DCC regulates astroglial development essential for telencephalic morphogenesis and corpus callosum formation

  1. Laura Morcom
  2. Ilan Gobius
  3. Ashley PL Marsh
  4. Rodrigo Suárez
  5. Jonathan WC Lim
  6. Caitlin Bridges
  7. Yunan Ye
  8. Laura R Fenlon
  9. Yvrick Zagar
  10. Amelia M Douglass
  11. Amber-Lee Donahoo
  12. Thomas Fothergill
  13. Samreen Shaikh
  14. Peter Kozulin
  15. Timothy J Edwards
  16. Helen M Cooper
  17. IRC5 Consortium
  18. Elliott H Sherr
  19. Alain Chédotal
  20. Richard J Leventer
  21. Paul J Lockhart
  22. Linda J Richards  Is a corresponding author
  1. The University of Queensland, Australia
  2. Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Australia
  3. Institut de la Vision, France
  4. University of California, San Francisco, United States
  5. Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ Paris 06, INSERM, CNRS, France
  6. Murdoch Childrens Research Institute and Royal Childrens Hospital, Australia

Abstract

The forebrain hemispheres are predominantly separated during embryogenesis by the interhemispheric fissure (IHF). Radial astroglia remodel the IHF to form a continuous substrate between the hemispheres for midline crossing of the corpus callosum (CC) and hippocampal commissure (HC). DCC and NTN1 are molecules that have an evolutionarily conserved function in commissural axon guidance. The CC and HC are absent in Dcc and Ntn1 knockout mice, while other commissures are only partially affected, suggesting an additional aetiology in forebrain commissure formation. Here, we find that these molecules play a critical role in regulating astroglial development and IHF remodelling during CC and HC formation. Human subjects with DCC mutations display disrupted IHF remodelling associated with CC and HC malformations. Thus, axon guidance molecules such as DCC and NTN1 first regulate the formation of a midline substrate for dorsal commissures prior to their role in regulating axonal growth and guidance across it.

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. Ilan Gobius

    Queensland Brain Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Ashley PL Marsh

    Bruce Lefroy Centre for Genetic Health Research, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6049-6931
  4. 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.
  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. Caitlin Bridges

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

    Queensland Brain Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Laura R Fenlon

    Queensland Brain Institute, School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Yvrick Zagar

    Department of Development, Institut de la Vision, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Amelia M Douglass

    Queensland Brain Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5398-6473
  11. Amber-Lee Donahoo

    Queensland Brain Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Thomas Fothergill

    Queensland Brain Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Samreen Shaikh

    Queensland Brain Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Peter Kozulin

    Queensland Brain Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7872-9884
  15. Timothy J Edwards

    Queensland Brain Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Helen M Cooper

    Queensland Brain Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. IRC5 Consortium

  18. 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
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Alain Chédotal

    Institut de la Vision, Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ Paris 06, INSERM, CNRS, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7577-3794
  20. Richard J Leventer

    Bruce Lefroy Centre for Genetic Health Research and Department of Neurology, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute and Royal Childrens Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  21. Paul J Lockhart

    Genetics, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Parkville, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2531-8413
  22. 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 (GNT456027)

  • Linda J Richards

Queensland Brain Institute (Top-Up scholarship)

  • Amber-Lee Donahoo

University of Queensland (UQ development fellowship)

  • Laura R Fenlon

Murdoch Children's Research Institute (Melbourne Children's Clinician Scientist fellowship)

  • Richard J Leventer

National Health and Medical Research Council (Principal research fellowship,GNT1120615)

  • Linda J Richards

Department of Education, Skills and Employment (Australian Postgraduate Award)

  • Amber-Lee Donahoo

National Health and Medical Research Council (GNT631466)

  • Linda J Richards

National Health and Medical Research Council (GNT1048849)

  • Linda J Richards

National Health and Medical Research Council (GNT1126153)

  • Linda J Richards

National Health and Medical Research Council (GNT1059666)

  • Richard J Leventer
  • Paul J Lockhart

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)

  • Ashley PL Marsh

National Health and Medical Research Council (Early career research fellowship,APP1156820)

  • Ashley PL Marsh

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/311/14 NHMRC (NF), QBI/356/17, QBI/306/17, and QBI/240/14/MDF (NF)).

Human subjects: Ethics for human experimentation was acquired by local ethics committees at TheUniversity of Queensland (Australia), the Royal Children's hospital (Australia), andUCSF Benioff Children's Hospital (USA). The research was carried out in accordance with the provisions contained in the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (USA) under IRB number 10-01008 and with the regulations governing experimentation on humans (Australia), under the following human ethics approvals: HEU 2007/163 (previously 2006000899), HEU 2014000535, HEU 2015001306.

