Dataset Information

Quantitative Proteomics After Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) in a Regenerative and a Nonregenerative Stage in the Frog Xenopus laevis.

ABSTRACT: The capacity to regenerate the spinal cord after an injury is a coveted trait that only a limited group of nonmammalian organisms can achieve. In Xenopus laevis, this capacity is only present during larval or tadpole stages, but is absent during postmetamorphic frog stages. This provides an excellent model for comparative studies between a regenerative and a nonregenerative stage to identify the cellular and molecular mechanisms that explain this difference in regenerative potential. Here, we used iTRAQ chemistry to obtain a quantitative proteome of the spinal cord 1 day after a transection injury in regenerative and nonregenerative stage animals, and used sham operated animals as controls. We quantified a total of 6,384 proteins, with 172 showing significant differential expression in the regenerative stage and 240 in the nonregenerative stage, with an overlap of only 14 proteins. Functional enrichment analysis revealed that although the regenerative stage downregulated synapse/vesicle and mitochondrial proteins, the nonregenerative stage upregulated lipid metabolism proteins, and downregulated ribosomal and translation control proteins. Furthermore, STRING network analysis showed that proteins belonging to these groups are highly interconnected, providing interesting candidates for future functional studies. Data are available via ProteomeXchange with identifier PXD006993.

SUBMITTER: Lee-Liu D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5880103 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Quantitative Proteomics After Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) in a Regenerative and a Nonregenerative Stage in the Frog <i>Xenopus laevis</i>.

Lee-Liu Dasfne D Sun Liangliang L Dovichi Norman J NJ Larraín Juan J

Molecular & cellular proteomics : MCP 20180122 4

The capacity to regenerate the spinal cord after an injury is a coveted trait that only a limited group of nonmammalian organisms can achieve. In <i>Xenopus laevis</i>, this capacity is only present during larval or tadpole stages, but is absent during postmetamorphic frog stages. This provides an excellent model for comparative studies between a regenerative and a nonregenerative stage to identify the cellular and molecular mechanisms that explain this difference in regenerative potential. Here ...[more]

PMID: 29358338

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe efficient regenerative abilities at larvae stages followed by a non-regenerative response after metamorphosis in froglets makes Xenopus an ideal model organism to understand the cellular responses leading to spinal cord regeneration.MethodsWe compared the cellular response to spinal cord injury between the regenerative and non-regenerative stages of Xenopus laevis. For this analysis, we used electron microscopy, immunofluorescence and histological staining of the extracellular matrix. We generated two transgenic lines: i) the reporter line with the zebrafish GFAP regulatory regions driving the expression of EGFP, and ii) a cell specific inducible ablation line with the same GFAP regulatory regions. In addition, we used FACS to isolate EGFP+ cells for RNAseq analysis.ResultsIn regenerative stage animals, spinal cord regeneration triggers a rapid sealing of the injured stumps, followed by proliferation of cells lining the central canal, and formation of rosette-like structures in the ablation gap. In addition, the central canal is filled by cells with similar morphology to the cells lining the central canal, neurons, axons, and even synaptic structures. Regeneration is almost completed after 20?days post injury. In non-regenerative stage animals, mostly damaged tissue was observed, without clear closure of the stumps. The ablation gap was filled with fibroblast-like cells, and deposition of extracellular matrix components. No reconstruction of the spinal cord was observed even after 40?days post injury. Cellular markers analysis confirmed these histological differences, a transient increase of vimentin, fibronectin and collagen was detected in regenerative stages, contrary to a sustained accumulation of most of these markers, including chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans in the NR-stage. The zebrafish GFAP transgenic line was validated, and we have demonstrated that is a very reliable and new tool to study the role of neural stem progenitor cells (NSPCs). RNASeq of GFAP::EGFP cells has allowed us to clearly demonstrate that indeed these cells are NSPCs. On the contrary, the GFAP::EGFP transgene is mainly expressed in astrocytes in non-regenerative stages. During regenerative stages, spinal cord injury activates proliferation of NSPCs, and we found that are mainly differentiated into neurons and glial cells. Specific ablation of these cells abolished proper regeneration, confirming that NSPCs cells are necessary for functional regeneration of the spinal cord.ConclusionsThe cellular response to spinal cord injury in regenerative and non-regenerative stages is profoundly different between both stages. A key hallmark of the regenerative response is the activation of NSPCs, which massively proliferate, and are differentiated into neurons to reconstruct the spinal cord. Also very notably, no glial scar formation is observed in regenerative stages, but a transient, glial scar-like structure is formed in non-regenerative stage animals.

