4.5 Article

Loss of glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) impairs Schwann cell proliferation and delays nerve regeneration after damage

Journal

JOURNAL OF CELL SCIENCE
Volume 119, Issue 19, Pages 3981-3993

Publisher

COMPANY BIOLOGISTS LTD
DOI: 10.1242/jcs.03168

Keywords

cytoskeleton; transgenic mice; extracellular matrix; nerve regeneration; adhesion

Categories

Funding

  1. Telethon [GGP030193] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Axonal loss causes disabling and permanent deficits in many peripheral neuropathies, and may result from inefficient nerve regeneration due to a defective relationship between Schwann cells, axons and the extracellular matrix. These interactions are mediated by surface receptors and transduced by cytoskeletal molecules. We investigated whether peripheral nerve regeneration is perturbed in mice that lack glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), a Schwann-cell-specific cytoskeleton constituent upregulated after damage. Peripheral nerves develop and function normally in GFAP-null mice. However, axonal regeneration after damage was delayed. Mutant Schwann cells maintained the ability to dedifferentiate but showed defective proliferation, a key event for successful nerve regeneration. We also showed that GFAP and the other Schwann-cell-intermediate filament vimentin physically interact in two distinct signaling pathways involved in proliferation and nerve regeneration. GFAP binds integrin alpha v beta 8, which initiates mitotic signals soon after damage by interacting with fibrin. Consistently, ERK phosphorylation was reduced in crushed GFAP-null nerves. Vimentin instead binds integrin alpha 5 beta 1, which regulates proliferation and differentiation later in regeneration, and may compensate for the absence of GFAP in mutant mice. GFAP might contribute to form macro-complexes to initiate mitogenic and differentiating signaling for efficient nerve regeneration.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available