How neurons establish individual identity in the developing nervous system and why only specific neuron subtypes are susceptible to degeneration in neurodegenerative disease are two challenging unanswered questions in neuroscience. Answers to these questions are crucial to establishing the patterns of connectivity between neuronal types and their selective targets. Deciphering neuronal subtype is relatively straightforward in Caenorhabditis elegans, as each neuronal lineage and its position, pattern of connectivity, molecular profile, and function have all been well characterized (Hobert, 2008). However, the complex array of neurons in the vertebrate nervous system (e.g., 10¹¹ in the human brain) renders it rather more challenging to define a neuronal type. Thus, a clear neuronal taxonomy that completely reconciles morphological, physiological, molecular, and perhaps other criteria (e.g., position, connectivity) is essential. Neuronal diversity in the central nervous system (CNS) was vividly described by Sir Roger Penrose: “If you look at the entire physical cosmos, our brains are a tiny, tiny part of it. But they're the most perfectly organized part. Compared to the complexity of a brain, a galaxy is just an inert lump’.

The mechanisms leading to neuronal diversity in the CNS is arguably best characterized by spinal motor neurons (MNs). Within the vertebrate spinal cord, the cell bodies of MNs innervating specific muscle targets are topographically organized within columnar, divisional, and pool subtypes (Lance-Jones and Landmesser, 1981; Landmesser, 1978a; Landmesser, 1978b). Spinal MNs are diversified into hundreds of subtypes along the rostrocaudal (RC) axis (Figure 1) (Catela et al., 2015). Spinal MNs are located in the ventral horn of the spinal cord and transmit signals from the brain to innervated muscle targets in the periphery to control all muscle movements. The human body contains more than 300 bilateral pairs of muscles and ~100 million muscle fibers. The control of muscular contractions for different motor behaviors relies on MN diversity (Catela et al., 2015; Kanning et al., 2010). Stereotypic axonal projection by MNs suggests the existence of MN subtype identities, which would facilitate selectivity in innervation patterns of different muscle targets. MNs can find their original targets even if they have been displaced to another segment of the spinal cord before axonal extension, which indicates that most MNs are programmed with an intrinsic identity that encodes information on their targeting preference (Lance-Jones and Landmesser, 1980). Moreover, MN subtypes exhibit differential vulnerability in MN-related degenerative diseases that cause progressive muscle weakness and paralysis, such as adult-onset amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and childhood spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), further support an intrinsic susceptibility to degeneration amongst MN subtypes. Thus, a comprehensive understanding of the underlying mechanisms for MN diversification will likely shed light on MN target selectivity, subtype survival and differential vulnerability to MN-related diseases.

Figure 1

Download asset Open asset

Spinal MNs are delineated according to the combinatorial actions of three homeodomain-containing transcription factors (TFs) – Nkx2.2, Nkx6.1 and Irx3 – that confine the generation of motor neuron progenitors (pMNs) to the appropriate region of the neural tube (Balaskas et al., 2012; Briscoe et al., 2000) (Figure 2A). Nkx2.2 and Irx3 initially ensure that pMNs are induced in the ventral spinal cord. Once pMNs have been defined, Nkx6.1 activity promotes the pMN-restricted induction of downstream factors, such as the basic helix-loop-helix (bHLH) factor Olig2 (Novitch et al., 2001). Olig2 has a dual role in coordinating the acquisition of pan-neuronal properties and subtype characteristics of differentiating MNs. Forced expression of Olig2 in the dorsal region is sufficient to repress Irx3. Recent studies have further revealed the gene-regulatory network (GRN) of these progenitor TFs responsible for establishing cell identities in the developing spinal cord, with progenitor domains being determined by a network of transcriptional repressors that repress all inappropriate and alternative cell fates to elicit a single definitive identity (Figure 2A) (Kutejova et al., 2016). Additionally, progenitor domain-specific master TFs also directly repress ‘effector’ genes expressed in other progenitor domains. For example, pMN-master regulator Olig2 directly represses alternative interneuron domain TFs such as Pax6, Irx3, and Nkx2.2. In Olig2 mutants, Pax6 and Nkx2.2 are ectopically expanded into pMNs, supporting the concept of cross-repressive TF-mediated GRN in the pMNs (Balaskas et al., 2012; Zhou and Anderson, 2002).

Figure 2

Download asset Open asset

After pMNs have been defined within the neural tube, both cell proliferation and cell cycle exit are patterned in time and space to regulate MN subtypes (Kicheva et al., 2014). In anamniotes, maintenance of pMNs also requires an MN-specific Cyclin Dx (Ccndx). Inhibition of Ccndx results in specific loss of differentiated MNs (Chen et al., 2007; Lien et al., 2016). Given that overexpression of D-type cyclin in amniotes appears insufficient to alter the cell-fate decision and timing of neuronal differentiation in the spinal cord, it is not clear if higher vertebrates need specific cyclins to replenish pMNs to generate the diverse subtypes of MNs and oligodendrocytes (Lobjois et al., 2008). In mouse embryos, spinal MNs acquire generic MN identity after cell cycle exit (i.e., at about embryonic day 9.5), and express a common set of TFs – Mnx1 (Hb9), Lhx3, Isl1 and Isl2 (Novitch et al., 2001; Thaler et al., 1999; Tsuchida et al., 1994) (Figure 2A). These MNs project axons outside the spinal cord to peripherals and release acetylcholine as a neurotransmitter. Generic spinal MN identity is established by cooperative binding of the LIM complex comprising Isl1 and Lhx3 to MN-specific enhancers, thereby inducing the expression of a battery of MN genes that induce functional hallmarks of MNs, while suppressing key interneuron genes. Furthermore, the Isl1-Lhx3 complex amplifies its own expression through a potent autoregulatory feedback loop and simultaneously enhances the transcription of Lmo4 to promote MN differentiation and maturation (Erb et al., 2017; Lee et al., 2012) (Figure 2B).

As embryonic development progresses, MNs diversify to exhibit subtype identities. Establishment of MN subtype is mediated by mutually exclusive expression of Hox TFs, which is programmed according to body segment along the RC axis. For example, segmental identity of MNs is defined by the mutually exclusive expression of Hox6, Hox9 and Hox10 (Dasen et al., 2003; Lacombe et al., 2013) (Figure 2C). In particular, a single Hox gene, Hoxc9, required for the generation of thoracic MN subtypes, is essential for organizing the MN topographic map, and acts as a key repressor of the forelimb-level Hox network (Jung et al., 2010). In each segment, MNs are grouped into different columns according to their innervating targets. For instance, within the brachial segment hosting Hox6 expression, MNs are further grouped into axial muscle-projecting MNs (Lhx3^on, MMC) and forelimb-innervating MNs (Foxp1^on, LMC)(Dasen et al., 2008). Within Hoxc6^on MNs, expression of another set of mutually exclusive Hox proteins, such as Hox5 and Hox8 in Foxp1^on LMC, controls the rostral and caudal motor pool identity, which directs motor pools to either innervate proximal or distal muscles in the forelimb (Catela et al., 2015). Although a mutually exclusive expressed Hoxa5-Hoxc8 sharp boundary is manifested within the Hoxc6^on MNs, unlike progenitor-TFs that display mutual inhibitions, only Hoxc8 represses Hoxa5 unilaterally at protein level (Dasen et al., 2005; Li et al., 2017). It is therefore expected that additional Hox-mediated GRNs might be needed to consolidate the robust boundary within the brachial LMC-MNs.

LMC is the most extensively studied motor column, and this motor column is further classified into divisional identities targeting flexor and extensor limb muscles (Kania and Jessell, 2003; Sockanathan and Jessell, 1998). Further heterogeneity in spinal MNs can be revealed by retrograde labeling of each muscle group, with labeled MNs occupying distinct and stereotyped positions in the spinal cord (Hollyday, 1980a; Hollyday, 1980b; Landmesser, 1978a; Landmesser, 1978b; McHanwell and Biscoe, 1981; Romanes, 1964; Sürmeli et al., 2011; Vanderhorst and Holstege, 1997). Therefore, MN subtypes can be further assigned into pool identity according to innervated muscle targets. It is believed that one of the physiological functions of MN pool diversification during development is to enable precise target selection. However, it remains unclear how each MN subtype establishes its selectivity to target distinct muscle fibers. Many studies have revealed that a number of proteins – including LIM-HD, bHLH, Hox and ETS-TFs – play major roles in establishing MN subtype identity and connectivity during development (Dasen et al., 2005; Kania and Jessell, 2003; Tsuchida et al., 1994; Vermot et al., 2005) (Figure 2C). For example, Nkx6.1 and Nkx6.2 are expressed in subpopulations of MNs and loss-of-function studies of these proteins have resulted in target innervation and arborization defects in adductor and gracilis muscles (De Marco Garcia and Jessell, 2008; Ghosh and Kolodkin, 1998; Livet et al., 2002). In addition, extrinsic cues are also indispensable for precisely defining MN subtype diversification and axon targeting. For example, expression of the ETS-TF Etv4 (Pea3) in MNs innervating cutaneous maximus and latissimus dorsi muscles in the forelimb requires GDNF signal activation from the periphery (Haase et al., 2002). Recently, Jessell and colleagues revealed that Cpne4/Fign markers and evasion of non-canonical retinoic acid signaling label the MN subtype innervating digit muscles, providing insights into the emergence of a divergent molecular program during evolution (Mendelsohn et al., 2017). Even though 60 motor pools are thought to exist in either the brachial or lumbar LMC-MNs innervating mouse limb muscles, a complete subtype-specific gene profile for each motor pool is still lacking, not to mention for the other less well-profiled motor columns (D’Elia and Dasen, 2018; Fetcho, 1987) (Figure 2B).

Above all, spinal MN diversity is initiated by differential distribution of extrinsic morphogen signals, which elicit a set of cardinal TFs to abut each other and consolidate the cell fate of pMNs along the dorsoventral (DV) axis. Consequently, MN subtypes are distributed topographically along the RC axis in the spinal cord to align innervating muscle targets during development. Although the morphogen-mediated GRN can explain most of the principles leading to MN diversity, it is still not adequate to establish how cells at the boundaries exposed to similar morphogen thresholds adopt an ‘all or none’ choice. Furthermore, TF-mediated cell fate determination is insufficient for generating a finer resolution of MN subtypes within a particular segment, so other regulatory pathways must be employed.

The patterning of the developing CNS relies on precise control of spatial and temporal expression of transcriptional regulators that progressively restrict cell potential to define ultimate neuronal identity and connectivity. In particular, establishment of sharp spatial boundaries and temporal transitions in gene expression is critical for correct neural patterning (Figures 2A and 3A). Recently, it has been suggested that small non-coding RNAs termed microRNAs (miRNAs), which are generated by cytoplasmic RNaseIII Dicer, might play an important role in sharpening and consolidating these transitions through their ability to inhibit mRNA translation (Bartel, 2018; Wolter et al., 2017). It has been proposed that more than one-third of the genes in the human genome might be regulated by miRNAs (Lewis et al., 2005). Interestingly, only a few examples of miRNA involvement in embryonic patterning and development have been reported thus far (Rajman and Schratt, 2017). This scenario might be due to two constraints: 1) many miRNAs belong to large families, with individual members functioning redundantly; and 2) since miRNAs might function primarily to sharpen developmental transitions, their deficiency may not lead to overt deficits or phenotypic transformation but instead to more subtle defects affecting subsets of cells found at developmental boundaries.

