CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Differential expression of microRNAs among cell populations in the regenerating adult mouse olfactory epithelium

Kurtenbach, Sarah, Ding, Wen, Goss, Garrett M., Hare, Joshua M., Goldstein, Bradley J., Shehadeh, Lina A.·2017·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0187576PMC PMC5673187
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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0187576

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig 1 Schematic of experimental strategy to identify differential miRNA expression in olfactory epithelial cells. (A) The olfactory epithelium, lining portions of the mouse nasal cavity, contains basal stem and progenitor cells, immature differentiating olfactory receptor neurons, mature neurons, sustentacular cells, and microvillar cells. (B) Following experimental lesion with methimazole, spared basal globose cells remain, and their expansion and differentiation (C) lead to rapid epithelial reconstitution. (D) Olfactory epithelial cells harvested 10 days following lesion are enriched with basal progenitors marked by surface expression of c-Kit. The c-Kit (+) basal cells were isolated by immunoselection, and total RNA was purified from the c-Kit (+) fraction or the c-Kit (-) fraction was analyzed by miRNA microarrays.
Fig 1 Schematic of experimental strategy to identify differential miRNA expression in olfactory epithelial cells. (A) The olfactory epithelium, lining portions of the mouse nasal cavity, contains basal stem and progenitor cells, immature differentiating olfactory receptor neurons, mature neurons, sustentacular cells, and microvillar cells. (B) Following experimental lesion with methimazole, spared basal globose cells remain, and their expansion and differentiation (C) lead to rapid epithelial reconstitution. (D) Olfactory epithelial cells harvested 10 days following lesion are enriched with basal progenitors marked by surface expression of c-Kit. The c-Kit (+) basal cells were isolated by immunoselection, and total RNA was purified from the c-Kit (+) fraction or the c-Kit (-) fraction was analyzed by miRNA microarrays.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 2 Differential miRNA expession in cell populations of the olfactory epithelium. Heatmap shows microarray results of top 28 miRNAs most downregulated (A) and top 10 miRNAs most upregulated (B) in c-Kit (+) versus c-Kit (-) fractions of mouse olfactory epithelium 10 days post olfactory lesion. N = 3 per group. Criteria used for selection is at least 4 fold change in transcript expression with p<0.05 based on t-test with Benjamini-Hochberg multiple testing correction. (C) QPCR validation shows miR-486 is 17 fold downregulated in c-Kit (+) versus (-) fractions of mouse olfactory epithelium 10 days post nasal injury. N = 3 per group. Data are Mean ± S.E.M. p = 0.001 based on t-test using delta Cts.
Fig 2 Differential miRNA expession in cell populations of the olfactory epithelium. Heatmap shows microarray results of top 28 miRNAs most downregulated (A) and top 10 miRNAs most upregulated (B) in c-Kit (+) versus c-Kit (-) fractions of mouse olfactory epithelium 10 days post olfactory lesion. N = 3 per group. Criteria used for selection is at least 4 fold change in transcript expression with p<0.05 based on t-test with Benjamini-Hochberg multiple testing correction. (C) QPCR validation shows miR-486 is 17 fold downregulated in c-Kit (+) versus (-) fractions of mouse olfactory epithelium 10 days post nasal injury. N = 3 per group. Data are Mean ± S.E.M. p = 0.001 based on t-test using delta Cts.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 3 Confirmation by in situ hybridization for miR-486 enrichment in the c-Kit (-) population. MiR-486, identified as highly enriched in the c-Kit (-) cell fraction from regenerating olfactory epithelium, was chosen for further study to confirm the microarray findings. In situ hybridization was performed on normal adult mouse olfactory epithelium tissue sections; a miR-486 probe (A, B) reveals expression by cells throughout the neuronal layers (Neu), with little signal in the underlying lamina propria. At high magnification (B) an absence of signal in the c-Kit (+) basal cell layers (BCs) or in the apical sustentacular cell layers (Sus) is evident. (C) Hybridization using a scrambled control probe shows no signal. (D-K) Staining with cell type-specific markers was performed to define the OE cell populations. Antibody against c-Kit (D, E) labels only basal cells slightly above the basal lamina; antibody against OMP (F) labels mature neurons in the mid to upper portions of the OE; antibody against Tuj1 (G, H) labels the somata of immature neurons just above the basal cell layers, as well as dendrites extending apically; antibody against SOX2 (I) labels nuclei of a subset of basal cells near the basal lamina and also the sustentacular cell nuclei at the top of the epithelium; antibody against OAZ (J) localizes to nuclei of late GBCs and nascent neurons in deep layers of the OE; antibody against CK5 (K) labels HBCs along the basal lamina. (L) Cell layers and the markers used here are summarized schematically. Arrowheads or dashed line (in B) mark basal lamina; NEUm = mature neurons; NEUi = immature neurons; scale bar in B = 10 μm, in H = 20 μm.
