DRAXIN regulates interhemispheric fissure remodelling to influence the extent of corpus callosum formation

  1. Laura Morcom
  2. Timothy J Edwards
  3. Eric Rider
  4. Dorothy Jones-Davis
  5. Jonathan WC Lim
  6. Kok-Siong Chen
  7. Ryan J Dean
  8. Jens Bunt
  9. Yunan Ye
  10. Ilan Gobius
  11. Rodrigo Suárez
  12. Simone Mandelstam
  13. Elliott H Sherr  Is a corresponding author
  14. Linda J Richards  Is a corresponding author
  1. The University of Queensland, Australia
  2. University of California, San Francisco, United States
  3. University of Melbourne and The Royal Childrens Hospital, Australia

Abstract

Corpus callosum dysgenesis (CCD) is a congenital disorder that incorporates either partial or complete absence of the largest cerebral commissure. Remodelling of the interhemispheric fissure (IHF) provides a substrate for callosal axons to cross between hemispheres, and its failure is the main cause of complete CCD. However, it is unclear whether defects in this process could give rise to the heterogeneity of expressivity and phenotypes seen in human cases of CCD. We identify incomplete IHF remodelling as the key structural correlate for the range of callosal abnormalities in inbred and outcrossed BTBR mouse strains, as well as in humans with partial CCD. We identify an eight base-pair deletion in Draxin and misregulated astroglial and leptomeningeal proliferation as genetic and cellular factors for variable IHF remodelling and CCD in BTBR strains. These findings support a model where genetic events determine corpus callosum structure by influencing leptomeningeal-astroglial interactions at the IHF.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files. Source data files have been provided for all figures that contain numerical data.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Laura Morcom

    Queensland Brain Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Timothy J Edwards

    Queensland Brain Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Eric Rider

    Departments of Neurology and Pediatrics, Institute of Human Genetics and Weill Institute of Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Dorothy Jones-Davis

    Departments of Neurology and Pediatrics, Institute of Human Genetics and Weill Institute of Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Jonathan WC Lim

    Queensland Brain Institute, School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5074-6359
  6. Kok-Siong Chen

    Queensland Brain Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Ryan J Dean

    Queensland Brain Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Jens Bunt

    Queensland Brain Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Yunan Ye

    Queensland Brain Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Ilan Gobius

    Queensland Brain Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Rodrigo Suárez

    Queensland Brain Institute, School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Simone Mandelstam

    Radiology, University of Melbourne and The Royal Childrens Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Elliott H Sherr

    Departments of Neurology and Pediatrics, Institute of Human Genetics and Weill Institute of Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    For correspondence
    Elliott.Sherr@ucsf.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Linda J Richards

    Queensland Brain Institute, School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
    For correspondence
    richards@uq.edu.au
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7590-7390

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council (GNT1048849)

  • Linda J Richards

National Health and Medical Research Council (GNT1126153)

  • Linda J Richards

National Institutes of Health (5R01NS058721)

  • Elliott H Sherr
  • Linda J Richards

Australian Research Council (DE160101394)

  • Rodrigo Suárez

Department of Education, Skills and Employment Australia (Research Training Program scholarship)

  • Laura Morcom
  • Jonathan WC Lim

University of Queensland (Research Scholarship)

  • Timothy J Edwards
  • Kok-Siong Chen

Queensland Brain Institute (Top-Up Scholarship)

  • Laura Morcom
  • Timothy J Edwards
  • Jonathan WC Lim

National Health and Medical Research Council (GNT1120615)

  • Linda J Richards

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

Ethics

Animal experimentation: Prior approval for all breeding and experiments was obtained from the University of Queensland Animal Ethics Committee and was conducted in accordance with the Australian code for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes. The protocol, experiments and animal numbers were approved under the following project approval numbers: QBI/305/17, QBI/306/17, QBI/311/14 NHMRC (NF), QBI/356/17, and QBI/310/14/UQ (NF).

