4.7 Article

Localized EMT reprograms glial progenitors to promote spinal cord repair

期刊

DEVELOPMENTAL CELL
卷 56, 期 5, 页码 613-+

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.devcel.2021.01.017

关键词

-

资金

  1. W.M. Keck Post-doctoral Fellowship
  2. Washington University Center of Regenerative Medicine T32 [T32 EB028092]
  3. NIH [R01 HL081674]
  4. McDonnell Center for Cellular Neuroscience
  5. Institute for Clinical and Translational Sciences at Washington University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Zebrafish possess specialized glial cells that spontaneously repair spinal cord injuries, while mammals lack the essential gene regulatory network that reprograms pro-regenerative zebrafish glia after injury.Activation of an epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition gene program in zebrafish glia is a major factor distinguishing mammalian and zebrafish glia.
Anti-regenerative scarring obstructs spinal cord repair in mammals and presents a major hurdle for regenerative medicine. In contrast, adult zebrafish possess specialized glial cells that spontaneously repair spinal cord injuries by forming a pro-regenerative bridge across the severed tissue. To identify the mechanisms that regulate differential regenerative capacity between mammals and zebrafish, we first defined the molecular identity of zebrafish bridging glia and then performed cross-species comparisons with mammalian glia. Our transcriptomics show that pro-regenerative zebrafish glia activate an epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) gene program and that EMT gene expression is a major factor distinguishing mammalian and zebrafish glia. Functionally, we found that localized niches of glial progenitors undergo EMT after spinal cord injury in zebrafish and, using large-scale CRISPR-Cas9 mutagenesis, we identified the gene regulatory network that activates EMT and drives functional regeneration. Thus, non-regenerative mammalian glia lack an essential EMT-driving gene regulatory network that reprograms pro-regenerative zebrafish glia after injury.

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