Cortical interneurons are inhibitory, locally projecting cells that form a distributed network of repetitive circuits throughout the cortex (Kepecs and Fishell, 2014; Tremblay et al., 2016). To establish this distributed network, interneurons migrate from the ventral subpallium to arealize throughout the cortex in order to form connections with layered pyramidal neurons and other interneurons. The timescale for interneuron migration varies widely across species. The process lasts days in mice (Lavdas et al., 1999; Marín and Rubenstein, 2001) and several months in humans (Arshad et al., 2016; Hansen et al., 2013; Ma et al., 2013). This species difference extends to stem cell-derived interneurons where mouse ES-derived interneurons develop rapidly (Au et al., 2013; Maroof et al., 2010; McKenzie et al., 2019), while human stem cell-derived interneuron (hSC-interneuron) development is protracted (Nicholas et al., 2013; Shao et al., 2019). Indeed, this limitation has restricted the scope of analysis on hSC-interneurons, hampering detailed functional studies.

In this study, we sought to identify factors that regulate the timing of interneuron migration across species. Using embryonic mouse development as a model system, we found that interneuron migration coincides with vascularization of the medial ganglionic eminence (MGE), and that by manipulating the degree of MGE vascularization in vivo, it regulates the degree of interneuron migration into the cortex. Using an in vitro approach, we identified paracrine factors, SPARC and SerpinE1, produced by endothelial cells that enhance interneuron migration in mouse MGE explants and organotypic cultures. Given the slow developmental rate of hSC-interneurons, we tested whether SPARC and SerpinE1 treatment similarly induced migration in human cells. We found that treated hSC-interneurons xenografted into neonatal mouse cortex exhibited enhanced migration. Further, transplanted hSC-interneurons also showed greater morphological complexity, and more mature electrophysiological characteristics compared to controls. These data suggest that interneurons in mice and humans share a common vascular-based mechanism that regulates their developmental timing. And, by characterizing this process in mice, we were able to reverse-engineer our findings to accelerate functional maturation in human interneurons.

Cortical interneurons are generated from a distal source (primarily the MGE) and undergo long-distance migration to their final destination in the neocortex. In the embryonic mouse, this developmental process is rapid: interneurons are generated starting ~e11 and robustly migrate into the cortex by e15 (Figure 1A; Lavdas et al., 1999; Marín and Rubenstein, 2001). As a result, it is tempting to assume that newly born interneurons automatically transition to a migratory state. As a counterexample, however, in human fetal development interneuron migration into the cortex is highly protracted. Previous studies have found that postmitotic interneurons slowly transition to a migratory state to populate the neocortex over the course of many weeks (Arshad et al., 2016; Hansen et al., 2013; Ma et al., 2013). To confirm this, we examined interneurons in fetal cortical sections by immunohistochemistry for Dlx2 (an interneuron marker). Consistent with prior reports, we observed an increase in the density of Dlx2⁺ interneurons in the cortex over time (15 post-conception weeks [pcw] to 22 pcw) (Figure 1B, Figure 1—figure supplement 1A,B). We hypothesized that the discrepancy between human and mouse interneuron development may be due to an external cue delivered to the MGE to promote interneuron migration. We therefore examined the developing mouse MGE (from e10.5 to e15.5) by histology and observed a striking increase in vascularization of the MGE and the underlying mantle region during the time period when mouse interneuron migration initiates (Figure 1C,D; Daneman et al., 2009; Paredes et al., 2018). Similarly, we found that vascularization of human fetal MGE slowly increased with developmental age, with robust vascularization not occurring until after 20 pcw (Figure 1E, Figure 1—figure supplement 1C).

Figure 1 with 3 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

Figure 1—source data 1

source data for Figure 1.

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/56063/elife-56063-fig1-data1-v2.xlsx

Download elife-56063-fig1-data1-v2.xlsx

To determine whether there is a causal relationship between MGE vascularization and interneuron migration, we examined Apcdd1 mutant mice (Mazzoni et al., 2017). Apcdd1, a negative regulator of Wnt/β-catenin signaling, is critical for CNS vascular development and blood-brain barrier maturation (Shimomura et al., 2010). We examined MGE vessel density and average vessel size in Apcdd1 GOF (an endothelial cell-specific transgenic gain-of-function) and LOF (whole animal null) mutants at e14.5 and found that, similar to the retina and cerebellum (Mazzoni et al., 2017), vascularization in the MGE is decreased in Apcdd1 GOF and increased in Apcdd1 LOF mice versus wildtype controls (Figure 1F–H). To confirm that a whole animal Apcdd1 null was appropriate for analysis, we performed in situ hybridization for Apcdd1 and found that its expression is confined to vasculature in the embryonic mouse brain (Figure 1—figure supplement 3). Importantly, fewer interneurons migrated into the cortex in Apcdd1 GOF mutants, in which vascularization was less extensive compared to wildtype controls. Conversely, a trend toward more calbindin + migrating interneurons were present in Apcdd1 LOF mutants (p=0.236, paired t-test) in which vessel size and density was greater (Figure 1I). These results suggest that the density of endothelial cells within neural tissue is a critical regulator of interneuron migration.

In order to identify a mechanism by which this occurs, we used an MGE explant culture approach from mouse embryos to quantify the number of migrating neurons at various developmental stages (Figure 2A, Figure 1—figure supplement 2A–D). Given that the MGE is progressively vascularized from e10 to e15, we reasoned that MGE explant migration would increase with developmental age. We further reasoned that in early MGE explants that were not extensively vascularized, that mouse interneurons would be similarly immobile like human interneurons. To normalize for differences in MGE size at different ages, whole MGE tissue was dissected and sectioned at 250 μm. Then, the number of DAPI + migratory cells was normalized to the surface area of the MGE explant. Using this approach, we found a strong linear correlation between the number of migratory cells and MGE explant surface area (r² = 0.6829) (Figure 1—figure supplement 2B). Further, we found that nearly all migratory DAPI + cells were interneurons using the Dlx6a^Cre driver line crossed to Ai9 in order to fate-map the migratory lineage (Monory et al., 2006; Figure 1—figure supplement 2C,D). Classic studies have shown that MGE explants at e14.5 and e15.5 exhibit robust interneuron migration within hours of initial plating (Bellion et al., 2005; Polleux et al., 2002; Wichterle et al., 1999). Consistently, we found that interneurons later timepoint MGE explants exhibited robust migration, whereas explants from earlier timepoints (e10.5–e12.5) had a limited capacity to migrate (Figure 2B, Figure 1—figure supplement 2E). One possibility is that interneurons possess an intrinsic timer such that, given sufficient time in culture, early timepoint explants would migrate to the same extent as older MGE explants. However, even when cultured for up to a week, early explants did not significantly migrate more after the first 48 hr (data not shown).

