New methods to explore astrocyte effects on brain function

A study in The Journal of General Physiology [1, 2] presents new methods to evaluate how astrocytes contribute to brain function, paving the way for future exploration of these important brain cells at unprecedented levels of detail.

Astrocytes—the most abundant cell type in the human brain—play crucial roles in brain physiology, which may include modulating synaptic activity and regulating local blood flow. Existing research tools can be used to monitor calcium signals associated with interactions between astrocytes and neurons or blood vessels. Until now, however, astrocytic calcium signals have been investigated mainly in their somata (cell bodies) and large processes, rather than in distal fine processes close to neuronal synapses or the endfeet that surround blood vessels. Previous studies have also mainly investigated immature specimens rather than mature brain cells.

Now, a team of California researchers provides detailed methods to visualize calcium signals throughout entire astrocytes in hippocampal slices from adult mice. The team observed numerous spontaneous localized calcium signals throughout the entire astrocyte, including the branchlets and endfeet. Their results indicated that calcium signals in endfeet were independent of those in somata and occurred more frequently. In addition to the specific findings, their methods can be used in future studies to advance our understanding of the physiology of astrocytes and their interactions with neurons and the microvasculature of the brain.

After Brain Injury, New Astrocytes Play Unexpected Role in Healing

The production of a certain kind of brain cell that had been considered an impediment to healing may actually be needed to staunch bleeding and promote repair after a stroke or head trauma, researchers at Duke Medicine report.

These cells, known as astrocytes, can be produced from stem cells in the brain after injury. They migrate to the site of damage where they are much more effective in promoting recovery than previously thought. This insight from studies in mice, reported online April 24, 2013, in the journal Nature, may help researchers develop treatments that foster brain repair.

“The injury recovery process is complex,” said senior author Chay T. Kuo, M.D., PhD, George W. Brumley Assistant Professor of Cell Biology, Pediatrics and Neurobiology at Duke University. “There is a lot of interest in how new neurons can stimulate functional recovery, but if you make neurons without stopping the bleeding, the neurons don’t even get a chance. The brain somehow knows this, so we believe that’s why it produces these unique astrocytes in response to injury.”

Each year, more than 1.7 million people in the United States suffer a traumatic brain injury, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Another 795,000 people a year suffer a stroke. Few therapies are available to treat the damage that often results from such injuries.

Kuo and colleagues at Duke are interested in replacing lost neurons after a brain injury as a way to restore function. Once damaged, mature neurons cannot multiply, so most research efforts have focused on inducing brain stem cells to produce more immature neurons to replace them.

This strategy has proved difficult, because in addition to making neurons, neural stem cells also produce astrocytes and oligodendrocytes, known as glial cells. Although glial cells are important for maintaining the normal function of neurons in the brain, the increased production of astrocytes from neural stem cell has been considered an unwanted byproduct, causing more harm than good. Proliferating astrocytes secrete proteins that can induce tissue inflammation and undergo gene mutations that can lead to aggressive brain tumors.

In their study of mice, the Duke team found an unexpected insight about the astrocytes produced from stem cells after injury. Stem cells live in a special area or “niche” in the postnatal/adult brain called the subventricular zone, and churn out neurons and glia in the right proportions based on cues from the surrounding tissue.

After an injury, however, the subventricular niche pumps out more astrocytes. Significantly, the Duke team found they are different from astrocytes produced in most other regions of the brain. These cells make their way to the injured area to help make an organized scar, which stops the bleeding and allows tissue recovery.

When the generation of these astrocytes in the subventricular niche was experimentally blocked after a brain injury, hemorrhaging occurred around the injured areas and the region did not heal.  Kuo said the finding was made possible by insights about astrocytes from Cagla Eroglu, PhD, whose laboratory next door to Kuo’s conducts research on astrocyte interactions with neurons.

“Cagla and I started at Duke together and have known each other since our postdoctoral days,” Kuo said. “To have these stem cell-made astrocytes express a unique protein that Cagla understands more than anyone else, it’s just a wonderful example of scientific serendipity and collaboration.”

