PI(3,5)P2 biosynthesis regulates oligodendrocyte differentiation by intrinsic and extrinsic mechanisms

  1. Yevgeniya A Mironova
  2. Guy M Lenk
  3. Jing-Ping Lin
  4. Seung Joon Lee
  5. Jeffery L Twiss
  6. Ilaria Vaccari
  7. Alessandra Bolino
  8. Leif A Havton
  9. Sang H Min
  10. Charles S Abrams
  11. Peter Shrager
  12. Miriam H Meisler
  13. Roman J Giger  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Michigan School of Medicine, United States
  2. University of South Carolina, United States
  3. San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Italy
  4. David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, United States
  5. University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, United States
  6. University of Rochester Medical Center, United States

Abstract

Proper development of the CNS axon-glia unit requires bi-directional communication between axons and oligodendrocytes (OLs). We show that the signaling lipid phosphatidylinositol-3,5-bisphosphate [PI(3,5)P2] is required in neurons and in OLs for normal CNS myelination. In mice, mutations of Fig4, Pikfyve or Vac14, encoding key components of the PI(3,5)P2 biosynthetic complex, each lead to impaired OL maturation, severe CNS hypomyelination and delayed propagation of compound action potentials. Primary OLs deficient in Fig4 accumulate large LAMP1+ and Rab7+ vesicular structures and exhibit reduced membrane sheet expansion. PI(3,5)P2 deficiency leads to accumulation of myelin-associated glycoprotein (MAG) in LAMP1+ perinuclear vesicles that fail to migrate to the nascent myelin sheet. Live-cell imaging of OLs after genetic or pharmacological inhibition of PI(3,5)P2 synthesis revealed impaired trafficking of plasma membrane-derived MAG through the endolysosomal system in primary cells and brain tissue. Collectively, our studies identify PI(3,5)P2 as a key regulator of myelin membrane trafficking and myelinogenesis.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Yevgeniya A Mironova

    Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Guy M Lenk

    Department of Human Genetics, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Jing-Ping Lin

    Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Seung Joon Lee

    Department of Biological Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Jeffery L Twiss

    Department of Biological Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Ilaria Vaccari

    Human Inherited Neuropathies Unit, INSPE-Institute for Experimental Neurology, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Alessandra Bolino

    Human Inherited Neuropathies Unit, INSPE-Institute for Experimental Neurology, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Leif A Havton

    Department of Neurology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Sang H Min

    Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Charles S Abrams

    Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Peter Shrager

    Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Miriam H Meisler

    Department of Human Genetics, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Roman J Giger

    Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, United States
    For correspondence
    rgiger@med.umich.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Ben Barres, Stanford School of Medicine, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: This study was performed in strict accordance with the recommendations in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the National Institutes of Health. All of the animals were handled according to protocols approved by the University committee on use and care for animals (UCUCA protocols: #00005863 and #00005902) of the University of Michigan.

Version history

  1. Received: November 13, 2015
  2. Accepted: March 23, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: March 23, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: June 1, 2016 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2016, Mironova et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 2,782
    views
  • 743
    downloads
  • 26
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Yevgeniya A Mironova
  2. Guy M Lenk
  3. Jing-Ping Lin
  4. Seung Joon Lee
  5. Jeffery L Twiss
  6. Ilaria Vaccari
  7. Alessandra Bolino
  8. Leif A Havton
  9. Sang H Min
  10. Charles S Abrams
  11. Peter Shrager
  12. Miriam H Meisler
  13. Roman J Giger
(2016)
PI(3,5)P2 biosynthesis regulates oligodendrocyte differentiation by intrinsic and extrinsic mechanisms
eLife 5:e13023.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.13023

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.13023

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Maximilian Nagel, Marco Niestroj ... Marc Spehr
    Research Article

    In most mammals, conspecific chemosensory communication relies on semiochemical release within complex bodily secretions and subsequent stimulus detection by the vomeronasal organ (VNO). Urine, a rich source of ethologically relevant chemosignals, conveys detailed information about sex, social hierarchy, health, and reproductive state, which becomes accessible to a conspecific via vomeronasal sampling. So far, however, numerous aspects of social chemosignaling along the vomeronasal pathway remain unclear. Moreover, since virtually all research on vomeronasal physiology is based on secretions derived from inbred laboratory mice, it remains uncertain whether such stimuli provide a true representation of potentially more relevant cues found in the wild. Here, we combine a robust low-noise VNO activity assay with comparative molecular profiling of sex- and strain-specific mouse urine samples from two inbred laboratory strains as well as from wild mice. With comprehensive molecular portraits of these secretions, VNO activity analysis now enables us to (i) assess whether and, if so, how much sex/strain-selective ‘raw’ chemical information in urine is accessible via vomeronasal sampling; (ii) identify which chemicals exhibit sufficient discriminatory power to signal an animal’s sex, strain, or both; (iii) determine the extent to which wild mouse secretions are unique; and (iv) analyze whether vomeronasal response profiles differ between strains. We report both sex- and, in particular, strain-selective VNO representations of chemical information. Within the urinary ‘secretome’, both volatile compounds and proteins exhibit sufficient discriminative power to provide sex- and strain-specific molecular fingerprints. While total protein amount is substantially enriched in male urine, females secrete a larger variety at overall comparatively low concentrations. Surprisingly, the molecular spectrum of wild mouse urine does not dramatically exceed that of inbred strains. Finally, vomeronasal response profiles differ between C57BL/6 and BALB/c animals, with particularly disparate representations of female semiochemicals.

    1. Neuroscience
    Kenta Abe, Yuki Kambe ... Tatsuo Sato
    Research Article

    Midbrain dopamine neurons impact neural processing in the prefrontal cortex (PFC) through mesocortical projections. However, the signals conveyed by dopamine projections to the PFC remain unclear, particularly at the single-axon level. Here, we investigated dopaminergic axonal activity in the medial PFC (mPFC) during reward and aversive processing. By optimizing microprism-mediated two-photon calcium imaging of dopamine axon terminals, we found diverse activity in dopamine axons responsive to both reward and aversive stimuli. Some axons exhibited a preference for reward, while others favored aversive stimuli, and there was a strong bias for the latter at the population level. Long-term longitudinal imaging revealed that the preference was maintained in reward- and aversive-preferring axons throughout classical conditioning in which rewarding and aversive stimuli were paired with preceding auditory cues. However, as mice learned to discriminate reward or aversive cues, a cue activity preference gradually developed only in aversive-preferring axons. We inferred the trial-by-trial cue discrimination based on machine learning using anticipatory licking or facial expressions, and found that successful discrimination was accompanied by sharper selectivity for the aversive cue in aversive-preferring axons. Our findings indicate that a group of mesocortical dopamine axons encodes aversive-related signals, which are modulated by both classical conditioning across days and trial-by-trial discrimination within a day.