Figure 2

Download asset Open asset

Figure 2—source data 1

source data for Figure 2.

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/56063/elife-56063-fig2-data1-v2.xlsx

Download elife-56063-fig2-data1-v2.xlsx

Given the diffuse distribution of blood vessels in the MGE, the most likely mechanism is that endothelial cells produce a paracrine signal to induce interneuron migration. To test this directly, we prepared conditioned medium from primary cultures of embryonic brain ECs (primary culture endothelial cell conditioned medium [p-EndoCM]) and added it to e11.5 MGE explants. Consistent with our hypothesis, addition of p-EndoCM resulted in a robust increase in interneuron migration (Figure 2C). We found, however, that primary embryonic brain EC cultures introduced unwanted variability, and for subsequent experiments, we obtained EndoCM from an immortalized human EC line, HBEC5i (Wassmer et al., 2006). To further reduce inter-experimental variability, interneuron migration counts were normalized to within-experiment negative (untreated) controls. Hence, subsequent data is presented as fold-change in interneuron migration over controls. Similar to p-EndoCM, conditioned medium from HBEC-5i (EndoCM) also robustly increased e11.5 MGE explant migration (Figure 2C). Interestingly, e14.5 MGE migration was also significantly increased by EndoCM (Figure 2C). We next tested the effect of EndoCM on interneuron migration in an organotypic slice culture. Here, we used Dlx6a^Cre; Ai9 + e11.5 embryos in order to visualize interneurons as they migrate within a coronal slice of telencephalon from the MGE into the cortex (Figure 2A,E). As with MGE explants, EndoCM also significantly increased the rate and overall number of interneurons that migrated into the cortex (Figure 2F). As a negative control, we tested the biological activity of conditioned medium from HEK 293 cells (HEK CM). HEK CM did not increase MGE explant migration at either age (Figure 2D). Moreover, we found that pre-boiling EndoCM eliminated its biological activity, suggesting a protein source as a regulator of interneuron migration (Figure 2D). Finally, we size-fractionated EndoCM and found that biological activity was strongly reduced between 30 and 100 kDa (Figure 2G).

In order to identify candidate proteins, we performed bulk RNA sequence analysis on HBEC5i and HEK cells. We screened the dataset for genes with the greatest differential expression, enriched in HBEC5i that produced proteins between 30 and 100 kDa, which were also secreted (Gene Ontology [GO] term: extracellular space) (Figure 3—figure supplement 1). After further curation to eliminate membrane-tethered molecules, we obtained a short list of 24 candidates (Supplementary file 1). We functionally tested a number of candidates, including VEGF-A (Barber et al., 2018) and follistatin; however, two proteins, SPARC and SerpinE1, exhibited the most robust biological activity in their ability to increase e11 MGE migration (Figure 3).

Figure 3 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

Figure 3—source data 1

source data for Figure 3.

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/56063/elife-56063-fig3-data1-v2.xlsx

Download elife-56063-fig3-data1-v2.xlsx

We examined the expression of SPARC and SerpinE1 in e14.5 MGE through publicly available expression databases (Allen Brain Atlas and GenePaint) and found that both were specifically expressed in the embryonic CNS vasculature (Figure 3A,B). We also confirmed by western blotting that SPARC and SerpinE1 were present in EndoCM at significantly higher levels compared to HEK292 CM (Figure 3C,D). We then added recombinant SPARC or SerpinE1 to MGE explants and found that cell migration was increased, in particular with SerpinE1 (Figure 3E). We then tested EndoCM in which SPARC and SerpinE1 activity were depleted. We used a function-blocking antibody for SPARC (Sweetwyne et al., 2004), whereas SerpinE1 activity was blocked with a small molecule inhibitor (SK216; Masuda et al., 2013). These reagents separately significantly reduced the capacity of EndoCM to increase e11.5 MGE migration (Figure 3F). However, inhibition of both SPARC and SerpinE1 does not reduce interneuron migration further, suggesting that the two molecules may act on intersecting pathways. Finally, we tested whether SPARC and SerpinE1 could increase interneuron migration in an organotypic slice over time. We found that both proteins significantly increased the rate and overall number of interneurons that migrated into the cortex over time (Figure 3G). Finally, we tested whether SPARC and SerpinE1 were active components in p-EndoCM. We found that p-EndoCM increased interneuron migration into the cortex in organotypic slice cultures over control and that the effect was abrogated by adding SPARC function-blocking antibody and SK216 to p-EndoCM (Figure 3H).

Previous studies have demonstrated that hSC-interneurons migrate and mature at a slow rate, reminiscent of the protracted time frame of interneuron development in the human fetus (Arshad et al., 2016; Hansen et al., 2013; Ma et al., 2013). Given that SPARC and SerpinE1 elicit interneuron migration in e11.5 MGE explants and organotypic slice cultures, we tested whether these factors might similarly accelerate the developmental time frame for hSC-interneurons. Using a pan-tdTomato expressing human iPSC line (CAG-tdTomato knocked into AAVS1 locus), we achieved efficient differentiation to ventral telencephalic identity using established protocols (Bagley et al., 2017; Figure 4—figure supplement 1A). hSC-interneuron differentiation was confirmed using AAV Dlx5/6-GFP (Dimidschstein et al., 2016; Figure 4—figure supplement 1B). At day 35 of differentiation (DIFF 35), ventral telencephalic organoids were treated with either SPARC, SerpinE1, or both for 14 days. At DIFF 49, we tested for hSC-interneuron migration by dissociating either untreated or SPARC/SerpinE1-treated organoids. Here, we further divided the groups: one group continued to be exposed to SPARC and SerpinE1 and the other was left untreated (Figure 4—figure supplement 2A). We observed a significant increase in migratory distance in the group treated both before and afterward with SPARC and SerpinE1. Importantly, we observed an even greater biological effect when SPARC and Serpin were added to dissociated cells after pre-treatment (Figure 4—figure supplement 2C). Thus, in subsequent xenograft experiments, SPARC and SerpinE1 were added as a pre-treatment for 14 days and also added to the cells at the time of transplantation.

Previous studies have xenografted hSC-interneurons into a more functionally relevant setting: neonatal mouse cortex. They found that functional maturation rate is prolonged, requiring ~7 months (Nicholas et al., 2013; Shao et al., 2019). We then tested the capacity of control and SPARC/SerpinE1-treated ventral organoids to integrate following xenotransplant into immune-compromised (NSG) mouse cortex. We first analyzed transplants 28 days post-engraftment. We confirmed that tdTomato + hSC interneurons were almost all Dlx2+ (Figure 4A) and also found that Combo-treated hSC-interneurons migrated significantly further than controls (Figure 4B,C). At 56 days post-transplantation, we traced and analyzed the morphologies of hSC-interneurons in 3D and found that they possessed longer processes and branched more extensively (Figure 4D, Figure 4—figure supplement 3).

Figure 4 with 4 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

Figure 4—source data 1

source data for Figure 4.

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/56063/elife-56063-fig4-data1-v2.xlsx

Download elife-56063-fig4-data1-v2.xlsx

Given the improvements in migration and morphology exhibited by treated hSC-interneurons, we tested their functional maturity by employing whole-cell recordings from tdTomato labeled transplanted cells in acute slices of frontal cortex 56 days post-transplant. Consistent with more mature neuronal function, recordings from treatment group neurons showed significantly reduced membrane input resistance, faster membrane time constants, more hyperpolarized action potential (AP) thresholds, and increased ratios of voltage-gated sodium currents versus voltage-gated potassium currents (Figure 4E–O). Additionally, other measures of neuronal maturity we tested appeared to collectively trend toward more mature functional phenotypes in the treatment group of neurons, albeit these were not statistically significant (Figure 4—figure supplement 4). Specifically, treated cells appear to have larger membrane capacitances (p=0.067), more hyperpolarized resting potentials (p=0.12), larger voltage-gated sodium currents (p=0.20), faster AP rise rates (p=0.21), narrower APs (p=0.22), and generated a greater number of APs (p=0.24) (Figure 4—figure supplement 4). Taken together, these electrophysiological profiles suggest that treated neurons may have an accelerated trajectory toward functional maturity.

CNS vascularization is a tightly regulated process that operates in tandem with neuronal and glial cell development (Paredes et al., 2018). Here, we demonstrate that not only does vascularization of mouse MGE coincide with interneuron migration, but it also plays a regulatory role since genetic manipulation of vascular pruning affects the number of interneurons migrating into the cortex. Further, two EC-derived paracrine factors SPARC and SerpinE1 induce increased interneuron migration as assessed by in vitro assays. Moreover, ablation of SPARC and SerpinE1 in immortalized or p-EndoCM reduced its capacity increase in interneuron migration. Having demonstrated a critical crosstalk between the neural and vascular compartments in mouse, we leveraged our findings to test if SPARC and SerpinE1 can accelerate hSC-interneuron maturation. We found that hSC-interneurons treated with SPARC and SerpinE1 also show a more robust migration both in vitro and upon xenotransplantation into host mouse cortex. Finally, xenografted hSC-interneurons also exhibit significantly more complex morphologies and more mature electrophysiological properties.

Our findings support previous studies that have linked angiogenesis to pathfinding during interneuron tangential migration (Barber et al., 2018; Li et al., 2018) and MGE mitosis (Tan et al., 2016). Further, radial glia in the MGE undergo a transition during embryonic development where their pial endfeet detach and connect to MGE vasculature (Tan et al., 2016). In light of our data, it is tempting to speculate that this rearrangement allows for a more direct communication between ECs and interneurons, thereby facilitating their tangential migration into the cortex. Single-cell RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq) in mouse indicates that SPARC expression is significantly enriched in brain endothelial cells versus other endothelial populations (log₂-fold increase 3.97) (Hupe et al., 2017). In the same study, SerpinE1 expression increases in mouse brain endothelial cells, peaking at e14.5, which coincides with the timepoint where we observe robust migration in MGE explants. Both SPARC (Butler et al., 2016; Girard and Springer, 1995; Sage et al., 1989) and SerpinE1 (Canfield et al., 1989) are expressed in human endothelial cells.

In humans, interneuron migration during fetal development is a protracted process (Arshad et al., 2016; Hansen et al., 2013; Ma et al., 2013). We found that hSC-interneurons exhibit greater migration and faster functional maturation when treated with vascular factors, SPARC and SerpinE1, suggesting that the maturation of CNS vasculature may similarly regulate the timing of human fetal interneurons migration. During human fetal development, both SPARC and SerpinE1 are expressed at low levels in subpallium at 8 and 9 pcw, and both peak in their expression in the cortex between 37 pcw and 1 year of age (Allen Institute BrainSpan Database, Developmental Transcriptome, https://www.brainspan.org/rnaseq/search/index.html). Further, the MGE (also known as the germinal matrix) is the primary site periventricular hemorrhages in prematurely born babies (Luo et al., 2019). It has been hypothesized that this is due to newly formed (and thus weaker) vasculature in the MGE during the third trimester (Ballabh et al., 2004; Ballabh et al., 2007). As such, it is an appealing possibility that the timing of vascularization, which we posit to be the source of SPARC and SerpinE1 in the MGE, helps to coordinate species-specific aspects of neuronal maturation. Here, delayed vascularization in humans may serve a regulatory role in delaying interneuron migration until pyramidal neurons have achieved sufficient maturity to allow for interneuron circuit integration.