Additionally, Kuo said first author Eric J. Benner, M.D., PhD, a former postdoctoral fellow who now has his own laboratory at Duke, provided key clinical correlations on brain injury as a physician-scientist and practicing neonatologist in the Jean and George Brumley Jr. Neonatal-Perinatal Research Institute.

“We are very excited about this innate flexibility in neural stem cell behavior to know just what to do to help the brain after injury,” Kuo said. “Since bleeding in the brain after injury is a common and serious problem for patients, further research into this area may lead to effective therapies for accelerated brain recovery after injury.”

Scientists Find Antibody that Transforms Bone Marrow Stem Cells Directly into Brain Cells

In a serendipitous discovery, scientists at The Scripps Research Institute (TSRI) have found a way to turn bone marrow stem cells directly into brain cells.

Current techniques for turning patients’ marrow cells into cells of some other desired type are relatively cumbersome, risky and effectively confined to the lab dish. The new finding points to the possibility of simpler and safer techniques. Cell therapies derived from patients’ own cells are widely expected to be useful in treating spinal cord injuries, strokes and other conditions throughout the body, with little or no risk of immune rejection.

“These results highlight the potential of antibodies as versatile manipulators of cellular functions,” said Richard A. Lerner, the Lita Annenberg Hazen Professor of Immunochemistry and institute professor in the Department of Cell and Molecular Biology at TSRI, and principal investigator for the new study. “This is a far cry from the way antibodies used to be thought of—as molecules that were selected simply for binding and not function.”

The researchers discovered the method, reported in the online Early Edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences the week of April 22, 2013, while looking for lab-grown antibodies that can activate a growth-stimulating receptor on marrow cells. One antibody turned out to activate the receptor in a way that induces marrow stem cells—which normally develop into white blood cells—to become neural progenitor cells, a type of almost-mature brain cell.

Nature’s Toolkit

Natural antibodies are large, Y-shaped proteins produced by immune cells. Collectively, they are diverse enough to recognize about 100 billion distinct shapes on viruses, bacteria and other targets. Since the 1980s, molecular biologists have known how to produce antibodies in cell cultures in the laboratory. That has allowed them to start using this vast, target-gripping toolkit to make scientific probes, as well as diagnostics and therapies for cancer, arthritis, transplant rejection, viral infections and other diseases.

In the late 1980s, Lerner and his TSRI colleagues helped invent the first techniques for generating large “libraries” of distinct antibodies and swiftly determining which of these could bind to a desired target. The anti-inflammatory antibody Humira®, now one of the world’s top-selling drugs, was discovered with the benefit of this technology.

Last year, in a study spearheaded by TSRI Research Associate Hongkai Zhang, Lerner’s laboratory devised a new antibody-discovery technique—in which antibodies are produced in mammalian cells along with receptors or other target molecules of interest. The technique enables researchers to determine rapidly not just which antibodies in a library bind to a given receptor, for example, but also which ones activate the receptor and thereby alter cell function.

Lab Dish in a Cell

For the new study, Lerner laboratory Research Associate Jia Xie and colleagues modified the new technique so that antibody proteins produced in a given cell are physically anchored to the cell’s outer membrane, near its target receptors. “Confining an antibody’s activity to the cell in which it is produced effectively allows us to use larger antibody libraries and to screen these antibodies more quickly for a specific activity,” said Xie. With the improved technique, scientists can sift through a library of tens of millions of antibodies in a few days.

In an early test, Xie used the new method to screen for antibodies that could activate the GCSF receptor, a growth-factor receptor found on bone marrow cells and other cell types. GCSF-mimicking drugs were among the first biotech bestsellers because of their ability to stimulate white blood cell growth—which counteracts the marrow-suppressing side effect of cancer chemotherapy.

The team soon isolated one antibody type or “clone” that could activate the GCSF receptor and stimulate growth in test cells. The researchers then tested an unanchored, soluble version of this antibody on cultures of bone marrow stem cells from human volunteers. Whereas the GCSF protein, as expected, stimulated such stem cells to proliferate and start maturing towards adult white blood cells, the GCSF-mimicking antibody had a markedly different effect.

