4.3 Article

Robos are required for the correct targeting of retinal ganglion cell axons in the visual pathway of the brain

期刊

MOLECULAR AND CELLULAR NEUROSCIENCE
卷 37, 期 4, 页码 719-730

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.mcn.2007.12.017

关键词

slit; optic chiasm; axon guidance; retinal ganglion cells; diencepbalon

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust [074549] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Axonal projections from the retina to the brain are regulated by molecules including the Slit family of ligands [Thompson, H., Barker, D., Camand, O., Erskine, L., 2006a. Slits contribute to the guidance of retinal ganglion cell axons in the mammalian optic tract. Dev. Biol. 296, 476-484, Thompson, H., Camand, O., Barker, D., Erskine, L., 2006b. Slit proteins regulate distinct aspects of retinal ganglion cell axon guidance within dorsal and ventral retina. J. Neurosci. 26, 8082-8091]. However, the roles of Slit receptors in mammals, (termed Robos), have not been investigated in visual system development. Here we examined Robo1 and 2 mutant mice and found that Robos regulate the correct targeting of retinal ganglion cell (RGC) axons along the entire visual projection. We noted aberrant projections of RGC axons into the cerebral cortex, an area not normally targeted by RGC axons. The optic chiasm was expanded along the rostro-caudal axis (similar to Slit mutant mice, Plump, A.S., Erskine, L., Sabatier, C., Brose, K., Epstein, C.J., Goodman, C.S., Mason, C.A., Tessier-Lavigne, M., 2002. Slit1 and Slit2 cooperate to prevent premature midline crossing of retinal axons in the mouse visual system. Neuron 33, 219-232), with ectopic crossing points, and some axons projecting caudally toward the corticospinal tract. Further, we found that axons exuberantly projected into the diencephalon. These defects were more pronounced in Robo2 than Robot knockout animals, implicating Robo2 as the predominant Robo receptor in visual system development. (c) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.3
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