HT22 hücre hattının farklılaşma karakterinin koloni canlılık testi ile sınanması

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı hali hazırda çeşitli nörodejeneratif hastalıkların modellenmesinde kullanılmakta olan HT22 hücre hattının nörogenez modeli olarak da kullanılabilirliğinin koloni canlılık testi ile sınanmasıdır. Yöntem: Yalnızca HG-DMEM medyumu ile muamele edilen hücreler kontrol grubu (K), 24 saat HG-DMEM medyumda bırakıldıktan sonra sırasıyla 24, 48 ve 72 saat B27+ katkılı NB+ medyumu ile inkübe edilen hücreler ise grup 1 (G1), grup 2 (G2) ve grup 3 (G3) olarak belirlenmiştir. Tüm gruplar daha sonra %0.5’lik kristal violet ile boyanarak görüntülenmiştir. Elde edilen görüntülerden koloni sayımı yapılarak hücre canlılık oranları tayin edilmiş ve istatistiksel analiz gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bulgular: Tüm gruplar arasındaki koloni canlılık oranları açısından istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir farklılık saptanmıştır (p<0.0001). Farklılığın yönü, kontrol grubuna kıyasla deney gruplarındaki düşüş eğilimi olmakla birlikte; grup 1 ile grup 2 ve grup 3 birbirleriyle karşılaştırıldığında gözlenen azalmanın istatistiksel olarak anlamlı olduğu görülmüştür (p<0.0001). Ancak grup 2 ve grup 3 arasında farklılık görülmemiştir (p=0.254). Sonuç: Özetle, HT22 hücre hattının nörogenez modeli olarak kullanılabilirliği basit ve ucuz bir yöntem ile sınırlı düzeyde olsa da sınanmıştır. Bu çalışmada uygulanan farklılaştırma protokolü kullanılarak hücresel farklılaşmanın değişik basamaklarını temsil eden faktörler gen ve/veya protein ekspresyonu seviyesinde de test edilebilirse, HT22 hücrelerinin yaygın biçimde nörogenez modeli olarak kullanılabilirliği ortaya çıkarılabilir. Anahtar kelimeler: HT22, hipokampus, nörogenez, nöronal farklılaşma, koloni canlılık testi

Anahtar Kelimeler:

HT22, Hipokampus, Nörogenez, Nöronal Farklılaşma, Koloni Canlılık Testi

Testing the differentiation character of HT22 cell line via colony survival assay

Aim: The aim of this study is to test the feasibility of HT22 cell line, which is in a current use in the modeling of various neurodegenerative diseases, as a neurogenesis model by colony survival assay. Method: Group of cells treated with HG-DMEM medium was designated as control group (K) while equivalent counterparts upon the same treatment that subjected to NB + medium supplemented with B27+ for 24 (G1), 48 (G2), and 72 hours (G3), respectively. All groups were then imaged by staining with 0.5% crystal violet under inverted microscope. Cell viability rates were determined by counting the colonies from the visuals obtained and statistical analysis was performed. Results: A statistically significant difference in colony viability rates between different groups was evident (p<0.0001). The direction of difference was in a decrement trend in the experimental groups compared to the control group (p<0.0001). However, when the two individual experimental groups (G2 vs G3) were compared, there was no significance (p=0.254). Conclusion: In summary, feasibility the use of HT22 cell line as a neurogenesis model has been tested in the current study, albeit limited, by a simple and inexpensive method. If the factors representing the different stages of cellular differentiation can also be tested at the gene and / or protein expression level using the differentiation protocol used in this study, the availability of HT22 cells as a neurogenesis model will be better revealed.