“The cells proliferated, but also started becoming long and thin and attaching to the bottom of the dish,” remembered Xie.

To Lerner, the cells were reminiscent of neural progenitor cells—which further tests for neural cell markers confirmed they were.

A New Direction

Changing cells of marrow lineage into cells of neural lineage—a direct identity switch termed “transdifferentiation”—just by activating a single receptor is a noteworthy achievement. Scientists do have methods for turning marrow stem cells into other adult cell types, but these methods typically require a radical and risky deprogramming of marrow cells to an embryonic-like stem-cell state, followed by a complex series of molecular nudges toward a given adult cell fate. Relatively few laboratories have reported direct transdifferentiation techniques.

“As far as I know, no one has ever achieved transdifferentiation by using a single protein—a protein that potentially could be used as a therapeutic,” said Lerner.

Current cell-therapy methods typically assume that a patient’s cells will be harvested, then reprogrammed and multiplied in a lab dish before being re-introduced into the patient. In principle, according to Lerner, an antibody such as the one they have discovered could be injected directly into the bloodstream of a sick patient. From the bloodstream it would find its way to the marrow, and, for example, convert some marrow stem cells into neural progenitor cells. “Those neural progenitors would infiltrate the brain, find areas of damage and help repair them,” he said.

While the researchers still aren’t sure why the new antibody has such an odd effect on the GCSF receptor, they suspect it binds the receptor for longer than the natural GCSF protein can achieve, and this lengthier interaction alters the receptor’s signaling pattern. Drug-development researchers are increasingly recognizing that subtle differences in the way a cell-surface receptor is bound and activated can result in very different biological effects. That adds complexity to their task, but in principle expands the scope of what they can achieve. “If you can use the same receptor in different ways, then the potential of the genome is bigger,” said Lerner.

Neural Activity in Bats Measured In Flight

Animals navigate and orient themselves to survive – to find food and shelter or avoid predators, for example. Research conducted by Dr. Nachum Ulanovsky and research student Michael Yartsev of the Weizmann Institute’s Neurobiology Department, published today in Science, reveals for the first time how three-dimensional, volumetric, space is perceived in mammalian brains. The research was conducted using a unique, miniaturized neural-telemetry system developed especially for this task, which enabled the measurement of single brain cells during flight.

The question of how animals orient themselves in space has been extensively studied, but until now experiments were only conducted in two-dimensional settings. These have found, for instance, that orientation relies on “place cells” – neurons located in the hippocampus, a part of the brain involved in memory, especially spatial memory. Each place cell is responsible for a spatial area, and it sends an electrical signal when the animal is located in that area. Together, the place cells produce full representations of whole spatial environments. Unlike the laboratory experiments, however, the navigation of many animals in the real world, including humans, is carried out in three dimensions. But attempts to expand the scope of experiments from two to three dimensions had encountered difficulties.

One of the more famous efforts in this area was conducted by the University of Arizona and NASA, in which they launched rats into space (aboard a space shuttle). However, although the rats moved around in zero gravity, they ran along a set of straight, one-dimensional lines. Other experiments with three-dimensional projections onto two-dimensional surfaces did not manage to produce volumetric data, either. The conclusion was that in order to understand movement in three-dimensional, volumetric space, it is necessary to allow animals to move through all three dimensions – that is, to research animals in flight.

Ulanovsky chose to study the Egyptian fruit bat, a very common bat species in Israel. Because these are relatively large, the researchers were able to attach the wireless measuring system in a manner that did not restrict the bats’ movements. Developing this sophisticated measuring system was a several-year effort. Ulanovsky, in cooperation with a US commercial company, created a wireless, lightweight (12 g, about 7% of the weight of the bat) device containing electrodes that measure the activity of individual neurons in the bat’s brain.

The next challenge the scientists faced was adapting the behavior of their bats to the needs of the experiment. Bats naturally fly toward their destination – for example, a fruit tree – in a straight line. In other words, their normal flight patterns are one-dimensional, while the experiment required their flights to fill a three-dimensional space.