We identified SPARC and SerpinE1 as important proteins that account for most of the EndoCM activity. This is consistent with the described roles for both proteins in other systems. SPARC has been implicated in cell differentiation (Hrabchak et al., 2008; Stary et al., 2005) and migration (Arnold and Brekken, 2009). SPARC is also correlated with increased cancer metastasis and its increased expression in cancer stromal cells results in epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition by downregulation of E-cadherin and upregulation of N-cadherin (Nagaraju et al., 2014). SPARC can influence migration through integrins and integrin-linked kinases (Thomas et al., 2010) and by modulating the activity of matrix metalloproteases. Indeed integrin signaling also regulates interneuron migration during development (Stanco et al., 2009). SerpinE1 (also known as plasminogen activator inhibitor-1) is also implicated in cell migration through the uPA/urokinase pathway (Grøndahl-Hansen et al., 1993; Mahmood et al., 2018). The urokinase pathway has been linked to interneuron tangential migration by acting through the c-Met receptor and hepatocyte growth factor (Powell et al., 2001).

In addition to its effects on intracellular signaling, SPARC and SerpinE1 also modulate interactions between cells and extracellular matrix (ECM). As a matricellular protein, SPARC functions at the interface between cells and ECM. Reduced collagen levels are observed in SPARC null mice and there is compelling evidence that SPARC reduces cell adhesion to ECM, enabling an intermediate state of adhesion that is conducive to migration (DiMilla et al., 1991; Palecek et al., 1997). SerpinE1 also modulates ECM by binding to vitronectin. This interferes with its binding to integrin αV, resulting in greater integrin αV-fibronectin binding and reduced cell adhesion. In the context of neural stem cells, the balance between integrin αV interactions with vitronectin and fibronectin helps to regulate self-renewal versus differentiation (Dai et al., 2016; Varun et al., 2017). Vitronectin has a similar role in regulating differentiation in cerebellar granule precursors (Hashimoto et al., 2016).

Taken together, we hypothesize that SPARC and SerpinE1 act by tipping the balance toward cell differentiation and migration. SerpinE1 does so possibly by modulating uPA/urokinase signaling, which is active in the MGE (Powell et al., 2001) and possibly by interfering with integrin interactions with vitronectin. SPARC likely acts as an anti-adhesive factor that favors cell migration, as has been described for radially migrating cortical neurons with SPARC-like 1 (Gongidi et al., 2004). In future, it will be important to study the molecular basis for how SPARC and SerpinE1 function in regulating interneuron differentiation and migration.

Of note, we empirically determined that human ventral telencephalic organoids require ~14 days pre-treatment with SPARC and SerpinE1 before we could detect enhanced migration in vitro. This may reflect a human-specific difference in responding to endothelial cues compared with mouse interneurons that operate under a more compressed timescale. In fact, this may account for previous observations by Nicholas and colleagues that migration of hSC-interneurons into host mouse cortex occurs at a slow rate over 7 months (Nicholas et al., 2013). This may be explained by host vascularization of the xenograft, which has been shown to occur over a period of months (Mansour et al., 2018). We hypothesize that pre-treatment with SPARC and SerpinE1 allows our xenograft to bypass host vascularization as a means to trigger migration. Therefore, pre-treatment may prime hSC-interneurons to more rapidly integrate and mature into the host cortex. Of note, we found that levels of SPARC and SerpinE1 were detected a low levels in the mouse MGE at e14.5 (data not shown), consistent with in situ hybridization from Allen Institute and GenePaint (Figure 3A and B). This stood in contrast to the higher levels of SPARC and SerpinE1 used to elicit a biological effect in hSC-interneurons. We hypothesize that this is due to context. In culture, SPARC and SerpinE1 are added to the medium and must diffuse through Matrigel-embedded organoids to reach hSC-interneurons. This is in contrast to the embryonic microenvironment in which vasculature is in close contact with interneuron progenitors, and this configuration likely enhances the effects of SPARC and SerpinE1. A number of studies have utilized bioengineering to recapitulate the vascular microenvironment (Raghavendran et al., 2016; Shirure et al., 2017). Employing SPARC and SerpinE1 in such a context could potentially amplify the effects we demonstrated in this study.

Our findings demonstrate the utility of priming hSC-interneurons for transplantation by pre-inducing them to adopt a migratory state. Although there are likely other impediments to overcome before hSC-interneurons are fully synchronized with the developmental timescale of host mouse cortex, our findings represent an important step toward harnessing the full potential of hSC-interneurons. Cortical interneurons are critical modulators of brain function (Kepecs and Fishell, 2014; Tremblay et al., 2016) and it is important to develop human interneuron models of disease (Catterall, 2018; Inan et al., 2013; Marín, 2012; Rapanelli et al., 2017). Moreover, our pre-treated hSC-interneurons also exhibit more maturity in vitro, suggesting SPARC/SerpinE1 treatment may also be effective when applied to organoid and monolayer approaches. Finally, consistent with previous work (Karakatsani et al., 2019), paracrine cues derived from ECs may similarly regulate the development of other neuronal populations. As such, our study may well serve as a general strategy for inducing hSC-neuron functional maturation in other neuronal cell types such as pyramidal neurons.

Bulk RNA-seq datasets for HEK293 and HBEC 5i have been uploaded to NCBI GEO under Accession Number: GSE146991.

1. 1. Au E
   2. Genestine M

   (2021) NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus

   ID GSE146991. bulk RNA-seq analysis comparing HEK293 and HBEC 5i cell lines.

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE146991

1. 1. Arnold SA
   2. Brekken RA

   (2009) SPARC: a matricellular regulator of tumorigenesis

   Journal of Cell Communication and Signaling 3:255–273.

   https://doi.org/10.1007/s12079-009-0072-4

   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Arshad A
   2. Vose LR
   3. Vinukonda G
   4. Hu F
   5. Yoshikawa K
   6. Csiszar A
   7. Brumberg JC
   8. Ballabh P

   (2016) Extended production of cortical interneurons into the third trimester of human gestation

   Cerebral Cortex 26:2242–2256.

   https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhv074

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Au E
   2. Ahmed T
   3. Karayannis T
   4. Biswas S
   5. Gan L
   6. Fishell G

   (2013) A modular gain-of-function approach to generate cortical interneuron subtypes from ES cells

   Neuron 80:1145–1158.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.09.022

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Baffet AD
   2. Carabalona A
   3. Dantas TJ
   4. Doobin DD
   5. Hu DJ
   6. Vallee RB

   (2016) Cellular and subcellular imaging of motor protein-based behavior in embryonic rat brain

   Methods in Cell Biology 131:349–363.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.mcb.2015.06.013

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Bagley JA
   2. Reumann D
   3. Bian S
   4. Lévi-Strauss J
   5. Knoblich JA

   (2017) Fused cerebral organoids model interactions between brain regions

   Nature Methods 14:743–751.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.4304

   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Ballabh P
   2. Braun A
   3. Nedergaard M

   (2004) Anatomic analysis of blood vessels in germinal matrix, cerebral cortex, and white matter in developing infants

   Pediatric Research 56:117–124.

   https://doi.org/10.1203/01.PDR.0000130472.30874.FF

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Ballabh P
   2. Xu H
   3. Hu F
   4. Braun A
   5. Smith K
   6. Rivera A
   7. Lou N
   8. Ungvari Z
   9. Goldman SA
   10. Csiszar A
   11. Nedergaard M

   (2007) Angiogenic inhibition reduces germinal matrix hemorrhage

   Nature Medicine 13:477–485.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nm1558

   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Barber M
   2. Andrews WD
   3. Memi F
   4. Gardener P
   5. Ciantar D
   6. Tata M
   7. Ruhrberg C
   8. Parnavelas JG

   (2018) Vascular-Derived vegfa promotes cortical interneuron migration and proximity to the vasculature in the developing forebrain

   Cerebral Cortex 28:2577–2593.

   https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhy082

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Bellion A
   2. Baudoin JP
   3. Alvarez C
   4. Bornens M
   5. Métin C

   (2005) Nucleokinesis in tangentially migrating neurons comprises two alternating phases: forward migration of the golgi/centrosome associated with centrosome splitting and myosin contraction at the rear

   Journal of Neuroscience 25:5691–5699.

   https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1030-05.2005

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Butler LM
    2. Hallström BM
    3. Fagerberg L
    4. Pontén F
    5. Uhlén M
    6. Renné T
    7. Odeberg J

    (2016) Analysis of Body-wide unfractionated tissue data to identify a core human endothelial transcriptome

    Cell Systems 3:287–301.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cels.2016.08.001

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Canfield AE
    2. Schor AM
    3. Loskutoff DJ
    4. Schor SL
    5. Grant ME

    (1989) Plasminogen activator inhibitor-type I is a major biosynthetic product of retinal microvascular endothelial cells and pericytes in culture

    Biochemical Journal 259:529–535.

    https://doi.org/10.1042/bj2590529

    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Catterall WA

    (2018) Dravet syndrome: a sodium channel interneuronopathy

    Current Opinion in Physiology 2:42–50.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cophys.2017.12.007

    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Crabtree GW
    2. Park AJ
    3. Gordon JA
    4. Gogos JA

    (2016) Cytosolic accumulation of L-Proline disrupts GABA-Ergic transmission through GAD blockade

    Cell Reports 17:570–582.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2016.09.029

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Crabtree GW
    2. Sun Z
    3. Kvajo M
    4. Broek JA
    5. Fénelon K
    6. McKellar H
    7. Xiao L
    8. Xu B
    9. Bahn S
    10. O'Donnell JM
    11. Gogos JA

    (2017) Alteration of neuronal excitability and Short-Term synaptic plasticity in the prefrontal cortex of a mouse model of mental illness

    The Journal of Neuroscience 37:4158–4180.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4345-15.2017

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Dai S
    2. Li R
    3. Long Y
    4. Titus S
    5. Zhao J
    6. Huang R
    7. Xia M
    8. Zheng W

    (2016) One-Step seeding of neural stem cells with Vitronectin-Supplemented medium for High-Throughput screening assays

    Journal of Biomolecular Screening 21:1112–1124.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/1087057116670068

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Daneman R
    2. Agalliu D
    3. Zhou L
    4. Kuhnert F
    5. Kuo CJ
    6. Barres BA

    (2009) Wnt/ -catenin signaling is required for CNS, but not non-CNS, angiogenesis

    PNAS 106:641–646.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0805165106

    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Daneman R
    2. Zhou L
    3. Agalliu D
    4. Cahoy JD
    5. Kaushal A
    6. Barres BA

    (2010) The mouse blood-brain barrier transcriptome: a new resource for understanding the development and function of brain endothelial cells

    PLOS ONE 5:e13741.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0013741

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Dietrich P
    2. Dragatsis I
    3. Xuan S
    4. Zeitlin S
    5. Efstratiadis A

    (2000) Conditional mutagenesis in mice with heat shock promoter-driven cre transgenes

    Mammalian Genome 11:196–205.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s003350010037

    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Dimidschstein J
    2. Chen Q
    3. Tremblay R
    4. Rogers SL
    5. Saldi G-A
    6. Guo L
    7. Xu Q
    8. Liu R
    9. Lu C
    10. Chu J
    11. Grimley JS
    12. Krostag A-R
    13. Kaykas A
    14. Avery MC
    15. Rashid MS
    16. Baek M
    17. Jacob AL
    18. Smith GB
    19. Wilson DE
    20. Kosche G
    21. Kruglikov I
    22. Rusielewicz T
    23. Kotak VC
    24. Mowery TM
    25. Anderson SA
    26. Callaway EM
    27. Dasen JS
    28. Fitzpatrick D
    29. Fossati V
    30. Long MA
    31. Noggle S
    32. Reynolds JH
    33. Sanes DH
    34. Rudy B
    35. Feng G
    36. Fishell G

    (2016) A viral strategy for targeting and manipulating interneurons across vertebrate species

    Nature Neuroscience 19:1743–1749.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4430

    • Google Scholar
20. 1. DiMilla PA
    2. Barbee K
    3. Lauffenburger DA

    (1991) Mathematical model for the effects of adhesion and mechanics on cell migration speed

    Biophysical Journal 60:15–37.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3495(91)82027-6

    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Girard J-P
    2. Springer TA

    (1995) Cloning from purified high endothelial venule cells of hevin, a close relative of the antiadhesive extracellular matrix protein SPARC

    Immunity 2:113–123.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/1074-7613(95)90083-7

    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Gongidi V
    2. Ring C
    3. Moody M
    4. Brekken R
    5. Sage EH
    6. Rakic P
    7. Anton ES

    (2004) SPARC-like 1 regulates the terminal phase of radial glia-guided migration in the cerebral cortex

    Neuron 41:57–69.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00818-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Grøndahl-Hansen J
    2. Christensen IJ
    3. Rosenquist C
    4. Brünner N
    5. Mouridsen HT
    6. Danø K
    7. Blichert-Toft M

    (1993)

    High levels of urokinase-type plasminogen activator and its inhibitor PAI-1 in Cytosolic extracts of breast carcinomas are associated with poor prognosis

    Cancer Research 53:2513–2521.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Hansen DV
    2. Lui JH
    3. Flandin P
    4. Yoshikawa K
    5. Rubenstein JL
    6. Alvarez-Buylla A
    7. Kriegstein AR

    (2013) Non-epithelial stem cells and cortical interneuron production in the human ganglionic eminences

    Nature Neuroscience 16:1576–1587.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3541

    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Hashimoto K
    2. Sakane F
    3. Ikeda N
    4. Akiyama A
    5. Sugahara M
    6. Miyamoto Y

    (2016) Vitronectin promotes the progress of the initial differentiation stage in cerebellar granule cells

    Molecular and Cellular Neuroscience 70:76–85.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcn.2015.11.013

    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Hrabchak C
    2. Ringuette M
    3. Woodhouse K

    (2008) Recombinant mouse SPARC promotes parietal endoderm differentiation and cardiomyogenesis in embryoid bodies

    Biochemistry and Cell Biology 86:487–499.

    https://doi.org/10.1139/O08-141

    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Hupe M
    2. Li MX
    3. Kneitz S
    4. Davydova D
    5. Yokota C
    6. Kele J
    7. Hot B
    8. Stenman JM
    9. Gessler M

    (2017) Gene expression profiles of brain endothelial cells during embryonic development at bulk and single-cell levels

    Science Signaling 10:eaag2476.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/scisignal.aag2476

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Inan M
    2. Petros TJ
    3. Anderson SA

    (2013) Losing your inhibition: Linking cortical GABAergic interneurons to schizophrenia

    Neurobiology of Disease 53:36–48.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbd.2012.11.013

    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Karakatsani A
    2. Shah B
    3. Ruiz de Almodovar C

    (2019) Blood vessels as regulators of neural stem cell properties

    Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience 12:85.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnmol.2019.00085

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Kepecs A
    2. Fishell G

    (2014) Interneuron cell types are fit to function

    Nature 505:318–326.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12983

    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Lavdas AA
    2. Grigoriou M
    3. Pachnis V
    4. Parnavelas JG

    (1999) The medial ganglionic eminence gives rise to a population of early neurons in the developing cerebral cortex

    The Journal of Neuroscience 19:7881–7888.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.19-18-07881.1999

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Lei L
    2. Sonabend AM
    3. Guarnieri P
    4. Soderquist C
    5. Ludwig T
    6. Rosenfeld S
    7. Bruce JN
    8. Canoll P

    (2011) Glioblastoma models reveal the connection between adult glial progenitors and the proneural phenotype

    PLOS ONE 6:e20041.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020041

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Li S
    2. Kumar T P
    3. Joshee S
    4. Kirschstein T
    5. Subburaju S
    6. Khalili JS
    7. Kloepper J
    8. Du C
    9. Elkhal A
    10. Szabó G
    11. Jain RK
    12. Köhling R
    13. Vasudevan A

    (2018) Endothelial cell-derived GABA signaling modulates neuronal migration and postnatal behavior

    Cell Research 28:221–248.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/cr.2017.135

    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Luo J
    2. Luo Y
    3. Zeng H
    4. Reis C
    5. Chen S

    (2019) Research advances of germinal matrix hemorrhage: an update review

    Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology 39:1–10.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10571-018-0630-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Ma T
    2. Wang C
    3. Wang L
    4. Zhou X
    5. Tian M
    6. Zhang Q
    7. Zhang Y
    8. Li J
    9. Liu Z
    10. Cai Y
    11. Liu F
    12. You Y
    13. Chen C
    14. Campbell K
    15. Song H
    16. Ma L
    17. Rubenstein JL
    18. Yang Z

    (2013) Subcortical origins of human and monkey neocortical interneurons

    Nature Neuroscience 16:1588–1597.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3536

    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Mahmood N
    2. Mihalcioiu C
    3. Rabbani SA

    (2018) Multifaceted role of the Urokinase-Type plasminogen activator (uPA) and its receptor (uPAR): Diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic applications

    Frontiers in Oncology 8:24.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2018.00024

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Mansour AA
    2. Gonçalves JT
    3. Bloyd CW
    4. Li H
    5. Fernandes S
    6. Quang D
    7. Johnston S
    8. Parylak SL
    9. Jin X
    10. Gage FH

    (2018) An in vivo model of functional and vascularized human brain organoids

    Nature Biotechnology 36:432–441.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4127

    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Marín O

    (2012) Interneuron dysfunction in psychiatric disorders

    Nature Reviews Neuroscience 13:107–120.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3155

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Marín O
    2. Rubenstein JL

    (2001) A long, remarkable journey: tangential migration in the telencephalon

    Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2:780–790.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/35097509

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Maroof AM
    2. Brown K
    3. Shi SH
    4. Studer L
    5. Anderson SA

    (2010) Prospective isolation of cortical interneuron precursors from mouse embryonic stem cells

    Journal of Neuroscience 30:4667–4675.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4255-09.2010

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Masuda T
    2. Hattori N
    3. Senoo T
    4. Akita S
    5. Ishikawa N
    6. Fujitaka K
    7. Haruta Y
    8. Murai H
    9. Kohno N

    (2013) SK-216, an inhibitor of plasminogen activator inhibitor-1, limits tumor progression and angiogenesis

    Molecular Cancer Therapeutics 12:2378–2388.

    https://doi.org/10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-13-0041

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Mazzoni J
    2. Smith JR
    3. Shahriar S
    4. Cutforth T
    5. Ceja B
    6. Agalliu D

