4.7 Article

Mirror Movement-Like Defects in Startle Behavior of Zebrafish dcc Mutants Are Caused by Aberrant Midline Guidance of Identified Descending Hindbrain Neurons

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 34, 期 8, 页码 2898-2909

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2420-13.2014

关键词

axon guidance; DCC; movement disorders; zebrafish

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award [5F32NS065637]
  2. National Institutes of Health [MH092257, HD37975]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mirror movements are involuntary movements on one side of the body that occur simultaneously with intentional movements on the contralateral side. Humans with heterozygous mutations in the axon guidance receptor DCC display such mirror movements, where unilateral stimulation results in inappropriate bilateral motor output. Currently, it is unclear whether mirror movements are caused by incomplete midline crossing and reduced commissural connectivity of DCC-dependent descending pathways or by aberrant ectopic ipsilateral axonal projections of normally commissural neurons. Here, we show that in response to unilateral tactile stimuli, zebrafish dcc mutant larvae perform involuntary turns on the inappropriate body side. We show that these mirror movement-like deficits are associated with axonal guidance defects of two identified groups of commissural reticulospinal hindbrain neurons. Moreover, we demonstrate that in dcc mutants, axons of these identified neurons frequently fail to cross the midline and instead project ipsilaterally. Whereas laser ablation of these neurons in wild-type animals does not affect turning movements, their ablation in dcc mutants restores turning movements. Thus, our results demonstrate that in dcc mutants, turns on the inappropriate side of the body are caused by aberrant ipsilateral axonal projections, and suggest that aberrant ipsilateral connectivity of a very small number of descending axons is sufficient to induce incorrect movement patterns.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据