Neurogenesis in the subventricular zone (SVZ) is regulated by diffusible factors and cell-cell contacts. In vivo, SVZ stem cells are associated with the abluminal surface of blood vessels and such interactions are thought to regulate their neurogenic capacity. SVZ neural stem cells (NSCs) have been described to contact endothelial-derived laminin via α6β1 integrin. To elucidate whether heterocellular contacts with brain endothelial cells (BEC) regulate SVZ cells neurogenic capacities, cocultures of SVZ neurospheres and primary BEC, both obtained from C57BL/6 mice, were performed. The involvement of laminin-integrin interactions in SVZ homeostasis was tested in three ways. Firstly, SVZ cells were analyzed following incubation of BEC with the protein synthesis inhibitor cycloheximide (CHX) prior to coculture, a treatment expected to decrease membrane proteins. Secondly, SVZ cells were cocultured with BEC in the presence of an anti-α6 integrin neutralizing antibody. Thirdly, BEC were cultured with β1-/- SVZ cells. We showed that contact with BEC supports, at least in part, proliferation and stemness of SVZ cells, as evaluated by the number of BrdU positive (+) and Sox2+ cells in contact with BEC. These effects are dependent on BEC-derived laminin binding to α6β1 integrin and are decreased in cocultures incubated with anti-α6 integrin neutralizing antibody and in cocultures with SVZ β1-/- cells. Moreover, BEC-derived laminin sustains stemness in SVZ cell cultures via activation of the Notch and mTOR signaling pathways. Our results show that BEC/SVZ interactions involving α6β1 integrin binding to laminin, contribute to SVZ cell proliferation and stemness.
Lifelong neurogenesis and incorporation of newborn neurons into mature neuronal circuits operates in specialized niches of the mammalian brain and serves as role model for neuronal replacement strategies. However, to which extent can the remaining brain parenchyma, which never incorporates new neurons during the adulthood, be as plastic and readily accommodate neurons in networks that suffered neuronal loss due to injury or neurological disease? Which microenvironment is permissive for neuronal replacement and synaptic integration and which cells perform best? Can lost function be restored and how adequate is the participation in the pre-existing circuitry? Could aberrant connections cause malfunction especially in networks dominated by excitatory neurons, such as the cerebral cortex? These questions show how important connectivity and circuitry aspects are for regenerative medicine, which is the focus of this review. We will discuss the impressive advances in neuronal replacement strategies and success from exogenous as well as endogenous cell sources. Both have seen key novel technologies, like the groundbreaking discovery of induced pluripotent stem cells and direct neuronal reprogramming, offering alternatives to the transplantation of fetal neurons, and both herald great expectations. For these to become reality, neuronal circuitry analysis is key now. As our understanding of neuronal circuits increases, neuronal replacement therapy should fulfill those prerequisites in network structure and function, in brain-wide input and output. Now is the time to incorporate neural circuitry research into regenerative medicine if we ever want to truly repair brain injury.
Transplantation is a clinically relevant approach for brain repair, but much remains to be understood about influences of the disease environment on transplant connectivity. To explore the effect of amyloid pathology in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and aging, we examined graft connectivity using monosynaptic rabies virus tracing in APP/PS1 mice and in 16- to 18-month-old wild-type (WT) mice. Transplanted neurons differentiated within 4 weeks and integrated well into the host visual cortex, receiving input from the appropriate brain regions for this area. Unexpectedly, we found a prominent several-fold increase in local inputs, in both amyloid-loaded and aged environments. State-of-the-art deep proteome analysis using mass spectrometry highlights complement system activation as a common denominator of environments promoting excessive local input connectivity. These data therefore reveal the key role of the host pathology in shaping the input connectome, calling for caution in extrapolating results from one pathological condition to another.
Abstract Mobilization of remyelinating cells spontaneously occurs in the adult brain. These cellular resources are specially active after demyelinating episodes in early phases of multiple sclerosis (MS). Indeed, oligodendrocyte precursor cells (OPCs) actively proliferate, migrate to and repopulate the lesioned areas. Ultimately, efficient remyelination is accomplished when new oligodendrocytes reinvest nude neuronal axons, restoring the normal properties of impulse conduction. As the disease progresses this fundamental process fails. Multiple causes seem to contribute to such transient decline, including the failure of OPCs to differentiate and enwrap the vulnerable neuronal axons. Regenerative medicine for MS has been mainly centered on the recruitment of endogenous self‐repair mechanisms, or on transplantation approaches. The latter commonly involves grafting of neural precursor cells (NPCs) or neural stem cells (NSCs), with myelinogenic potential, in the injured areas. Both strategies require further understanding of the biology of oligodendrocyte differentiation and remyelination. Indeed, the success of transplantation largely depends on the pre‐commitment of transplanted NPCs or NSCs into oligodendroglial cell type, while the endogenous differentiation of OPCs needs to be boosted in chronic stages of the disease. Thus, much effort has been focused on finding molecular targets that drive oligodendrocytes commitment and development. The present review explores several aspects of remyelination that must be considered in the design of a cell‐based therapy for MS, and explores more deeply the challenge of fostering oligodendrogenesis. In this regard, we discuss herein a tool developed in our research group useful to search novel oligodendrogenic factors and to study oligodendrocyte differentiation in a time‐ and cost‐saving manner.
'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23d' x='45.714'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23e' transform='matrix(-1 0 0 1 479.792 0)'/%3e%3cg id='f' fill='%23fff'%3e%3cpath fill='%23039' d='M232.636 202.406v.005c0 2.212.85 4.227 2.212 5.69 1.365 1.466 3.245 2.377 5.302 2.377 2.067 0 3.944-.905 5.303-2.365 1.358-1.459 2.202-3.472 2.202-5.693v-10.768l-14.992-.013-.028 10.766'/%3e%3ccircle cx='236.074' cy='195.735' r='1.486'/%3e%3ccircle cx='244.392' cy='195.742' r='1.486'/%3e%3ccircle cx='240.225' cy='199.735' r='1.486'/%3e%3ccircle cx='236.074' cy='203.916' r='1.486'/%3e%3ccircle cx='244.383' cy='203.905' r='1.486'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23f' y='-26.016'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23f' x='-20.799'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23f' x='20.745'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23f' y='25.784'/%3e%3c/svg%3e)
