Reducing post-traumatic anxiety by immunization

Reducing post-traumatic anxiety by immunization

Brain, Behavior, and Immunity 22 (2008) 1108–1114 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Brain, Behavior, and Immunity j o u r n a l h o m e p a ...

838KB Sizes 0 Downloads 36 Views

Brain, Behavior, and Immunity 22 (2008) 1108–1114

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Brain, Behavior, and Immunity j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / y b r b i

Reducing post-traumatic anxiety by immunization Gil M. Lewitus a, Hagit Cohen b, Michal Schwartz a,* a b

Depart­ment of Neu­ro­bi­ol­ogy, The We­iz­mann Insti­tute of Sci­ence, Re­ho­vot 76100, Israel Min­is­try of Health, Men­tal Health Cen­ter Anx­i­ety and Stress Research Unit, Fac­ulty of Health Sci­ences, Ben-Gu­ri­on Uni­ver­sity of the Ne­gev, Beer Sheva, Israel

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 26 March 2008 Received in revised form 2 May 2008 Accepted 3 May 2008 Available online 17 June 2008 Key­words: Psy­cho­neu­ro­im­mun­o­logy PTSD Lym­pho­cytes Immu­ni­za­tion Acute stress ICAM-1

a b s t r a c t Traf­fick­ing of T lym­pho­cytes to spe­cific organs, such as the skin and lungs, is part of the body’s defense mech­a­nism fol­low­ing acute psy­cho­log­i­cal stress. Here we dem­on­strate that T lym­pho­cytes are also traf­ fick­ing to the brain in response to psy­cho­log­i­cal stress and are needed to alle­vi­ate its neg­a­tive behav­ioral con­se­quences. We show that short expo­sure of mice to a stressor (pred­a­tor odor) enhanced T-cell infil­tra­ tion to the brain, espe­cially to the cho­roid plexus, and that this infil­tra­tion was asso­ci­ated with increased ICAM-1 expres­sion by cho­roid plexus cells. Sys­temic admin­is­tra­tion of cor­ti­co­ste­rone could mimic the effects of psy­cho­log­i­cal stress on ICAM-1 expres­sion. Fur­ther­more, we found that the abil­ity to cope with this stress is inter­re­lated with T-cell traf­fick­ing and with the brain and hip­po­cam­pal BDNF lev­els. Immu­ni­ za­tion with a CNS-related pep­tide reduced the stress-induced anx­i­ety and the acous­tic star­tle response, and restored lev­els of BDNF, shown to be impor­tant for stress resil­ience. These results iden­ti­fied T cells as novel play­ers in cop­ing with psy­cho­log­i­cal stress, and offers immu­ni­za­tion with a mye­lin-related pep­tide as a new ther­a­peu­tic approach to alle­vi­ate chronic con­se­quences of acute psy­cho­log­i­cal trauma, such as those found in post­trau­matic stress dis­or­der. © 2008 Else­vier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Intro­duc­tion The response to stress is char­ac­ter­ized by both emo­tional and phys­i­cal man­i­fes­ta­tions, often lead­ing to acti­va­tion of var­i­ous phys­ i­o­log­i­cal sys­tems. This evo­lu­tion­ary adap­tive response endows the organ­ism with the abil­ity to deal with the stressor by tem­ po­rar­ily adapt­ing the body’s homeo­sta­sis to the novel sit­u­a­tion. These stress response mech­a­nisms are well reg­u­lated, and, in the absence of pathol­ogy, enable the return to nor­mal homeo­sta­sis when the source of stress is removed. How­ever, when homeo­sta­sis is not restored and main­tained, long lasting changes can arise; in humans, these changes may lead to post­trau­matic stress dis­or­der (PTSD) (Yeh­u­da and McFar­lane, 1995). We have recently dem­on­ strated in an ani­mal model that the abil­ity to ward off the con­se­ quences of stress is depen­dent on periph­e­ral immu­nity (Cohen et al., 2006). Ani­mals with immune defi­ciency show a reduced abil­ity to deter the con­se­quences of stress. For exam­ple, expo­sure of mice to pred­a­tor odor results in higher anx­i­ety and star­tle response in ani­mals suffering from immune defi­ciency (Cohen et al., 2006). The same con­di­tions were shown to impair cog­ni­tive abil­ity, neu­ ro­gen­e­sis, and expres­sion of hip­po­cam­pal brain-derived neu­ro­tro­ phic fac­tor (BDNF) (Kip­nis et al., 2004; Ziv et al., 2006b). Dif­fer­ent mouse strains have con­trast­ing abil­i­ties to cope with men­tal (Cohen et al., 2008; Shanks and Ku­sne­cov, 1998) and phys­ i­cal stress (Kip­nis et al., 2001). For exam­ple, C57BL/6J and Balb/c

* Cor­re­spond­ing author. Fax: +972 8 9346018. E-mail address: mi­chal.sch­wartz@we­iz­mann.ac.il (M. Schwartz). 0889-1591/$ - see front matter © 2008 Else­vier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.bbi.2008.05.002

mice dif­fer in their behav­ioral, endo­crine and immune response fol­low­ing psy­cho­log­i­cal stress (Shanks et al., 1990; Shanks and Ku­sne­cov, 1998; Cohen et al., 2008). It is inter­est­ing to men­tion that, acute stress enhances delayed-type hyper­sen­si­tiv­ity in Balb/c but not in C57BL/6J mice (Flint and Tin­kle, 2001). Sim­i­larly, after CNS injury, T cell infil­tra­tion was faster and the lev­els were higher in the Balb/c mice (Schor­i et al., 2007). We sug­gest that stress may enhance T-cell recruit­ment to the brain as a pos­si­ble mech­a­nism for brain main­te­nance. Since stress resil­ience is man­i­fested by reg­u­la­tion of BDNF expres­sion in the hip­ po­cam­pus (Koz­lov­sky et al., 2007), and T cells were shown to affect hip­po­cam­pal BDNF lev­els (Ziv et al., 2006b), we hypoth­e­sized that T-cell traf­fick­ing to the CNS would enable res­to­ra­tion of BDNF lev­ els and an increased abil­ity to cope with stress­ful con­di­tions. Here, we show that in mice, acute stress enhances immunetraf­fick­ing by up reg­u­lat­ing ICAM-1 expres­sion in the brain. Fur­ ther­more, the stress-induced ele­va­tion of ICAM-1 could be partly repro­duced by exog­e­nous sys­temic appli­ca­tion of cor­ti­co­ste­rone. We also showed an asso­ci­a­tion between recov­ery of BDNF lev­els and increased immune traf­fick­ing. Immu­ni­za­tion with a CNS spe­ cific anti­gen enhanced the adap­ta­tion to stress and restored BDNF lev­els in the stressed ani­mals. 2. Mate­ri­als and meth­ods 2.1. Ani­mals Adult wild-type mice of the BALB/c/OLA and C57BL/6J strains, all aged 8–12 weeks, were sup­plied and main­tained under germ-free con­di­tions by the Ani­mal Breed­ing Cen­ter of The We­iz­mann Insti­tute of Sci­ence (Re­ho­vot, Israel). The mice



G.M. Lew­itus et al. / Brain, Behavior, and Immunity 22 (2008) 1108–1114

were housed in a light- and tem­per­a­ture-con­trolled room and were matched for age in each exper­i­ment. All ani­mals were han­dled accord­ing to the reg­u­la­tions for­ mu­lated by the Insti­tu­tional Ani­mal Care and Use Com­mit­tee. 2.2. Exper­i­men­tal stress par­a­digm The mice to be tested (exper­i­men­tal group) were placed for 15 min on thor­ oughly soaked cat litter (used by a cat for 2 days and sifted for feces) (Cohen et al., 2006).

