Abstract
The capacity of an axon to regenerate is regulated by its external environment and by cell-intrinsic factors. Studies in a variety of organisms suggest that alterations in axonal microtubule (MT) dynamics have potent effects on axon regeneration. We review recent findings on the regulation of MT dynamics during axon regeneration, focusing on the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. In C. elegans the dual leucine zipper kinase (DLK) promotes axon regeneration, whereas the exchange factor for Arf6 (EFA-6) inhibits axon regeneration. Both DLK and EFA-6 respond to injury and control axon regeneration in part via MT dynamics. How the DLK and EFA-6 pathways are related is a topic of active investigation, as is the mechanism by which EFA-6 responds to axonal injury. We evaluate potential candidates, such as the MT affinity-regulating kinase PAR-1/MARK, in regulation of EFA-6 and axonal MT dynamics in regeneration.
Keywords: DLK-1, EFA-6, PAR-1/MARK
Introduction
More than a hundred years ago, Ramon y Cajal was the first to describe how individual axons respond to injury 1. Many types of axons regenerate, including neurons in the peripheral nervous system (PNS), re-forming growth cones similar to those that Ramon y Cajal had characterized during development. In contrast, neurons of the mammalian central nervous system (CNS) often fail to regenerate, and their damaged ends form swollen, non-motile structures later termed retraction bulbs. These fundamental observations set the stage for subsequent exploration of why regenerative capacity varies drastically between the CNS and PNS. Many studies have focused on the inhibitory environment of the adult mammalian CNS 2– 4. However, it is becoming evident that cell-intrinsic processes are also key determinants of axon regeneration 5. Among these intrinsic factors, regulation of axonal microtubule (MT) dynamics has emerged as a major influence on the capacity of an axon to regrow effectively 6– 10. Most strikingly, pharmacological stabilization of MTs by paclitaxel or related molecules enhances axon regeneration in vitro and in vivo, suggesting a potentially therapeutically significant role for MT dynamics in axon regeneration 11– 13.
The nematode C. elegans has long been used for studies in neuronal development and behavior, owing to its short life cycle, genetic tractability, and ease of in vivo imaging. The nervous system of an adult C. elegans hermaphrodite consists of 302 neurons of nearly invariant lineage 14. A decade ago, a pioneering study showed that axons of mature C. elegans neurons can regenerate after precise laser axotomy 15. Several kinds of neuron display robust axon regeneration; most work has focused on the mechanosensory and motor axons ( Figure 1A) 16, 17. The genetic tractability and ease of imaging in vivo have made C. elegans a rising star in axon regeneration studies. Several laboratories have used large-scale genetic 18, chemical 19, and RNA interference (RNAi) 20 screens to identify genes or molecules that regulate axon regeneration. These studies have identified several new players in axon regeneration, including the dual leucine zipper kinase (DLK) and mixed lineage kinase (MLK) mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathways 21, 22, Notch signaling pathway 23, insulin signaling pathway 24, and microRNA 25. Some pathways, such as DLK signaling, have been shown to function in axon regeneration in vertebrates 26– 29, suggesting that axon regeneration factors identified in C. elegans may be suitable for translational studies. Here, we review the role of MT dynamics in axon regeneration, primarily focusing on C. elegans.
Figure 1. DLK-1 and EFA-6 regulate axon regeneration after injury in Caenorhabditis elegans.
( A) Illustration of the positions of the mechanosensory neurons anterior lateral microtubule (ALM) and posterior lateral microtubule (PLM) cells (top) and the GABAergic motor neurons dorsal D (DD) and ventral D (VD) (bottom). ( B) Examples of PLM axon regeneration in wild-type, dlk-1(lf), and efa-6(lf) at 24 hours post-axotomy. dlk-1(lf) mutant (middle) shows decreased axon regeneration, whereas efa-6(lf) mutant (bottom) shows increased axon regeneration upon axotomy, compared with wild-type (top). Scale bar, 20 µm. DLK, dual leucine zipper kinase.
Axonal microtubule organization before and after injury
MTs are among the major cytoskeletal structures in cells. MTs are cylindrical and polarized polymers formed by αβ-tubulin heterodimers arranged in a head-to-tail configuration 30. In vitro and in vivo MTs undergo rapid growth (i.e. polymerization) and shrinkage (i.e. depolymerization) at their plus ends, a behavior known as dynamic instability 31. Minus ends of MTs are relatively stable but can also undergo polymerization and depolymerization. MT dynamics in vivo are influenced by many factors, including concentration of free tubulin monomers and tubulin post-translational modifications, and by MT-binding proteins. MT plus-end dynamics are regulated by a large cohort of plus end-tracking proteins (+TIPs) 32; relatively few minus end-targeting proteins (−TIPs) have been identified that regulate MT minus ends 33. Together, these proteins affect the frequency of catastrophe (switching from growth to shrinkage) and rescue (switching from shrinkage to growth) events.
