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

  • 981
    views
  • 141
    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
    Marine Schimel, Ta-Chu Kao, Guillaume Hennequin
    Research Article

    During delayed ballistic reaches, motor areas consistently display movement-specific activity patterns prior to movement onset. It is unclear why these patterns arise: while they have been proposed to seed an initial neural state from which the movement unfolds, recent experiments have uncovered the presence and necessity of ongoing inputs during movement, which may lessen the need for careful initialization. Here, we modeled the motor cortex as an input-driven dynamical system, and we asked what the optimal way to control this system to perform fast delayed reaches is. We find that delay-period inputs consistently arise in an optimally controlled model of M1. By studying a variety of network architectures, we could dissect and predict the situations in which it is beneficial for a network to prepare. Finally, we show that optimal input-driven control of neural dynamics gives rise to multiple phases of preparation during reach sequences, providing a novel explanation for experimentally observed features of monkey M1 activity in double reaching.

    1. Neuroscience
    Jing Jun Wong, Alessandro Bongioanni ... Bolton KH Chau
    Research Article

    Humans make irrational decisions in the presence of irrelevant distractor options. There is little consensus on whether decision making is facilitated or impaired by the presence of a highly rewarding distractor, or whether the distractor effect operates at the level of options’ component attributes rather than at the level of their overall value. To reconcile different claims, we argue that it is important to consider the diversity of people’s styles of decision making and whether choice attributes are combined in an additive or multiplicative way. Employing a multi-laboratory dataset investigating the same experimental paradigm, we demonstrated that people used a mix of both approaches and the extent to which approach was used varied across individuals. Critically, we identified that this variability was correlated with the distractor effect during decision making. Individuals who tended to use a multiplicative approach to compute value, showed a positive distractor effect. In contrast, a negative distractor effect (divisive normalisation) was prominent in individuals tending towards an additive approach. Findings suggest that the distractor effect is related to how value is constructed, which in turn may be influenced by task and subject specificities. This concurs with recent behavioural and neuroscience findings that multiple distractor effects co-exist.