Posts tagged neurons
Articles and news from the latest research reports.
Mechanism explains complex brain wiring
How neurons are created and integrate with each other is one of biology’s greatest riddles. Researcher Dietmar Schmucker from VIB-KU Leuven unravels a part of the mystery in Science magazine. He describes a mechanism that explains novel aspects of how the wiring of highly branched neurons in the brain works. These new insights into how complex neural networks are formed are very important for understanding and treating neurological diseases.
Neurons, or nerve cells
It is estimated that a person has 100 billion neurons, or nerve cells. These neurons have thin, elongated, highly branched offshoots called dendrites and axons. They are the body’s information and signal processors. The dendrites receive electrical impulses from the other neurons and conduct these to the cell body. The cell body then decides whether stimuli will or will not be transferred to other cells via the axon.
The brain’s wiring is very complex. Although the molecular mechanisms that explain the linear connection between neurons have already been described numerous times, little is as yet known about how the branched wiring works in the brain.
The connections between nerve cells
Prior research by Dietmar Schmucker and his team lead to the identification of the Dscam1 protein in the fruit fly. The neuron can create many different protein variations, or isoforms, from this same protein. The specific set of isoforms that occurs on a neuron’s cell surface determines the neuron’s unique molecular identity and plays an important role in the establishment of accurate connections. In other words, it describes why certain neurons either come into contact with each other or reject each other.
Recent work by Haihuai He and Yoshiaki Kise from Dietmar’s team indicates that different sets of Dscam1 isoforms occur inside one axon, between the newly formed offshoots amongst each other. If this was not the case, then only linear connections could come about between neurons. These results indicate for the first time the significance of why different sets of the same protein variations can occur in one neuron and it could explain mechanistically how this contributes to the complex wiring in our brain.
Clinical impact
Although this research was done with fruit flies, it also provides new insights that help explain the wiring and complex interactions of the human brain and shine a new light on neurological development disorders such as autism. Thorough knowledge of nerve cell creation and their neural interactions is considered essential knowledge for the future possibility of using stem cell therapy as standard treatment for certain nervous system disorders.
Questions
Given that this research can raise many questions, we would like to refer your questions in your report or article to the email address that the VIB has made available for this purpose. All questions regarding this and other medical research can be directed to: patients@vib.be.
Relevant scientific publication
The above-mentioned research was published in the prominent magazine Science.
(Source: vib.be)
Gene mutation discovery could explain brain disorders in children
Researchers have discovered that mutations in one of the brain’s key genes could be responsible for impaired mental function in children born with an intellectual disability.
The research, published today in the journal, Human Molecular Genetics, proves that the gene, TUBB5, is essential for a healthy functioning brain.
It’s estimated that intellectual disability affects up to four per cent of people worldwide, and two per cent of all Australians. One of the ways in which intellectual disability occurs is through genetic mutations, which cause problems with normal fetal brain development.
During fetal brain development, TUBB5 is essential for the proper placement and wiring of new neurons. When the gene is mutated, the brain, which sends and receives messages to the rest of the body, is impaired.
Lead researcher, Dr Julian Heng, from the Australian Regenerative Medicine Institute (ARMI) at Monash University, said genetic mutations to TUBB5 could be responsible for a range of intellectual disabilities. It could also affect the development of basic motor skills such as walking.
“TUBB5 works like a type of scaffolding inside neurons, enabling them to shape their connections to other neurons, so it’s essential for healthy brain development. If the scaffolding is faulty, in this case if TUBB5 mutates, it can have serious consequences,” Dr Heng said.
These new findings build on the team’s collaborative work with researchers in Austria, which led to the discovery of TUBB5 mutations in human brain disorders in 2012. By looking at just three unrelated patients with microcephaly, a rare brain disease in children, the team found striking similarities – each had a mutation to TUBB5. The team also provided the first evidence that the TUBB5 mutations were responsible for each patient’s disorder.
Dr Heng said the research could have important implications, not only for intellectual disabilities but also for a wide range of developmental disorders.
“Learning more about the TUBB5 gene and its mutations could reveal how it shapes the connections of neurons in normal and diseased brain states.
“We’re just at the beginning of this work but if we can understand why and how mutations occur to TUBB5, we may even be able to repair these mutations. In the future, we believe this work will enable us to develop new therapies to transform people’s lives,” Dr Heng said.
