-
Wild-type embryos were derived from natural matings of Tübingen zebrafish. Embryos were raised at 28.5 °C in Holtfreter’s solution. The arhgef10−/− and arhgef10+/− mutants were identified by genotyping, as described below.
-
A MEGAscript kit (Ambion, Austin, Texas, USA) was used to synthesize digoxigenin-UTP-labeled RNA probes in vitro from linearized plasmids, according to the manufacturer’s instructions.
Embryos were fixed overnight at 4 °C using 4% paraformaldehyde (PFA) in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) for hybridization. After using PBS to wash PFA 4 times (5 min each), the embryos were twice-washed with 100% methanol (5 min each). WISH was performed, as previously described[30]. -
Cas9 mRNA was transcribed from pGH-T7-zCas9 in vitro using a protocol optimized for zebrafish, as previously described[31]. Cas9 mRNA (200 pg) was injected in zebrafish embryos at the one-cell stage. Then, arhgef10 (GenBank accession number NC_007128.7; Sangon Biotech, Shanghai, China) guide-RNA (gRNA) was synthesized, as previously described[31]. We designed 4 zebrafish arhgef10-specific gRNAs for gene-specific editing of arhgef10 exons 12 and 13 (Table 1).
Table 1. gRNA for gene-specific editing of arhgef10 exons 12 and 13
gRNA Sequences (5’– 3′) ahgef10-exon12-1 GAAACACCACCTTACGCTTG ahgef10-exon12-2 ATCCCAGTCAGATACTCTGC ahgef10-exon13-1 AGCGTCCAACACCATAGACT ahgef10-exon13-2 GTCCAGGAAACAGGGTTTAG To synthesize the gRNA template, oligos were amplified by PCR reactions. A MAXIscript T7 kit (Life Technologies, Grand Island, NY, USA) was used to transcribe gRNA in vitro. TURBO DNase (Life Technologies) was used to remove the DNA template. Phenol chloroform was used to purify the product after synthesis. gRNA and Cas9 mRNA were injected into zebrafish embryos at the one-cell stage.
-
To extract genomic DNA from zebrafish embryos or tail fin clips, samples were lysed in 50 mmol/L NaOH, then boiled at 95 °C for 30 min. To neutralize the lysates, a 10% volume of 1 mol/L Tris (pH = 8.0) was added to the solution after boiling. After neutralization, the lysates were used as templates in PCRs. The successful targeting of arhgef10 was validated by a PCR reaction. The primers for the region flanking the target site was as follows: arhgef10 fwd, 5′-GATGATTGGGATGCATGAGAGTT-3′; and arhgef10 rev, 5′-CGGGTCTACATGTAATTACTGCA-3′. The amplified fragments were identified by Sanger DNA sequencing for genotyping.
After identifying successful germline-transmitted mutant loci, the surviving embryos were raised to adulthood and screened for germ-line mutated founders. Next, the mutational founders were outcrossed with wild-type zebrafish to generate F1s. Zebrafish were genotyped by PCRs using the following primers: arhgef10 fwd, 5′-TGGCTCAGGTCTGTTTGTGA-3′; and arhgef10 rev, 5′-ACTGCTGTCATGCACAAAGG-3′. The PCR products were then run on a 10% TBE-PAGE gel to distinguish homozygous from heterozygous carriers. The amplified fragment of the wild-type was 261 bp and the amplified fragment of mutant was 140 bp. Finally, F1 was mated to screen for homozygous F2.
-
The heads of zebrafish 5 days post-fertilization (dpf) were ground into powder in grinding bowls with liquid nitrogen. Total RNA was prepared according to the manufacturer's instructions (Life Technologies), followed by clean-up using an RNeasy Mini-kit (Qiagen, Germantown, WI, USA). RNA abundance was measured after isolation using a Nanodrop Spectrophotometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) at an absorbance of 260 nm by calculating the A260/A230 and A260/A280 ratios. All isolated nucleic acids were stored at −80 °C. mRNA reverse transcription was generated using an Invitrogen SuperScript kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific) following the manufacturer's instructions. Quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) was performed using a LightCycler 96 (Roche, Basel, Switzerland) with SYBR Premix (Takara Bio, Otsu, Japan). Zebrafish were genotyped by qRT-PCR reactions using the following primers for the arhgef10 gene: fwd, 5'-TGGCTCAGGTCTGTTTGTGA-3'; and rev, 5'-ACTGCTGTCATGCACAAAGG-3'. The PCRs were performed under the following conditions: initiation at 95 ˚C for 30 s; an d40 cycles of amplification at 95 ˚C for 5 s and at 60 ˚C for 30 s. The experiments were performed in triplicate and repeated three times. Data were normalized to beta-action using the ΔΔCt method.
-
The swimming behavior 120 h post-fertilization (hpf) larvae was assessed in 48-well plates. Twenty larvae in wild-type, arhgef10+/−, and arhgef10−/− groups were placed individually in each well with 2 mL of Holtfreter’s solution. All larvae were prepared 30 min before the beginning of observation. Zebrafish larvae were placed in a DanioVision Observation Chamber (EthoVision®, Noldus Information Technology, Wageningen, Netherlands), and videos were recorded for 60 min to measure the distance traveled by the larvae. All of the swimming behavior recordings took place between 11:00 am and 12:30 pm.
-
Zebrafish larvae were placed in 48-well plates, as described above. All larvae were prepared 30 min before the beginning of observation. Each larva was recorded for a total of 30 min with 2.5 light/dark cycles (each consisting of 5 min of light and 5 min of dark). The light intensity for photomotor responses was 100 lx and the frame rate was 25/s.
-
Human SH-SY5Y cells were purchased from the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC, Rockville, MD, USA) and cultured in Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle’s Medium (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA) enhanced with 10% heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum in a humidified incubator at 37 °C containing 5% CO2. Cell transfections were carried out using Lipofectamine 3000 (Invitrogen) following the manufacturer’s instructions.
-
SH-SY5Y cell total protein was extracted using 2 × SDS lysis buffer at 4 °C, and quantified using the Bradford assay. Equivalent measures of protein were isolated on SDS-PAGE gels. The gels were transferred onto PVDF membranes (BioRad, Hercules, CA, USA). The membranes were blocked with 5% bovine serum albumin (11021037; Thermo Fisher) and probed with primary antibodies, including anti-ARHGEF10 (Proteintech, Hubei, China) and anti-GAPDH (Proteintech) overnight at 4 °C. Membranes were washed with TBS and 0.1% Tween 20, then incubated with HRP-conjugated secondary antibodies, stained with chemiluminescence (Millipore, MA, USA) reagent and visualized. GAPDH served as a loading control. Protein levels were quantified using NIH ImageJ software (NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA)(version 1.8.0).
-
Cell viability was determined with a Cell Counting Kit-8 (Vazyme, Nanjing, China) at 24, 48, and 72 h. Then, after adding 10 μL of CCK-8 solution to each well, the cells were cultured in an incubator for 1 h in the dark. A Multiskan SkyHigh Microplate reader (Thermo Fisher) was used to measure the absorbance of each sample at 450 nm. Each sample was analyzed in triplicate. -
SH-SY5Y cells were collected and seeded into 6-cm dishes. Cells were digested with 0.25% trypsin after 48 h of growth and collected with PBS on ice. Annexin V-fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC; Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, New Jersey, USA) was added to cells for 10 min at 25 °C, then propidium iodide (PI) was added for 3 min at 25 °C in the dark. Fluorescence intensity was analyzed with a FACScan flow cytometer (Becton Dickinson) and data were processed with FlowJo software (FlowJo LLC; Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, New Jersey, USA). Each sample was analyzed in triplicate.
