Supplementary MaterialsAdditional file 1: Physique S1. Microglia are the primary ROS-producing cells in Tfpi the CNS in response to trauma. Given that they possess the necessary machinery to incorporate iron under basal and LPS-stimulated conditions (Additional?file?1: Determine S1), we examined the effect of iron on microglial ROS production. Primary rat microglia cultures were exposed to the Fe2+ donor, FeSO4, LPS, or both for 24?h. We detected a significant ROS accentuation among the cells with FeSO4 exposure that was similar to LPS exposure (Ctrl vs. FeSO4, em p /em ?=?0.0027; Ctrl vs. LPS, em p /em ?=?0.0023, one-way ANOVA with Tukeys post-hoc test, Fig.?1a). Combining FeSO4 with LPS for 24?h resulted in a significant elevation of ROS release in comparison to either FeSO4 or LPS alone (FeSO4 vs FeSO4?+?LPS, em p /em ? ?0.0001; LPS vs FeSO4?+?LPS, em p /em ? ?0.0001, one-way ANOVA with Tukeys post-hoc test, Fig.?1a). Further, administration of the iron chelating agent DFO resulted in significant reduction in ROS production in cells that were exposed to FeSO4 (FeSO4 vs FeSO4?+?DFO em p /em ?=?0.0030; FeSO4?+?LPS vs FeSO4?+?LPS?+?DFO em p /em ? ?0.0001, one-way ANOVA with Tukeys post-hoc test, Fig.?1a). Open in Bay 59-3074 a Bay 59-3074 separate window Fig. 1 Iron exacerbates ROS generation independently and accentuates LPS-induced ROS production among microglia. a Primary microglia show significant elevations in ROS release with FeSO4 exposure. Combining FeSO4 with LPS for 24?h resulted in a compounding effect, with a significant elevation over LPS alone. Treatment with DFO resulted in suppression of the effects of FeSO4, but not in LPS. b FeSO4 exposure at 100?M produced a rise in ROS when compared with control (0); LPS also induced an increase in LPS. This increase was elevated further in a concentration dependent manner when microglia were exposed to both FeSO4 and LPS. c Fe(NH4)2(SO4)2 exposure produced similar effects as FeSO4. d Na2SO4 did not produce an incremental patterned increase of ROS as previously explained. LPS-treated groups did produce an increased amount of ROS, although no differences were noted between the groups treated with LPS. e The addition of 250?M concentrations of DFO reduced ROS concentrations to control levels among all groups. In the graphs, symbols representing significance were assigned according to comparisons: control group (*); LPS group (#); FeSO4 (!); and LPS & FeSO4 ($). * em p /em ? ?0.05, ** em p /em ? ?0.01, *** em p /em ? ?0.001, **** em p /em ? ?0.0001, ## em p /em ? ?0.01, #### em p /em ? ?0.0001, !! em p /em ? ?0.01, and $$$$ em p /em ? ?0.0001. X-axis represents titled drug of graph with M concentrations. Within the DFO graph the X-axis represents M concentrations of FeSO4. All graphs represent an em n /em ?=?5. All statistics are one-way ANOVA with Tukey post-test. Bars represent imply??SEM To determine if the microglial cell collection, BV2, responded similarly, BV2 cells were exposed to 0 (control), 10, 25, 50, or 100?M FeSO4 with and without LPS. We found that microglia treated with increasing doses of FeSO4 have increased ROS production, reaching significance at a dose of 100?M. A significant increase in ROS was detected among the groups treated with only 100?M FeSO4 (Ctrl vs 100?M FeSO4, em p /em ?=?0.0047; one-way ANOVA with Tukeys post-hoc test, Fig.?1b). LPS induced the production of ROS as expected (Ctrl vs. LPS, em p /em ?=?0.0023, Fig.?1b); FeSO4 addition to LPS led to an incremental elevation above the LPS-induced ROS in a concentration-dependent fashion (LPS vs: LPS & 10?M FeSO4, em p /em ?=?0.0067; LPS & 25?M FeSO4, em p /em ? ?0.0001; LPS & 50?M FeSO4, em p /em ? ?0.0001; LPS & 100?M FeSO4, em p /em ? ?0.0001; one-way ANOVA with Tukeys post-hoc test, Fig.?1b). As these initial experiments showed comparable results with BV2 cells, we continued experiments utilizing this cell collection. To ensure this phenomenon was not unique to FeSO4, another Fe2+ donor, ferrous ammonium sulfate (Fe(NH4)2(SO4)2), was tested. A similar pattern of increase in ROS within the groups treated with both LPS and Fe(NH4)2(SO4)2 was observed (Ctrl vs. LPS, em p /em ? ?0.0001; LPS vs: LPS & 10?M FeSO4, Bay 59-3074 em p /em ?=?0.0033; LPS & 25?M FeSO4, em p /em ? ?0.0001; LPS & 50?M FeSO4, em p /em ? ?0.0001; LPS & 100?M FeSO4, em p /em ? ?0.0001; one-way ANOVA with Tukeys post-hoc test, Fig.?1c). Next, to ensure that results were a result of the iron inclusion, a control experiment using inert sodium attached to the sulfate carrier of both iron donors was evaluated by exposing cultures to Na2SO4. While most groupings with LPS treatment confirmed significant boosts in ROS creation (Ctrl vs. LPS, em p /em ?=?0.0342; Ctrl vs. LPS & 10?M Na2Thus4, em p /em ?=?0.0359; Ctrl vs. LPS & 50?M Na2Thus4, em p /em ? ?0.046; Ctrl vs. LPS & 100?M Na2Thus4, em p /em ? ?0.0052, one-way ANOVA with Tukeys post-hoc check, Fig.?1d), there have been no differences.