A better way to culture central nervous cells

A protein associated with neuron damage in people with Alzheimer’s disease is surprisingly useful in promoting neuron growth in the lab, according to a new study by engineering researchers at Brown University. The findings, in press at the journal Biomaterials, suggest a better method of growing neurons outside the body that might then be implanted to treat people with neurodegenerative diseases.

The research compared the effects of two proteins that can be used as an artificial scaffold for growing neurons (nerve cells) from the central nervous system. The study found that central nervous system neurons from rats cultured in apolipoprotein E-4 (apoE4) grew better than neurons cultured in laminin, which had been considered the gold standard for growing mammalian neurons in the lab.

“Most scientists assumed that laminin was the best protein for growing CNS (central nervous system),” said Kwang-Min Kim, a biomedical engineering graduate student at Brown University and lead author of the study, “but we demonstrated that apoE4 has substantially better performance for mammalian CNS neurons.”

Kim performed the research under the direction of Tayhas Palmore, professor of engineering and medical science and Kim’s Ph.D. adviser. Also involved in the project was Janice Vicenty, an undergraduate from the University of Puerto Rico, who was working in the Palmore lab as a summer research fellow through the Leadership Alliance.

The results are surprising partly because of the association of apoE4 with Alzheimer’s. Apolipoproteins are responsible for distributing and depositing cholesterols and other lipids in the brain. They come in three varieties: apoE2, apoE3 and apoE4. People with the gene that produces apoE4 are at higher risk for amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles, the hallmarks of Alzheimer’s. But exactly how the protein itself contributes to Alzheimer’s is not known.

This study suggests that outside the body, where the protein can be separated from the cholesterols it normally carries, apoE4 is actually beneficial in promoting neuron growth.

Pavlov’s Rats? Rodents Trained to Link Rewards to Visual Cues

In experiments on rats outfitted with tiny goggles, scientists say they have learned that the brain’s initial vision processing center not only relays visual stimuli, but also can “learn” time intervals and create specifically timed expectations of future rewards. The research, by a team at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, sheds new light on learning and memory-making, the investigators say, and could help explain why people with Alzheimer’s disease have trouble remembering recent events.

Results of the study, in the journal Neuron, suggest that connections within nerve cell networks in the vision-processing center can be strengthened by the neurochemical acetylcholine (ACh), which the brain is thought to secrete after a reward is received. Only nerve cell networks recently stimulated by a flash of light delivered through the goggles are affected by ACh, which in turn allows those nerve networks to associate the visual cue with the reward. Because brain structures are highly conserved in mammals, the findings likely have parallels in humans, they say.

“We’ve discovered that nerve cells in this part of the brain, the primary visual cortex, seem to be able to develop molecular memories, helping us understand how animals learn to predict rewarding outcomes,” says Marshall Hussain Shuler, Ph.D., assistant professor of neuroscience at the Institute for Basic Biomedical Sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

To maximize survival, an animal’s brain has to remember what cues precede a positive or negative event, allowing the animal to alter its behavior to increase rewards and decrease mishaps. In the Hopkins-MIT study, the researchers sought clarity about how the brain links visual information to more complex information about time and reward.

The presiding theory, Hussain Shuler says, assumed that this connection was made in areas devoted to “high-level” processing, like the frontal cortex, which is known to be important for learning and memory. The primary visual cortex seemed to simply receive information from the eyes and “re-piece” the visual world together before presenting it to decision-making parts of the brain.

New Brain Circuit Sheds Light on Development of Voluntary Movements

All parents know the infant milestones: turning over, learning to crawl, standing, and taking that first unassisted step. Achieving each accomplishment presumably requires the formation of new connections among subsets of the billions of nerve cells in the infant’s brain. But how, when and where those connections form has been a mystery.

Now researchers at Duke Medicine have begun to find answers. In a study reported Jan. 23, 2013, in the scientific journal Neuron, the research team describes the entire network of brain cells that are connected to specific motor neurons controlling whisker muscles in newborn mice.

A better understanding of such motor control circuits could help inform how human brains develop, potentially leading to new ways of restoring movement in people who suffer paralysis from brain injuries, or to the development of better prosthetics for limb replacement.

“Whiskers to mice are like fingers to humans, in that both are moving touch sensors,” said lead investigator Fan Wang, PhD, associate professor of cell biology and member of the Duke Institute for Brain Sciences. “Understanding how the mouse’s brain controls whisker movements may tell us about neural control of finger movements in people.”