The work may potentially lead to new information about the causes and possible treatments for other brain developmental syndromes, including autism, a condition that affects as many as 1 in 160 children.
Dr Heng said that because TUBB5 belongs to a family of genes which produce the scaffolding in neurons, it means that there is scope for further study into its impact.
“By learning what these scaffolding proteins do to help neurons make brain circuits, we might be able to pinpoint the underlying causes of a wide range of brain disorders in children, and develop more targeted treatments,” Dr Heng said.
Scientists believe that in the future this knowledge, combined with regenerative medicine techniques, could also aid the replacement of neurons in times of brain injury or disease.
The next phase of the research will be to develop a working model to better understand how TUBB5 can be targeted for gene therapy.
To recover consciousness, brain activity passes through newly detected states
Anesthesia makes otherwise painful procedures possible by derailing a conscious brain, rendering it incapable of sensing or responding to a surgeon’s knife. But little research exists on what happens when the drugs wear off.
(Image caption: Unconscious states. New findings suggest the anesthetized brain must pass through certain ‘way stations’ on the path back to consciousness. Above, the prevalence of particular clusters of brain activity states as recorded in rats that had been administered an anesthetic. The longest appear in red and the shortest in yellow and green.)
“I always found it remarkable that someone can recover from anesthesia, not only that you blink your eyes and can walk around, but you return to being yourself. So if you learned how to do something on Sunday and on Monday, you have surgery, and you wake up and you still know how to do it,” says Alexander Proekt, a visiting fellow in Don Pfaff’s Laboratory of Neurobiology and Behavior at Rockefeller University and an anesthesiologist at Weill Cornell Medical College. “It seemed like there ought to be some kind of guide or path for the system to follow.”
The obvious explanation is that as the anesthetic washes out of the body, electrical activity in the brain gradually returns to its conscious patterns. However, new research by Proekt and colleagues suggests the trip back is not so simple.
“Using statistical analysis, our research shows that the recovery from deep anesthesia is not a smooth, linear process. Instead, there are dynamic ‘way stations’ or states of activity the brain must temporarily occupy on the way to full recovery,” Pfaff says. “These results have implications for understanding how someone’s ability to recover consciousness can be disrupted by, for example, brain injury.”
Proekt, along with former postdoc Andrew Hudson, now an assistant professor in anesthesiology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and Diany Paola Calderon, a research associate in the lab, put rats “under” using the common medical and veterinary anesthetic isoflurane. As the rats recovered, the team monitored the electrical potential outside neurons, known as local field potentials (LFPs), in particular parts of the brain known, from previous elecrophysiological and pharmacological studies, to be associated with wakefulness and anesthesia. These recordings gave them a sensitive handle on the activities of whole groups of neurons in particular parts of the thalamus and cortex.
In the awake brain, of both humans and rats, neurons generate electrical voltage that oscillates. Many of these oscillations together form a signal that appears as a squiggly line on a recording of brain activity, such as an LFP. When someone is asleep, under anesthesia, or in a coma, these oscillations occur more slowly, or at a low frequency. When he or she is awake, they speed up. The researchers examined the recordings from the rats’ brains to figure out how the electrical activity in these regions changed as they moved from anesthetized to awake.
“Recordings from each animal wound up having particular features that spontaneously appeared, suggesting their brain activity was abruptly transitioning through particular states,” Hudson says. “We analyzed the probability of a brain jumping from one state to another, and we found that certain states act as hubs through which the brain must pass to continue on its way to consciousness.” While the electrical activity in all the rats’ brains passed through these hubs, the precise path back to consciousness was not the same each time, the team reports today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
“These results suggest there is indeed an intrinsic way in which the unconscious brain finds its way back to consciousness. The anesthetic is just a tool for severely reducing brain activity in a way in which we can control,” Hudson says.
In other scenarios, including coma caused by brain injury or neurological disease, the disruption to brain activity cannot be controlled, making these states much more difficult to study. However, the team’s results may help explain what is going on in these cases. “Maybe a pathway has shut down, or a brain structure that was key for full consciousness is no longer working. We don’t know yet, but our results suggest the possibility that under certain circumstances, someone may be theoretically capable of returning to consciousness but, due to the inability to transition through the hubs we have identified, his or her brain is unable to navigate the way back,” Calderon says.
