Selective Rab11 transport and the intrinsic regenerative ability of CNS axons

  1. Hiroaki Koseki
  2. Matteo Donegá
  3. Brian YH Lam
  4. Veselina Petrova
  5. Susan van Erp
  6. Giles SH Yeo
  7. Jessica CF Kwok
  8. Charles ffrench-Constant
  9. RIchard Eva  Is a corresponding author
  10. James Fawcett  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
  2. University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom
  3. University of Leeds, United Kingdom

Abstract

Neurons lose intrinsic axon regenerative ability with maturation, but the mechanism remains unclear. Using an in-vitro laser axotomy model, we show a progressive decline in the ability of cut CNS axons to form a new growth cone and then elongate. Failure of regeneration was associated with increased retraction after axotomy. Transportation into axons becomes selective with maturation; we hypothesized that selective exclusion of molecules needed for growth may contribute to regeneration decline. With neuronal maturity Rab11 vesicles (which carry many molecules involved in axon growth) became selectively targeted to the somatodendritic compartment and excluded from axons. Their transport changed from bidirectional to retrograde. However, on overexpression Rab11 was mistrafficked into proximal axons, and these axons showed less retraction and enhanced regeneration after axotomy. These results suggest that the decline of intrinsic axon regenerative ability is associated with selective exclusion of key molecules, and that manipulation of transport can enhance regeneration.

Data availability

The following data sets were generated
    1. Lam B
    2. Koseki H
    (2016) Maturation of cortical neurons
    Publicly available at NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (accession no: GSE92856).

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Hiroaki Koseki

    Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Matteo Donegá

    Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Brian YH Lam

    Metabolic Research Laboratories and MRC Metabolic Diseases Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Veselina Petrova

    Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Susan van Erp

    MRC Centre of Regenerative Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0883-2795
  6. Giles SH Yeo

    Metabolic Research Laboratories and MRC Metabolic Diseases Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Jessica CF Kwok

    School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Charles ffrench-Constant

    MRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine, Centre for Multiple Sclerosis Research, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. RIchard Eva

    Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    re263@cam.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. James Fawcett

    John van Geest Centre for Brain Repair, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    jf108@cam.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7990-4568

Funding

Medical Research Council (G1000864)

  • James Fawcett

Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation (International Consortium)

  • James Fawcett

European Research Council (ECMneuro)

  • James Fawcett

GlaxoSmithKline International Scholarship

  • Hiroaki Koseki

Honjo International Scholarship Foundation

  • Hiroaki Koseki

Bristol Myers Squibb Graduate Studentship

  • Hiroaki Koseki

National Institute of Health Research (Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre)

  • James Fawcett

Czech ministry of education (CZ.02.1.01/0.0./0.0/15_003/0000419)

  • Jessica CF Kwok
  • James Fawcett

European Molecular Biology Organization (Long Term EMBO Fellowship (ALTF 1436-2015))

  • Susan van Erp

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Copyright

© 2017, Koseki 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

  • 3,675
    views
  • 634
    downloads
  • 58
    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. Hiroaki Koseki
  2. Matteo Donegá
  3. Brian YH Lam
  4. Veselina Petrova
  5. Susan van Erp
  6. Giles SH Yeo
  7. Jessica CF Kwok
  8. Charles ffrench-Constant
  9. RIchard Eva
  10. James Fawcett
(2017)
Selective Rab11 transport and the intrinsic regenerative ability of CNS axons
eLife 6:e26956.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.26956

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.26956

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Ana Maria Ichim, Harald Barzan ... Raul Cristian Muresan
    Review Article

    Gamma oscillations in brain activity (30–150 Hz) have been studied for over 80 years. Although in the past three decades significant progress has been made to try to understand their functional role, a definitive answer regarding their causal implication in perception, cognition, and behavior still lies ahead of us. Here, we first review the basic neural mechanisms that give rise to gamma oscillations and then focus on two main pillars of exploration. The first pillar examines the major theories regarding their functional role in information processing in the brain, also highlighting critical viewpoints. The second pillar reviews a novel research direction that proposes a therapeutic role for gamma oscillations, namely the gamma entrainment using sensory stimulation (GENUS). We extensively discuss both the positive findings and the issues regarding reproducibility of GENUS. Going beyond the functional and therapeutic role of gamma, we propose a third pillar of exploration, where gamma, generated endogenously by cortical circuits, is essential for maintenance of healthy circuit function. We propose that four classes of interneurons, namely those expressing parvalbumin (PV), vasointestinal peptide (VIP), somatostatin (SST), and nitric oxide synthase (NOS) take advantage of endogenous gamma to perform active vasomotor control that maintains homeostasis in the neuronal tissue. According to this hypothesis, which we call GAMER (GAmma MEdiated ciRcuit maintenance), gamma oscillations act as a ‘servicing’ rhythm that enables efficient translation of neural activity into vascular responses that are essential for optimal neurometabolic processes. GAMER is an extension of GENUS, where endogenous rather than entrained gamma plays a fundamental role. Finally, we propose several critical experiments to test the GAMER hypothesis.

    1. Neuroscience
    John P Grogan, Matthias Raemaekers ... Sanjay G Manohar
    Research Article

    Motivation depends on dopamine, but might be modulated by acetylcholine which influences dopamine release in the striatum, and amplifies motivation in animal studies. A corresponding effect in humans would be important clinically, since anticholinergic drugs are frequently used in Parkinson’s disease, a condition that can also disrupt motivation. Reward and dopamine make us more ready to respond, as indexed by reaction times (RT), and move faster, sometimes termed vigour. These effects may be controlled by preparatory processes that can be tracked using electroencephalography (EEG). We measured vigour in a placebo-controlled, double-blinded study of trihexyphenidyl (THP), a muscarinic antagonist, with an incentivised eye movement task and EEG. Participants responded faster and with greater vigour when incentives were high, but THP blunted these motivational effects, suggesting that muscarinic receptors facilitate invigoration by reward. Preparatory EEG build-up (contingent negative variation [CNV]) was strengthened by high incentives and by muscarinic blockade, although THP reduced the incentive effect. The amplitude of preparatory activity predicted both vigour and RT, although over distinct scalp regions; frontal activity predicted vigour, whereas a larger, earlier, central component predicted RT. The incentivisation of RT was partly mediated by the CNV, though vigour was not. Moreover, the CNV mediated the drug’s effect on dampening incentives, suggesting that muscarinic receptors underlie the motivational influence on this preparatory activity. Taken together, these findings show that a muscarinic blocker impairs motivated action in healthy people, and that medial frontal preparatory neural activity mediates this for RT.