| Literature DB >> 31391209 |
Peter M Bradley1,2, Carmen K Denecke1,2,3, Almir Aljovic1,2,3, Anja Schmalz1,2, Martin Kerschensteiner1,2,4, Florence M Bareyre5,2,4.
Abstract
The remodeling of supraspinal axonal circuits mediates functional recovery after spinal cord injury. This process critically depends on the selection of appropriate synaptic connections between cortical projection and spinal relay neurons. To unravel the principles that guide this target selection, we used genetic and chemogenetic tools to modulate NMDA receptor (NMDAR) integrity and function, CREB-mediated transcription, and neuronal firing of relay neurons during injury-induced corticospinal remodeling. We show that NMDAR signaling and CREB-mediated transcription maintain nascent corticospinal tract (CST)-relay neuron contacts. These activity-dependent signals act during a defined period of circuit remodeling and do not affect mature or uninjured circuits. Furthermore, chemogenetic modulation of relay neuron activity reveals that the regrowing CST axons select their postsynaptic partners in a competitive manner and that preventing such activity-dependent shaping of corticospinal circuits limits motor recovery after spinal cord injury.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31391209 PMCID: PMC6829605 DOI: 10.1084/jem.20181406
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Exp Med ISSN: 0022-1007 Impact factor: 14.307
Figure 1.Pharmacological inhibition and genetic ablation of NMDARs decreases CST-relay neuron contacts after SCI. (A) Illustration of CST detour circuit formation following SCI. (B) Experimental setup of the pharmacological inhibition of NMDARs. (C) Confocal images and quantitative analysis of the number of boutons on hindlimb CST collaterals in the cervical spinal cord (arrowheads indicate boutons; P = 0.0113; n = 6–9 mice per group). (D) Experimental setup of the genetic ablation of NR1 subunit of NMDARs in spinal relay neurons. (E) 3D reconstructions of CST contacts on AAV-transfected neurons (CST, green; GFP+ neurons, magenta; arrowheads indicate contacted cells) and quantification (P = 0.0168; n = 6–8 mice per group). (F) Confocal images of cervical CST collaterals and quantitative analysis of bouton density on CST collaterals (P = 0.0064; n = 6–8 mice per group; arrowheads indicate boutons). (G) Quantitative analysis of the number (left panel, P = 0.2584) and length (right panel, P = 0.9673; n = 6–8 mice per group) of these collaterals in the cervical spinal cord. Data analyzed using two-tailed unpaired t test and presented as mean ± SEM (*, P > 0.05; **, P < 0.01). Ctrl, control; ns, not significant. Scale bars, 10 µm in C, E, and F. MK801 data: one experiment. NR1 data: two independent experiments.
Figure 2.Inhibition of CREB-mediated transcription alters remodeling of injured circuits. (A) Experimental setup of the inhibition of CREB-mediated transcription using viral delivery of a dominant-negative inhibitor (aCREB). (B) 3D reconstructions of CST contacts on AAV-transfected neurons (CST, green; GFP+ neurons, magenta; arrowheads indicate contacted cells) and quantification (P = 0.0393, n = 6–8 mice per group). (C) Confocal images of cervical CST collaterals and quantitative analysis of the bouton density on CST collaterals (P = 0.1636; n = 6–8 mice per group; arrowheads indicate boutons). (D) Quantitative analysis of the number (P = 0.0229, n = 6–8 mice per group) of these collaterals in the cervical spinal cord of mice injected with rAAV-GFP (−aCREB) or rAAV-GFP-aCREB (+aCREB). (E) Confocal images (left panel) of cervical CST collaterals (green) and aCREB-transduced neurons (magenta; arrowheads indicate CST collaterals) and quantitative analysis (right panel) of the length of CST collaterals (P = 0.0004, n = 6–8 mice per group). Data were analyzed using two-tailed unpaired t test and presented as mean ± SEM (*, P < 0.05; ***, P < 0.001). Ctrl, control; ns, not significant. Scale bars, 10 µm in B and C, and 50 µm in E. aCREB data: two independent experiments.