Fig 3 Confirmation by in situ hybridization for miR-486 enrichment in the c-Kit (-) population. MiR-486, identified as highly enriched in the c-Kit (-) cell fraction from regenerating olfactory epithelium, was chosen for further study to confirm the microarray findings. In situ hybridization was performed on normal adult mouse olfactory epithelium tissue sections; a miR-486 probe (A, B) reveals expression by cells throughout the neuronal layers (Neu), with little signal in the underlying lamina propria. At high magnification (B) an absence of signal in the c-Kit (+) basal cell layers (BCs) or in the apical sustentacular cell layers (Sus) is evident. (C) Hybridization using a scrambled control probe shows no signal. (D-K) Staining with cell type-specific markers was performed to define the OE cell populations. Antibody against c-Kit (D, E) labels only basal cells slightly above the basal lamina; antibody against OMP (F) labels mature neurons in the mid to upper portions of the OE; antibody against Tuj1 (G, H) labels the somata of immature neurons just above the basal cell layers, as well as dendrites extending apically; antibody against SOX2 (I) labels nuclei of a subset of basal cells near the basal lamina and also the sustentacular cell nuclei at the top of the epithelium; antibody against OAZ (J) localizes to nuclei of late GBCs and nascent neurons in deep layers of the OE; antibody against CK5 (K) labels HBCs along the basal lamina. (L) Cell layers and the markers used here are summarized schematically. Arrowheads or dashed line (in B) mark basal lamina; NEUm = mature neurons; NEUi = immature neurons; scale bar in B = 10 μm, in H = 20 μm.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 4 Functional effects of miR-486 in c-Kit-sorted progenitor basal cell culture preparations. (A, B) Basal cells purified from OE of regenerating mice were seeded for short primary culture assay. Characterization of cultures at 24 hours confirms the presence of OE progenitors. Antibody against the neuron-specific transcription factor OAZ (magenta) labels the nuclei of neuron-committed GBCs and nascent or immature neurons; antibody against SOX2 (green) labels nuclei of cells scattered in basal cell islands, consistent with the growth of “upstream” undifferentiated GBCs. Culture composition is quantified in (B), n = 3. (C, D) Cultures were transfected after 24 hours with either miR486 or a scrambled control RNA. 48 hours post transfection, cells were fixed and stained for TUJ1 and DAPI and subsequently quantified. Although there was no significant change in proliferation by EdU incorporation (E), miR-486 treatment reduced the total amount of TUJ1 positive neurons by 30.05% ± 5.88 (p = 0.0014) normalized to scrambled control group (F); n = 8, mean ± S.E.M; student’s t-test. Bar = 20μm in A, 120μm in C and D.
Fig 4 Functional effects of miR-486 in c-Kit-sorted progenitor basal cell culture preparations. (A, B) Basal cells purified from OE of regenerating mice were seeded for short primary culture assay. Characterization of cultures at 24 hours confirms the presence of OE progenitors. Antibody against the neuron-specific transcription factor OAZ (magenta) labels the nuclei of neuron-committed GBCs and nascent or immature neurons; antibody against SOX2 (green) labels nuclei of cells scattered in basal cell islands, consistent with the growth of “upstream” undifferentiated GBCs. Culture composition is quantified in (B), n = 3. (C, D) Cultures were transfected after 24 hours with either miR486 or a scrambled control RNA. 48 hours post transfection, cells were fixed and stained for TUJ1 and DAPI and subsequently quantified. Although there was no significant change in proliferation by EdU incorporation (E), miR-486 treatment reduced the total amount of TUJ1 positive neurons by 30.05% ± 5.88 (p = 0.0014) normalized to scrambled control group (F); n = 8, mean ± S.E.M; student’s t-test. Bar = 20μm in A, 120μm in C and D.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: 46

  1. DP Bartel, 2009, MicroRNAs: target recognition and regulatory functions, Cell, 136, 215, 10.1016/j.cell.2009.01.002 · DOI · Paper page
  2. RC Lee, 1993, The C. elegans heterochronic gene lin-4 encodes small RNAs with antisense complementarity to lin-14, Cell, 75, 843, 10.1016/0092-8674(93)90529-Y · DOI · Paper page