Figure 3

Download asset Open asset

The developing spinal cord is an ideal system to uncover such subtle defects, as both the spatial and temporal boundaries that control cell specification in the ventral spinal cord, including for its spinal MNs, are well characterized (Figure 2). Therefore, miRNAs have been shown to play critical roles in the spinal cord, from neuronal progenitor patterning to cell fate specification and survival (Amin et al., 2015; Chen et al., 2011; Chen and Wichterle, 2012; Haramati et al., 2010; Hoye et al., 2017; Li et al., 2017; Thiebes et al., 2015; Tung et al., 2015). During DV patterning in the ventral spinal cord, the bistable switches of transcriptional cross-repressive genetic loops are particularly critical for resolving cell identity at progenitor domain boundaries (Balaskas et al., 2012; Jukam and Desplan, 2010). Interestingly, lineage tracing experiments in which Cre recombinase was knocked into the domain-specific patterning genes Olig1, Olig2 or Dbx1 (Chen et al., 2011; Dessaud et al., 2010; Dessaud et al., 2007; Wu et al., 2006) revealed that each of these factors is transiently expressed in a broad ventral spinal region spanning three or more neighboring progenitor domains. Thus, somewhat different to the transitional view of the static cross-repressive loop mentioned above (Figure 2A), the state of the cross-repressive genetic loops has to be malleable at the early developmental stage, and the initial broad expression of domain-specific determinants is then refined during development (Figure 3A). Repression of Olig2 in non-motor neuron progenitors appears to be partly achieved by temporal adaptation of spinal cells to Sonic hedgehog (Shh) signal. Clearance of Olig2 from the p3 domain (the most ventral neuronal progenitor domain) depends on induction of the repressor Nkx2.2 in response to sustained Shh signaling, whereas more passive loss of Olig2 expression in the p3 domain is proposed to be due to developmental de-sensitization of progenitors to the Shh signal (Dessaud et al., 2010; Dessaud et al., 2007; Wu et al., 2006). In contrast, the p2 domain (the third neuronal progenitor domain from dorsal to ventral) utilizes a TF-miRNA loop to consolidate its plastic state. By disrupting miRNA biogenesis during simulated DV patterning of differentiating ES cells both in cellulo and in vivo, it was revealed that miR-17–3p, a member of the miR-17 ~92 cluster, is required to silence transient Olig2 expression in p2 progenitors (Chen et al., 2011) (Figure 3A). Thus, miRNA-mediated regulation of transcriptional programs might play a more general role in the refinement and positioning of spatial boundaries in developing neural tissue.

In addition to DV patterning in the neural tube, miRNAs also regulate the expression of TFs to fine-tune RC pattering of the spinal cord. Initial RC patterning of the neural tube leads to differential expression of Hox genes that contribute to the specification of MN subtype identity. Hox genes are clustered in genome loci that also contain miRNAs, including miR-10 and miR-196. Intriguingly, Hox cluster-embedded miRNAs preferentially target Hox mRNAs (Yekta et al., 2008). Moreover, the Hox-cluster miRNAs are predominantly targeted to 3′ Hox (Hox 1 ~ 6) genes to ensure ‘posterior prevalence’ (Yekta et al., 2008). In the developing spinal cord of chick embryos, specific timing of miR-196 expression is required for proper MN differentiation, which is mediated by downregulation of Hoxb8. Failure to clear Hoxb8 in a spatial and temporal manner abolishes MN generation (Asli and Kessel, 2010). This result highlights that both the spatial distribution and timing of Hox expression are pivotal for MN subtype diversification (Figure 3B). Coincidentally, although several Hox mRNAs, including Hoxa5 and Hoxc6, are expressed in MN progenitors in a ‘noisy’ manner, the respective Hox proteins are not expressed in these progenitors and only become detectable in postmitotic MNs (Dasen et al., 2005; Li et al., 2017). In conditional neural Dicer mutants (Sox1-Cre; Dicer^floxed, Dicer ^NeuralΔ ) in which all mature miRNA production is abrogated in the CNS, Hoxa5 protein is precociously expressed at progenitors and the Hox5/8 boundary is expanded caudally, both in cellulo and in vivo (Figure 3B) (Li et al., 2017). Using in silico simulation, two feed-forward Hox-miRNA loops have been uncovered that account for the precocious and noisy Hoxa5 expression, as well as the ill-defined boundary phenotype of Dicer mutants. In this scenario, miR-27 appears to be a major regulator coordinating the temporal delay and spatial boundary of Hox protein expression. This Hox-miRNA circuit filters transcription noise and controls the timing of protein expression to confer robust individual MN identity (Figure 3C). Thus, a miRNA-mediated mechanism regulating DV and RC patterning of the spinal cord provides two additional functional tuning mechanisms for establishing cell fate in MNs: 1) the coherent TF-miRNA feed-forward loop defines plastic cell fate at the early patterning stage to allow precise cell fate determination later (i.e., the Olig2/Irx3/miR-17–3p and Hoxc8/Hoxa5/miR-27 loops); and 2) the retinoic acid-miRNA feed-forward loop is important for inhibiting fluctuations in Hox miRNA expression in the progenitors, as precocious protein expression at this stage may amplify stochastic effects, leading to noisy protein levels. This combined model represents a powerful strategy for achieving the precision and robustness of morphogen-mediated pattern formation (Figure 3C).

In addition to the role of miRNAs during neural progenitor patterning, miRNAs also play critical functions in postmitotic MNs. In the developing spinal cord, expression of miR-218 is directly upregulated by the Isl1-Lhx3 complex to drive MN fate (Figure 3D). Loss of miR-218 function leads to impaired generation of generic MNs, suggesting that this miRNA plays a crucial role in MN differentiation (Amin et al., 2015; Thiebes et al., 2015). Furthermore, mutant mice lacking miR-218 die neonatally and exhibit neuromuscular junction defects, MN hyperexcitability, and progressive MN degeneration, recapitulating traits of motor neuron disease (Amin et al., 2015). These two studies highlight the predominant role of miR-218 in mature MNs. However, miR-218 does not seem to exert its functions by targeting a few specific genes. Instead, it appears to repress an array of transcripts in the alternative neighboring interneuron genes to maintain postmitotic MN cell fate and robust neuromuscular functions (Amin et al., 2015; Thiebes et al., 2015) (Figure 3D). Interestingly, miR-218 is encoded by an intron of the extracellular matrix Slit2 and Slit3 genes and it inhibits expression of neural cell adhesion molecules Robo1 and Robo2 and multiple components of the heparan sulfate biosynthetic pathway responsible for normal vascularization of the retina (Small et al., 2010). Given that recent evidence indicates that the function of the Slit-Robo regulatory axis is also important for proper positioning of MNs and their exit points (Kim et al., 2019), it would be interesting to investigate if the miR-218-Slit-Robo autoregulatory loop is also important for MN axon pathfinding and targeting (Figure 3D).

Do miRNAs also play a role in postmitotic MN subtype diversification? Postmitotic MNs are diversified along the RC axis of the spinal cord to innervate corresponding target muscles. This process primarily relies on a regulatory network of Hox-TFs that translate neuronal identity into patterns of connectivity. Foxp1 is a crucial determinant of MN diversification and connectivity, interpreting the Hox regulatory network to control the formation of a topographic neural map. Although Hox/Foxp1 TFs have been recognized as principal regulators of subtype specification, a role for posttranscriptional regulation is also recognized. For instance, miR-9 is transiently expressed in Foxp1^on LMC regions. Overexpression or knockdown of miR-9 alters MN subtypes, switches columnar identities, and changes axonal innervations in developing chick spinal cords. miR-9 modifies spinal columnar organization by specifically regulating Foxp1 protein levels, which in turn determine distinct MN subtypes (Otaegi et al., 2011) (Figure 3A). Additionally, deletion of the enzyme Dicer from all MNs using Olig2-Cre (Dicer ^MNΔ ) revealed a preferential loss of many limb- and sympathetic ganglia-innervating spinal MNs (Chen and Wichterle, 2012). Furthermore, this disruption also led to defects in motor pool identity specification, yet the miRNA candidates to maintain motor pool identity have yet to be unveiled (Figure 3D). These results indicate that miRNAs are an integral part of the genetic program controlling MN survival and acquisition of subtype-specific properties. Subsequent study uncovered that the miR-17 ~92 cluster is highly enriched in LMC-MNs. Furthermore, conditional MN miR-17 ~92 deletion (mi-17 ~92 ^MNΔ ) resulted in selective cell death of LMC-MNs. Mechanistically, mir-17 ~92 not only suppresses PTEN expression, but also independently attenuates accumulation of nuclear PTEN, with this latter being a more potent apoptosis stimulator (Tung et al., 2015) (Figure 3E). Tellingly, reduced miR-17 ~92 is accompanied by elevated nuclear PTEN in the spinal MNs of presymptomatic SOD1^G93A mice, that is the most common mouse strain used as an ALS disease model. Selective dysregulation of the miR-17 ~92/nuclear PTEN axis in degenerating SOD1^G93A LMC-MNs has been demonstrated in a double-transgenic embryonic stem cell system and, moreover, was recapitulated in human SOD1^+/L144F induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)-derived MNs. Furthermore, overexpression of miR-17 ~92 significantly rescues human SOD1^+/L144F MNs, and intrathecal delivery of scAAV9 [self-complementary adeno-associated viral serotype 9]-miR-17 ~ 92 improves motor deficits and survival in SOD1^G93A mice (Tung et al., 2019). Therefore, miR-17 ~92 either controls LMC-MN survival during embryonic development or confers MN subtype differential resistance to ALS-associated degeneration. Thus, similar to TFs, miRNAs contribute to neuronal progenitor patterning, cell fate specification, and long-term survival during MN differentiation (Table 1 and Figure 3).

Given by the versatile roles of miRNAs in regulating MN differentiation mentioned above, it is not surprising that miRNA dysregulation has been increasingly linked to MN-associated degeneration diseases, such as ALS and SMA. ALS-linked miRNAs have been intensively studied and elegantly reviewed elsewhere (Eitan and Hornstein, 2016; Emde et al., 2015). However, the role of miRNAs in SMA is just beginning to emerge. A detailed list of miRNAs implicated in SMA has been reviewed recently (Magri et al., 2018), which we summarize in Table 2. Here, we focus our discussion on some of the most recent studies linking specific miRNAs (i.e., miR-2, miR-146a, and miR-23a) to SMA pathogenesis and the potential of miRNAs as biomarkers and therapeutic targets.