    (2017) The wnt inhibitor Apcdd1 coordinates vascular remodeling and barrier maturation of retinal blood vessels

    Neuron 96:1055–1069.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2017.10.025

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. McKenzie MG
    2. Cobbs LV
    3. Dummer PD
    4. Petros TJ
    5. Halford MM
    6. Stacker SA
    7. Zou Y
    8. Fishell GJ
    9. Au E

    (2019) Non-canonical wnt signaling through ryk regulates the generation of somatostatin- and Parvalbumin-Expressing cortical interneurons

    Neuron 103:853–864.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2019.06.003

    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Monory K
    2. Massa F
    3. Egertová M
    4. Eder M
    5. Blaudzun H
    6. Westenbroek R
    7. Kelsch W
    8. Jacob W
    9. Marsch R
    10. Ekker M
    11. Long J
    12. Rubenstein JL
    13. Goebbels S
    14. Nave KA
    15. During M
    16. Klugmann M
    17. Wölfel B
    18. Dodt HU
    19. Zieglgänsberger W
    20. Wotjak CT
    21. Mackie K
    22. Elphick MR
    23. Marsicano G
    24. Lutz B

    (2006) The endocannabinoid system controls key epileptogenic circuits in the Hippocampus

    Neuron 51:455–466.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2006.07.006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Nagaraju GP
    2. Dontula R
    3. El-Rayes BF
    4. Lakka SS

    (2014) Molecular mechanisms underlying the divergent roles of SPARC in human carcinogenesis

    Carcinogenesis 35:967–973.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/carcin/bgu072

    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Nicholas CR
    2. Chen J
    3. Tang Y
    4. Southwell DG
    5. Chalmers N
    6. Vogt D
    7. Arnold CM
    8. Chen YJ
    9. Stanley EG
    10. Elefanty AG
    11. Sasai Y
    12. Alvarez-Buylla A
    13. Rubenstein JL
    14. Kriegstein AR

    (2013) Functional maturation of hPSC-derived forebrain interneurons requires an extended timeline and mimics human neural development

    Cell Stem Cell 12:573–586.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2013.04.005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Palecek SP
    2. Loftus JC
    3. Ginsberg MH
    4. Lauffenburger DA
    5. Horwitz AF

    (1997) Integrin-ligand binding properties govern cell migration speed through cell-substratum adhesiveness

    Nature 385:537–540.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/385537a0

    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Paredes I
    2. Himmels P
    3. Ruiz de Almodóvar C

    (2018) Neurovascular communication during CNS development

    Developmental Cell 45:10–32.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2018.01.023

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Polleux F
    2. Whitford KL
    3. Dijkhuizen PA
    4. Vitalis T
    5. Ghosh A

    (2002) Control of cortical interneuron migration by neurotrophins and PI3-kinase signaling

    Development 129:3147–3160.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.129.13.3147

    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Powell EM
    2. Mars WM
    3. Levitt P

    (2001) Hepatocyte growth factor/scatter factor is a motogen for interneurons migrating from the ventral to dorsal telencephalon

    Neuron 30:79–89.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(01)00264-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Raghavendran HRB
    2. Mohan S
    3. Genasan K
    4. Murali MR
    5. Naveen SV
    6. Talebian S
    7. McKean R
    8. Kamarul T

    (2016) Synergistic interaction of platelet derived growth factor (PDGF) with the surface of PLLA/Col/HA and PLLA/HA scaffolds produces rapid osteogenic differentiation

    Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces 139:68–78.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2015.11.053

    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Rapanelli M
    2. Frick LR
    3. Pittenger C

    (2017) The Role of Interneurons in Autism and Tourette Syndrome

    Trends in Neurosciences 40:397–407.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2017.05.004

    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Sage H
    2. Vernon RB
    3. Decker J
    4. Funk S
    5. Iruela-Arispe ML

    (1989) Distribution of the calcium-binding protein SPARC in tissues of embryonic and adult mice

    Journal of Histochemistry & Cytochemistry 37:819–829.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/37.6.2723400

    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Shao Z
    2. Noh H
    3. Bin Kim W
    4. Ni P
    5. Nguyen C
    6. Cote SE
    7. Noyes E
    8. Zhao J
    9. Parsons T
    10. Park JM
    11. Zheng K
    12. Park JJ
    13. Coyle JT
    14. Weinberger DR
    15. Straub RE
    16. Berman KF
    17. Apud J
    18. Ongur D
    19. Cohen BM
    20. McPhie DL
    21. Rapoport JL
    22. Perlis RH
    23. Lanz TA
    24. Xi HS
    25. Yin C
    26. Huang W
    27. Hirayama T
    28. Fukuda E
    29. Yagi T
    30. Ghosh S
    31. Eggan KC
    32. Kim H-Y
    33. Eisenberg LM
    34. Moghadam AA
    35. Stanton PK
    36. Cho J-H
    37. Chung S

    (2019) Dysregulated protocadherin-pathway activity as an intrinsic defect in induced pluripotent stem cell–derived cortical interneurons from subjects with schizophrenia

    Nature Neuroscience 22:229–242.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-018-0313-z

    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Shimomura Y
    2. Agalliu D
    3. Vonica A
    4. Luria V
    5. Wajid M
    6. Baumer A
    7. Belli S
    8. Petukhova L
    9. Schinzel A
    10. Brivanlou AH
    11. Barres BA
    12. Christiano AM

    (2010) APCDD1 is a novel Wnt inhibitor mutated in hereditary hypotrichosis simplex

    Nature 464:1043–1047.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08875

    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Shirure VS
    2. Lezia A
    3. Tao A
    4. Alonzo LF
    5. George SC

    (2017) Low levels of physiological interstitial flow eliminate morphogen gradients and guide angiogenesis

    Angiogenesis 20:493–504.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10456-017-9559-4

    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Stanco A
    2. Szekeres C
    3. Patel N
    4. Rao S
    5. Campbell K
    6. Kreidberg JA
    7. Polleux F
    8. Anton ES

    (2009) Netrin-1- 3 1 integrin interactions regulate the migration of interneurons through the cortical marginal zone

    PNAS 106:7595–7600.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0811343106