Mice are active at night, so they rely heavily on whiskers to detect and discriminate objects in the dark, brushing their whiskers against objects in a rhythmic back-and-forth sweeping pattern referred to as “whisking”. But this whisking behavior does not appear until about two weeks after birth, when young mice start to explore the world outside their nest.

To learn how motor control of whiskers takes place, Wang and postdoctoral fellow Jun Takatoh used a new technique that takes advantage of the rabies virus’ ability to spread through connected nerve cells. A disabled form of the virus used to vaccinate pets was created with the ability to express a fluorescent protein. The researchers were able to trace its path through a network of brain cells directly connected to the motor neurons controlling whisker movement.

“The precision of this mapping method allowed us to ask a key question, namely are parts of the whisker motor control circuitry not yet connected in newborn mice, and are such missing links added later to enable whisking?” Wang said.

By taking a series of pictures in the fluorescently labeled brains during the first two weeks after birth, the research team chronicled the developing circuits before and after mice start whisking.

“When we traced the circuit it was stunning in the sense that we didn’t realize there are so many pools of neurons located throughout the brainstem that are connected to whisker motor neurons,” said Wang. “It’s remarkable that a single motor neuron receives so many inputs, and somehow is able to integrate them.”

At the same time whisking movements emerge, motor neurons receive a new set of inputs from a region of the brainstem called the LPGi. A single LPGi neuron is connected to motor neurons on both sides of the face, putting them in perfect position to synchronize the movements of left and right whiskers.

To learn more about the new circuit formed between LPGi and motor neurons, Wang and Takatoh drew on the expertise of Duke colleague Richard Mooney, PhD, professor of neurobiology, and his student Anders Nelson. Together, the researchers were able to record the labeled neurons and found the LPGi neurons communicate with motor neurons using glutamate, the main neurotransmitter that stimulates the brain. They further discovered that LPGi neurons receive direct inputs from the motor cortex.

“This makes sense because exploratory whisking is a voluntary movement under control of the motor cortex,” Wang said. “Excitatory input is needed for initiating such movements, and LPGi may be critical for relaying signals from the motor cortex to whisker motor neurons.”

The researchers will next explore the connectivity by using genetic, viral and optical tools to see what happens when certain components of the circuits are activated or silenced during various motor tasks.

Leprosy Bacteria Turn Nerve System Cells into Stem Cells

The study, carried out in mice, found that in the early stages of infection, M. leprae were able to protect themselves from the body’s immune system by hiding in the Schwann cells. Once the infection was fully established, the bacteria were able to convert the Schwann cells to become like stem cells.

Like typical stem cells, these cells were pluripotent, meaning they could then become other cell types, for instance muscle cells. This enabled M. leprae to spread to tissues in the body.

The study, published in the journal Cell, also shows that the bacteria-generated stem cells have unexpected characteristic. They can secrete specialized proteins – called chemokines – that attract immune cells, which in turn pick up the bacteria and spread the infection.

“We have found a new weapon in a bacteria’s armory that enables them to spread effectively in the body by converting infected cells to stem cells. Greater understanding of how this occurs could help research to diagnose bacterial infectious diseases, such as leprosy, much earlier,” said study lead author Prof Anura Rambukkana, Medical Research Council Center for Regenerative Medicine at the University of Edinburgh.

“This is very intriguing as it is the first time that we have seen that functional adult tissue cells can be reprogrammed into stem cells by natural bacterial infection, which also does not carry the risk of creating tumorous cells. Potentially you could use the bacteria to change the flexibility of cells, turning them into stem cells and then use the standard antibiotics to kill the bacteria completely so that the cells could then be transplanted safely to tissue that has been damaged by degenerative disease.”

Dr Rob Buckle, Head of Regenerative Medicine at the Medical Research Council Center for Regenerative Medicine at the University of Edinburgh, said: “this ground-breaking new research shows that bacteria are able to sneak under the radar of the immune system by hijacking a naturally occurring mechanism to ‘reprogramme’ cells to make them look and behave like stem cells. This discovery is important not just for our understanding and treatment of bacterial disease, but for the rapidly progressing field of regenerative medicine. In future, this knowledge may help scientists to improve the safety and utility of lab-produced pluripotent stem cells and help drive the development of new regenerative therapies for a range of human diseases, which are currently impossible to treat.”