-
Statistical analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism software. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized to compare the locomotor experimental data of three genotypes. All the experiments were performed three times. P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Values are presented as the mean ± SEM.
doi: 10.3967/bes2022.005
Single-copy Loss of Rho Guanine Nucleotide Exchange Factor 10 (arhgef10) Causes Locomotor Abnormalities in Zebrafish Larvae
-
Abstract:
Objective To determine if ARHGEF10 has a haploinsufficient effect and provide evidence to evaluate the severity, if any, during prenatal consultation. Methods Zebrafish was used as a model for generating mutant. The pattern of arhgef10 expression in the early stages of zebrafish development was observed using whole-mount in situ hybridization (WISH). CRISPR/Cas9 was applied to generate a zebrafish model with a single-copy or homozygous arhgef10 deletion. Activity and light/dark tests were performed in arhgef10−/−, arhgef10+/−, and wild-type zebrafish larvae. ARHGEF10 was knocked down using small interferon RNA (siRNA) in the SH-SY5Y cell line, and cell proliferation and apoptosis were determined using the CCK-8 assay and Annexin V/PI staining, respectively. Results WISH showed that during zebrafish embryonic development arhgef10 was expressed in the midbrain and hindbrain at 36–72 h post-fertilization (hpf) and in the hemopoietic system at 36–48 hpf. The zebrafish larvae with single-copy and homozygous arhgef10 deletions had lower exercise capacity and poorer responses to environmental changes compared to wild-type zebrafish larvae. Moreover, arhgef10−/− zebrafish had more severe symptoms than arhgef10+/- zebrafish. Knockdown of ARHGEF10 in human neuroblastoma cells led to decreased cell proliferation and increased cell apoptosis. Conclusion Based on our findings, ARHGEF10 appeared to have a haploinsufficiency effect. -
Key words:
- arhgef10 /
- Zebrafish /
- CRISPR/Cas9 /
- Haploinsufficiency /
- Copy loss
-
Figure 1. Detection of arhgef10 expression during early embryogenesis in wild-type zebrafish. (A–H) Wild-type embryos after whole-mount in situ hybridization using an antisense probe for arhgef10 at the indicated developmental stages. The red arrow points to high expression of arhgef10 in the hemopoietic system. The red circle indicates high expression of arhgef10 in the midbrain and hindbrain of zebrafish larvae.
Figure 2. Generation of the arhgef10 deletion model in zebrafish by CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing. (A) Sketch map of the zebrafish arhgef10 gene and protein. The CRISPR/Cas9-induced mutation (121-base deletion and 16-base insertion) in arhgef10 is shown in the annotated arhgef10 mutant sequences. The nucleotides in red are inserted sequences and “-” are deleted nucleotides. (B) Identification of the copy number losses model by PCR. The PCR product for wild-type was 261 bp and for the ahrgef10 deletion was 140 bp. (C) The relative expression of arhgef10 mRNA in the brains of arhgef10+/+, arhgef10+/−
, and arhgef10−/− larvae 5 dpf (*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001, and ****P < 0.0001, respectively). Figure 3. Spontaneous activity of wild type, arhgef10+/− and arhgef10−/− larvae 5 dpf. (A) Distance traveled in 60 min 5 dpf. (B) Average distance moved per minute 5 dpf. (C) Movement time during 60 min 5 dpf. The vertical axis shows the normalized distance (mm) traveled by larvae in each 1-min bin. Data are shown as the mean ± SEM (*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001, and ****P < 0.0001; n = 20 for each genotype).
Figure 4. Light-to-dark test of wild-type, arhgef10+/−, and arhgef10−/− larvae 5 dpf. (A) The program of the test. The activity was recorded during 30 min of light (L0) and 2.5 cycle of 5 min light-to-dark intervals [5 min dark (D1) – 5 min light (L1) – 5 min dark (Ds2) – 5 min light (L2) – 5 min dark (D3)]. (B) The average distance moved per min in each light or dark period 5 dpf. The vertical axis shows the normalized distance (mm) traveled by larvae in each 1-min bin. Data are shown as the mean ± SEM (*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001, and ****P < 0.0001; n = 20 for each genotype).