The solution was to be found in a previous study in Ulanovsky’s group, which tracked wild fruit bats using miniature GPS devices. One of the discoveries was that when bats arrive at a fruit tree, they fly around it, utilizing the full volume of space surrounding the tree. To simulate this behavior in the laboratory – an artificial cave equipped with an array of bat-monitoring devices – the team installed an artificial “tree” made of metal bars and cups filled with fruit.

Measuring the activity of hippocampus neurons in the bats’ brains revealed that the representation of three-dimensional space is similar to that in two dimensions: Each place cell is responsible for identifying a particular spatial area in the “cave” and sends an electrical signal when the bat is located in that area. Together, the population of place cells provides full coverage of the cave – left and right, up and down.

A closer examination of the areas for which individual place cells are responsible provided an answer to a highly-debated question: Does the brain perceive the three dimensions of space as “equal,” that is, does it sense the height axis in the same way as that of length or width? The findings suggest that each place cell responds to a spherical volume of space, i.e., the perception of all three dimensions is uniform. The researchers note that for those non-flying animals that essentially move in flat space, the different axes might not be perceived at the same resolution. It may be that such animals are naturally more sensitive to changes along the length and width axes than that of height. This question is of particular interest when it comes to humans because on the one hand, humans evolved from apes that moved in three-dimensional space when swinging from branch to branch, but on the other hand, modern, ground-dwelling humans generally navigate in two-dimensional space.

The findings provide new insights into some basic functions of the brain: navigation, spatial memory and spatial perception. To a large extent, this is due to the development of innovative technology that allowed the first glimpse into the brain of a flying animal. Ulanovsky believes that this trend, in which research is becoming more “natural,” is the future wave of neuroscience.

Bat and Rat Brain Rhythms Differ When on the Move

To get a clear picture of how humans and other mammals form memories and find their way through their surroundings, neuroscientists must pay more attention to a broad range of animals rather than focus on a single model species, say two University of Maryland researchers, Katrina MacLeod and Cynthia Moss. Their new comparative study of bats and rats reports differences between the species that suggest the need to revise models of spatial navigation.

In a paper appearing in the April 19, 2013 issue of Science, the UMD researchers and two colleagues at Boston University reported significant differences between rats’ and bats’ brain rhythms when certain cells were active in a part of the brain used in memory and navigation.

These cells behaved as expected in rats, which mostly move along surfaces. But in bats, which fly, the continuous brain rhythm did not appear, said Moss, a professor in Psychology and Biology and the Institute for Systems Research.

The finding suggests that even though rats, bats, humans and other mammals share a common neural representation of space in a part of the brain that has been linked to spatial information and memory, they may have different cellular mechanisms to create or interpret those maps, said MacLeod, an assistant research scientist in Biology.

“To understand brains, including ours, we really must study neural activity in a variety of animals,” MacLeod said. “Common features across multiple species tell us ‘Aha, this is important,’ but differences can occur because of variances in the animals’ ecology, behavior, or evolutionary history.”

The research team focused on a brain region that contains specialized “grid cells,” so named because they form a hexagonal grid of activity related to the animal’s location as it navigates through space. This brain region, the medial entorhinal cortex, sits next to the hippocampus, the place that, in humans, forms memories of events such as where a car is parked. The medial entorhinal cortex acts as a hub of neural networks for memory and navigation.

Grid cells were first noticed in rats navigating their environment, but recent work by Nachum Ulanovsky (Moss’s former postdoctoral researcher at UMD) and his research team at the Weizmann Institute in Rehovot, Israel, has shown these cells exist in bats as well.

In rats, grid cells fire in a pattern called a theta wave when the animals spatially navigate. Theta waves are fairly low-frequency electrical oscillations that also have been observed at the cellular level in the medial entorhinal cortex. The prominence of theta waves in rats suggested they were important. As a result, neuroscientists, trying to understand the relationship between theta waves and grid cells, have developed models of the brain based on the assumption that theta waves are key to spatial navigation in mammals.

However, Moss said, “recordings from the brains of bats navigating in space contain a surprise, because the expected theta rhythms aren’t continuously present as they are in the rodent.”