The scientists believe mechanisms used by leprosy bacteria could exist in other infectious diseases. Knowledge of this newly discovered tactic used by bacteria to spread infection could help research to improve treatments and earlier diagnosis of infectious diseases.

Light Switch Inside Brain: Laser Controls Individual Nerve Cells in Mouse

Activating and deactivating individual nerve cells in the brain is something many neuroscientists wish they could do, as it would help them to better understand how the brain works.

Scientists in Freiburg and Basel, Switzerland, have developed an implant that is able to genetically modify specific nerve cells, control them with light stimuli, and measure their electrical activity all at the same time. This novel 3-in-1 tool paves the way for completely new experiments in neurobiology, also at Freiburg’s new Cluster of Excellence BrainLinks-BrainTools.

Birthe Rubehn and her colleagues from the Department of Microsystems Engineering (IMTEK) and the Bernstein Center of the University of Freiburg as well as the Friedrich Miescher Institute for Biomedical Research in Basel describe the prototype of their implant in the journal Lab on a Chip. They report that initial experiments in which they implanted prototypes into mice were successful: The team was able to influence the activity of nerve cells in the brain in a controlled manner by means of laser light pulses.

The team used an innovative genetic technique that makes nerve cells change their activity by shining different colored lights on them. In optogenetics, genes from certain species of algae are inserted into the genome of another organism, for instance a mouse. The genes lead to the inclusion of light-sensitive pores for electrically charged particles into a nerve cell’s membrane. These additional openings allow neuroscientists to control the cells’ electrical activity.

However, only the new implant from Freiburg and Basel makes this principle actually practicable. The device, at its tip only a quarter of a millimeter wide and a tenth of a millimeter thick, was constructed on the basis of polymers, special plastics whose safety for implantation into the nervous system has been proven.

Unlike probes developed so far, it is capable of injecting substances necessary for genetic modification, emitting light for the stimulation of the nerve cells, and measuring the effect through various electrical contacts all at once. Besides optimizing the technique for production, the scientists want to develop a second version whose injection channel dissolves over time, reducing the implant’s size even further.

Scientists Discover Structure of Protein Essential for Quality Control, Nerve Function

Using an innovative approach, scientists at The Scripps Research Institute (TSRI) have determined the structure of Ltn1, a recently discovered “quality-control” protein that is found in the cells of all plants, fungi and animals.

Ltn1 appears to be essential for keeping cells’ protein-making machinery working smoothly. It may also be relevant to human neurodegenerative diseases, for an Ltn1 mutation in mice leads to a motor-neuron disease resembling amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease).

“To better understand Ltn1’s mechanism of action, we needed to solve its structure, and that’s what we’ve done here,” said TSRI Associate Professor Claudio Joazeiro.

“In addition, this project has brought us a set of structural analysis techniques that we can apply to other exciting problems in biology,” said TSRI Professor Bridget Carragher.

Joazeiro and Carragher, along with Clint Potter, also a TSRI professor, are senior authors of the new report, which appears in the online Early Edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences the week of January 14, 2013.

Links to Neurodegenerative Disease

Ltn1 first turned up on biologists’ radar screens several years ago when a joint Novartis-Phenomix research team noted that mice with an unknown gene mutation were born normal but suffered from progressive paralysis. The scientists dubbed the animals lister mice, because they listed to one side as they walked. Collaborating with Joazeiro, the Novartis team reported in a 2009 paper that the mutated gene normally codes for a type of enzyme known as an E3 ubiquitin ligase, and that the mouse phenotype was due to a neurodegenerative syndrome resembling ALS.

In a study published in the journal Nature the following year, Joazeiro and his postdoctoral research associate Mario H. Bengtson found that the enzyme serves as a crucial quality-control manager for the cellular protein-making factories called ribosomes. Occasionally a ribosome receives miscoded genetic instructions and produces certain types of abnormal proteins, known as “nonstop proteins”— jamming the ribosomal machinery like a wrinkled sheet of paper in an office printer. Bengtson and Joazeiro found that Ltn1 fixes jammed ribosomes by tagging nonstop proteins with ubiquitin molecules, thereby marking them for quick destruction by roving cellular garbage-disposers called proteasomes.

“The question for us then was, ‘How does Ltn1 do this?’” said Joazeiro.

Pushing the Boundaries of Electron Microscopy

To help find out, he began a collaboration with Carragher and Potter, who run the National Resource for Automated Molecular Microscopy (NRAMM), an advanced electron microscope facility at TSRI that is funded by the National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Research Resources.