  3. D Baek, 2008, The impact of microRNAs on protein output, Nature, 455, 64, 10.1038/nature07242 · DOI · Paper page
  4. H Guo, 2010, Mammalian microRNAs predominantly act to decrease target mRNA levels, Nature, 466, 835, 10.1038/nature09267 · DOI · Paper page
  5. RC Friedman, 2009, Most mammalian mRNAs are conserved targets of microRNAs, Genome Res, 19, 92, 10.1101/gr.082701.108 · DOI · Paper page
  6. S Chang, 2004, MicroRNAs act sequentially and asymmetrically to control chemosensory laterality in the nematode, Nature, 430, 785, 10.1038/nature02752 · DOI
  7. RJ Johnston, 2003, A microRNA controlling left/right neuronal asymmetry in Caenorhabditis elegans, Nature, 426, 845, 10.1038/nature02255 · DOI
  8. X Li, 2005, A microRNA mediates EGF receptor signaling and promotes photoreceptor differentiation in the Drosophila eye, Cell, 123, 1267, 10.1016/j.cell.2005.10.040 · DOI · Paper page
  9. PS Choi, 2008, Members of the miRNA-200 family regulate olfactory neurogenesis, Neuron, 57, 41, 10.1016/j.neuron.2007.11.018 · DOI
  10. JE Schwob, 2017, Stem and progenitor cells of the mammalian olfactory epithelium: Taking poietic license, The Journal of comparative neurology, 525, 1034, 10.1002/cne.24105 · DOI
  11. CT Leung, 2007, Contribution of olfactory neural stem cells to tissue maintenance and regeneration, Nature neuroscience, 10, 720, 10.1038/nn1882 · DOI
  12. VM Carr, 1993, The dynamics of cell death in the olfactory epithelium, Experimental neurology, 124, 308, 10.1006/exnr.1993.1201 · DOI
  13. E Weiler, 1997, Proliferation in the rat olfactory epithelium: age-dependent changes, The Journal of neuroscience: the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 17, 3610, 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.17-10-03610.1997 · DOI
  14. J Verhaagen, 1990, Neuroplasticity in the olfactory system: differential effects of central and peripheral lesions of the primary olfactory pathway on the expression of B-50/GAP43 and the olfactory marker protein, Journal of neuroscience research, 26, 31, 10.1002/jnr.490260105 · DOI
  15. GA Graziadei, 1979, Neurogenesis and neuron regeneration in the olfactory system of mammals. II. Degeneration and reconstitution of the olfactory sensory neurons after axotomy, Journal of neurocytology, 8, 197, 10.1007/BF01175561 · DOI
  16. JM Huard, 1998, Adult olfactory epithelium contains multipotent progenitors that give rise to neurons and non-neural cells, J Comp Neurol, 400, 469, 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9861(19981102)400:4<469::AID-CNE3>3.0.CO;2-8 · DOI
  17. BJ Goldstein, 2015, Adult c-Kit(+) progenitor cells are necessary for maintenance and regeneration of olfactory neurons, The Journal of comparative neurology, 523, 15, 10.1002/cne.23653 · DOI
  18. N Schnittke, 2015, Transcription factor p63 controls the reserve status but not the stemness of horizontal basal cells in the olfactory epithelium, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 112, E5068, 10.1073/pnas.1512272112 · DOI
  19. JE Schwob, 1992, Olfactory sensory neurons are trophically dependent on the olfactory bulb for their prolonged survival, The Journal of neuroscience: the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 12, 3896, 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.12-10-03896.1992 · DOI
  20. MD Christensen, 2001, Rhinotopy is disrupted during the re-innervation of the olfactory bulb that follows transection of the olfactory nerve, Chemical senses, 26, 359, 10.1093/chemse/26.4.359 · DOI
  21. JE Schwob, 1995, Reconstitution of the rat olfactory epithelium after methyl bromide-induced lesion, J Comp Neurol, 359, 15, 10.1002/cne.903590103 · DOI
  22. U Bergman, 2002, Differential effects of olfactory toxicants on olfactory regeneration, Archives of toxicology, 76, 104, 10.1007/s00204-002-0321-2 · DOI
  23. CG Smith, 1938, Changes in the olfactory mucosa and the olfactory nerves following intranasal treatment with one per cent zinc sulphate, Can Med Assoc J, 138
  24. EH Holbrook, 2006, An updated review of clinical olfaction, Current opinion in otolaryngology & head and neck surgery, 14, 23, 10.1097/01.moo.0000193174.77321.39 · DOI
  25. RC Krolewski, 2013, Global expression profiling of globose basal cells and neurogenic progression within the olfactory epithelium, J Comp Neurol, 521, 833, 10.1002/cne.23204 · DOI
