Examination of the xanthosine response on gene expression of mammary epithelial cells using RNA-seq technology.

Shanti Choudhary, Wenli Li, Derek Bickhart, Ramneek Verma, R S Sethi, C S Mukhopadhyay, Ratan K Choudhary
Author Information
  1. Shanti Choudhary: 1School of Animal Biotechnology, Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Ludhiana, Punjab 101004 India.
  2. Wenli Li: 2Cell Wall Biology and Utilization Research, USDA-ARS, Madison, WI 53706 USA.
  3. Derek Bickhart: 2Cell Wall Biology and Utilization Research, USDA-ARS, Madison, WI 53706 USA.
  4. Ramneek Verma: 1School of Animal Biotechnology, Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Ludhiana, Punjab 101004 India.
  5. R S Sethi: 1School of Animal Biotechnology, Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Ludhiana, Punjab 101004 India.
  6. C S Mukhopadhyay: 1School of Animal Biotechnology, Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Ludhiana, Punjab 101004 India.
  7. Ratan K Choudhary: 1School of Animal Biotechnology, Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Ludhiana, Punjab 101004 India. ORCID

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Xanthosine treatment has been previously reported to increase mammary stem cell population and milk production in cattle and goats. However, the underlying molecular mechanisms associated with the increase in stem cell population and milk production remain unclear.
METHODS: Primiparous Beetal goats were assigned to the study. Five days post-partum, one mammary gland of each goat was infused with xanthosine (TRT) twice daily (2×) for 3 days consecutively, and the other gland served as a control (CON). Milk samples from the TRT and CON glands were collected on the 10th day after the last xanthosine infusion and the total RNA was isolated from milk fat globules (MEGs). Total RNA in MFGs was mainly derived from the milk epithelial cells (MECs) as evidenced by expression of milk synthesis genes. Significant differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were subjected to Gene Ontology (GO) terms using PANTHER and gene networks were generated using STRING db.
RESULTS: Preliminary analysis indicated that each individual goat responded to xanthosine treatment differently, with this trend being correlated with specific DEGs within the same animal's mammary gland. Several pathways are impacted by these DEGs, including cell communication, cell proliferation and anti-microbials.
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides valuable insights into transcriptomic changes in milk producing epithelial cells in response to xanthosine treatment. Further characterization of DEGs identified in this study is likely to delineate the molecular mechanisms of increased milk production and stem or progenitor cell population by the xanthosine treatment.

Keywords

References

  1. Nat Genet. 2017 Apr;49(4):643-650 [PMID: 28263316]
  2. Cancer Res. 2005 Apr 15;65(8):3155-61 [PMID: 15833845]
  3. Eur J Biochem. 1995 Jun 15;230(3):872-8 [PMID: 7541353]
  4. BMC Cell Biol. 2012 Jun 14;13:14 [PMID: 22698263]
  5. Int J Oncol. 2016 Aug;49(2):539-48 [PMID: 27279145]
  6. J Dairy Sci. 2012 Oct;95(10):6130-44 [PMID: 22921620]
  7. Sci Rep. 2017 May 25;7(1):2409 [PMID: 28546538]
  8. Genome Biol. 2002 Jun 18;3(7):RESEARCH0034 [PMID: 12184808]
  9. Sci Rep. 2014 Jul 08;4:5297 [PMID: 25001089]
  10. BMC Bioinformatics. 2012 Jun 18;13:134 [PMID: 22708584]
  11. Nat Biotechnol. 2014 Sep;32(9):896-902 [PMID: 25150836]
  12. PLoS One. 2012;7(7):e40469 [PMID: 22792341]
  13. ISRN Biotechnol. 2013 Jan 28;2013:735053 [PMID: 25937980]
  14. Cell Tissue Res. 2007 Jul;329(1):129-36 [PMID: 17440749]
  15. Transgenic Res. 2011 Dec;20(6):1265-72 [PMID: 21340524]
  16. Cell Stem Cell. 2007 Nov;1(5):555-67 [PMID: 18371393]
  17. Sci Rep. 2016 Aug 09;6:31035 [PMID: 27503241]
  18. Cell Adh Migr. 2009 Oct-Dec;3(4):334-6 [PMID: 19949308]
  19. PLoS One. 2013 Jul 05;8(7):e67531 [PMID: 23861770]
  20. BMC Genomics. 2013 Dec 12;14:872 [PMID: 24330573]
  21. Funct Integr Genomics. 2015 May;15(3):309-21 [PMID: 25433708]
  22. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Anim. 2014 Dec;50(10):926-36 [PMID: 25213688]
  23. Nat Methods. 2012 Jun 28;9(7):676-82 [PMID: 22743772]
  24. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017 Jan 4;45(D1):D183-D189 [PMID: 27899595]
  25. Reprod Nutr Dev. 2002 Mar-Apr;42(2):133-47 [PMID: 12216959]
  26. BMC Genomics. 2015 Oct 05;16:748 [PMID: 26437771]
  27. Biometals. 2004 Jun;17(3):189-96 [PMID: 15222464]
  28. J Nutr. 2008 Jun;138(6):1019-24 [PMID: 18492828]
  29. Exp Cell Res. 2014 Oct 15;328(1):186-96 [PMID: 24992045]
  30. Physiol Genomics. 2009 Mar 3;37(1):12-22 [PMID: 19018045]
  31. J Dairy Res. 2016 May;83(2):202-8 [PMID: 27032540]
  32. Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2009 Apr;234(4):475-82 [PMID: 19176874]
  33. Genome Biol. 2014;15(12):550 [PMID: 25516281]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0milkxanthosinecelltreatmentmammaryDEGsstempopulationproductionstudyglandRNAepithelialcellsusingXanthosineincreasegoatsmolecularmechanismsgoatTRTCONMilkfatexpressiongenesgeneresponseBACKGROUND:previouslyreportedcattleHoweverunderlyingassociatedremainunclearMETHODS:PrimiparousBeetalassignedFivedayspost-partumoneinfusedtwicedaily3 daysconsecutivelyservedcontrolsamplesglandscollected10thdaylastinfusiontotalisolatedglobulesMEGsTotalMFGsmainlyderivedMECsevidencedsynthesisSignificantdifferentiallyexpressedsubjectedGeneOntologyGOtermsPANTHERnetworksgeneratedSTRINGdbRESULTS:Preliminaryanalysisindicatedindividualrespondeddifferentlytrendcorrelatedspecificwithinanimal'sSeveralpathwaysimpactedincludingcommunicationproliferationanti-microbialsCONCLUSIONS:providesvaluableinsightstranscriptomicchangesproducingcharacterizationidentifiedlikelydelineateincreasedprogenitorExaminationRNA-seqtechnologyGoatglobulesequencingRT-qPCR

Similar Articles

Cited By