Early life stress-induced histone acetylations correlate with activation of the synaptic plasticity genes Arc and Egr1 in the mouse hippocampus
Authors: J√∂rg Bock
Kemal Sami Korkmaz
Katharina Braun
Lan Xie
Journal: Journal of neurochemistry (2013)
Discipline: NEUROSCIENCE & BEHAVIOR
Keywords: Early life stress; histone acetylation; synaptic plasticity genes; maternal separation; Arc
Affiliations: Research Group Structural Plasticity, Institute of Biology, Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany., Cancer Biology Laboratory; Department of Bioengineering; Faculty of Engineering; Ege University; Izmir; Turkey

Abstract:  Early life stress (ELS) programs the developing organism and influences the development of brain and behavior. We tested the hypothesis that ELS-induced histone acetylations might alter the expression of synaptic plasticity genes that are critically involved in the establishment of limbic brain circuits. Maternal separation (MS) from postnatal day 14-16 was applied as ELS and two immediate early genes underlying experience-induced synaptic plasticity, Arc and early growth response 1 (Egr1) were analyzed. We show here that repeated ELS induces a rapid increase of Arc and Egr1 in the mouse hippocampus. Furthermore, immunoblotting revealed that these changes are paralleled by histone modifications, reflected by increased acetylation levels of H3 and H4. Most importantly, using native Chromatin immunoprecipitation quantitative PCR (nChIP-qPCR), we show for the first time a correlation between elevated histone acetylation and increased Arc and Egr1 expression in response to ELS. These rapid epigenetic changes are paralleled by increases of dendritic complexity and spine number of hippocampal CA3 pyramidal neurons in ELS animals at weaning age. Our results are in line with our working hypothesis that ELS induces activation of synaptic plasticity genes, mediated by epigenetic mechanisms. These events are assumed to represent early steps in the adaption of neuronal networks to a stressful environment. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
 Figure 6E and 6F: More similar than expected. Could authors check please?  , 
 Thank you for identifying the mistake and bringing it to our attention. We are currently attempting to retrieve the original data to correct the figure, and we will contact with the journal to fix the issue. , 
 Corrigendum to u201cCellular Prion Protein Modulates Age-related Behavioral and Neurochemical Alterations in Miceu201d [Neuroscience 164(3) (2009) 896u2013907] https: www.sciencedirect.com science article pii S0306452221005467?via%3Dihub It has been brought to our attention a problem in Fig. 6 of the paper entitled u201cCellular prion protein modulates age-related behavioral and neurochemical alterations in miceu201d by Rial et al., published in Neuroscience Volume 164, Issue 3, 15 December 2009, Pages 896u2013907. Apparently, the image shown in panel 6E was replicated and inverted in panel 6F. The authors were questioned about the error, and have agreed that the panoramic views of the hippocampus shown in panels 6E and 6F are the same. They would like to sincerely apologize to the scientific community members for the inconvenience caused by their unintended oversight, but at the same time assure us that this issue does not affect the quantitative analysis of the data and therefore does not affect the main findings and conclusions of the study. The authors attempted to retrieve the original immunohistochemistry data to correct the figure. Unfortunately, they discovered that the material associated with this study was destroyed 10 years after the paper was published. However, they found a correct version of Fig. 6, with another set of representative images in the first authoru2019s PhD thesis and would now like to replace the published figure by the following one:  The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. , 
 I noticed that some panels contain repeated elements. Could authors provide an explanation for this please?  Another example of the repeated elements:  , 
 Another concern with the new figure is that although authors mention that they found a correct version of Fig. 6, with another set of representative images in the first authoru2019s PhD thesis and would now like to replace the published figure by the following one , you could not find it on the first author s PhD thesis that is public available at https: repositorio.ufsc.br bitstream handle 123456789 99451 313812.pdf?sequence=1 isAllowed=y Could authors clarify which thesis s figure they are refering to? ,