Human subjects: Ethics for human experimentation was acquired by local ethics committees at The University of Queensland (Australia), and carried out in accordance with the provisions contained in the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research and with the regulations governing experimentation on humans (Australia), under the following human ethics approvals: HEU 2014000535, and HEU 2015001306.

Copyright

© 2021, Morcom 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

  • 1,000
    views
  • 143
    downloads
  • 11
    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. Laura Morcom
  2. Timothy J Edwards
  3. Eric Rider
  4. Dorothy Jones-Davis
  5. Jonathan WC Lim
  6. Kok-Siong Chen
  7. Ryan J Dean
  8. Jens Bunt
  9. Yunan Ye
  10. Ilan Gobius
  11. Rodrigo Suárez
  12. Simone Mandelstam
  13. Elliott H Sherr
  14. Linda J Richards
(2021)
DRAXIN regulates interhemispheric fissure remodelling to influence the extent of corpus callosum formation
eLife 10:e61618.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.61618

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.61618

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Katie Morris, Edita Bulovaite ... Mathew H Horrocks
    Research Article

    The concept that dimeric protein complexes in synapses can sequentially replace their subunits has been a cornerstone of Francis Crick’s 1984 hypothesis, explaining how long-term memories could be maintained in the face of short protein lifetimes. However, it is unknown whether the subunits of protein complexes that mediate memory are sequentially replaced in the brain and if this process is linked to protein lifetime. We address these issues by focusing on supercomplexes assembled by the abundant postsynaptic scaffolding protein PSD95, which plays a crucial role in memory. We used single-molecule detection, super-resolution microscopy and MINFLUX to probe the molecular composition of PSD95 supercomplexes in mice carrying genetically encoded HaloTags, eGFP, and mEoS2. We found a population of PSD95-containing supercomplexes comprised of two copies of PSD95, with a dominant 12.7 nm separation. Time-stamping of PSD95 subunits in vivo revealed that each PSD95 subunit was sequentially replaced over days and weeks. Comparison of brain regions showed subunit replacement was slowest in the cortex, where PSD95 protein lifetime is longest. Our findings reveal that protein supercomplexes within the postsynaptic density can be maintained by gradual replacement of individual subunits providing a mechanism for stable maintenance of their organization. Moreover, we extend Crick’s model by suggesting that synapses with slow subunit replacement of protein supercomplexes and long-protein lifetimes are specialized for long-term memory storage and that these synapses are highly enriched in superficial layers of the cortex where long-term memories are stored.

    1. Neuroscience
    John P Grogan, Matthias Raemaekers ... Sanjay G Manohar
    Research Article

    Motivation depends on dopamine, but might be modulated by acetylcholine which influences dopamine release in the striatum, and amplifies motivation in animal studies. A corresponding effect in humans would be important clinically, since anticholinergic drugs are frequently used in Parkinson’s disease, a condition that can also disrupt motivation. Reward and dopamine make us more ready to respond, as indexed by reaction times (RT), and move faster, sometimes termed vigour. These effects may be controlled by preparatory processes that can be tracked using electroencephalography (EEG). We measured vigour in a placebo-controlled, double-blinded study of trihexyphenidyl (THP), a muscarinic antagonist, with an incentivised eye movement task and EEG. Participants responded faster and with greater vigour when incentives were high, but THP blunted these motivational effects, suggesting that muscarinic receptors facilitate invigoration by reward. Preparatory EEG build-up (contingent negative variation [CNV]) was strengthened by high incentives and by muscarinic blockade, although THP reduced the incentive effect. The amplitude of preparatory activity predicted both vigour and RT, although over distinct scalp regions; frontal activity predicted vigour, whereas a larger, earlier, central component predicted RT. The incentivisation of RT was partly mediated by the CNV, though vigour was not. Moreover, the CNV mediated the drug’s effect on dampening incentives, suggesting that muscarinic receptors underlie the motivational influence on this preparatory activity. Taken together, these findings show that a muscarinic blocker impairs motivated action in healthy people, and that medial frontal preparatory neural activity mediates this for RT.