Schwann Cells: Development and Role in Nerve Repair

Schwann cells develop from the neural crest in a well-defined sequence of events. This involves the formation of the Schwann cell precursor and immature Schwann cells, followed by the generation of the myelin and nonmyelin (Remak) cells of mature nerves. This review describes the signals that control the embryonic phase of this process and the organogenesis of peripheral nerves. We also discuss the phenotypic plasticity retained by mature Schwann cells, and explain why this unusual feature is central to the striking regenerative potential of the peripheral nervous system (PNS).The myelin and nonmyelin (Remak) Schwann cells of adult nerves originate from the neural crest in well-defined developmental steps (Fig. 1). This review focuses on embryonic development (for additional information on myelination, see Salzer 2015). We also discuss how the ability to change between differentiation states, a characteristic attribute of developing cells, is retained by mature Schwann cells, and explain how the ability of Schwann cells to change phenotype in response to injury allows the peripheral nervous system (PNS) to regenerate after damage.Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Main transitions in the Schwann cell precursor (SCP) lineage. The diagram shows both developmental and injury-induced transitions. Black uninterrupted arrows, normal development; red arrows, the Schwann cell injury response; stippled arrows, postrepair reformation of myelin and Remak cells. Embryonic dates (E) refer to mouse development. (Modified from Jessen and Mirsky 2012; reprinted, with permission and with contribution from Y. Poitelon and L. Feltri.)     

Molecular and Cellular Mechanisms of Lamina-specific Axon Targeting

The specificity of synaptic connections is directly related to the functional integrity of neural circuits. Long-range axon guidance and topographic mapping mechanisms bring axons into spatial proximity of target cells and thus limit the number of potential synaptic partners. Synaptic specificity is then achieved by extracellular short-range guidance cues and cell-surface recognition cues. Neural activity may enhance the precision and strength of specific circuit connections. Here, we focus on one of the final steps of synaptic matchmaking: the targeting of synaptic layers and the mutual recognition of axons and dendrites within these layers.Perception and behavior are critically dependent on synaptic communication between specific neurons. Understanding how neurons achieve such “synaptic specificity” is therefore one of the most fundamental issues in developmental neuroscience. Langley’s notion of “chemical relations” between synaptically connected neurons (Langley 1892) and Sperry’s “chemoaffinity” hypothesis (Sperry 1963) provided a conceptual framework for the development of precise synaptic connections in the central nervous system. Sperry postulated that molecular interactions between neurons and their extracellular environment (including between and amongst axons and dendrites) ensure that connections form only between “appropriate” synaptic partners (Sperry 1963). This hypothesis has been confirmed by experimental work over the last four decades, most importantly by the identification of molecular cues that provide synaptic specificity (see Sanes and Yamagata 2009 for a recent comprehensive review). However, within this broad framework, a number of alternate mechanisms have been shown or proposed to play roles in specific aspects of such targeting processes. Here, we focus on mechanisms that underlie the formation of synaptic layers, a prominent anatomical feature of the visual system as well as many other areas of the CNS.As reviewed previously (O''Leary 2010), the chemoaffinity principle underlies the developmental process of topographic mapping. Indeed, the precision with which neurons preserve the spatial relationships between the visual world and its representation in the brain is remarkable: Across animals ranging from flies to vertebrates, axons that bear signals from adjacent points in visual space invariably choose adjacent targets in the brain (Braitenberg 1967; Lemke and Reber 2005; Sperry 1963). Thus, position-dependent guidance of axons ensures that a visuotopic map develops. However, position in space is just one attribute of a visual stimulus; others include color, brightness, edge detection, and movement. If position in visual space is encoded by localized activation within a two-dimensional field of neurons, then these other features are encoded by local circuits that act both in series and in parallel and are reiterated many times across the field (Fig. 1). These local circuit modules are often envisioned as “columns” that lie orthogonal to the topographic map, with each column corresponding to a pixel in visual space and each level of the column representing a different, specific visual feature within that pixel, such as brightness, color, etc. (Fig. 1). How these columns acquire their laminated structure represents a developmental challenge of extraordinary scale. Although long-range axon guidance and topographic mapping no doubt contribute to restricting the astronomical number of potential synaptic partners, these mechanisms are clearly not sufficient; additional mechanisms must (and do) exist that act on a local scale to provide an additional level of positional information and cell-type-specific “chemoaffinity.”Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Laminae are a fundamental organizing unit of neural circuits. Each column corresponds to a single topographic position (e.g., location on the retina). Within each column, different cell types (shown type A: blue, and type B: red) respond to different features in the visual world, such as motion or luminance. These pixels are repeated many times over and thus cover all of visual space. A simple rule of “Cell type A connects to Layer A, etc.” ensures that functional segregation is maintained in the connections from the retina to the target (parallel processing). Each pixel P1, P2, and P3 connects to a single column (C1, C2, and C3), establishing serial processing. Within each column, there are local circuits that, too, are layer-specific. Thus, laminae ensure functional specificity of both afferent-target connections and local circuit connections.A prominent principle, which guides the formation of connections between specific cell types and is a characteristic feature of CNS architecture, is the concentration of synapses in small areas. These synapse clusters can take the form of planar layers or spherical glomeruli. Although glomeruli are a specialization that appears most prominent in the olfactory system, layers, or laminae, are an almost ubiquitous feature of central nervous system architecture. Indeed, even crude histological stains reveal that axons and dendrites often accumulate in neuropil (cell-body-free areas). Cell-type-specific or single-cell labeling has shown that, within individual neuropil layers, neurites and synapses are not distributed randomly. Rather, synaptic connections arising between neurons with the same or similar functional properties are localized to particular sublaminae that distinguish synapses with different properties (Fig. 1). The structural underpinnings of this functional principle are provided by mechanisms that ensure the lamina-specific branching of the corresponding neurites. How this enormous precision is achieved is the subject of intense investigations in the Drosophila, zebrafish, chick, and mouse visual systems. We will begin by describing three anatomical regions in these model organisms. Then, we will discuss three broad principles of layer-specific targeting in the visual system, namely cell–cell recognition, guidance by matrix cues, and activity-dependent sorting of axon terminals.     