SMA is an autosomal recessive neurodegenerative disease characterized by devastating muscular atrophy attributable to progressive spinal MN degeneration. Although SMA is a relatively rare disease, with an estimated worldwide incidence of one in 6,000 ~ 10,000 newborns, it is notable that SMA is the second most common autosomal recessive disease after cystic fibrosis and is the most common monogenic defect leading to infant mortality (Lunn and Wang, 2008). SMA is caused by reduced levels of the 38 kDa Survival Motor Neuron (SMN) protein due to deletion or mutation of the Survival of Motor Neuron 1 (SMN1) gene. In humans, SMN protein is actually encoded by two genes: SMN1 and highly homologous SMN2, which essentially differs by one nucleotide (C→T) in exon 7. This critical difference results in preferential exclusion of exon seven from most SMN2 transcripts, termed SMN△7. As a consequence, SMN2 generates ~10% of full-length (FL) SMN mRNAs and their product-functional SMN proteins (Burghes and Beattie, 2009). As these FL-SMN2 transcripts can partially compensate for loss of SMN1, it is reasoned that the FL-SMN2 transcript copy number may determine phenotypic severity in SMA patients. Therefore, SMA is caused by loss of the SMN1 gene and disease manifestation is partially reflected by the degree of SMN2 gene compensation (Burghes and Beattie, 2009). However, recent studies have indicated that additional modifiers might also be involved in modulating SMA clinical severity (Crawford et al., 2012).

SMN is ubiquitously expressed in almost all kinds of somatic cells, with a distribution in both the cytoplasm and nucleus (Burghes and Beattie, 2009). Notably, the most appreciated canonical role of SMN is to serve as an essential ribonucleoprotein (RNP) for mRNA splicing. SMN protein is embedded in a complex with seven Gemins and UNR-interacting protein (UNRIP) that loads Sm protein onto nascent uridine-rich noncoding RNAs (U-snRNAs) upon their export to the cytoplasm, thereby creating small nuclear RNPs (snRNPs) that form spliceosomes in the nucleus (Burghes and Beattie, 2009; Dostie et al., 2003). In addition to facilitating snRNP assembly, the SMN complex has a role in assisting arginine methylation of some splicing-related proteins that are involved in pre-mRNA splicing (Meister and Fischer, 2002; Pellizzoni et al., 2002). Studies on SMA animal models have also revealed a direct correlation between the ability to assemble snRNPs and SMA phenotypes, and delivery of mature snRNPs even without the SMN component is sufficient to rescue SMA phenotypes (Gabanella et al., 2007; Winkler et al., 2005; Workman et al., 2009). This outcome implies that SMN protein levels might affect splicing of SMN pre-mRNA to include exon seven through an autoregulatory loop, thereby influencing a general process of snRNP biogenesis (Jodelka et al., 2010). In addition to the canonical role of SMN protein in the splicing machinery, some studies have also highlighted the multilayer functions of SMN. For example, assembly of SMN protein is also involved in a number of essential cellular pathways, including DNA repair and protein/mRNA transportation along MN axons (Donlin-Asp et al., 2016; Fallini et al., 2012; Murray et al., 2015; Tu et al., 2017). Collectively, studies to date support that loss of SMN-RNP complex assembly and its activity results in a series of different cellular pathways that lead to SMA. However, it is still unclear if SMA pathology is due to a particularly vulnerable pathway or a combination of dysregulated effects. In addition, it is still unclear how a deficiency in ubiquitously expressed SMN can result in selective MN degeneration.

Deletion of the miRNA biogenesis enzyme Dicer in MNs either using Olig2-Cre or ChAT-Cre results in MN degeneration that mimics certain hallmarks of SMA and ALS (Chen and Wichterle, 2012; Haramati et al., 2010; Tung et al., 2019). Large-scale miRNA profiling platforms have identified miRNAs that are significantly dysregulated in MN disease. Dysregulated MN-specific miRNAs are potential culprits in spinal MN mortality. In this scenario, some important developmentally-regulated (i.e. miR-9 and miR-133) and MN-enriched miRNAs (i.e. miR-218 and miR-17 ~92) have been implicated as being important for SMA and/or ALS onset or progression (Amin et al., 2015; Hoye et al., 2017; Kye and Gonçalves, 2014; Tung et al., 2015; Tung et al., 2019). Furthermore, other neuronal-enriched miRNAs also seem to be involved in spinal diseases, such as miR-21/miR-431/miR-138 for axonal regeneration of sensory neurons or miR-196a in spinal and bulbar muscular atrophy (SBMA) (Liu et al., 2013; Miyazaki et al., 2012; Strickland et al., 2011; Wu and Murashov, 2013). These findings raise the possibility that miRNAs might serve as: 1) important regulators of SMN-mediated pathways; and 2) potential markers reflecting SMA pathology.

Despite this evidence of a role for miRNAs in SMA disease progression, it remains unclear if dysregulated miRNAs are the direct pathogenic cause or a consequence of SMA progression. Given that SMN protein per se does not contain known RNA- or miRNA-binding domains (Bertrandy et al., 1999; Ravanidis et al., 2018), the SMN protein complex might instead interact with the miRNA biogenesis pathway to regulate miRNA production (Ravanidis et al., 2018). For example, Gemin3 and Gemin4 of the SMN complex can assemble with a number of miRNAs to form a miRNA-binding RNP (miRNP) (Dostie et al., 2003; Mourelatos et al., 2002) (Figure 4). This miRNP complex can further bind to Argonaute 2 (AGO2) that functions as a core protein in the RNA-induced silencing complex (RISC) mediating miRNA biogenesis as well as mRNA posttranscriptional regulation (Cauchi, 2010). Yet SMN does not seem to bind to miRNP directly, if the miRNP is functionally important in SMA pathology still needs to be further investigated. Interestingly, in addition to the role of SMN in RNA processing, recent studies have uncovered unexpected interactions of SMN with miRNA biogenesis proteins including fragile X mental retardation protein (FMRP), KH‐type splicing regulatory protein (KSRP) and fused in sarcoma/translocated in liposarcoma (FUS/TLS) (Piazzon et al., 2008; Sun et al., 2015; Tadesse et al., 2008; Yamazaki et al., 2012) (Figure 4). Thus, SMN is engaged in miRNA–RBP complexes and likely regulates miRNA biogenesis and metabolism. Deficiency of SMN may alter MN-specific miRNAs or miRNPs, resulting in MN death (Cauchi, 2010; Nelson et al., 2004). In Table 3, we list SMN-associated RBPs and their roles in miRNA biogenesis and functions. In Figure 4, we illustrate potential mechanisms by which SMN interacts with various RBPs to regulate miRNA biogenesis and function. In summary, the proposed mechanisms by which SMN-associated RBPs might be involved in miRNA biogenesis include: (1) facilitating recruitment of Drosha to specific miRNAs; (2) binding to components of the Drosha and Dicer complexes; (3) acting as regulators to RISC complex (Fallini et al., 2014; Gonçalves et al., 2018; Ravanidis et al., 2018). Consequently, alteration of the SMN-RBP complex caused by SMN deficiency in the SMA pathological background might lead to dysregulated processing of miRNAs and pre-mRNA splicing. Identification of SMN-associated RBPs involved in transport and processing of different miRNAs could help explain SMA pathogenesis and reveal novel therapeutic targets.

Figure 4

Download asset Open asset

A series of studies has shown dysregulation of specific miRNAs in SMA, and several of these studies have proposed potential links between aberrant miRNA expression and SMA pathophysiology in a diverse array of SMA animal models and patient samples, including neurons from nematodes, neurons and muscles from mice, as well as fibroblasts and serum from human patients (Table 2). Furthermore, transcriptome profiling has uncovered a number of miRNAs associated with MN survival, synapse formation, ER stress, and ribosomal RNA binding in models of SMA (Kye and Gonçalves, 2014; Vanderweyde et al., 2013; Viswambharan et al., 2017). It remains under debate if dysregulated miRNAs and the corresponding miRNA-mediated target responses are cell-context dependent (i.e., specifically in MNs or in all neurons of the spinal cord), given that SMN is expressed ubiquitously and compromised expression of SMN may selectively affect miRNA homeostasis in different tissues (Magri et al., 2018). In this regard, a very recent study aimed to identify miRNAs that are differentially regulated in SMA from iPSC-derived MNs (Kaifer et al., 2019). In that study, Kaifer et al. only identified a subset of 16 miRNAs whose expression is significantly reduced more than 2-fold in SMA MNs when compared to control MNs. However, using a scAAV9 viral vector to reintroduce mir-23a into the Smn^2B/- SMA mouse model increased MN size, reduced neuromuscular junction (NMJ) pathology, and extended survival. Although the detailed mechanisms underlying how miR-23a-mediated target pathways lead to SMA pathology have yet to be characterized, these findings suggest that only a cohort of miRNAs might cause the MN vulnerability in SMA and identification of those miRNA culprits and their targets could provide a new treatment strategy for SMA.

In addition to MNs, evidence for roles for miRNAs in muscle and glial cells that contribute to SMA is also emerging. By using both mouse and nematode models of SMA, O' Hern et al. showed that reduced SMN activity specifically affects miR-2 expression, which in turn causes MNs to produce more m2R, a receptor for acetylcholine (O'Hern et al., 2017). This result also indicates that reduced SMN levels might lead to NMJ dysfunction in MNs and suggests that dysregulation of neurotransmission could be another critical causative factor for SMA pathology. Interestingly, it was recently shown that SMN protein levels in astrocytes affect both directly and indirectly altered expression levels of miR-146a (Sison et al., 2017). The proposed mechanism for that astrocyte-mediated SMA pathology was linked to increased levels of miR-146a in the SMNΔ7 mouse spinal cord. Although the precise targets of miR-146a have not yet been identified, treating iPSC-derived MNs with synthesized miR-146a molecules was sufficient to induce significant MN loss. This outcome indicates that SMA astrocyte-secreted miR-146a might lead to non-cell-autonomous loss of MNs. In the future, it is tantalizing to test gene therapy using miRNA cocktails from astrocytes and/or muscles cells, together with MN-intrinsic miRNAs to mitigate the SMA symptom.

