1. Neuroscience

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 J 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
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.60223
Share this article
Cite this article
  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 J 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
  2. Download BibTeX
  3. Download .RIS

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 J 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 J Giger

National Eye Institute (R01EY029159)

  • Benjamin M Segal
  • Roman J Giger

National Eye Institute (R01EY028350)

  • Benjamin M Segal
  • Roman J 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 J 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.

Ethics

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

Reviewing Editor

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

Publication 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

  • 5,982
    Page views
  • 793
    Downloads
  • 44
    Citations

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

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 J 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

Categories and tags

Research organism

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience

    Landmark-based spatial navigation across the human lifespan

    Marcia Bécu, Denis Sheynikhovich ... Angelo Arleo
    Research Article Updated

    Human spatial cognition has been mainly characterized in terms of egocentric (body-centered) and allocentric (world-centered) wayfinding bhavior. It was hypothesized that allocentric spatial coding, as a special high-level cognitive ability, develops later and deteriorates earlier than the egocentric one throughout lifetime. We challenged this hypothesis by testing the use of landmarks versus geometric cues in a cohort of 96 deeply phenotyped participants, who physically navigated an equiangular Y maze, surrounded by landmarks or an anisotropic one. The results show that an apparent allocentric deficit in children and aged navigators is caused specifically by difficulties in using landmarks for navigation while introducing a geometric polarization of space made these participants as efficient allocentric navigators as young adults. This finding suggests that allocentric behavior relies on two dissociable sensory processing systems that are differentially affected by human aging. Whereas landmark processing follows an inverted-U dependence on age, spatial geometry processing is conserved, highlighting its potential in improving navigation performance across the lifespan.

    1. Neuroscience

    Enteroendocrine cell lineages that differentially control feeding and gut motility

    Marito Hayashi, Judith A Kaye ... Stephen D Liberles
    Research Article Updated

    Enteroendocrine cells are specialized sensory cells of the gut-brain axis that are sparsely distributed along the intestinal epithelium. The functions of enteroendocrine cells have classically been inferred by the gut hormones they release. However, individual enteroendocrine cells typically produce multiple, sometimes apparently opposing, gut hormones in combination, and some gut hormones are also produced elsewhere in the body. Here, we developed approaches involving intersectional genetics to enable selective access to enteroendocrine cells in vivo in mice. We targeted FlpO expression to the endogenous Villin1 locus (in Vil1-p2a-FlpO knock-in mice) to restrict reporter expression to intestinal epithelium. Combined use of Cre and Flp alleles effectively targeted major transcriptome-defined enteroendocrine cell lineages that produce serotonin, glucagon-like peptide 1, cholecystokinin, somatostatin, or glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide. Chemogenetic activation of different enteroendocrine cell types variably impacted feeding behavior and gut motility. Defining the physiological roles of different enteroendocrine cell types provides an essential framework for understanding sensory biology of the intestine.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Neuroscience

    Glia-neuron coupling via a bipartite sialylation pathway promotes neural transmission and stress tolerance in Drosophila

    Hilary Scott, Boris Novikov ... Vladislav Panin
    Research Article

    Modification by sialylated glycans can affect protein functions, underlying mechanisms that control animal development and physiology. Sialylation relies on a dedicated pathway involving evolutionarily conserved enzymes, including CMP-sialic acid synthetase (CSAS) and sialyltransferase (SiaT) that mediate the activation of sialic acid and its transfer onto glycan termini, respectively. In Drosophila, CSAS and DSiaT genes function in the nervous system, affecting neural transmission and excitability. We found that these genes function in different cells: the function of CSAS is restricted to glia, while DSiaT functions in neurons. This partition of the sialylation pathway allows for regulation of neural functions via a glia-mediated control of neural sialylation. The sialylation genes were shown to be required for tolerance to heat and oxidative stress and for maintenance of the normal level of voltage-gated sodium channels. Our results uncovered a unique bipartite sialylation pathway that mediates glia-neuron coupling and regulates neural excitability and stress tolerance.