 |
News Search |
 |
 |
 |
What’s Another Year?—Testing the Limits of Axon Regeneration
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
4 November 2009. The window of opportunity for regenerating nerves severed in spinal cord injuries may be more expansive than previously thought, says a new study. By modifying not just the environment around spinal cord injuries, but also jumpstarting the regenerative capacities of the neurons themselves, Mark Tuszynski and colleagues at the University of California, San Diego, have achieved axon regeneration in a model of spinal cord injury in adult rats, even when treatment was delayed up to 15 months after the original injury. The results, which appeared in the October 29 issue of Neuron, lengthen the time frame for effective regenerative healing considerably, and offer hope for future treatments based on similar combinatorial strategies.
The approach taken by Tuszynski and colleagues tries to simultaneously surmount multiple barriers to axon regeneration in chronic spinal cord injury. These hurdles include environmental factors such as lack of growth factors, non-permissive or inhibitory extracellular matrix proteins, ongoing inflammation, secondary damage, and scarring. Cell-intrinsic factors are also at play, including atrophy of injured neurons and retrograde degeneration. Their idea was to treat established spinal cord injury with a combination of growth factors and cell grafting to overcome the environmental issues, and conditioning lesions to awaken the cells’ regenerative capacities.
To test their idea, first author Ken Kadoya looked at regeneration after cutting ascending sensory neurons in the spinal cord of rats. Six weeks after the injury, the animals received a conditioning lesion. This procedure, a bilateral crush of the sciatic nerves has been shown to increase the capacity of neurons to regenerate. One week later, the researchers grafted bone marrow stromal cells mixed with the neurotrophic factor NT-3 at the injury site, and added more NT-3 above the lesion via a lentivirus expression vector injected into the white matter of the spinal cord. After waiting another six weeks, the investigators traced axons by injecting a subunit of cholera toxin into the sciatic nerve.
The results showed that among the animals that received all three treatments, 10 of 16 regenerated axons that bridged the injury site; some axons continued for two or more millimeters beyond the lesion. The regeneration required all of the treatments. If animals got one or two of the three interventions, there was little or no axon growth beyond the injury site.
Even if the treatments were given much later, at 15 months after injury, five of 11 rats who got the full treatment showed bridging regeneration, though the number of axons that made it across was reduced and axon length was shorter compared to earlier intervention. The fullest regeneration required the combination therapy.
The results go against the idea that an old injury constitutes an insurmountable obstruction to regeneration, Tuszynski told ARF. “There may well be a persistent, significant barrier, but that can be changed and then overcome by this combination of modifying the chronically injured site and then providing a positive growth stimulus. It also requires modification of the intrinsic growth state of the injured cells by the conditioning lesion. One has to address multiple mechanisms to achieve this kind of thing in this very refractory chronically injured state,” he said. Importantly, the treatment did not require recutting scar tissue at the injury site, a procedure that risks further spinal damage.
The researchers also looked at the timing of the conditioning lesion. Early studies suggested it had to happen before injury, but the current study shows that lesioning enhances neurite outgrowth from cultured motor neurons even when it is done six weeks after injury. Such conditioning results in an increase in number of neurons expressing the regeneration-linked genes GAP43 and c-Jun and long-lasting changes in the expression of associated genes in dorsal root ganglia, similar to changes seen with pre-lesioning.
Kadoya and colleagues did not report measures of functional regeneration, although the same group has previously published that chemotropic guidance from NT-3 can promote functional reconnections (see ARF related news story on Alto et al. 2009). Tuszynski said they are looking at the effect of the combination therapy on injured motor neurons in the rat, and the studies will include functional measures.
Although it is a long way from rodents to humans, and much remains to be done, Tuszynski says, “The demonstration that you can influence any type of chronically injured axon by treating these multiple mechanisms and overcome a hurdle as big as regeneration beyond the lesion site is an important proof of principle.” In place of the conditioning lesion, it may be possible to treat cells with cAMP-elevating compounds, which mimic the growth stimulatory effects of conditioning lesions (e.g., see Pearse et al., 2004, or a review by Hannila and Filbin, 2008).
