Remodeling of lumbar motor circuitry remote to a thoracic spinal cord injury promotes locomotor recovery

  1. Ying Wang
  2. Wei Wu
  3. Xiangbing Wu
  4. Yan Sun
  5. Yi P Zhang
  6. Ling-Xiao Deng
  7. Melissa Jane Walker
  8. Wenrui Qu
  9. Chen Chen
  10. Nai-Kui Liu
  11. Qi Han
  12. Heqiao Dai
  13. Lisa BE Shields
  14. Christopher B Shields
  15. Dale R Sengelaub
  16. Kathryn J Jones
  17. George M Smith
  18. Xiao-Ming Xu  Is a corresponding author
  1. Indiana University School of Medicine, United States
  2. Norton Healthcare, United States
  3. Indiana University, United States
  4. Temple University, United States

Abstract

Retrogradely-transported neurotrophin signaling plays an important role in regulating neural circuit specificity. Here we investigated whether targeted delivery of neurotrophin-3 (NT-3) to lumbar motoneurons (MNs) caudal to a thoracic (T10) contusive spinal cord injury (SCI) could modulate dendritic patterning and synapse formation of the lumbar MNs. In vitro, Adeno-associated virus serotype 2 overexpressing NT-3 (AAV-NT-3) induced NT-3 expression and neurite outgrowth in cultured spinal cord neurons. In vivo, targeted delivery of AAV-NT-3 into transiently demyelinated adult mouse sciatic nerves led to the retrograde transportation of NT-3 to the lumbar MNs, significantly attenuating SCI-induced lumbar MN dendritic atrophy. NT-3 enhanced sprouting and synaptic formation of descending serotonergic, dopaminergic, and propriospinal axons on lumbar MNs, parallel to improved behavioral recovery. Thus, retrogradely transported NT-3 stimulated remodeling of lumbar neural circuitry and synaptic connectivity remote to a thoracic SCI, supporting a role for retrograde transport of NT-3 as a potential therapeutic strategy for SCI.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Ying Wang

    Spinal Cord and Brain Injury Research Group, Stark Neurosciences Research Institute, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Wei Wu

    Spinal Cord and Brain Injury Research Group, Stark Neurosciences Research Institute, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Xiangbing Wu

    Spinal Cord and Brain Injury Research Group, Stark Neurosciences Research Institute, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Yan Sun

    Spinal Cord and Brain Injury Research Group, Stark Neurosciences Research Institute, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Yi P Zhang

    Norton Neuroscience Institute, Norton Healthcare, Louisville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Ling-Xiao Deng

    Spinal Cord and Brain Injury Research Group, Stark Neurosciences Research Institute, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Melissa Jane Walker

    Spinal Cord and Brain Injury Research Group, Stark Neurosciences Research Institute, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Wenrui Qu

    Spinal Cord and Brain Injury Research Group, Stark Neurosciences Research Institute, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Chen Chen

    Spinal Cord and Brain Injury Research Group, Stark Neurosciences Research Institute, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Nai-Kui Liu

    Spinal Cord and Brain Injury Research Group, Stark Neurosciences Research Institute, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Qi Han

    Spinal Cord and Brain Injury Research Group, Stark Neurosciences Research Institute, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Heqiao Dai

    Spinal Cord and Brain Injury Research Group, Stark Neurosciences Research Institute, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Lisa BE Shields

    Norton Neuroscience Institute, Norton Healthcare, Louisville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1526-4063
  14. Christopher B Shields

    Norton Neuroscience Institute, Norton Healthcare, Louisville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Dale R Sengelaub

    Program in Neuroscience, Indiana University, Bloomington, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Kathryn J Jones

    Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. George M Smith

    Shriners Hospitals Pediatric Research Center, School of Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Xiao-Ming Xu

    Spinal Cord and Brain Injury Research Group, Stark Neurosciences Research Institute, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, United States
    For correspondence
    xu26@iupui.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7229-0081

Funding

National Institutes of Health (R01 NS103481)

  • Xiao-Ming Xu

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (I01 RX002356-01)

  • Xiao-Ming Xu

Craig H. Neilsen Foundation (296749)