In contrast to the highly dynamic behavior of MTs in dividing or migrating cells, axonal MTs of mature neurons are relatively stable, forming a consistent architecture that maintains neuronal polarity and allows directed axonal transport 34. Axonal MTs in C. elegans were first characterized in the MT-rich mechanosensory neurons 35, 36. More recent imaging of the dynamics of plus end-binding proteins indicates that, as in other organisms, C. elegans axonal MTs are consistently arranged with plus ends away from the soma (‘plus end out’) but that dendritic MTs either are oriented with minus ends out or have mixed orientation 37, 38.
After axon injury, the stable axonal MTs become highly dynamic to allow axonal regrowth and establishment of a new growth cone 6, 7. In cultured Aplysia californica neurons, injury triggers rapid MT depolymerization followed by repolymerization with aberrant MT orientation 39, 40. Reversal of MT polarity after injury has been observed in Drosophila dendrites 41, 42. In addition, axotomy triggers an acute change of MT dynamics in Drosophila 41, 43, 44. In C. elegans, axotomy of the mechanosensory posterior lateral microtubule (PLM) neuron triggers an increase in growing MTs locally at the injury site, followed by persistent growth of MTs that leads to formation of functional growth cones 37. A mutation in mec-7/β-tubulin that hyperstabilizes MTs in touch neurons inhibits anterior lateral microtubule (ALM) axon regeneration, suggesting that precise regulation of MT dynamics is essential for axon regeneration 45. Regenerating axon tips in severed mouse neurons display an acute increase in MT dynamics, followed by a sustained increase over several days 46. Collectively, these findings suggest that axonal injury initiates an intricate series of changes in axonal MT organization.
The DLK-1 MAPK cascade promotes axon regeneration, in part via microtubule dynamics
The DLK MAPK pathway was identified several years ago as essential for axon regeneration in C. elegans motor neurons and in mechanosensory neurons 21, 22. Mutants lacking DLK-1 [ dlk-1(lf)] display normal developmental axon growth but are unable to regenerate after injury, being blocked at the initial phase of growth cone reformation ( Figure 1B). Conversely, overexpression of dlk-1 [ dlk-1(gf)] enhances axon regeneration 21, 22. A mammalian DLK-1 homolog MAP3K13/LZK can functionally substitute for dlk-1 47, suggesting a high degree of conservation of the DLK pathway in axon regeneration. Indeed, in mammals, DLK is also required for axon regeneration after axonal injury 26– 29.
DLK-1 activity is required cell-autonomously at the time of regrowth, and DLK-1 itself is likely activated by injury signals. An axotomy-triggered Ca 2+ transient has been implicated in DLK-1 activation 47– 49. In addition, the DLK pathway is sensitive to MT depolymerization. Mutations disrupting MTs trigger a DLK-dependent reduction of protein levels in touch neurons 50. In Drosophila, loss of Short stop (shot), a member of the spectraplakin family that crosslinks actin and MT 51, 52, activates the DLK signaling pathway to promote axon regeneration 53. Moreover, disruption of MTs by nocodazole in mammalian sensory neurons activates the DLK signaling pathway 54. As yet, it remains unclear how MT polymerization is sensed by DLK.
Activation of the DLK pathway leads to two major outputs in C. elegans: a transcriptional response involving the CEBP-1 bZip transcription factor and CEBP-1-independent effects on axonal MT dynamics. The dlk-1(lf) mutant fails to increase persistent MT growth after axotomy, whereas dlk-1(gf) shows increased number of growing axonal MTs, both before and after axotomy 37. Following laser injury, the DLK pathway promotes MT dynamics and growth, through downregulation of the kinesin-13 KLP-7 and upregulation of the cytosolic carboxypeptidase CCPP-6 37. Thus, the DLK cascade is closely interconnected with MTs, both as a sensor of MT integrity and as a regulator of MT dynamics, making it well placed to mediate regenerative reorganization of the axonal MT cytoskeleton after injury.
EFA-6, an inhibitor of axon regeneration acting via microtubule dynamics
The above studies of DLK-1 have helped spur efforts to identify additional factors that control MT dynamics during axon regeneration. Using a large-scale genetic screen, we identified the evolutionarily conserved protein EFA-6 (exchange factor for Arf-6) as a cell-intrinsic suppressor of axon regeneration 18. Loss-of-function mutations of efa-6 [ efa-6(lf)] enhance axonal regeneration, whereas efa-6 overexpression [ efa-6(gf)] blocks regeneration ( Figure 1B). Uniquely, efa-6(lf) partially bypasses the requirement for DLK-1 in axonal regeneration 18, suggesting that EFA-6 and DLK-1 have antagonistic effects on a common process. Multiple lines of evidence suggest that EFA-6 inhibits axon regeneration through modulation of MT dynamics 18, 55.