The work may also have some lessons for treating Alzheimer disease or other neurodegenerative conditions. Tuszynski has been a leader in the study of growth factors including NGF (see ARF related news story on Tuszynski et al., 2005) and BDNF (see ARF related news story on Nagahara et al., 2009) as possible agents to promote regeneration in AD. “In the Alzheimer’s brain there is chronic cell degeneration, there is a chronic inflammatory response, there are likely molecules around that inhibit the reorganization of the degenerating brain,” Tuszynski said. “I think some of the principles shown in this chronic paradigm—that you can remodel existing connections with growth factors, for example, and that you can stimulate the endogenous repair response of the cell by these cAMP-dependent conditioning mechanisms—could well have relevance to Alzheimer’s disease.”
Clearly, regenerating axons need all the help they can get and two other papers out this week provide additional molecular targets to push along the process. A paper from Larry Benowitz and Nina Irwin at Children’s Hospital Boston, reports that the Mst3b kinase, which regulates axonal outgrowth during embryonic development, is also essential for axon regeneration from adult PNS and CNS neurons. That work was published online October 25 in Nature Neuroscience. In this week’s PNAS, Brett Langley and coworkers at Weill Medical College of Cornell University in New York identify histone deacetylase 6 (HDAC6) as a potential target for neuroprotection and regeneration. Langley had previously shown that HDAC inhibitors can protect cortical neurons against oxidative stress, but at a cost, since the pan inhibitors are very toxic. Their new work shows that HDAC6 in particular becomes upregulated in cultured neurons during oxidative insult or under conditions that inhibit neurite outgrowth. Moreover, they find that a specific HDAC6 inhibitor blocks oxidative stress-induced cell death, and promotes neurite outgrowth in vitro. Importantly, the selective inhibitor does all this without the toxicity associated with inhibiting HDACs generally.—Pat McCaffrey.
References:
Kadoya K, Tsukada S, Lu P, Coppola G, Geschwind D, Filbin MT, Blesch A, Tuszynski MH. Combined Intrinsic and Extrinsic Neuronal Mechanisms Facilitate Bridging Axonal Regeneration One Year After Spinal Cord Injury. Neuron. 2009 October 29; 64: 165-172. Abstract
Lorber B, Howe ML, Benowitz LI, Irwin N. Mst3b, an Ste20-like kinase, regulates axon regeneration in mature CNS and PNS pathways. Nat Neurosci. 2009 Oct 25. Abstract
Rivieccio MA, Brochier C, Willis DE, Walker BA, D’Annibale MA, McLaughlin K, Siddiq A, Kozikowski AP, Jaffrey SR, Twiss JL, Ratan RR, Langley B. HDAC6 is a target for protection and regeneration following injury in the nervous system. 2009 October 26. Abstract
|
 |
 |
 |
Comments on News and Primary Papers |
 |
  |
| |
Primary Papers: Combined intrinsic and extrinsic neuronal mechanisms facilitate bridging axonal regeneration one year after spinal cord injury.
Comment by: sammaneh hushyar
|
 |
 |
Submitted 21 November 2009
|
Posted 24 November 2009
|
 |
 |
I recommend this paper
|
 |

|
| |
Primary Papers: HDAC6 is a target for protection and regeneration following injury in the nervous system.
Comment by: sammaneh hushyar
|
 |
 |
Submitted 21 November 2009
|
Posted 24 November 2009
|
 |
 |
I recommend this paper
|
 |
 |
 |
Comments on Related News |
 |
  |
| |
Related News: Special Delivery: NGF Trial Puts Growth Factor Where It’s Needed
Comment by: Mark Baxter
|
 |
 |
Submitted 28 April 2005
|
Posted 28 April 2005
|
 |
 |
I think the most interesting aspect of the recent Connor et al. article is that it builds on their earlier work, which showed that nucleus basalis cholinergic neurons were necessary for the normal changes in motor cortex representation that happen during motor learning (reaching). The current study shows that the nucleus basalis plays the same role in remodeling motor cortex in compensation for an injury. The implication drawn by the authors in their article is that damage to basal forebrain cholinergic neurons that occurs in AD may impair the brain's ability to compensate for the cortical neurodegeneration that takes place in AD. This has some important implications—drugs that enhance cholinergic function (donepezil, galantamine, etc.) seem to slow the rate of decline rather than reverse cognitive impairments in AD. (Indeed, this is what was seen with Tuszynski's NGF treatment in humans.) Some have hypothesized that the cholinergic system is involved in regulating amyloid metabolism, which has been suggested to explain the effect of procholinergic drugs on slowing decline....