Since SMA is a monogenetic disease, designing treatment strategies that restore SMN function in patients is a rational approach. Two undergoing SMA treatment trials either use antisense oligonucleotides or virus-mediated gene therapy exhibited promising outcomes (Finkel et al., 2017; Mendell et al., 2017). These therapeutic approaches both aim to increase SMN protein production in the spinal cord to restore motor function and survival. Mendell et al. used single intravenous administration of nonreplicating scAAV9 adenovirus vector carrying a human wild type SMN1 sequence. In contrast, Finkel et al. applied an antisense approach that was designed to enhance inclusion of exon seven in SMN2, which involved repetitive intrathecal administration of the antisense oligonucleotide drug Nusinersen. While there is cautious optimism regarding progress in developing SMA therapies, several new critical questions have arisen, particularly with regard to identifying measures of reliable outcomes in preclinical and clinical trials, given that: 1) intrathecal delivery is relatively invasive; 2) treatments remain prohibitively expensive; and 3) it remains unclear whether patients’ responsive or non-responsive reactions to treatments reflects SMA heterogeneity. Accordingly, researchers have been prompted to identify more authentic biomarkers of SMA to facilitate patient classification, to follow disease progression, and to better monitor responses to therapeutic approaches using minimally invasive procedures. Reliable biomarkers would not only help categorize heterogeneous clinical types of SMA patients into homogeneous prognostic groups, but would also improve statistical power of clinical trials, reduce trial durations and costs, and reveal therapeutic effects in specific types of SMA patients (De Paola et al., 2019; Viswambharan et al., 2017).

Currently, the efficacy of SMA treatments is largely measured by clinical outcomes, including motor function, electrophysiological tests, and dependency on mechanical ventilation (Finkel et al., 2017; Mendell et al., 2017; Mercuri et al., 2018). However, fluctuating inter-rater or intra-rater variabilities of motor function measurement is problematic and are usually confounded by diverse care regimens and age groups. It is conceivable that molecular biomarkers may represent more objective measures of treatment efficacy. Quantification of SMN mRNA or protein levels has served as the most commonly used molecular biomarker of SMA, but it does not necessarily correlate with disease severity and may not reliably reflect disease progression (Sumner et al., 2006; Wadman et al., 2016). MiRNAs have gained attention as an easily accessible biomarker due to their characteristic of being clinically detectable in many biofluids - such as cerebrospinal fluid, serum/plasma, saliva, and urine - using noninvasive methods (Viswambharan et al., 2017). Indeed, miRNAs are now being used as novel clinical biomarkers for the prognosis of several diseases, including colorectal cancer, acute leukemia, coronary artery diseases, as well as neurodegenerative disorders (Xu, 2012). Furthermore, miRNAs have also been proposed as potential biomarkers in several clinical trials for neuromuscular disorders (Alexander and Kunkel, 2015; Toivonen et al., 2014). Altered miRNA expression has been reported for spinal cord, brain, iPSCs, muscle, blood and cerebrospinal fluid of ALS patients (Hawley et al., 2017; Tung et al., 2019). As SMN is known to be involved in miRNA expression, circulating miRNAs may be used as diagnostic or prognostic biomarkers to reflect SMA pathology or therapeutic effects. As summarized in Table 2, miR-9, miR-132, miR-206, miR-183 and miR-375 have been proposed as potentially reliable SMA biomarkers (Israeli et al., 2016; Perry and Muntoni, 2016; Viswambharan et al., 2017). However, it remains to be tested if any of these markers could serve as appropriate indicators of the efficacy of the aforementioned antisense oligonucleotide- or scAAV9-mediated treatments. Answering this question is imperative, as early identification of good patient responders by means of multiple sensitive outcome measures can decrease the cost of innovative therapeutics (Kolb et al., 2016; Taga and Maragakis, 2018). Notably, a recent phase 3 study of an antisense oligonucleotide treatment for severe infantile SMA revealed quite distinct responses among patients (Finkel et al., 2017). In that study, the only factor identified as influencing treatment response was the time between recording the first symptoms in type I SMA patients and initial delivery of the antisense oligonucleotide. However, this factor would not seem to satisfactorily explain the wide variation in patient outcomes. Identification of a set of reliable miRNA markers from serum/cerebrospinal fluid that can be correlated with the Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale, a commonly used clinical parameter in SMA trials, might help stratify the variability among patients (Catapano et al., 2016; Gidaro and Servais, 2019).

The relevance of miRNAs to development and disease contexts has been gaining increasing attention over the past two decades. Many miRNA knockout mouse lines have been shown to manifest significant neural development phenotypes (Bartel, 2018), and miRNAs were shown to be sufficient to facilitate reprogramming of fibroblasts into neurons, including into spinal MNs (Abernathy et al., 2017). In this review, we summarize the reported functions of miRNAs in the development and degeneration of spinal MNs. Although ~5 miRNAs are highly or specifically expressed in MNs, only two mouse knockout lines (i.e., miR-17 ~92^MNΔ and a miR-218 double knockout) have been characterized in detail. Thus, it would be prudent to further verify the proposed roles of miR-196 and miR-9 in the regulation of Hoxb8 and Foxp1 by examining their respective knockout mouse lines (Shibata et al., 2011; Wong et al., 2015). It is relatively tedious to generate miRNA knockout mice as many miRNAs have evolved duplicated paralogs in mammals (Park et al., 2012), hindering functional studies of miRNAs in mouse models. Fortunately, this hurdle can now be circumvented by CRISPR-Cas9 technology. Accordingly, we envision that further mechanistic insights into the miRNA-TF network of cell fate specification and maintenance during spinal MN development will be revealed by mouse genetic approaches in the near future.

Despite miRNAs reportedly serving as potential biomarkers for cancer prognosis and progression (Hayes et al., 2014), their potential applications in neurodegenerative disease remain to be fully validated. In the case of SMA discussed here, emerging evidence indicates that SMN deficiency can impact non-neuronal organ systems, which may be reflected by altered levels of specific miRNAs in serum (Hamilton and Gillingwater, 2013; Hua et al., 2015). However, critical challenges remain, such as unraveling inconsistencies due to human subject variability and technical issues related to the relative fragility of miRNAs (Basak et al., 2016; Viswambharan et al., 2017). Although SMA-iPSCs might overcome some of these difficulties, it will be critical to recruit a large cohort of patients to validate the authenticity of miRNA biomarkers and further promote their utility.

Finally, twenty years after the breakthrough discovery illustrating how RNA interference can be used to silence certain genes, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the first drug utilizing this method for adult clinical treatment of a rare disease (i.e., hereditary transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis). However, as for antisense oligonucleotide treatment in SMA, the cost is prohibitive. Other significant challenges that must be overcome before routine utilization of miRNA-based therapy in neurodegenerative diseases include establishing the best route of delivery and ensuring miRNA therapeutics can cross the blood-brain barrier. In addition, given that miRNAs often act through multiple pathways, the risk of off-target effects must be addressed, especially since they are frequently cited as a side-effect of molecular therapies. Lastly, the timing of miRNA regulation according to cellular developmental status must also be taken into consideration, with miRNA levels being manipulated at a precise time-point with an optimal dosage.

In conclusion, miRNAs are just as critical as TFs for MN development, and miRNA dysregulation likely plays an important role in SMA pathogenesis and in determining the selective vulnerability of MNs. Considering the rapid pace of our expanding knowledge on non-coding RNAs and the introduction of cutting-edge single-cell RNA/ATAC sequencing technology (Delile et al., 2019), research into the role of miRNAs in neural development and degeneration has just begun.

1. 1. Abernathy DG
   2. Kim WK
   3. McCoy MJ
   4. Lake AM
   5. Ouwenga R
   6. Lee SW
   7. Xing X
   8. Li D
   9. Lee HJ
   10. Heuckeroth RO
   11. Dougherty JD
   12. Wang T
   13. Yoo AS

   (2017) MicroRNAs induce a permissive chromatin environment that enables neuronal Subtype-Specific reprogramming of adult human fibroblasts

   Cell Stem Cell 21:332–348.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2017.08.002

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Alexander MS
   2. Kunkel LM

   (2015) Skeletal muscle MicroRNAs: their diagnostic and therapeutic potential in human muscle diseases

   Journal of Neuromuscular Diseases 2:1–11.

   https://doi.org/10.3233/JND-140058

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Amin ND
   2. Bai G
   3. Klug JR
   4. Bonanomi D
   5. Pankratz MT
   6. Gifford WD
   7. Hinckley CA
   8. Sternfeld MJ
   9. Driscoll SP
   10. Dominguez B
   11. Lee KF
   12. Jin X
   13. Pfaff SL

   (2015) Loss of motoneuron-specific microRNA-218 causes systemic neuromuscular failure

   Science 350:1525–1529.

   https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad2509

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Amirouche A
   2. Tadesse H
   3. Miura P
   4. Bélanger G
   5. Lunde JA
   6. Côté J
   7. Jasmin BJ

   (2014) Converging pathways involving microRNA-206 and the RNA-binding protein KSRP control post-transcriptionally utrophin A expression in skeletal muscle

   Nucleic Acids Research 42:3982–3997.

   https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkt1350

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Asli NS
   2. Kessel M

   (2010) Spatiotemporally restricted regulation of generic motor neuron programs by miR-196-mediated repression of Hoxb8

   Developmental Biology 344:857–868.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2010.06.003

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Balaskas N
   2. Ribeiro A
   3. Panovska J
   4. Dessaud E
   5. Sasai N
   6. Page KM
   7. Briscoe J
   8. Ribes V

   (2012) Gene regulatory logic for reading the sonic hedgehog signaling gradient in the vertebrate neural tube

   Cell 148:273–284.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2011.10.047

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Bartel DP

   (2018) Metazoan MicroRNAs

   Cell 173:20–51.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2018.03.006

   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Basak I
   2. Patil KS
   3. Alves G
   4. Larsen JP
   5. Møller SG

   (2016) microRNAs as neuroregulators, biomarkers and therapeutic agents in neurodegenerative diseases

   Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences 73:811–827.

   https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-015-2093-x

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Bertrandy S
   2. Burlet P
   3. Clermont O
   4. Huber C
   5. Fondrat C
   6. Thierry-Mieg D
   7. Munnich A
   8. Lefebvre S

   (1999) The RNA-binding properties of SMN: deletion analysis of the zebrafish orthologue defines domains conserved in evolution

   Human Molecular Genetics 8:775–782.

   https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/8.5.775

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Bhinge A
    2. Namboori SC
    3. Bithell A
    4. Soldati C
    5. Buckley NJ
    6. Stanton LW

    (2016) MiR-375 is Essential for Human Spinal Motor Neuron Development and May Be Involved in Motor Neuron Degeneration

    Stem Cells 34:124–134.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/stem.2233

    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Briscoe J
    2. Pierani A
    3. Jessell TM
    4. Ericson J

    (2000) A homeodomain protein code specifies progenitor cell identity and neuronal fate in the ventral neural tube

    Cell 101:435–445.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-8674(00)80853-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Burghes AH
    2. Beattie CE

    (2009) Spinal muscular atrophy: why do low levels of survival motor neuron protein make motor neurons sick?