The EFA-6/EFA6 protein family is conserved from yeast to mammals. EFA-6 contains a Sec7 domain that confers guanine exchange activity (GEF) for Arf6 GTPases 56. Four EFA6 members (EFA6A–EFA6D) have been identified in mammals and three of them (except EFA6B) are expressed in neurons 57, 58. EFA6 localizes to the plasma membrane through its pleckstrin homology (PH) domain 56. Furthermore, EFA6 can interact with filamentous actin in vitro through its PH domain and plays important roles in regulation of cortical actin cytoskeleton in vertebrate cells 56, 57, 59– 61. In C. elegans, efa-6 suppresses the embryonic lethality caused by mutations in dynein, a MT motor 62, suggesting a functional linkage between actin and MT cytoskeletons at the cell cortex. In the one-cell C. elegans embryo, EFA-6 localizes to the plasma membrane, with enrichment in the anterior cortex in late one-cell embryo, to limit MT growth throughout the cell cortex 62, 63. The plasma membrane localization of EFA-6 is dependent upon the presence of its PH domain, whereas the intrinsically disordered N-terminal domain confers the enrichment at the anterior cell cortex 63. The N-terminal region of EFA-6 contains a conserved 18-amino acid (18-aa) motif ( Figure 2), which is essential for the MT growth-inhibiting activity.
Figure 2. The intrinsically disordered N-terminal of EFA-6 contains a conserved 18-amino acid (18-aa) motif.
( A) EFA-6 protein domain organization in different organisms. Red boxes in the EFA-6 N-terminus highlight a conserved 18-aa motif, found in both Caenorhabditis elegans and Drosophila 63. ( B) Plot of intrinsic protein disorder score for C. elegans EFA-6. Different domains of EFA-6 are color-coded as in ( A). Note that EFA-6 N-terminus has an overall high disorder probability, apart from the 18-aa motif. Figure adapted from 55.
In mature uninjured neurons, EFA-6 also localizes to the cell cortex via its C-terminal PH domain 55. Upon axotomy, EFA-6 rapidly (within minutes) relocalizes to puncta close to sites containing MT minus ends, as marked by the minus end-binding protein PTRN-1/Patronin 55, 64. Relocalization of EFA-6 is dependent on the intrinsically disordered N-terminal domain and plays important roles in inhibition of axon regeneration ( Figure 3A). In addition, the N-terminal domain of EFA-6 binds to the MT-associated proteins TAC-1/TACC (transforming acidic coiled-coil) and ZYG-8/DCLK (double-cortin-like kinase). Both TAC-1 and ZYG-8 are required for regenerative growth cone formation after axonal injury 55. Although the roles of mammalian EFA6 family members in axon regeneration remain to be examined, Xenopus TACC3 promotes axon outgrowth in embryonic cultured neural crest cells 65, and DCLK is required in mammalian axon regrowth 66, suggesting potential functional conservation from C. elegans to mammals.
Figure 3. Functions of EFA-6 and PAR-1 in axon regeneration and polarity control in the early Caenorhabditis elegans embryo.
( A) Model for the regulation of EFA-6. In steady-state axons, EFA-6 localizes to the plasma membrane through its pleckstrin homology (PH) domain. Upon axon injury, EFA-6 and TAC-1/TACC (transforming acidic coiled-coil) relocalize close to the microtubule (MT) minus ends as defined by PTRN-1/Patronin puncta. The N-terminal intrinsically disordered region of EFA-6 is necessary and sufficient for relocalization and binding to TAC-1. ( B) In one-cell embryos, PAR-1 and PAR-2 localize to the posterior cortex. This localization restricts the PAR-3/PAR-6/aPKC polarity complex to the anterior cortex. EFA-6 is enriched at the anterior cortex, dependent on the intrinsically disordered N-terminal domain. Such polarity complexes could regulate EFA-6 localization.
EFA-6, cell polarity proteins, and microtubule dynamics
Current evidence suggests that EFA-6 has bifunctional roles, as an MT destabilizing factor at the cell cortex in the steady state and relocalizing to the vicinity of MT minus ends after injury 55. The molecular mechanisms involved in the transitions between these putative EFA-6 activity/localization states remain unknown. However, the intrinsically disordered N-terminal domain appears to be key to understanding the functions of EFA-6 with respect to MT dynamics. All EFA6 family members contain large N-terminal domains that are predicted to be intrinsically disordered ( Figure 2A). Within the N-terminal domain, the sole region of primary sequence conservation is the 18-aa motif conserved in C. elegans and other invertebrate EFA6 family members and partly recognizable in some vertebrate EFA6 members. This motif contains potential phosphorylation sites, mutation of which abolishes the relocalization and regeneration-inhibiting activities of EFA-6 55. However, the identity of upstream kinases or phosphatases remains unknown; DLK-1 does not appear to be required for injury-triggered relocalization of EFA-6.