Ltn1 was deemed too large for its structure to be determined by current nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) technology, and, as the scientists know now, too flexible to allow the highly regular crystalline packing needed by X-ray crystallographers. “It’s a very floppy molecule, so it would be hard to crystallize,” said Potter.

Advanced electron microscopy offered a way, however. Dmitry Lyumkis, a graduate student in the NRAMM laboratory and first author of the study, took high-resolution images of yeast Ltn1 with an electron microscope. He then used sophisticated image and data processing software to align and average individual images. The technique eliminates much of the random “noise” that obscures single images and produces a sharp 3D picture of the protein.

No one has ever used electron microscopy to distinguish so many—more than 20—conformations of such a small protein. “Usually electron microscopists determine no more than two or three conformational states, and they work with protein complexes whose size is in the megadalton range, but Ltn1 is only 180 kilodaltons, an order of magnitude smaller,” Lyumkis said.

An Unusually Flexible Structure

The analysis revealed that Ltn1 has an elongated, double-jointed and extraordinarily flexible structure with two working ends—the N-terminus and C-terminus. “We anticipate that the N-terminus is responsible for association with the ribosome and know that the C-terminus is responsible for the ubiquitylation of nonstop proteins,” said Lyumkis. “We suspect that the high flexibility of this structure is needed for it to work on the variety of nonstop proteins that can get stuck in ribosomes.”

One of the next steps for the team is to evaluate Ltn1’s individual segments, which appear to be more rigid, using X-ray crystallography, in order to develop a piece-by-piece atomic-resolution model of the enzyme. Another is to determine the structure of Ltn1 when it is attached to a ribosome and operating on a nonstop protein. Joazeiro notes that a typical yeast cell has nearly 200,000 ribosomes but requires only 200 Ltn1 copies for adequate quality control under normal growth conditions. “Somehow this enzyme can efficiently sense which ribosomes are jammed, and we expect that by solving the joint structure of Ltn1 and a ribosome, we’ll be able to understand how it does this,” he says.

Lyumkis, Carragher, Potter and their colleagues at NRAMM also plan to use a similar electron microscopy-based approach to find the structures of other important proteins with highly variable “heterogeneous” conformations. “Heterogeneity has been a big challenge,” said Potter, “and being able to collect this large dataset and do all of this data processing successfully has been a critical breakthrough.”

Protein identified that can disrupt embryonic brain development and neuron migration

Interneurons – nerve cells that function as ‘dimmers’ – play an important role in the brain. Their formation and migration to the cerebral cortex during the embryonic stage of development is crucial to normal brain functioning. Abnormal interneuron development and migration can eventually lead to a range of disorders and diseases, from epilepsy to Alzheimer’s. New research by Dr. Eve Seuntjens and Dr. Veronique van den Berghe of the Department of Development and Regeneration (Danny Huylebroeck laboratory, Faculty of Medicine) has identified two proteins, Sip1 and Unc5b, that play an important role in the development and migration of interneurons to the cerebral cortex – a breakthrough in our understanding of early brain development.

Two types of nerve cells are crucial to healthy brain functioning. Projection neurons, the more widely known of the two, make connections between different areas of the brain. Interneurons, a second type, work as dimmers that regulate the signalling processes of projection neurons. A shortage or irregular functioning of interneurons can cause short circuits in the nervous system. This can lead to seizures, a common symptom of many brain disorders. Interneuron dysfunction even appears to play a role in schizophrenia, autism and neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and ALS.

Trailblazers

Researchers have only recently understood how different kinds of neuron are formed during embryonic development. During early brain development, stem cells form projection neurons in the cerebral cortex. Interneurons are made elsewhere in the brain. These interneurons then migrate to the cortex to mix with the projection neurons. Dr. Eve Seuntjens of the Celgen laboratory led by Professor Danny Huylebroeck explains: “The journey of interneurons is very complex: their environment changes constantly during growth and there are no existing structures — such as nerve pathways — available for them to follow.”

The question is how young interneurons receive their ‘directions’ to the cerebral cortex. Several proteins play a role, says Dr. Seuntjens. “We changed the gene containing the production code for the protein Sip1 in mice so that this protein was no longer produced during brain development.  In those mice, the interneurons never made it to the cerebral cortex — they couldn’t find the way.