Figure 3.Activity-dependent competition shapes intraspinal remodeling after injury. (A) Experimental setup used for silencing excitatory and inhibitory neurons based on viral delivery of DREADDs in C57Bl6 mice. (B) 3D reconstructions of CST contacts on AAV-transfected neurons (−CNO, treated with saline; +CNO, treated with CNO; CST, green; GFP+ neurons, blue; DREADD-mCherry, magenta; arrowheads indicate contacted cells) and quantification (P = 0.9079, n = 9 mice per group). (C) Confocal images of cervical CST collaterals (arrowheads indicate boutons) and quantitative analysis of the bouton density on these collaterals (P = 0.1651; n = 9 mice per group). (D) Quantitative analysis of the number (left panel, P = 0.2682) and length (right panel, P = 0.9980; n = 9 mice per group) of CST collaterals in the cervical spinal cord of mice injected as described above. (E) Experimental setup used for selectively silencing excitatory neurons based on viral delivery of DREADDs in VGlut2-cre mice (see results in F–L). (F) 3D reconstructions of CST contacts on AAV-transfected neurons (−CNO, treated with saline; +CNO, treated with CNO; CST, green; NeuN+ relay neurons, blue; DREADD-mCherry, magenta; arrowheads indicate contacted cells) and quantification (P = 0.0049, n = 10–12 mice per group). (G) Confocal images of cervical CST collaterals and quantitative analysis of the bouton density on these collaterals (P = 0.0022; n = 10–12 mice per group; arrowheads indicate boutons). (H) Quantitative analysis of the number of CST collaterals in the cervical spinal cord (P = 0.0323; n = 10–12 mice per group). (I) Confocal images (CST collaterals, green; DREADD-transduced neurons, magenta) and quantitative analysis of the length (P = 0.0044; n = 10–12 mice per group) of CST collaterals in the cervical spinal cord (arrowheads indicate CST collaterals). (J) 3D reconstructions of CST collaterals in direct vicinity of relay neurons (arrowheads indicate contacts). (K) Cumulative frequency distribution (left panel; −CNO, n = 181 contacted cells from seven mice analyzed; +CNO, n = 138 contacted cells from five mice analyzed) and bouton density of CST collaterals in direct apposition of contacted neurons (right panel; P = 0.0001, −CNO, n = 181 from seven mice; +CNO, n = 138 from five mice contacted cells analyzed). Box borders represent the 25th and 75th percentiles, whiskers 10th and 90th percentiles. (L) 3D reconstructions illustrating how the DREADD level within the spinal relay neurons contacted by CST collaterals is determined (CST, green; NeuN+ neurons, blue; DREADD-mCherry, magenta; surface rendering, yellow). (M) Histogram (left panel) depicting the probability of relay neurons to be contacted by growing CST collaterals in relation to their expression levels of the DREADD constructs (+CNO, orange bars; –CNO, white bars) and box plot (right panel) showing the median intensity of DREADD expression in CST contacted relay neurons (P < 0.0001, −CNO, n = 1,198 from 12 mice; +CNO, n = 368 from 10 mice contacted cells analyzed). Box borders represent the 25th and 75th percentiles, and whiskers represent the 10th and 90th percentiles. (N) Experimental setup for selective silencing of LPSNs based on viral delivery of DREADDs in C57Bl6 mice. (O) Confocal images of the spinal cord to illustrate the location of LPSNs transduced with DREADDs (labeled by DREADD-mCherry, magenta). (P and Q) 3D reconstructions of CST contacts of rAAV-DIO-hM4Di-mCherry transduced neurons (P, −CNO, treated with saline; +CNO, treated with CNO; CST, green; DREADD-mCherry, magenta; arrowheads indicate contacts) and quantification (Q, P = 0.0312, n = 7 or 8 mice per group). CST contacts were evaluated onto cell bodies (dotted boxes) and dendrites (dashed boxes) revealing that CNO treatment reduced contact formation without affecting contact distribution (−CNO, 25.4% somatic versus 74.6% dendritic contacts, 134 contacts from eight mice; +CNO, 26.8% somatic versus 73.2% dendritic contacts, 41 contacts from seven mice). Data were analyzed using two-tailed unpaired t test for B–I and Q and presented as mean ± SEM, a Kolmogorov–Smirnov test for K, left, and with a Mann–Whitney test for K, right, and M, right. Ctrl, control. Scale bars, 10 µm in B, C, F, G, J, L, and P; 50 µm in I; and 100 µm in O. C57Bl6-DREADD data: two independent experiments. VGlut-DREADD data: two independent experiments. Analysis in K and Q was derived from one experiment. *, P < 0.5; **, P < 0.01; ***, P < 0.001; ****, P < 0.0001.
Figure 4.Silencing of relay neurons impairs gait recovery after SCI. (A) Experimental setup used for analyzing the impact of silencing excitatory relay neurons on motor recovery. (B) Two-dimensional statistical representation of gait parameters after performing PCA. Each small colored dot represents the gait pattern from an individual mouse chronically treated (orange) or nontreated (black) with CNO (n = 5–7 mice per group). Big dots represent the group mean. (C) Bar graphs of average scores on principal components 1 at 21 dpi after injury (P = 0.0140; n = 5–7 mice per group; mean ± SEM). (D) Line graph showing the relative changes of PC1 compared with preinjury levels over the time course of the experiment (P = 0.0021; n = 5–7 mice per group; mean ± SEM). (E) Color-coded representation of factor loadings that identify each parameter’s correlation coefficient (r) with PC1. Parameters with positive/negative correlation are coded in red, while those with a correlation close to 0 are coded in black (see scale below). Data on PC1 were analyzed with a t test in C and with a repeated two-way ANOVA followed by a Bonferroni post hoc test in D. Behavioral analysis: one experiment. a.u., arbitrary units; pre-inj., pre-injury. *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01.