The cytokine GDF15 signals through a population of brainstem cholecystokinin neurons to mediate anorectic signalling

  1. Amy A Worth
  2. Rosemary Shoop
  3. Katie Tye
  4. Claire H Feetham
  5. Giuseppe D'Agostino
  6. Garron T Dodd
  7. Frank Reimann
  8. Fiona M Gribble
  9. Emily C Beebe
  10. James D Dunbar
  11. Jesline T Alexander-Chacko
  12. Dana K Sindelar
  13. Tamer Coskun
  14. Paul J Emmerson
  15. Simon M Luckman  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Manchester, United Kingdom
  2. University of Melbourne, Australia
  3. University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
  4. Eli Lilly and Company, United States

Abstract

The cytokine, GDF15, is produced in pathological states which cause cellular stress, including cancer. When over expressed, it causes dramatic weight reduction, suggesting a role in disease-related anorexia. Here we demonstrate that the GDF15 receptor, GFRAL, is located in a subset of cholecystokinin neurons which span the area postrema and the nucleus of the tractus solitarius of the mouse. GDF15 activates GFRALAP/NTS neurons and supports conditioned taste and place aversions, while the anorexia it causes can be blocked by a monoclonal antibody directed at GFRAL or by disrupting CCK neuronal signalling. The cancer-therapeutic drug, cisplatin, induces the release of GDF15 and activates GFRALAP/NTS neurons, as well as causing significant reductions in food intake and body weight in mice. These metabolic effects of cisplatin are abolished by pre-treatment with the GFRAL monoclonal antibody. Our results suggest that GFRAL neutralising antibodies or antagonists may provide a co-treatment opportunity for patients undergoing chemotherapy.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Amy A Worth

    Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Rosemary Shoop

    Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3617-4358
  3. Katie Tye

    Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Claire H Feetham

    Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Giuseppe D'Agostino

    Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Garron T Dodd

    Department of Physiology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Frank Reimann

    Wellcome Trust MRC Institute of Metabolic Science, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Fiona M Gribble

    Wellcome Trust MRC Institute of Metabolic Science, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. Emily C Beebe

    Lilly Research Laboratories, Lilly Corporate Center, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    Emily C Beebe, Paid employee of Eli Lilly..
  10. James D Dunbar

    Lilly Research Laboratories, Lilly Corporate Center, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    James D Dunbar, Paid employee of Eli Lilly..
  11. Jesline T Alexander-Chacko

    Lilly Research Laboratories, Lilly Corporate Center, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    Jesline T Alexander-Chacko, Paid employee of Eli Lilly..
  12. Dana K Sindelar

    Lilly Research Laboratories, Lilly Corporate Center, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    Dana K Sindelar, Paid employee of Eli Lilly..
  13. Tamer Coskun

    Lilly Research Laboratories, Lilly Corporate Center, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    Tamer Coskun, Paid employee of Eli Lilly..
  14. Paul J Emmerson

    Lilly Research Laboratories, Lilly Corporate Center, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    Paul J Emmerson, Paid employee of Eli Lilly..
  15. Simon M Luckman

    Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    simon.luckman@manchester.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    Simon M Luckman, BB/S008098/1 is a BBSRC Industrial Partnership Award between SML and Eli Lilly.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5318-5473

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/M001067/1)

  • Simon M Luckman

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/L021129/1)

  • Simon M Luckman

Medical Research Council (MR/R002991/1)

  • Simon M Luckman

Medical Research Council (MR/P009824/2)

  • Giuseppe D'Agostino

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Richard D Palmiter, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Washington, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All procedures were conducted in accordance with either: the United Kingdom Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, 1986 (ASPA) and approved by the local animal welfare ethical review body (AWERB); the Eli Lilly Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) in accordance with the National Institutes of Health Guide for Care and Use of Laboratory Animals; or the University of Melbourne Animal Ethics Committee (1914919) and conformed to National Health & 8 Medical Research Council (Australia) guidelines regarding the care and use of experimental animals. Additional guidance from the UK National Centre for 3R's (NC3Rs) was followed where applicable.

Version history

  1. Received: January 14, 2020
  2. Accepted: July 26, 2020
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: July 29, 2020 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: August 6, 2020 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2020, Worth 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

  • 4,887
    views
  • 635
    downloads
  • 48
    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. Amy A Worth
  2. Rosemary Shoop
  3. Katie Tye
  4. Claire H Feetham
  5. Giuseppe D'Agostino
  6. Garron T Dodd
  7. Frank Reimann
  8. Fiona M Gribble
  9. Emily C Beebe
  10. James D Dunbar
  11. Jesline T Alexander-Chacko
  12. Dana K Sindelar
  13. Tamer Coskun
  14. Paul J Emmerson
  15. Simon M Luckman
(2020)
The cytokine GDF15 signals through a population of brainstem cholecystokinin neurons to mediate anorectic signalling
eLife 9:e55164.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.55164

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.55164

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.