Project description:Background: The efficient regenerative abilities at larvae stages followed by a non-regenerative response after metamorphosis in froglets makes Xenopus an ideal model organism to understand the cellular responses leading to spinal cord regeneration. Methods: We compared the cellular response to spinal cord injury between the regenerative and non-regenerative stages of Xenopus laevis. For this analysis, we used electron microscopy, immunofluorescence and histological staining of the extracellular matrix. We generated two transgenic lines: i) the reporter line with the zebrafish GFAP regulatory regions driving the expression of EGFP, and ii) a cell specific inducible ablation line with the same GFAP regulatory regions. In addition, we used FACS to isolate EGFP + cells for RNAseq analysis. Results: In regenerative stage animals, spinal cord regeneration triggers a rapid sealing of the injured stumps, followed by proliferation of cells lining the central canal, and formation of rosette-like structures in the ablation gap. In addition, the central canal is filled by cells with similar morphology to the cells lining the central canal, neurons, axons, and even synaptic structures. Regeneration is almost completed after 20 days post injury. In non-regenerative stage animals, mostly damaged tissue was observed, without clear closure of the stumps. The ablation gap was filled with fibroblast-like cells, and deposition of extracellular matrix components. No reconstruction of the spinal cord was observed even after 40 days post injury. Cellular markers analysis confirmed these histological differences, a transient increase of vimentin, fibronectin and collagen was detected in regenerative stages, contrary to a sustained accumulation of most of these markers, including chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans in the NR-stage. The zebrafish GFAP transgenic line was validated, and we have demonstrated that is a very reliable and new tool to study the role of neural stem progenitor cells (NSPCs). RNASeq of GFAP::EGFP cells has allowed us to clearly demonstrate that indeed these cells are NSPCs. On the contrary, the GFAP::EGFP transgene is mainly expressed in astrocytes in non-regenerative stages. During regenerative stages, spinal cord injury activates proliferation of NSPCs, and we found that are mainly fated to form neurons and glial cells. Specific ablation of these cells abolished proper regeneration, confirming that NSPCs cells are necessary for functional regeneration of the spinal cord. Conclusions: The cellular response to spinal cord injury in regenerative and non-regenerative stages is profoundly different between both stages. A key hallmark of the regenerative response is the activation of NSPCs, which massively proliferate to reconstitute the spinal cord, and are differentiated into neurons. Also very notably, no glial scar formation is observed in regenerative stages, but a transient, glial scar-like structure is formed in non-regenerative stage animals.

Project description:Spinal cord regeneration is very inefficient in humans, causing paraplegia and quadriplegia. Studying model organisms that can regenerate the spinal cord in response to injury could be useful for understanding the cellular and molecular mechanisms that explain why this process fails in humans. Here, we use Xenopus laevis as a model organism to study spinal cord repair. Histological and functional analyses showed that larvae at pre-metamorphic stages restore anatomical continuity of the spinal cord and recover swimming after complete spinal cord transection. These regenerative capabilities decrease with onset of metamorphosis. The ability to study regenerative and non-regenerative stages in Xenopus laevis makes it a unique model system to study regeneration. We studied the response of Sox2(/)3 expressing cells to spinal cord injury and their function in the regenerative process. We found that cells expressing Sox2 and/or Sox3 are present in the ventricular zone of regenerative animals and decrease in non-regenerative froglets. Bromodeoxyuridine (BrdU) experiments and in vivo time-lapse imaging studies using green fluorescent protein (GFP) expression driven by the Sox3 promoter showed a rapid, transient and massive proliferation of Sox2(/)3(+) cells in response to injury in the regenerative stages. The in vivo imaging also demonstrated that Sox2(/)3(+) neural progenitor cells generate neurons in response to injury. In contrast, these cells showed a delayed and very limited response in non-regenerative froglets. Sox2 knockdown and overexpression of a dominant negative form of Sox2 disrupts locomotor and anatomical-histological recovery. We also found that neurogenesis markers increase in response to injury in regenerative but not in non-regenerative animals. We conclude that Sox2 is necessary for spinal cord regeneration and suggest a model whereby spinal cord injury activates proliferation of Sox2/3 expressing cells and their differentiation into neurons, a mechanism that is lost in non-regenerative froglets.

Dataset Information

Quantitative Proteomics After Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) in a Regenerative and a Nonregenerative Stage in the Frog Xenopus laevis.

Publications

Quantitative Proteomics After Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) in a Regenerative and a Nonregenerative Stage in the Frog <i>Xenopus laevis</i>.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets