Keratinocytes can modulate and directly initiate nociceptive responses

  1. Kyle M Baumbauer
  2. Jennifer J DeBerry
  3. Peter C Adelman
  4. Richard H Miller
  5. Junichi Hachisuka
  6. Kuan Hsien Lee
  7. Sarah E Ross
  8. H Richard Koerber
  9. Brian M Davis
  10. Kathryn M Albers  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Connecticut, United States
  2. University of Alabama, United States
  3. University of Pittsburgh, United States

Abstract

How thermal, mechanical and chemical stimuli applied to the skin are transduced into signals transmitted by peripheral neurons to the CNS is an area of intense study. Several studies indicate that transduction mechanisms are intrinsic to cutaneous neurons and that epidermal keratinocytes only modulate this transduction. Using mice expressing channelrhodopsin (ChR2) in keratinocytes we show that blue light activation of the epidermis alone can produce action potentials (APs) in multiple types of cutaneous sensory neurons including SA1, A-HTMR, CM, CH, CMC, CMH and CMHC fiber types. In loss of function studies, yellow light stimulation of keratinocytes that express halorhodopsin reduced AP generation in response to naturalistic stimuli. These findings support the idea that intrinsic sensory transduction mechanisms in epidermal keratinocytes can direct AP firing in nociceptor as well as tactile sensory afferents and suggest a significantly expanded role for the epidermis in sensory processing.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Kyle M Baumbauer

    School of Nursing, University of Connecticut, Storrs, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Jennifer J DeBerry

    Department of Anesthesiology, University of Alabama, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Peter C Adelman

    Department of Neurobiology, Pittsburgh Center for Pain Research, Center for Neuroscience, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Richard H Miller

    Department of Neurobiology, Pittsburgh Center for Pain Research, Center for Neuroscience, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Junichi Hachisuka

    Department of Neurobiology, Pittsburgh Center for Pain Research, Center for Neuroscience, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Kuan Hsien Lee

    Department of Neurobiology, Pittsburgh Center for Pain Research, Center for Neuroscience, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Sarah E Ross

    Department of Neurobiology, Pittsburgh Center for Pain Research, Center for Neuroscience, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittburgh, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. H Richard Koerber

    Department of Neurobiology, Pittsburgh Center for Pain Research, Center for Neuroscience, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Brian M Davis

    Department of Neurobiology, Pittsburgh Center for Pain Research, Center for Neuroscience, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Kathryn M Albers

    Department of Neurobiology, Pittsburgh Center for Pain Research, Center for Neuroscience, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, United States
    For correspondence
    kaa2@pitt.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: This study was performed in strict accordance with the recommendations in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the National Institutes of Health. Animals were handled in compliance with an approved Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) protocol (#14074296) of the University of Pittsburgh. All surgery was performed under appropriate anesthesia with every effort was made to minimize pain.

Copyright

© 2015, Baumbauer et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 4,637
    views
  • 1,160
    downloads
  • 142
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Kyle M Baumbauer
  2. Jennifer J DeBerry
  3. Peter C Adelman
  4. Richard H Miller
  5. Junichi Hachisuka
  6. Kuan Hsien Lee
  7. Sarah E Ross
  8. H Richard Koerber
  9. Brian M Davis
  10. Kathryn M Albers
(2015)
Keratinocytes can modulate and directly initiate nociceptive responses
eLife 4:e09674.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.09674

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.09674

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Zhujun Shao, Mengya Zhang, Qing Yu
    Research Article

    When holding visual information temporarily in working memory (WM), the neural representation of the memorandum is distributed across various cortical regions, including visual and frontal cortices. However, the role of stimulus representation in visual and frontal cortices during WM has been controversial. Here, we tested the hypothesis that stimulus representation persists in the frontal cortex to facilitate flexible control demands in WM. During functional MRI, participants flexibly switched between simple WM maintenance of visual stimulus or more complex rule-based categorization of maintained stimulus on a trial-by-trial basis. Our results demonstrated enhanced stimulus representation in the frontal cortex that tracked demands for active WM control and enhanced stimulus representation in the visual cortex that tracked demands for precise WM maintenance. This differential frontal stimulus representation traded off with the newly-generated category representation with varying control demands. Simulation using multi-module recurrent neural networks replicated human neural patterns when stimulus information was preserved for network readout. Altogether, these findings help reconcile the long-standing debate in WM research, and provide empirical and computational evidence that flexible stimulus representation in the frontal cortex during WM serves as a potential neural coding scheme to accommodate the ever-changing environment.

    1. Neuroscience
    Jacob A Miller
    Insight

    When navigating environments with changing rules, human brain circuits flexibly adapt how and where we retain information to help us achieve our immediate goals.