PI(3,5)P2 biosynthesis regulates oligodendrocyte differentiation by intrinsic and extrinsic mechanisms

  1. Yevgeniya A Mironova
  2. Guy M Lenk
  3. Jing-Ping Lin
  4. Seung Joon Lee
  5. Jeffery L Twiss
  6. Ilaria Vaccari
  7. Alessandra Bolino
  8. Leif A Havton
  9. Sang H Min
  10. Charles S Abrams
  11. Peter Shrager
  12. Miriam H Meisler
  13. Roman J Giger  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Michigan School of Medicine, United States
  2. University of South Carolina, United States
  3. San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Italy
  4. David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, United States
  5. University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, United States
  6. University of Rochester Medical Center, United States

Abstract

Proper development of the CNS axon-glia unit requires bi-directional communication between axons and oligodendrocytes (OLs). We show that the signaling lipid phosphatidylinositol-3,5-bisphosphate [PI(3,5)P2] is required in neurons and in OLs for normal CNS myelination. In mice, mutations of Fig4, Pikfyve or Vac14, encoding key components of the PI(3,5)P2 biosynthetic complex, each lead to impaired OL maturation, severe CNS hypomyelination and delayed propagation of compound action potentials. Primary OLs deficient in Fig4 accumulate large LAMP1+ and Rab7+ vesicular structures and exhibit reduced membrane sheet expansion. PI(3,5)P2 deficiency leads to accumulation of myelin-associated glycoprotein (MAG) in LAMP1+ perinuclear vesicles that fail to migrate to the nascent myelin sheet. Live-cell imaging of OLs after genetic or pharmacological inhibition of PI(3,5)P2 synthesis revealed impaired trafficking of plasma membrane-derived MAG through the endolysosomal system in primary cells and brain tissue. Collectively, our studies identify PI(3,5)P2 as a key regulator of myelin membrane trafficking and myelinogenesis.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Yevgeniya A Mironova

    Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Guy M Lenk

    Department of Human Genetics, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Jing-Ping Lin

    Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Seung Joon Lee

    Department of Biological Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Jeffery L Twiss

    Department of Biological Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Ilaria Vaccari

    Human Inherited Neuropathies Unit, INSPE-Institute for Experimental Neurology, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Alessandra Bolino

    Human Inherited Neuropathies Unit, INSPE-Institute for Experimental Neurology, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Leif A Havton

    Department of Neurology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Sang H Min

    Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Charles S Abrams

    Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Peter Shrager

    Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Miriam H Meisler

    Department of Human Genetics, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Roman J Giger

    Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, United States
    For correspondence
    rgiger@med.umich.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. All of the animals were handled according to protocols approved by the University committee on use and care for animals (UCUCA protocols: #00005863 and #00005902) of the University of Michigan.

Copyright

© 2016, Mironova 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

  • 2,867
    views
  • 750
    downloads
  • 26
    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. Yevgeniya A Mironova
  2. Guy M Lenk
  3. Jing-Ping Lin
  4. Seung Joon Lee
  5. Jeffery L Twiss
  6. Ilaria Vaccari
  7. Alessandra Bolino
  8. Leif A Havton
  9. Sang H Min
  10. Charles S Abrams
  11. Peter Shrager
  12. Miriam H Meisler
  13. Roman J Giger
(2016)
PI(3,5)P2 biosynthesis regulates oligodendrocyte differentiation by intrinsic and extrinsic mechanisms
eLife 5:e13023.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.13023

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.13023

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Célian Bimbard, Flóra Takács ... Philip Coen
    Tools and Resources

    Electrophysiology has proven invaluable to record neural activity, and the development of Neuropixels probes dramatically increased the number of recorded neurons. These probes are often implanted acutely, but acute recordings cannot be performed in freely moving animals and the recorded neurons cannot be tracked across days. To study key behaviors such as navigation, learning, and memory formation, the probes must be implanted chronically. An ideal chronic implant should (1) allow stable recordings of neurons for weeks; (2) allow reuse of the probes after explantation; (3) be light enough for use in mice. Here, we present the ‘Apollo Implant’, an open-source and editable device that meets these criteria and accommodates up to two Neuropixels 1.0 or 2.0 probes. The implant comprises a ‘payload’ module which is attached to the probe and is recoverable, and a ‘docking’ module which is cemented to the skull. The design is adjustable, making it easy to change the distance between probes, the angle of insertion, and the depth of insertion. We tested the implant across eight labs in head-fixed mice, freely moving mice, and freely moving rats. The number of neurons recorded across days was stable, even after repeated implantations of the same probe. The Apollo implant provides an inexpensive, lightweight, and flexible solution for reusable chronic Neuropixels recordings.

    1. Neuroscience
    Georgin Jacob, RT Pramod, SP Arun
    Research Article

    Most visual tasks involve looking for specific object features. But we also often perform property-based tasks where we look for specific property in an image, such as finding an odd item, deciding if two items are same, or if an object has symmetry. How do we solve such tasks? These tasks do not fit into standard models of decision making because their underlying feature space and decision process is unclear. Using well-known principles governing multiple object representations, we show that displays with repeating elements can be distinguished from heterogeneous displays using a property we define as visual homogeneity. In behavior, visual homogeneity predicted response times on visual search, same-different and symmetry tasks. Brain imaging during visual search and symmetry tasks revealed that visual homogeneity was localized to a region in the object-selective cortex. Thus, property-based visual tasks are solved in a localized region in the brain by computing visual homogeneity.