Rho and Ras GTPases in Axon Growth, Guidance, and Branching

The establishment of precise neuronal cell morphology provides the foundation for all aspects of neurobiology. During development, axons emerge from cell bodies after an initial polarization stage, elongate, and navigate towards target regions guided by a range of environmental cues. The Rho and Ras families of small GTPases have emerged as critical players at all stages of axonogenesis. Their ability to coordinately direct multiple signal transduction pathways with precise spatial control drives many of the activities that underlie this morphogenetic program: the dynamic assembly, disassembly, and reorganization of the actin and microtubule cytoskeletons, the interaction of the growing axon with other cells and extracellular matrix, the delivery of lipids and proteins to the axon through the exocytic machinery, and the internalization of membrane and proteins at the leading edge of the growth cone through endocytosis. This article highlights the contribution of Rho and Ras GTPases to axonogenesis.The Ras superfamily of small GTPases, consisting of almost 200 proteins, can be subclassified into six families: Rho, Ras, Rab, Arf, Sar, and Ran (Colicelli 2004). These proteins act as molecular switches, cycling between an inactive, GDP-bound state and an active, GTP-bound state (Fig. 1). The activated conformation interacts with specific effectors to propagate downstream signaling events that influence many aspects of cell biology. Guanine nucleotide exchange factors (GEFs) activate the switch by catalyzing the exchange of GDP for GTP, whereas GTPase-activating proteins (GAPs) increase the intrinsic GTPase activity and inactivate the switch (Fig. 1) (Jaffe and Hall 2005). Dominant–negative (DN) and constitutively active (CA) versions of small GTPases (created through specific amino acid substitutions) have been used extensively to dissect the individual roles of these proteins. Although these have been incredibly informative, they do have potential drawbacks: dominant–negative constructs, which act by sequestering GEFs, may interfere with closely related family members, whereas constitutively activated GTPases interact indiscriminately with all their potential targets, something that does not happen under normal conditions. RNAi and gene knockout approaches afford the potential for greater specificity, but they too have limitations, because GTPases, their regulators, and their targets are typically found as closely related isoforms. This article focuses on the role of Rho and Ras family members in four different aspects of axonogenesis: initiation, elongation, guidance, and branching. The major role of Rho GTPases, conserved in all eukaryotes, is to control the assembly, disassembly, and dynamic rearrangements of the actin and microtubule cytoskeletons. It is not surprising, therefore, that they play crucial roles in the growth, guidance, and branching of axons. Ras GTPases, on the other hand, are activated by a large number of plasma membrane growth factor receptors and adhesion receptors to promote key signal transduction pathways, including ERK, MAP kinase, and PI3-kinase, which play a variety of important roles in axonogenesis.Open in a separate windowFigure 1.The GTPase cycle GTPases. (Ras, in this example) cycle between an inactive GDP-bound state and an active, GTP-bound state. Following a specific stimulus, GEFs catalyze the exchange of GDP for GTP, enabling the interaction of GTPases with specific effectors leading to cellular responses. In contrast, GAPs inactivate GTPases by stimulating their intrinsic GTPase activity.     

Protein Targeting and Transport as a Necessary Consequence of Increased Cellular Complexity

With increasing intracellular complexity, a new cell-biological problem that is the allocation of cytoplasmically synthesized proteins to their final destinations within the cell emerged. A special challenge is thereby the translocation of proteins into or across cellular membranes. The underlying mechanisms are only in parts well understood, but it can be assumed that the course of cellular evolution had a deep impact on the design of the required molecular machines. In this article, we aim to summarize the current knowledge and concepts of the evolutionary development of protein trafficking as a necessary premise and consequence of increased cellular complexity.

The evolution of modern cells is arguably the most challenging and important problem the field of biology has ever faced …—Carl R. Woese(Woese 2002)

Current models may accept that all modern eukaryotic cells arose from a single common ancestor (the cenancestral eukaryote), the nature of which is—owing to the lack of direct living or fossil descendants—still highly under debate (de Duve 2007). The chimeric nature of eukaryotic genomes with eubacterial and archaebacterial shares led to a discussion about the origin of this first “proto-eukaryote.” Several models exist (see Fig. 1), which either place the evolution of the nucleus before or after the emergence of the mitochondrion (outlined in Koonin 2010; Martijn and Ettema 2013). According to the different postulated scenarios (summarized in Embley and Martin 2006), eukaryotes in the latter case might have evolved by endosymbiosis between a hydrogen-producing, oxygen-producing, or sulfur-dependent α-proteobacterium and an archaebacterial host (Fig. 1C). The resulting mitochondriate prokaryote would have evolved the nucleus subsequently. In other scenarios (Fig. 1B), the cenancestral eukaryote emerged by cellular fusion or endosymbiosis of a Gram-negative, maybe hydrogen-producing, eubacterium and a methanogenic archaebacterium or eocyte, leading to a primitive but nucleated amitochondrial (archezoan) cell (Embley and Martin 2006, and references therein). As a third alternative, Cavalier-Smith (2002) suggested a common eubacterial ancestor for eukaryotes and archaebacteria (the Neomuran hypothesis) (Fig. 1A).Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Evolution of the last common ancestor of all eukaryotic cells. A schematic depiction of the early eukaryogenesis. Because of the lack of living and fossil descendants, several opposing models are discussed (A–C). The anticipated order of events is shown as a flow chart. For details, see text. (Derived from Embley and Martin 2006; Koonin 2010.)     

Chromosome Dynamics during Mitosis

The primary goal of mitosis is to partition duplicated chromosomes into daughter cells. Eukaryotic chromosomes are equipped with two distinct classes of intrinsic machineries, cohesin and condensins, that ensure their faithful segregation during mitosis. Cohesin holds sister chromatids together immediately after their synthesis during S phase until the establishment of bipolar attachments to the mitotic spindle in metaphase. Condensins, on the other hand, attempt to “resolve” sister chromatids by counteracting cohesin. The products of the balancing acts of cohesin and condensins are metaphase chromosomes, in which two rod-shaped chromatids are connected primarily at the centromere. In anaphase, this connection is released by the action of separase that proteolytically cleaves the remaining population of cohesin. Recent studies uncover how this series of events might be mechanistically coupled with each other and intricately regulated by a number of regulatory factors.In eukaryotic cells, genomic DNA is packaged into chromatin and stored in the cell nucleus, in which essential chromosomal processes, including DNA replication and gene expression, take place (Fig. 1, interphase). At the onset of mitosis, the nuclear envelope breaks down and chromatin is progressively converted into a discrete set of rod-shaped structures known as metaphase chromosomes (Fig. 1, metaphase). In each chromosome, a pair of sister kinetochores assembles at its centromeric region, and their bioriented attachment to the mitotic spindle acts as a prerequisite for equal segregation of sister chromatids. The linkage between sister chromatids is dissolved at the onset of anaphase, allowing them to be pulled apart to opposite poles of the cell (Fig. 1, anaphase). At the end of mitosis, the nuclear envelope reassembles around two sets of segregated chromatids, leading to the production of genetically identical daughter cells (Fig. 1, telophase).Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Overview of chromosome dynamics during mitosis. In addition to the crucial role of kinetochore–spindle interactions, an intricate balance between cohesive and resolving forces acting on sister chromatid arms (top left, inset) underlies the process of chromosome segregation. See the text for major events in chromosome segregation.Although the centromere–kinetochore region plays a crucial role in the segregation process, sister chromatid arms also undergo dynamic structural changes to facilitate their own separation. Conceptually, such structural changes are an outcome of two balancing forces, namely, cohesive and resolving forces (Fig. 1, top left, inset). The cohesive force holds a pair of duplicated arms until proper timing of separation, otherwise daughter cells would receive too many or too few copies of chromosomes. The resolving force, on the other hand, counteracts the cohesive force, reorganizing each chromosome into a pair of rod-shaped chromatids. From this standpoint, the pathway of chromosome segregation is regarded as a dynamic process, in which the initially robust cohesive force is gradually weakened and eventually dominated by the resolving force. Almost two decades ago, genetic and biochemical studies for the behavior of mitotic chromosomes converged productively, culminating in the discovery of cohesin (Guacci et al. 1997; Michaelis et al. 1997; Losada et al. 1998) and condensin (Hirano et al. 1997; Sutani et al. 1999), which are responsible for the cohesive and resolving forces, respectively. The subsequent characterizations of these two protein complexes have not only transformed our molecular understanding of chromosome dynamics during mitosis and meiosis, but also provided far-reaching implications in genome stability, as well as unexpected links to human diseases. In this article, I summarize recent progress in our understanding of mitotic chromosome dynamics with a major focus on the regulatory networks surrounding cohesin and condensin. I also discuss emerging topics and attempt to clarify outstanding questions in the field.     

