Agrin-Lrp4-Ror2 signaling regulates adult hippocampal neurogenesis in mice

  1. Hongsheng Zhang
  2. Anupama Sathyamurthy
  3. Fang Liu
  4. Lei Li
  5. Lei Zhang
  6. Zhaoqi Dong
  7. Wanpeng Cui
  8. Xiangdong Sun
  9. Kai Zhao
  10. Hongsheng Wang
  11. Hsin-Yi Henry Ho
  12. Wen-Cheng Xiong
  13. Lin Mei  Is a corresponding author
  1. Case Western Reserve University, United States
  2. Augusta University, United States
  3. Harvard Medical School, United States

Abstract

Adult neurogenesis in the hippocampus may represent a form of plasticity in brain functions including mood, learning and memory. However, mechanisms underlying neural stem/progenitor cells (NSPCs) proliferation are not well understood. We found that Agrin, a factor critical for neuromuscular junction formation, is elevated in the hippocampus of mice that are stimulated by enriched environment (EE). Genetic deletion of the Agrn gene in excitatory neurons decreases NSPCs proliferation and increases depressing-like behavior. Low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 4 (Lrp4), a receptor for Agrin, is expressed in hippocampal NSPCs and its mutation blocked basal as well as EE-induced NSPCs proliferation and maturation of newborn neurons. Finally, we show that Lrp4 interacts with and activates receptor tyrosine kinase-like orphan receptor 2 (Ror2); and Ror2 mutation impairs NSPCs proliferation. Together, these observations identify a role of Agrin-Lrp4-Ror2 signaling for adult neurogenesis, uncovering previously unexpected functions of Agrin and Lrp4 in the brain.

Data availability

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

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Hongsheng Zhang

    Department of Neurosciences, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8138-2108
  2. Anupama Sathyamurthy

    Department of Neuroscience and Regenerative Medicine, Augusta University, Augusta, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Fang Liu

    Department of Neuroscience and Regenerative Medicine, Augusta University, Augusta, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Lei Li

    Department of Neurosciences, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Lei Zhang

    Department of Neurosciences, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Zhaoqi Dong

    Department of Neurosciences, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Wanpeng Cui

    Department of Neurosciences, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Xiangdong Sun

    Department of Neuroscience and Regenerative Medicine, Augusta University, Augusta, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Kai Zhao

    Department of Neuroscience and Regenerative Medicine, Augusta University, Augusta, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Hongsheng Wang

    Department of Neurosciences, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Hsin-Yi Henry Ho

    Department of Neurobiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8780-7864
  12. Wen-Cheng Xiong

    Department of Neurosciences, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9071-7598
  13. Lin Mei

    Department of Neurosciences, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, United States
    For correspondence
    lin.mei@case.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5772-1229

Funding

National Institutes of Health (MH083317)

  • Lin Mei

National Institutes of Health (MH109280)

  • Lin Mei

National Institutes of Health (NS082007)

  • Lin Mei

National Institutes of Health (NS090083)

  • Lin Mei

National Institutes of Health (AG051510)

  • Lin Mei

National Institutes of Health (AG051773)

  • Wen-Cheng Xiong

National Institutes of Health (AG045781)

  • Wen-Cheng Xiong

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Kang Shen, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Stanford University, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All procedures involving animals were in accordance with the National Institutes of Health Guide for the care and use of Laboratory Animals and approved by Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees of Augusta University (Protocol #: 2011-0393) and Case Western Reserve University (Protocol #: 2017-0115).

Version history

  1. Received: January 18, 2019
  2. Accepted: July 2, 2019
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: July 3, 2019 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: July 23, 2019 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2019, Zhang 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

  • 2,516
    views
  • 485
    downloads
  • 37
    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. Hongsheng Zhang
  2. Anupama Sathyamurthy
  3. Fang Liu
  4. Lei Li
  5. Lei Zhang
  6. Zhaoqi Dong
  7. Wanpeng Cui
  8. Xiangdong Sun
  9. Kai Zhao
  10. Hongsheng Wang
  11. Hsin-Yi Henry Ho
  12. Wen-Cheng Xiong
  13. Lin Mei
(2019)
Agrin-Lrp4-Ror2 signaling regulates adult hippocampal neurogenesis in mice
eLife 8:e45303.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.45303

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.45303

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Ivan Tomić, Paul M Bays
    Research Article

    Probing memory of a complex visual image within a few hundred milliseconds after its disappearance reveals significantly greater fidelity of recall than if the probe is delayed by as little as a second. Classically interpreted, the former taps into a detailed but rapidly decaying visual sensory or ‘iconic’ memory (IM), while the latter relies on capacity-limited but comparatively stable visual working memory (VWM). While iconic decay and VWM capacity have been extensively studied independently, currently no single framework quantitatively accounts for the dynamics of memory fidelity over these time scales. Here, we extend a stationary neural population model of VWM with a temporal dimension, incorporating rapid sensory-driven accumulation of activity encoding each visual feature in memory, and a slower accumulation of internal error that causes memorized features to randomly drift over time. Instead of facilitating read-out from an independent sensory store, an early cue benefits recall by lifting the effective limit on VWM signal strength imposed when multiple items compete for representation, allowing memory for the cued item to be supplemented with information from the decaying sensory trace. Empirical measurements of human recall dynamics validate these predictions while excluding alternative model architectures. A key conclusion is that differences in capacity classically thought to distinguish IM and VWM are in fact contingent upon a single resource-limited WM store.

    1. Neuroscience
    Emilio Salinas, Bashirul I Sheikh
    Insight

    Our ability to recall details from a remembered image depends on a single mechanism that is engaged from the very moment the image disappears from view.