Figure 5. Expression analysis of proteins in SH-SY5Y cells and cell proliferation in the ARHGEF10 knockdown SH-SY5Y cell line. (A) Western blot analysis of ARHGEF10 protein expression in Blank, siCon, and siARHGEF10 cells. (B) Quantitative analysis of ARHGEF10 protein in Blank, siCon, and siARHGEF10 cells. (C) The cell viability was measured at 24, 48, and 72 h after transfection by the CCK-8 assay. Cells were untreated (Blank), treated with control siRNA (siCon), or anti-ARHGEF10 siRNA (siARHGEF10). The visualized protein signals were transferred to quantitative expression by ImageJ software. Data are expressed as the mean ± SD (n = 3). ns, no statistical differences; *P < 0.05, ***P < 0.001.
Figure 6. Apoptosis detection in SH-SY5Y cells by flow cytometry assay. Analysis of apoptosis in the Blank, siCon, and siARHGEF10 cells. Cells that were propidium iodide (PI)- and Annexin V-negative were considered alive. Cells that were either Annexin V- or PI-positive were considered early or late apoptotic. Cells that were PI- and Annexin V-positive were considered necrotic. PI-negative or cells were either untreated (Blank), treated with control siRNA (siCon), or treated with anti-ARHGEF10 siRNA (siARHGEF10). ns P > 0.05, *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001, and ****P < 0.0001
Table 1. gRNA for gene-specific editing of arhgef10 exons 12 and 13
gRNA Sequences (5’– 3′) ahgef10-exon12-1 GAAACACCACCTTACGCTTG ahgef10-exon12-2 ATCCCAGTCAGATACTCTGC ahgef10-exon13-1 AGCGTCCAACACCATAGACT ahgef10-exon13-2 GTCCAGGAAACAGGGTTTAG -
[1] Sahoo T, Dzidic N, Strecker MN, et al. Comprehensive genetic analysis of pregnancy loss by chromosomal microarrays: outcomes, benefits, and challenges. Genet Med, 2017; 19, 83−9. doi: 10.1038/gim.2016.69 [2] Levy B, Sigurjonsson S, Pettersen B, et al. Genomic imbalance in products of conception: single-nucleotide polymorphism chromosomal microarray analysis. Obstet Gynecol, 2014; 124, 202−9. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000325 [3] Shi SS, Lin SB, Chen BJ, et al. Isolated chromosome 8p23. 2-pter deletion:novel evidence for developmental delay, intellectual disability, microcephaly and neurobehavioral disorders. Mol Med Rep, 2017; 16, 6837−45. [4] Hagens O, Minina E, Schweiger S, et al. Characterization of FBX25, encoding a novel brain-expressed F-box protein. Biochim Biophys Acta, 2006; 1760, 110−8. doi: 10.1016/j.bbagen.2005.09.018 [5] Harich B, Klein M, Ockeloen CW, et al. From man to fly - convergent evidence links FBXO25 to ADHD and comorbid psychiatric phenotypes. J Child Psychol Psychiat, 2020; 61, 545−5. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.13161 [6] Ranta S, Zhang YH, Ross B, et al. The neuronal ceroid lipofuscinoses in human EPMR and mnd mutant mice are associated with mutations in CLN8. Nat Genet, 1999; 23, 233−6. doi: 10.1038/13868 [7] Ranta S, Topcu M, Tegelberg S, et al. Variant late infantile neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis in a subset of Turkish patients is allelic to Northern epilepsy. Hum Mutat, 2004; 23, 300−5. doi: 10.1002/humu.20018 [8] Reinhardt K, Grapp M, Schlachter K, et al. Novel CLN8 mutations confirm the clinical and ethnic diversity of late infantile neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis. Clin Genet, 2010; 77, 79−85. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-0004.2009.01285.x [9] Guo JY, Johnson GS, Cook J, et al. Neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis in a german shorthaired pointer associated with a previously reported CLN8 nonsense variant. Mol Genet Metab Rep, 2019; 21, 100521. doi: 10.1016/j.ymgmr.2019.100521 [10] Guo JY, Johnson GS, Brown HA, et al. A CLN8 nonsense mutation in the whole genome sequence of a mixed breed dog with neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis and Australian Shepherd ancestry. Mol Genet Metab, 2014; 112, 302−9. doi: 10.1016/j.ymgme.2014.05.014 [11] Lonka L, Aalto A, Kopra O, et al. The neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis Cln8 gene expression is developmentally regulated in mouse brain and up-regulated in the hippocampal kindling model of epilepsy. BMC Neurosci, 2005; 6, 27. doi: 10.1186/1471-2202-6-27 [12] Adhikari B, De Silva B, Molina JA, et al. Neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis related ER membrane protein CLN8 regulates PP2A activity and ceramide levels. Biochim Biophys Acta Mol Basis Dis, 2019; 1865, 322−8. doi: 10.1016/j.bbadis.2018.11.011 [13] Allen NM, O'HIci B, Anderson G, et al. Variant late-infantile neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis due to a novel heterozygous CLN8 mutation and de novo 8p23. 3 deletion. Clin Genet, 2012; 81, 602−4. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-0004.2011.01777.x [14] Kamath RS, Fraser AG, Dong Y, et al. Systematic functional analysis of the Caenorhabditis elegans genome using RNAi. Nature, 2003; 421, 231−7. doi: 10.1038/nature01278 [15] Li JM, Lu CL, Cheng MC, et al. Role of the DLGAP2 gene encoding the SAP90/PSD-95-associated protein 2 in schizophrenia. PLoS One, 2014; 9, e85373. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0085373 [16] Verhoeven K, De Jonghe P, Van De Putte T, et al. Slowed conduction and thin myelination of peripheral nerves associated with mutant rho Guanine-nucleotide exchange factor 10. Am J Hum Genet, 2003; 73, 926−32. doi: 10.1086/378159 [17] Zheng Y. Dbl family guanine nucleotide exchange factors. Trends Biochem Sci, 2001; 26, 724−32. doi: 10.1016/S0968-0004(01)01973-9 [18] Jin SC, Lewis SA, Bakhtiari S, et al. Mutations disrupting neuritogenesis genes confer risk for cerebral palsy. Nat Genet, 2020; 52, 1046−56. doi: 10.1038/s41588-020-0695-1 [19] Barbosa S, Greville-Heygate S, Bonnet M, et al. Opposite modulation of RAC1 by mutations in TRIO is associated with distinct, domain-specific neurodevelopmental disorders. Am J Hum Genet, 2020; 106, 338−55. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2020.01.018 [20] De Filippis B, Valenti D, Chiodi V, et al. Modulation of Rho GTPases rescues brain mitochondrial dysfunction, cognitive deficits and aberrant synaptic plasticity in female mice modeling Rett syndrome. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol, 2015; 25, 889−901. doi: 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2015.03.012 [21] Van Der Bijl I, Nawaz K, Kazlauskaite U, et al. Reciprocal integrin/integrin antagonism through kindlin-2 and Rho GTPases regulates cell cohesion and collective migration. Matrix Biol, 2020; 93, 60−78. doi: 10.1016/j.matbio.2020.05.005 [22] Hiraide T, Kaba Yasui H, Kato M, et al. A de novo variant in RAC3 causes severe global developmental delay and a middle interhemispheric variant of holoprosencephaly. J Hum Genet, 2019; 64, 1127−32. doi: 10.1038/s10038-019-0656-7 [23] Droppelmann CA, Campos-Melo D, Volkening K, et al. The emerging role of guanine nucleotide exchange factors in ALS and other neurodegenerative diseases. Front Cell Neurosci, 2014; 8, 282. [24] Nelis E, De Jonghe P, De Vriendt E, et al. Mutation analysis of the nerve specific promoter of the peripheral myelin protein 22 gene in CMT1 disease and HNPP. J Med Genet, 1998; 35, 590−3. doi: 10.1136/jmg.35.7.590 [25] Chaya T, Shibata S, Tokuhara Y, et al. Identification of a negative regulatory region for the exchange activity and characterization of T332I mutant of Rho guanine nucleotide exchange factor 10 (ARHGEF10). J Biol Chem, 2011; 286, 29511−20. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M111.236810 [26] Beutler AS, Kulkarni AA, Kanwar R, et al. Sequencing of Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease genes in a toxic polyneuropathy. Ann Neurol, 2014; 76, 727−37. doi: 10.1002/ana.24265 [27] Jungerius BJ, Hoogendoorn MLC, Bakker SC, et al. An association screen of myelin-related genes implicates the chromosome 22q11 PIK4CA gene in schizophrenia. Mol Psychiatry, 2008; 13, 1060−8. doi: 10.1038/sj.mp.4002080 [28] Lu DH, Liao HM, Chen CH, et al. Impairment of social behaviors in Arhgef10 knockout mice. Mol Autism, 2018; 9, 11. doi: 10.1186/s13229-018-0197-5 [29] Li XD, Tu HW, Hu KQ, et al. Effects of toluene on the development of the inner ear and lateral line sensory system of zebrafish. Biomed Environ Sci, 2021; 34, 110−8. [30] Jowett T. Analysis of protein and gene expression. Methods Cell Biol, 1999; 59, 63−85. [31] Chang NN, Sun CH, Gao L, et al. Genome editing with RNA-guided Cas9 nuclease in zebrafish embryos. Cell Res, 2013; 23, 465−72. doi: 10.1038/cr.2013.45 [32] Chen YZ, Fang F, Kidwell KM, et al. Genetic variation in Charcot-Marie-Tooth genes contributes to sensitivity to paclitaxel-induced peripheral neuropathy. Pharmacogenomics, 2020; 21, 841−51. doi: 10.2217/pgs-2020-0053 [33] Yamashita Y, Irie K, Kochi A, et al. Involvement of Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease gene mitofusin 2 expression in paclitaxel-induced mechanical allodynia in rats. Neurosci Lett, 2017; 653, 337−40. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2017.05.069 [34] Lundbäck V, Kulyté A, Arner P, et al. Genome-wide association study of Diabetogenic Adipose Morphology in the GENetics of Adipocyte Lipolysis (GENiAL) cohort. Cells, 2020; 9, 1085. doi: 10.3390/cells9051085 [35] Lu DH, Hsu CC, Huang SW, et al. ARHGEF10 knockout inhibits platelet aggregation and protects mice from thrombus formation. J Thromb Haemost, 2017; 15, 2053−64. doi: 10.1111/jth.13799 [36] De Toro-Martín J, Guénard F, Rudkowska I, et al. A common variant in ARHGEF10 alters delta-6 desaturase activity and influence susceptibility to hypertriglyceridemia. J Clin Lipidol, 2018; 12, 311−20.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.jacl.2017.10.020 [37] Zee RYL, Wang QM, Chasman DI, et al. Gene variations of ROCKs and risk of ischaemic stroke: the Women's Genome Health Study. Clin Sci (Lond), 2014; 126, 829−35. doi: 10.1042/CS20130652 [38] Joseph J, Radulovich N, Wang T, et al. Rho guanine nucleotide exchange factor ARHGEF10 is a putative tumor suppressor in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Oncogene, 2020; 39, 308−21. doi: 10.1038/s41388-019-0985-1 [39] Shibata S, Kawanai T, Hara T, et al. ARHGEF10 directs the localization of Rab8 to Rab6-positive executive vesicles. J Cell Sci, 2016; 129, 3620−34. [40] Aoki T, Ueda S, Kataoka T, et al. Regulation of mitotic spindle formation by the RhoA guanine nucleotide exchange factor ARHGEF10. BMC Cell Biol, 2009; 10, 56. doi: 10.1186/1471-2121-10-56