Apoptotic and Nonapoptotic Caspase Functions in Animal Development

A developing animal is exposed to both intrinsic and extrinsic stresses. One stress response is caspase activation. Caspase activation not only controls apoptosis but also proliferation, differentiation, cell shape, and cell migration. Caspase activation drives development by executing cell death or nonapoptotic functions in a cell-autonomous manner, and by secreting signaling molecules or generating mechanical forces, in a noncell autonomous manner.Programmed cell death or apoptosis occurs widely during development. During C. elegans development, 131 cells die by caspase CED-3-dependent apoptosis; however, ced-3 mutants do not show significant developmental defects (Ellis and Horvitz 1986). In contrast, studies on caspase mutants in mouse and Drosophila have revealed caspases’ roles in development. During development, cells are exposed to extrinsic and intrinsic stresses, and caspases are activated as one of multiple stress responses that ensure developmental robustness (Fig. 1). Caspases actively regulate animal development through both apoptosis and nonapoptotic functions that involve cell–cell communication in developing cell communities (Miura 2011). This chapter focuses on the in vivo roles of caspases in development and regeneration.Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Caspase activation during development. An embryo undergoes intrinsic and extrinsic stress, which activates caspases to execute both apoptotic and nonapoptotic functions, including cell differentiation and dendrite pruning. Apoptotic cells affect the shape and behavior of their neighboring cells. Caspase-activated cells are shown in dark gray.     

Auxin and Monocot Development

Monocots are known to respond differently to auxinic herbicides; hence, certain herbicides kill broadleaf (i.e., dicot) weeds while leaving lawns (i.e., monocot grasses) intact. In addition, the characters that distinguish monocots from dicots involve structures whose development is controlled by auxin. However, the molecular mechanisms controlling auxin biosynthesis, homeostasis, transport, and signal transduction appear, so far, to be conserved between monocots and dicots, although there are differences in gene copy number and expression leading to diversification in function. This article provides an update on the conservation and diversification of the roles of genes controlling auxin biosynthesis, transport, and signal transduction in root, shoot, and reproductive development in rice and maize.Auxinic herbicides have been used for decades to control dicot weeds in domestic lawns (Fig. 1A), commercial golf courses, and acres of corn, wheat, and barley, yet it is not understand how auxinic herbicides selectively kill dicots and spare monocots (Grossmann 2000; Kelley and Reichers 2007). Monocots, in particular grasses, must perceive or respond differently to exogenous synthetic auxin than dicots. It has been proposed that this selectivity is because of either limited translocation or rapid degradation of exogenous auxin (Gauvrit and Gaillardon 1991; Monaco et al. 2002), altered vascular anatomy (Monaco et al. 2002), or altered perception of auxin in monocots (Kelley and Reichers 2007). To explain these differences, there is a need to further understand the molecular basis of auxin metabolism, transport, and signaling in monocots.Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Differences between monocots and dicots. (A) A dicot weed in a lawn of grasses. Note the difference in morphology of the leaves. (B) Germinating dicot (bean) seedling. Dicots have two cotyledons (cot). Reticulate venation is apparent in the leaves. The stem below the cotyledons is called the hypocotyl (hyp). (C) Germinating monocot (maize) seedling. Monocots have a single cotyledon called the coleoptile (col) in grasses. Parallel venation is apparent in the leaves. The stem below the coleoptile is called the mesocotyl (mes).Auxin, as we have seen in previous articles, plays a major role in vegetative, reproductive, and root development in the model dicot, Arabidopsis. However, monocots have a very different anatomy from dicots (Raven et al. 2005). Many of the characters that distinguish monocots and dicots involve structures whose development is controlled by auxin: (1) As the name implies, monocots have single cotyledons, whereas dicots have two cotyledons (Fig. 1B,C). Auxin transport during embryogenesis may play a role in this difference as cotyledon number defects are often seen in auxin transport mutants (reviewed in Chandler 2008). (2) The vasculature in leaves of dicots is reticulate, whereas the vasculature in monocots is parallel (Fig. 1). Auxin functions in vascular development because many mutants defective in auxin transport, biosynthesis, or signaling have vasculature defects (Scarpella and Meijer 2004). (3) Dicots often produce a primary tap root that produces lateral roots, whereas, in monocots, especially grasses, shoot-borne adventitious roots are the most prominent component of the root system leading to the characteristic fibrous root system (Fig. 2). Auxin induces lateral-root formation in dicots and adventitious root formation in grasses (Hochholdinger and Zimmermann 2008).Open in a separate windowFigure 2.The root system in monocots. (A) Maize seedling showing the primary root (1yR), which has many lateral roots (LR). The seminal roots (SR) are a type of adventitious root produced during embryonic development. Crown roots (CR) are produced from stem tissue. (B) The base of a maize plant showing prop roots (PR), which are adventitious roots produced from basal nodes of the stem later in development.It is not yet clear if auxin controls the differences in morphology seen in dicots versus monocots. However, both conservation and diversification of mechanisms of auxin biosynthesis, homeostasis, transport, and signal transduction have been discovered so far. This article highlights the similarities and the differences in the role of auxin in monocots compared with dicots. First, the genes in each of the pathways are introduced (Part I, Table I) and then the function of these genes in development is discussed with examples from the monocot grasses, maize, and rice (Part II).     