  26. RS Shetty, 2005, Transcriptional changes during neuronal death and replacement in the olfactory epithelium, Molecular and cellular neurosciences, 30, 583
  27. MD Nickell, 2012, Genomics of mature and immature olfactory sensory neurons, The Journal of comparative neurology, 520, 2608, 10.1002/cne.23052 · DOI
  28. PM Heron, 2013, Molecular events in the cell types of the olfactory epithelium during adult neurogenesis, Molecular brain, 6, 49, 10.1186/1756-6606-6-49 · DOI
  29. RB Fletcher, 2017, Deconstructing Olfactory Stem Cell Trajectories at Single-Cell Resolution, Cell stem cell, 20, 817, 10.1016/j.stem.2017.04.003 · DOI
  30. BJ Goldstein, 2016, Contribution of Polycomb group proteins to olfactory basal stem cell self-renewal in a novel c-KIT+ culture model and in vivo, Development, 143, 4394, 10.1242/dev.142653 · DOI
  31. BJ Goldstein, 2003, Cloning and characterization of SLP3: a novel member of the stomatin family expressed by olfactory receptor neurons, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology: JARO, 4, 74, 10.1007/s10162-002-2039-5 · DOI
  32. GM Goss, 2016, Differentiation potential of individual olfactory c-Kit+ progenitors determined via multicolor lineage tracing, Dev Neurobiol, 76, 241, 10.1002/dneu.22310 · DOI
  33. A Keller, 1975, Immunological studies of the rat olfactory marker protein, Journal of neurochemistry, 24, 1101, 10.1111/j.1471-4159.1975.tb03883.x · DOI
  34. LE Cheng, 2007, Zfp423/OAZ participates in a developmental switch during olfactory neurogenesis, Neuron, 54, 547, 10.1016/j.neuron.2007.04.029 · DOI
  35. Z Guo, 2010, Expression of pax6 and sox2 in adult olfactory epithelium, J Comp Neurol, 518, 4395, 10.1002/cne.22463 · DOI
  36. KK Gokoffski, 2011, Activin and GDF11 collaborate in feedback control of neuroepithelial stem cell proliferation and fate, Development, 138, 4131, 10.1242/dev.065870 · DOI
  37. EH Holbrook, 1995, An immunochemical, ultrastructural, and developmental characterization of the horizontal basal cells of rat olfactory epithelium, The Journal of comparative neurology, 363, 129, 10.1002/cne.903630111 · DOI
  38. AL Calof, 1989, Analysis of neurogenesis in a mammalian neuroepithelium: proliferation and differentiation of an olfactory neuron precursor in vitro, Neuron, 3, 115, 10.1016/0896-6273(89)90120-7 · DOI
  39. BA Haider, 2014, A critical evaluation of microRNA biomarkers in non-neoplastic disease, PLoS One, 9, e89565, 10.1371/journal.pone.0089565 · DOI · Paper page
  40. MK Jee, 2012, MicroRNA 486 is a potentially novel target for the treatment of spinal cord injury, Brain, 135, 1237
  41. Matthew N. McCall, 2017, Towards the human cellular microRNAome, Towards the human cellular microRNAome
  42. X Cao, 2006, Noncoding RNAs in the mammalian central nervous system, Annu Rev Neurosci, 29, 77, 10.1146/annurev.neuro.29.051605.112839 · DOI · Paper page
  43. AT Loo, 1996, The aging olfactory epithelium: neurogenesis, response to damage, and odorant-induced activity, Int J Dev Neurosci, 14, 881, 10.1016/S0736-5748(96)00046-9 · DOI
  44. A Packard, 2011, Progenitor cell capacity of NeuroD1-expressing globose basal cells in the mouse olfactory epithelium, The Journal of comparative neurology, 519, 3580, 10.1002/cne.22726 · DOI
  45. SL Lindsay, 2016, Comparative miRNA-Based Fingerprinting Reveals Biological Differences in Human Olfactory Mucosa- and Bone-Marrow-Derived Mesenchymal Stromal Cells, Stem Cell Reports, 6, 729, 10.1016/j.stemcr.2016.03.009 · DOI
  46. R Rupaimoole, 2017, MicroRNA therapeutics: towards a new era for the management of cancer and other diseases, Nat Rev Drug Discov, 16, 203, 10.1038/nrd.2016.246 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 4

Metadata

Authors
Kurtenbach, S., Ding, W., Goss, G. M., Hare, J. M., Goldstein, B. J., & Shehadeh, L. A.
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2017-11-06
Volume
12
Issue
11
Pages
e0187576
ISSN
1932-6203
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0187576
PMC
PMC5673187
Cited by
4
References
2
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (K08 DC013556, R56HL132209, 5R01 HL094849, 1R01 HL107110, 5UM1 HL113460, 1R01 HL084275, R01 HL111874)
  • Triological Society/American College of Surgeons (Clinician-Scientist Development Award)
  • Miami Heart Research Institute (MHRI)
  • Starr Foundation (Starr)
  • Soffer Foundation (Soffer)

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