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.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Carol A Mason, Columbia University, United States

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.

Version history

  1. Received: July 30, 2020
  2. Accepted: May 1, 2021
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: May 4, 2021 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: May 20, 2021 (version 2)

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

  • 920
    views
  • 133
    downloads
  • 10
    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
    Taicheng Huang, Jia Liu
    Research Article

    The fact that objects without proper support will fall to the ground is not only a natural phenomenon, but also common sense in mind. Previous studies suggest that humans may infer objects’ stability through a world model that performs mental simulations with a priori knowledge of gravity acting upon the objects. Here we measured participants’ sensitivity to gravity to investigate how the world model works. We found that the world model on gravity was not a faithful replica of the physical laws, but instead encoded gravity’s vertical direction as a Gaussian distribution. The world model with this stochastic feature fit nicely with participants’ subjective sense of objects’ stability and explained the illusion that taller objects are perceived as more likely to fall. Furthermore, a computational model with reinforcement learning revealed that the stochastic characteristic likely originated from experience-dependent comparisons between predictions formed by internal simulations and the realities observed in the external world, which illustrated the ecological advantage of stochastic representation in balancing accuracy and speed for efficient stability inference. The stochastic world model on gravity provides an example of how a priori knowledge of the physical world is implemented in mind that helps humans operate flexibly in open-ended environments.

    1. Neuroscience
    Geoffroy Delamare, Yosif Zaki ... Claudia Clopath
    Short Report

    Representational drift refers to the dynamic nature of neural representations in the brain despite the behavior being seemingly stable. Although drift has been observed in many different brain regions, the mechanisms underlying it are not known. Since intrinsic neural excitability is suggested to play a key role in regulating memory allocation, fluctuations of excitability could bias the reactivation of previously stored memory ensembles and therefore act as a motor for drift. Here, we propose a rate-based plastic recurrent neural network with slow fluctuations of intrinsic excitability. We first show that subsequent reactivations of a neural ensemble can lead to drift of this ensemble. The model predicts that drift is induced by co-activation of previously active neurons along with neurons with high excitability which leads to remodeling of the recurrent weights. Consistent with previous experimental works, the drifting ensemble is informative about its temporal history. Crucially, we show that the gradual nature of the drift is necessary for decoding temporal information from the activity of the ensemble. Finally, we show that the memory is preserved and can be decoded by an output neuron having plastic synapses with the main region.