the accumulation of amyloid and tau neuropathologies in Alzheimer’s disease, Mol. Neurodegener., 12, 51, 10.1186/s13024-017-0191-y · DOI · Paper page
  34. Tasaki, 2018, The molecular and neuropathological consequences of genetic risk for Alzheimer’s dementia, Front. Neurosci., 12, 699, 10.3389/fnins.2018.00699 · DOI
  35. Baek, 2008, The impact of microRNAs on protein output, Nature, 455, 64, 10.1038/nature07242 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Cloonan, 2015, Re-thinking miRNA-mRNA interactions: intertwining issues confound target discovery, Bioessays, 37, 379, 10.1002/bies.201400191 · DOI
  37. Guo, 2010, Mammalian microRNAs predominantly act to decrease target mRNA levels, Nature, 466, 835, 10.1038/nature09267 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Selbach, 2008, Widespread changes in protein synthesis induced by microRNAs, Nature, 455, 58, 10.1038/nature07228 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Alexander, 2014, MicroRNA-486–dependent modulation of DOCK3/PTEN/AKT signaling pathways improves muscular dystrophy–associated symptoms, J. Clin. Invest., 124, 2651, 10.1172/JCI73579 · DOI
  40. Hinman, 2021, miR-142-3p regulates cortical oligodendrocyte gene co-expression networks associated with tauopathy, Hum. Mol. Genet., 30, 103, 10.1093/hmg/ddaa252 · DOI
  41. Mestdagh, 2010, The miR-17-92 MicroRNA cluster regulates multiple components of the TGF-β pathway in neuroblastoma, Mol. Cell, 40, 762, 10.1016/j.molcel.2010.11.038 · DOI · Paper page
  42. Salta, 2014, A self-organizing miR-132/ctbp2 circuit regulates bimodal notch signals and glial progenitor fate choice during spinal cord maturation, Dev. Cell, 30, 423, 10.1016/j.devcel.2014.07.006 · DOI · Paper page
  43. Xu, 2009, MicroRNA-145 regulates OCT4, SOX2, and KLF4 and represses pluripotency in human embryonic stem cells, Cell, 137, 647, 10.1016/j.cell.2009.02.038 · DOI
  44. Bartel, 2018, Metazoan MicroRNAs, Cell, 173, 20, 10.1016/j.cell.2018.03.006 · DOI · Paper page
  45. Hsin, 2018, The effect of cellular context on miR-155-mediated gene regulation in four major immune cell types, Nat. Immunol., 19, 1137, 10.1038/s41590-018-0208-x · DOI
  46. Jens, 2015, Competition between target sites of regulators shapes post-transcriptional gene regulation, Nat. Rev. Genet., 16, 113, 10.1038/nrg3853 · DOI
  47. Mukherji, 2011, MicroRNAs can generate thresholds in target gene expression, Nat. Genet., 43, 854, 10.1038/ng.905 · DOI
  48. Wang, 2019, Single-cell microRNA-mRNA co-sequencing reveals non-genetic heterogeneity and mechanisms of microRNA regulation, Nat. Commun., 10, 95, 10.1038/s41467-018-07981-6 · DOI
  49. Hafner, 2010, Transcriptome-wide identification of RNA-binding protein and MicroRNA target sites by PAR-CLIP, Cell, 141, 129, 10.1016/j.cell.2010.03.009 · DOI · Paper page
  50. Zolboot, 2021, MicroRNAs instruct and maintain cell type diversity in the nervous system, Front. Mol. Neurosci., 14, 646072, 10.3389/fnmol.2021.646072 · DOI · Paper page
  51. Liu, 2019, Prediction of functional microRNA targets by integrative modeling of microRNA binding and target expression data, Genome Biol., 20, 18, 10.1186/s13059-019-1629-z · DOI
  52. Sood, 2006, Cell-type-specific signatures of microRNAs on target mRNA expression, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 103, 2746, 10.1073/pnas.0511045103 · DOI · Paper page
