4.6 Article

Dual Specificity Phosphatases Support Axon Plasticity and Viability

期刊

MOLECULAR NEUROBIOLOGY
卷 58, 期 1, 页码 391-407

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12035-020-02119-6

关键词

Axonal degeneration; Dual specificity phosphatases; MAP kinase phosphatases

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [FRN148675]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study reveals a crucial role of dual specificity phosphatases (DUSPs) in supporting axon plasticity and survival. Knockdown of DUSP 1 and 4 impairs neurite outgrowth in sensory neurons, rendering them more sensitive to axonopathy and accelerating neurofilament breakdown and axon degeneration.
In peripheral neuropathies, axonal degeneration (AxD) impairs the prognosis for recovery. Here, we describe a role for dual specificity phosphatases (DUSPs; MAP kinase phosphatases, MKPs), in supporting autonomous axon plasticity and viability. Both DUSPs 1 and 4 were identified within intact or axotomized sensory neurons. Knockdown of DUSP 1 or 4 independently or combined impaired neurite outgrowth in adult dissociated sensory neurons. Furthermore, adult sensory neurons with DUSP knockdown were rendered sensitive to axonopathy in vitro following exposure to low, subtoxic TrpV1 (transient receptor potential cation channel subfamily V member 1) activation by capsaicin, an intervention normally supportive of growth. This was not prevented by concurrent DLK (dual leucine zipper kinase) knockdown. Ex vivo neurofilament dissolution was heightened by DUSP inhibition within explanted nerves. In vivo DUSP knockdown or inhibition was associated with more rapid loss of motor axon excitability. The addition of SARM1 (sterile alpha and TIR motif containing 1) siRNA abrogated DUSP1 and 4 mediated loss of excitability. DUSP knockdown accelerated neurofilament breakdown and there was earlier morphological evidence of myelinated axon degeneration distal to axotomy. Taken together, the findings identify a key role for DUSPs in supporting axon plasticity and survival.

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

4.6
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