Read more
I think the most interesting aspect of the recent Connor et al. article is that it builds on their earlier work, which showed that nucleus basalis cholinergic neurons were necessary for the normal changes in motor cortex representation that happen during motor learning (reaching). The current study shows that the nucleus basalis plays the same role in remodeling motor cortex in compensation for an injury. The implication drawn by the authors in their article is that damage to basal forebrain cholinergic neurons that occurs in AD may impair the brain's ability to compensate for the cortical neurodegeneration that takes place in AD. This has some important implications—drugs that enhance cholinergic function (donepezil, galantamine, etc.) seem to slow the rate of decline rather than reverse cognitive impairments in AD. (Indeed, this is what was seen with Tuszynski's NGF treatment in humans.) Some have hypothesized that the cholinergic system is involved in regulating amyloid metabolism, which has been suggested to explain the effect of procholinergic drugs on slowing decline. But a slowing in the rate of decline would also be consistent with heightened cholinergic tone allowing the brain to better adapt to the ongoing degeneration. It will be important to see if experimental lesions of cholinergic neurons in animals also affect reorganization from injuries that occur gradually or progressively. View all comments by Mark Baxter
|
 |

|
| |
Related News: Special Delivery: NGF Trial Puts Growth Factor Where It’s Needed
Comment by: Abraham Fisher
|
 |
 |
Submitted 28 April 2005
|
Posted 28 April 2005
|
 |
 |
Conner et al. (2005) show in this elegant paper that the basal forebrain cholinergic system plays an essential role in cortical plasticity and functional recovery following brain injury. Thus, even partial cholinergic hypofunction may cause a disruption of cortical plasticity that may eventually limit the extent of functional recovery. These findings are of major importance by emphasizing the pivotal role of the basal cholinergic system in health and disease states including normal aging, Alzheimer disease (AD), traumatic brain injury, and so on. The authors claim that therapeutic strategies such as cholinesterase inhibitors or trophic factors may be used to increase cortical plasticity and restore functional deficits resulting from brain injury.
Activation of the M1 muscarinic receptor could also be neuroprotective and enhance brain plasticity (Albrech et al., 2000). Thus, in addition to the strategies suggested by the authors, another alternative could be highly selective M1 muscarinic receptor agonists. We have shown that brain penetrable selective M1 muscarinic...
Read more
Conner et al. (2005) show in this elegant paper that the basal forebrain cholinergic system plays an essential role in cortical plasticity and functional recovery following brain injury. Thus, even partial cholinergic hypofunction may cause a disruption of cortical plasticity that may eventually limit the extent of functional recovery. These findings are of major importance by emphasizing the pivotal role of the basal cholinergic system in health and disease states including normal aging, Alzheimer disease (AD), traumatic brain injury, and so on. The authors claim that therapeutic strategies such as cholinesterase inhibitors or trophic factors may be used to increase cortical plasticity and restore functional deficits resulting from brain injury.