    Nature Reviews Neuroscience 10:597–609.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2670

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Catapano F
    2. Zaharieva I
    3. Scoto M
    4. Marrosu E
    5. Morgan J
    6. Muntoni F
    7. Zhou H

    (2016) Altered levels of MicroRNA-9, -206, and -132 in spinal muscular atrophy and their response to antisense oligonucleotide therapy

    Molecular Therapy - Nucleic Acids 5:e331.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/mtna.2016.47

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Catela C
    2. Shin MM
    3. Dasen JS

    (2015) Assembly and function of spinal circuits for motor control

    Annual Review of Cell and Developmental Biology 31:669–698.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-cellbio-100814-125155

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Cauchi RJ

    (2010) SMN and gemins: 'we are family' … or are we?: insights into the partnership between Gemins and the spinal muscular atrophy disease protein SMN

    BioEssays : News and Reviews in Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology 32:1077–1089.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.201000088

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Chen JA
    2. Chu ST
    3. Amaya E

    (2007) Maintenance of motor neuron progenitors in Xenopus requires a novel localized cyclin

    EMBO Reports 8:287–292.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7400903

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Chen JA
    2. Huang YP
    3. Mazzoni EO
    4. Tan GC
    5. Zavadil J
    6. Wichterle H

    (2011) Mir-17-3p controls spinal neural progenitor patterning by regulating Olig2/Irx3 cross-repressive loop

    Neuron 69:721–735.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2011.01.014

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Chen JA
    2. Wichterle H

    (2012) Apoptosis of limb innervating motor neurons and erosion of motor pool identity upon lineage specific dicer inactivation

    Frontiers in Neuroscience 6:69.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2012.00069

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Crawford TO
    2. Paushkin SV
    3. Kobayashi DT
    4. Forrest SJ
    5. Joyce CL
    6. Finkel RS
    7. Kaufmann P
    8. Swoboda KJ
    9. Tiziano D
    10. Lomastro R
    11. Li RH
    12. Trachtenberg FL
    13. Plasterer T
    14. Chen KS
    15. Pilot Study of Biomarkers for Spinal Muscular Atrophy Trial Group

    (2012) Evaluation of SMN protein, transcript, and copy number in the biomarkers for spinal muscular atrophy (BforSMA) clinical study

    PLOS ONE 7:e33572.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0033572

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Dasen JS
    2. Liu J-P
    3. Jessell TM

    (2003) Motor neuron columnar fate imposed by sequential phases of Hox-c activity

    Nature 425:926–933.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02051

    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Dasen JS
    2. Tice BC
    3. Brenner-Morton S
    4. Jessell TM

    (2005) A hox regulatory network establishes motor neuron pool identity and target-muscle connectivity

    Cell 123:477–491.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2005.09.009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Dasen JS
    2. De Camilli A
    3. Wang B
    4. Tucker PW
    5. Jessell TM

    (2008) Hox repertoires for motor neuron diversity and connectivity gated by a single accessory factor, FoxP1

    Cell 134:304–316.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2008.06.019

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. De Marco Garcia NV
    2. Jessell TM

    (2008) Early motor neuron pool identity and muscle nerve trajectory defined by postmitotic restrictions in Nkx6.1 activity

    Neuron 57:217–231.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2007.11.033

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. De Paola E
    2. Verdile V
    3. Paronetto MP

    (2019) Dysregulation of microRNA metabolism in motor neuron diseases: novel biomarkers and potential therapeutics

    Non-Coding RNA Research 4:15–22.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ncrna.2018.12.001

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Degrauwe N
    2. Suvà ML
    3. Janiszewska M
    4. Riggi N
    5. Stamenkovic I

    (2016) IMPs: an RNA-binding protein family that provides a link between stem cell maintenance in normal development and Cancer

    Genes & Development 30:2459–2474.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.287540.116

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Delile J
    2. Rayon T
    3. Melchionda M
    4. Edwards A
    5. Briscoe J
    6. Sagner A

    (2019) Single cell transcriptomics reveals spatial and temporal dynamics of gene expression in the developing mouse spinal cord

    Development 146:dev173807.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.173807

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Dessaud E
    2. Yang LL
    3. Hill K
    4. Cox B
    5. Ulloa F
    6. Ribeiro A
    7. Mynett A
    8. Novitch BG
    9. Briscoe J

    (2007) Interpretation of the sonic hedgehog morphogen gradient by a temporal adaptation mechanism

    Nature 450:717–720.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06347

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Dessaud E
    2. Ribes V
    3. Balaskas N
    4. Yang LL
    5. Pierani A
    6. Kicheva A
    7. Novitch BG
    8. Briscoe J
    9. Sasai N

    (2010) Dynamic assignment and maintenance of positional identity in the ventral neural tube by the morphogen sonic hedgehog

    PLOS Biology 8:e1000382.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000382

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Donlin-Asp PG
    2. Bassell GJ
    3. Rossoll W

    (2016) A role for the survival of motor neuron protein in mRNP assembly and transport

    Current Opinion in Neurobiology 39:53–61.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2016.04.004

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Dostie J
    2. Mourelatos Z
    3. Yang M
    4. Sharma A
    5. Dreyfuss G

    (2003) Numerous microRNPs in neuronal cells containing novel microRNAs

    RNA 9:180–186.

    https://doi.org/10.1261/rna.2141503

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. D’Elia KP
    2. Dasen JS

    (2018) Development, functional organization, and evolution of vertebrate axial motor circuits

    Neural Development 13:10.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s13064-018-0108-7

    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Edbauer D
    2. Neilson JR
    3. Foster KA
    4. Wang CF
    5. Seeburg DP
    6. Batterton MN
    7. Tada T
    8. Dolan BM
    9. Sharp PA
    10. Sheng M

    (2010) Regulation of synaptic structure and function by FMRP-associated microRNAs miR-125b and miR-132

    Neuron 65:373–384.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2010.01.005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Eitan C
    2. Hornstein E

    (2016) Vulnerability of microRNA biogenesis in FTD-ALS

    Brain Research 1647:105–111.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2015.12.063

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Emde A
    2. Eitan C
    3. Liou LL
    4. Libby RT
    5. Rivkin N
    6. Magen I
    7. Reichenstein I
    8. Oppenheim H
    9. Eilam R
    10. Silvestroni A
    11. Alajajian B
    12. Ben-Dov IZ
    13. Aebischer J
    14. Savidor A
    15. Levin Y
    16. Sons R
    17. Hammond SM
    18. Ravits JM
    19. Möller T
    20. Hornstein E

    (2015) Dysregulated miRNA biogenesis downstream of cellular stress and ALS-causing mutations: a new mechanism for ALS

    The EMBO Journal 34:2633–2651.

    https://doi.org/10.15252/embj.201490493

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Erb M
    2. Lee B
    3. Yeon Seo S
    4. Lee JW
    5. Lee S
    6. Lee SK

    (2017) The Isl1-Lhx3 complex promotes motor neuron specification by activating transcriptional pathways that enhance its own expression and formation

    Eneuro 4:ENEURO.0349-16.2017.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0349-16.2017

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Fallini C
    2. Bassell GJ
    3. Rossoll W

    (2012) Spinal muscular atrophy: the role of SMN in axonal mRNA regulation

    Brain Research 1462:81–92.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2012.01.044

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Fallini C
    2. Rouanet JP
    3. Donlin-Asp PG
    4. Guo P
    5. Zhang H
    6. Singer RH
    7. Rossoll W
    8. Bassell GJ

    (2014) Dynamics of survival of motor neuron (SMN) protein interaction with the mRNA-binding protein IMP1 facilitates its trafficking into motor neuron axons

    Developmental Neurobiology 74:319–332.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/dneu.22111

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Fetcho JR

    (1987) A review of the organization and evolution of motoneurons innervating the axial musculature of vertebrates

    Brain Research Reviews 12:243–280.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0173(87)90001-4

    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Finkel RS
    2. Mercuri E
    3. Darras BT
    4. Connolly AM
    5. Kuntz NL
    6. Kirschner J
    7. Chiriboga CA
    8. Saito K
    9. Servais L
    10. Tizzano E
    11. Topaloglu H
    12. Tulinius M
    13. Montes J
    14. Glanzman AM
    15. Bishop K
    16. Zhong ZJ
    17. Gheuens S
    18. Bennett CF
    19. Schneider E
    20. Farwell W
    21. De Vivo DC
    22. ENDEAR Study Group

    (2017) Nusinersen versus sham control in Infantile-Onset spinal muscular atrophy

    New England Journal of Medicine 377:1723–1732.

    https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1702752

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Fukao A
    2. Mishima Y
    3. Takizawa N
    4. Oka S
    5. Imataka H
    6. Pelletier J
    7. Sonenberg N
    8. Thoma C
    9. Fujiwara T

    (2014) MicroRNAs trigger dissociation of eIF4AI and eIF4AII from target mRNAs in humans

    Molecular Cell 56:79–89.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2014.09.005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Gabanella F
    2. Butchbach ME
    3. Saieva L
    4. Carissimi C
    5. Burghes AH
    6. Pellizzoni L

    (2007) Ribonucleoprotein assembly defects correlate with spinal muscular atrophy severity and preferentially affect a subset of spliceosomal snRNPs

    PLOS ONE 2:e921.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000921

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Gardiner AS
    2. Twiss JL
    3. Perrone-Bizzozero NI

    (2015) Competing interactions of RNA-Binding proteins, MicroRNAs, and their targets control neuronal development and function

    Biomolecules 5:2903–2918.

    https://doi.org/10.3390/biom5042903

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Ghosh A
    2. Kolodkin AL

    (1998) Specification of neuronal connectivity: ets marks the spot

    Cell 95:303–306.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0092-8674(00)81762-6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Gidaro T
    2. Servais L

    (2019) Nusinersen treatment of spinal muscular atrophy: current knowledge and existing gaps

    Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology 61:19–24.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.14027

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Gonçalves I
    2. Brecht J
    3. Thelen MP
    4. Rehorst WA
    5. Peters M
    6. Lee HJ
    7. Motameny S
    8. Torres-Benito L
    9. Ebrahimi-Fakhari D
    10. Kononenko NL
    11. Altmüller J
    12. Vilchez D
    13. Sahin M
    14. Wirth B
    15. Kye MJ

    (2018) Neuronal activity regulates DROSHA via autophagy in spinal muscular atrophy

    Scientific Reports 8:7907.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-26347-y

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Haase G
    2. Dessaud E
    3. Garcès A
    4. de Bovis B
    5. Birling M
    6. Filippi P
    7. Schmalbruch H
    8. Arber S
    9. deLapeyrière O

    (2002) GDNF acts through PEA3 to regulate cell body positioning and muscle innervation of specific motor neuron pools

    Neuron 35:893–905.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(02)00864-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Hamilton G
    2. Gillingwater TH

    (2013) Spinal muscular atrophy: going beyond the motor neuron

    Trends in Molecular Medicine 19:40–50.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molmed.2012.11.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Hao le T
    2. Duy PQ
    3. An M
    4. Talbot J
    5. Iyer CC
    6. Wolman M
    7. Beattie CE

    (2017) HuD and the survival motor neuron protein interact in Motoneurons and are essential for motoneuron development, function, and mRNA regulation

    The Journal of Neuroscience 37:11559–11571.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1528-17.2017