The Spatiotemporal Organization of ErbB Receptors: Insights from Microscopy

Signal transduction is regulated by protein–protein interactions. In the case of the ErbB family of receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs), the precise nature of these interactions remains a topic of debate. In this review, we describe state-of-the-art imaging techniques that are providing new details into receptor dynamics, clustering, and interactions. We present the general principles of these techniques, their limitations, and the unique observations they provide about ErbB spatiotemporal organization.Signal transduction is associated with dramatic spatial and temporal changes in membrane protein distribution. Although the biochemical events downstream of membrane receptor activation are often well characterized, the initiating events within the plasma membrane remain unclear. Many cell surface receptors have been shown to redistribute into clusters in response to ligand binding (Metzger 1992). Therefore, correlating membrane receptor activation with dynamics and aggregation state is essential to understanding cell signaling.The role of receptor aggregation is of particular interest in the case of receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs). It is generally accepted that ligand binding to the extracellular domain of RTKs induces dimerization, whether ligand- or receptor-mediated (Lemmon and Schlessinger 2010). However, there is evidence that some RTKs exist as oligomers in the absence of ligand, whereas others require higher-order oligomerization for activation (Lemmon and Schlessinger 2010). Understanding the fundamental interactions that regulate RTK signaling still remains an important focus in the field.Over the past decade, imaging technologies and biological tools have developed to a point such that questions about protein dynamics, clustering, and interactions can now be addressed in living cells (Fig. 1). These techniques reveal information about protein behavior on a spatial and temporal scale that is not provided by traditional biochemical assays. In this review, we will discuss the application of these advanced imaging technologies to the study of the ErbB family of RTKs.Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Summary of imaging techniques for quantifying receptor clustering, dynamics, and interactions.     

Polarity in Stem Cell Division: Asymmetric Stem Cell Division in Tissue Homeostasis