  53. Li, 2014, starBase v2.0: decoding miRNA-ceRNA, miRNA-ncRNA and protein–RNA interaction networks from large-scale CLIP-Seq data, Nucleic Acids Res., 42, D92, 10.1093/nar/gkt1248 · DOI · Paper page
  54. Chi, 2009, Argonaute HITS-CLIP decodes microRNA–mRNA interaction maps, Nature, 460, 479, 10.1038/nature08170 · DOI · Paper page
  55. Huang, 2009, Systematic and integrative analysis of large gene lists using DAVID bioinformatics resources, Nat. Protoc., 4, 44, 10.1038/nprot.2008.211 · DOI · Paper page
  56. Sherman, 2022, DAVID: a web server for functional enrichment analysis and functional annotation of gene lists (2021 update), Nucleic Acids Res., 50, W216, 10.1093/nar/gkac194 · DOI
  57. Filipowicz, 2008, Mechanisms of post-transcriptional regulation by microRNAs: are the answers in sight?, Nat. Rev. Genet., 9, 102, 10.1038/nrg2290 · DOI
  58. Hewitson, 2019, miR-132 suppresses transcription of ribosomal proteins to promote protective Th1 immunity, EMBO Rep., 20, 10.15252/embr.201846620 · DOI
  59. Mendoza-Viveros, 2017, miR-132/212 modulates seasonal adaptation and dendritic morphology of the central circadian clock, Cell Rep., 19, 505, 10.1016/j.celrep.2017.03.057 · DOI
  60. Pathania, 2012, miR-132 enhances dendritic morphogenesis, spine density, synaptic integration, and survival of newborn olfactory bulb neurons, PLoS One, 7, 10.1371/journal.pone.0038174 · DOI
  61. Eijkelenboom, 2013, FOXOs: signalling integrators for homeostasis maintenance, Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol., 14, 83, 10.1038/nrm3507 · DOI
  62. Guo, 2022, A coherent FOXO3-SNAI2 feed-forward loop in autophagy, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 119, 10.1073/pnas.2118285119 · DOI
  63. Jovanovic, 2010, A quantitative targeted proteomics approach to validate predicted microRNA targets in C. elegans, Nat. Methods, 7, 837, 10.1038/nmeth.1504 · DOI
  64. Rajman, 2017, A microRNA-129-5p/Rbfox crosstalk coordinates homeostatic downscaling of excitatory synapses, EMBO J., 36, 1770, 10.15252/embj.201695748 · DOI · Paper page
  65. Berl, 2017, Enrichment and isolation of neurons from adult mouse brain for ex vivo analysis, J. Neurosci. Methods, 283, 15, 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2017.03.015 · DOI
  66. Ho, 2018, A guide to single-cell transcriptomics in adult rodent brain: the medium spiny neuron transcriptome revisited, Front. Cell. Neurosci., 12, 159, 10.3389/fncel.2018.00159 · DOI
  67. Korsunsky, 2019, Fast, sensitive and accurate integration of single-cell data with Harmony, Nat. Methods, 16, 1289, 10.1038/s41592-019-0619-0 · DOI · Paper page
  68. Clovis, 2012, Convergent repression of Foxp2 3′UTR by miR-9 and miR-132 in embryonic mouse neocortex: implications for radial migration of neurons, Development, 139, 3332, 10.1242/dev.078063 · DOI
  69. Yang, 2012, miR-132 regulates the differentiation of dopamine neurons by directly targeting Nurr1 expression, J. Cell Sci., 125, 1673
  70. Thomson, 2011, Experimental strategies for microRNA target identification, Nucleic Acids Res., 39, 6845, 10.1093/nar/gkr330 · DOI · Paper page
  71. Honarpisheh, 2020, Potential caveats of putative microglia-specific markers for assessment of age-related cerebrovascular neuroinflammation, J. Neuroinflammation, 17, 366, 10.1186/s12974-020-02019-5 · DOI