Copyright

This is an open-access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

Metrics

  • 1,805
    views
  • 281
    downloads
  • 8
    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. Ilan Gobius
  3. Ashley PL Marsh
  4. Rodrigo Suárez
  5. Jonathan WC Lim
  6. Caitlin Bridges
  7. Yunan Ye
  8. Laura R Fenlon
  9. Yvrick Zagar
  10. Amelia M Douglass
  11. Amber-Lee Donahoo
  12. Thomas Fothergill
  13. Samreen Shaikh
  14. Peter Kozulin
  15. Timothy J Edwards
  16. Helen M Cooper
  17. IRC5 Consortium
  18. Elliott H Sherr
  19. Alain Chédotal
  20. Richard J Leventer
  21. Paul J Lockhart
  22. Linda J Richards
(2021)
DCC regulates astroglial development essential for telencephalic morphogenesis and corpus callosum formation
eLife 10:e61769.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.61769

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.61769

Further reading

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Developmental Biology
    Leif Benner, Savannah Muron ... Brian Oliver
    Research Article

    Differentiation of female germline stem cells into a mature oocyte includes the expression of RNAs and proteins that drive early embryonic development in Drosophila. We have little insight into what activates the expression of these maternal factors. One candidate is the zinc-finger protein OVO. OVO is required for female germline viability and has been shown to positively regulate its own expression, as well as a downstream target, ovarian tumor, by binding to the transcriptional start site (TSS). To find additional OVO targets in the female germline and further elucidate OVO’s role in oocyte development, we performed ChIP-seq to determine genome-wide OVO occupancy, as well as RNA-seq comparing hypomorphic and wild type rescue ovo alleles. OVO preferentially binds in close proximity to target TSSs genome-wide, is associated with open chromatin, transcriptionally active histone marks, and OVO-dependent expression. Motif enrichment analysis on OVO ChIP peaks identified a 5’-TAACNGT-3’ OVO DNA binding motif spatially enriched near TSSs. However, the OVO DNA binding motif does not exhibit precise motif spacing relative to the TSS characteristic of RNA polymerase II complex binding core promoter elements. Integrated genomics analysis showed that 525 genes that are bound and increase in expression downstream of OVO are known to be essential maternally expressed genes. These include genes involved in anterior/posterior/germ plasm specification (bcd, exu, swa, osk, nos, aub, pgc, gcl), egg activation (png, plu, gnu, wisp, C(3)g, mtrm), translational regulation (cup, orb, bru1, me31B), and vitelline membrane formation (fs(1)N, fs(1)M3, clos). This suggests that OVO is a master transcriptional regulator of oocyte development and is responsible for the expression of structural components of the egg as well as maternally provided RNAs that are required for early embryonic development.

    1. Developmental Biology
    Saira Amir, Olatunbosun Arowolo ... Alexander Suvorov
    Research Article

    Over the past several decades, a trend toward delayed childbirth has led to increases in parental age at the time of conception. Sperm epigenome undergoes age-dependent changes increasing risks of adverse conditions in offspring conceived by fathers of advanced age. The mechanism(s) linking paternal age with epigenetic changes in sperm remain unknown. The sperm epigenome is shaped in a compartment protected by the blood-testes barrier (BTB) known to deteriorate with age. Permeability of the BTB is regulated by the balance of two mTOR complexes in Sertoli cells where mTOR complex 1 (mTORC1) promotes the opening of the BTB and mTOR complex 2 (mTORC2) promotes its integrity. We hypothesized that this balance is also responsible for age-dependent changes in the sperm epigenome. To test this hypothesis, we analyzed reproductive outcomes, including sperm DNA methylation in transgenic mice with Sertoli cell-specific suppression of mTORC1 (Rptor KO) or mTORC2 (Rictor KO). mTORC2 suppression accelerated aging of the sperm DNA methylome and resulted in a reproductive phenotype concordant with older age, including decreased testes weight and sperm counts, and increased percent of morphologically abnormal spermatozoa and mitochondrial DNA copy number. Suppression of mTORC1 resulted in the shift of DNA methylome in sperm opposite to the shift associated with physiological aging – sperm DNA methylome rejuvenation and mild changes in sperm parameters. These results demonstrate for the first time that the balance of mTOR complexes in Sertoli cells regulates the rate of sperm epigenetic aging. Thus, mTOR pathway in Sertoli cells may be used as a novel target of therapeutic interventions to rejuvenate the sperm epigenome in advanced-age fathers.