Many adult stem cells divide asymmetrically to balance self-renewal and differentiation, thereby maintaining tissue homeostasis. Asymmetric stem cell divisions depend on asymmetric cell architecture (i.e., cell polarity) within the cell and/or the cellular environment. In particular, as residents of the tissues they sustain, stem cells are inevitably placed in the context of the tissue architecture. Indeed, many stem cells are polarized within their microenvironment, or the stem cell niche, and their asymmetric division relies on their relationship with the microenvironment. Here, we review asymmetric stem cell divisions in the context of the stem cell niche with a focus on Drosophila germ line stem cells, where the nature of niche-dependent asymmetric stem cell division is well characterized.Asymmetric cell division allows stem cells to self-renew and produce another cell that undergoes differentiation, thus providing a simple method for tissue homeostasis. Stem cell self-renewal refers to the daughter(s) of stem cell division maintaining all stem cell characteristics, including proliferation capacity, maintenance of the undifferentiated state, and the capability to produce daughter cells that undergo differentiation. A failure to maintain the correct stem cell number has been speculated to lead to tumorigenesis/tissue hyperplasia via stem cell hyperproliferation or tissue degeneration/aging via a reduction in stem cell number or activity (Morrison and Kimble 2006; Rando 2006). This necessity changes during development. The stem cell pool requires expansion earlier in development, whereas maintenance is needed later to sustain tissue homeostasis.There are two major mechanisms to sustain a fixed number of adult stem cells: stem cell niche and asymmetric stem cell division, which are not mutually exclusive. Stem cell niche is a microenvironment in which stem cells reside, and provides essential signals required for stem cell identity (Fig. 1A). Physical limitation of niche “space” can therefore define stem cell number within a tissue. Within such a niche, many stem cells divide asymmetrically, giving rise to one stem cell and one differentiating cell, by placing one daughter inside and another outside of the niche, respectively (Fig. 1A). Nevertheless, some stem cells divide asymmetrically, apparently without the niche. For example, in Drosophila neuroblasts, cell-intrinsic fate determinants are polarized within a dividing cell, and subsequent partitioning of such fate determinants into daughter cells in an asymmetric manner results in asymmetric stem cell division (Fig. 1B) (see Fig. 3A and Prehoda 2009).Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Mechanisms of asymmetric stem cell division. (A) Asymmetric stem cell division by extrinsic fate determinants (i.e., the stem cell niche). The two daughters of stem cell division will be placed in distinct cellular environments either inside or outside the stem cell niche, leading to asymmetric fate choice. (B) Asymmetric stem cell division by intrinsic fate determinants. Fate determinants are polarized in the dividing stem cells, which are subsequently partitioned into two daughter cells unequally, thus making the division asymmetrical. Self-renewing (red line) and/or differentiation promoting (green line) factors may be involved.In this review, we focus primarily on asymmetric stem cell divisions in the Drosophila germ line as the most intensively studied examples of niche-dependent asymmetric stem cell division. We also discuss some examples of stem cell division outside Drosophila, where stem cells are known to divide asymmetrically or in a niche-dependent manner.     

The Role of Functional Prion-Like Proteins in the Persistence of Memory

Prions are a self-templating amyloidogenic state of normal cellular proteins, such as prion protein (PrP). They have been identified as the pathogenic agents, contributing to a number of diseases of the nervous system. However, the discovery that the neuronal RNA-binding protein, cytoplasmic polyadenylation element-binding protein (CPEB), has a prion-like state that is involved in the stabilization of memory raised the possibility that prion-like proteins can serve normal physiological functions in the nervous system. Here, we review recent experimental evidence of prion-like properties of neuronal CPEB in various organisms and propose a model of how the prion-like state may stabilize memory.Prions are proteinaceous infectious agents that were discovered in the 1980s by Stanley Prusiner while studying Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease (Prusiner 1982). Prusiner and colleagues showed them to be an amyloidogenic, self-perpetuating, forms of a normal cellular protein, termed prion protein or PrP. Prp in its self-perpetuating state kills cells. Prusiner and colleagues found that PrPs exist in at least two conformations: monomeric and aggregated (Fig. 1). The transition among these forms occurs spontaneously and only the aggregated conformation is pathogenic. Soon, PrPs were found to contribute to other neurodegenerative disorders in people, including kuru, transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, as well as bovine spongiform encephalopathy in cows (Prusiner 1994; Aguzzi and Weissmann 1998).Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Pathogenic prions exist in two states (soluble and aggregated and self-perpetuating). The conversion from the soluble to the aggregated form is spontaneous and the aggregated, self-perpetuating form is often toxic and kills the cell.There is now a growing consensus that similar prion-like, self-templating mechanisms underlie a variety of neurodegenerative disorders, including amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and Huntington’s disease (Polymenidou and Cleveland 2012).Not all prions, however, appear to be disease causing. Fungal prions, for instance, are nontoxic, and some may even be beneficial to the cells that harbor them (Wickner 1994; Shorter and Lindquist 2005; Crow and Li 2011). In 2003, Si and Kandel serendipitously discovered a prion-like protein in multicellular eukaryotes—the nervous system of the marine snail Aplysia—whose aggregated and self-perpetuating form contributes to the maintenance of long-term changes in synaptic efficacy. This functional prion-like protein differs from pathogenic prions in two important ways: (1) The conversion to the prion-like state is regulated by a physiological signal, and (2) the aggregated form has an identified physiological function (Fig. 2). Recent identification of new functional prion-like proteins in various organisms, including human, supports the idea that nonpathogenic prions may perform a wide range of biologically meaningful roles (Coustou et al. 1997; Eaglestone et al. 1999; True and Lindquist 2000; Ishimaru et al. 2003; True et al. 2004; Hou et al. 2011; Jarosz et al. 2014).Open in a separate windowFigure 2.“Functional” prion: memory. “Functional” prions differ from conventional prions in two ways. First, the conversion is triggered by a physiological signal, and second, the aggregated, self-perpetrating forms have a physiological function. 5-HT, Serotonin; DA, dopamine.In this review, we focus on functional prion-like proteins in the brain and specifically on the prion-like properties of the cytoplasmic polyadenylation element-binding protein (CPEB), and examine how the prion-like state can control protein synthesis at the synapse and, thereby, synaptic plasticity and long-lasting memory. We anticipate the studies of CPEB would also provide some generalizable concepts as to how prion-based protein switches in multicellular eukaryotes may work.     