As the phosphorylation status of EFA-6 is tightly correlated to its MT dynamics-regulating activity 55, the kinase or kinases responsible for EFA-6 phosphorylation may also have MT dynamics-regulating activity, directly or indirectly. Furthermore, like EFA-6, such kinases may also regulate MT dynamics in early embryo. Many candidates, including PAR-1/MARK (MT affinity-regulating kinase) and polo-like kinase, have been implicated in MT dynamics in embryos and neurons 67, 68, although none of these kinases has yet been associated with EFA-6 phosphorylation. Here, we focus on PAR-1/MARK and summarize the known functions of PAR-1/MARK in neurons and embryos that may be relevant to axon regeneration.
PAR-1/MARK is one of the PAR (partitioning defective) proteins, first identified in C. elegans for their roles in polarization of the early embryo 69. PAR-1 encodes a serine/threonine kinase related to the MARKs 70. Misregulation of PAR-1 and its phosphorylation targets has long been implicated in neuronal diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease and autism 71, 72. In mammalian neurons, MARK phosphorylates the MT-associated proteins (MAPs) tau, MAP2, and MAP4, causing these MAPs to dissociate from MTs and thereby destabilizing the MT network and increasing MT dynamics 70. Furthermore, expression of MARK in cultured neurons promotes neurite outgrowth 73. Neurite outgrowth involves a pioneer population of dynamic MTs that invades growth cones, followed by MT stabilization in axon extension 74. These studies suggest that PAR-1/MARK plays key roles in MT plasticity during neurite outgrowth; less is known of its roles in axon regeneration.
PAR-1/MARK can regulate MT dynamics in many cell types 75– 79. In C. elegans one-cell embryos, PAR-1, together with its partner PAR-2, accumulates at the posterior cortex 80. This localization prevents the anterior polarity complex, PAR-3/PAR-6/aPKC, from concentrating at the posterior cortex 81, 82 ( Figure 3B). Intriguingly, MTs are more dynamic at the posterior end of an embryo, dependent on the asymmetric distribution of PAR proteins, including PAR-1 75. It is possible that PAR-1 regulates localization of EFA-6, causing an enrichment of EFA-6 at the anterior cortex ( Figure 3B). Interactions between PAR network proteins and EFA-6 in the early embryo have not yet been tested but could affect regulation of cortical MT dynamics.
Concluding remarks
Recent studies have highlighted the importance of MT dynamics in regulation of axon regeneration. Several players, including DLK-1 and EFA-6, have been identified to regulate MT dynamics upon axon injury. However, many questions remain unexamined (see “Outstanding issues”). Importantly, pharmacological stabilization of MTs enhances axon regeneration both in vitro and in vivo, highlighting the therapeutic potential of MT dynamics regulation in axon regeneration. We anticipate that future studies should elucidate these mechanisms, which are potentially relevant to therapeutic interventions aimed at promoting regenerative axon growth.
Outstanding issues
1. What triggers EFA-6 relocalization upon axon injury?
EFA-6 rapidly relocalizes close to the MT minus ends to inhibit MT dynamics upon axon injury. This relocalization may be controlled by phosphorylation of the intrinsically disordered N-terminus of EFA-6. However, the signals (kinases/phosphatases) that might trigger EFA-6 relocalization or function remain to be discovered. Identification of these signals will bring crucial insights into how the activity of EFA-6 is regulated, possibly allowing precise manipulation of EFA-6 activity in a regrowing axon.
2. What are the cellular targets of DLK and EFA-6?
Upon axotomy, DLK-1 promotes MT dynamics and growth, whereas EFA-6 relocalizes close to the MT minus ends to inhibit MT dynamics. Both proteins seem to affect axon regeneration by regulating MT dynamics. Intriguingly, efa-6(lf) can partially bypass the requirement of DLK-1 in axon regeneration. However, how EFA-6 interacts with the DLK-1 pathway remains unclear. It is of great interest to investigate these issues further to provide a better understanding of how MT dynamics control axon regeneration.
3. Is EFA-6 a conserved inhibitor of axon regeneration?
Identification of EFA-6 as a cell-intrinsic inhibitor of axon regeneration in C. elegans raises the question of whether any of the four mammalian EFA6 family members are involved in mammalian axon regeneration or axonal MT dynamics or both. Like C. elegans EFA-6, mammalian EFA6 family members all contain large N-terminal domains that are predicted to be intrinsically disordered. EFA6A, EFA6C, and EFA6D are expressed in the nervous system, but their roles in axon regeneration have yet to be assessed. Given evidence that partial stabilization of MT dynamics can improve axon regeneration in vertebrates, manipulation of specific MT destabilizing factors such as EFA-6 might allow a more targeted approach to enhancing regrowth in a therapeutic context.
Acknowledgments
We thank Fumio Motegi and members of the Andrew D. Chisholm and Yishi Jin labs for comments.
Editorial Note on the Review Process
F1000 Faculty Reviews are commissioned from members of the prestigious F1000 Faculty and are edited as a service to readers. In order to make these reviews as comprehensive and accessible as possible, the referees provide input before publication and only the final, revised version is published. The referees who approved the final version are listed with their names and affiliations but without their reports on earlier versions (any comments will already have been addressed in the published version).
The referees who approved this article are:
Laura Ann Lowery, Department of Biology, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, 02467, USA
Zhigang He, Children's Hospital Boston, Boston, MA, 02115, USA
Martin Oudega, The Miami Project to Cure Paralysis, University of Miami, Miami, FL, 33136, USA
Funding Statement
Work in the Andrew D. Chisholm and Yishi Jin lab on axon regeneration is supported by NIH R01 NS093588 (to Andrew D. Chisholm and Yishi Jin).
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
[version 1; referees: 3 approved]
References
- 1. Ramon y Cajal S, Defelipe J, Jones EG: Cajal's degeneration and regeneration of the nervous system. New York, Oxford University Press. 1991. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195065169.001.0001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Geoffroy CG, Zheng B: Myelin-associated inhibitors in axonal growth after CNS injury. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2014;27:31–8. 10.1016/j.conb.2014.02.012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
- 3. Filbin MT: Myelin-associated inhibitors of axonal regeneration in the adult mammalian CNS. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2003;4(9):703–13. 10.1038/nrn1195 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
- 4. Yiu G, He Z: Glial inhibition of CNS axon regeneration. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2006;7(8):617–27. 10.1038/nrn1956 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Jin Y: Unraveling the mechanisms of synapse formation and axon regeneration: the awesome power of C. elegans genetics. Sci China Life Sci. 2015;58(11):1084–8. 10.1007/s11427-015-4962-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Chisholm AD: Cytoskeletal dynamics in Caenorhabditis elegans axon regeneration. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2013;29:271–97. 10.1146/annurev-cellbio-101512-122311 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Bradke F, Fawcett JW, Spira ME: Assembly of a new growth cone after axotomy: the precursor to axon regeneration. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2012;13(3):183–93. 10.1038/nrn3176 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Sengottuvel V, Fischer D: Facilitating axon regeneration in the injured CNS by microtubules stabilization. Commun Integr Biol. 2011;4(4):391–3. 10.4161/cib.15552 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Liu K, Tedeschi A, Park KK, et al. : Neuronal intrinsic mechanisms of axon regeneration. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2011;34:131–52. 10.1146/annurev-neuro-061010-113723 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Hur EM, Saijilafu, Zhou FQ: Growing the growth cone: remodeling the cytoskeleton to promote axon regeneration. Trends Neurosci. 2012;35(3):164–74. 10.1016/j.tins.2011.11.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Sengottuvel V, Leibinger M, Pfreimer M, et al. : Taxol facilitates axon regeneration in the mature CNS. J Neurosci. 2011;31(7):2688–99. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4885-10.2011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
- 12. Hellal F, Hurtado A, Ruschel J, et al. : Microtubule stabilization reduces scarring and causes axon regeneration after spinal cord injury. Science. 2011;331(6019):928–31. 10.1126/science.1201148 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
- 13. Ruschel J, Hellal F, Flynn KC, et al. : Axonal regeneration. Systemic administration of epothilone B promotes axon regeneration after spinal cord injury. Science. 2015;348(6232):347–52. 10.1126/science.aaa2958 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
- 14. White JG, Southgate E, Thomson JN, et al. : The structure of the nervous system of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1986;314(1165):1–340. 10.1098/rstb.1986.0056 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Yanik MF, Cinar H, Cinar HN, et al. : Neurosurgery: functional regeneration after laser axotomy. Nature. 2004;432(7019):822. 10.1038/432822a [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Wu Z, Ghosh-Roy A, Yanik MF, et al. : Caenorhabditis elegans neuronal regeneration is influenced by life stage, ephrin signaling, and synaptic branching. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104(38):15132–7. 10.1073/pnas.0707001104 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
- 17. Chen L, Chisholm AD: Axon regeneration mechanisms: insights from C. elegans. Trends Cell Biol. 2011;21(10):577–84. 10.1016/j.tcb.2011.08.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Chen L, Wang Z, Ghosh-Roy A, et al. : Axon regeneration pathways identified by systematic genetic screening in C. elegans. Neuron. 2011;71(6):1043–57. 10.1016/j.neuron.2011.07.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Samara C, Rohde CB, Gilleland CL, et al. : Large-scale in vivo femtosecond laser neurosurgery screen reveals small-molecule enhancer of regeneration. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107(43):18342–7. 10.1073/pnas.1005372107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Nix P, Hammarlund M, Hauth L, et al. : Axon regeneration genes identified by RNAi screening in C. elegans. J Neurosci. 2014;34(2):629–45. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3859-13.2014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
