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 W 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 W 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.

Reviewing Editor

  1. K VijayRaghavan, National Centre for Biological Sciences, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, India

Version history

  1. Received: March 18, 2017
  2. Accepted: August 7, 2017
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: August 8, 2017 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: August 10, 2017 (version 2)
  5. Accepted Manuscript updated: August 30, 2017 (version 3)
  6. Version of Record published: September 22, 2017 (version 4)

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

  • 3,575
    views
  • 627
    downloads
  • 57
    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 W 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
    Mohsen Sadeghi, Reza Sharif Razavian ... Dagmar Sternad
    Research Article

    Natural behaviors have redundancy, which implies that humans and animals can achieve their goals with different strategies. Given only observations of behavior, is it possible to infer the control objective that the subject is employing? This challenge is particularly acute in animal behavior because we cannot ask or instruct the subject to use a particular strategy. This study presents a three-pronged approach to infer an animal’s control objective from behavior. First, both humans and monkeys performed a virtual balancing task for which different control strategies could be utilized. Under matched experimental conditions, corresponding behaviors were observed in humans and monkeys. Second, a generative model was developed that represented two main control objectives to achieve the task goal. Model simulations were used to identify aspects of behavior that could distinguish which control objective was being used. Third, these behavioral signatures allowed us to infer the control objective used by human subjects who had been instructed to use one control objective or the other. Based on this validation, we could then infer objectives from animal subjects. Being able to positively identify a subject’s control objective from observed behavior can provide a powerful tool to neurophysiologists as they seek the neural mechanisms of sensorimotor coordination.

    1. Neuroscience
    Yiyi Chen, Laimdota Zizmare ... Christoph Trautwein
    Research Article

    The retina consumes massive amounts of energy, yet its metabolism and substrate exploitation remain poorly understood. Here, we used a murine explant model to manipulate retinal energy metabolism under entirely controlled conditions and utilised 1H-NMR spectroscopy-based metabolomics, in situ enzyme detection, and cell viability readouts to uncover the pathways of retinal energy production. Our experimental manipulations resulted in varying degrees of photoreceptor degeneration, while the inner retina and retinal pigment epithelium were essentially unaffected. This selective vulnerability of photoreceptors suggested very specific adaptations in their energy metabolism. Rod photoreceptors were found to rely strongly on oxidative phosphorylation, but only mildly on glycolysis. Conversely, cone photoreceptors were dependent on glycolysis but insensitive to electron transport chain decoupling. Importantly, photoreceptors appeared to uncouple glycolytic and Krebs-cycle metabolism via three different pathways: (1) the mini-Krebs-cycle, fuelled by glutamine and branched chain amino acids, generating N-acetylaspartate; (2) the alanine-generating Cahill-cycle; (3) the lactate-releasing Cori-cycle. Moreover, the metabolomics data indicated a shuttling of taurine and hypotaurine between the retinal pigment epithelium and photoreceptors, likely resulting in an additional net transfer of reducing power to photoreceptors. These findings expand our understanding of retinal physiology and pathology and shed new light on neuronal energy homeostasis and the pathogenesis of neurodegenerative diseases.