Splenogonadal Fusion: An Unusual Case of an Acute Scrotum

We highlight a case on a normal left testicle with a fibrovascular cord with three nodules consistent with splenic tissue. The torsed splenule demonstrated hemorrhage with neutrophilic infiltrate and thrombus consistent with chronic infarction and torsion. Splenogonadal fusion (SGF) is a rather rare entity, with approximately 184 cases reported in the literature. The most comprehensive review was that of 123 cases completed by Carragher in 1990. Since then, an additional 61 cases have been reported in the scientific literature. We have studied these 61 cases in detail and have included a summary of that information here.Key words: Splenogonadal fusion, Acute scrotumA 10-year-old boy presented with worsening left-sided scrotal pain of 12 hours’ duration. The patient reported similar previous episodes occurring intermittently over the past several months. His past medical history was significant for left hip dysplasia, requiring multiple hip surgeries. On examination, he was found to have an edematous left hemiscrotum with a left testicle that was rigid, tender, and noted to be in a transverse lie. The ultrasound revealed possible polyorchism, with two testicles on the left and one on the right (Figure 1), and left epididymitis. One of the left testicles demonstrated a loss of blood flow consistent with testicular torsion (Figure 2).Open in a separate windowFigure 1Ultrasound of the left hemiscrotum reveals two spherical structures; the one on the left is heterogeneous and hyperdense in comparison to the right.Open in a separate windowFigure 2Doppler ultrasound of left hemiscrotum. No evidence of blood flow to left spherical structure.The patient was taken to the operating room for immediate scrotal exploration. A normalappearing left testicle with a normal epididymis was noted. However, two accessory structures were noted, one of which was torsed 720°; (Figure 3). An inguinal incision was then made and a third accessory structure was noted. All three structures were connected with fibrous tissue, giving a “rosary bead” appearance. The left accessory structures were removed, a left testicular biopsy was taken, and bilateral scrotal orchipexies were performed.Open in a separate windowFigure 3Torsed accessory spleen with splenogonadal fusion.Pathology revealed a normal left testicle with a fibrovascular cord with three nodules consistent with splenic tissue. The torsed splenule demonstrated hemorrhage with neutrophillic infiltrate and thrombus consistent with chronic infarction and torsion (Figure 4).Open in a separate windowFigure 4Splenogonadal fusion, continuous type with three accessory structures.     