- 21. Hammarlund M, Nix P, Hauth L, et al. : Axon regeneration requires a conserved MAP kinase pathway. Science. 2009;323(5915):802–6. 10.1126/science.1165527 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
- 22. Yan D, Wu Z, Chisholm AD, et al. : The DLK-1 kinase promotes mRNA stability and local translation in C. elegans synapses and axon regeneration. Cell. 2009;138(5):1005–18. 10.1016/j.cell.2009.06.023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. El Bejjani R, Hammarlund M: Notch signaling inhibits axon regeneration. Neuron. 2012;73(2):268–78. 10.1016/j.neuron.2011.11.017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
- 24. Byrne AB, Walradt T, Gardner KE, et al. : Insulin/IGF1 signaling inhibits age-dependent axon regeneration. Neuron. 2014;81(3):561–73. 10.1016/j.neuron.2013.11.019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
- 25. Zou Y, Chiu H, Zinovyeva A, et al. : Developmental decline in neuronal regeneration by the progressive change of two intrinsic timers. Science. 2013;340(6130):372–6. 10.1126/science.1231321 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
- 26. Itoh A, Horiuchi M, Bannerman P, et al. : Impaired regenerative response of primary sensory neurons in ZPK/DLK gene-trap mice. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2009;383(2):258–62. 10.1016/j.bbrc.2009.04.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Shin JE, Cho Y, Beirowski B, et al. : Dual leucine zipper kinase is required for retrograde injury signaling and axonal regeneration. Neuron. 2012;74(6):1015–22. 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.04.028 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Watkins TA, Wang B, Huntwork-Rodriguez S, et al. : DLK initiates a transcriptional program that couples apoptotic and regenerative responses to axonal injury. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110(10):4039–44. 10.1073/pnas.1211074110 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
- 29. Xiong X, Wang X, Ewanek R, et al. : Protein turnover of the Wallenda/DLK kinase regulates a retrograde response to axonal injury. J Cell Biol. 2010;191(1):211–23. 10.1083/jcb.201006039 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
- 30. Desai A, Mitchison TJ: Microtubule polymerization dynamics. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 1997;13:83–117. 10.1146/annurev.cellbio.13.1.83 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Mitchison T, Kirschner M: Dynamic instability of microtubule growth. Nature. 1984;312(5991):237–42. 10.1038/312237a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Akhmanova A, Steinmetz MO: Tracking the ends: a dynamic protein network controls the fate of microtubule tips. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2008;9(4):309–22. 10.1038/nrm2369 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Akhmanova A, Hoogenraad CC: Microtubule minus-end-targeting proteins. Curr Biol. 2015;25(4):R162–71. 10.1016/j.cub.2014.12.027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
- 34. Siegrist SE, Doe CQ: Microtubule-induced cortical cell polarity. Genes Dev. 2007;21(5):483–96. 10.1101/gad.1511207 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Chalfie M, Thomson JN: Organization of neuronal microtubules in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. J Cell Biol. 1979;82(1):278–89. 10.1083/jcb.82.1.278 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Chalfie M, Thomson JN: Structural and functional diversity in the neuronal microtubules of Caenorhabditis elegans. J Cell Biol. 1982;93(1):15–23. 10.1083/jcb.93.1.15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Ghosh-Roy A, Goncharov A, Jin Y, et al. : Kinesin-13 and tubulin posttranslational modifications regulate microtubule growth in axon regeneration. Dev Cell. 2012;23(4):716–28. 10.1016/j.devcel.2012.08.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
- 38. Maniar TA, Kaplan M, Wang GJ, et al. : UNC-33 (CRMP) and ankyrin organize microtubules and localize kinesin to polarize axon-dendrite sorting. Nat Neurosci. 2011;15(1):48–56. 10.1038/nn.2970 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
- 39. Erez H, Malkinson G, Prager-Khoutorsky M, et al. : Formation of microtubule-based traps controls the sorting and concentration of vesicles to restricted sites of regenerating neurons after axotomy. J Cell Biol. 2007;176(4):497–507. 10.1083/jcb.200607098 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
- 40. Erez H, Spira ME: Local self-assembly mechanisms underlie the differential transformation of the proximal and distal cut axonal ends into functional and aberrant growth cones. J Comp Neurol. 2008;507(1):1019–30. 10.1002/cne.21522 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Stone MC, Nguyen MM, Tao J, et al. : Global up-regulation of microtubule dynamics and polarity reversal during regeneration of an axon from a dendrite. Mol Biol Cell. 2010;21(5):767–77. 10.1091/mbc.E09-11-0967 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Song Y, Ori-McKenney KM, Zheng Y, et al. : Regeneration of Drosophila sensory neuron axons and dendrites is regulated by the Akt pathway involving Pten and microRNA bantam. Genes Dev. 2012;26(14):1612–25. 10.1101/gad.193243.112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
