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

  • 2,859
    views
  • 749
    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
    Cristina Gil Avila, Elisabeth S May ... Markus Ploner
    Research Article

    Chronic pain is a prevalent and debilitating condition whose neural mechanisms are incompletely understood. An imbalance of cerebral excitation and inhibition (E/I), particularly in the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), is believed to represent a crucial mechanism in the development and maintenance of chronic pain. Thus, identifying a non-invasive, scalable marker of E/I could provide valuable insights into the neural mechanisms of chronic pain and aid in developing clinically useful biomarkers. Recently, the aperiodic component of the electroencephalography (EEG) power spectrum has been proposed to represent a non-invasive proxy for E/I. We, therefore, assessed the aperiodic component in the mPFC of resting-state EEG recordings in 149 people with chronic pain and 115 healthy participants. We found robust evidence against differences in the aperiodic component in the mPFC between people with chronic pain and healthy participants, and no correlation between the aperiodic component and pain intensity. These findings were consistent across different subtypes of chronic pain and were similarly found in a whole-brain analysis. Their robustness was supported by preregistration and multiverse analyses across many different methodological choices. Together, our results suggest that the EEG aperiodic component does not differentiate between people with chronic pain and healthy individuals. These findings and the rigorous methodological approach can guide future studies investigating non-invasive, scalable markers of cerebral dysfunction in people with chronic pain and beyond.

    1. Neuroscience
    Raven Star Wallace, Bronte Mckeown ... Jonathan Smallwood
    Research Article

    Movie-watching is a central aspect of our lives and an important paradigm for understanding the brain mechanisms behind cognition as it occurs in daily life. Contemporary views of ongoing thought argue that the ability to make sense of events in the ‘here and now’ depend on the neural processing of incoming sensory information by auditory and visual cortex, which are kept in check by systems in association cortex. However, we currently lack an understanding of how patterns of ongoing thoughts map onto the different brain systems when we watch a film, partly because methods of sampling experience disrupt the dynamics of brain activity and the experience of movie-watching. Our study established a novel method for mapping thought patterns onto the brain activity that occurs at different moments of a film, which does not disrupt the time course of brain activity or the movie-watching experience. We found moments when experience sampling highlighted engagement with multi-sensory features of the film or highlighted thoughts with episodic features, regions of sensory cortex were more active and subsequent memory for events in the movie was better—on the other hand, periods of intrusive distraction emerged when activity in regions of association cortex within the frontoparietal system was reduced. These results highlight the critical role sensory systems play in the multi-modal experience of movie-watching and provide evidence for the role of association cortex in reducing distraction when we watch films.