Analysis of the immune response to sciatic nerve injury identifies efferocytosis as a key mechanism of nerve debridement

  1. Ashley L Kalinski
  2. Choya Yoon
  3. Lucas D Huffman
  4. Patrick C Duncker
  5. Rafi Kohen
  6. Ryan Passino
  7. Hannah Hafner
  8. Craig Johnson
  9. Riki Kawaguchi
  10. Kevin S Carbajal
  11. Juan Sebastian Jara
  12. Edmund R Hollis II
  13. Daniel H Geschwind
  14. Benjamin M Segal
  15. Roman Giger  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Michigan Medical School, United States
  2. University of California, Los Angeles, United States
  3. Burke Neurological Institute, United States
  4. The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, United States
  5. University of Michigan School of Medicine, United States

Abstract

Sciatic nerve crush injury triggers sterile inflammation within the distal nerve and axotomized dorsal root ganglia (DRGs). Granulocytes and pro-inflammatory Ly6Chigh monocytes infiltrate the nerve first, and rapidly give way to Ly6Cnegative inflammation-resolving macrophages. In axotomized DRGs, few hematogenous leukocytes are detected and resident macrophages acquire a ramified morphology. Single-cell RNA-sequencing of injured sciatic nerve identifies five macrophage subpopulations, repair Schwann cells, and mesenchymal precursor cells. Macrophages at the nerve crush site are molecularly distinct from macrophages associated with Wallerian degeneration. In the injured nerve, macrophages 'eat' apoptotic leukocytes, a process called efferocytosis, and thereby promote an anti-inflammatory milieu. Myeloid cells in the injured nerve, but not axotomized DRGs, strongly express receptors for the cytokine GM-CSF. In GM-CSF deficient (Csf2-/-) mice, inflammation resolution is delayed and conditioning-lesion induced regeneration of DRG neuron central axons is abolished. Thus, carefully orchestrated inflammation resolution in the nerve is required for conditioning-lesion induced neurorepair.

Data availability

The bulk RNA-seq and scRNA-seq data is available online in the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database (GSE153762).

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Ashley L Kalinski

    Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7611-0810
  2. Choya Yoon

    Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Lucas D Huffman

    Department of Cell and Developmental Biology; Neuroscience Graduate Program, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Patrick C Duncker

    Department of Neurology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Rafi Kohen

    Department of Cell and Developmental Biology; Neuroscience Graduate Program, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Ryan Passino

    Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Hannah Hafner

    Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Craig Johnson

    Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Riki Kawaguchi

    Program in Neurogenetics, Department of Neurology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Kevin S Carbajal

    Department of Neurology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Juan Sebastian Jara

    Research, Burke Neurological Institute, White Plains, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Edmund R Hollis II

    Research, Burke Neurological Institute, White Plains, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4535-4668
  13. Daniel H Geschwind

    Department of Neurology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2896-3450
  14. Benjamin M Segal

    Department of Neurology; The Neurological Institute, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Roman Giger

    Cellular & Developmental Biology, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, United States
    For correspondence
    rgiger@med.umich.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2926-3336

Funding

New York State Department of Health (C33267GG)

  • Edmund R Hollis II
  • Roman Giger

National Eye Institute (R01EY029159)

  • Benjamin M Segal
  • Roman Giger

National Eye Institute (R01EY028350)

  • Benjamin M Segal
  • Roman Giger

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (T32 NS07222)

  • Ashley L Kalinski

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (T32-GM113900)

  • Lucas D Huffman

Wings for Life (fellowship)

  • Choya Yoon

Dr Miriam and Sheldon G. Adelson Medical Research Foundation (Program)

  • Riki Kawaguchi
  • Daniel H Geschwind
  • Roman Giger

Stanley D. and Joan H. Ross Chair in Neuromodulation fund

  • Benjamin M Segal

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Brandon K Harvey, NIDA/NIH, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All animal research was approved by the University of Michigan School of Medicine and conducted under the IACUC approved protocol PRO00007948

Version history

  1. Received: June 19, 2020
  2. Accepted: December 1, 2020
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: December 2, 2020 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: December 7, 2020 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record published: December 14, 2020 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2020, Kalinski 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

  • 7,789
    views
  • 935
    downloads
  • 85
    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. Ashley L Kalinski
  2. Choya Yoon
  3. Lucas D Huffman
  4. Patrick C Duncker
  5. Rafi Kohen
  6. Ryan Passino
  7. Hannah Hafner
  8. Craig Johnson
  9. Riki Kawaguchi
  10. Kevin S Carbajal
  11. Juan Sebastian Jara
  12. Edmund R Hollis II
  13. Daniel H Geschwind
  14. Benjamin M Segal
  15. Roman Giger
(2020)
Analysis of the immune response to sciatic nerve injury identifies efferocytosis as a key mechanism of nerve debridement
eLife 9:e60223.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.60223

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.60223

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Vezha Boboeva, Alberto Pezzotta ... Athena Akrami
    Research Article

    The central tendency bias, or contraction bias, is a phenomenon where the judgment of the magnitude of items held in working memory appears to be biased toward the average of past observations. It is assumed to be an optimal strategy by the brain and commonly thought of as an expression of the brain’s ability to learn the statistical structure of sensory input. On the other hand, recency biases such as serial dependence are also commonly observed and are thought to reflect the content of working memory. Recent results from an auditory delayed comparison task in rats suggest that both biases may be more related than previously thought: when the posterior parietal cortex (PPC) was silenced, both short-term and contraction biases were reduced. By proposing a model of the circuit that may be involved in generating the behavior, we show that a volatile working memory content susceptible to shifting to the past sensory experience – producing short-term sensory history biases – naturally leads to contraction bias. The errors, occurring at the level of individual trials, are sampled from the full distribution of the stimuli and are not due to a gradual shift of the memory toward the sensory distribution’s mean. Our results are consistent with a broad set of behavioral findings and provide predictions of performance across different stimulus distributions and timings, delay intervals, as well as neuronal dynamics in putative working memory areas. Finally, we validate our model by performing a set of human psychophysics experiments of an auditory parametric working memory task.

    1. Neuroscience
    Michael Berger, Michèle Fraatz ... Henrike Scholz
    Research Article

    The brain regulates food intake in response to internal energy demands and food availability. However, can internal energy storage influence the type of memory that is formed? We show that the duration of starvation determines whether Drosophila melanogaster forms appetitive short-term or longer-lasting intermediate memories. The internal glycogen storage in the muscles and adipose tissue influences how intensely sucrose-associated information is stored. Insulin-like signaling in octopaminergic reward neurons integrates internal energy storage into memory formation. Octopamine, in turn, suppresses the formation of long-term memory. Octopamine is not required for short-term memory because octopamine-deficient mutants can form appetitive short-term memory for sucrose and to other nutrients depending on the internal energy status. The reduced positive reinforcing effect of sucrose at high internal glycogen levels, combined with the increased stability of food-related memories due to prolonged periods of starvation, could lead to increased food intake.