  72. Keren-Shaul, 2017, A unique microglia type associated with restricting development of Alzheimer’s disease, Cell, 169, 1276, 10.1016/j.cell.2017.05.018 · DOI · Paper page
  73. Mancuso, 2019, Stem-cell-derived human microglia transplanted in mouse brain to study human disease, Nat. Neurosci., 22, 2111, 10.1038/s41593-019-0525-x · DOI · Paper page
  74. Baik, 2019, A breakdown in metabolic reprogramming causes microglia dysfunction in Alzheimer’s disease, Cell Metab., 30, 493, 10.1016/j.cmet.2019.06.005 · DOI · Paper page
  75. Fairley, 2021, Mitochondrial regulation of microglial immunometabolism in Alzheimer’s disease, Front. Immunol., 12, 624538, 10.3389/fimmu.2021.624538 · DOI · Paper page
  76. Rangaraju, 2018, Quantitative proteomics of acutely-isolated mouse microglia identifies novel immune Alzheimer’s disease-related proteins, Mol. Neurodegener., 13, 34, 10.1186/s13024-018-0266-4 · DOI
  77. Kunkle, 2019, Genetic meta-analysis of diagnosed Alzheimer’s disease identifies new risk loci and implicates Aβ, tau, immunity and lipid processing, Nat. Genet., 51, 414, 10.1038/s41588-019-0358-2 · DOI · Paper page
  78. Corder, 1993, Gene dose of apolipoprotein E type 4 allele and the risk of Alzheimer’s disease in late onset families, Science, 261, 921, 10.1126/science.8346443 · DOI · Paper page
  79. Yuan, 2016, TREM2 haplodeficiency in mice and humans impairs the microglia barrier function leading to decreased amyloid compaction and severe axonal dystrophy, Neuron, 90, 724, 10.1016/j.neuron.2016.05.003 · DOI · Paper page
  80. Jonsson, 2013, Variant of TREM2 associated with the risk of Alzheimer’s disease, N. Engl. J. Med., 368, 107, 10.1056/NEJMoa1211103 · DOI · Paper page
  81. Guerreiro, 2013, TREM2 variants in Alzheimer’s disease, N. Engl. J. Med., 368, 117, 10.1056/NEJMoa1211851 · DOI · Paper page
  82. Flowers, 2017, Proteomic anaysis of aged microglia: shifts in transcription, bioenergetics, and nutrient response, J. Neuroinflammation, 14, 96, 10.1186/s12974-017-0840-7 · DOI
  83. Miedema, 2022, Brain macrophages acquire distinct transcriptomes in multiple sclerosis lesions and normal appearing white matter, Acta Neuropathol. Commun., 10, 8, 10.1186/s40478-021-01306-3 · DOI · Paper page
  84. Madore, 2020, Microglia, lifestyle stress, and neurodegeneration, Immunity, 52, 222, 10.1016/j.immuni.2019.12.003 · DOI
  85. Davalos, 2005, ATP mediates rapid microglial response to local brain injury in vivo, Nat. Neurosci., 8, 752, 10.1038/nn1472 · DOI · Paper page
  86. Nimmerjahn, 2005, Resting microglial cells are highly dynamic surveillants of brain parenchyma in vivo, Science, 308, 1314, 10.1126/science.1110647 · DOI · Paper page
  87. Foinquinos, 2020, Preclinical development of a miR-132 inhibitor for heart failure treatment, Nat. Commun., 11, 633, 10.1038/s41467-020-14349-2 · DOI
  88. Lee, 2019, Discovery and preclinical evaluation of anti-miR-17 oligonucleotide RGLS4326 for the treatment of polycystic kidney disease, Nat. Commun., 10, 4148, 10.1038/s41467-019-11918-y · DOI
  89. Nowakowski, 2018, Regulation of cell-type-specific transcriptomes by microRNA networks during human brain development, Nat. Neurosci., 21, 1784, 10.1038/s41593-018-0265-3 · DOI · Paper page
  90. Rzepiela, 2018, Single-cell mRNA profiling reveals the hierarchical response of mi RNA targets to mi RNA induction, Mol. Syst. Biol., 14, e8266, 10.15252/msb.20188266 · DOI
  91. Islam, 2021, A microRNA signature that correlates with cognition and is a target against cognitive decline, EMBO Mol. Med., 13, e13659, 10.15252/emmm.202013659 · DOI · Paper page
  92. Grimson, 2007, MicroRNA targeting specificity in mammals: determinants beyond seed pairing, Mol. Cell, 27, 91, 10.1016/j.molcel.2007.06.017 · DOI · Paper page
  93. Nam, 2014, Global analyses of the effect of different cellular contexts on MicroRNA targeting, Mol. Cell, 53, 1031, 10.1016/j.molcel.2014.02.013 · DOI
  94. Park, 2017, Non-canonical targets destabilize microRNAs in human Argonautes, Nucleic Acids Res., 45, 1569
  95. Linxweiler, 2017, Let’s talk about Secs: sec61, Sec62 and Sec63 in signal transduction, oncology and personalized medicine, Signal Transduct. Target. Ther., 2
  96. Delpech, 2016, Early life stress perturbs the maturation of microglia in the developing hippocampus, Brain Behav. Immun., 57, 79, 10.1016/j.bbi.2016.06.006 · DOI · Paper page
  97. Soreq, 2011, NeurimmiRs: microRNAs in the neuroimmune interface, Trends Mol. Med., 17, 548, 10.1016/j.molmed.2011.06.009 · DOI · Paper page
  98. Kong, 2015, The Effect of miR-132, miR-146a, and miR-155 on MRP8/TLR4-Induced Astrocyte-Related Inflammation, J. Mol. Neurosci., 57, 28, 10.1007/s12031-015-0574-x · DOI · Paper page
  99. Nahid, 2013, Regulation of TLR2-mediated tolerance and cross-tolerance through IRAK4 modulation by miR-132 and miR-212, J. Immunol., 190, 1250, 10.4049/jimmunol.1103060 · DOI
  100. Shaked, 2009, MicroRNA-132 potentiates cholinergic anti-inflammatory signaling by targeting acetylcholinesterase, Immunity, 31, 965, 10.1016/j.immuni.2009.09.019 · DOI · Paper page
  101. Korotkov, 2020, microRNA-132 is overexpressed in glia in temporal lobe epilepsy and reduces the expression of pro-epileptogenic factors in human cultured astrocytes, Glia, 68, 60, 10.1002/glia.23700 · DOI · Paper page
  102. Mullokandov, 2012, High-throughput assessment of microRNA activity and function using microRNA sensor and decoy libraries, Nat. Methods, 9, 840, 10.1038/nmeth.2078 · DOI · Paper page
  103. Askew, 2017, Coupled proliferation and apoptosis maintain the rapid turnover of microglia in the adult brain, Cell Rep., 18, 391, 10.1016/j.celrep.2016.12.041 · DOI · Paper page
  104. Yun, 2011, Daxx mediates activation-induced cell death in microglia by triggering MST1 signalling, EMBO J., 30, 2465, 10.1038/emboj.2011.152 · DOI
  105. Zheng, 2017, TREM2 promotes microglial survival by activating wnt/β-catenin pathway, J. Neurosci., 37, 1772, 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2459-16.2017 · DOI · Paper page
  106. Antoniou, 2023, Neuronal extracellular vesicles and associated microRNAs induce circuit connectivity downstream BDNF, Cell Rep., 42, 10.1016/j.celrep.2023.112063 · DOI · Paper page
  107. Kenigsbuch, 2022, A shared disease-associated oligodendrocyte signature among multiple CNS pathologies, Nat. Neurosci., 25, 876, 10.1038/s41593-022-01104-7 · DOI · Paper page
  108. Zhou, 2020, Human and mouse single-nucleus transcriptomics reveal TREM2-dependent and TREM2-independent cellular responses in Alzheimer’s disease, Nat. Med., 26, 131, 10.1038/s41591-019-0695-9 · DOI · Paper page
  109. Sierksma, 2020, Translating genetic risk of Alzheimer’s disease into mechanistic insight and drug targets, Science, 370, 61, 10.1126/science.abb8575 · DOI
