The cytokine GDF15 signals through a population of brainstem cholecystokinin neurons to mediate anorectic signalling

  1. Amy A Worth
  2. Rosemary Shoop
  3. Katie Tye
  4. Claire H Feetham
  5. Giuseppe D'Agostino
  6. Garron T Dodd
  7. Frank Reimann
  8. Fiona M Gribble
  9. Emily C Beebe
  10. James D Dunbar
  11. Jesline T Alexander-Chacko
  12. Dana K Sindelar
  13. Tamer Coskun
  14. Paul J Emmerson
  15. Simon M Luckman  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Manchester, United Kingdom
  2. University of Melbourne, Australia
  3. University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
  4. Eli Lilly and Company, United States

Abstract

The cytokine, GDF15, is produced in pathological states which cause cellular stress, including cancer. When over expressed, it causes dramatic weight reduction, suggesting a role in disease-related anorexia. Here we demonstrate that the GDF15 receptor, GFRAL, is located in a subset of cholecystokinin neurons which span the area postrema and the nucleus of the tractus solitarius of the mouse. GDF15 activates GFRALAP/NTS neurons and supports conditioned taste and place aversions, while the anorexia it causes can be blocked by a monoclonal antibody directed at GFRAL or by disrupting CCK neuronal signalling. The cancer-therapeutic drug, cisplatin, induces the release of GDF15 and activates GFRALAP/NTS neurons, as well as causing significant reductions in food intake and body weight in mice. These metabolic effects of cisplatin are abolished by pre-treatment with the GFRAL monoclonal antibody. Our results suggest that GFRAL neutralising antibodies or antagonists may provide a co-treatment opportunity for patients undergoing chemotherapy.

Data availability

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

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Amy A Worth

    Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Rosemary Shoop

    Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3617-4358
  3. Katie Tye

    Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Claire H Feetham

    Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Giuseppe D'Agostino

    Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Garron T Dodd

    Department of Physiology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Frank Reimann

    Wellcome Trust MRC Institute of Metabolic Science, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Fiona M Gribble

    Wellcome Trust MRC Institute of Metabolic Science, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. Emily C Beebe

    Lilly Research Laboratories, Lilly Corporate Center, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    Emily C Beebe, Paid employee of Eli Lilly..
  10. James D Dunbar

    Lilly Research Laboratories, Lilly Corporate Center, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    James D Dunbar, Paid employee of Eli Lilly..
  11. Jesline T Alexander-Chacko

    Lilly Research Laboratories, Lilly Corporate Center, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    Jesline T Alexander-Chacko, Paid employee of Eli Lilly..
  12. Dana K Sindelar

    Lilly Research Laboratories, Lilly Corporate Center, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    Dana K Sindelar, Paid employee of Eli Lilly..
  13. Tamer Coskun

    Lilly Research Laboratories, Lilly Corporate Center, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    Tamer Coskun, Paid employee of Eli Lilly..
  14. Paul J Emmerson

    Lilly Research Laboratories, Lilly Corporate Center, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    Paul J Emmerson, Paid employee of Eli Lilly..
  15. Simon M Luckman

    Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    simon.luckman@manchester.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    Simon M Luckman, BB/S008098/1 is a BBSRC Industrial Partnership Award between SML and Eli Lilly.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5318-5473

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/M001067/1)

  • Simon M Luckman

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/L021129/1)

  • Simon M Luckman

Medical Research Council (MR/R002991/1)

  • Simon M Luckman

Medical Research Council (MR/P009824/2)

  • Giuseppe D'Agostino

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

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All procedures were conducted in accordance with either: the United Kingdom Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, 1986 (ASPA) and approved by the local animal welfare ethical review body (AWERB); the Eli Lilly Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) in accordance with the National Institutes of Health Guide for Care and Use of Laboratory Animals; or the University of Melbourne Animal Ethics Committee (1914919) and conformed to National Health & 8 Medical Research Council (Australia) guidelines regarding the care and use of experimental animals. Additional guidance from the UK National Centre for 3R's (NC3Rs) was followed where applicable.

Copyright

© 2020, Worth et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 5,201
    views
  • 673
    downloads
  • 57
    citations

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

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Amy A Worth
  2. Rosemary Shoop
  3. Katie Tye
  4. Claire H Feetham
  5. Giuseppe D'Agostino
  6. Garron T Dodd
  7. Frank Reimann
  8. Fiona M Gribble
  9. Emily C Beebe
  10. James D Dunbar
  11. Jesline T Alexander-Chacko
  12. Dana K Sindelar
  13. Tamer Coskun
  14. Paul J Emmerson
  15. Simon M Luckman
(2020)
The cytokine GDF15 signals through a population of brainstem cholecystokinin neurons to mediate anorectic signalling
eLife 9:e55164.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.55164

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.55164

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Elena Massai, Marco Bonizzato ... Marina Martinez
    Research Article

    Control of voluntary limb movement is predominantly attributed to the contralateral motor cortex. However, increasing evidence suggests the involvement of ipsilateral cortical networks in this process, especially in motor tasks requiring bilateral coordination, such as locomotion. In this study, we combined a unilateral thoracic spinal cord injury (SCI) with a cortical neuroprosthetic approach to investigate the functional role of the ipsilateral motor cortex in rat movement through spared contralesional pathways. Our findings reveal that in all SCI rats, stimulation of the ipsilesional motor cortex promoted a bilateral synergy. This synergy involved the elevation of the contralateral foot along with ipsilateral hindlimb extension. Additionally, in two out of seven animals, stimulation of a sub-region of the hindlimb motor cortex modulated ipsilateral hindlimb flexion. Importantly, ipsilateral cortical stimulation delivered after SCI immediately alleviated multiple locomotor and postural deficits, and this effect persisted after ablation of the homologous motor cortex. These results provide strong evidence of a causal link between cortical activation and precise ipsilateral control of hindlimb movement. This study has significant implications for the development of future neuroprosthetic technology and our understanding of motor control in the context of SCI.

    1. Neuroscience
    Juan Carlos Boffi, Brice Bathellier ... Robert Prevedel
    Research Article

    Sound location coding has been extensively studied at the central nucleus of the mammalian inferior colliculus (CNIC), supporting a population code. However, this population code has not been extensively characterized on the single-trial level with simultaneous recordings or at other anatomical regions like the dorsal cortex of inferior colliculus (DCIC), which is relevant for learning-induced experience dependent plasticity. To address these knowledge gaps, here we made in two complementary ways large-scale recordings of DCIC populations from awake mice in response to sounds delivered from 13 different frontal horizontal locations (azimuths): volumetric two-photon calcium imaging with ~700 cells simultaneously recorded at a relatively low temporal resolution, and high-density single-unit extracellular recordings with ~20 cells simultaneously recorded at a high temporal resolution. Independent of the method, the recorded DCIC population responses revealed substantial trial-to-trial variation (neuronal noise) which was significantly correlated across pairs of neurons (noise correlations) in the passively listening condition. Nevertheless, decoding analysis supported that these noisy response patterns encode sound location on the single-trial basis, reaching errors that match the discrimination ability of mice. The detected noise correlations contributed to minimize the error of the DCIC population code of sound azimuth. Altogether these findings point out that DCIC can encode sound location in a similar format to what has been proposed for CNIC, opening exciting questions about how noise correlations could shape this code in the context of cortico-collicular input and experience-dependent plasticity.