4.8 Article

Local axonal protection by WldS as revealed by conditional regulation of protein stability

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1508337112

关键词

axon degeneration; Wallerian degeneration; WldS; axotomy; NAD(+)

资金

  1. National Eye Institute [R01 EY11030]
  2. Dr. Miriam and Sheldon G. Adelson Medical Research Foundation
  3. Johnson and Johnson Innovation Fund
  4. Howard Hughes Medical Institute Graduate Research Fellowship
  5. American Heart Association Pre-Doctoral Fellowship
  6. Stanford Bio-X Graduate Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The expression of the mutant Wallerian degeneration slow (WldS) protein significantly delays axonal degeneration from various nerve injuries and in multiple species; however, the mechanism for its axonal protective property remains unclear. Although WldS is localized predominantly in the nucleus, it also is present in a smaller axonal pool, leading to conflicting models to account for the WldS fraction necessary for axonal protection. To identify where WldS activity is required to delay axonal degeneration, we adopted a method to alter the temporal expression of WldS protein in neurons by chemically regulating its protein stability. We demonstrate that continuous WldS activity in the axonal compartment is both necessary and sufficient to delay axonal degeneration. Furthermore, by specifically increasing axonal WldS expression postaxotomy, we reveal a critical period of 4-5 h post-injury during which the course of Wallerian axonal degeneration can be halted. Finally, we show that NAD+, the metabolite of WldS/nicotinamide mononucleotide adenylyltransferase enzymatic activity, is sufficient and specific to confer WldS-like axon protection and is a likely molecular mediator of WldS axon protection. The results delineate a therapeutic window in which the course of Wallerian degeneration can be delayed even after injures have occurred and help narrow the molecular targets of WldS activity to events within the axonal compartment.

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

4.8
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