Neuron-specific RNA-sequencing reveals different regeneration mechanisms in peripheral neurons after nerve injury

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The results in this manuscript show that after the same injury, axon regeneration of three types of sensory neurons and motor neurons differs. In addition, they analyzed their transcriptomic profiles with or without injury. Finally, they also pinpoint a molecular candidate that might regulate axon regeneration in PNS.

Strengths:

With four different transgenic lines to label different populations of PNS axons, the authors show that nociceptors have the greatest regeneration, followed by motoneurons, and then cutaneous mechanoreceptors and proprioceptors.

These transgenic tools were further used in RNA profiling analysis. They identified signatures of these different populations in intact and injured states, implicating that differentially activated regenerative programs might be a contributing factor to different regenerative outcomes.

They showed that Med12 is induced in proprioceptors and down-regulated in mechanoreceptors and nociceptors. Further, knockout down Med12 with shRNA increased neurite growth.

Weaknesses:

While in vivo injury was used to assess regeneration from subsets of PNS neurons, different in vitro neurite growth or explant assays were used for further assessments. However, the authors did not assess whether the differential "regenerative" responses in vivo could be recapitulated in vitro. Such results will be important in interpreting the results.

Intriguingly, even in individual groups of PNS neurons, not all neurons regenerate to the same extent. It is known that the distance between the cell body and the lesion site affects neuronal injury responses. It would be interesting to test this in the observed regeneration.

Fig 1: The authors quantified the number of regenerating axons at two different time points. However, the total numbers of neurons/axons in each subset are different. The authors should use these numbers to normalize their regenerative axons.

Fig 2-5: In explaining differential regeneration of individual groups of neurons, there are at least two possibilities: (1). Each group of neurons has different injury/regenerative responses; (2). The same set of injury/regenerative responses are differentially activated. Some data in this manuscript suggested the latter possibility. But some other data point in the opposite direction. It would be informative for the authors to analyze/discuss this further.

Fig 6: Is it possible to assess the regenerative effects of knockdown Med12 after in vivo injury?

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this study, the researchers utilized ribotag-based RNA sequencing to examine the gene expression response, presumably involving actively translated RNAs, in dorsal root ganglia (DRGs) after an injury. They generated multiple lines of mice capable of expressing a fluorescent protein (FP) reporter, tdTomato, along with a ribotag marked by a modified Rpl22 allele (Rpl22-HA). These genetic constructs were controlled by specific promoters that selectively labeled four distinct cell types associated with axons in the peripheral nerve. Hence, the fluorescent protein (FP) will function to label the axons for the purpose of studying their regrowth potential, while the ribotag will be used for the selective isolation of ribosomes associated with the bound mRNAs. The experiments used four transgenic lines, each utilizing distinct gene promoters to target specific cell types: ChAT for motor neurons, Parvalbumin for proprioceptors, Npy2r for cutaneous mechanoreceptors, and TRPV1 for nociceptors.

The authors effectively demonstrate the selectivity of their transgenic lines towards distinct subtypes of DRG neurons. Their utilization of Ribotag, primarily designed for investigating translational activity (translator) within specific cell types, offers a unique perspective on alterations in gene expression.

The results can be categorized into two main types: firstly, a description of axon growth observed at 7 and 9 days following a sciatic nerve crush, and secondly, the RNA sequencing data obtained at 7 days post-crush, particularly concerning axon growth in specific cell types, followed by bioinformatic analysis. Finally, some in vitro experiments were conducted to explore potential causal relationships.

It seems that the most intriguing outcome of this paper revolves around the role of Med12 in nerve regeneration. The authors should prioritize this finding. Drawing a conclusion regarding Med12's role in proprioceptor regeneration based solely on this in vitro model may be insufficient. This noteworthy result requires further investigation using more animal models of nerve regeneration.

One critique revolves around the authors' examination of only a single time point within the dynamic and continuously evolving process of regeneration/reinnervation. Given that this process is characterized by dynamic changes, some of which may not be directly associated with active axon growth during regeneration, and encompasses a wide range of molecular alterations throughout reinnervation, concentrating solely on a single time point could result in the omission of critical molecular events.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In their study, Bolivar et al. set out to explore whether four distinct neuronal subtypes within the peripheral nervous system exhibit varying potentials for axon regeneration following nerve injury. To investigate this question, they harnessed the power of four distinct reporter mouse models featuring fluorescent labeling of these neuronal subtypes. Their findings reveal that axons of nociceptor neurons exhibit faster regeneration than those of motor neurons, with mechanoreceptors, and proprioceptors displaying the slowest regeneration rate.

To delve into the molecular mechanisms underlying this divergence in regeneration potential, the authors employed the Ribotag technique in mice. This approach enabled them to dissect the differential translatomes of these four neuronal populations after nerve injury, comparing them to uninjured neurons. Their comprehensive expression profiling data uncovers a remarkably heterogeneous response among these neuron subtypes to axon injury.

To focus on one identified target with a mechanistic experiment as a proof of concept, their analysis highlights a striking upregulation of MED12 in proprioceptors, leading to the hypothesis that this molecule may play an inhibitory role, contributing to the comparatively slower regeneration of proprioceptor axons when compared to other neuronal subtypes. This hypothesis gains support from their in vitro model, where siRNA-mediated downregulation of MED12 results in a significant increase in neurite outgrowth in proprioceptive neurons after plating in cell culture dishes.

Overall, this is an interesting study, and in conjunction with similar work from others will be highly valuable for neurobiologists studying how to modulate the regeneration of axons from distinct neuronal subtypes. The quality of data presentation appears to be very good in general, and the manuscript is appropriately written.