Genotoxicants target distinct molecular networks in neonatal neurons.

BACKGROUND: Exposure of the brain to environmental agents during critical periods of neuronal development is considered a key factor underlying many neurologic disorders.

OBJECTIVES: In this study we examined the influence of genotoxicants on cerebellar function during early development by measuring global gene expression changes.

METHODS: We measured global gene expression in immature cerebellar neurons (i.e., granule cells) after treatment with two distinct alkylating agents, methylazoxymethanol (MAM) and nitrogen mustard (HN2). Granule cell cultures were treated for 24 hr with MAM (10-1,000 [micro]M) or HN2 (0.1-20 [micro]M) and examined for cell viability, DNA damage, and markers of apoptosis.

RESULTS: Neuronal viability was significantly reduced (p < 0.01) at concentrations > 500 [micro]M for MAM and > 1.0 [micro]M for HN2; this correlated with an increase in both DNA damage and markers of apoptosis. Neuronal cultures treated with sublethal concentrations of MAM (100 [micro]M) or HN2 (1.0 [micro]M) were then examined for gene expression using large-scale mouse cDNA microarrays (27,648). Gene expression results revealed that a) global gene expression was predominantly up-regulated by both genotoxicants; b) the number of down-regulated genes was approximately 3-fold greater for HN2 than for MAM; and c) distinct classes of molecules were influenced by MAM (i.e, neuronal differentiation, the stress and immune response, and signal transduction) and HN2 (i.e, protein synthesis and apoptosis).

CONCLUSIONS: These studies demonstrate that individual genotoxicants induce distinct gene expression signatures. Further study of these molecular networks may explain the variable response of the developing brain to different types of environmental genotoxicants.

KEY WORDS: cerebellum, DNA damage, granule cell, HN2, MAM, methylazoxymethanol, nitrogen mustard. Environ Health Perspect 114:1703-1712 (2006). doi:10.1289/ehp.9073 available via http://dx.doi.org/ [Online 7 September 2006]

**********

The Children's Health Act (2000) authorized the National Children's Study (NCS) to study the long-term effects of the environment on children's health and development by examining children across the United States from before birth to 21 years of age (Branum et al. 2003). One of the top priorities of the NCS was to identify factors responsible for the increasing rise of neurodevelopmental disorders (e.g, learning disabilities, mental retardation, attention deficit disorder) (Branum et al. 2003). Because brain development begins early in fetal life and continues until adolescence, exposure to environmental chemicals at this early age may be a leading cause of neurodevelopmental disorders. In support, a report by the National Research Council recently concluded that 3% of developmental disabilities are the direct consequence of exposure to environmental neurotoxins and that another 25% arise out of the interplay between environmental factors and genetic susceptibility (Landrigan et al. 2004). These conclusions were derived from data collected on children who had been exposed to established neurotoxic agents (e.g., alcohol, pesticides, heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyls). However, many of the chemicals identified by the Chemical Agents Working Group of the NCS are genotoxicants and therefore are capable of directly or indirectly damaging DNA to induce long-term neurologic impairment. Although DNA damage is a characteristic feature of certain neurodevelopmental disorders (Nishioka and Arnold 2004) or neurologic disease (Alam et al. 1997; Lyras et al. 1997; Mecocci et al. 1994, 1997), our understanding of how genotoxicants may contribute to these conditions is poorly understood.

The complex and hierarchical cytoarchitecture of the mature brain is the culmination of a sequence of biochemical and molecular events tightly controlled by specific patterns of gene expression. Regions of the central nervous system (CNS) develop at different stages and this correlates with a distinct sequence of events that includes cell proliferation, migration, and differentiation or maturation. Interference at any one of these stages of development would be expected to induce permanent impairment. Because most neurodevelopmental disorders are categorized as migrational disorders (Gleeson 2001), environmental agents that preferentially target the DNA of immature postmitotic neurons would be expected to disrupt the transcriptional events that control the key steps involved in laying down the final cytoarchitecture of the mature brain. Identifying the key molecular networks specifically targeted by genotoxicants in immature postmitotic neurons could provide an important first step in understanding how this class of environmental agents influences brain development.

Methylazoxymethanol (MAM) and nitrogen mustard (HN2) are two established genotoxicants that reproducibly disrupt neuronal development when administered during the fetal or neonatal period of CNS development (Cattabeni and Di Luca 1997; Ferguson 1996; Graef et al. 1948; McDonald and Asano 1961). The glucoside form of MAM (i.e, cycasin) is also strongly linked to a prototypical neurologic disorder found in the western Pacific with features of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Parkinson disease and an Alzheimer-like dementia (ALS/PDC; Spencer et al. 1991; Zhang et al. 1996). These studies suggest that early life exposure to a genotoxicant is associated with neurodevelopmental or neurodegenerative changes. The genotoxic properties of MAM have been widely used by neurobiologists to selectively target neurons during CNS development (Cattabeni and Di Luca 1997; Colacitti et al. 1999), whereas the chemotherapeutic agent HN2 induces immediate and delayed neurotoxicity in humans (Sullivan et al. 1982) and is a potent experimental teratogen [Sullivan et al. 1982; see also review by Spencer et al. (1999)]. Rodents treated with MAM or HN2 in utero or within 1-5 days of birth show strikingly abnormal development of the cerebral cortex (Balduini et al. 1986; Cattabeni and Di Luca 1997; Ferguson and Holson 1997) or cerebellum (Ferguson et al. 1996; Sullivan-Jones et al. 1994), respectively, and exhibit changes in motor or cognitive function. Prenatal exposure to MAM is characterized by cortical atrophy (Colacitti et al. 1999), an increased susceptibility to epileptogenic agents (Baraban and Schwartzkroin 1996; Chevassus-Au-Louis et al. 1999; DeFeo et al. 1995; Jacobs et al. 1999), an age-dependent decline in learning and memory (Matijasevic et al. 1993; Vorhees et al. 1984), and an impaired social behavior that bears resemblance to that seen in schizophrenia (Flagstad et al. 2005; Talamini et al. 1998, 1999). When MAM is administered after birth (1-4 days), the effects are confined primarily to the cerebellum (Ferguson 1996; Sullivan-Jones et al. 1994). This exposure also leads to atrophy that is characterized by specific targeting of glutaminergic and GABAergic precursor cells of the cerebellum (especially granule cells) resulting in misalignment of Purkinje cells and ectopic and multinucleated granule cells. Multinucleated and ectopic neurons have also been reported in the cerebellum and vestibular nuclei of subjects with ALS/PDC (Shiraki and Yase 1975), an observation that suggests human exposure to MAM during early CNS development may have arrested the mitotic and migratory developmental responses of neurons.

Gene expression profiling is becoming an increasingly useful approach for elucidating complex relationships between toxins and the patterns of plasticity during CNS development (Mody et al. 2001; Poguet et al. 2003) or for understanding the full impact of environmental toxins on cells or tissues (Amin et al. 2002; Mandel et al. 2002). For example, gene expression profiling has been used recently to dissect the complex mechanisms underlying CNS injury in several neurodevelopmental disorders (e.g., epilepsy, schizophrenia, learning disabilities) (Becker et al. 2002; Mirnics et al. 2000) and in neurodegenerative disease (Ishigaki et al. 2002; Pasinetti 2001). Because the majority of neurodevelopmental disorders in children occur during the migration of immature neurons, gene expression profiling was used to identify the specific molecular networks targeted by MAM or the related alkylating agent HN2 in cultures of young postmitotic cerebellar neurons.

Materials and Methods

Neuronal and astrocyte cell cultures. We prepared primary mouse granule and astrocyte cell cultures from the cerebella of 6- to 8-day-old neonatal C57BL/6 (Charles River Laboratories, Wilmington, MA) mice by placing the tissues in ice-cold Hibernate/B27 cell culture media (Invitrogen Corp., Carlsbad, CA) and dissociating the tissue in balanced salt solution with 0.1% trypsin as previously described (Kisby et al. 2000, 2004; Meira et al. 2001). The cell suspension was placed in poly-D-lysine coated (Biocoat; BD Biosciences, Bedford, MA) 48-well plates (viability studies), 8-well chamber slides [terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase-mediated biotinylated-UTP nick end-labeling (TUNEL)], or 6-well plates (DNA damage) at a density of 0.07 x [10.sup.6]/well (8-well chamber slides and 48-well plates) or 1 x [10.sup.6] cells/well (6-well plates), respectively. We fed cell cultures weekly by adding fresh culture media to the wells and maintained the cells for 7 days (neurons) or 3-4 weeks (astrocytes) before treatment with 10-1,000 [micro]M MAM or 0.1-20 [micro]M mechlorethamine hydrochloride (HN2). All animals used in these studies were treated humanely and with regard to the alleviation of suffering according to protocols approved by the Oregon Health & Science University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.

Cell viability. Mouse neuronal and astrocyte cell cultures treated with control media or media supplemented with various concentrations of MAM or HN2 were examined for cell viability using the fluorochrome acetoxymethyl ester, as previously described (Kisby et al. 2004; Meira et al. 2001). The fluorochrome-containing media was aspirated, the cultures washed once with control media, and cell survival examined on a fluorescence microplate reader (GeminiXS; Molecular Devices, Sunnyvale, CA) with well-scan capabilities. Values were expressed as the mean percent surviving of control cells [+ or -] SE (n = 6/treatment group x 3-5 separate experiments).

DNA damage. N7-Alkylguanine levels. We isolated and purified DNA from MAM-or HN2-treated cerebellar neuronal cell cultures by extracting the tissue with Tri-Reagent (Molecular Research Corp., Cincinnati, OH) according to the manufacturer's instructions. DNA concentration ranged between 20 and 30 [micro]g/1 x [10.sup.6] cells, and the purity was checked by measuring 260/280 ratios (range 1.7-2.0). An alkylated DNA standard was prepared by treating calf thymus DNA (CT-DNA) with 1 mM MAM in buffer [300 mM MOPS, 2 mM EDTA (pH 7.5)] for 1 hr at 37[degrees]C. DNA samples and alkylated CT-DNA were depurinated by incubating in 0.1 N HCl for 17 hr at 37[degrees]C. The depurinated samples and standards were neutralized with 1.0 N NaOH, passed through a [C.sub.18] SepPak cartridge (Millipore Corp., Bedford, MA), and taken to dryness in a speed-vac. The lyophylized samples and alkylated DNA were analyzed for N7-methylguanine (N7-mG) or N7-alkylguanine [i.e, N-(2-hydroxyethyl)-N-(2-(7-guaninyl)ethyl)-methylamine (GMOH)] DNA lesions by HPLC with electrochemical detection as previously described by Eizirik and Kisby (1995), Esclaire et al. (1999), and Kisby et al. (2000). Alkylated DNA was used to determine recovery (> 90%) of N7-mG and GMOH from the extraction process. N7-mG and GMOH levels were determined in samples and from a standard curve (r = 0.99) of CT-DNA alkylated with MAM or HN2, respectively. Values are expressed as fmoles N7-mG or GMOH per microgram DNA.

TUNEL labeling. Primary cerebellar neuronal cultures treated for 24 hr with MAM or HN2 were examined for DNA fragmentation using TUNEL with the NeuroTacs staining kit according to the manufacturer's instructions (Trevigen, Gaithersburg, MD). After toxin treatment, the cells were fixed with 4% buffered paraformaldehyde, and the incorporation of biotinylated nucleotides was visualized by incubating the cells with NovaRed (Vector Labs, Inc, Burlingame, CA). Slides were lightly counterstained with methyl green and the cells examined by light microscopy as previously described (Kisby et al. 2004).

Microarrays. We purchased 27,648 sequence-verified mouse cDNA clones from Research Genetics [Brain Molecular Anatomy Project (BMAP) clones; Invitrogen Corp.] and The National Institute of Aging (NIA clones; Bethesda, MD) as frozen bacterial stocks were used to create two individual arrays (13,824 genes/array) spanning nearly the entire mouse genome. Universal forward and reverse primers were amino modified with a 5' [C.sub.12] spacer. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) products were purified using Telechem PCR clean-up plates, dried down, and resuspended in 20 [micro]L Telechem spotting solution and printed on TeleChem SuperAldehyde substrates using a Cartesian Pixsys printer with quill pins from TeleChem International (Sunnyvale, CA).

RNA preparation. We isolated RNA from cerebellar neuronal cultures treated for 24 hr with 100 [micro]M MAM or 1.0 [micro]M HN2 using Tri-Reagent (Molecular Research Corp.) according to the manufacturer's protocol. Because RNA concentrations were low (10-15 [micro]g/well for 6-well plate), two wells were combined, and each combined sample (n = 3) was analyzed for gene expression using mouse cDNA microarrays. We used bromo-chloropropane for the initial phase separation. RNA was dissolved in water that had been treated with diethyl pyrocarbonate to ensure that it was RNAse free and quantitated based on optical density (OD)[.sub.260].

Gene arrays processing. RNA (10 [micro]g) was reverse transcribed using 2 [micro]g of oligo dT primer (24mer) in the presence of 200 mM dNTP mixture (dATP, dGTP, dCTP), 100 mM dTTP, 100 mM 5-(3-aminoallyl)-2'-deoxyuridine-5'-triphosphate (Sigma Chemical Corp., St. Louis, MO) and 300 U of Superscript II (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA) to generate aminoallyl-modified cDNA probes. After hydrolysis of the original RNA, we used a Qiagen PCR cleanup kit (Qiagen, Valencia, CA) with a modified protocol to purify the cDNA product. The cDNA probe was then dried down and resuspended in 0.1 M NaC[O.sub.2] buffer (pH 9.0) and coupled to N-hydroxysuc-cinimide ester cyanine 5 dye (GE Healthcare, Piscataway, NJ) in the presence of dimethylsulfoxide. The uncoupled dye was removed using a Qiagen PCR cleanup kit according to the the manufacturer's protocol. The purified cDNA probe was lyophilized and resuspended in 70 [micro]L of Ribohybe (Ventana, Tucson, AZ). Probe was added to the microarray using a lifterslip (Erie Scientific, Portsmouth, NH) and allowed to hybridize in a humidity chamber for 16 hr at 50[degrees]C. Each sample was hybridized separately to two arrays with distinct sets of cDNA probes (one set from the BMAP clones and one from the NIA clone set). The combined data from the two probe sets explore the variation in gene expression with 27,265 unique clones. Microarrays were washed with 2xSSC [300 mM NaCl, 30 mM sodium citrate (pH 7.0)] on a rocker 2 x 10 min at room temperature followed by two washes for 10 min each in 0.2xSSC at 50[degrees]C to remove unbound probe. Microarrays were dried by centrifugation. Tagged image file format (.tif) images were collected using a SA5000 fluorescence scanner (PerkinElmer, Wellesley, MA) and the data collected and analyzed with QuantArray data collection software (PerkinElmer). Signal extraction protocols exported the mean pixel intensity of the upper 65% of signal pixels and the mean pixel intensity of the lower 65% of background pixels.

Data analysis. We adjusted mean signal intensity for local background by subtracting the mean background intensity. Data for each array set were exported to Arraystat statistical software (Imaging Research, version 1.0, revision 2.0; GE Healthcare). The Arraystat normalization parameters used were "proportional model with offsets, no outlier exclusion," which log transforms the data ([log.sub.10]) and globally centers the transformed data within conditions by subtracting the array mean for all genes present on all arrays in the condition and adding the condition mean for all arrays in the condition. Condition means were globally centered by subtracting the median of the mean signal intensities for the condition and adding the median of the mean signal intensities across all conditions. Modified analysis of variance (ANOVA) (Arraystat F* tests) and significance of differences between means (z-tests) were determined using a pooled error model. Centered expression values and test results were exported to Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA). We converted normalized means and differences between means from [log.sub.10] to [log.sub.2] for ease of comparison with the literature. Data sets were merged and adjustment for multiple testing was conducted on the p-values of the statistical tests in the merged data set using the false discovery rate correction with the level of acceptable false positives set at 0.05 for each statistical test (Benjamini and Hochberg 1995). The full set of MAM-and HN2-targeted genes can be found online in Supplemental Material (http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2006/9073/suppl.pdf).

Results

Viability and DNA damage in immature neurons. In the present study, our goal was to determine the relationship between the sensitivity of immature postmitotic neurons to MAM or HN2 and their ability to damage DNA. For these studies, we treated neuronal cell cultures from the cerebellum of neonatal mice with various concentrations of MAM or HN2 for 24 hr and examined them for cell survival (Figure 1A,B). We also similarly treated astrocytes with MAM and HN2 to compare the vulnerability of different CNS cell types to genotoxicants. Survival of cerebellar neurons was significantly reduced with increasing concentrations of MAM (> 100 [micro]M) or HN2 (> 5.0 [micro]M). In contrast, astrocytes derived from the same set of animals were significantly less sensitive (p < 0.01) to MAM or HN2. These studies demonstrate that immature neurons are more sensitive to MAM or HN2 than astrocytes, which suggests that this CNS cell type would be preferentially targeted in vivo by these genotoxicants.

Additional studies were conducted to determine if the increased sensitivity of neurons to MAM and HN2 was due to their genotoxic (i.e., DNA damaging) properties. DNA damage was assessed by measuring the level of N7-mG or GMOH, the two major DNA lesions formed by MAM and HN2 (Nagata and Matsumoto 1969; Osborne et al. 1995), or strand breaks (TUNEL labeling). There was a good correlation between the increased sensitivity of neurons to these genotoxicants and TUNEL labeling (Figure 2A) or the level of N7-mG and GMOH DNA lesions (Figure 2B,C). These studies demonstrate that the major DNA lesions formed by MAM or HN2 accumulate in immature neurons and that these cells are particularly inefficient at repairing these types of DNA lesions. Thus, N7-mG and GMOH are likely responsible for the neurotoxic effects of these genotoxicants observed in Figure 1. These findings are also consistent with previous in vitro and in vivo studies, demonstrating that the increased sensitivity of rat cerebellar neurons or differentiated human SY5Y neuroblastoma cell cultures to HN2 correlated with GMOH levels (Kisby et al. 2000) and N7-mG levels were elevated in the dystrophic cerebellum of neonatal or fetal mice injected with MAM (Kisby et al. 1999, 2005) or other alkylating agents (Buecheler and Kleihues 1977; Kleihues and Bucheler 1977).