That has to do with the guidance signals – substances that repel or attract interneurons and thus point them in the right direction – encountered by the interneurons on their way to the cerebral cortex. Without Sip1 production, interneurons see things through an overly sharp lens, so to speak. They see too many stop signs and become blocked. That overly sharp lens is Unc5b, a protein. Unc5b is deactivated by Sip1 in healthy mice. There are several known factors that influence the migration of interneurons, but Unc5b is the first protein we’ve isolated that we now know must be switched off in order for interneuron migration to move ahead smoothly.”

The next step is to study this process in the neurons of humans. “Now that there are techniques to create stem cells from skin cells, we can mimic the development of stem cells into interneurons and study what can go wrong. From there, we can test whether certain drugs can reverse the damage. That’s all still on the horizon, but you can see that the focus of research on many brain disorders and diseases is increasingly shifting to early child development because that just might be where a cause can be found.”

Study: Model for Brain Signaling Flawed

A new study out today in the journal Science turns two decades of understanding about how brain cells communicate on its head. The study demonstrates that the tripartite synapse – a model long accepted by the scientific community and one in which multiple cells collaborate to move signals in the central nervous system – does not exist in the adult brain. 

“Our findings demonstrate that the tripartite synaptic model is incorrect,” said Maiken Nedergaard, M.D., D.M.Sc., lead author of the study and co-director of the University of Rochester Medical Center (URMC) Center for Translational Neuromedicine. “This concept does not represent the process for transmitting signals between neurons in the brain beyond the developmental stage.”

The central nervous system is home to many different cells. While neurons tend to garner the most attention, it is only recently that the function of the brain’s other cells have been fully appreciated. Glial cells known as astrocytes, for example, had long been considered mainly the “glue” that helps hold all the other cells in the central nervous system in place. Scientists now understand that that these cells are essential to maintaining a healthy environment in the brain by helping carry out functions such as removing waste.

“Neurons are like a racing car,” said Nedergaard. “While the driver gets all the credit, there are often 20 people behind the scenes that are optimizing his or her success.”

However, when it comes to moving signals between neurons in the brain it turns out that the scientists may have vastly exaggerated the role of the astrocyte.   

Neurons are connected to each other via axons or “arms” that extend from the cell’s main body. Communication between neighboring neurons takes place where axons meet other nerve cells – called a synaptic juncture – when an electrical charge causes chemicals called neurotransmitters or glutamate to be released by one cell and “read” by receptors on the surface of the opposite. The two cells do not actually touch, so the chemicals messages must pass through a gap in the synaptic juncture. The space around this gap is insulated by astrocytes.   

Under the tripartite synapse model, both astrocytes and neurons were believed to play a role in the “conversation” between cells. This understanding was largely based on animal models which showed active receptors and neurotransmission between not only the nerve cells but also the nearby astrocytes.  

Specifically, a key neurotransmission receptor called metabotropic glutamate receptor 5 (mGluR5) was observed to be present and active in astrocytes at the synaptic juncture. It was also observed that when the mGluR5 receptor was activated, the astrocytes would release chemical transmitters that were in turn read by the nerve cells. These findings led to the conclusion that astrocytes must in some manner modulate the signaling process between brain cells. 

While this model has held sway for decades, scientists have long been frustrated by their inability to influence this process by targeting it with drugs.

“If this concept was correct, it should have given rise to a clinical trial by now,” said Nedergaard. “It has not, which tells us that with so many labs work on this for 20 years that there must be something wrong.”

One of the barriers to understanding precise mechanics of passing signals from one neuron to another has been the inability to observe this process in the adult brain. The tripartite synapse model was based – in part – by examining the activity in the brains of very young rodents. Adult rodents could not be similarly studied because the synapses in the brain would die before they could be fully analyzed. This ultimately led to the presumption that the signaling process that was witnessed in the young brain carried over to adulthood. 

Collaborating with researchers at the University of Rochester’s Institute of Optics, Nedergaard and her team developed a new 2-photon microscope that enables researchers to observe glia activity in the living brain. Using both this method and by analyzing the gene and protein expression in the brain the researchers discovered that the mGluR5 largely disappear in the glial cells of adult mice meaning that these cells do not directly respond to synaptic neuronal signalling, thus calling into question the concepts that drive most of ongoing research in the field.

“The process of neuron-glial transmission as conceived by the tripartite synapse model appears to just be a simplistic signaling pathway that ‘teaches’ the synapse how to behave,” said Nedergaard. “Once the brain matures, it goes away.”