  110. Chen, 2022, Two-faced behavior of microglia in Alzheimer’s disease, Nat. Neurosci., 25, 3, 10.1038/s41593-021-00963-w · DOI
  111. Wang, 2019, Microglia in Alzheimer’s disease: a target for immunotherapy, J. Leukoc. Biol., 106, 219, 10.1002/JLB.MR0818-319R · DOI
  112. Eichhorn, 2014, mRNA destabilization is the dominant effect of mammalian MicroRNAs by the time substantial repression ensues, Mol. Cell, 56, 104, 10.1016/j.molcel.2014.08.028 · DOI · Paper page
  113. Hancock, 2014, MicroRNA-132 is enriched in developing axons, locally regulates Rasa1 mRNA, and promotes axon extension, J. Neurosci., 34, 66, 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3371-13.2014 · DOI · Paper page
  114. Lugli, 2008, Expression of microRNAs and their precursors in synaptic fractions of adult mouse forebrain, J. Neurochem., 106, 650, 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2008.05413.x · DOI · Paper page
  115. Kunkle, 2019, Genetic meta-analysis of diagnosed Alzheimer’s disease identifies new risk loci and implicates Aβ, tau, immunity and lipid processing, Nat. Genet., 51, 414, 10.1038/s41588-019-0358-2 · DOI · Paper page
  116. Shi, 2012, Directed differentiation of human pluripotent stem cells to cerebral cortex neurons and neural networks, Nat. Protoc., 7, 1836, 10.1038/nprot.2012.116 · DOI · Paper page
  117. Soutschek, 2004, Therapeutic silencing of an endogenous gene by systemic administration of modified siRNAs, Nature, 432, 173, 10.1038/nature03121 · DOI
  118. Kurreck, 2002, Design of antisense oligonucleotides stabilized by locked nucleic acids, Nucleic Acids Res., 30, 1911, 10.1093/nar/30.9.1911 · DOI
  119. Braasch, 2001, Locked nucleic acid (LNA): fine-tuning the recognition of DNA and RNA, Chem. Biol., 8, 1, 10.1016/S1074-5521(00)00058-2 · DOI
  120. Wolf, 2018, SCANPY: large-scale single-cell gene expression data analysis, Genome Biol., 19, 15, 10.1186/s13059-017-1382-0 · DOI · Paper page
  121. Stuart, 2019, Comprehensive integration of single-cell data, Cell, 177, 1888, 10.1016/j.cell.2019.05.031 · DOI · Paper page
  122. Butler, 2018, Integrating single-cell transcriptomic data across different conditions, technologies, and species, Nat. Biotechnol., 36, 411, 10.1038/nbt.4096 · DOI · Paper page
  123. Schindelin, 2012, Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis, Nat. Methods, 9, 676, 10.1038/nmeth.2019 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 41

Metadata

Authors
Walgrave, H., Penning, A., Tosoni, G., Snoeck, S., Davie, K., Davis, E., Wolfs, L., Sierksma, A., Mars, M., Bu, T., Thrupp, N., Zhou, L., Moechars, D., Mancuso, R., Fiers, M., Howden, A. J. M., De Strooper, B., & Salta, E.
ORCID
Walgrave, Hannah
Venue
iScience
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-06
Volume
26
Issue
6
Pages
106829
ISSN
2589-0042
DOI
10.1016/j.isci.2023.106829
PMC
PMC10213004
Cited by
41
References
43
Language
en
Licence
Funders
  • Vlaams Instituut voor Biotechnologie
  • Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory
  • Horizon 2020 (721058)
  • Health~Holland (LSHM20095)
  • Alzheimer Nederland (WE.03-2020-04)
  • European Research Council (ERC-834682 337 CELLPHASE_AD)
  • Fondation Médicale Reine Elisabeth
  • European External Action Service
  • KU Leuven

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review