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Haramati S
    2. Chapnik E
    3. Sztainberg Y
    4. Eilam R
    5. Zwang R
    6. Gershoni N
    7. McGlinn E
    8. Heiser PW
    9. Wills AM
    10. Wirguin I
    11. Rubin LL
    12. Misawa H
    13. Tabin CJ
    14. Brown R
    15. Chen A
    16. Hornstein E

    (2010) miRNA malfunction causes spinal motor neuron disease

    PNAS 107:13111–13116.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1006151107

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Hawley ZCE
    2. Campos-Melo D
    3. Droppelmann CA
    4. Strong MJ

    (2017) MotomiRs: mirnas in motor neuron function and disease

    Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience 10:127.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnmol.2017.00127

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Hayes J
    2. Peruzzi PP
    3. Lawler S

    (2014) MicroRNAs in Cancer: biomarkers, functions and therapy

    Trends in Molecular Medicine 20:460–469.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molmed.2014.06.005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Hobert O

    (2008) Regulatory logic of neuronal diversity: terminal selector genes and selector motifs

    PNAS 105:20067–20071.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0806070105

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Hollyday M

    (1980a) Motoneuron histogenesis and the development of limb innervation

    Current Topics in Developmental Biology 15 Pt 1:181–215.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0070-2153(08)60120-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Hollyday M

    (1980b) Organization of motor pools in the chick lumbar lateral motor column

    The Journal of Comparative Neurology 194:143–170.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.901940108

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Hoye ML
    2. Koval ED
    3. Wegener AJ
    4. Hyman TS
    5. Yang C
    6. O'Brien DR
    7. Miller RL
    8. Cole T
    9. Schoch KM
    10. Shen T
    11. Kunikata T
    12. Richard JP
    13. Gutmann DH
    14. Maragakis NJ
    15. Kordasiewicz HB
    16. Dougherty JD
    17. Miller TM

    (2017) MicroRNA profiling reveals marker of motor neuron disease in ALS models

    The Journal of Neuroscience 37:5574–5586.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3582-16.2017

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Hua Y
    2. Liu YH
    3. Sahashi K
    4. Rigo F
    5. Bennett CF
    6. Krainer AR

    (2015) Motor neuron cell-nonautonomous rescue of spinal muscular atrophy phenotypes in mild and severe transgenic mouse models

    Genes & Development 29:288–297.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.256644.114

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Israeli D
    2. Poupiot J
    3. Amor F
    4. Charton K
    5. Lostal W
    6. Jeanson-Leh L
    7. Richard I

    (2016) Circulating miRNAs are generic and versatile therapeutic monitoring biomarkers in muscular dystrophies

    Scientific Reports 6:28097.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/srep28097

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Jin P
    2. Zarnescu DC
    3. Ceman S
    4. Nakamoto M
    5. Mowrey J
    6. Jongens TA
    7. Nelson DL
    8. Moses K
    9. Warren ST

    (2004) Biochemical and genetic interaction between the fragile X mental retardation protein and the microRNA pathway

    Nature Neuroscience 7:113–117.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1174

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Jodelka FM
    2. Ebert AD
    3. Duelli DM
    4. Hastings ML

    (2010) A feedback loop regulates splicing of the spinal muscular atrophy-modifying gene, SMN2

    Human Molecular Genetics 19:4906–4917.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddq425

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Jukam D
    2. Desplan C

    (2010) Binary fate decisions in differentiating neurons

    Current Opinion in Neurobiology 20:6–13.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2009.11.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Jung H
    2. Lacombe J
    3. Mazzoni EO
    4. Liem KF
    5. Grinstein J
    6. Mahony S
    7. Mukhopadhyay D
    8. Gifford DK
    9. Young RA
    10. Anderson KV
    11. Wichterle H
    12. Dasen JS

    (2010) Global control of motor neuron topography mediated by the repressive actions of a single hox gene

    Neuron 67:781–796.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2010.08.008

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Kaifer KA
    2. Villalón E
    3. O'Brien BS
    4. Sison SL
    5. Smith CE
    6. Simon ME
    7. Marquez J
    8. O'Day S
    9. Hopkins AE
    10. Neff R
    11. Rindt H
    12. Ebert AD
    13. Lorson CL

    (2019) AAV9-mediated delivery of miR-23a reduces disease severity in Smn2B/−SMA model mice

    Human Molecular Genetics 80:.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddz142

    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Kania A
    2. Jessell TM

    (2003) Topographic motor projections in the limb imposed by LIM homeodomain protein regulation of ephrin-A:epha interactions

    Neuron 38:581–596.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00292-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Kanning KC
    2. Kaplan A
    3. Henderson CE

    (2010) Motor neuron diversity in development and disease

    Annual Review of Neuroscience 33:409–440.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.051508.135722

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Kawahara Y
    2. Mieda-Sato A

    (2012) TDP-43 promotes microRNA biogenesis as a component of the drosha and dicer complexes

    PNAS 109:3347–3352.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1112427109

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Kicheva A
    2. Bollenbach T
    3. Ribeiro A
    4. Valle HP
    5. Lovell-Badge R
    6. Episkopou V
    7. Briscoe J

    (2014) Coordination of progenitor specification and growth in mouse and chick spinal cord

    Science 345:1254927.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1254927

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Kim M
    2. Bjorke B
    3. Mastick GS

    (2019) Motor neuron migration and positioning mechanisms: new roles for guidance cues

    Seminars in Cell & Developmental Biology 85:78–83.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcdb.2017.11.016

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Kolb SJ
    2. Coffey CS
    3. Yankey JW
    4. Krosschell K
    5. Arnold WD
    6. Rutkove SB
    7. Swoboda KJ
    8. Reyna SP
    9. Sakonju A
    10. Darras BT
    11. Shell R
    12. Kuntz N
    13. Castro D
    14. Iannaccone ST
    15. Parsons J
    16. Connolly AM
    17. Chiriboga CA
    18. McDonald C
    19. Burnette WB
    20. Werner K
    21. Thangarajh M
    22. Shieh PB
    23. Finanger E
    24. Cudkowicz ME
    25. McGovern MM
    26. McNeil DE
    27. Finkel R
    28. Kaye E
    29. Kingsley A
    30. Renusch SR
    31. McGovern VL
    32. Wang X
    33. Zaworski PG
    34. Prior TW
    35. Burghes AH
    36. Bartlett A
    37. Kissel JT
    38. NeuroNEXT Clinical Trial Network and on behalf of the NN101 SMA Biomarker Investigators

    (2016) Baseline results of the NeuroNEXT spinal muscular atrophy infant biomarker study

    Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology 3:132–145.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/acn3.283

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Kutejova E
    2. Sasai N
    3. Shah A
    4. Gouti M
    5. Briscoe J

    (2016) Neural progenitors adopt specific identities by directly repressing all alternative progenitor transcriptional programs

    Developmental Cell 36:639–653.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2016.02.013

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Kye MJ
    2. Niederst ED
    3. Wertz MH
    4. Gonçalves IC
    5. Akten B
    6. Dover KZ
    7. Peters M
    8. Riessland M
    9. Neveu P
    10. Wirth B
    11. Kosik KS
    12. Sardi SP
    13. Monani UR
    14. Passini MA
    15. Sahin M

    (2014) SMN regulates axonal local translation via miR-183/mTOR pathway

    Human Molecular Genetics 23:6318–6331.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddu350

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Kye MJ
    2. Gonçalves IC

    (2014) The role of miRNA in motor neuron disease

    Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience 8:15.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fncel.2014.00015

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Lacombe J
    2. Hanley O
    3. Jung H
    4. Philippidou P
    5. Surmeli G
    6. Grinstein J
    7. Dasen JS

    (2013) Genetic and functional modularity of hox activities in the specification of limb-innervating motor neurons

    PLOS Genetics 9:e1003184.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003184

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Lance-Jones C
    2. Landmesser L

    (1980) Motoneurone projection patterns in the chick hind limb following early partial reversals of the spinal cord

    The Journal of Physiology 302:581–602.

    https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1980.sp013262

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Lance-Jones C
    2. Landmesser L

    (1981) Pathway selection by chick lumbosacral motoneurons during normal development

    Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 214:1–18.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1981.0079

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
75. 1. Landmesser L

    (1978a) The development of motor projection patterns in the chick hind limb

    The Journal of Physiology 284:391–414.

    https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1978.sp012546

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
76. 1. Landmesser L

    (1978b) The distribution of motoneurones supplying chick hind limb muscles

    The Journal of Physiology 284:371–389.

    https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1978.sp012545

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
77. 1. Lee S
    2. Cuvillier JM
    3. Lee B
    4. Shen R
    5. Lee JW
    6. Lee SK

    (2012) Fusion protein Isl1-Lhx3 specifies motor neuron fate by inducing motor neuron genes and concomitantly suppressing the interneuron programs

    PNAS 109:3383–3388.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1114515109

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
78. 1. Lewis BP
    2. Burge CB
    3. Bartel DP

    (2005) Conserved seed pairing, often flanked by adenosines, indicates that thousands of human genes are microRNA targets

    Cell 120:15–20.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2004.12.035

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
79. 1. Li CJ
    2. Hong T
    3. Tung YT
    4. Yen YP
    5. Hsu HC
    6. Lu YL
    7. Chang M
    8. Nie Q
    9. Chen JA

    (2017) MicroRNA filters hox temporal transcription noise to confer boundary formation in the spinal cord

    Nature Communications 8:14685.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14685

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
80. 1. Lien HW
    2. Yuan RY
    3. Chou CM
    4. Chen YC
    5. Hung CC
    6. Hu CH
    7. Hwang SP
    8. Hwang PP
    9. Shen CN
    10. Chen CL
    11. Cheng CH
    12. Huang CJ

    (2016) Zebrafish cyclin dx is required for development of motor neuron progenitors, and its expression is regulated by hypoxia-inducible factor 2α

    Scientific Reports 6:28297.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/srep28297

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
81. 1. Liu CM
    2. Wang RY
    3. Saijilafu
    4. Jiao ZX
    5. Zhang BY
    6. Zhou FQ

    (2013) MicroRNA-138 and SIRT1 form a mutual negative feedback loop to regulate mammalian axon regeneration

    Genes & Development 27:1473–1483.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.209619.112

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
82. 1. Livet J
    2. Sigrist M
    3. Stroebel S
    4. De Paola V
    5. Price SR
    6. Henderson CE
    7. Jessell TM
    8. Arber S

    (2002) ETS gene Pea3 controls the central position and terminal arborization of specific motor neuron pools

    Neuron 35:877–892.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(02)00863-2

    • Google Scholar
83. 1. Lobjois V
    2. Bel-Vialar S
    3. Trousse F
    4. Pituello F

    (2008) Forcing neural progenitor cells to cycle is insufficient to alter cell-fate decision and timing of neuronal differentiation in the spinal cord

    Neural Development 3:4.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-8104-3-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
84. 1. Loffreda A
    2. Rigamonti A
    3. Barabino SM
    4. Lenzken SC

    (2015) RNA-Binding proteins in the regulation of miRNA activity: a focus on neuronal functions