(Source: newswire.rockefeller.edu)
Quick Getaway: How Flies Escape Looming Predators
When a fruit fly detects an approaching predator, the fly can launch itself into the air and soar gracefully to safety in a fraction of a second. But there’s not always time for that. Some threats demand a quicker getaway. New research from scientists at Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Janelia Research Campus reveals how a quick-escape circuit in the fly’s brain overrides the fly’s slower, more controlled behavior when a threat becomes urgent.
“The fly’s rapid takeoff is, on average, eight milliseconds faster than its more controlled takeoff,” says Janelia group leader Gwyneth Card. “Eight milliseconds could be the difference between life and death.”
Card studies escape behaviors in the fruit fly to unravel the circuits and processes that underlie decision making, teasing out how the brain integrates information to respond to a changing environment. Her team’s new study, published online June 8, 2014, in the journal Nature Neuroscience, shows that two neural circuits mediate fruit flies’ slow-and-stable or quick-but-clumsy escape behaviors. Card, postdoctoral researcher Catherine von Reyn, and their colleagues find that a spike of activity in a key neuron in the quick-escape circuit can override the slower escape, prompting the fly to spring to safety when a threat gets too near.
A pair of neurons—called giant fibers—in the fruit fly brain has long been suspected to trigger escape. Researchers can provoke this behavior by artificially activating the giant fiber neurons, but no one had actually demonstrated that those neurons responded to visual cues associated with an approaching predator, Card says. She was curious how the neurons could be involved in the natural behavior if they didn’t seem to respond to the relevant sensory cues, so she decided to test their role.
Genetic tools developed in the lab of Janelia executive director Gerald Rubin enabled Card’s team to switch the giant fiber neurons on or off, and then observe how flies responded to a predator-like stimulus. They conducted their experiments in an apparatus developed in Card’s lab that captures videos of individual flies as they are exposed to a looming dark circle. The image is projected onto a hemispheric surface and expands rapidly to fill the fly’s visual field, simulating the approach of a predator. “It’s really like a domed IMAX for the fly,” Card explains. A high-speed camera records the response at 6,000 frames per second, allowing Card and her colleagues to examine in detail the series of events that make up the fly’s escape.
To ensure their experiments were relevant to fruit flies’ real-world experiences, Card teamed with fellow Janelia group leader Anthony Leonardo to record and analyze the trajectories and acceleration of damselflies—natural predators of the fruit fly—as they attacked. They designed their looming stimulus to mimic these features. “We wanted to make sure we were really challenging the animal with something that was like a predator attack,” Card says.
By analyzing more than 4,000 flies, Card and her colleagues discovered two distinct responses to the simulated predator: long and short escapes. To prepare for a steady take-off, flies took the time to raise their wings fully. Quicker escapes, in contrast, eliminated this step, shaving time off the take-off but often causing the fly to tumble through the air.
When the scientists switched off the giant fiber neurons, preventing them from firing, flies still managed to complete their escape sequence. “On a surface level evaluation, silencing the neuron had absolutely no effect,” Card says. “You can do away with this neuron that people thought was fundamental to this escape behavior, and flies still escape.” Shorter escapes, however, were completely eliminated. Flies without active giant fiber neurons invariably opted for the slower, steadier escape. In contrast, when the scientists switched giant fiber neurons on in the absence of a predator-like stimulus, flies enacted their quick-escape behavior. The evidence suggested the giant fiber neurons were involved only in short escapes, while a separate circuit mediated the long escapes.
Card and her colleagues wanted to understand how flies decide when to sacrifice stability in favor of a quicker response. To learn more, Catherine von Reyn, a postdoctoral researcher in Card’s lab, set up experiments in which she could directly monitor activity in the giant fiber neurons. Surprisingly, she discovered that the giant fibers were not only active in short-mode escape, but also during some of the long-mode escapes. The situation was more complicated than their genetic experiments had suggested. “Seeing the dynamics of the electrophysiology allowed us to understand that the timing of the spike is important is determining the fly’s choice of escape behavior,” Card says.
Based on their data, Card and von Reyn propose that a looming stimulus first activates a circuit in the brain that initiates a slow escape, beginning with a controlled lift of the wings. When the object looms closer, filling more of the fly’s field of view, the giant fiber activates, prompting a more urgent escape. “What determines whether a fly does a long-mode or a short-mode escape is how soon after the wings go up the fly kicks its legs and it starts to take off,” Card says. “The giant fiber can fire at any point during that sequence. It might not fire at all—in which case you get this nice long, beautifully choreographed takeoff. It might fire right away, in which case you get an abbreviated escape.” The more quickly an object approaches, the sooner the giant fiber is likely to fire, increasing the probability of a short escape.
Card remains curious about many aspects of escape behavior. How does a fly calculate the orientation of a threat and decide in which direction to flee, she wonders. What makes a fly decide to initiate a takeoff as opposed to other evasive maneuvers? The relatively compact circuits that control these sensory-driven behaviors provide a powerful system for exploring the mechanisms that animals use to selecting one behavior over another, she says. “We think that you can really ask these questions at the level of individual neurons, and even individual spikes in those neurons.”
Biologists pave the way for improved epilepsy treatments
University of Toronto biologists leading an investigation into the cells that regulate proper brain function, have identified and located the key players whose actions contribute to afflictions such as epilepsy and schizophrenia. The discovery is a major step toward developing improved treatments for these and other neurological disorders.
“Neurons in the brain communicate with other neurons through synapses, communication that can either excite or inhibit other neurons,” said Professor Melanie Woodin in the Department of Cell and Systems Biology at the University of Toronto (U of T), lead investigator of a study published today in Cell Reports. “An imbalance among the levels of excitation and inhibition – a tip towards excitation, for example – causes improper brain function and can produce seizures. We identified a key complex of proteins that can regulate excitation-inhibition balance at the cellular level.”
This complex brings together three key proteins – KCC2, Neto2 and GluK2 – required for inhibitory and excitatory synaptic communication. KCC2 is required for inhibitory impulses, GluK2 is a receptor for the main excitatory transmitter glutamate, and Neto2 is an auxiliary protein that interacts with both KCC2 and GluK2. The discovery of the complex of three proteins is pathbreaking as it was previously believed that KCC2 and GluK2 were in separate compartments of the cell and acted independently of each other.
“Finding that they are all directly interacting and can co-regulate each other’s function reveals for the first time a system that can mediate excitation-inhibition balance among neurons themselves,” said Vivek Mahadevan, a PhD candidate in Woodin’s group and lead author of the study.
Mahadevan and fellow researchers made the discovery via biochemistry, fluorescence imaging and electrophysiology experiments on mice brains. The most fruitful technique was the application of an advanced sensitive gel system to determine native protein complexes in neurons, called Blue Native PAGE. The process provided the biochemical conditions necessary to preserve the protein complexes that normally exist in neurons. Blue Native PAGE is advantageous over standard gel electrophoresis, where proteins are separated from their normal protein complexes based on their molecular weights.
“The results reveal the proteins that can be targeted by drug manufacturers in order to reset imbalances that occur in neurological disorders such as epilepsy, autism spectrum disorder, schizophrenia and neuropathic pain,” said Woodin. “There is no cure for epilepsy; the best available treatments only control its effects, such as convulsions and seizures. We can now imagine preventing them from occurring in the first place.”
“It was the cellular mechanisms that determine the excitation-inhibition balance that needed to be identified. Now that we know the key role played by KCC2 in moderating excitatory activity, further research can be done into its occasional dysfunction and how it can also be regulated by excitatory impulses,” said Mahadevan.
(Source: media.utoronto.ca)
Researchers Decode How the Brain Miswires, Possibly Causing ADHD
Neuroscientists at Mayo Clinic in Florida and at Aarhus University in Denmark have shed light on why neurons in the brain’s reward system can be miswired, potentially contributing to disorders such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
They say findings from their study, published online today in Neuron, may increase the understanding of underlying causes of ADHD, potentially facilitating the development of more individualized treatment strategies.
The scientists looked at dopaminergic neurons, which regulate pleasure, motivation, reward, and cognition, and have been implicated in development of ADHD.
They uncovered a receptor system that is critical, during embryonic development, for correct wiring of the dopaminergic brain area. But they also discovered that after brain maturation, a cut in the same receptor, SorCS2, produces a two-chain receptor that induces cell death following damage to the peripheral nervous system.
The researchers report that the SorCS2 receptor functions as a molecular switch between apparently opposing effects in proBDNF. ProBDNF is a neuronal growth factor that helps select cells that are most beneficial to the nervous system, while eliminating those that are less favorable in order to create a finely tuned neuronal network.
They found that some cells in mice deficient in SorCS2 are unresponsive to proBDNF and have dysfunctional contacts between dopaminergic neurons.
“This miswiring of dopaminergic neurons in mice results in hyperactivity and attention deficits,” says the study’s senior investigator, Anders Nykjaer, M.D., Ph.D., a neuroscientist at Mayo Clinic in Florida and at Aarhus University in Denmark.
“A number of studies have reported that ADHD patients commonly exhibit miswiring in this brain area, accompanied by altered dopaminergic function. We may now have an explanation as to why ADHD risk genes have been linked to regulation of neuronal growth,” he says.
“SorCS2 is produced as a single-chain protein — one long row of amino acids — but it can be cut into two chains to perform a different function. While the single-chain receptor is essential to tell the neuron that it is time to stop growing, the two-chain form tells cells that support neurons in the developing peripheral nervous system to die when they should,” says Dr. Nykjaer.
Unfortunately, if damage occurs to a nerve in the peripheral nervous system, these cells that wrap around and nourish the neurons will die, preventing efficient regeneration, he says. “Our finding suggests that it may be possible to develop drug therapy to prevent this deadly cut of SorCS2 and treat acute nerve injury,” Dr. Nykjaer says.
(Source: newswise.com)
(Image caption: In this artist’s representation of the adult subependymal neurogenic niche (viewed from underneath the ependyma), electrical signals generated by the ChAT+ neuron give rise to newborn migrating neuroblasts, seen moving over the underside of ependymal cells. Credit: Illustration by O’Reilly Science Art.)
Neuron Tells Stem Cells to Grow New Neurons
Duke researchers have found a new type of neuron in the adult brain that is capable of telling stem cells to make more new neurons. Though the experiments are in their early stages, the finding opens the tantalizing possibility that the brain may be able to repair itself from within.
Neuroscientists have suspected for some time that the brain has some capacity to direct the manufacturing of new neurons, but it was difficult to determine where these instructions are coming from, explains Chay Kuo, M.D. Ph.D., an assistant professor of cell biology, neurobiology and pediatrics.
In a study with mice, his team found a previously unknown population of neurons within the subventricular zone (SVZ) neurogenic niche of the adult brain, adjacent to the striatum. These neurons expressed the choline acetyltransferase (ChAT) enzyme, which is required to make the neurotransmitter acetylcholine. With optogenetic tools that allowed the team to tune the firing frequency of these ChAT+ neurons up and down with laser light, they were able to see clear changes in neural stem cell proliferation in the brain.
The findings appeared as an advance online publication June 1 in the journal Nature Neuroscience.
The mature ChAT+ neuron population is just one part of an undescribed neural circuit that apparently talks to stem cells and tells them to increase new neuron production, Kuo said. Researchers don’t know all the parts of the circuit yet, nor the code it’s using, but by controlling ChAT+ neurons’ signals Kuo and his Duke colleagues have established that these neurons are necessary and sufficient to control the production of new neurons from the SVZ niche.
"We have been working to determine how neurogenesis is sustained in the adult brain. It is very unexpected and exciting to uncover this hidden gateway, a neural circuit that can directly instruct the stem cells to make more immature neurons," said Kuo, who is also the George W. Brumley, Jr. M.D. assistant professor of developmental biology and a member of the Duke Institute for Brain Sciences. "It has been this fascinating treasure hunt that appeared to dead-end on multiple occasions!"
Kuo said this project was initiated more than five years ago when lead author Patricia Paez-Gonzalez, a postdoctoral fellow, came across neuronal processes contacting neural stem cells while studying how the SVZ niche was assembled.
The young neurons produced by these signals were destined for the olfactory bulb in rodents, as the mouse has a large amount of its brain devoted to process the sense of smell and needs these new neurons to support learning. But in humans, with a much less impressive olfactory bulb, Kuo said it’s possible new neurons are produced for other brain regions. One such region may be the striatum, which mediates motor and cognitive controls between the cortex and the complex basal ganglia.
"The brain gives up prime real estate around the lateral ventricles for the SVZ niche housing these stem cells," Kuo said. "Is it some kind of factory taking orders?" Postdoctoral fellow Brent Asrican made a key observation that orders from the novel ChAT+ neurons were heard clearly by SVZ stem cells.
Studies of stroke injury in rodents have noted SVZ cells apparently migrating into the neighboring striatum. And just last month in the journal Cell, a Swedish team observed newly made control neurons called interneurons in the human striatum for the first time. They reported that interestingly in Huntington’s disease patients, this area seems to lack the newborn interneurons.
"This is a very important and relevant cell population that is controlling those stem cells," said Sally Temple, director of the Neural Stem Cell Institute of Rensselaer, NY, who was not involved in this research. "It’s really interesting to see how innervations are coming into play now in the subventricular zone."
Kuo’s team found this system by following cholinergic signaling, but other groups are arriving in the same niche by following dopaminergic and serotonergic signals, Temple said. “It’s a really hot area because it’s a beautiful stem cell niche to study. It’s this gorgeous niche where you can observe cell-to-cell interactions.”
These emerging threads have Kuo hopeful researchers will eventually be able to find the way to “engage certain circuits of the brain to lead to a hardware upgrade. Wouldn’t it be nice if you could upgrade the brain hardware to keep up with the new software?” He said perhaps there will be a way to combine behavioral therapy and stem cell treatments after a brain injury to rebuild some of the damage.
The questions ahead are both upstream from the new ChAT+ neurons and downstream, Kuo says. Upstream, what brain signals tell ChAT+ neurons to start asking the stem cells for more young neurons? Downstream, what’s the logic governing the response of the stem cells to different frequencies of ChAT+ electrical activity?
There’s also the big issue of somehow being able to introduce new components into an existing neuronal circuit, a practice that parts of the brain might normally resist. “I think that some neural circuits welcome new members, and some don’t,” Kuo said.
Research details how developing neurons sense a chemical cue
Symmetry is an inherent part of development. As an embryo, an organism’s brain and spinal cord, like the rest of its body, organize themselves into left and right halves as they grow. But a certain set of nerve cells do something unusual: they cross from one side to the other. New research in mice delves into the details of the molecular interactions that help guide these neurons toward this anatomical boundary.
In an embryo, a neuron’s branches, or axons, have special structures on their tips that sense chemical cues telling them where to grow. The new findings, by researchers at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and The Rockefeller University, reveal the structural details of how one such cue, Netrin-1, interacts with two sensing molecules on the axons, DCC and a previously less well characterized player known as neogenin, as a part of this process.
“Our work provides the first high-resolution view of the molecular complexes that form on the surface of a developing axon and tell it to move in one direction or another,” says Dimitar Nikolov, a structural biologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering. “This detailed understanding of these assemblies helps us better understand neural wiring, and may one day be useful in the development of drugs to treat spinal cord or brain injuries.”
In a developing nervous system, the signaling molecule, Netrin-1, identified by Rockefeller University Professor Marc Tessier-Lavigne and colleagues, can guide neurons by attracting or repulsing them. In the case of axons that cross from one side to the other, extended by so-called commissural neurons, Netrin-1 attracts them toward the middle.
With a technique that uses X-rays to visualize the structure of crystalized proteins, research scientist Kai Xu and colleagues in Nikolov’s laboratory revealed that Netrin-1 has two separate binding sites on opposite ends, enabling it to simultaneously bind to different receptors. This may explain how Netrin-1, which is an important axon-guiding molecule, can affect in different ways neurons that express different combinations of receptors, Nikolov says.
For some time, scientists have known commissural neurons used the receptor molecule DCC to detect Netrin-1. Neogenin has a structure similar to DCC, and this research, described today in Science, confirms neogenin too acts as a sensing molecule for commissural neurons in mammals.
In experiments that complemented the structural work, conducted by Nicolas Renier and Zhuhao Wu in Tessier-Lavigne’s lab, the researchers confirmed that, like DCC, neogenin senses Netrin-1 for the growing commissural neurons in mice.
These neurons are part of the system by which one side of the brain controls movement on the opposite side of the body. As a result, a mutation in the gene responsible for DCC interferes with this coordination, causing congenital mirror movement disorder. People with this disorder cannot move one side of the body in isolation; for example, a right-handed wave is mirrored by a similar gesture by the left hand.
The work also has implications for understanding why DCC, neogenin and other cell-surface receptors come in slightly different forms, called splice isoforms. The structural research revealed these isoforms bind differently to Netrin-1. However, it is not yet clear what this means for neuron wiring, Nikolov says.
“With this structural knowledge, and with the identification of an additional receptor involved in axon guidance in the spinal cord, we are gaining deeper insight into the mechanisms through which neurons make connections that produce a functioning nervous system, as well as the dysfunction that arises from miswiring of connections” says Tessier-Lavigne.
(Source: newswire.rockefeller.edu)
One Molecule To Block Both Pain And Itch
Duke University researchers have found an antibody that simultaneously blocks the sensations of pain and itching in studies with mice.
The new antibody works by targeting the voltage-sensitive sodium channels in the cell membrane of neurons. The results appear online on May 22 in Cell.
Voltage-sensitive sodium channels control the flow of sodium ions through the neuron’s membrane. These channels open and close by responding to the electric current or action potential of the cells. One particular type of sodium channel, called the Nav1.7 subtype, is responsible for sensing pain.
Mutations in the human gene encoding the Nav1.7 sodium channel can lead to either the inability to sense pain or pain hypersensitivity. Interestingly, these mutations do not affect other sensations such as touch or temperature. Hence, the Nav1.7 sodium channel might be a very specific target for treating pain disorders without perturbing the patients’ ability to feel other sensations.
"Originally, I was interested in isolating these sodium channels from cells to study their structure," said Seok-Yong Lee, assistant professor of biochemistry in the Duke University Medical School and principal investigator of the study. He designed antibodies that would capture the sodium channels so that he could study them. "But then I thought, what if I could make an antibody that interferes with the channel function?"
The team first tested the antibody in cultured cells engineered to express the Nav1.7 sodium channel. They found that the antibody can bind to the channel and stabilize its closed state.
"The channel is off when it is closed," Lee explained. "Since the antibody stabilizes the closed state, the channel becomes less sensitive to pain." If this held true in live animals, then the animals would also be less sensitive to pain.
To test this idea, Lee sought the help of Ru-Rong Ji, professor of anesthesiology and neurobiology, who is an expert in the study of pain and itch sensation. Using laboratory mouse models of inflammatory and neuropathic pain, they showed that the antibody can target the Nav1.7 channel and reduce the pain sensation in these mice. More importantly, mice receiving the treatment did not show signs of physical dependence or enhanced tolerance toward the antibody.
"Pain and itch are distinct sensations, and pain is often known to suppress itch", said Ji.
The team found that the antibody can also relieve acute and chronic itch in mouse models, making them the first to discover the role of Nav1.7 in transmitting the itch sensation.
"Now we have a compound that can potentially treat both pain and itch at the same time," said Lee. Both of these symptoms are common in allergic contact dermatitis, which affects more than 10 million patients a year in the United States alone.
The team is pursuing a patent for the antibody.
"We hope our discovery will garner interest from pharmaceutical companies that can help us expand our studies into clinical trials," Lee said. Their goal is to develop a safer treatment for pain and itch as an alternative to opioids, which often cause addiction and other detrimental side effects.
(Source: today.duke.edu)
Scientists Find an Unlikely Stress Responder May Protect Against Alzheimer’s
In surprise findings, scientists at The Scripps Research Institute (TSRI) have discovered that a protein with a propensity to form harmful aggregates in the body when produced in the liver protects against Alzheimer’s disease aggregates when it is produced in the brain. The results suggest that drugs that can boost the protein’s production specifically in neurons could one day help ward off Alzheimer’s disease.
“This result was completely unexpected when we started this research,” said TSRI Professor Joel N. Buxbaum, MD. “But now we realize that it could indicate a new approach for Alzheimer’s prevention and therapy.”
Buxbaum and members of his laboratory report their latest finding in the May 21, 2014 issue of the Journal of Neuroscience.
First Hints
The study centers on transthyretin (TTR), a protein that is known to function as a transporter, carrying the thyroid hormone thyroxine and vitamin A through the bloodstream and cerebrospinal fluid. To do this job, it must come together in a four subunit structure called a tetramer. Certain factors such as old age and TTR gene mutations can make these tetramers prone to fall apart and misfold into tough aggregates called amyloids. TTR amyloids accumulate in the heart, kidneys, peripheral nerves and other tissues and cause life-shortening diseases including familial amyloid polyneuropathy and senile systemic (cardiac) amyloidosis.
Starting in the mid 1990s, however, reports from several laboratories hinted that TTR in the brain might protect against other amyloids—particularly the Alzheimer’s-associated protein amyloid beta. In test tube experiments, TTR seemed able to grab hold of amyloid beta and prevent it from aggregating. In transgenic “Alzheimer’s mice,” which overproduce amyloid beta, TTR expression was increased in affected brain tissue, compared to control mice, as one would expect from a protective response.
“I didn’t really believe those reports at the time,” Buxbaum said.
But he was working on TTR amyloidoses and had the tools needed to investigate the issue genetically. He and his colleagues at TSRI did those experiments, and found, to their surprise, that overproducing TTR in “Alzheimer’s mice” did indeed protect the animals: it reduced their memory deficits as well as the accumulations of amyloid beta aggregates in their brains. Since that 2008 study, Buxbaum and colleagues have gone on to publish additional experiments examining the mechanism of the protection including two last year, in collaboration with the Wright and Kelly laboratories at TSRI and Roberta Cascella in Florence, that showed how TTR tetramers can bind to amyloid beta and inhibit the latter from forming the more harmful types of aggregate.
Context Is Everything
In the latest study, Buxbaum and his team, including lead authors Xin Wang and Francesca Cattaneo, at the time both postdoctoral fellows in the Buxbaum laboratory, found another key piece of evidence for TTR’s protective role.
TTR is known to be produced principally in the liver and in the parts of the brain where cerebrospinal fluid is made. Prior studies in the Buxbaum group found evidence that TTR can also be produced in neurons, albeit at low levels. Still, it has remained unclear how TTR production, in neurons or in other cells, would be increased in response to amyloid beta accumulation.
To start, the team analyzed a segment of DNA near the TTR gene called the promoter region, where, in principle, special DNA-binding proteins called transcription factors could increase TTR gene activity. The analysis suggested that Heat Shock Factor 1 (HSF1), known as a master switch for a broad protective response against certain types of cellular stress, could bind to the TTR gene’s promoter.
Further experiments showed that HSF1 does indeed bind to this region and that two known stimulators of HSF1—heat and a compound called celastrol—also boost HSF1 binding to the TTR promoter, in addition to boosting TTR production. Remarkably, though, the researchers found that HSF1’s dialing-up of TTR production seemed to occur only in neuronal-type cells, not in liver cells where most TTR is produced.
In fact, the researchers found that in liver cells the HSF1 response somehow brought about a modest decrease in TTR production. That result may seem puzzling, but it is consistent with the idea that liver-cell TTR, which is produced at 15 to 20 times the levels of neuronal TTR, is more likely to be hazardous than protective.
Using genetic techniques to force cells to overproduce HSF1, the researchers again saw jumps in TTR gene activity and protein production, but only in neuronal cells. In liver cells TTR activity rose when HSF1 was blocked, suggesting that HSF1 normally helps keep a lid on liver TTR production.
“It’s becoming more and more evident in biology that the same molecule can do very different things in different contexts,” Buxbaum said.
To underscore the relevance to Alzheimer’s, his team examined neurons from the hippocampus brain region in ordinary lab mice and in amyloid-beta-overproducing Alzheimer’s mice. Again consistent with the concept of TTR as protective in neurons, they found that the frequency of HSF1 binding to the TTR gene promoter, and the numbers of resulting TTR gene transcripts, were both doubled in the Alzheimer’s mice compared to the ordinary lab mice.
Buxbaum and his colleagues plan to do further research on this apparent TTR-mediated stress response in neurons to determine, among other things, precisely how Alzheimer’s-associated amyloid beta switches it on. But they have already begun to think about developing a small molecule compound, suitable for delivery in a pill, that at least modestly boosts HSF1 activity and/or TTR production in neurons—and thus might prevent or delay Alzheimer’s dementia.
(Source: scripps.edu)