  • Xiao-Ming Xu

Indiana State Department of Health (19919)

  • Xiao-Ming Xu

National Institutes of Health (R01 NS100531)

  • Xiao-Ming Xu

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (I01 BX003705-01A1)

  • Xiao-Ming Xu

Science Fund Project of Natural Science Foundation of China (81870977)

  • Ying Wang

National Institutes of Health (NS059622)

  • Xiao-Ming Xu

U.S. Department of Defense (CDMRP W81XWH-12-1-0562)

  • Xiao-Ming Xu

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

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All surgical interventions, treatments, and postoperative animal care were performed following the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (National Research Council) and the Guidelines set forth by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of the Indiana University School of Medicine.

Copyright

© 2018, Wang 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.

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. Ying Wang
  2. Wei Wu
  3. Xiangbing Wu
  4. Yan Sun
  5. Yi P Zhang
  6. Ling-Xiao Deng
  7. Melissa Jane Walker
  8. Wenrui Qu
  9. Chen Chen
  10. Nai-Kui Liu
  11. Qi Han
  12. Heqiao Dai
  13. Lisa BE Shields
  14. Christopher B Shields
  15. Dale R Sengelaub
  16. Kathryn J Jones
  17. George M Smith
  18. Xiao-Ming Xu
(2018)
Remodeling of lumbar motor circuitry remote to a thoracic spinal cord injury promotes locomotor recovery
eLife 7:e39016.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.39016

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.39016

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Jean-François Brunet
    Review Article

    Historically, the creation of the parasympathetic division of the autonomic nervous system of the vertebrates is inextricably linked to the unification of the cranial and sacral autonomic outflows. There is an intriguing disproportion between the entrenchment of the notion of a ‘cranio-sacral’ pathway, which informs every textbook schematic of the autonomic nervous system since the early XXth century, and the wobbliness of its two roots: an anatomical detail overinterpreted by Walter Holbrook Gaskell (the ‘gap’ between the lumbar and sacral outflows), on which John Newport Langley grafted a piece of physiology (a supposed antagonism of these two outflows on external genitals), repeatedly questioned since, to little avail. I retrace the birth of a flawed scientific concept (the cranio-sacral outflow) and the way in which it ossified instead of dissipated. Then, I suggest that the critique of the ‘cranio-sacral outflow’ invites, in turn, a radical deconstruction of the very notion of a ‘parasympathetic’ outflow, and a more realistic description of the autonomic nervous system.

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Mahima Bose, Ishita Talwar ... Shubha Tole
    Research Article

    In the developing vertebrate central nervous system, neurons and glia typically arise sequentially from common progenitors. Here, we report that the transcription factor Forkhead Box G1 (Foxg1) regulates gliogenesis in the mouse neocortex via distinct cell-autonomous roles in progenitors and postmitotic neurons that regulate different aspects of the gliogenic FGF signalling pathway. We demonstrate that loss of Foxg1 in cortical progenitors at neurogenic stages causes premature astrogliogenesis. We identify a novel FOXG1 target, the pro-gliogenic FGF pathway component Fgfr3, which is suppressed by FOXG1 cell-autonomously to maintain neurogenesis. Furthermore, FOXG1 can also suppress premature astrogliogenesis triggered by the augmentation of FGF signalling. We identify a second novel function of FOXG1 in regulating the expression of gliogenic cues in newborn neocortical upper-layer neurons. Loss of FOXG1 in postmitotic neurons non-autonomously enhances gliogenesis in the progenitors via FGF signalling. These results fit well with the model that newborn neurons secrete cues that trigger progenitors to produce the next wave of cell types, astrocytes. If FGF signalling is attenuated in Foxg1 null progenitors, they progress to oligodendrocyte production. Therefore, loss of FOXG1 transitions the progenitor to a gliogenic state, producing either astrocytes or oligodendrocytes depending on FGF signalling levels. Our results uncover how FOXG1 integrates extrinsic signalling via the FGF pathway to regulate the sequential generation of neurons, astrocytes, and oligodendrocytes in the cerebral cortex.