    Biomolecules 5:2363–2387.

    https://doi.org/10.3390/biom5042363

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
85. 1. Luchetti A
    2. Ciafrè SA
    3. Murdocca M
    4. Malgieri A
    5. Masotti A
    6. Sanchez M
    7. Farace MG
    8. Novelli G
    9. Sangiuolo F

    (2015) A perturbed MicroRNA expression pattern characterizes embryonic neural stem cells derived from a severe mouse model of spinal muscular atrophy (SMA)

    International Journal of Molecular Sciences 16:18312–18327.

    https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms160818312

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
86. 1. Lunn MR
    2. Wang CH

    (2008) Spinal muscular atrophy

    The Lancet 371:2120–2133.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60921-6

    • Google Scholar
87. 1. Luxenhofer G
    2. Helmbrecht MS
    3. Langhoff J
    4. Giusti SA
    5. Refojo D
    6. Huber AB

    (2014) MicroRNA-9 promotes the switch from early-born to late-born motor neuron populations by regulating onecut transcription factor expression

    Developmental Biology 386:358–370.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2013.12.023

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
88. 1. Magri F
    2. Vanoli F
    3. Corti S

    (2018) miRNA in spinal muscular atrophy pathogenesis and therapy

    Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine 22:755–767.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/jcmm.13450

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
89. 1. McHanwell S
    2. Biscoe TJ

    (1981) The localization of motoneurons supplying the hindlimb muscles of the mouse

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 293:477–508.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1981.0082

    • Google Scholar
90. 1. Meister G
    2. Fischer U

    (2002) Assisted RNP assembly: smn and PRMT5 complexes cooperate in the formation of spliceosomal UsnRNPs

    The EMBO Journal 21:5853–5863.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/emboj/cdf585

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
91. 1. Mendell JR
    2. Al-Zaidy S
    3. Shell R
    4. Arnold WD
    5. Rodino-Klapac LR
    6. Prior TW
    7. Lowes L
    8. Alfano L
    9. Berry K
    10. Church K
    11. Kissel JT
    12. Nagendran S
    13. L'Italien J
    14. Sproule DM
    15. Wells C
    16. Cardenas JA
    17. Heitzer MD
    18. Kaspar A
    19. Corcoran S
    20. Braun L
    21. Likhite S
    22. Miranda C
    23. Meyer K
    24. Foust KD
    25. Burghes AHM
    26. Kaspar BK

    (2017) Single-Dose Gene-Replacement therapy for spinal muscular atrophy

    New England Journal of Medicine 377:1713–1722.

    https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1706198

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
92. 1. Mendelsohn AI
    2. Dasen JS
    3. Jessell TM

    (2017) Divergent hox coding and evasion of retinoid signaling specifies motor neurons innervating digit muscles

    Neuron 93:792–805.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2017.01.017

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
93. 1. Mercuri E
    2. Darras BT
    3. Chiriboga CA
    4. Day JW
    5. Campbell C
    6. Connolly AM
    7. Iannaccone ST
    8. Kirschner J
    9. Kuntz NL
    10. Saito K
    11. Shieh PB
    12. Tulinius M
    13. Mazzone ES
    14. Montes J
    15. Bishop KM
    16. Yang Q
    17. Foster R
    18. Gheuens S
    19. Bennett CF
    20. Farwell W
    21. Schneider E
    22. De Vivo DC
    23. Finkel RS
    24. CHERISH Study Group

    (2018) Nusinersen versus sham control in Later-Onset spinal muscular atrophy

    New England Journal of Medicine 378:625–635.

    https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1710504

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
94. 1. Miyazaki Y
    2. Adachi H
    3. Katsuno M
    4. Minamiyama M
    5. Jiang YM
    6. Huang Z
    7. Doi H
    8. Matsumoto S
    9. Kondo N
    10. Iida M
    11. Tohnai G
    12. Tanaka F
    13. Muramatsu S
    14. Sobue G

    (2012) Viral delivery of miR-196a ameliorates the SBMA phenotype via the silencing of CELF2

    Nature Medicine 18:1136–1141.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.2791

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
95. 1. Morlando M
    2. Dini Modigliani S
    3. Torrelli G
    4. Rosa A
    5. Di Carlo V
    6. Caffarelli E
    7. Bozzoni I

    (2012) FUS stimulates microRNA biogenesis by facilitating co-transcriptional drosha recruitment

    The EMBO Journal 31:4502–4510.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/emboj.2012.319

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
96. 1. Mourelatos Z
    2. Dostie J
    3. Paushkin S
    4. Sharma A
    5. Charroux B
    6. Abel L
    7. Rappsilber J
    8. Mann M
    9. Dreyfuss G

    (2002) miRNPs: a novel class of ribonucleoproteins containing numerous microRNAs

    Genes & Development 16:720–728.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.974702

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
97. 1. Murdocca M
    2. Ciafrè S
    3. Spitalieri P
    4. Talarico R
    5. Sanchez M
    6. Novelli G
    7. Sangiuolo F

    (2016) SMA human iPSC-Derived motor neurons show perturbed differentiation and reduced miR-335-5p expression

    International Journal of Molecular Sciences 17:1231.

    https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms17081231

    • Google Scholar
98. 1. Murray LM
    2. Beauvais A
    3. Gibeault S
    4. Courtney NL
    5. Kothary R

    (2015) Transcriptional profiling of differentially vulnerable motor neurons at pre-symptomatic stage in the smn (2b/-) mouse model of spinal muscular atrophy

    Acta Neuropathologica Communications 3:55.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s40478-015-0231-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
99. 1. Nelson PT
    2. Hatzigeorgiou AG
    3. Mourelatos Z

    (2004) miRNP:mRNA association in polyribosomes in a human neuronal cell line

    RNA 10:387–394.

    https://doi.org/10.1261/rna.5181104

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
100. 1. Novitch BG
     2. Chen AI
     3. Jessell TM

     (2001) Coordinate regulation of motor neuron subtype identity and pan-neuronal properties by the bHLH repressor Olig2

     Neuron 31:773–789.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(01)00407-X

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
101. 1. O'Hern PJ
     2. Gonçalves I
     3. do Carmo G
     4. Brecht J
     5. López Soto EJ
     6. Simon J
     7. Chapkis N
     8. Lipscombe D
     9. Kye MJ
     10. Hart AC

     (2017) Decreased microRNA levels lead to deleterious increases in neuronal M2 muscarinic receptors in spinal muscular atrophy models

     eLife 6:e20752.

     https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20752

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
102. 1. Otaegi G
     2. Pollock A
     3. Hong J
     4. Sun T

     (2011) MicroRNA miR-9 modifies motor neuron columns by a tuning regulation of FoxP1 levels in developing spinal cords

     Journal of Neuroscience 31:809–818.

     https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4330-10.2011

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
103. 1. Park CY
     2. Jeker LT
     3. Carver-Moore K
     4. Oh A
     5. Liu HJ
     6. Cameron R
     7. Richards H
     8. Li Z
     9. Adler D
     10. Yoshinaga Y
     11. Martinez M
     12. Nefadov M
     13. Abbas AK
     14. Weiss A
     15. Lanier LL
     16. de Jong PJ
     17. Bluestone JA
     18. Srivastava D
     19. McManus MT

     (2012) A resource for the conditional ablation of microRNAs in the mouse

     Cell Reports 1:385–391.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2012.02.008

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
104. 1. Pellizzoni L
     2. Baccon J
     3. Rappsilber J
     4. Mann M
     5. Dreyfuss G

     (2002) Purification of native survival of motor neurons complexes and identification of Gemin6 as a novel component

     Journal of Biological Chemistry 277:7540–7545.

     https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M110141200

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
105. 1. Perry MM
     2. Muntoni F

     (2016) Noncoding RNAs and duchenne muscular dystrophy

     Epigenomics 8:1527–1537.

     https://doi.org/10.2217/epi-2016-0088

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
106. 1. Piazzon N
     2. Rage F
     3. Schlotter F
     4. Moine H
     5. Branlant C
     6. Massenet S

     (2008) In vitro and in cellulo evidences for association of the survival of motor neuron complex with the fragile X mental retardation protein

     Journal of Biological Chemistry 283:5598–5610.

     https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M707304200

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
107. 1. Rajman M
     2. Schratt G

     (2017) MicroRNAs in neural development: from master regulators to fine-tuners

     Development 144:2310–2322.

     https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.144337

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
108. 1. Ravanidis S
     2. Kattan F-G
     3. Doxakis E

     (2018) Unraveling the pathways to neuronal homeostasis and disease: mechanistic insights into the role of RNA-Binding proteins and associated factors

     International Journal of Molecular Sciences 19:2280.

     https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms19082280

     • Google Scholar
109. 1. Romanes GJ

     (1964) The motor pools of the spinal cord

     Progress in Brain Research 11:93–119.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/s0079-6123(08)64045-5

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
110. 1. Shibata M
     2. Nakao H
     3. Kiyonari H
     4. Abe T
     5. Aizawa S

     (2011) MicroRNA-9 regulates neurogenesis in mouse telencephalon by targeting multiple transcription factors

     Journal of Neuroscience 31:3407–3422.

     https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5085-10.2011

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
111. 1. Sison SL
     2. Patitucci TN
     3. Seminary ER
     4. Villalon E
     5. Lorson CL
     6. Ebert AD

     (2017) Astrocyte-produced miR-146a as a mediator of motor neuron loss in spinal muscular atrophy

     Human Molecular Genetics 26:3409–3420.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddx230

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
112. 1. Small EM
     2. Sutherland LB
     3. Rajagopalan KN
     4. Wang S
     5. Olson EN

     (2010) MicroRNA-218 regulates vascular patterning by modulation of Slit-Robo signaling

     Circulation Research 107:1336–1344.

     https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.110.227926

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
113. 1. Sockanathan S
     2. Jessell TM

     (1998) Motor neuron-derived retinoid signaling specifies the subtype identity of spinal motor neurons

     Cell 94:503–514.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81591-3

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
114. 1. Sosanya NM
     2. Huang PP
     3. Cacheaux LP
     4. Chen CJ
     5. Nguyen K
     6. Perrone-Bizzozero NI
     7. Raab-Graham KF

     (2013) Degradation of high affinity HuD targets releases Kv1.1 mRNA from miR-129 repression by mTORC1

     The Journal of Cell Biology 202:53–69.

     https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.201212089

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
115. 1. Strickland IT
     2. Richards L
     3. Holmes FE
     4. Wynick D
     5. Uney JB
     6. Wong LF

     (2011) Axotomy-induced miR-21 promotes axon growth in adult dorsal root ganglion neurons

     PLOS ONE 6:e23423.