The Structure and Function of the Eukaryotic Ribosome

Structures of the bacterial ribosome have provided a framework for understanding universal mechanisms of protein synthesis. However, the eukaryotic ribosome is much larger than it is in bacteria, and its activity is fundamentally different in many key ways. Recent cryo-electron microscopy reconstructions and X-ray crystal structures of eukaryotic ribosomes and ribosomal subunits now provide an unprecedented opportunity to explore mechanisms of eukaryotic translation and its regulation in atomic detail. This review describes the X-ray crystal structures of the Tetrahymena thermophila 40S and 60S subunits and the Saccharomyces cerevisiae 80S ribosome, as well as cryo-electron microscopy reconstructions of translating yeast and plant 80S ribosomes. Mechanistic questions about translation in eukaryotes that will require additional structural insights to be resolved are also presented.All ribosomes are composed of two subunits, both of which are built from RNA and protein (Figs. ​(Figs.11 and ​and2).2). Bacterial ribosomes, for example of Escherichia coli, contain a small subunit (SSU) composed of one 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) and 21 ribosomal proteins (r-proteins) (Figs. ​(Figs.1A1A and ​and1B)1B) and a large subunit (LSU) containing 5S and 23S rRNAs and 33 r-proteins (Fig. 2A). Crystal structures of prokaryotic ribosomal particles, namely, the Thermus thermophilus SSU (Schluenzen et al. 2000; Wimberly et al. 2000), Haloarcula marismortui and Deinococcus radiodurans LSU (Ban et al. 2000; Harms et al. 2001), and E. coli and T. thermophilus 70S ribosomes (Yusupov et al. 2001; Schuwirth et al. 2005; Selmer et al. 2006), reveal the complex architecture that derives from the network of interactions connecting the individual r-proteins with each other and with the rRNAs (Brodersen et al. 2002; Klein et al. 2004). The 16S rRNA can be divided into four domains, which together with the r-proteins constitute the structural landmarks of the SSU (Wimberly et al. 2000) (Fig. 1A): The 5′ and 3′ minor (h44) domains with proteins S4, S5, S12, S16, S17, and S20 constitute the body (and spur or foot) of the SSU; the 3′ major domain forms the head, which is protein rich, containing S2, S3, S7, S9, S10, S13, S14, and S19; whereas the central domain makes up the platform by interacting with proteins S1, S6, S8, S11, S15, and S18 (Fig. 1B). The rRNA of the LSU can be divided into seven domains (including the 5S rRNA as domain VII), which—in contrast to the SSU—are intricately interwoven with the r-proteins as well as each other (Ban et al. 2000; Brodersen et al. 2002) (Fig. 2A). Structural landmarks on the LSU include the central protuberance (CP) and the flexible L1 and L7/L12 stalks (Fig. 2A).Open in a separate windowFigure 1.The bacterial and eukaryotic small ribosomal subunit. (A,B) Interface (upper) and solvent (lower) views of the bacterial 30S subunit (Jenner et al. 2010a). (A) 16S rRNA domains and associated r-proteins colored distinctly: b, body (blue); h, head (red); pt, platform (green); and h44, helix 44 (yellow). (B) 16S rRNA colored gray and r-proteins colored distinctly and labeled. (C–E) Interface and solvent views of the eukaryotic 40S subunit (Rabl et al. 2011), with (C) eukaryotic-specific r-proteins (red) and rRNA (pink) shown relative to conserved rRNA (gray) and r-proteins (blue), and with (D,E) 18S rRNA colored gray and r-proteins colored distinctly and labeled.Open in a separate windowFigure 2.The bacterial and eukaryotic large ribosomal subunit. (A) Interface (upper) and solvent (lower) views of the bacterial 50S subunit (Jenner et al. 2010b), with 23S rRNA domains and bacterial-specific (light blue) and conserved (blue) r-proteins colored distinctly: cp, central protuberance; L1, L1 stalk; and St, L7/L12 stalk (or P-stalk in archeaa/eukaryotes). (B–E) Interface and solvent views of the eukaryotic 60S subunit (Klinge et al. 2011), with (B) eukaryotic-specific r-proteins (red) and rRNA (pink) shown relative to conserved rRNA (gray) and r-proteins (blue), (C) eukaryotic-specific expansion segments (ES) colored distinctly, and (D,E) 28S rRNA colored gray and r-proteins colored distinctly and labeled.In contrast to their bacterial counterparts, eukaryotic ribosomes are much larger and more complex, containing additional rRNA in the form of so-called expansion segments (ES) as well as many additional r-proteins and r-protein extensions (Figs. 1C–E and ​and2C–E).2C–E). Compared with the ∼4500 nucleotides of rRNA and 54 r-proteins of the bacterial 70S ribosome, eukaryotic 80S ribosomes contain >5500 nucleotides of rRNA (SSU, 18S rRNA; LSU, 5S, 5.8S, and 25S rRNA) and 80 (79 in yeast) r-proteins. The first structural models for the eukaryotic (yeast) ribosome were built using 15-Å cryo–electon microscopy (cryo-EM) maps fitted with structures of the bacterial SSU (Wimberly et al. 2000) and archaeal LSU (Ban et al. 2000), thus identifying the location of a total of 46 eukaryotic r-proteins with bacterial and/or archaeal homologs as well as many ES (Spahn et al. 2001a). Subsequent cryo-EM reconstructions led to the localization of additional eukaryotic r-proteins, RACK1 (Sengupta et al. 2004) and S19e (Taylor et al. 2009) on the SSU and L30e (Halic et al. 2005) on the LSU, as well as more complete models of the rRNA derived from cryo-EM maps of canine and fungal 80S ribosomes at ∼9 Å (Chandramouli et al. 2008; Taylor et al. 2009). Recent cryo-EM reconstructions of plant and yeast 80S translating ribosomes at 5.5–6.1 Å enabled the correct placement of an additional six and 10 r-proteins on the SSU and LSU, respectively, as well as the tracing of many eukaryotic-specific r-protein extensions (Armache et al. 2010a,b). The full assignment of the r-proteins in the yeast and fungal 80S ribosomes, however, only became possible with the improved resolution (3.0–3.9 Å) resulting from the crystal structures of the SSU and LSU from Tetrahymena thermophila (Klinge et al. 2011; Rabl et al. 2011) and the Saccharomyces cerevisiae 80S ribosome (Figs. ​(Figs.1D,E1D,E and ​and2D,E)2D,E) (Ben-Shem et al. 2011).