1. Developmental Biology
  2. Neuroscience
Download icon

Vascular-derived SPARC and SerpinE1 regulate interneuron tangential migration and maturation

Research Article
  • Cited 0
  • Views 548
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2021;10:e56063 doi: 10.7554/eLife.56063

Abstract

Cortical interneurons establish inhibitory microcircuits throughout the neocortex and their dysfunction has been implicated in epilepsy and neuropsychiatric diseases. Developmentally, interneurons migrate from a distal progenitor domain in order to populate the neocortex - a process that occurs at a slower rate in humans than in mice. In this study, we sought to identify factors that regulate the rate of interneuron maturation across the two species. Using embryonic mouse development as a model system, we found that the process of initiating interneuron migration is regulated by blood vessels of the medial ganglionic eminence (MGE), an interneuron progenitor domain. We identified two endothelial cell-derived paracrine factors, SPARC and SerpinE1, that enhance interneuron migration in mouse MGE explants and organotypic cultures. Moreover, pre-treatment of human stem cell-derived interneurons (hSC-interneurons) with SPARC and SerpinE1 prior to transplantation into neonatal mouse cortex enhanced their migration and morphological elaboration in the host cortex. Further, SPARC and SerpinE1-treated hSC-interneurons also exhibited more mature electrophysiological characteristics compared to controls. Overall, our studies suggest a critical role for CNS vasculature in regulating interneuron developmental maturation in both mice and humans.

Data availability

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

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Matthieu Genestine

    Pathology and cell biology, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Daisy Ambriz

    Pathology and cell biology, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Gregg W Crabtree

    Pathology and cell biology, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Patrick Dummer

    Pathology & Cell Biology, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Anna Molotkova

    Pathology & Cell Biology, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Michael Quintero

    Pathology & Cell Biology, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Angeliki Mela

    Pathology & Cell Biology, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Saptarshi Biswas

    Pathology & Cell Biology, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Huijuan Feng

    Systems Biology, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Chaolin Zhang

    Department of Systems Biology, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics, Center for Motor Neuron Biology and Disease, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8310-7537
  11. Peter Canoll

    Department of Systems Biology, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics, Center for Motor Neuron Biology and Disease, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Gunnar Hargus

    Department of Systems Biology, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics, Center for Motor Neuron Biology and Disease, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Dritan Agalliu

    Neurology, Pathology and Cell Biology, Pharmacology, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Joseph A Gogos

    Neurology, Pathology and Cell Biology, Pharmacology, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Edmund Au

    Pathology and Cell Biology, Columbia University, New York, United States
    For correspondence
    ea2515@cumc.columbia.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3190-9711

Funding

Whitehall Foundation (2016-12-137)

  • Edmund Au

Irma T. Hirschl Trust

  • Edmund Au

National Institutes of Health (R03MH119443-01)

  • Edmund Au

National Institutes of Health (R01NS117695)

  • Edmund Au

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

Ethics

Animal experimentation: This study was performed in strict accordance with the recommendations in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the National Institutes of Health. All of the animals were handled according to approved institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) protocol (AC-AAAZ6451) of Columbia University .

Human subjects: We obtained fetal tissue samples for research following induced termination of pregnancy for maternal indications. Sample collection followed the policies of the Columbia University Irving Medical Center Institutional Review Board. IRB waiver AAAS5541 was obtained for non-human subjects research, deemed medical waste.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Joseph G Gleeson, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, The Rockefeller University, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: February 15, 2020
  2. Accepted: April 26, 2021
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: April 27, 2021 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: May 5, 2021 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2021, Genestine 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

  • 548
    Page views
  • 85
    Downloads
  • 0
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

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)

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

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

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Developmental Biology
    Meng Zhu et al.
    Research Article

    Apico-basal polarization of cells within the embryo is critical for the segregation of distinct lineages during mammalian development. Polarized cells become the trophectoderm (TE), which forms the placenta, and apolar cells become the inner cell mass (ICM), the founding population of the fetus. The cellular and molecular mechanisms leading to polarization of the human embryo and its timing during embryogenesis have remained unknown. Here, we show that human embryo polarization occurs in two steps: it begins with the apical enrichment of F-actin and is followed by the apical accumulation of the PAR complex. This two-step polarization process leads to the formation of an apical domain at the 8-16 cell stage. Using RNA interference, we show that apical domain formation requires Phospholipase C (PLC) signaling, specifically the enzymes PLCB1 and PLCE1, from the 8-cell stage onwards. Finally, we show that although expression of the critical TE differentiation marker GATA3 can be initiated independently of embryo polarization, downregulation of PLCB1 and PLCE1 decreases GATA3 expression through a reduction in the number of polarized cells. Therefore, apical domain formation reinforces a TE fate. The results we present here demonstrate how polarization is triggered to regulate the first lineage segregation in human embryos.

    1. Developmental Biology
    Eduardo Pulgar et al.
    Research Article Updated

    The developmental strategies used by progenitor cells to allow a safe journey from their induction place towards the site of terminal differentiation are still poorly understood. Here, we uncovered a mechanism of progenitor cell allocation that stems from an incomplete process of epithelial delamination that allows progenitors to coordinate their movement with adjacent extra-embryonic tissues. Progenitors of the zebrafish laterality organ originate from the superficial epithelial enveloping layer by an apical constriction process of cell delamination. During this process, progenitors retain long-lasting apical contacts that enable the epithelial layer to pull a subset of progenitors on their way to the vegetal pole. The remaining delaminated cells follow the movement of apically attached progenitors by a protrusion-dependent cell-cell contact mechanism, avoiding sequestration by the adjacent endoderm, ensuring their collective fate and allocation at the site of differentiation. Thus, we reveal that incomplete delamination serves as a cellular platform for coordinated tissue movements during development.