     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023423

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
116. 1. Sumner CJ
     2. Kolb SJ
     3. Harmison GG
     4. Jeffries NO
     5. Schadt K
     6. Finkel RS
     7. Dreyfuss G
     8. Fischbeck KH

     (2006) SMN mRNA and protein levels in peripheral blood: biomarkers for SMA clinical trials

     Neurology 66:1067–1073.

     https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000201929.56928.13

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
117. 1. Sun S
     2. Ling S-C
     3. Qiu J
     4. Albuquerque CP
     5. Zhou Y
     6. Tokunaga S
     7. Li H
     8. Qiu H
     9. Bui A
     10. Yeo GW
     11. Huang EJ
     12. Eggan K
     13. Zhou H
     14. Fu X-D
     15. Lagier-Tourenne C
     16. Cleveland DW

     (2015) ALS-causative mutations in FUS/TLS confer gain and loss of function by altered association with SMN and U1-snRNP

     Nature Communications 6:6171.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms7171

     • Google Scholar
118. 1. Sürmeli G
     2. Akay T
     3. Ippolito GC
     4. Tucker PW
     5. Jessell TM

     (2011) Patterns of spinal sensory-motor connectivity prescribed by a dorsoventral positional template

     Cell 147:653–665.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2011.10.012

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
119. 1. Tadesse H
     2. Deschênes-Furry J
     3. Boisvenue S
     4. Côté J

     (2008) KH-type splicing regulatory protein interacts with survival motor neuron protein and is misregulated in spinal muscular atrophy

     Human Molecular Genetics 17:506–524.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddm327

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
120. 1. Taga A
     2. Maragakis NJ

     (2018) Current and emerging ALS biomarkers: utility and potential in clinical trials

     Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics 18:871–886.

     https://doi.org/10.1080/14737175.2018.1530987

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
121. 1. Thaler J
     2. Harrison K
     3. Sharma K
     4. Lettieri K
     5. Kehrl J
     6. Pfaff SL

     (1999) Active suppression of interneuron programs within developing motor neurons revealed by analysis of homeodomain factor HB9

     Neuron 23:675–687.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(01)80027-1

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
122. 1. Thiebes KP
     2. Nam H
     3. Cambronne XA
     4. Shen R
     5. Glasgow SM
     6. Cho HH
     7. Kwon JS
     8. Goodman RH
     9. Lee JW
     10. Lee S
     11. Lee SK

     (2015) miR-218 is essential to establish motor neuron fate as a downstream effector of Isl1-Lhx3

     Nature Communications 6:7718.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8718

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
123. 1. Toivonen JM
     2. Manzano R
     3. Oliván S
     4. Zaragoza P
     5. García-Redondo A
     6. Osta R

     (2014) MicroRNA-206: a potential circulating biomarker candidate for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

     PLOS ONE 9:e89065.

     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0089065

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
124. 1. Trabucchi M
     2. Briata P
     3. Garcia-Mayoral M
     4. Haase AD
     5. Filipowicz W
     6. Ramos A
     7. Gherzi R
     8. Rosenfeld MG

     (2009) The RNA-binding protein KSRP promotes the biogenesis of a subset of microRNAs

     Nature 459:1010–1014.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08025

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
125. 1. Tsuchida T
     2. Ensini M
     3. Morton SB
     4. Baldassare M
     5. Edlund T
     6. Jessell TM
     7. Pfaff SL

     (1994) Topographic organization of embryonic motor neurons defined by expression of LIM homeobox genes

     Cell 79:957–970.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-8674(94)90027-2

     • Google Scholar
126. 1. Tu WY
     2. Simpson JE
     3. Highley JR
     4. Heath PR

     (2017) Spinal muscular atrophy: factors that modulate motor neurone vulnerability

     Neurobiology of Disease 102:11–20.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbd.2017.01.011

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
127. 1. Tung YT
     2. Lu YL
     3. Peng KC
     4. Yen YP
     5. Chang M
     6. Li J
     7. Jung H
     8. Thams S
     9. Huang YP
     10. Hung JH
     11. Chen JA

     (2015) Mir-17∼92 governs motor neuron subtype survival by mediating nuclear PTEN

     Cell Reports 11:1305–1318.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2015.04.050

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
128. 1. Tung YT
     2. Peng KC
     3. Chen YC
     4. Yen YP
     5. Chang M
     6. Thams S
     7. Chen JA

     (2019) Mir-17∼92 confers motor neuron subtype differential resistance to ALS-Associated degeneration

     Cell Stem Cell 25:193–209.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2019.04.016

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
129. 1. Valsecchi V
     2. Boido M
     3. De Amicis E
     4. Piras A
     5. Vercelli A

     (2015) Expression of Muscle-Specific MiRNA 206 in the progression of disease in a murine SMA model

     PLOS ONE 10:e0128560.

     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128560

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
130. 1. Vanderhorst VG
     2. Holstege G

     (1997) Organization of lumbosacral motoneuronal cell groups innervating hindlimb, pelvic floor, and axial muscles in the cat

     The Journal of Comparative Neurology 382:46–76.

     https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9861(19970526)382:1<46::AID-CNE4>3.0.CO;2-K

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
131. 1. Vanderweyde T
     2. Youmans K
     3. Liu-Yesucevitz L
     4. Wolozin B

     (2013) Role of stress granules and RNA-binding proteins in neurodegeneration: a mini-review

     Gerontology 59:524–533.

     https://doi.org/10.1159/000354170

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
132. 1. Vermot J
     2. Schuhbaur B
     3. Le Mouellic H
     4. McCaffery P
     5. Garnier JM
     6. Hentsch D
     7. Brûlet P
     8. Niederreither K
     9. Chambon P
     10. Dollé P
     11. Le Roux I

     (2005) Retinaldehyde dehydrogenase 2 and Hoxc8 are required in the murine brachial spinal cord for the specification of Lim1+ motoneurons and the correct distribution of Islet1+ motoneurons

     Development 132:1611–1621.

     https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.01718

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
133. 1. Viswambharan V
     2. Thanseem I
     3. Vasu MM
     4. Poovathinal SA
     5. Anitha A

     (2017) miRNAs as biomarkers of neurodegenerative disorders

     Biomarkers in Medicine 11:151–167.

     https://doi.org/10.2217/bmm-2016-0242

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
134. 1. Wadman RI
     2. Stam M
     3. Jansen MD
     4. van der Weegen Y
     5. Wijngaarde CA
     6. Harschnitz O
     7. Sodaar P
     8. Braun KP
     9. Dooijes D
     10. Lemmink HH
     11. van den Berg LH
     12. van der Pol WL

     (2016) A comparative study of SMN protein and mRNA in blood and fibroblasts in patients with spinal muscular atrophy and healthy controls

     PLOS ONE 11:e0167087.

     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0167087

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
135. 1. Wang IF
     2. Reddy NM
     3. Shen CK

     (2002) Higher order arrangement of the eukaryotic nuclear bodies

     PNAS 99:13583–13588.

     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.212483099

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
136. 1. Wertz MH
     2. Winden K
     3. Neveu P
     4. Ng SY
     5. Ercan E
     6. Sahin M

     (2016) Cell-type-specific miR-431 dysregulation in a motor neuron model of spinal muscular atrophy

     Human Molecular Genetics 25:2168–2181.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddw084

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
137. 1. Winkler C
     2. Eggert C
     3. Gradl D
     4. Meister G
     5. Giegerich M
     6. Wedlich D
     7. Laggerbauer B
     8. Fischer U

     (2005) Reduced U snRNP assembly causes motor axon degeneration in an animal model for spinal muscular atrophy

     Genes & Development 19:2320–2330.

     https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.342005

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
138. 1. Wolter JM
     2. Le HH
     3. Linse A
     4. Godlove VA
     5. Nguyen TD
     6. Kotagama K
     7. Lynch A
     8. Rawls A
     9. Mangone M

     (2017) Evolutionary patterns of metazoan microRNAs reveal targeting principles in the let-7 and miR-10 families

     Genome Research 27:53–63.

     https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.209361.116

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
139. 1. Wong SF
     2. Agarwal V
     3. Mansfield JH
     4. Denans N
     5. Schwartz MG
     6. Prosser HM
     7. Pourquié O
     8. Bartel DP
     9. Tabin CJ
     10. McGlinn E

     (2015) Independent regulation of vertebral number and vertebral identity by microRNA-196 paralogs

     PNAS 112:E4884–E4893.

     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1512655112

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
140. 1. Workman E
     2. Saieva L
     3. Carrel TL
     4. Crawford TO
     5. Liu D
     6. Lutz C
     7. Beattie CE
     8. Pellizzoni L
     9. Burghes AH

     (2009) A SMN missense mutation complements SMN2 restoring snRNPs and rescuing SMA mice

     Human Molecular Genetics 18:2215–2229.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddp157

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
141. 1. Wu S
     2. Wu Y
     3. Capecchi MR

     (2006) Motoneurons and oligodendrocytes are sequentially generated from neural stem cells but do not appear to share common lineage-restricted progenitors in vivo

     Development 133:581–590.

     https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.02236

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
142. 1. Wu D
     2. Murashov AK

     (2013) MicroRNA-431 regulates axon regeneration in mature sensory neurons by targeting the wnt antagonist Kremen1

     Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience 6:35.

     https://doi.org/10.3389/fnmol.2013.00035

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
143. 1. Xu S

     (2012) MicroRNAs in neurodegenerative disorders

     Current Geriatrics Reports 1:214–218.

     https://doi.org/10.1007/s13670-012-0030-5

     • Google Scholar
144. 1. Yamazaki T
     2. Chen S
     3. Yu Y
     4. Yan B
     5. Haertlein TC
     6. Carrasco MA
     7. Tapia JC
     8. Zhai B
     9. Das R
     10. Lalancette-Hebert M
     11. Sharma A
     12. Chandran S
     13. Sullivan G
     14. Nishimura AL
     15. Shaw CE
     16. Gygi SP
     17. Shneider NA
     18. Maniatis T
     19. Reed R

     (2012) FUS-SMN protein interactions link the motor neuron diseases ALS and SMA

     Cell Reports 2:799–806.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2012.08.025

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
145. 1. Yekta S
     2. Tabin CJ
     3. Bartel DP

     (2008) MicroRNAs in the hox network: an apparent link to posterior prevalence

     Nature Reviews Genetics 9:789–796.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2400

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
146. 1. Zhou Q
     2. Anderson DJ

     (2002) The bHLH transcription factors OLIG2 and OLIG1 couple neuronal and glial subtype specification

     Cell 109:61–73.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-8674(02)00677-3

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Tai-Heng Chen

   1. PhD Program in Translational Medicine, Graduate Institute of Clinical Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Academia Sinica, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
   2. Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Emergency, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
   3. Institute of Molecular Biology, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan
   4. Faculty of Medicine, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan

   For correspondence

   taihen@kmu.edu.tw

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7713-3627

2. Jun-An Chen

   1. PhD Program in Translational Medicine, Graduate Institute of Clinical Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Academia Sinica, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
   2. Institute of Molecular Biology, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan

   For correspondence

   jachen@imb.sinica.edu.tw

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9870-3203

• 2,809

  views

• 372

  downloads

• 28

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.