The new Science study doubles down on the lack of theta in bats by reporting that theta rhythms also are not present at the cellular level. “The bat neurons don’t ‘ring’ the way the rat neurons do,” says MacLeod. “This raises a lots of questions as to whether theta rhythms are actually doing what the spatial navigation theory proposes in rats or even humans.”

Researchers find out why some stress is good for you

Overworked and stressed out? Look on the bright side. Some stress is good for you.

“You always think about stress as a really bad thing, but it’s not,” said Daniela Kaufer, associate professor of integrative biology at the University of California, Berkeley. “Some amounts of stress are good to push you just to the level of optimal alertness, behavioral and cognitive performance.”

New research by Kaufer and UC Berkeley post-doctoral fellow Elizabeth Kirby has uncovered exactly how acute stress – short-lived, not chronic – primes the brain for improved performance.

In studies on rats, they found that significant, but brief stressful events caused stem cells in their brains to proliferate into new nerve cells that, when mature two weeks later, improved the rats’ mental performance.

“I think intermittent stressful events are probably what keeps the brain more alert, and you perform better when you are alert,” she said.

Kaufer, Kirby and their colleagues in UC Berkeley’s Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute describe their results in a paper published April 16 in the new open access online journal eLife.

The UC Berkeley researchers’ findings, “in general, reinforce the notion that stress hormones help an animal adapt – after all, remembering the place where something stressful happened is beneficial to deal with future situations in the same place,” said Bruce McEwen, head of the Harold and Margaret Milliken Hatch Laboratory of Neuroendocrinology at The Rockefeller University, who was not involved in the study.

Kaufer is especially interested in how both acute and chronic stress affect memory, and since the brain’s hippocampus is critical to memory, she and her colleagues focused on the effects of stress on neural stem cells in the hippocampus of the adult rat brain. Neural stem cells are a sort of generic or progenitor brain cell that, depending on chemical triggers, can mature into neurons, astrocytes or other cells in the brain. The dentate gyrus of the hippocampus is one of only two areas in the brain that generate new brain cells in adults, and is highly sensitive to glucocorticoid stress hormones, Kaufer said.

Much research has demonstrated that chronic stress elevates levels of glucocorticoid stress hormones, which suppresses the production of new neurons in the hippocampus, impairing memory. This is in addition to the effect that chronically elevated levels of stress hormones have on the entire body, such as increasing the risk of chronic obesity, heart disease and depression.

Less is known about the effects of acute stress, Kaufer said, and studies have been conflicting.

To clear up the confusion, Kirby subjected rats to what, to them, is acute but short-lived stress – immobilization in their cages for a few hours. This led to stress hormone (corticosterone) levels as high as those from chronic stress, though for only a few hours. The stress doubled the proliferation of new brain cells in the hippocampus, specifically in the dorsal dentate gyrus.

Kirby discovered that the stressed rats performed better on a memory test two weeks after the stressful event, but not two days after the event. Using special cell labeling techniques, the researchers established that the new nerve cells triggered by the acute stress were the same ones involved in learning new tasks two weeks later.

“In terms of survival, the nerve cell proliferation doesn’t help you immediately after the stress, because it takes time for the cells to become mature, functioning neurons,” Kaufer said. “But in the natural environment, where acute stress happens on a regular basis, it will keep the animal more alert, more attuned to the environment and to what actually is a threat or not a threat.”

They also found that nerve cell proliferation after acute stress was triggered by the release of a protein, fibroblast growth factor 2 (FGF2), by astrocytes — brain cells formerly thought of as support cells, but that now appear to play a more critical role in regulating neurons.

“The FGF2 involvement is interesting, because FGF2 deficiency is associated with depressive-like behaviors in animals and is linked to depression in humans,” McEwen said.

Kaufer noted that exposure to acute, intense stress can sometimes be harmful, leading, for example, to post-traumatic stress disorder. Further research could help to identify the factors that determine whether a response to stress is good or bad.

“I think the ultimate message is an optimistic one,” she concluded. “Stress can be something that makes you better, but it is a question of how much, how long and how you interpret or perceive it.”