Keywords:

HT22, hippocampus, neurogenesis, neuronal differentiation, colony survival assay,

PDF

___

1. Rakic P. Neuron-glia relationship during granule cell migration in developing cerebellar cortex. A Golgi and electronmicroscopic study in Macacus rhesus. J Comp Neurol. 1971; 141:283–3l2.
2. Altman J, ve Das G Post-Natal Origin of Microneurones in the Rat Brain. Nature 1965;207: 953–956.
3. Altman J. Autoradiographic and histological studies of postnatal neurogenesis. IV. Cell proliferation and migration in the anterior forebrain, with special reference to persisting neurogenesis in the olfactory bulb. Journal of Comparative Neurology. 1969; 137(4):433-457.
4. Eriksson P, Perfilieva E, Björk-Eriksson T., Alborn AM, Nordborg C, Peterson DA., Gage FH., Neurogenesis in the adult human hippocampus. Nat Med 1998; 4:1313–1317.
5. Lois C ve Alvarez-Buylla A. Long-distance neuronal migration in the adult mammalian brain. Science 1994; 264(5162): 1145-1148.
6. Kempermann G, Jessberger S, Steiner B, Kronenberg G. Milestones of neuronal development in the adult hippocampus. Trends in Neuroscience. 2004; 27(8): 447-452.
7. Noonan M, Bulin SE, Fuller DC, Eisch J. Reduction of Adult Hippocampal Neurogenesis Confers Vulnerability in an Animal Model of Cocaine Addiction. Journal of Neuroscience. 2010; 30(1):304-315.
8. Aimone J.B., Deng W, Gage FH. Resolving New Memories: A Critical Look at the Dentate Gyrus, Adult Neurogenesis, and Pattern Separation. Neuron. 2011;70(4): 589-596.
9. Sahay A, Scobie KN, Hill AS et al. Increasing adult hippocampal neurogenesis is sufficient to improve pattern separation. Nature. 2011; 472: 466–470.
10. Gordon J, Amini S ve White MK. General Overview of Neuronal Cell Culture. Neuronal Cell Culture, Methods in Molecular Biology Book Series. New York, Springer Science+Business Media, 2013: 1–8.
11. Wang C, Cai X, Hu W et al. Investigation of the neuroprotective effects of crocin via antioxidant activities in HT22 cells and in mice with Alzheimer's disease. Int J Mol Med 2019;43: 956-966.
12. Park JS, Park JH, Kim KY, Neuroprotective effects of myristargenol A against glutamate-induced apoptotic HT22 cell death. RSC Adv., 2019;9:31247-31254.
13. Liu J, Li L, Suo W. HT22 hippocampal neuronal cell line possesses functional cholinergic properties. Life Sciences 2009; 84(9-10): 267-271.
14. He M, Liu J, Cheng S, Xing Y, Suo WZ. Differentiation renders susceptibility to excitotoxicity in HT22 neurons. Neural Regen Res. 2013;8(14):1297-1306.
15. Davis JB ve Maher P. Protein kinase C activation inhibits glutamate-induced cytotoxicity in a neuronal cell line. Brain Res 1994; 652(1): 169-173.
16. Franken N, Rodermond HM, Stap J, Haveman J, Bree CV. Clonogenic assay of cells in vitro. Nature Protocols 2006; 1(5): 2315-2319.
17. Lipp HP ve Bonfanti L. Adult Neurogenesis in Mammals: Variations and Confusions. Brain Behav Evol 2016; 87:205-221.
18. Kempermann G. Environmental enrichment, new neurons and the neurobiology of individuality. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2019; 20:235–245.
19. Hogins J, Crawford DC, Zorumski CF, Mennerick S. Excitotoxicity Triggered by Neurobasal Culture Medium. PLoS ONE 2011;6(9): e25633.
20. Kuijlaars J, Oyelami T, Diels, A. et al. Sustained synchronized neuronal network activity in a human astrocyte co-culture system. Sci Rep 2016;6: 36529.
21. Munshi A, Hobbs M, Meyn RE. Clonogenic cell survival assay. Methods Mol Med. 2005;110: 21-8.
22. Kabakov AE ve. Gabai LV. Cell Death and Survival Assays. Methods Mol Med. 2018;1709: 107-127.
23. Chang DS, Lasley FD, Das IJ. Mendonca M.S., Dynlacht J.R. Basic Radiotherapy Physics and Biology, New York, Springer Science+Business Media, 2014: 211-219.
24. Abbott LC ve Nigussie F. Adult neurogenesis in the mammalian dentate gyrus. Anat Histol Embryol. 2019; 49: 3– 16.