- 43. Chen L, Stone MC, Tao J, et al. : Axon injury and stress trigger a microtubule-based neuroprotective pathway. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109(29):11842–7. 10.1073/pnas.1121180109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Lu W, Lakonishok M, Gelfand VI: Kinesin-1-powered microtubule sliding initiates axonal regeneration in Drosophila cultured neurons. Mol Biol Cell. 2015;26(7):1296–307. 10.1091/mbc.E14-10-1423 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
- 45. Kirszenblat L, Neumann B, Coakley S, et al. : A dominant mutation in mec-7/β-tubulin affects axon development and regeneration in Caenorhabditis elegans neurons. Mol Biol Cell. 2013;24(3):285–96. 10.1091/mbc.E12-06-0441 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46. Kleele T, Marinković P, Williams PR, et al. : An assay to image neuronal microtubule dynamics in mice. Nat Commun. 2014;5: 4827. 10.1038/ncomms5827 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
- 47. Yan D, Jin Y: Regulation of DLK-1 kinase activity by calcium-mediated dissociation from an inhibitory isoform. Neuron. 2012;76(3):534–48. 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.08.043 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
- 48. Ghosh-Roy A, Wu Z, Goncharov A, et al. : Calcium and cyclic AMP promote axonal regeneration in Caenorhabditis elegans and require DLK-1 kinase. J Neurosci. 2010;30(9):3175–83. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5464-09.2010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
- 49. Pinan-Lucarre B, Gabel CV, Reina CP, et al. : The core apoptotic executioner proteins CED-3 and CED-4 promote initiation of neuronal regeneration in Caenorhabditis elegans. PLoS Biol. 2012;10(5):e1001331. 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001331 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50. Bounoutas A, Kratz J, Emtage L, et al. : Microtubule depolymerization in Caenorhabditis elegans touch receptor neurons reduces gene expression through a p38 MAPK pathway. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108(10):3982–7. 10.1073/pnas.1101360108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
- 51. Applewhite DA, Grode KD, Duncan MC, et al. : The actin-microtubule cross-linking activity of Drosophila Short stop is regulated by intramolecular inhibition. Mol Biol Cell. 2013;24(18):2885–93. 10.1091/mbc.E12-11-0798 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52. Alves-Silva J, Sánchez-Soriano N, Beaven R, et al. : Spectraplakins promote microtubule-mediated axonal growth by functioning as structural microtubule-associated proteins and EB1-dependent +TIPs (tip interacting proteins). J Neurosci. 2012;32(27):9143–58. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0416-12.2012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53. Valakh V, Walker LJ, Skeath JB, et al. : Loss of the spectraplakin short stop activates the DLK injury response pathway in Drosophila. J Neurosci. 2013;33(45):17863–73. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2196-13.2013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54. Valakh V, Frey E, Babetto E, et al. : Cytoskeletal disruption activates the DLK/JNK pathway, which promotes axonal regeneration and mimics a preconditioning injury. Neurobiol Dis. 2015;77:13–25. 10.1016/j.nbd.2015.02.014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55. Chen L, Chuang M, Koorman T, et al. : Axon injury triggers EFA-6 mediated destabilization of axonal microtubules via TACC and doublecortin like kinase. eLife. 2015;4:e08695. 10.7554/eLife.08695 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56. Franco M, Peters PJ, Boretto J, et al. : EFA6, a sec7 domain-containing exchange factor for ARF6, coordinates membrane recycling and actin cytoskeleton organization. EMBO J. 1999;18(6):1480–91. 10.1093/emboj/18.6.1480 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57. Derrien V, Couillault C, Franco M, et al. : A conserved C-terminal domain of EFA6-family ARF6-guanine nucleotide exchange factors induces lengthening of microvilli-like membrane protrusions. J Cell Sci. 2002;115(Pt 14):2867–79. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58. Sakagami H, Suzuki H, Kamata A, et al. : Distinct spatiotemporal expression of EFA6D, a guanine nucleotide exchange factor for ARF6, among the EFA6 family in mouse brain. Brain Res. 2006;1093(1):1–11. 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.02.058 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59. Luton F, Klein S, Chauvin JP, et al. : EFA6, exchange factor for ARF6, regulates the actin cytoskeleton and associated tight junction in response to E-cadherin engagement. Mol Biol Cell. 2004;15(3):1134–45. 10.1091/mbc.E03-10-0751 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60. Klein S, Partisani M, Franco M, et al. : EFA6 facilitates the assembly of the tight junction by coordinating an Arf6-dependent and -independent pathway. J Biol Chem. 2008;283(44):30129–38. 10.1074/jbc.M803375200 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61. Macia E, Partisani M, Favard C, et al. : The pleckstrin homology domain of the Arf6-specific exchange factor EFA6 localizes to the plasma membrane by interacting with phosphatidylinositol 4,5-bisphosphate and F-actin. J Biol Chem. 2008;283(28):19836–44. 10.1074/jbc.M800781200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62. O'Rourke SM, Dorfman MD, Carter JC, et al. : Dynein modifiers in C. elegans: light chains suppress conditional heavy chain mutants. PLoS Genet. 2007;3(8):e128. 10.1371/journal.pgen.0030128 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63. O'Rourke SM, Christensen SN, Bowerman B: Caenorhabditis elegans EFA-6 limits microtubule growth at the cell cortex. Nat Cell Biol. 2010;12(12):1235–41. 10.1038/ncb2128 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64. Chuang M, Goncharov A, Wang S, et al. : The microtubule minus-end-binding protein patronin/PTRN-1 is required for axon regeneration in C. elegans. Cell Rep. 2014;9(3):874–83. 10.1016/j.celrep.2014.09.054 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65. Nwagbara BU, Faris AE, Bearce EA, et al. : TACC3 is a microtubule plus end-tracking protein that promotes axon elongation and also regulates microtubule plus end dynamics in multiple embryonic cell types. Mol Biol Cell. 2014;25(21):3350–62. 10.1091/mbc.E14-06-1121 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
- 66. Nawabi H, Belin S, Cartoni R, et al. : Doublecortin-Like Kinases Promote Neuronal Survival and Induce Growth Cone Reformation via Distinct Mechanisms. Neuron. 2015;88(4):704–19. 10.1016/j.neuron.2015.10.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67. Zitouni S, Nabais C, Jana SC, et al. : Polo-like kinases: structural variations lead to multiple functions. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2014;15(7):433–52. 10.1038/nrm3819 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68. Goldstein B, Macara IG: The PAR proteins: fundamental players in animal cell polarization. Dev Cell. 2007;13(5):609–22. 10.1016/j.devcel.2007.10.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
- 69. Kemphues KJ, Priess JR, Morton DG, et al. : Identification of genes required for cytoplasmic localization in early C. elegans embryos. Cell. 1988;52(3):311–20. 10.1016/S0092-8674(88)80024-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70. Drewes G, Ebneth A, Preuss U, et al. : MARK, a novel family of protein kinases that phosphorylate microtubule-associated proteins and trigger microtubule disruption. Cell. 1997;89(2):297–308. 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)80208-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71. Delacourte A, Buée L: Tau pathology: a marker of neurodegenerative disorders. Curr Opin Neurol. 2000;13(4):371–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72. Drewes G, Trinczek B, Illenberger S, et al. : Microtubule-associated protein/microtubule affinity-regulating kinase (p110mark). A novel protein kinase that regulates tau-microtubule interactions and dynamic instability by phosphorylation at the Alzheimer-specific site serine 262. J Biol Chem. 1995;270(13):7679–88. 10.1074/jbc.270.13.7679 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73. Biernat J, Wu YZ, Timm T, et al. : Protein kinase MARK/PAR-1 is required for neurite outgrowth and establishment of neuronal polarity. Mol Biol Cell. 2002;13(11):4013–28. 10.1091/mbc.02-03-0046 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74. Conde C, Cáceres A: Microtubule assembly, organization and dynamics in axons and dendrites. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2009;10(5):319–32. 10.1038/nrn2631 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75. Labbé JC, Maddox PS, Salmon ED, et al. : PAR proteins regulate microtubule dynamics at the cell cortex in C. elegans. Curr Biol. 2003;13(9):707–14. 10.1016/S0960-9822(03)00251-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76. Doerflinger H, Benton R, Shulman JM, et al. : The role of PAR-1 in regulating the polarised microtubule cytoskeleton in the Drosophila follicular epithelium. Development. 2003;130(17):3965–75. 10.1242/dev.00616 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77. Sapir T, Sapoznik S, Levy T, et al. : Accurate balance of the polarity kinase MARK2/Par-1 is required for proper cortical neuronal migration. J Neurosci. 2008;28(22):5710–20. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0911-08.2008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78. Mandelkow EM, Thies E, Trinczek B, et al. : MARK/PAR1 kinase is a regulator of microtubule-dependent transport in axons. J Cell Biol. 2004;167(1):99–110. 10.1083/jcb.200401085 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
- 79. Sapir T, Shmueli A, Levy T, et al. : Antagonistic effects of doublecortin and MARK2/Par-1 in the developing cerebral cortex. J Neurosci. 2008;28(48):13008–13. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2363-08.2008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80. Guo S, Kemphues KJ: par-1, a gene required for establishing polarity in C. elegans embryos, encodes a putative Ser/Thr kinase that is asymmetrically distributed. Cell. 1995;81(4):611–20. 10.1016/0092-8674(95)90082-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81. Munro E, Nance J, Priess JR: Cortical flows powered by asymmetrical contraction transport PAR proteins to establish and maintain anterior-posterior polarity in the early C. elegans embryo. Dev Cell. 2004;7:413–24. 10.1016/j.devcel.2004.08.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
- 82. Cuenca AA, Schetter A, Aceto D, et al. : Polarization of the C. elegans zygote proceeds via distinct establishment and maintenance phases. Development. 2003;130(7):1255–65. 10.1242/dev.00284 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation