Abstract
Sigma-1 Receptor has been shown to localize to sites of peripheral nerve injury and back pain. Radioligand probes have been developed to localize Sigma-1 Receptor and thus image pain source. However, in non-pain conditions, Sigma-1 Receptor expression has also been demonstrated in the central nervous system and dorsal root ganglion. This work aimed to study Sigma-1 Receptor expression in a microglial cell population in the lumbar spine following peripheral nerve injury. A publicly available transcriptomic dataset of 102,691 L4/5 mouse microglial cells from a sciatic-sural nerve spared nerve injury model and 93,027 age and sex matched cells from a sham model was used. At each of three time points—postoperative day 3, postoperative day 14, and postoperative month 5—gene expression data was recorded for both spared nerve injury and Sham cell groups. For all cells, 27,998 genes were sequenced. All cells were clustered into 12 distinct subclusters and gene set enrichment pathway analysis was performed. For both the spared nerve injury and Sham groups, Sigma-1 Receptor expression significantly decreased at each time point following surgery. At the 5-month postoperative time point, only one of twelve subclusters showed significantly increased Sigma-1 Receptor expression in spared nerve injury cells as compared to Sham cells (p = 0.0064). Pathway analysis of this cluster showed a significantly increased expression of the inflammatory response pathway in the spared nerve injury cells relative to Sham cells at the 5-month time point (p = 6.74e−05). A distinct subcluster of L4/5 microglia was identified which overexpress Sigma-1 Receptor following peripheral nerve injury consistent with neuropathic pain inflammatory response functioning. This indicates that upregulated Sigma-1 Receptor in the central nervous system characterizes post-acute peripheral nerve injury and may be further developed for clinical use in the differentiation between low back pain secondary to peripheral nerve injury and low back pain not associated with peripheral nerve injury in cases where the pain cannot be localized.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of years lived with disability worldwide1. Specific treatment (e.g.: epidural steroid injection, radiofrequency ablation, corrective surgery) is often limited as localization of the source is problematic. This results in frequent opioid prescriptions, worsening the opioid epidemic2. In some cases, structural abnormalities identified by conventional imaging may not be causally related to the LBP, such that surgical correction does not improve a patient’s pain symptoms. Conversely, in some cases there are no structural abnormalities found in conventual imaging, and thus specific therapies cannot be pursued. In an effort to better localize LBP, a radioligand that binds to the Sigma-1 Receptor (S1R), which is a molecular biomarker of nerve injury and neuroinflammation3, is used as a tracer for PET/MRI4. This pain localization has already been well developed, and found to identify pain sources both included and not included in structural imaging for chronic knee pain4,5, and in recent work, LBP6,7.
Despite these advances, S1R has not been fully characterized in its biological role and response to pain. It is clear that S1R localizes to local pain sources. The same S1R radiotracer was able to localize peripheral nerve injury (PNI) sites in a neuropathic pain model8. However, it is also reported that S1R is expressed in the central nervous system (CNS), with almost all neurons in the spinal cord expressing S1R, specifically those in the ventral horn motor neurons9,10. S1R expression is not selectively neuronal, as consistent with its role in pain, S1R is expressed in microglia as a neuroinflammatory modulator11. However, it is unclear how S1R expression in the spinal cord is affected by PNI. Preliminary work in a spinal nerve ligation model found downregulation of S1R in injured dorsal root ganglion neurons and their surrounding glial cells, with a lesser degree of downregulation in neighboring uninjured neurons12.
It is vital to understand the S1R response in non-neuronal cell types, specifically microglial as the drivers of neuroinflammation following PNI. This study hypothesized that spinal cord microglial subpopulations would differentially express S1R based on whether they were exposed to a PNI or sham surgery. If such an upregulated response was found, there would be an increase in clinically meaningful information in the S1R radioligand PET/MRI imaging method. A significant change in S1R expression in microglia exposed to PNI relative to those exposed to sham surgery may be clinically useful in differentiating LBP secondary to PNI from non-PNI LBP. Therefore, this study aimed to determine if any microglial subpopulation’s expression of S1R varied between sham surgery and PNI treatments at different postoperative time points. It also sought to identify the cellular pathways that were differentially regulated in these microglial subpopulations.
Methods
Data source
A publicly available transcriptomic dataset of 102,691 L4/5 mouse microglial cells from a sciatic-sural nerve spared nerve injury (SNI) model and 93,027 age and sex matched cells from a sham model was used13. Both SNI and Sham cell groups contained three conditions: Day 3, Day 14, and Month 5 post-surgery when the sample was collected. For all cells 27,998 genes were sequenced. Day 3 and 14 correspond to acute PNI timepoints, where inflammation is reduced at Day 14. The Month 5 timepoint corresponds to a chronic PNI state. This lumbar spinal microglia population was found to exhibit time and sex specific responses to PNI13.
Data download
Single-cell RNA-sequencing data form the data source above was downloaded from the Gene Expression Omnibus under accession GSE162807. All count files were downloaded as 10× CellRanger hdf5 file type and were read into a Seurat object using R (version 4.2.1) with the Seurat package (version 4.3.0). As there were duplicates for some samples, one sample for each gender for each condition was chosen to continue in our workflow.
Data preprocessing
According to the standard Seurat single-cell RNA-sequencing preprocessing pipeline, data was first normalized using a log normalization method. To duplicate the preprocessing of the data from Tansley et al., all cells with under 500 or over 4000 features were removed from the dataset13. 2000 variable features were selected with the ‘vst’ method, and using these variable features the data was scaled and principal component analysis (PCA) was performed.
Clustering and visualization
The same pipeline to cluster the cells from Tansley et al. was performed13. Nearest neighbors for each cell were found using the first 15 dimensions, and the clusters of the cells were computed using a shared nearest neighbor approach with resolution parameter set to 0.3. 12 clusters of cell subpopulations were found. Visualization of the resulting clusters and data was performed using Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection (UMAP).
Pathway analysis
Using Seurat, a gene set enrichment ranking was computed, and the fgsea package (version 1.24.0) in R was used to run a gene set enrichment analysis. 50 pathways were included in the analysis from the Molecular Signatures Database Hallmark Pathway Set ("mh.all.v2022.1.Mm.symbols.gmt").
Statistical analysis
A one-tailed t-test was utilized to assess significant differences in S1R expression between SNI and Sham cells. A one-tailed t-test was used as opposed to a two-tailed t-test as the current clinical imaging method specifically tests for and identifies an increase in S1R expression to localize pain generators. The p-values were interpreted as statistically significant if less than 0.05. “For pathway analysis, a pathway was considered to be significantly enriched if its p-value and Benjamini–Hochberg adjusted p-value were both less than 0.05.”
Results
Cell population characterization
Of the 195,718 cells, 102,691 of the cells were SNI condition (52.5%). The SNI cells were composed of 31,852 cells (31.0%) 3-days post-surgery, 35,560 cells (34.6%) 14-days post-surgery, and 35,279 cells (34.4%) 5-months post-surgery. The Sham cells were composed of 27,993 cells (30.1%) 3-days post-surgery, 31,131 cells (33.5%) 14-days post-surgery, and 33,903 cells (36.4%) 5-months post-surgery.
Analysis of S1R expression by SNI versus Sham condition by time point
S1R expression in all microglia in the SNI condition and Sham condition was compared, across all time points and for each time point separately. From Table 1, there was no evidence of a significant increase in S1R expression in the SNI condition versus Sham condition for the pooled (p-val = 0.081), 3-day post-surgery (p-val = 0.149), 14-day post-surgery (p-val = 0.563), or 5-month post-surgery (p-val = 0.117). However, there is evidence of an increase in S1R expression at both the 3-day (p-val = 1.81E−10) and 14-day (p-val = 6.75E−8) compared to 5-month post-surgery.
Subpopulation analysis of S1R expression by SNI versus Sham condition by time point
The 12 distinct clusters of microglia subpopulations are visualized in Fig. 1a. An increased frequency of cells was observed in Cluster 7 by Violin Plot (Fig. 1b) at the extremes of S1R expression level (> 1.0). This increased frequency of cells in Cluster 7 at high expression levels for S1R was found to be primarily attributable to SNI and 5-month post-surgery cells (Fig. 1c, d).
Cluster 7 exhibited a significant increase in S1R expression between SNI and Sham conditions for both the pooled (p-val = 0.0037) and 5-month post-surgery (p-val = 0.0064) time points. At the acute 3-day post-surgery time point, Cluster 11 was found to have a significant increase in S1R expression in the SNI condition (p-val = 0.012), but this response did not persist at later time points. Cluster 7 was the only cluster with a significant increase in S1R expression between the two conditions at the 5-month post-surgery time point (Table 2).
Functional analysis of the clusters
To explore the biological role of the identified microglial subpopulation in Cluster 7, pathway enrichment analysis was performed (Fig. 2). At the 3-day post–surgery time point, the only significantly upregulated pathway, in SNI versus Sham conditions, was TNFA Signaling Via NFKB (padj = 0.000012) (Fig. 2a). At the 14-day post-surgery time point, there were no significantly upregulated pathways (Fig. 2b). At the 5-month post-surgery time point, the only significantly upregulated pathway was the inflammatory response pathway (padj = 0.0034) (Fig. 2c).