    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Stary M
    2. Pasteiner W
    3. Summer A
    4. Hrdina A
    5. Eger A
    6. Weitzer G

    (2005) Parietal endoderm secreted SPARC promotes early cardiomyogenesis in vitro

    Experimental Cell Research 310:331–343.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yexcr.2005.07.013

    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Sun JF
    2. Phung T
    3. Shiojima I
    4. Felske T
    5. Upalakalin JN
    6. Feng D
    7. Kornaga T
    8. Dor T
    9. Dvorak AM
    10. Walsh K
    11. Benjamin LE

    (2005) Microvascular patterning is controlled by fine-tuning the Akt signal

    PNAS 102:128–133.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0403198102

    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Sweetwyne MT
    2. Brekken RA
    3. Workman G
    4. Bradshaw AD
    5. Carbon J
    6. Siadak AW
    7. Murri C
    8. Sage EH

    (2004) Functional analysis of the matricellular protein SPARC with novel monoclonal antibodies

    Journal of Histochemistry & Cytochemistry 52:723–733.

    https://doi.org/10.1369/jhc.3A6153.2004

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Tan X
    2. Liu WA
    3. Zhang X-J
    4. Shi W
    5. Ren S-Q
    6. Li Z
    7. Brown KN
    8. Shi S-H

    (2016) Vascular Influence on Ventral Telencephalic Progenitors and Neocortical Interneuron Production

    Developmental Cell 36:624–638.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2016.02.023

    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Thomas SL
    2. Alam R
    3. Lemke N
    4. Schultz LR
    5. Gutiérrez JA
    6. Rempel SA

    (2010) PTEN augments SPARC suppression of proliferation and inhibits SPARC-induced migration by suppressing SHC-RAF-ERK and AKT signaling

    Neuro-Oncology 12:941–955.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/noq048

    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Tremblay R
    2. Lee S
    3. Rudy B

    (2016) GABAergic Interneurons in the Neocortex: From Cellular Properties to Circuits

    Neuron 91:260–292.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2016.06.033

    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Turakainen H
    2. Saarimäki-Vire J
    3. Sinjushina N
    4. Partanen J
    5. Savilahti H

    (2009) Transposition-based method for the rapid generation of gene-targeting vectors to produce cre/Flp-modifiable conditional knock-out mice

    PLOS ONE 4:e4341.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004341

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Varun D
    2. Srinivasan GR
    3. Tsai Y-H
    4. Kim H-J
    5. Cutts J
    6. Petty F
    7. Merkley R
    8. Stephanopoulos N
    9. Dolezalova D
    10. Marsala M
    11. Brafman DA

    (2017) A robust vitronectin-derived peptide for the scalable long-term expansion and neuronal differentiation of human pluripotent stem cell (hPSC)-derived neural progenitor cells (hNPCs)

    Acta Biomaterialia 48:120–130.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2016.10.037

    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Wassmer SC
    2. Combes V
    3. Candal FJ
    4. Juhan-Vague I
    5. Grau GE

    (2006) Platelets potentiate brain endothelial alterations induced by Plasmodium falciparum

    Infection and Immunity 74:645–653.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/IAI.74.1.645-653.2006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Wichterle H
    2. Garcia-Verdugo JM
    3. Herrera DG
    4. Alvarez-Buylla A

    (1999) Young neurons from medial ganglionic eminence disperse in adult and embryonic brain

    Nature Neuroscience 2:461–466.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/8131

    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Xiang Y
    2. Tanaka Y
    3. Patterson B
    4. Kang Y-J
    5. Govindaiah G
    6. Roselaar N
    7. Cakir B
    8. Kim K-Y
    9. Lombroso AP
    10. Hwang S-M
    11. Zhong M
    12. Stanley EG
    13. Elefanty AG
    14. Naegele JR
    15. Lee S-H
    16. Weissman SM
    17. Park I-H

    (2017) Fusion of regionally specified hPSC-Derived organoids models human brain development and interneuron migration

    Cell Stem Cell 21:383–398.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2017.07.007

    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Matthieu Genestine

   Department of Pathology and Cell Biology, Columbia University, New York, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing - original draft, Project administration

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

2. Daisy Ambriz

   Department of Pathology and Cell Biology, Columbia University, New York, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation, Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Gregg W Crabtree

   Department of Neurology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

4. Patrick Dummer

   Department of Pathology and Cell Biology, Columbia University, New York, United States

   Contribution

   Mouse husbandry, Assisted with experiments in Figure 3H

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

5. Anna Molotkova

   Department of Pathology and Cell Biology, Columbia University, New York, United States

   Contribution

   Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

6. Michael Quintero

   Department of Pathology and Cell Biology, Columbia University, New York, United States

   Contribution

   Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

7. Angeliki Mela

   Department of Pathology and Cell Biology, Columbia University, New York, United States

   Contribution

   Resources, Methodology

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

8. Saptarshi Biswas

   Department of Neurology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation, Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

9. Huijuan Feng

   Department of Department of Systems Biology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation, Formal analysis, Supervision

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

10. Chaolin Zhang

    Department of Department of Systems Biology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, United States

    Contribution

    Resources, Data curation, Supervision

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8310-7537

11. Peter Canoll

    Department of Pathology and Cell Biology, Columbia University, New York, United States

    Contribution

    Supervision

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

12. Gunnar Hargus

    Department of Pathology and Cell Biology, Columbia University, New York, United States

    Contribution

    Resources, Supervision

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

13. Dritan Agalliu

    1. Department of Pathology and Cell Biology, Columbia University, New York, United States
    2. Department of Neurology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, United States

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

14. Joseph A Gogos

    1. Department of Cellular Physiology and Biophysics, Columbia University, New York, United States
    2. Department of Neuroscience, Zuckerman Mind Brain and Behavior Institute, Columbia University, New York, United States

    Contribution

    Data curation, Formal analysis, Supervision

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

15. Edmund Au

    1. Department of Pathology and Cell Biology, Columbia University, New York, United States
    2. Columbia Translational Neuroscience Initiative Scholar, New York, United States

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing

    For correspondence

    ea2515@cumc.columbia.edu

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3190-9711

• 1,397

  views

• 228

  downloads

• 8

  citations

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