Genotoxicant-induced gene expression changes. Collectively, the studies described above and the previous work with these genotoxicants (Dacre and Goldman 1996; Matsumoto et al. 1972; Somani and Babu 1989) indicate that neuronal DNA is a sensitive intracellular target. Failure to repair these DNA lesions would be expected to interfere with transcription and translation (Scicchitano and Mellon 1997; Scicchitano et al. 2004), resulting in perturbed cell function and eventual death via an apoptotic or necrotic mechanism (Dabrowska et al. 1996; Hur et al. 1998; Meier and Millard 1998; Sun et al. 1999). To identify the specific molecular networks targeted by MAM or HN2, we examined genotoxicant-treated neurons for genomewide expression using high-density mouse cDNA microarrays (Figure 3). Our objective here was to determine if these genotoxicants induce a distinct pattern of gene expression at concentrations that are sublethal (Figure 1) and that induce DNA damage (Figure 2B,C). Using these criteria, we treated cerebellar neuronal cultures with 100 [micro]M MAM or 1.0 [micro]M HN2 for 24 hr and examined total RNA for gene expression changes using high-density microarrays. We then compared the gene expression profiles of MAM-and HN2-treated neurons to characterize the response of immature neurons to the two different genotoxicants.

We first used hierarchical clustering (Euclidean distance measure and centroid linkage) to group genes with similar expression levels. Several of these clusters are also specifically enriched with genes of known function. As shown in the heatmap (Figure 3A), we observed distinct clusters for MAM and HN2. The number of genes uniquely regulated by each genotoxicant and their overlap is shown in Figure 3B. The global expression patterns were analyzed further by functional classes of molecules such as DNA repair, cell signaling, proteasome degradation, apoptosis to find correlations among genes and gene-regulatory networks (Figure 3C,D). The global gene expression changes we observed after MAM (606 genes, 2.19%) and HN2 (617 genes, 2.23%) treatment were comparable. Of these global changes, 397 unique genes (64%) were altered by MAM, whereas a similar amount of unique genes (408 genes, 66%) were altered by HN2. Although comparable numbers of unique genes were up-regulated by either MAM or HN2, approximately 3 times as many were down-regulated by HN2 as by MAM (Figure 3B). Among the down-regulated genes, those involved in apoptosis (9.5%) and protein synthesis (4.8%) were targeted by HN2 (n = 21), whereas MAM (n = 10) primarily targeted those involved in signal transduction (30%), cell adhesion (20%), and growth and cell cycle (10%). These studies indicate that MAM and HN2 target distinct classes of genes in neurons even though both agents alkylate DNA (i.e., the N7 site on guanine) and induce a similar global effect on neuronal gene expression. The selective targeting of these functional classes of genes by HN2 and MAM may be related to the different types of DNA lesions generated by these two gentotoxicants; notably, HN2 induces lethal cross-links between opposing N7-alkylguanines (i.e., GMOH) (Osborne et al. 1995; Povirk and Shuker 1994; Tokuda and Bodell 1987), whereas MAM induces methylated DNA lesions (e.g., N7-mG and [O.sup.6]-mG) (Esclaire et al. 1999; Matsumoto and Higa 1966; Nagata and Matsumoto 1969). The insensitivity of cerebellar neurons to similar concentrations of 2-chloroethylamine (CEA; data not shown), a monofunctional analogue of HN2 that does not induce cross-links (Tokuda and Bodell 1987; Wijen et al. 2000) and the elevated levels of N7-mG DNA lesions in MAM-treated cortical neurons with disturbed tau gene expression (Esclaire et al. 1999) are consistent with this hypothesis.

Functional classes targeted by MAM and HN2. Even though the majority of genes influenced by sublethal concentrations of MAM or HN2 were of unknown function (63 and 77%, respectively), analysis of the known genes perturbed by MAM (225 genes) or HN2 (141 genes) revealed prominent changes in several different categories (Figure 3C,D), indicating that the molecular networks targeted by these two genotoxicants are quite distinct. As shown in Figure 3C, MAM had a greater influence on genes involved in neuronal differentiation, the stress and immune response, signal transduction, and transcriptional regulation. In contrast, HN2 primarily targeted genes involved in apoptosis and protein synthesis. As expected, MAM had a predominant effect on neuronal differentiation, which was demonstrated by the targeting of a large number of genes that control the growth and maturation of neurons (Table 1). Genes that maintain the structural integrity of neurons (Prfn2, Sdfr1, Catna1, Stmb2), cellular transport (Slc6a6, Kif1A), protein degradation (Usp5, Ufd1l, Usp2l, Psmd12), or synaptic function (Vamp4, Cplx2) were specifically targeted by MAM. The increased expression of genes that activate the depolymerization of actin (Prfn2) and microtubules (Stmb2) (Grenningloh et al. 2004; Yarmola and Bubb 2006) is consistent with the ability of MAM to disrupt the outgrowth of axons (Hoffman et al. 1996) and to alter the inward and vertical migration of granule cells through the developing molecular and Purkinje cell layers of the neonatal cerebellum (Ferguson et al. 1996; Kisby et al. 2004). The strong up-regulation of the serine-threonine kinase Ulk1 and the zeta isoform of protein kinase c (Prkcz), which are important regulators of neurite sprouting (Naik et al. 2000; Tomoda et al. 2004), is additional evidence of how this genotoxicant may impede the migration of immature neurons (Hatten 2002).

Although a majority of the genes targeted by MAM were involved in neuronal differentiation, the strongest response was observed for chromatin remodeling (H3f3a) (Frank et al. 2003) and energy metabolism (e.g., complex I, glycolytic enzymes) genes. The pronounced targeting of H3f3a suggests that MAM may influence transcription by disturbing the nucleosome structure through a chromatin remodeling mechanism (McKittrick et al. 2004). Therefore, the protein encoded by this histone gene may function to maintain chromatin integrity in immature neurons or might be involved with transcription or DNA repair. A corresponding increase in the expression of Ezh2, a gene that controls the expression of genes through methylation of H3 (Kirmizis et al. 2004), is consistent with this notion. Unexpectedly, MAM also produced a pronounced effect on the expression of two catalytic subunits (i.e., Ndufc1, Ndufs5) of complex I (Kirby et al. 2004; Loeffen et al. 1998) and several glycolytic enzymes (Idh, Pk3), indicating that this genotoxicant also disturbs energy metabolism. The influence of MAM on energy metabolism may explain how this genotoxicant induced lipid peroxidation in the colon and liver of rats (Deschner and Zedeck 1986) and why this effect was counteracted by pretreatment with the antioxidant quercetin (Deschner et al. 1991, 1993).

Even though MAM and HN2 both alkylated neuronal DNA, the genes specifically targeted by HN2 were quite distinct from those targeted by MAM. The most striking difference is that HN2 primarily targeted genes that regulate protein turnover and apoptosis (Figure 3D). Genes that influence the synthesis (Metap2, Mobp), modification (Galnt9), or degradation (Psme3) of neuronal proteins were down-regulated by HN2 (Table 2). The increased expression of apoptosis-inducing factor (Pdcd8), a flavoprotein that translocates from the mitochondrial intermembrane space to the nucleus to induce caspase-independent DNA fragmentation of cerebellar neurons (Slagsvold et al. 2003) and the targeting of several mitochondrial genes (Cox7a2) suggests that HN2-induced neuronal death results from disturbances in mitochondrial function. A concomitant increase in the proteasomal 19s lid component Psmd7 (or RPN8), which has dual roles in both proteolysis and mitochondrial integrity (Rinaldi et al. 2004), is consistent with this mechanism. However, HN2 had the greatest influence on adenine deaminase (Ampd3), an enzyme that maintains steady-state levels of ATP in CNS neurons (Knecht et al. 2001). Because increased AMPD activity is associated with oxidative stress and disturbed calcium homeostasis (Ronquist et al. 2001), HN2 may also induce cell death by disturbing neuronal ATP pools. The concomitant influence of HN2 on [Ca.sup.2+]-dependent enzymes (Calm1, Calm2) may have contributed to the increased expression of AMPD (Mahnke and Sabina 2005).

Although MAM and HN2 targeted distinct neuronal genes, there were a number of genes that were common targets for both genotoxicants (Table 3). As shown in Table 3, a majority of the genes targeted by both MAM and HN2 were down-regulated. The functional classes of genes specifically targeted by both genotoxicants were also quite distinct from those targeted by each genotoxicant. The strongest response was observed for genes involved in transport (5.7%), development (2.9%), and transcription (2.9%). The targeting of these genes by both genotoxicants may be a signature of a generalized response of neurons to DNA-damaging agents.

Transcriptional regulatory network analysis. We further analyzed microarray data using the promoter analysis tool PAINT (promoter analysis and interaction network tool) (Vadigepalli et al. 2003) to identify the biologically relevant transcription factor binding sites within the regulatory regions of the genes targeted by HN2 and MAM. Using the unique genes differentially regulated by at least a factor of two after MAM (n = 115) or HN2 treatment (n = 136), we examined the 5'-flanking regions of these targeted genes (2000 bp upstream of the transcription start site) for enrichment of commonly expressed transcriptional regulatory elements (TRE). The total number of TREs among the unique genes targeted by MAM (n = 78) was greater than those targeted by HN2 (n = 60). Only TREs that were significantly enriched (p < 0.01) in either MAM-or HN2-targeted genes (Figure 4A and 4B, respectively) and occurring in at least 5% of the promoters are shown. Note that no overlap occurred between the TREs enriched in the promoter regions of genes targeted by MAM and HN2 (compare Figure 4A,B). Several MAM-targeted genes were highly enriched for SRF, Nrf2, and Pax6, whereas Staf, HNF1 and Cre-BP1 were primarily enriched in HN2-targeted genes. SRF is required for neuronal activity-induced gene expression and synaptic plasticity (Ramanan et al. 2005), Nrf2 is a key regulator of oxidative stress and chemical carcinogen inducible genes (Motohashi and Yamamoto 2004) and Pax6 controls the polarization and migration of CNS neurons (Yamasaki et al. 2001). Several genes involved in neuronal differentiation and migration (e.g., Pafah1b2, Stmb2, Actb, Sdrf1, Pex1) were highly enriched with these TREs, thereby suggesting that these regulatory regions may be important targets by which MAM disrupts cerebellar development. In contrast, Staf, HNF1, and Cre-BP1 (or ATF2) were especially enriched in HN2-targeted genes involved in protein turnover (e.g., Cstf2), the cellular response to DNA damage (Ishiguchi et al. 2004), or cell death mechanisms (Pearson et al. 2005). The enrichment of distinct TREs within MAM- or HN2-targeted genes is additional evidence that these two genotoxicants exert their influence on gene expression in immature neurons by different mechanisms.

Discussion

Increasing evidence indicates that biomarkers of genetic damage (including DNA lesions) occur in children and newborns exposed to environmental pollutants (Neri et al. 2006). A consistent finding among these studies is the frequent association between the level of DNA lesions and impaired growth during the prenatal or postnatal period. The increased level of genetic damage reported in these children could also have important adverse health effects on the brain, especially during early development. Consistent with this hypothesis, we have recently shown that DNA damage (i.e., N7-mG) and the perturbation of developmentally regulated genes occurs well before the neurodevelopmental changes induced by the genotoxicant MAM (Kisby et al. 2005). These studies suggest that DNA damage may be responsible for the neurodevelopmental changes induced by the genotoxicant MAM. Thus, our focus in the present studies was to investigate the putative link between genotoxicant-induced DNA damage and neuronal function by identifying the genes in immature neurons specifically targeted by different genotoxicants (i.e., MAM, HN2).

As shown in previous in vivo studies (Kisby et al. 2005), we show here that immature cerebellar neurons (i.e., granule cells) are very sensitive to genotoxicants and that this effect was associated with the accumulation of DNA lesions (i.e., N7-mG, GMOH). Our studies also suggest that the DNA damage in the cerebellum of MAM-treated neonatal mice had accumulated in immature granule cells. The greater sensitivity of granule cells compared with astrocytes to either genotoxicant is evidence that neurons are especially vulnerable to genotoxicants and are inefficient at repairing DNA damage. This appears to be a characteristic response of cerebellar neurons to genotoxicants because granule cells are also very sensitive to chemotherapeutic agents that alkylate DNA (e.g., chloronitrosourea) or induce cross-links (e.g., cisplatin) (Fujimori et al. 1992; Jones and Gardner 1976; Wick et al. 2004), whereas glial cell (e.g., astrocytes) loss is not commonly found (Cattaneo et al. 1995; Necchi et al. 1997). This differential sensitivity to genotoxicants is also shared by immature neurons and astrocytes in other brain regions because N7-mG DNA lesions persisted in the cerebrum of neonatal rats after a single in utero injection of MAM (Kisby et al. 1999) or related alkylating agents (Buecheler and Kleihues 1977; Kleihues and Bucheler 1977), whereas glial changes were unremarkable (Eriksdotter-Nilsson et al. 1986). Thus, these in vitro studies complement previous in vivo work by demonstrating that the DNA of immature neurons appears to be an important target for genotoxicants. Moreover, the inefficient removal of DNA lesions in granule cells could also explain why the cerebellum is specifically targeted by genotoxicants (Fonnum and Lock 2000; Jirakulsomchok et al. 1982; Mehl et al. 2000; Singh et al. 1983; Smith et al. 1987) and why cerebellar function is disturbed in both neurodevelopmental and DNA repair disorders (Fiore et al. 2004; Wallace et al. 2003).

As noted above, DNA lesions appear to persist in immature neurons of genotoxicant-treated animals. This could explain why the developing cerebellum is a prime target in several human neurodevelopmental disorders (Ahsgren et al. 2005; Bauman and Kemper 2005; Guerrini and Filippi 2005; Hatten 2002). Because DNA lesions (e.g., alkyl or bulky) can influence gene transcription either up or down, depending on the sequence context (Scicchitano et al. 2004), it is conceivable that the DNA lesions formed by MAM or HN2 profoundly influenced the expression of developmentally regulated neuronal genes. Like previous microarray studies of the cerebellum (Kisby et al. 2005), we show that MAM targeted a large number of critically important genes that control the maturation and differentiation of neurons. However, little overlap occurred between the genes targeted by HN2 and MAM, indicating that the different types of DNA lesions (methyl vs. cross-links) produced by these genotoxicants could have been an important contributing factor. This notion is consistent with the distinct gene expression profiles produced in murine cells after treatment with various classes of genotoxicants. In one study, methylating agents (e.g., methyl methane sulfonate), cross-linking agents (e.g., mitomycin C), or agents that form bulky DNA lesions (e.g., benzo[a]pyrene) were compared and found to induce gene expression profiles quite distinct from each other and other nongenotoxicants (Newton et al. 2004). Hu and colleagues (2004) reached similar conclusions after examining the gene expression profiles of murine lymphoma cells lines treated for 4 hr and 20 hr with similar classes of genotoxicants. Like the present study, they used concentrations of genotoxicants that induced minimal toxicity (10-30%) so as to avoid the activation of cell death pathways. Therefore, our data indicate that the distinct gene expression changes induced by MAM or HN2 may be due to the influence of DNA lesions produced by these genotoxicants on transcription. Recent microarray studies support this hypothesis by showing that the decline in gene expression within the aging human brain is associated with a corresponding increase in DNA lesions (i.e., 8-oxodexoyguanosine) within the promoter region of key genes involved in learning, memory, and neuronal survival (i.e., synaptic plasticity) (Lu et al. 2004).

Studies on human neuronal migration disorders indicate that defects in migration as well as in proliferation, survival, and differentiation may contribute to neurodevelopmental disorders (Ross and Walsh 2001). The molecular and genetic basis of neuronal migration disorders suggests that the key steps depend on proper actin, microtubule cytoskeletal alterations as well as proper transduction of extracellular signals by migrating neurons. One key finding of the present studies is that the molecular pathways controlling neuronal migration and maturation were predominantly targeted by MAM but not by the related genotoxicant HN2. More specifically, MAM had a significant influence on several genes that control the development of neuronal processes (i.e., axons, dendrites) that would markedly impair neuronal growth cone motility and its pathfinding ability (Hatten 1999). The preferential targeting of neuronal differentiation by MAM is also consistent with the ability of this genotoxicant to disrupt unique molecular networks during either fetal (Hoffman et al. 1996) or postnatal (Kisby et al. 2005) neuronal development. The unexpected strong influence of MAM on several genes involved with chromatin remodeling or energy metabolism suggests that these cellular processes may play an important role in the ensuing neurodevelopmental deficits. Consequently, early-life exposure to genotoxicants would be expected to have a pronounced influence on neuronal development and thus, induce long-term changes in CNS function.

In summary, the present studies demonstrate that immature neurons are especially vulnerable to genotoxicants and that this vulnerability is associated with the accumulation of specific DNA lesions and distinct alterations in gene expression. The preferential targeting of genes involved in such diverse functions such as differentiation, stress and immune response, cell signaling, transcriptional regulation by MAM and apoptosis and protein synthesis by HN2 suggests that genotoxicants target distinct neuronal networks and they are likely to induce completely different effects on the developing brain. This is supported by the increased vulnerability of mature neurons to HN2 (Sullivan et al. 1982) but not to MAM (Sullivan-Jones et al. 1994). The preferential targeting of apoptotic networks by HN2 suggests that cross-links (formed between two opposing GMOH DNA lesions) are more likely to activate cell death mechanisms. Consequently, the targeting of specific molecular networks by different gentoxicants may explain the differential response of the developing CNS to different genotoxicants.

REFERENCES

Ahsgren I, Baldwin I, Goetzinger-Falk C, Erikson A, Flodmark O, Gillberg C. 2005. Ataxia, autism, and the cerebellum: a clinical study of 32 individuals with congenital ataxia. Dev Med Child Neurol 47:193-198.

Alam ZI, Jenner A, Daniel SE, Lees AJ, Cairns N, Marsden CD, et al. 1997. Oxidative DNA damage in the Parkinsonian brain: an apparent selective increase in 8-hydroxyguanine levels in substantia nigra. J Neurochem 69:1196-1203.

Amin RP, Hamadeh HK, Bushel PR, Bennett L, Afshari CA, Paules RS. 2002. Genomic interrogation of mechanism(s) underlying cellular responses to toxicants. Toxicology 181-182:555-563.

Balduini W, Cimino M, Lombardelli G, Abbracchio MP, Peruzzi G, Cecchini T, et al. 1986. Microencephalic rats as a model for cognitive disorders. Clin Neuropharmacol 9:S8-S18.

Baraban SC, Schwartzkroin PA. 1996. Flurothyl seizure susceptibility in rats following prenatal methylazoxymethanol treatment. Epilepsy Res 23:189-194.

Bauman ML, Kemper TL. 2005. Neuroanatomic observations of the brain in autism: a review and future directions. Int J Dev Neurosci 23:183-187.

Becker AJ, Wiestler OD, Blumcke I. 2002. Functional genomics in experimental and human temporal lobe epilepsy: powerful new tools to identify molecular disease mechanisms of hippocampal damage. Prog Brain Res 135:161-173.

Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. 1995. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Ser B-Methodol 57:289-300.

Branum AM, Collman GW, Correa A, Keim SA, Kessel W, Kimmel CA, et al. 2003. The National Children's Study of environmental effects on child health and development. Environ Health Perspect 111:642-646.

Buecheler J, Kleihues P. 1977. Excision of [O.sup.6]-methylguanine from DNA of various mouse tissues following a single injection of N-methyl-nitrosourea. Chem Biol Interact 16:325-333.

Cattabeni F, Di Luca M. 1997. Developmental models of brain dysfunctions induced by targeted cellular ablations with methyl-lazoxymethanol. Physiol Rev 77:199-215.

Cattaneo E, Reinach B, Caputi A, Cattabeni F, Di Luca M. 1995. Selective in vitro blockade of neuroepithelial cell proliferation by methylazoxymethanol, a molecule capable of inducing long lasting functional impairments. J Neurosci Res 41:640-647.

Chevassus-Au-Louis N, Jorquera I, Ben-Ari Y, Represa A. 1999. Abnormal connections in the malformed cortex of rats with prenatal treatment with methylazoxymethanol may support hyperexcitability. Dev Neurosci 21:385-392.

Children's Health Act. 2000. Public Law [10.sup.6]-310.

Colacitti C, Sancini G, DeBiasi S, Franceschetti S, Caputi A, Frassoni C, et al. 1999. Prenatal methylazoxymethanol treatment in rats produces brain abnormalities with morphological similarities to human developmental brain dysgeneses. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol 58:92-106.

Dabrowska MI, Becks LL, Lelli JL Jr, Levee MG, Hinshaw DB. 1996. Sulfur mustard induces apoptosis and necrosis in endothelial cells. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 141:568-583.

Dacre JC, Goldman M. 1996. Toxicology and pharmacology of the chemical warfare agent sulfur mustard. Pharmacol Rev 48:289-326.

DeFeo MR, Mecarelli O, Ricci GF. 1995. Seizure susceptibility in immature rats with microencephaly induced by prenatal exposure to methylazoxymethanol acetate. Pharmacol Res 31:109-114.

Deschner EE, Ruperto J, Wong G, Newmark HL. 1991. Quercetin and rutin as inhibitors of azoxymethanol-induced colonic neoplasia. Carcinogenesis 12:1193-1196.

Deschner EE, Ruperto JF, Wong GY, Newmark HL. 1993. The effect of dietary quercetin and rutin on AOM-induced acute colonic epithelial abnormalities in mice fed a high-fat diet. Nutr Cancer 20:199-204.

Deschner EE, Zedeck MS. 1986. Lipid peroxidation in liver and colon of methylazoxymethanol treated rats. Cancer Biochem Biophys 9:25-29.

Eizirik DL, Kisby GE. 1995. Cycad toxin-induced damage of rodent and human pancreatic [beta]-islet cells. Biochem Pharmacol 50:355-365.

Eriksdotter-Nilsson M, Jonsson G, Dahl D, Bjorklund H. 1986. Astroglial development in microencephalic rat brain after fetal methylazoxymethanol treatment. Int J Dev Neurosci 4:353-362.

Esclaire F, Kisby GE, Milne J, Lesort M, Spencer P, Hugon J. 1999. The Guam cycad toxin methylazoxymethanol damages neuronal DNA and modulates tau mRNA expression and excito-toxicity. Exp Neurol 155:11-21.

Ferguson SA. 1996. Neuroanatomical and functional alterations resulting from early postnatal cerebellar insults in rodents. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 55:663-671.

Ferguson SA, Holson RR. 1997. Methylazoxymethanol-induced microencephaly in the brown Norway strain: behavior and brain weight. Int J Dev Neurosci 15:75-86.

Ferguson SA, Paule MG, Holson RR. 1996. Functional effects of methylzoxymethanol-induced cerebellar hypoplasia in rats. Neurotox Teratol 18:529-537.

Fiore M, Grace AA, Korf J, Stampachiacchiere B, Aloe L. 2004. Impaired brain development in the rat following prenatal exposure to methylazoxymethanol acetate at gestational day 17 and neurotrophin distribution. Neuroreport 15:1791-1795.

Flagstad P, Glenthoj BY, Didriksen M. 2005. Cognitive deficits caused by late gestational disruption of neurogenesis in rats: a preclinical model of schizophrenia. Neuropsychopharmacology 30:250-260.

Fonnum F, Lock EA. 2000. Cerebellum as a target for toxic substances. Toxicol Lett 113:9-16.

Frank D, Doenecke D, Albig W. 2003. Differential expression of human replacement and cell cycle dependent H3 histone genes. Gene 312:135-43.

Fujimori K, Inoue K, Nakazawa K, Maekawa A, Shibutani M, Takanaka A. 1992. Neurochemical and histological analysis of motor dysfunction observed in rats with methylnitrosoureainduced experimental cerebellar hypoplasia. Neurochem Res 17:223-231.

Gleeson JG. 2001. Neuronal migration disorders. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev 7:167-171.

Graef I, Karnofsky DA, Jager VB, Krichesky B, Smith HW. 1948. The clinical and pathologic effects of the nitrogen and sulfur mustards in laboratory animals. Am J Pathol 24:1-47.

Grenningloh G, Soehrman S, Bondallaz P, Ruchti E, Cadas H. 2004. Role of the microtubule destabilizing proteins SCG10 and stathmin in neuronal growth. J Neurobiol 58(1):60-69.

Guerrini R, Filippi T. 2005. Neuronal migration disorders, genetics, and epileptogenesis. J Child Neurol 20:287-299.

Hatten ME. 1999. Central nervous system neuronal migration. Annu Rev Neurosci 22:511-539.

Hatten ME. 2002. New directions in neuronal migration. Science 297:1660-1663.

Hoffman JR, Boyne LJ, Levitt P, Fischer I. 1996. Short exposure of methylazoxymethanol causes a long-term inhibition of axonal outgrowth from cultured embryonic rat hippocampal neurons. J Neurosci Res 46:349-359.

Hu T, Gibson DP, Carr GJ, Torontali SM, Tiesman JP, Chaney JG, et al. 2004. Identification of a gene expression profile that discriminates indirect-acting genotoxins from direct-acting genotoxins. Mutat Res 549:5-27.

Hur GH, Kim YB, Choi DS, Kim JH, Shin S. 1998. Apoptosis as a mechanism of 2-chloroethylethyl sulfide-induced cytotoxicity. Chem Biol Interact 110:57-70.

Ishigaki S, Niwa J, Ando Y, Yoshihara T, Sawada K, Doyu M, et al. 2002. Differentially expressed genes in sporadic amyotrophic lateral sclerosis spinal cords-screening by molecular indexing and subsequent cDNA microarray analysis. FEBS Lett 531:354-358.

Ishiguchi H, Izumi H, Torigoe T, Yoshida Y, Kubota H, Tsuji S, et al. 2004. ZNF143 activates gene expression in response to DNA damage and binds to cisplatin-modified DNA. Int J Cancer 111:900-909.

Jacobs KM, Kharazia VN, Prince DA. 1999. Mechanisms underlying epileptogenesis in cortical malformations. Epilepsy Res 36:165-188.

Jirakulsomchok S, Chronister RB, Yielding KL. 1982. Focal cerebellar dystrophy caused by transplacental administration of methylnitrosourea. Brain Res Bull 8:45-52.

Jones MZ. Gardner E. 1976. Pathogenesis of methylazoxy-methanol-induced lesions in the postnatal mouse cerebellum. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol 35:413-444.

Kirby DM, Salemi R, Sugiana C, Ohtake A, Parry L, Bell KM, et al. 2004. NDUFS6 mutations are a novel cause of lethal neonatal mitochondrial complex I deficiency. J Clin Invest 114:837-845.

Kirmizis A, Bartley SM, Kuzmichev A, Margueron R, Reinberg D, Green R, et al 2004. Silencing of human polycomb target genes is associated with methylation of histone H3 Lys 27. Genes Dev 18:1592-1605.

Kisby GE, Kabel H, Hugon J, Spencer P. 1999. Damage and repair of nerve cell DNA in toxic stress. Drug Metab Rev 31:589-618.

Kisby GE, Lesselroth H, Olivas A, Samson L, Gold B, Tanaka K, et al. 2004. Role of nucleotide-and base-excision repair in genotoxin-induced neuronal cell death. DNA Repair 3:617-627.

Kisby GE, Springer N, Spencer PS. 2000. In vitro neurotoxic and DNA-damage properties of nitrogen mustard (HN2). J Appl Toxicol 20:S35-S41.

Kisby GE, Standley M, Lu X, O'Malley J, Lin B, Muniz J, et al. 2005. Molecular networks perturbed in a developmental animal model of brain injury. Neurobiol Dis 19:108-118.

Kleihues P, Bucheler J. 1977. Long-term persistence of [O.sup.6]-methyl-guanine in rat brain DNA. Nature 269:625-626.

Knecht K, Wiesmuller KH, Gnau V, Jung G, Meyermann R, Todd KG, et al. 2001. AMP deaminase in rat brain: localization in neurons and ependymal cells. J Neurosci Res 66:941-950.

Landrigan PJ, Kimmel CA, Correa A, Eskenazi B. 2004. Children's health and the environment: public health issues and challenges for risk assessment. Environ Health Perspect 112:257-265.

Loeffen J, van den Heuvel L, Smeets R, Triepels R, Sengers R, Trijbels F, et al. 1998. cDNA sequence and chromosomal localization of the remaining three human nuclear encoded iron sulphur protein (IP) subunits of complex I: the human IP fraction is completed. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 247:751-758.

Lu T, Pan Y, Kao SY, Li C, Kohane I, Chan J, et al. 2004. Gene regulation and DNA damage in the ageing human brain. Nature 429(6994):883-91.

Lyras L, Cairns NJ, Jenner A, Jenner P, Halliwell B. 1997. An assessment of oxidative damage to proteins, lipids, and DNA in brain from patients with Alzheimer's disease. J Neurochem 68:2061-2069.

Mahnke DK, Sabina RL. 2005. Calcium activates erythrocyte AMP deaminase [isoform E (AMPD3)] through a protein-protein interaction between calmodulin and the N-terminal domain of the AMPD3 polypeptide. Biochemistry 44:5551-5559.

Mandel S, Grunblatt E, Maor G, Youdim MB. 2002. Early and late gene changes in MPTP mice model of Parkinson's disease employing cDNA microarray. Neurochem Res 27:1231-1243.

Matijasevic S, Boosalis M, Mackay W, Samson L, Ludlum D. 1993. Protection against chloroethylnitrosourea cytotoxicity by eukaryotic 3-methyladenine DNA glycosylase. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 90:11855-11859.

Matsumoto H, Higa HH. 1966. Studies on methylazoxymethanol, the aglycone of cycasin: methylation of nucleic acids in vitro. Biochem J 98:20C-22C.

Matsumoto H, Spatz M, Laqueur GL. 1972. Quantitative changes with age in the DNA content of methylazoxymethanol-induced microencephalic rat brain. J Neurochem 19:297-306.

McDonald TP, Asano M. 1961. Effects of nitrogen mustard on the mouse brain. Am J Pathol 38:695-709.

McKittrick E, Gafken PR, Ahmad K, Henikoff S. 2004. Histone H3.3 is enriched in covalent modifications associated with active chromatin. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:1525-1530.

Mecocci P, Beal MF, Cecchetti R, Polidori MC, Cherubini A, Chionne F, Avellini L, Romano G, Senin U. 1997. Mitochondrial membrane fluidity and oxidative damage to mitochondrial DNA in aged and AD human brain. Mol Chem Neuropathol 31:53-64.

Mecocci P, MacGarvey MS, Beal MF. 1994. Oxidative damage to mitochondrial DNA is increased in Alzheimer's Disease. Ann Neurol 36:747-751.

Mehl A, Rolseth V, Gordon S, Bjoraas M, Seeberg E, Fonnum F. 2000. Brain hypoplasia caused by exposure to trichlorfon and dichlorvos during development can be ascribed to DNA alkylation damage and inhibition of DNA alkyltransferase repair. Neurotoxicology 21:165-173.

Meier HL, Millard CB. 1998. Alterations in human lymphocyte DNA caused by sulfur mustard can be mitigated by selective inhibitors of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase. Biochim Biophys Acta 1404:367-376.

Meira LB, Devaraj S, Kisby GE, Burns DK, Daniel RL, Hammer RE, et al. 2001. Heterozygosity for the mouse APEX gene results in phenotypes associated with oxidative stress. Cancer Res 61:5552-5557.

Mirnics K, Middleton FA, Marquez A, Lewis DA, Levitt P. 2000. Molecular characterization of schizophrenia viewed by microarray analysis of gene expression in prefrontal cortex. Neuron 28:53-67.

Mody M, Cao Y, Cui Z, Tay KY, Shyong A, Shimizu E, et al. 2001. Genome-wide gene expression profiles of the developing mouse hippocampus. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:8862-8867.

Motohashi H, Yamamoto M. 2004. Nrf2-Keap1 defines a physiologically important stress response mechanism. Trends Mol Med 10:549-557.

Nagata Y, Matsumoto H. 1969. Studies on methylazoxymethanol: Methylation of nucleic acids in the fetal rat brain. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 132:383-385.

Naik MU, Benedikz E, Hernandez I, Libien J, Hrabe J, Valsamis M, et al. 2000. Distribution of protein kinase M zeta and the complete protein kinase C isoform family in rat brain. J Comp Neurol 426(2):243-258.

Necchi D, Scherini E, Bernocchi G. 1997. Glial cell reaction to cisdichlorodiammine platinum treatment in the immature rat cerebellum. Exp Neurol 144:219-226.

Neri M, Ugolini D, Bonassi S, Fucic A, Holland N, Knudsen LE, et al. 2006. Children's exposure to environmental pollutants and biomarkers of genetic damage II. Results of a comprehensive literature search and meta-analysis. Mutat Res 612:14-39.

Newton RK, Aardema M, Aubrecht J. 2004. The utility of DNA microarrays for characterizing genotoxicity. Environ Health Perspect 112:420-422.

Nishioka N, Arnold SE. 2004. Evidence for oxidative DNA damage in the hippocampus of elderly patients with chronic schizophrenia. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 12:167-175.

Osborne MR, Wilman DEV, Lawley PD. 1995. Alkylation of DNA by the nitrogen mustard bis(2-chloroethyl) methylamine. Chem Res Toxicol 8:316-320.

Pasinetti GM. 2001. Use of cDNA microarray in the search for molecular markers involved in the onset of Alzheimer's disease dementia. J Neurosci Res 65:471-476.

Pearson AG, Curtis MA, Waldvogel HJ, Faull RL, Dragunow M. 2005. Activating transcription factor 2 expression in the adult human brain: association with both neurodegeneration and neurogenesis. Neuroscience 133:437-451.

Poguet AL, Legrand C, Feng X, Yen PM, Meltzer P, Samarut J, et al. 2003. Microarray analysis of knockout mice identifies cyclin D2 as a possible mediator for the action of thyroid hormone during the postnatal development of the cerebellum. Dev Biol 254:188-199.

Povirk LF, Shuker DE. 1994. DNA damage and mutagenesis induced by nitrogen mustards. Mutat Res 318:205-226.

Ramanan N, Shen Y, Sarsfield S, Lemberger T, Schutz G, Linden DJ, et al. 2005. SRF mediates activity-induced gene expression and synaptic plasticity but not neuronal viability. Nat Neurosci 8:759-767.

Rinaldi T, Pick E, Gambadoro A, Zilli S, Maytal-Kivity V, Frontali L, et al. 2004. Participation of the proteasomal lid subunit Rpn11 in mitochondrial morphology and function is mapped to a distinct C-terminal domain. Biochem J 381:275-285.

Ronquist G, Rudolphi O, Engstrom I, Waldenstrom A. 2001. Familial phosphofructokinase deficiency is associated with a disturbed calcium homeostasis in erythrocytes. J Intern Med 249:85-95.

Ross ME, Walsh CA. 2001. Human brain malformations and their lessons for neuronal migration. Annu Rev Neurosci 24:1041-1070.

Scicchitano DA, Mellon I. 1997. Transcription and DNA damage: a link to a kink. Environ Health Perspect 105(suppl 1):145-153.

Scicchitano DA, Olesnicky EC, Dimitri A. 2004. Transcription and DNA adducts: what happens when the message gets cut off? DNA Repair 3:1537-1548.

Shiraki H, Yase Y. 1975. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in Japan. In: Handbook of Clinical Neurology (Vinken PJ, Bruyn GW, eds). Vol 22. System Disorders and Atrophy, Part 2. New York: American Elsevier, 353-419.

Singh S, Datta AN, Singh G. 1983. Retarded recovery of Purkinje cells in rats following cyclophosphamide treatment in early postnatal period. Indian J Exp Biol 21:539-545.

Slagsvold HH, Rosseland CM, Jacobs C, Khuong E, Kristoffersen N, Gaarder M, et al. 2003. High molecular weight DNA fragments are processed by caspase sensitive or caspase independent pathways in cultures of cerebellar granule neurons. Brain Res 984:111-121.

Smith SB, Brown CB, Wright ME, Yielding KL. 1987. Late-onset cerebellar degeneration in mice induced transplacentally by methylnitrosourea. Teratog Carcinog Mutagen 7:449-463.

Somani SM, Babu SR. 1989. Toxicodynamics of sulfur mustard. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol 27:419-435.

Spencer PS, Daniels JL, Kisby GE. 1999. Mustard Warfare Agents and Related Substances, in Experimental and Chemical Neurotoxicology, 2nd ed (Spencer PS, Schaumburg HH, eds). New York:Oxford University Press.

Spencer PS, Kisby GE, Ludolph AC. 1991. Slow toxins, biologic markers, and long-latency neurodegenerative disease in the western Pacific region. Neurology 41:62-66.

Sullivan KM, Storb R, Shulman HM, Shaw CM, Spence A, Beckham C, et al. 1982. Immediate and delayed neurotoxicity after mechlorethamine preparation for bone marrow transplantation. Ann Int Med 97:182-189.

Sullivan-Jones P, Gouch AB, Holson RR. 1994. Postnatal methylazoxymethanol: sensitive periods and regional selectivity of effects. Neurotoxicol Teratol 16:631-637.

Sun J, Wang YX, Sun MJ. 1999. Apoptosis and necrosis induced by sulfur mustard in Hela cells. Acta Pharmacol Sin 20:445-448.

Talamini LM, Koch T, Luiten PG, Koolhaas JM, Korf J. 1999. Interruptions of early cortical development affect limbic association areas and social behaviour in rats; possible relevance for neurodevelopmental disorders. Brain Res 847:105-120.

Talamini LM, Koch T, Ter Horst GJ, Korf J. 1998. Methylazoxymethanol acetate-induced abnormalities in the entorhinal cortex of the rat; parallels with morphological findings in schizophrenia. Brain Res 789:293-306.

Tokuda K, Bodell WJ. 1987. Cytotoxicity and sister chromatid exchanges in 9L cells treated with monofunctional and bifunctional nitrogen mustards. Carcinogenesis 8:1697-1701.

Tomoda T, Kim JH, Zhan C, Hatten ME. 2004. Role of Unc51.1 and its binding partners in CNS axon outgrowth. Genes Dev 18:541-558.

Vadigepalli R, Chakravarthula P, Zak DE, Schwaber JS, Gonye GE. 2003. PAINT: a promoter analysis and interaction network generation tool for gene regulatory network identification. OMICS 7:235-252.

Vorhees CV, Fernandez K, Dumas RM, Haddad RK. 1984. Pervasive hyperactivity and long-term learning impairments in rats with induced microencephaly from prenatal exposure to methylazoxymethanol. Dev Brain Res 15:1-10.

Wallace CS, Reitzenstein J, Withers GS. 2003. Diminished experience-dependent neuroanatomical plasticity: evidence for an improved biomarker of subtle neurotoxic damage to the developing rat brain. Environ Health Perspect 111:1294-1298.

Wick A, Wick W, Hirrlinger J, Gerhardt E, Dringen R, Dichgans J, et al. 2004. Chemotherapy-induced cell death in primary cerebellar granule neurons but not in astrocytes: in vitro paradigm of differential neurotoxicity. J Neurochem 91:[10.sup.6]7-1074.

Wijen JP, Nivard MJ, Vogel EW. 2000. The in vivo genetic activity profile of the monofunctional nitrogen mustard 2-chloroethylamine differs drastically from its bifunctional counterpart mechlorethamine. Carcinogenesis 21:1859-1867.

Witke W. 2004. The role of profilin complexes in cell motility and other cellular processes. Trends Cell Biol 14:461-469.

Yamasaki T, Kawaji K, Ono K, Bito H, Hirano T, Osumi N, et al. 2001. Pax6 regulates granule cell polarization during parallel fiber formation in the developing cerebellum. Development 128:3133-3144.

Yarmola EG, Bubb MR. 2006. Profilin: emerging concepts and lingering misconceptions. Trends Biochem Sci 31(4):197-205.

Zhang ZX, Anderson DW, Mantel N, Roman GC. 1996. Motor neuron disease on Guam: geographic and familial occurrence, 1956-85. Acta Neurol Scand 94:51-59.

Glen E. Kisby, (1) Antoinette Olivas, (1) Melissa Standley, (2) Xinfang Lu, (2) Patrick Pattee, (2) Jean O'Malley, (2) Xiaorong Li, (1) Juan Muniz, (1) and Srinavasa R. Nagalla (2)

(1) Center for Research on Occupational and Environmental Toxicology (CROET), Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon; (2) Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon

Address correspondence to S. Nagalla, Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Rd., Portland, OR 97239 USA. Telephone: [phone]. Fax: [phone]. E-mail: [e-mail]

Supplemental Material is available online (http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2006/9073/suppl.pdf).

Supported by National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant 5P42-ES10338-02 (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences' Toxicogenomics Consortium) and, in part, by NIH grant ES10338-02 and Department of Defense grant DAMD17-98-1-8625.

The authors declare they have no competing financial interests.

Received 3 February 2006; accepted 7 September 2006.

MAM function (n = 225)

Apoptosis                    2%
Development                  8%
Neuronal differentiation     8%
Growth                       5%
Mitochondrial                5%
Proteasome degradation       3%
Stress and immune response   4%
Signal transduction         13%
Transcription regulation    10%
Protein synthesis            4%
Transport                   12%
Other                       26%

HN2 function (n = 141)

Apoptosis                           6%
Development                        10%
Neuronal differentiation            2%
Growth                              5%
Mitochondrial                       4%
Proteasome degradation              4%
Stress and immune response          2%
Signal transduction                 9%
Transcription regulation            8%
Protein synthesis                   9%
Transport                          12%
Other                              26%

Figure 3. Effect of MAM and HN2 on global gene expression in cultured
cerebellar neurons. Mouse cerebellar granule cell cultures were treated
with MAM (100 [micro]M) or HN2 (1.0 [micro]M) for 24 hr. (A) Gene
expression changes were induced by MAM or HN2. All genes with
[log.sub.2] MAM/control or HN2/control gene expression ratios > 1 or
< -1 were normalized by the absolute valued of the maximum fold change
for the gene and grouped by hierarchical clustering using Euclidean
distances. (n = 606 genes for MAM and 617 genes for HN2). (B) Venn
diagram depicting the overlap between MAM- and HN2-responsive genes.
Up-regulated (red): numbers represent all genes with significant
differences between MAM or HN2 and control-treated neurons and
[log.sub.2] (MAM or HN2/control) > 1. Down-regulated (green):
significant differences between MAM or HN2 and control-treated neurons
and [log.sub.2] (MAM or HN2/control) < -1. (C) Functional classes of the
genes influenced by MAM. (D) Functional classes of the genes influenced
by HN2. Named genes with functional annotations in the Unigene database
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/UniGene) were categorized by broad
functional class.

Note: Table made from pie chare.

Table 1. Selected MAM-responsive genes in cerebellar neurons.

GenBank
accession no.  Gene name                                    Gene symbol

Highest response to MAM
  AI846799     H3 histone, family 3A                        H3f3a
  AI841944     protein kinase C, zeta                       Prkcz
  AI850194     Unc-51 like kinase 1                         Ulk1
  AI847913     profilin 2                                   Pfn2
Neuronal function
  AI836607     vesicle-associated membrane protein 4        Vamp4
  AI847695     kinesin heavy chain member 1A                Kif1a
  BG085187     neurochondrin                                Ncdn
  AI854735     complexin 2                                  Cplx2
Development
  A1839566     stromal derived factor receptor              Sdfr1
  AI838741     platelet-activating factor acetylhydrolase,  Pafah1b2
                 isoform 1b, alpha2 subunit
  AI838754     insulin-like growth factor binding protein   Igfbp6
                 6
  AI842688     stathmin-like 2                              Stmb2
  AI839303     zinc finger protein of the cerebellum 4      Zic4
Apoptosis control
  BG077775     tumor necrosis factor receptor superfamily,  Tnfrsf23
                 member 23
  AI834850     amino-terminal enhancer of split             Aes
Ubiquitin-proteasome pathway
  AI838669     proteasome (prosome, macropain) 26S          Psmd12
                 subunit, non-ATPase, 12
  AI847905     ubiquitin specific protease 5 (isopeptidase  Usp5
                 T)
  AI850551     ubiquitin fusion degradation 1 like          Ufd1l
  AI843395     ubiquitin specific protease 21               Usp21
Growth and cell cycle control
  AI841459     diazepam binding inhibitor                   Dbi
  AI836597     microtubule-associated protein, RP/EB        Mapre2
                 family
  AI323871     cyclin D3                                    Ccnd3
  AI846429     U7 snRNP-specific Sm-like protein            Lsm10
Miscellaneous genes of interest
  AI849325     isocitrate dehydrogenase 3 (NAD+), gamma     Idh3g
  AI840067     NADH dehydrogenase (ubiquinone) 1,           Ndufc1
                 subcomplex unknown, 1
  AI836137     pyruvate kinase 3                            Pk3
  AI838954     catenin alpha 1                              Catna1
  AI853920     NADH dehydrogenase (ubiquinone) Fe-S         Ndufs5
                 protein 5
  AI839652     t-complex protein 1, related sequence 1      Tcp1-rs1
  AI839531     solute carrier family 25, member 12          Slc25a12
  AI323840     enhancer of zeste homolog 2                  Ezh2

GenBank        Fold change
accession no.  (MAM/control) (a)  Summary function

Highest response to MAM
  AI846799     3.77               Replacement histone
  AI841944     3.74               Neurite extension
  AI850194     3.47               Granule cell axon extension
  AI847913     3.10               Actin polymerization
Neuronal function
  AI836607     2.40               Vesicular trafficing
  AI847695     2.35               Molecular motor
  BG085187     2.32               Dendritic outgrowth
  AI854735     2.08               Synaptic vesicular release
Development
  A1839566     2.80               Axonal elongation
  AI838741     2.79               Neuronal migration
  AI838754     2.60               Cerebellar folia
  AI842688     2.45               Microtuble stability
  AI839303     2.25               Neurogenesis
Apoptosis control
  BG077775     3.13               Apoptosis control
  AI834850     2.71               NF-kappaB co-repressor
Ubiquitin-proteasome pathway
  AI838669     2.75               19S lid component (RPN5)
  AI847905     2.60               Deubiqutinating enzyme
  AI850551     2.43               Polyubiquitin binding
  AI843395     2.07               Deubiquitinating enzyme
Growth and cell cycle control
  AI841459     2.53               Lipid metabolism
  AI836597     2.06               Mitotic microtubules
  AI323871     2.06               Neurite outgrowth
  AI846429     2.02               Histone mRNA processing
Miscellaneous genes of interest
  AI849325     2.97               Mitochondrial respiration
  AI840067     2.67               Mitochondrial respiration
  AI836137     2.57               Glycolysis
  AI838954     2.35               Axonal reorganization
  AI853920     2.33               Mitochondrial respiration
  AI839652     2.33               Chaperonin protein
  AI839531     2.01               Mitochondrial Asp/Glu transporter
  AI323840     2.01               Histone lysine methyltransfease

NCBI GenBank database (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) was used to obtain
gene name, gene symbol, and summary function.
(a) The fold changes between MAM- and control-treated neurons were
statistically significant at fals discovery rate of 0.05 after
adjustment for multiple comparisons.

Table 2. Selected HN2-responsive genes in cerebellar neurons.

GenBank
accession no.  Gene name                                    Gene symbol

Highest response to HN2
  BG080773     AMP deaminase 3                              Ampd3
  BG066562     proteasome (prosome, macropain) 26S 7        Psmd7
                 subunit, non-ATPase,
  C87546       serine/threonine kinase 11                   Stk11
  BG086264     polymerase (RNA) II, DNA directed            Polr2
Neuronal function
  AI850277     neuromedin                                   Nmu
  A1848307     staufen homolog 2                            Stauf2
  AI847890     proteolipid protein                          Plp
Development
  BG088163     split hand/foot deleted gene 1               Shfdg1
  AU021923     jagged 1                                     Jag1
  BG063365     chemokine (C-X-C motif) receptor 4           Cxcr4
  AI847007     NCK-associated protein 1                     Nckap1
  AI843136     N-myc downstream regulated 2                 Ndr2
Apoptosis control
  C85471       programmed cell death 8                      Pdcd8
  BG086831     programmed cell death 4                      Pdcd4
  AI853558     tumor necrosis factor receptor superfamily,  Tnfrsf12a
                 member 12a
Ubiquitin-proteasome pathway
  BG085363     proteasome (prosome, macropain) 26S          Psmd11
                 subunit, non-ATPase, 11
  AI843127     huntingtin interacting protein 2             Hip2
  AU020960     proteaseome (prosome, macropain) 28          Psme3
                 subunit, 3
Growth and cell cycle control
  C86021       growth differentiation factor 9              Gdf9
  AI853288     ras homolog gene family, member U            Arhu
  BG072244     calmodulin 1                                 Calm1
  AI843756     calmodulin 2                                 Calm2
Miscellaneous genes of interest
  AI851097     H1 histone family, member 2                  H1f2
  AI849019     myelin-associated oligodendrocytic basic     Mobp
                 protein

GenBank        Fold change
accession no.  (HN2/control) (a)  Summary function

Highest response to HN2
  BG080773      4.10              Purine metabolism
  BG066562      3.86              Protein degradation
  C87546        3.83              Cell cycle and polarity
  BG086264     -3.27              RNA synthesis
Neuronal function
  AI850277      2.03              Locomotor and stress response
  A1848307     -2.14              RNA transport
  AI847890     -2.16              Myelination
Development
  BG088163      3.08              DNA repair
  AU021923      2.61              Oligodendrocyte development
  BG063365      2.39              Neural progenitors
  AI847007     -2.02              Cell motility
  AI843136     -2.23              Neural differentiation
Apoptosis control
  C85471        2.69              Apoptosis control
  BG086831      2.13              Apoptosis control
  AI853558     -2.11              Nuclear factor-kappaB activation
Ubiquitin-proteasome pathway
  BG085363      2.71              Proteasome (19S Lid)
  AI843127      2.11              Ubiqutiin-conjugating enzyme
  AU020960     -2.41              Proteasome (20S alpha subunit)
Growth and cell cycle control
  C86021        3.61              Cell growth
  AI853288      2.33              Signal transduction
  BG072244      2.13              Cell cycle
  AI843756     -2.16              Cell cycle
Miscellaneous genes of interest
  AI851097     -2.36              Chromatin compaction
  AI849019     -2.71              Stuctural components of myelin

GenBank database (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) was used to obtain gene
name, gene symbol, and summary function.
(a) The fold changes between HN2- and control-treated neurons were
statistically significant at false discovery rate of 0.05 after
adjustment for multiple comparisons.

Table 3. Selected MAM- and HN2-responsive genes in mouse cerebellar
neurons.

GenBank
accession no.  Gene name                                    Gene symbol

Highest response to MAM and HN2
  AI836491     heat shock 10 kDa protein 1 (chaperonin      Hspe1
                 10)
  AI843553     heat shock 70kD protein 5 (glucose-          Hspa5
                 regulated protein, 78kD)
  BG088092     solute carrier family 14, member 1           Slc14a1
  AI847514     solute carrier family 1, member 3            Slc1a3
Development
  AI841643     platelet derived growth factor, B            Pdgfb
                 polypeptide
  AI846342     membrane-type frizzled-related protein       Mfrp
  AI838959     actin, alpha 2, smooth muscle, aorta         Acta2
Signal transduction/transport
  AI835905     ferritin heavy chain                         Fth
  AI836589     ATP synthase, H+ transporting mitochondrial  Atp5b
                 F1 complex, beta subunit
  AI843291     synbindin                                    Sbdn
  AI842821     phospholipase C-like 2                       Plcl2
Transcription
  AI837833     zinc finger protein 95                       Zfp95
  AI845485     four and a half LIM domains 4                Fhl4
  AI835325     kelch-like ECH-associated protein 1          Keap1
  AI842684     interferon regulatory factor 3               Irf3
Miscellaeneous genes of interest
  AI841630     ATP citrate lyase                            Acly
  AI839804     CDC-like kinase 2                            Clk2
  BG081218     DNA cross-link repair 1A, PSO2 homolog (S.   Dclre1a
                 cerevisiae)
  BG069818     ubiquitin specific protease 3                Usp3
  BG075881     tyrosine 3-monooxygenase/tryptophan          Ywhaz
                 5-monooxygenase activation protein, zeta
                 polypeptide

GenBank        Fold change (a)
accession no.  MAM/control  HN2/control  Summary function

Highest response to MAM and HN2
  AI836491      4.03         2.99        Mitochondrial chaperone
  AI843553      3.11         2.21        ER stress response
  BG088092     -2.70        -2.10        Urea transport
  AI847514     -2.86        -2.17        Glial glutamate transport
Development
  AI841643      3.01         2.54        Neuronal migration
  AI846342      2.58         2.39        Tissue polarity
  AI838959      2.56         2.14        Cytoskeleton organization
Signal transduction/transport
  AI835905      2.63         2.19        Iron storage factor
  AI836589      2.54         2.46        Mitochondrial transport
  AI843291      2.41         2.16        Vesicular transport
  AI842821      2.15         2.12        Vesicular transport
Transcription
  AI837833      2.87         2.86        Transcription regulator
  AI845485      2.65         2.07        Transcriptional co-activator
  AI835325      2.40         2.02        Transcription regulator
  AI842684     -2.01        -2.10        Transcription regulator
Miscellaeneous genes of interest
  AI841630      2.51         2.19        Acetyl-CoA synthesis
  AI839804      2.02         2.08        Synaptic reorganization
  BG081218     -2.13        -2.27        DNA cross-link repair
  BG069818     -2.43        -2.55        Deubiquitinating enzyme
  BG075881     -2.48        -2.44        Cell adhesion

GenBank database (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) was used to obtain gene
name, gene symbol, and summary function.
(a) The fold changes between MAM- and control-treated and HN2- and
control-treated neurons were statistically significant at false
discovery rate of 0.05 after adjustment for multiple comparisons.