Marker genes to differentiate Cluster 7 from all other cells at pooled timepoints were determined, with the top six genes by increased fold change (Tsix, Xist, AY036118, Tnpo3, Neat1, Malat1) displayed in Table 3 and violin plots of their expression in Fig. 3.
Discussion
We analyzed the single-cell transcriptomic profiles of L4/5 microglia at the 3-day, 14-day, and 5-month time points after either SNI or Sham surgery to characterize the biological role of S1R in the CNS in response to PNI. This represents the first time that an expressional change in S1R has been studied following SNI in any cell type. A subset of these microglia demonstrated increased expression of S1R following SNI. This microglial subset has a specific functional profile, characterized by an upregulation of the cellular inflammatory response pathway at the 5-month postoperative time point14. If the increased expression of S1R in this microglial subpopulation could be identified with imaging modalities such as the S1R radioligand PET/MRI method, it could enable clinicians to distinguish between LBP associated with PNI and LBP due to other causes. This has direct clinical relevance: operative management provides superior outcomes when compared to conservative treatment in cases of LBP with radiculopathy, which is typically caused by spinal nerve compression, a form of PNI. By contrast, fusion and other operative management is no better than intensive nonsurgical rehabilitation in cases of nonradicular LBP15. Therefore, identifying PNI by examining the expression of S1R in spinal cord microglia in cases of LBP from an unknown etiology could inform the patient’s decision to pursue operative management.
Increased S1R expression was not seen across all microglia. We hypothesize that this is because only a subset of spinal microglia is involved in the post–injury neuroinflammatory response. Evidence for this is provided in Fig. 1, where S1R is not expressed in most cells within each cluster. However, S1R expression is markedly increased throughout cluster 7. Therefore, cluster 7 microglia could have a unique role in pain or inflammatory signaling. Moreover, S1R expression in cluster 7 microglia is statistically similar across Sham and SNI conditions at the 3-day and 14-day time points, but the cells exposed to SNI show increased expression of S1R at the 5-month time point. This is consistent with the hypothesis that S1R serves as a biomarker of chronic microglial neuroinflammation post–injury. Figure 2 provides additional evidence that the cluster 7 microglial subpopulation has a neuroinflammatory role: GSEA pathway analysis demonstrates that cluster 7 microglia have a significantly upregulated inflammatory response pathway at the 5-month time point post-surgery in the SNI condition relative to the Sham condition. SNI upregulation of the inflammatory pathway is not present at the 3-day or 14-day time points, which is consistent with inflammatory response transitions from acute response to a chronic neuropathic response to nerve injury16.
The marker genes to differentiate the identified subpopulation of cluster 7 microglia include Neat1, which further confirms the functional role of the identified subpopulation as Neat1 contributes to neuropathic pain and its downregulation has been shown to inhibit neuroinflammation17,18. Neat119,20 and another marker gene for cluster 7 microglia, Malat121,22,23, likely are members of the axis of diabetic neuropathy pathogenesis, and thus the identified microglial subpopulation may be clinically valuable to distinguish diabetic neuropathic pain from structural sources that may be surgically managed. Therefore, its upregulation in cluster 7 microglia lends further evidence to the hypothesis that this identified subpopulation has a role in promoting neuroinflammation. Thus, evidence from two methods—S1R expression analysis and GSEA pathway analysis—suggest that the identified subpopulation of microglial cells is involved in the pain and inflammatory response secondary to PNI at the five-month post-injury time point.
Given S1R’s potential biological role in the CNS following PNI, S1R expression in spinal cord microglia could be used to differentiate between LBP secondary to PNI and LBP from other etiologies. With the current S1R radiotracer PET/MRI technology, currently S1R expression in the spinal cord has limited clinical interpretations. However, from the results of the current study, higher expression in a specific level of the spinal cord that correlates to symptoms would evidence the identified subpopulation’s response and indication of PNI. However, the potential of insight into pain source using the findings expands with the development of a radiotracer for neuroinflammation. Using one of the marker genes of the identified subcluster, such as the functionally relevant Neat1 or the more specific Tsix/Tnpo3 markers, future studies can translate this to visualize evidence of a chronic PNI response at appropriate levels. With the development of multiplexed PET imaging, expression of this subcluster could be spatially correlated with concurrent S1R expression to identify the subpopulation and PNI functional effect as characterized in this work24. Lastly, as PNI often induces symptoms such as allodynia, hypersensitivity and other maps can be combined with S1R expression patterns and cluster markers to localize spinal cord and peripheral injury sites.
Strengths and limitations
We believe that a major strength of the current work is its high translational actionability. In addition to characterizing a biological role of S1R in the CNS in response to PNI, the results offer a method to differentiate/identify PNI with existing technology—such as the S1R radiotracer used in PET/MRI—that is already in use in clinical trials. If microglia in the spinal canal are activated on the resulting imaging, the pain may be radicular and the level can be correlated with symptoms. This is clinically important as not only is PET/MRI imaging limited in spatial resolution, but there is high overlap between the symptoms of both. Lastly, the controlled nature of the data used to demonstrate S1R upregulation following injury offers high confidence in the results, rather than a clinical study which would have increased uncertainty.
This study has several notable limitations. Sample size is limited although our study has a high level of statistical power. This limitation is common to most transcriptomic study designs in neurosurgery. Second, while the current study used data from animals in a controlled laboratory environment, it is possible that an unidentified confounder could have impacted these findings. Therefore, clinical validation of our results is necessary. A further limitation of the study is that the results are derived from a mouse model of PNI. However, a PNI mouse model has been well established for peripheral neuropathies, and S1R has been extensively studied in rodent populations prior to its translation for human molecular imaging8,25,26. Several other critical steps need to take place to validate this method’s ability to differentiate between LBP of PNI and non-PNI etiologies. First, changes in S1R expression in non-neuropathic back pain must be characterized. It is possible that local injury, such as age-related degenerative changes, could cause a similar change in S1R expression, which would limit this approach as a way to differentiate between PNI-related LBP and non-PNI related LBP. Lastly, the SNI induced in the mice that provided data for this study was a tibial and sural nerve ligation. While the tibial and sural nerve are peripheral nerves, it should be confirmed that their ligation produce changes in S1R expression that mirrors changes following radiculopathies at exiting nerve root sites.
Conclusion
A distinct subcluster of L4/5 microglia was identified which overexpresses S1R following peripheral nerve injury consistent with neuropathic pain inflammatory response functioning. This suggests that an upregulated S1R response in the CNS is a marker for chronic peripheral nerve injury and may be further developed for clinical localization of pain.
Data availability
The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available in the NCBI GEO repository, with accession number GSE162807 at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE162807.
Abbreviations
- LBP:
-
Low back pain
- S1R:
-
Sigma-1 receptor
- CNS:
-
Central nervous system
- PNI:
-
Peripheral nerve injury
- PET:
-
Positron emission tomography
- MRI:
-
Magnetic resonance imaging
- SNI:
-
Spared nerve injury
- PCA:
-
Principal component analysis
- UMAP:
-
Uniform manifold approximation and projection
References
Wu, A. et al. Global low back pain prevalence and years lived with disability from 1990 to 2017: Estimates from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Ann. Transl. Med. 8(6), 299. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2020.02.175 (2020).
Deyo, R. A., Von Korff, M. & Duhrkoop, D. Opioids for low back pain. BMJ 350, g6380. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g6380 (2015).
Wang, Z., Yi, X. Z. & Yu, A. X. Regenerative peripheral nerve interface prevents neuroma formation after peripheral nerve transection. Neural Regen. Res. 18(4), 814–818. https://doi.org/10.4103/1673-5374.353498 (2022).
Cipriano, P. W. et al. Successful treatment of chronic knee pain following localization by a sigma-1 receptor radioligand and PET/MRI: A case report. J. Pain Res. 11, 2353–2357. https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S167839 (2018).
Yoon, L. et al. S1R PET/MRI of patients with chronic knee pain reveals potential pain generators not otherwise identified with standard care: Early experience. J. Nucl. Med. 62(supplement 1), 143–143 (2021).
Yoon, D. et al. Sigma-1 receptor PET/MRI for identifying nociceptive sources of radiating low back pain. J. Nucl. Med. 61(supplement 1), 178–178 (2020).
Veeravagu, A. Use of [18F]FTC-146 PET/MRI in the Diagnosis of Chronic Pain. clinicaltrials.gov. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03556137. Accessed 14 Mar 2023 (2022).
Shen, B. et al. Visualizing nerve injury in a neuropathic pain model with [18F]FTC-146 PET/MRI. Theranostics. 7(11), 2794–2805. https://doi.org/10.7150/thno.19378 (2017).
Liu, Q. et al. Specific detection and deletion of the sigma-1 receptor widely expressed in neurons and glial cells in vivo. J. Neurochem. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnc.15693 (2021).
Mavlyutov, T. A. et al. Sigma-1 receptor expression in the dorsal root ganglion: Reexamination using a highly specific antibody. Neuroscience 331, 148–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2016.06.030 (2016).
Jia, J., Cheng, J., Wang, C. & Zhen, X. Sigma-1 receptor-modulated neuroinflammation in neurological diseases. Front. Cell Neurosci. 12, 314. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncel.2018.00314 (2018).
Bangaru, M. L. et al. Sigma-1 receptor expression in sensory neurons and the effect of painful peripheral nerve injury. Mol. Pain 9, 47. https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-8069-9-47 (2013).
Tansley, S. et al. Single-cell RNA sequencing reveals time- and sex-specific responses of mouse spinal cord microglia to peripheral nerve injury and links ApoE to chronic pain. Nat. Commun. 13(1), 843. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-28473-8 (2022).
Liberzon, A. et al. The molecular signatures database (MSigDB) hallmark gene set collection. Cell Syst. 1(6), 417–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cels.2015.12.004 (2015).
Chou, R. et al. Surgery for low back pain: a review of the evidence for an American Pain Society Clinical Practice Guideline. Spine 34(10), 1094–1109. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a105fc (2009).
Stuckey, S. M., Ong, L. K., Collins-Praino, L. E. & Turner, R. J. Neuroinflammation as a key driver of secondary neurodegeneration following stroke?. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 22(23), 13101. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms222313101 (2021).
Xia, L. X., Ke, C. & Lu, J. M. NEAT1 contributes to neuropathic pain development through targeting miR-381/HMGB1 axis in CCI rat models. J. Cell Physiol. 233(9), 7103–7111. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcp.26526 (2018).
An, Q. et al. Knockdown of long non-coding RNA NEAT1 relieves the inflammatory response of spinal cord injury through targeting miR-211-5p/MAPK1 axis. Bioengineered 12(1), 2702–2712. https://doi.org/10.1080/21655979.2021.1930925 (2021).
Hassani, S. S. et al. Dysregulation of long noncoding RNA NEAT1/miR-199a-5/BiP axis in patients with diabetic neuropathy. Lab Med. 54(2), 160–165. https://doi.org/10.1093/labmed/lmac082 (2023).
Feng, Y. et al. Long non-coding RNAs regulate inflammation in diabetic peripheral neuropathy by acting as ceRNAs targeting miR-146a-5p. Diabetes Metab. Syndr. Obes. Targets Ther. 13, 413–422. https://doi.org/10.2147/DMSO.S242789 (2020).
Miyashita, A. et al. The role of long noncoding RNA MALAT1 in diabetic polyneuropathy and the impact of its silencing in the dorsal root ganglion by a DNA/RNA heteroduplex oligonucleotide. Diabetes 71(6), 1299–1312. https://doi.org/10.2337/db21-0918 (2022).
Rajabinejad, M. et al. The MALAT1-H19/miR-19b-3p axis can be a fingerprint for diabetic neuropathy. Immunol. Lett. 245, 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imlet.2022.03.004 (2022).
Zhou, H. J. et al. Long noncoding RNA MALAT1 contributes to inflammatory response of microglia following spinal cord injury via the modulation of a miR-199b/IKKβ/NF-κB signaling pathway. Am. J. Physiol.-Cell Physiol. 315(1), C52–C61. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpcell.00278.2017 (2018).
Heinzmann, K., Carter, L. M., Lewis, J. S. & Aboagye, E. O. Multiplexed imaging for diagnosis and therapy. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 1(9), 697–713. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41551-017-0131-8 (2017).
Decosterd, I. & Woolf, C. J. Spared nerve injury: an animal model of persistent peripheral neuropathic pain. Pain 87(2), 149–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3959(00)00276-1 (2000).
Richner, M., Bjerrum, O. J., Nykjaer, A. & Vaegter, C. B. The spared nerve injury (SNI) model of induced mechanical allodynia in mice. J. Vis. Exp. JoVE 54, 3092. https://doi.org/10.3791/3092 (2011).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
E.S. and A.V. conceived the study. E.S. and T.J. performed data analysis. E.S. and T.J. wrote the main manuscript text. E.S. prepared the figures. All authors were responsible for methodology, manuscript writing, and manuscript revision.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
AV: Consultant-Medtronic, Stryker, Nuvasive, Surgical Theater, Osteocentric, Higgs Boson; Stock Holder: ATEC. Other authors: None.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Schonfeld, E., Johnstone, T.M., Haider, G. et al. Sigma-1 receptor expression in a subpopulation of lumbar spinal cord microglia in response to peripheral nerve injury. Sci Rep 13, 14762 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-42063-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-42063-8
- Springer Nature Limited