Activation of the M1 muscarinic receptor could also be neuroprotective and enhance brain plasticity (Albrech et al., 2000). Thus, in addition to the strategies suggested by the authors, another alternative could be highly selective M1 muscarinic receptor agonists. We have shown that brain penetrable selective M1 muscarinic agonists via M1 muscarinic receptor activation (a) are synergistic and cross-talk with growth factors such as NGF, exhibiting neurotrophic-like activity, enhancing neurite outgrowth, and elevating secretion of the nonamyloidogenic and neurotrophic α-APPs; (b) decrease Aβ levels; (c) protect hippocampal neurons from insults such as Aβ-induced neurotoxicity, and this effect involves the Wnt signaling pathway; (d) inhibit tau protein hyperphosphorylation; and (e) improve cognitive dysfunctions in several animal models with a wide safety margin [Fisher, 2000; Fisher et al., 2003; Fisher et al., ADPD2005 (Sorrento, Italy); Farias et al., 2004]. Notably, these M1 agonists show effects similar to NGF, yet by different mechanisms, on neurite outgrowth, brain plasticity, Aβ, Wnt components, GSK-3β, and tau phosphorylation. Thus, such M1 muscarinic agonists can be regarded as low-molecular-weight CNS-penetrable compounds with neurotrophic-like activity that may be used to enhance brain plasticity, alone or in a synergistic combination with trophic factors. The M1 agonistic strategy may be useful in the treatment of AD and other diseases with cholinergic deficits, as such compounds will be less dependent on intact cholinergic innervations (a possible drawback of cholinesterase inhibitors).
References:
Albrecht C, von Der Kammer H, Mayhaus M, Klaudiny J, Schweizer M, Nitsch RM. Muscarinic acetylcholine receptors induce the expression of the immediate early growth regulatory gene CYR61. J Biol Chem. 2000; 275: 28929-36. Abstract
Farias GG, Godoy JA, Hernandez F, Avila J, Fisher A, Inestrosa NC. M1 muscarinic receptor activation protects neurons from beta-amyloid toxicity. A role for Wnt signaling pathway. Neurobiol Dis. 2004; 17:337-48. Abstract
Fisher A. Therapeutic strategies in Alzheimer's Disease: M1 muscarinic agonists. Jap J Pharmacol 2000; 84: 101-12. Abstract
Fisher A, Z Pittel, R Haring, N Bar-Ner, M Kliger-Spatz, N Natan, I Egozi, H Sonego, I Marcovitch, and R Brandeis. M1 muscarinic agonists can modulate some of the hallmarks in Alzheimer's disease: implications in future therapy. J Mol Neurosci. 2003;20(3):349-56. Review. Abstract
View all comments by Abraham Fisher
|
 |

|
| |
Related News: Special Delivery: NGF Trial Puts Growth Factor Where It’s Needed
Comment by: Stephen D. Ginsberg
|
 |
 |
Submitted 3 May 2005
|
Posted 3 May 2005
|
 |
 |
The report by Tuszynski et al. is a fascinating study on many levels. First, the ability to deliver ex vivo nerve growth factor (NGF) via autologous fibroblasts genetically modified to express NGF for greater than 18 months into the nucleus basalis of Meynert (NBM) in a live adult human is no simple feat. The stereotaxic surgeries proved successful in six out of eight subjects, and much was learned about the need for general anesthesia for the success of this procedure. The cognitive measures employed in this study demonstrated either reduced cognitive decline or mild improvement, which is quite encouraging, especially since the sample size is quite small at this point. Clearly, this initial study has demonstrated a strong rationale for continued enrollment in this protocol.
One of the most significant aspects of this study lies in its true translational perspective. Specifically, use of in vitro and animal models, including lesioned mice and nonhuman primates, has been performed over the past 12 to 15 years in order to bring the technology, basic mechanisms of action, and...
Read more
The report by Tuszynski et al. is a fascinating study on many levels. First, the ability to deliver ex vivo nerve growth factor (NGF) via autologous fibroblasts genetically modified to express NGF for greater than 18 months into the nucleus basalis of Meynert (NBM) in a live adult human is no simple feat. The stereotaxic surgeries proved successful in six out of eight subjects, and much was learned about the need for general anesthesia for the success of this procedure. The cognitive measures employed in this study demonstrated either reduced cognitive decline or mild improvement, which is quite encouraging, especially since the sample size is quite small at this point. Clearly, this initial study has demonstrated a strong rationale for continued enrollment in this protocol.
