Comparative Gene Signature of Nociceptors Innervating Mouse Molar Teeth, Cranial Meninges, and Cornea.

BACKGROUND: The trigeminal ganglion (TG) collects afferent sensory information from various tissues. Recent large-scale RNA sequencing of neurons of the TG and dorsal root ganglion has revealed a variety of functionally distinct neuronal subpopulations, but organ-specific information is lacking.

METHODS: To link transcriptomic and tissue-specific information, we labeled small-diameter neurons of 3 specific subpopulations of the TG by local application of lipophilic carbocyanine dyes to their innervation site in the dental pulp, cornea, and meninges (dura mater). We then collected mRNA-sequencing data from fluorescent neurons. Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were analyzed and subjected to downstream gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA), and ion channel profiling was performed.

RESULTS: A total of 10,903 genes were mapped to the mouse genome (>500 reads). DEG analysis revealed 18 and 81 genes with differential expression (log2 fold change > 2, Padj < .05) in primary afferent neurons innervating the dental pulp (dental primary afferent neurons [DPAN]) compared to those innervating the meninges (meningeal primary afferent neurons [MPAN]) and the cornea (corneal primary afferent neurons [CPAN]). We found 250 and 292 genes differentially expressed in MPAN as compared to DPAN and to CPAN, and 21 and 12 in CPAN as compared to DPAN and MPAN. Scn2b had the highest log2 fold change when comparing DPAN versus MPAN and Mmp12 was the most prominent DEG when comparing DPAN versus CPAN and, CPAN versus MPAN. GSEA revealed genes of the immune and mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation system for the DPAN versus MPAN comparison, cilium- and ribosome-related genes for the CPAN versus DPAN comparison, and respirasome, immune cell- and ribosome-related gene sets for the CPAN versus MPAN comparison. DEG analysis for ion channels revealed no significant differences between the neurons set except for the sodium voltage-gated channel beta subunit 2, Scn2b. However, in each tissue a few ion channels turned up with robust number of reads. In DPAN, these were Cacna1b, Trpv2, Cnga4, Hcn1, and Hcn3, in CPAN Trpa1, Trpv1, Cacna1a, and Kcnk13 and in MPAN Trpv2 and Scn11a.

CONCLUSIONS: Our study uncovers previously unknown differences in gene expression between sensory neuron subpopulations from the dental pulp, cornea, and dura mater and provides the basis for functional studies, including the investigation of ion channel function and their suitability as targets for tissue-specific analgesia.