EphA4 is necessary for spatially selective peripheral somatosensory topography

Wiring the senses: Factors that regulate peripheral axon pathfinding in sensory systems

Sensory neurons of the head are the ones that transmit the information about the external world to our brain for its processing. Axons from cranial sensory neurons sense different chemoattractant and chemorepulsive molecules during the journey and in the target tissue to establish the precise innervation with brain neurons and/or receptor cells. Here, we aim to unify and summarize the available information regarding molecular mechanisms guiding the different afferent sensory axons of the head. By putting the information together, we find the use of similar guidance cues in different sensory systems but in distinct combinations. In vertebrates, the number of genes in each family of guidance cues has suffered a great expansion in the genome, providing redundancy, and robustness. We also discuss recently published data involving the role of glia and mechanical forces in shaping the axon paths. Finally, we highlight the remaining questions to be addressed in the field.

Ephrin-B/EphB Signaling Is Required for Normal Innervation of Lingual Gustatory Papillae

The innervation of taste buds is an excellent model system for studying the guidance of axons during targeting because of their discrete nature and the high fidelity of innervation. The pregustatory epithelium of fungiform papillae is known to secrete diffusible axon guidance cues such as BDNF and Sema3A that attract and repel, respectively, geniculate ganglion axons during targeting, but diffusible factors alone are unlikely to explain how taste axon terminals are restricted to their territories within the taste bud. Nondiffusible cell surface proteins such as Ephs and ephrins can act as receptors and/or ligands for one another and are known to control axon terminal positioning in several parts of the nervous system, but they have not been studied in the gustatory system. We report that ephrin-B2 linked β-galactosidase staining and immunostaining was present along the dorsal epithelium of the mouse tongue as early as embryonic day 15.5 (E15.5), but was not detected at E14.5, when axons first enter the epithelium. Ephrin-B1 immunolabeling was barely detected in the epithelium and found at a somewhat higher concentration in the mesenchyme subjacent to the epithelium. EphB1 and EphB2 were detected in lingual sensory afferents in vivo and geniculate neurites in vitro. Ephrin-B1 and ephrin-B2 were similarly effective in repelling or suppressing outgrowth by geniculate neurites in vitro. These in vitro effects were independent of the neurotrophin used to promote outgrowth, but were reduced by elevated levels of laminin. In vivo, mice null for EphB1 and EphB2 exhibited decreased gustatory innervation of fungiform papillae. These data provide evidence that ephrin-B forward signaling is necessary for normal gustatory innervation of the mammalian tongue.

EphA4 is Involved in Sleep Regulation but Not in the Electrophysiological Response to Sleep Deprivation

STUDY OBJECTIVES

Optimal sleep is ensured by the interaction of circadian and homeostatic processes. Although synaptic plasticity seems to contribute to both processes, the specific players involved are not well understood. The EphA4 tyrosine kinase receptor is a cell adhesion protein regulating synaptic plasticity. We investigated the role of EphA4 in sleep regulation using electrocorticography in mice lacking EphA4 and gene expression measurements.

METHODS

EphA4 knockout (KO) mice, Clock(Δ19/Δ19) mutant mice and littermates, C57BL/6J and CD-1 mice, and Sprague-Dawley rats were studied under a 12 h light: 12 h dark cycle, under undisturbed conditions or 6 h sleep deprivation (SLD), and submitted to a 48 h electrophysiological recording and/or brain sampling at different time of day.

RESULTS

EphA4 KO mice showed less rapid eye movement sleep (REMS), enhanced duration of individual bouts of wakefulness and nonrapid eye movement sleep (NREMS) during the light period, and a blunted daily rhythm of NREMS sigma activity. The NREMS delta activity response to SLD was unchanged in EphA4 KO mice. However, SLD increased EphA4 expression in the thalamic/hypothalamic region in C57BL/6J mice. We further show the presence of E-boxes in the promoter region of EphA4, a lower expression of EphA4 in Clock mutant mice, a rhythmic expression of EphA4 ligands in several brain areas, expression of EphA4 in the suprachiasmatic nuclei of the hypothalamus (SCN), and finally an unchanged number of cells expressing Vip, Grp and Avp in the SCN of EphA4 KO mice.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that EphA4 is involved in circadian sleep regulation.

Parcellation of the thalamus into distinct nuclei reflects EphA expression and function

Intercellular signaling via the Eph receptor tyrosine kinases and their ligands, the ephrins, acts to shape many regions of the developing brain. One intriguing consequence of Eph signaling is the control of mixing between discrete cell populations in the developing hindbrain, contributing to the formation of segregated rhombomeres. Since the thalamus is also a parcellated structure comprised of discrete nuclei, might Eph signaling play a parallel role in cell segregation in this brain structure? Analyses of expression reveal that several Eph family members are expressed in the forming thalamus and that cells expressing particular receptors form cellular groupings as development proceeds. Specifically, expression of receptors EphA4 or EphA7 and ligand ephrin-A5 is localized to distinct thalamic domains. EphA4 and EphA7 are often coexpressed in regions of the forming thalamus, with each receptor marking discrete thalamic domains. In contrast, ephrin-A5 is expressed by a limited group of thalamic cells. Within the ventral thalamus, EphA4 is present broadly, occasionally overlapping with ephrin-A5 expression. EphA7 is more restricted in its expression and is largely nonoverlapping with ephrin-A5. In mutant mice lacking one or both receptors or ephrin-A5, the appearance of the venteroposterolateral (VPL) and venteroposteromedial (VPM) nuclear complex is altered compared to wild type mice. These in vivo results support a role for Eph family members in the definition of the thalamic nuclei. In parallel, in vitro analysis reveals a hierarchy of mixing among cells expressing ephrin-A5 with cells expressing EphA4 alone, EphA4 and EphA7 together, or EphA7 alone. Together, these data support a model in which EphA molecules promote the parcellation of discrete thalamic nuclei by limiting the extent of cell mixing.

Cortical plasticity within and across lifetimes: how can development inform us about phenotypic transformations?

The neocortex is the part of the mammalian brain that is involved in perception, cognition, and volitional motor control. It is a highly dynamic structure that is dramatically altered within the lifetime of an animal and in different lineages throughout the course of evolution. These alterations account for the remarkable variations in behavior that species exhibit. Of particular interest is how these cortical phenotypes change within the lifetime of the individual and eventually evolve in species over time. Because we cannot study the evolution of the neocortex directly we use comparative analysis to appreciate the types of changes that have been made to the neocortex and the similarities that exist across taxa. Developmental studies inform us about how these phenotypic transitions may arise by alterations in developmental cascades or changes in the physical environment in which the brain develops. Both genes and the sensory environment contribute to aspects of the phenotype and similar features, such as the size of a cortical field, can be altered in a variety of ways. Although both genes and the laws of physics place constraints on the evolution of the neocortex, mammals have evolved a number of mechanisms that allow them to loosen these constraints and often alter the course of their own evolution.

Protein tyrosine phosphatase receptor type O inhibits trigeminal axon growth and branching by repressing TrkB and Ret signaling

Axonal branches of the trigeminal ganglion (TG) display characteristic growth and arborization patterns during development. Subsets of TG neurons express different receptors for growth factors, but these are unlikely to explain the unique patterns of axonal arborizations. Intrinsic modulators may restrict or enhance cellular responses to specific ligands and thereby contribute to the development of axon growth patterns. Protein tyrosine phosphatase receptor type O (PTPRO), which is required for Eph receptor-dependent retinotectal development in chick and for development of subsets of trunk sensory neurons in mouse, may be such an intrinsic modulator of TG neuron development. PTPRO is expressed mainly in TrkB-expressing (TrkB(+)) and Ret(+) mechanoreceptors within the TG during embryogenesis. In PTPRO mutant mice, subsets of TG neurons grow longer and more elaborate axonal branches. Cultured PTPRO(-/-) TG neurons display enhanced axonal outgrowth and branching in response to BDNF and GDNF compared with control neurons, indicating that PTPRO negatively controls the activity of BDNF/TrkB and GDNF/Ret signaling. Mouse PTPRO fails to regulate Eph signaling in retinocollicular development and in hindlimb motor axon guidance, suggesting that chick and mouse PTPRO have different substrate specificities. PTPRO has evolved to fine tune growth factor signaling in a cell-type-specific manner and to thereby increase the diversity of signaling output of a limited number of receptor tyrosine kinases to control the branch morphology of developing sensory neurons. The regulation of Eph receptor-mediated developmental processes by protein tyrosine phosphatases has diverged between chick and mouse.

Development and critical period plasticity of the barrel cortex

In primary sensory neocortical areas of mammals, the distribution of sensory receptors is mapped with topographic precision and amplification in proportion to the peripheral receptor density. The visual, somatosensory and auditory cortical maps are established during a critical period in development. Throughout this window in time, the developing cortical maps are vulnerable to deleterious effects of sense organ damage or sensory deprivation. The rodent barrel cortex offers an invaluable model system with which to investigate the mechanisms underlying the formation of topographic maps and their plasticity during development. Five rows of mystacial vibrissa (whisker) follicles on the snout and an array of sinus hairs are represented by layer IV neural modules ('barrels') and thalamocortical axon terminals in the primary somatosensory cortex. Perinatal damage to the whiskers or the sensory nerve innervating them irreversibly alters the structural organization of the barrels. Earlier studies emphasized the role of the sensory periphery in dictating whisker-specific brain maps and patterns. Recent advances in molecular genetics and analyses of genetically altered mice allow new insights into neural pattern formation in the neocortex and the mechanisms underlying critical period plasticity. Here, we review the development and patterning of the barrel cortex and the critical period plasticity.

The transcription factor, Lmx1b, is necessary for the development of the principal trigeminal nucleus-based lemniscal pathway

Little is known of transcriptional mechanisms underlying the development of the trigeminal (V) principal sensory nucleus (PrV), the brainstem nucleus responsible for the development of the whisker-to-barrel cortex pathway. Lmx1b, a LIM homeodomain transcription factor, is expressed in embryonic PrV. In Lmx1b knockout ((-)(/)(-)) mice, V primary afferent projections to PrV are normal, albeit reduced in number, whereas the PrV-thalamic lemniscal pathway is sparse and develops late. Excess cell death occurs in the embryonic Lmx1b(-)(/)(-) PrV, but not in Lmx1b/Bax double null mutants. Expression of Drg11, a downstream transcription factor essential for PrV development and pattern formation, is abolished in PrV, but not in the V ganglion. Consequently, whisker patterns fail to develop in PrV by birth. Rescued PrV cells in Lmx1b/Bax double (-)(/)(-)s failed to rescue whisker-related PrV pattern formation. Thus, Lmx1b and Drg11 may act in the same genetic signaling pathway that is essential for PrV pattern formation.