4.7 Article

Purification of Neural Precursor Cells Reveals the Presence of Distinct, Stimulus-Specific Subpopulations of Quiescent Precursors in the Adult Mouse Hippocampus

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 35, 期 21, 页码 8132-8144

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0504-15.2015

关键词

adult neurogenesis; hippocampus; neural precursor cells; neural stem cells; norepinephrine; quiescent

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council
  2. Australian Research Council Special Research Initiative in Stem Cells Science

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The activity of neural precursor cells in the adult hippocampus is regulated by various stimuli; however, whether these stimuli regulate the same or different precursor populations remains unknown. Here, we developed a novel cell-sorting protocol that allows the purification to homogeneity of neurosphere-forming neural precursors from the adult mouse hippocampus and examined the responsiveness of individual precursors to various stimuli using a clonal assay. We show that within the Hes5-GFP(+) /Nestin-GFP(+) /EGFR(+) cell population, which comprises the majority of neurosphere-forming precursors, there are two distinct subpopulations of quiescent precursor cells, one directly activated by high-KCl depolarization, and the other activated by norepinephrine (NE). We then demonstrate that these two populations are differentially distributed along the septotemporal axis of the hippocampus, and show that the NE-responsive precursors are selectively regulated by GABA, whereas the KCl-responsive precursors are selectively modulated by corticosterone. Finally, based on RNAseq analysis by deep sequencing, we show that the progeny generated by activating NE-responsive versus KCl-responsive quiescent precursors are molecularly different. These results demonstrate that the adult hippocampus contains phenotypically similar but stimulus-specific populations of quiescent precursors, which may give rise to neural progeny with different functional capacity.

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