One of the most significant aspects of this study lies in its true translational perspective. Specifically, use of in vitro and animal models, including lesioned mice and nonhuman primates, has been performed over the past 12 to 15 years in order to bring the technology, basic mechanisms of action, and the actual data-based evaluations to a place where they could be tried successfully in demented humans. A plethora of basic science, including understanding animal models following injury and Alzheimer disease pathology, as well as technology development in the synthesis, bioactivity, and delivery of NGF and developing viral vectors for production and long-term delivery of NGF were requisite for the clinical trial.
NGF is an unbelievably powerful growth factor. This is both a benefit as well as a potential negative aspect in terms of side effects that have been demonstrated previously with broad-scale NGF delivery. The regionally selective stereotaxic implantation of autologous fibroblasts secreting NGF into the NBM is a significant advance of this study. Thus, this report by Tuszynski et al. truly qualifies itself as originating at the laboratory bench and extending through the neurosurgery suite into the neuropsychology clinic and neuroimaging facility. In summary, the six patients that have completed the first arc of this study are literally a tip of the iceberg. The importance lies in the overall development of this program and a continued ability to demonstrate the utility of NGF delivery within a very regionally specific area (i.e., cholinergic basal forebrain), which in turn has widespread effects on the cortical cholinergic system and potential increases in CNS glucose uptake.
View all comments by Stephen D. Ginsberg
|
 |

|
| |
Related News: Special Delivery: NGF Trial Puts Growth Factor Where It’s Needed
Comment by: Volkmar Lessmann
|
 |
 |
Submitted 4 May 2005
|
Posted 4 May 2005
|
 |
 |
The impressive paper by Tuszynski and colleagues represents a very promising outlook into possible future therapy of AD: They isolate patients' own fibroblasts from a skin sample, expand the cells in cell cultures, and transduce them to overexpress NGF. The authors show that upon reimplantation of these NGF producers by stereotaxic injection into the patients' basal forebrain, the progression of AD is substantially retarded. This is especially true between 6-18 months after implantation, when the potentially secreted NGF is thought to develop its full capacity of neuroprotective effects. The authors also find enhanced neural activity by PET studies in those patients investigated. Overall, as mentioned by the authors, this initial result needs to be corroborated by well-controlled clinical follow-up studies.
I would find it very interesting to know whether the authors can find answers to the following questions:
1. What is the rate of proliferation of expanded fibroblasts after implantation, and is there any estimation of the danger of unrestricted growth of implanted...
Read more
The impressive paper by Tuszynski and colleagues represents a very promising outlook into possible future therapy of AD: They isolate patients' own fibroblasts from a skin sample, expand the cells in cell cultures, and transduce them to overexpress NGF. The authors show that upon reimplantation of these NGF producers by stereotaxic injection into the patients' basal forebrain, the progression of AD is substantially retarded. This is especially true between 6-18 months after implantation, when the potentially secreted NGF is thought to develop its full capacity of neuroprotective effects. The authors also find enhanced neural activity by PET studies in those patients investigated. Overall, as mentioned by the authors, this initial result needs to be corroborated by well-controlled clinical follow-up studies.
I would find it very interesting to know whether the authors can find answers to the following questions:
1. What is the rate of proliferation of expanded fibroblasts after implantation, and is there any estimation of the danger of unrestricted growth of implanted fibroblasts?
2. What is the survival expectancy of the reimplanted fibroblasts in vivo?
3. Is the fibroblasts' NGF secretion via the constitutive or the regulated pathway of secretion, and do the authors expect to even enhance the efficacy of the treatment if doses of secreted NGF were increased?
4. It would be very interesting to know whether there existed a positive correlation between retardation of AD and relative increase in FDG consumption. If so, this could help to “adjust” NGF secretion?
5. And none the least: What was the subjective evaluation of the procedure and of the outcome by the patients themselves?
Of course, asking these questions is much easier than finding the answers ... . It will be exciting to see whether the promising trend provided by this study will be confirmed in future clinical trials.
View all comments by Volkmar Lessmann
|
 |
 |
 |
| |
Submit a Comment on this News Article |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|