1109

anti mouse CD54 (ICAM-1) (Chem­icon), goat anti mouse CD106 (VCAM-1) (R& D Sys­tems), and rab­bit anti BDNF (Al­o­mone Labs). Sec­ond­ary anti­bod­ies used for immu­no­his­to­chem­is­try were Cy-3-con­ju­gated don­key anti-rab­bit, and Cy-3-con­ju­gated don­key anti-goat. For ICAM-1 stain­ing, bio­tin con­ju­gated goat anti-ham­ster was applied for 1 hr, fol­lowed by strep­ta­vi­dincy3 for 15 min. All sec­ond­ary anti­bod­ies were pur­chased from Jack­son Im­mu­no­Re­ search Lab­o­ra­to­ries Inc. Con­trol sec­tions (not treated with primary anti­body) were treated with sec­ond­ary anti­bod­ies to dis­tin­guish spe­cific stain­ing from non­spe­cific stain­ing or auto­flu­o­res­cent com­po­nents. Sec­tions were then washed with PBS and cover slipped in poly­vi­nyl alco­hol with diaz­a­bic­y­lo-octane as an anti-fad­ing agent.

2.3. Behav­ioral test­ing 2.6. Quan­ti­fi­ca­tion 2.3.1. Ele­vated plus-maze The maze we used is a black opaque Per­spex plat­form with four arms in the shape of a plus, ele­vated 78 cm above the ground, as described by File (File, 1993; Gri­e­bel et al., 1995). Each arm was 24 cm long and 7.5 cm wide. One pair of oppo­site arms was “closed”, and thus the arms were enclosed by 20.5 cm high Per­spex walls on both sides and on the outer edges of the plat­form, while the other pair of arms was “open”, sur­rounded only by a 3 mm high Per­spex lip, which served as a tac­tile guide for ani­mals in the open areas. The appa­ra­tus was illu­mi­nated by dim red light­ing that pro­vided 40–60 lux in both the open and the closed arms. Mice were placed one at a time in the cen­tral plat­form for 5 min, fac­ing dif­fer­ent arms on dif­fer­ ent days accord­ing to a ran­dom­ized sequence. Between test ses­sions, the maze was cleaned with an aque­ous solu­tion of 5% eth­a­nol and dried thor­oughly. Five behav­ioral param­e­ters were assessed: (1) time spent in the open arms; (2) time spent in the closed arms; (3) num­ber of entries into the open arms; (4) num­ber of entries into closed arms; (5) total num­ber of entries into all arms. Mice were recorded as hav­ing entered an open or closed arm only when all four paws crossed the divid­ing line between the arms and cen­tral plat­form. The num­ber of entries into any arm of the maze (total arm entries) was defined as “explor­atory activ­ity”. 2.3.2. Acous­tic star­tle response Pairs of mice were tested in star­tle cham­bers. The acous­tic star­tle responses were mea­sured in two ven­ti­lated star­tle cham­bers (SRLAB Sys­tem; San Diego Instru­ ments, San Diego, CA). Each cham­ber con­sisted of a Plex­i­glas cyl­in­der rest­ing on a plat­form inside a ven­ti­lated, sound-atten­u­ated cham­ber. Move­ment of the ani­mal inside the tube was detected by a pie­zo­elec­tric accel­er­om­e­ter located below the frame. The ampli­tude of the acous­tic star­tle response of the whole body to an acous­ tic pulse was defined as the aver­age of 100 accel­er­om­e­ter read­ings, 100 ms each, col­lected from pulse onset. The read­ings (sig­nals) were dig­i­tized and stored in a com­puter. To ensure con­sis­tent pre­sen­ta­tion, sound lev­els within each test cham­ ber were rou­tinely mea­sured using a sound-level meter (Radio Shack, San Diego Instru­ments). An SR-LAB cal­i­bra­tion unit was rou­tinely used to ensure con­sis­tency of the stab­i­lim­e­ter sen­si­tiv­ity between test cham­bers and over time (Swerd­low and Ge­yer, 1998). Each star­tle ses­sion started with a 5-min accli­ma­ti­za­tion period to a back­ground of 68 dB white noise; fol­low­ing habit­u­a­tion, 30 acous­tic star­tle trial stim­uli were pre­sented (110 dB white noise of 40 ms dura­tion with 30 or 45 sec inter-trial inter­val). 2.3.3. Rota-rod tread­mills Motor strength and coor­di­na­tion were eval­u­ated on the accel­er­at­ing Ugo Ba­sile Model 7650 Rota-rod appa­ra­tus (Ugo Ba­sile, Came­rio, Italy). Each mouse was placed on the cyl­in­der, which increased rota­tion speed from 5 to 40 rpm over a 300 s period. Mice were first given three trails to become acquainted with the Rota-rod appa­ra­ tus before the test. For detec­tion, a group of 5 mice were placed on the rotat­ing rod before start­ing the accel­er­ated pro­gram. The time each mouse remained on the rod was reg­is­tered auto­mat­i­cally. If the mouse remained on the rod for 300 s (top speed of the rod) the test was com­pleted and scored as 300 s.

BDNF and ICAM-1 immu­no­re­ac­tiv­ity was quan­ti­fied blindly with Image Pro Plus 4.5 soft­ware (Media Cyber­net­ics) (Ziv et al., 2006b). 2.7. Immu­ni­za­tion Adult mice were immu­nized with 100 lg pMOG35–55(ME­VGWYRSPFSRVVHLY RNGK) (Lew­itus et al., 2006; Schor­i et al., 2001), emul­si­fied in an equal vol­ume of CFA (Dif­co, Frank­lin Lakes, NJ) con­tain­ing Myco­bac­te­rium tuber­cu­lo­sis (.5 mg/ml, Dif­co). The emul­sion was injected s.c. at a sin­gle site in the flank. Con­trol mice were injected with PBS emul­si­fied with CFA. 2.8. Sta­tis­ti­cal anal­y­sis A two-tailed unpaired Stu­dent’s t-test was used for anal­y­ses of the exper­i­ments pre­sented in Table 1. The data from the exper­i­ments pre­sented in Figs. 1–4 and Sup­ple­men­tary Table 1 were ana­lyzed by ANOVA, and means were com­pared using the Tu­key–Kramer post hoc anal­y­sis test for dif­fer­ences between indi­vid­ual means. Val­ues that dif­fered at P < 0.05 were con­sid­ered sta­tis­ti­cally sig­nif­i­cant. All data are rep­re­sented as means ± SEM.

3. Results To inves­ti­gate the recruit­ment of lym­pho­cyte to the brain fol­low­ ing expo­sure to pred­a­tor odor we used Balb/c mouse strain, pre­vi­ ously shown to be less vul­ner­a­ble to pred­a­tor odor stress (Cohen et al., 2008). The mice were exposed for 15 min to cat litter (pred­a­tor odor) and their brains were excised at 3, 24, 48 h as well as 7 days after expo­sure, and ana­lyzed by immu­no­his­to­chem­is­try. We espe­ cially looked at lym­pho­cyte accu­mu­la­tion in the cho­roid plexus (Cpx) sur­round­ing the hip­po­cam­pus, as it forms the main T cells entry point to the CNS (Ranso­hoff et al., 2003) (Fig. 1a–i). Stain­ing for CD3 (a marker for T cells) revealed that as early as 48 h after the expo­sure to stress there was a two­fold increase in the num­ber of CD3+ cells in the Cpx of the stressed ani­mals (34.2 ± 2.47 aver­age per slice in the stressed mice rel­a­tive to 18.2 ± 1.35 in unstressed con­trols) (Fig. 1a), and the num­bers of these cells remained high 7 days after the stress, the latest time point that we tested. These results sug­gest that acute psy­cho­log­i­cal stress induces an increase of brain sur­veil­lance by CD3+ cells.

2.4. Cor­ti­co­ste­rone admin­is­tra­tion

Table 1 Immu­ni­za­tion with pMOG 35¡55 reduces behav­ioral man­i­fes­ta­tions induced by acute stress in C57BL/6J mice

Cor­ti­co­ste­rone (Sigma–Aldrich) was dis­solved in poly­eth­yl­ene gly­col 400 (PEG) (Sigma–Aldrich), and each mouse received a sin­gle s.c. injec­tion of cor­ti­co­ste­rone (0.6, 6 or 60 mg/kg in 0.01 ml PEG) or PEG alone.

Treat­ment

2.5. Immu­no­his­to­chem­is­try and tis­sue prep­a­ra­tion The ani­mals were deeply anes­the­tized and per­fused tran­scar­dial­ly, first with PBS and then with 2.5% para­for­mal­de­hyde. Their brains were removed, post­fixed over­night, and then equil­i­brated in phos­phate-buf­fered 30% sucrose. Free-float­ing 30-lm lon­gi­tu­di­nal sec­tions were col­lected on a freez­ing micro­ tome (SM2000R; Le­ica Mi­cro­sys­tems) and stored at 4°C prior to immu­no­his­to­ chem­is­try. For immu­no­his­to­chem­is­try, coro­nal sec­tions of the brain (30 lm) were treated with a block­ing solu­tion con­tain­ing 20% horse serum (HS), 0.1% Tri­ton X-100 except for sec­tions to be stained for BDNF, for which the block­ing solu­tion con­tained 0.05% sapo­nin (Sigma–Aldrich). Primary anti­bod­ies were applied in a humid­i­fied cham­ ber at room tem­per­a­ture. Tis­sue sec­tions were then labeled over­night with the fol­low­ing primary anti­bod­ies (Abs): rab­bit anti CD3 (Dako cy­to­ma­tion), ham­ster

Param­e­ters Time spent in the open   arms (min) Num­ber of entries to   the open arms Explor­atory activ­ity Acous­tic star­tle   ampli­tude Rota rod (sec)

pMOG/CFA

PBS/CFA

Stu­dent’s t-test

1.4 ± 0.1

0.8 ± 0.2

3.3 ± 0.3

1.8 ± 1.5

17 ± 1.2

13.9 ± 0.7

344 ± 57.7

571.7 ± 82.1

234 ± 21.8

224 ± 4.5

t17 = 2.23; P = 0.04 t17 = 2.52; P = 0.02 t17 = 2.27; P = 0.03 t17 = 2.27; P = 0.03 n.s.

C57BL/6J mice were immu­nized with pMOG35¡55 or PBS emul­si­fied with CFA one week before a 15 min expo­sure to pred­a­tor odor. pMOG35¡55 immu­nized mice spent sig­nif­i­cantly more time explor­ing the open arms of the ele­vated plus-maze and showed a reduced acous­tic star­tle response ver­sus PBS-treated mice. Fur­ther­more, there were no motor skill dif­fer­ences between the groups. Val­ues are means ± SEM. n.s., not sig­nif­i­cant.

1110

G.M. Lew­itus et al. / Brain, Behavior, and Immunity 22 (2008) 1108–1114

Fig. 1. Stress enhances immune traf­fick­ing in Balb/c mice. (a) Balb/c mice were exposed to pred­a­tor odor, and were killed at 3, 24, 48 h and 7 days there­af­ter; sec­ tions from their brains were ana­lyzed by immu­no­his­to­chem­is­try for the pres­ence of CD3+ cells (T cells). Most of the CD3+ cells were found in the Cpx. Bar graph indi­ cates the aver­age num­bers of CD3+ cells per slice. Val­ues rep­re­sent means ± SEM. (A one-way ANOVA indi­cated a sig­nif­i­cant dif­fer­ence between the dif­fer­ent time points (F5,24 = 14.55, P = 0.0001); ¤¤¤P < 0.001 (Tu­key–Kramer post hoc anal­y­sis); n=6 slices from 5 ani­mals). (a-i), a rep­re­sen­ta­tive image of the Cpx of stressed mice 48 h after stress expo­sure. CD3+ cells are stained in red and marked by arrows. (b) Anal­y­ sis of ICAM-1 expres­sion in the Cpx and hip­po­cam­pus of stressed Balb/c mice. Graph indi­cates the den­sity of ICAM-1 in arbi­trary units. Val­ues rep­re­sent means ± SEM. (A one-way ANOVA indi­cated a sig­nif­i­cant dif­fer­ence between the dif­fer­ent time points (F5,51 = 7.96, P = 0.0001); ¤¤ <0.01, (Tu­key–Kramer post hoc anal­y­sis); n=5). (bi,ii) Rep­re­sen­ta­tive images of the Cpx and hip­po­cam­pus, stained with anti-ICAM-1: from con­trol mice (i), and mice 48 h after expo­sure to stress (ii). (c) ICAM-1 expres­ sion in the Cpx after s.c. injec­tion of dif­fer­ent con­cen­tra­tions of cor­ti­co­ste­rone (0.6, 6 and 60 mg/kg). Graph indi­cates den­sity of ICAM-1 expres­sion rel­a­tive to ICAM-1 in vehi­cle-treated con­trol mice. Val­ues are means ± SEM. (A one-way ANOVA indi­ cated a sig­nif­i­cant dif­fer­ence between the dif­fer­ent time points for each treat­ment. 0.6 mg/kg (F3,34 = 3.76, P = 0.0194); 6 mg/kg (F3,31=4.01, P = 0.0159) ¤P < 0.05; 60 mg/kg (F3,26 = 3.64, P = 0.0256) ¤P < 0.05 (Tu­key–Kramer post hoc anal­y­sis); n=5.

To deter­mine which adhe­sion mol­e­cules are involved in T-cell recruit­ment fol­low­ing stress, we stained brains from stressed mice for VCAM-1 and ICAM-1, the main adhe­sion mol­e­cules that are thought to be involved in CNS immune traf­fick­ing (Car­ri­thers et al., 2000; Green­wood et al., 2002). Most of the ICAM-1 expres­sion was observed in the Cpx and on the blood ves­sels (Fig. 1b-i, ii). There was a sig­nif­i­cant tran­sient up-reg­u­la­tion of ICAM-1 expres­sion with a two­fold increase in expres­sion by 48 h in the Cpx (Fig. 1b).

In con­trast, VCAM-1 gave only weak stain­ing, with no observed dif­fer­ences between the var­i­ous groups; as a positive con­trol for the stain­ing high expres­sion of VCAM-1 was observed in brains in the pres­ence of an inflam­ma­tory response (data not shown). These results sug­gest that stress selec­tively up reg­u­lated ICAM-1 expres­ sion, and that ICAM-1 might be respon­si­ble for the enhanced accu­ mu­la­tion of immune cells in the brain fol­low­ing an acute stress. It was pre­vi­ously shown that cor­ti­co­ste­rone ele­va­tion, in response to acute stress, is one of the hor­monal medi­a­tors of stressinduced lym­pho­cyte traf­fick­ing to periph­e­ral tis­sues (Dhab­har and McE­wen, 1999). Fur­ther­more, cor­ti­sol was shown to up-reg­u­late LFA-1 (the ligand for ICAM-1) expres­sion on lym­pho­cytes fol­low­ing acute stress (Tar­cic et al., 1995). There­fore, we wished to deter­mine whether admin­is­tra­tion of exog­e­nous cor­ti­co­ste­rone could mimic the effect of the stress on ICAM-1 expres­sion in the brain. To this end, we injected mice with cor­ti­co­ste­rone (0.6, 6 and 60 mg/kg), or with the vehi­cle, poly­eth­yl­ene gly­col (PEG); brains were excised after 3, 24 or 48 h and stained for ICAM-1. The ele­va­tion and the tim­ing of ICAM-1 expres­sion in the Cpx were depen­dent on the cor­ ti­co­ste­rone dos­age. Three hours after admin­is­tra­tion of 0.6 mg/kg cor­ti­co­ste­rone, a slight but not sig­nif­i­cant ele­va­tion of ICAM-1 in the Cpx was seen. When an inter­me­di­ate dos­age of cor­ti­co­ste­rone (6 mg/kg) was admin­is­tered, the ele­va­tion of ICAM-1 expres­sion at 3 h was sta­tis­ti­cally sig­nif­i­cant, and when the high­est dos­age of cor­ti­co­ste­rone (60 mg/kg) was admin­is­tered, the peak of ICAM-1 expres­sion occurred 24 h after the injec­tion (Fig. 1c). These results sug­gest that the effect of stress on the expres­sion of ICAM-1 might be partly med­i­ated by the ele­va­tion of cor­ti­co­ste­rone. To fur­ther under­stand the func­tional asso­ci­a­tion between the recruit­ment of the lym­pho­cytes to the brain and the abil­ity of the mice to adapt to the acute stress, we exam­ined the C57BL/6J mice; this strain has a reduced HPA axis response to stress (An­is­ man et al., 1998; Shanks et al., 1990), and reduced stress-induced delayed-type hyper­sen­si­tiv­ity (Flint and Tin­kle, 2001). Before look­ ing at the CD3+ cell recruit­ment and ICAM-1 expres­sion, we ver­i­ fied that the C57BL/6J mice indeed have reduced abil­ity to adapt to the pred­a­tor odor com­pared to Balb/c as pre­vi­ously reported (Cohen et al., 2008) (Sup­ple­men­tary Table 1). In the C57BL/6J we found a tran­sient increase of CD3+ cells in the Cpx at 48 h after the expo­sure to the stressor (63.4 ± 6.03 in the stressed mice rel­a­tive to 39.73 ± 2.41 in unstressed con­trols) (Fig. 2a). The expres­sion of ICAM-1 in the Cpx was not sig­nif­i­cantly affected by the stress (Fig. 2b). It is impor­tant to note that the basal level of ICAM-1 was sim­ i­lar between the two strains (data not shown) although the basal lev­els of CD3+ cells in the Cpx of C57BL/6J ani­mals were higher than in Balb/c. These results fur­ther sup­ported a strong asso­ci­a­tion between ICAM-I expres­sion in the Cpx and recruit­ment of CD3+ cells in response to acute stress. As T cells were shown to affect BDNF lev­els (Ziv et al., 2006b), we hypoth­e­sized that T-cell traf­fick­ing to the CNS would enable res­ to­ra­tion of BDNF lev­els and an increased abil­ity to cope with stress­ ful con­di­tions. To cor­re­late BDNF lev­els, we exam­ined whether there were strain dif­fer­ences in the effect of stress on BDNF expres­ sion in the den­tate gyrus (DG) of the hip­po­cam­pus (Fig. 3a). Balb/c and C57BL/6J mice were stained for BDNF at var­i­ous time points fol­ low­ing expo­sure to stress. In the Balb/c mice there was a tran­sient reduc­tion of BDNF observed as early as 3 h after stress; how­ever, by day 7, BDNF lev­els returned to nor­mal (Fig. 3b). In C57BL/6J mice, the reduc­tion of BDNF was seen 3 h after the stress, yet in con­trast to Balb/c, BDNF lev­els remained low even 7 days after stress appli­ ca­tion (Fig. 3c). Immu­ni­za­tion with a CNS-spe­cific anti­gen was shown to res­cue neu­rons from sec­ond­ary dam­age by recruit­ing auto­re­ac­tive T cells to the site of injury (Hau­ben et al., 2000). There­fore, we made an assump­tion that immu­ni­za­tion with such an anti­gen might reduce the mal­ad­ap­ta­tion to stress in C57BL/6J mice. We immu­nized the



G.M. Lew­itus et al. / Brain, Behavior, and Immunity 22 (2008) 1108–1114

1111

Fig. 2. Stress tran­siently enhances immune traf­fick­ing in C57BL/6J mice. C57BL/6J mice, which have a reduced HPA response to stress, showed a tran­sient infil­tra­tion of CD3+ cells to the Cpx after expo­sure to pred­a­tor odor. (a) Graph indi­cates the aver­age num­bers of CD3+ cells per slice. Val­ues are means ± SEM. (A one-way ANOVA indi­cated a sig­ nif­i­cant dif­fer­ence between the dif­fer­ent time points (F5,24 = 7.06, P = 0.0003); ¤¤P < 0.01 (Tu­key–Kramer post hoc anal­y­sis); n=6 slices from 5 ani­mals. (b) ICAM-1 expres­sion in the Cpx of C57BL/6J mice at dif­fer­ent time points after stress. Graph indi­cates ICAM-1 den­sity in arbi­trary units. Val­ues are means ± SEM; n=5.

Fig. 3. Expres­sion of BDNF in the hip­po­cam­pus is asso­ci­ated with adap­ta­tion to stress. After expo­sure to the pred­a­tor odor, sec­tions of the hip­po­cam­pus of Balb/c mice and C57BL/6J mice were stained for Brain-derived neu­ro­tro­phic fac­tor (BDNF). (a) A rep­re­sen­ta­tive image of BDNF stain­ing in the den­tate gyrus (DG) of naïve mice (Balb/c and C57BL/6J) and 7 days after expo­sure to the pred­a­tor odor. (b) Anal­y­sis of BDNF immu­no­re­ac­tiv­ity in the DG at dif­fer­ent time points after stress. Graph indi­ cates BDNF den­sity in arbi­trary units. Val­ues are means ± SEM. (A one-way ANOVA indi­cated a sig­nif­i­cant dif­fer­ence between the dif­fer­ent time points. For Balb/c: (F5,53 = 9.93, P = 0.0001); ¤P < 0.05, ¤¤¤P < 0.001; for C57BL/6J: (F5,48 = 4.06, P = 0.0037); ¤ P < 0.05, ¤¤P < 0.01, (Tu­key-kramer post hoc anal­y­sis); n=5.

mice with a MOG-derived pep­tide, pMOG35–55, emul­si­fied in CFA, 1 week before expos­ing the mice to pred­a­tor odor. Though the immu­ ni­za­tion increases the potency of the auto­im­mune cells, it does not lead to auto­im­mune enceph­a­lo­my­eli­tis (Lew­itus et al., 2006). Mice were tested in the ele­vated plus maze and for the acous­tic star­tle response 1 week after stress expo­sure. A sig­nif­i­cant dif­fer­ence was

Fig. 4. Immu­ni­za­tion with pMOG35¡55 enhances BDNF in the hip­po­cam­pus.C57BL/6J mice were immu­nized with pMOG35¡55 or PBS emul­si­fied with CFA 1 week before a 15-min expo­sure to pred­a­tor odor. (a) Rep­re­sen­ta­tive image of Brain-derived neu­ro­tro­phic fac­tor (BDNF) stain­ing in the den­tate gyrus (DG) of C57BL/6J mice immu­nized with pMOG35–55 or PBS emul­si­fied in CFA in naive mice or 7 days after expo­sure to pred­a­tor odor. (b) Quan­ti­fi­ca­tion of BDNF immu­no­re­ac­tiv­ity in the DG of pMOG35–55 or PBS immu­nized C57BL/6J mice at 24 h and 7 days after expo­sure to pred­a­tor odor. Note that the treated mice exhib­ited a reduc­tion in the BDNF lev­els 24 h after the stress. How­ever, 7 days after the stress expo­sure, the lev­els of BDNF in the mice treated with CFA alone were still low com­pared to the pMOG35–55 immu­ nized mice. Val­ues rep­re­sent means ± SEM. (One-way ANOVA anal­y­sis indi­cated a sig­nif­i­cant dif­fer­ence between the dif­fer­ent time points. (F5,53=20.299, P = 0.0001); ¤¤ P < 0.01, ¤¤¤P < 0.001, n=5).

1112

G.M. Lew­itus et al. / Brain, Behavior, and Immunity 22 (2008) 1108–1114

observed between the pMOG35–55 immu­nized group and the con­ trol-injected mice. The immu­nized mice showed lower lev­els of anx­i­ety, as mea­sured by a weaker acous­tic star­tle response as well as by the larger time spent in the open arms of the ele­vated plusmaze, and higher explor­atory activ­ity (Table 1). To ensure that the reduced explor­atory activ­ity of the con­trol mice was not due to reduce motor activ­ity, 5 mice from each group under­went Rotarod test. Both group of mice spent equal time on the accel­er­at­ing Rota-rod, fur­ther sug­gest­ing that the observed effect of the immu­ ni­za­tion was an out­come of reduced fear­ful­ness (Table 1). These results sug­gest that manip­u­la­tion lead­ing to enhanced immunesur­veil­lance of the brain can reduce mal­ad­ap­ta­tion to stress. The fact that we observed asso­ci­a­tion between the BDNF expres­ sion and recruit­ment of immune cells to the brain prompted us to exam­ine whether the improved behav­ior induced by the immu­ ni­za­tion with pMOG35–55 also resulted in res­to­ra­tion of BDNF lev­ els. We there­fore repeated the above exper­i­ment of immu­niz­ing C57BL/6J mice with pMOG35–55 emul­si­fied in CFA, or with CFA alone, and ana­lyzed BDNF lev­els. The ani­mals were exposed to pred­a­tor odor 1 week after immu­ni­za­tion. The brains were tested for BDNF expres­sion 24 h and 7 days after expo­sure to the stress. Unstressed ani­mals, immu­nized with pMOG35–55or treated with CFA, were also ana­lyzed 14 days after immu­ni­za­tion. As expected, stress caused a reduc­tion in BDNF lev­els, which was evi­dent both at 24 h and 7 days. Yet, in the immu­nized ani­mals, lev­els of BDNF were sig­nif­i­cantly restored 7 days fol­low­ing stress (Fig. 4a and b). No sig­nif­i­cant dif­fer­ences in BDNF lev­els were observed in the unstressed mice between the pMOG35–55 immu­nized and the PBStreated mice. 4. Dis­cus­sion Our results sug­gest that traf­fick­ing of immune cells to the brain is part of the defense mech­a­nism against con­se­quences of psy­cho­ log­i­cal stress. We also showed that immu­ni­za­tion with CNS derived pep­tide (MOG35–55) reduced the delayed adverse behav­ioral effects of stress such as anx­i­ety and the acous­tic-star­tle response, by reg­u­ lat­ing lev­els of BDNF. Recently it was shown that adap­ta­tion to the acute psy­cho­log­ i­cal stressor of pred­a­tor odor depends on a con­trolled adap­tive immune response rec­og­niz­ing CNS anti­gens (Cohen et al., 2006). Here we show the enhanced traf­fick­ing of T cells to the brain was asso­ci­ated with an enhanced abil­ity to adapt to stress. For exam­ple, the Balb/c mice that dem­on­strated enhanced T-cell recruit­ment to the brain fol­low­ing the stress had lower lev­els of anx­i­ety and reduced acous­tic star­tle response rel­a­tive to the C57BL/6J strain with lim­ited brain lym­pho­cyte recruit­ment. Sim­i­lar strain dif­fer­ ences between these two strains were pre­vi­ously observed in the acute stress-induced enhance­ment of cuta­ne­ous hyper­sen­si­tiv­ity. In Balb/c mice, acute stress prior to chem­i­cal chal­lenge enhances the ear swell­ing response to anti­gen; in C57BL/6J mice, acute stress does not affect ear swell­ing (Flint and Tin­kle, 2001). Dhab­har and McE­wen were the first to show that acute stress increases immune sur­veil­lance and immune responses in organs that can be affected by stress, such as the skin (Dhab­har and McE­ wen, 1997). They sug­gested that the abil­ity of stress to enhance the immune response is aimed at pro­tect­ing the organ­ism from a pos­si­ble infec­tion or injury caused by the stress­ful sit­u­a­tion (such as pos­si­ble injury by a pred­a­tor). Our results sug­gest that also traf­ fick­ing to the brain, induced by the stress, is part of the pro­tec­tive mech­a­nism recruited to fight off the stress. Immune traf­fick­ing to the brain has never been pro­posed as part of the defense mech­ a­nism fol­low­ing stress. The enhanced abil­ity of the Balb/c mice to cope with the stress as well as the selec­tive up reg­u­la­tion of ICAM-1 might hint towards a Th2 sub­set (Bi­er­nacki et al., 2001). How­ever, fur­ther exper­i­ments are needed in order to bet­ter char­

ac­ter­ize the dif­fer­ent sub­sets of T cells and to dis­tin­guish between the pro­tec­tive and the path­o­genic T-cell phe­no­type in the con­text of cop­ing with men­tal stress. Sev­eral adhe­sion mol­e­cules, such as ICAM-1 and VCAM-1, were shown to be involved in lym­pho­cyte traf­fick­ing to the CNS (Car­ri­ thers et al., 2000; Ranso­hoff et al., 2003) under inflam­ma­tory con­ di­tions. How­ever, we show here that psy­cho­log­i­cal stress, induced up reg­u­la­tion of the expres­sion of ICAM-1, but not VCAM-1, pre­ sum­ably as a pro­tec­tive immune response. These results are in line with obser­va­tions show­ing increased expres­sion of LFA-1 (the ligand for ICAM-1) on periph­e­ral lym­pho­cytes fol­low­ing psy­cho­ log­i­cal stress in humans and rodents (Bau­er et al., 2001; Go­e­bel and Mills, 2000). The enhanced expres­sion of ICAM-1 was mainly observed in the chor­oids plexus, sur­round­ing the hip­po­cam­pus and on endo­the­lial blood ves­sels within the hip­po­cam­pus. Sim­i­lar pattern of ICAM-1 expres­sion was observed after cor­ti­cal con­tu­sion trauma in rats, where ele­va­tion of ICAM-1 was observed on the epi­ the­lial cells of the chor­oids plexus and occa­sional micro­ves­sels of the hip­po­cam­pus (Is­aks­son et al., 1997). It is impor­tant to note that ICAM-1 was pre­vi­ously shown to be solely expressed on epi­the­lial cells of the chor­oids plexus and not on the chor­oids plexus endo­ the­lial cells even after the induc­tion of exper­i­men­tal auto­im­mune enceph­a­lo­my­eli­tis (EAE) (Stef­fen et al., 1996; Wol­burg et al., 1999). It was sug­gested that Cpx epi­the­lial cells might have an immu­no­ log­i­cal func­tion, as it was shown to express MHC class I and II mol­ e­cules (Na­than­son and Chun, 1989). While the exact nature of its immu­no­log­i­cal func­tion is not known, the pres­ence of the T cells at intra-ven­tric­u­lar space close to the cho­roid epi­the­lium fur­ther empha­sizes the impor­tance of the cho­roid plexus in brain-immune inter­ac­tion. Pos­si­ble medi­a­tors for the stress-induced immune traf­fick­ing to the CNS are the stress hor­mones, such as Cor­ti­co­ste­rone. Here we showed that exog­e­nous admin­is­tra­tion of cor­ti­co­ste­rone could mimic the ele­va­tion of ICAM-1. The dos­ages of cor­ti­co­ste­rone influ­ ence the tim­ing of ICAM-1 expres­sion. Cor­ti­co­ste­rone was shown to be involved in other aspects of immune traf­fick­ing. Dhab­har and McE­wen (1996) showed that acute stress induces mobi­li­za­tion of leu­ko­cytes from the blood to the periph­ery, and that acute admin­is­ tra­tion of cor­ti­co­ste­rone can mimic the change in the dis­tri­bu­tion of the periph­e­ral leu­ko­cytes as seen fol­low­ing acute stress (Dhab­ har and McE­wen, 1996). This data together with ours, sug­gest that cor­ti­co­ste­rone may act as the first medi­a­tor of the immune response in the brain and in the periph­ery. The func­tion of the immune sys­tem is to be prepared to fight off the con­se­quences of the stressor (such as injury), and also to play a role in main­tain­ing brain homeo­sta­sis. There are sev­eral lines of evi­dence sug­gest­ing a role for BDNF in the behav­ioral and cel­lu­lar response to stress, as well as its path­ o­phys­i­ol­ogy (Du­man et al., 2000; Va­idya et al., 1997). Acute stress such as immo­bi­li­za­tion (restraint stress) tran­siently down-reg­ u­lates BDNF mRNA and pro­tein expres­sion in the hip­po­cam­pus, espe­cially in the DG (Ad­lard and Cot­man, 2004; Smith et al., 1995). Taken together, the evi­dence for the involve­ment of the immune sys­tem in the main­te­nance of BDNF lev­els in the DG (Ziv et al., 2006b), with the pro­duc­tion of BDNF by immune cells (Barouch and Sch­wartz, 2002; Kers­chen­ste­in­er et al., 1999), led us to sug­gest that one of the roles of the enhanced immune-sur­veil­lance induced by stress is to facil­i­tate main­tain­ing BDNF lev­els. In our model of stress, we observed rela­tion­ships between BDNF expres­sion in the DG, the behav­ioral response to stress, and the degree of lym­pho­ cyte infil­tra­tion. The asso­ci­a­tion was observed in the spon­ta­ne­ ous response to the stressor and was fur­ther sub­stan­ti­ated by the ben­e­fi­cial effect of the immu­ni­za­tion. The immu­ni­za­tion reduced the mal­adap­ta­tive behav­ior observed a week after stress expo­ sure, and although the BDNF lev­els in the DG were reduced 24 h after the stress, by 7 days, the lev­els of BDNF were restored to the



G.M. Lew­itus et al. / Brain, Behavior, and Immunity 22 (2008) 1108–1114

nor­mal, pre-stress lev­els. These results fur­ther empha­sized the impor­tance of the immune sys­tem in brain homeo­sta­sis. In line with our results, it was shown that rats that were exposed to pred­a­ tor odor exhib­ited a reduc­tion in BDNF mRNA, as well as pro­tein lev­ els in the hip­po­cam­pus, sim­i­lar to our find­ings here. Addi­tion­ally, a cor­re­la­tion was dem­on­strated between the behav­ioral response and BDNF lev­els (Koz­lov­sky et al., 2007). It is impor­tant to note that the pep­tide used in this study, under cer­tain pro­to­cols, can induce EAE in mice (Men­del et al., 1995). In the pres­ent study the pro­to­col included only one immu­ ni­za­tion with the pep­tide (100 lg) with­out add­ing Per­tus­sis toxin, used to induce enceph­a­lo­my­eli­tis (Men­del et al., 1995). We have pre­vi­ously found that there is a del­i­cate bal­ance between ben­e­fi­cial and path­o­genic auto­im­mu­nity, which is influ­enced by the type of anti­gen, dos­age as well as the adju­vant used. We have found that en auto­im­mune response was ben­e­fi­cial only when the EAE symp­toms it induced were mild, how­ever, no ben­e­fi­cial effect was observed when EAE was severe (Hau­ben et al., 2001; Ziv et al., 2006a). Impor­tantly, we used this pep­tide in the pres­ ent study as a proof of prin­ci­ple. For ther­a­peu­tic pur­poses, weak ago­nists of self pep­tides such as altered pep­tide ligands, as well as addi­tional pep­tides and car­rier, will be tested (Hau­ben et al., 2001; Ziv et al., 2006a). This study extends the role of ‘pro­tec­tive auto­im­mu­nity’ to include pro­tec­tion against men­tal stress, and fur­ther argues in favor of the impor­tance of a dis­tinc­tion between a wellcon­trolled immune response that takes place in the acutely stressed brain and a path­o­log­i­cal immune response that occurs when immune response looses con­trol (such as Multiple scle­ ro­sis (Gold and Hee­sen, 2006). Accord­ing to this view, a tran­ sient and con­trolled traf­fick­ing of T cells in response to an acute stress is a desir­able response, and is ame­na­ble to boost­ing. In line with this con­ten­tion, con­di­tions of PTSD in humans might be a reflec­tion of insuf­fi­cient or untimely recruit­ment of the rel­ e­vant immune activ­ity. Rec­og­niz­ing that the sys­temic immune sys­tem is a fac­tor in con­tain­ing men­tal stress offers new direc­ tions for the devel­op­ment of a ther­apy for stress-induced pathol­ o­gies such as PTSD and depres­sion, in the form of T cell-based immu­ni­za­tion, which increases the body’s phys­i­o­log­i­cal abil­ity to cope with stress. Dis­clo­sure/con­flict of inter­est We have no finan­cial inter­ests to dis­close. Acknowl­edg­ments We thank R. Hal­per and S. Sch­warz­baum for edit­ing the man­u­ script and to S. Ov­adia for ani­mal main­te­nance. M.S. is the incum­ bent of the Mau­rice and Ilse Katz Pro­fes­so­rial Chair in Neu­roim­mu­ nol­o­gy. This study was sup­ported, in part, by an NAR­SAD award for Dis­tin­guished Inves­ti­ga­tors awarded to M.S. Appen­dix A. Sup­ple­men­tary data Sup­ple­men­tary data asso­ci­ated with this arti­cle can be found, in the online ver­sion, at doi:10.1016/j.bbi.2008.05.002. Ref­er­ences Ad­lard, P.A., Cot­man, C.W., 2004. Vol­un­tary exer­cise pro­tects against stress-induced decreases in brain-derived neu­ro­tro­phic fac­tor pro­tein expres­sion. Neu­ro­sci­ ence 124, 985–992. An­is­man, H., La­co­sta, S., Kent, P., McIn­tyre, D.C., Mer­al­i, Z., 1998. Stressor-induced cor­ti­co­tro­pin-releas­ing hor­mone, bom­be­sin, ACTH and cor­ti­co­ste­rone vari­a­ tions in strains of mice dif­fer­en­tially respon­sive to stress­ors. Stress 2, 209– 220.

1113

Barouch, R., Sch­wartz, M., 2002. Auto­re­ac­tive T cells induce neu­ro­tro­phin pro­duc­ tion by immune and neu­ral cells in injured rat optic nerve: impli­ca­tions for pro­tec­tive auto­im­mu­nity. FASEB J. 16, 1304–1306. Bau­er, M.E., Perks, P., Light­man, S.L., Shanks, N., 2001. Are adhe­sion mol­e­cules involved in stress-induced changes in lym­pho­cyte dis­tri­bu­tion? Life Sci. 69, 1167–1179. Bi­er­nacki, K., Prat, A., Blain, M., Antel, J.P., 2001. Reg­u­la­tion of Th1 and Th2 lym­ pho­cyte migra­tion by human adult brain endo­the­lial cells. J. Neu­ro­pa­thol. Exp. Neu­rol. 60, 1127–1136. Car­ri­thers, M.D., Visin­tin, I., Kang, S.J., Jane­way Jr., C.A., 2000. Dif­fer­en­tial adhe­sion mol­e­cule require­ments for immune sur­veil­lance and inflam­ma­tory recruit­ ment. Brain 123 (Pt 6), 1092–1101. Cohen, H., Geva, A.B., Ma­tar, M.A., Zo­har, J., Kap­lan, Z., 2008. Post-trau­matic stress behav­ioural responses in inbred mouse strains: can genetic pre­dis­po­si­tion explain phe­no­typic vul­ner­a­bil­ity? Int. J. Neu­ro­psy­cho­phar­ma­col. 11, 331–349. Cohen, H., Ziv, Y., Car­don, M., Kap­lan, Z., Ma­tar, M.A., Gi­dron, Y., Sch­wartz, M., Kip­ nis, J., 2006. Mal­ad­ap­ta­tion to men­tal stress mit­i­gated by the adap­tive immune sys­tem via deple­tion of nat­u­rally occur­ring reg­u­la­tory CD4+CD25+ cells. J. Neu­ ro­bi­ol. 66, 552–563. Dhab­har, F.S., McE­wen, B.S., 1996. Stress-induced enhance­ment of anti­gen-spe­cific cell-med­i­ated immu­nity. J. Immu­nol. 156, 2608–2615. Dhab­har, F.S., McE­wen, B.S., 1997. Acute stress enhances while chronic stress sup­ presses cell-med­i­ated immu­nity in vivo: a potential role for leu­ko­cyte traf­fick­ ing. Brain. Behav. Im­mun. 11, 286–306. Dhab­har, F.S., McE­wen, B.S., 1999. Enhanc­ing ver­sus sup­pres­sive effects of stress hor­ mones on skin immune func­tion. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96, 1059–1064. Du­man, R.S., Mal­berg, J., Nak­ag­a­wa, S., D’Sa, C., 2000. Neu­ro­nal plas­tic­ity and sur­ vival in mood dis­or­ders. Biol. Psy­chi­a­try 48, 732–739. File, S.E., 1993. The inter­play of learn­ing and anx­i­ety in the ele­vated plus-maze. Behav. Brain Res. 58, 199–202. Flint, M.S., Tin­kle, S.S., 2001. C57BL/6 mice are resis­tant to acute restraint mod­u­la­ tion of cuta­ne­ous hyper­sen­si­tiv­ity. Tox­i­col. Sci. 62, 250–256. Go­e­bel, M.U., Mills, P.J., 2000. Acute psy­cho­log­i­cal stress and exer­cise and changes in periph­e­ral leu­ko­cyte adhe­sion mol­e­cule expres­sion and den­sity. Psy­cho­som. Med. 62, 664–670. Gold, S.M., Hee­sen, C., 2006. Stress and dis­ease pro­gres­sion in multiple scle­ro­sis and its ani­mal mod­els. Neu­ro­im­mu­no­mod­u­la­tion 13, 318–326. Green­wood, J., Eti­enne-Man­ne­ville, S., Ad­am­son, P., Cou­raud, P.O., 2002. Lym­pho­ cyte migra­tion into the cen­tral ner­vous sys­tem: impli­ca­tion of ICAM-1 sig­nal­ ling at the blood–brain bar­rier. Va­scul. Phar­ma­col. 38, 315–322. Gri­e­bel, G., Blan­chard, D.C., Jung, A., Blan­chard, R.J., 1995. A model of’anti­pred­a­tor’ defense in Swiss-Web­ster mice: effects of ben­zo­di­az­e­pine recep­tor ligands with dif­fer­ent intrin­sic activ­i­ties. Behav. Phar­ma­col. 6, 732–745. Hau­ben, E., Agra­nov, E., Go­thilf, A., Nevo, U., Cohen, A., Smir­nov, I., Stein­man, L., Sch­ wartz, M., 2001. Post­trau­matic ther­a­peu­tic vac­ci­na­tion with mod­i­fied mye­lin self-anti­gen pre­vents com­plete paral­y­sis while avoid­ing auto­im­mune dis­ease. J. Clin. Invest. 108, 591–599. Hau­ben, E., Bu­tov­sky, O., Nevo, U., Yoles, E., Moa­lem, G., Agra­nov, E., Mor, F., Leibo­ witz-Amit, R., Pe­vs­ner, E., Ak­sel­rod, S., Ne­eman, M., Cohen, I.R., Sch­wartz, M., 2000. Pas­sive or active immu­ni­za­tion with mye­lin basic pro­tein pro­motes recov­ ery from spinal cord con­tu­sion. J. Neu­ro­sci. 20, 6421–6430. Is­aks­son, J., Le­wen, A., Hil­lered, L., Ols­son, Y., 1997. Up-reg­u­la­tion of inter­cel­lu­lar adhe­sion mol­e­cule 1 in cere­bral micro­ves­sels after cor­ti­cal con­tu­sion trauma in a rat model. Acta Neu­ro­pa­thol. 94, 16–20. Kers­chen­ste­in­er, M., Gall­me­ier, E., Beh­rens, L., Leal, V.V., Mis­geld, T., Klink­ert, W.E., Kol­beck, R., Hop­pe, E., Oro­peza-We­kerle, R.L., Bart­ke, I., Sta­del­mann, C., Lass­ mann, H., We­kerle, H., Ho­hl­feld, R., 1999. Acti­vated human T cells, B cells, and mono­cytes pro­duce brain-derived neu­ro­tro­phic fac­tor in vitro and in inflam­ma­ tory brain lesions: a neu­ro­pro­tec­tive role of inflam­ma­tion? J. Exp. Med. 189, 865–870. Kip­nis, J., Cohen, H., Car­don, M., Ziv, Y., Sch­wartz, M., 2004. T cell defi­ciency leads to cog­ni­tive dys­func­tion: impli­ca­tions for ther­a­peu­tic vac­ci­na­tion for schizo­phre­ nia and other psy­chi­at­ric con­di­tions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101, 8180–8185. Kip­nis, J., Yoles, E., Schor­i, H., Hau­ben, E., Sha­ked, I., Sch­wartz, M., 2001. Neu­ro­nal sur­vival after CNS insult is deter­mined by a genet­i­cally encoded auto­im­mune response. J. Neu­ro­sci. 21, 4564–4571. Koz­lov­sky, N., Ma­tar, M.A., Kap­lan, Z., Ko­tler, M., Zo­har, J., Cohen, H., 2007. Longterm down-reg­u­la­tion of BDNF mRNA in rat hip­po­cam­pal CA1 sub­re­gion cor­re­ lates with PTSD-like behav­ioural stress response. Int. J. Neu­ro­psy­cho­phar­ma­col. 10, 741–758. Lew­itus, G.M., Kip­nis, J., Av­i­dan, H., Ben-Nun, A., Sch­wartz, M., 2006. Neu­ro­pro­tec­ tion induced by muco­sal tol­er­ance is epi­tope-depen­dent: con­flict­ing effects in dif­fer­ent strains. J. Neu­ro­im­mu­nol. 175, 31–38. Men­del, I., Ker­le­ro de Ros­bo, N., Ben-Nun, A., 1995. A mye­lin oli­go­den­dro­cyte gly­co­ pro­tein pep­tide induces typ­i­cal chronic exper­i­men­tal auto­im­mune enceph­a­lo­ my­eli­tis in H-2b mice: fine spec­i­fic­ity and T cell recep­tor V beta expres­sion of en­ceph­a­li­to­gen­ic T cells. Eur. J. Immu­nol. 25, 1951–1959. Na­than­son, J.A., Chun, L.L., 1989. Immu­no­log­i­cal func­tion of the blood-cere­bro­spi­ nal fluid bar­rier. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 86, 1684–1688. Ranso­hoff, R.M., Kiv­i­sakk, P., Kidd, G., 2003. Three or more routes for leu­ko­ cyte migra­tion into the cen­tral ner­vous sys­tem. Nat. Rev. Immu­nol. 3, 569–581. Schor­i, H., Kip­nis, J., Yoles, E., Wolde­Mus­sie, E., Ruiz, G., Wheeler, L.A., Sch­wartz, M., 2001. Vac­ci­na­tion for pro­tec­tion of ret­i­nal gan­glion cells against death from glu­ ta­mate cyto­tox­ic­ity and ocular hyper­ten­sion: impli­ca­tions for glau­coma. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98, 3398–3403.

1114

G.M. Lew­itus et al. / Brain, Behavior, and Immunity 22 (2008) 1108–1114

Schor­i, H., Shech­ter, R., Sha­char, I., Sch­wartz, M., 2007. Genetic manip­u­la­tion of CD74 in mouse strains of dif­fer­ent back­grounds can result in oppo­site responses to cen­tral ner­vous sys­tem injury. J. Immu­nol. 178, 163–171. Shanks, N., Grif­fiths, J., Zalc­man, S., Zach­arko, R.M., An­is­man, H., 1990. Mouse strain dif­fer­ences in plasma cor­ti­co­ste­rone fol­low­ing uncon­trol­la­ble foot­shock. Phar­ ma­col. Bio­chem. Behav. 36, 515–519. Shanks, N., Ku­sne­cov, A.W., 1998. Dif­fer­en­tial immune reac­tiv­ity to stress in BALB/ cByJ and C57BL/6J mice: in vivo depen­dence on mac­ro­phages. Phys­iol. Behav. 65, 95–103. Smith, M.A., Mak­i­no, S., Kvet­nan­sky, R., Post, R.M., 1995. Stress and glu­co­cor­ti­coids affect the expres­sion of brain-derived neu­ro­tro­phic fac­tor and neu­ro­tro­phin-3 mRNAs in the hip­po­cam­pus. J. Neu­ro­sci. 15, 1768–1777. Stef­fen, B.J., Bre­ier, G., Butcher, E.C., Schulz, M., Engel­hardt, B., 1996. ICAM-1, VCAM-1, and MAd­CAM-1 are expressed on cho­roid plexus epi­the­lium but not endo­the­lium and medi­ate bind­ing of lym­pho­cytes in vitro. Am. J. Pathol. 148, 1819–1838. Swerd­low, N.R., Ge­yer, M.A., 1998. Using an ani­mal model of defi­cient sen­so­ri­mo­ tor gat­ing to study the path­o­phys­i­ol­ogy and new treat­ments of schizo­phre­nia. Schiz­ophr. Bull. 24, 285–301.

Tar­cic, N., Lev­it­an, G., Ben-Yosef, D., Prous, D., Ov­adia, H., Weiss, D.W., 1995. Restraint stress-induced changes in lym­pho­cyte sub­sets and the expres­sion of adhe­sion mol­e­cules. Neu­ro­im­mu­no­mod­u­la­tion 2, 249–257. Va­idya, V.A., Marek, G.J., Aghaj­a­nian, G.K., Du­man, R.S., 1997. 5-HT2A recep­tor-med­i­ ated reg­u­la­tion of brain-derived neu­ro­tro­phic fac­tor mRNA in the hip­po­cam­pus and the neo­cor­tex. J. Neu­ro­sci. 17, 2785–2795. Wol­burg, K., Ger­hardt, H., Schulz, M., Wol­burg, H., Engel­hardt, B., 1999. Ul­tra­struc­ tur­al local­i­za­tion of adhe­sion mol­e­cules in the healthy and inflamed cho­roid plexus of the mouse. Cell Tis­sue Res. 296, 259–269. Yeh­u­da, R., McFar­lane, A.C., 1995. Con­flict between cur­rent knowl­edge about post­ trau­matic stress dis­or­der and its original con­cep­tual basis. Am. J. Psy­chi­a­try 152, 1705–1713. Ziv, Y., Av­i­dan, H., Pluch­i­no, S., Mar­ti­no, G., Sch­wartz, M., 2006a. Syn­ergy between immune cells and adult neu­ral stem/pro­gen­i­tor cells pro­motes func­tional recov­ ery from spinal cord injury. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103, 13174–13179. Ziv, Y., Ron, N., Bu­tov­sky, O., Landa, G., Su­dai, E., Green­berg, N., Cohen, H., Kip­ nis, J., Sch­wartz, M., 2006b. Immune cells con­trib­ute to the main­te­nance of neu­ro­gen­e­sis and spa­tial learn­ing abil­i­ties in adult­hood. Nat. Neu­ro­sci. 9, 268–275.