Previous Article | Next Article 
Volume 17, Number 11,
Issue of June 1, 1997
pp. 4293-4301
Copyright ©1997 Society for Neuroscience
Competition among the Axonal Projections of an Identified Neuron
Contributes to the Retraction of Some of Those Projections
Wen-Biao Gan and
Eduardo R. Macagno
Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York,
New York 10027
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
FOOTNOTES
REFERENCES
ABSTRACT
AP neurons in the embryonic leech CNS extend lateral projections to
peripheral targets through the ganglionic nerve roots and longitudinal
projections toward neighboring ganglia through the connective nerves.
The lateral projections grow extensively in the periphery; in contrast,
the longitudinal projections achieve relatively little growth and
eventually retract, the majority having essentially disappeared by the
end of embryogenesis. Cutting both nerve roots, which eliminates both
lateral projections, however, induces the longitudinal projections of
the AP neuron to begin to grow rapidly toward adjacent ganglia within
14 hr after the axotomy. By using a laser microbeam to cut just the
lateral projections of the AP cells, we further show that it is indeed
the loss of its lateral projections, and not a secondary response to
the cutting of other components of the root nerves, that induces the
longitudinal projections of the AP cell to grow extensively. In
addition, we report that reducing the outgrowth of the lateral
projections by: (1) cutting only one lateral projection, or (2)
ablating pioneer neurons required by the AP neuron to establish its
peripheral arbor, also results in a significant increase in the growth
of the longitudinal projections. Finally, we demonstrate that
increasing the outgrowth of the longitudinal projections by ablating
the AP cells in adjacent ganglia results in a significant reduction in
the outgrowth of the lateral projections. Taken together, these results
indicate, first, that the longitudinal and lateral projections usually
grow at the expense of each other, and second, that normally the
extensive outgrowth of its lateral projections is a necessary condition
for a developing AP neuron to retract its longitudinal projections.
Key words:
axonal retraction;
axonal outgrowth;
cell-cell
interactions;
axotomy;
competition;
development;
leech
INTRODUCTION
In establishing their particular branching
patterns, neurons often generate some neurites that are later retracted
(Land and Lund, 1979
; Innocenti, 1981
; O'Leary et al., 1981
; McLoon,
1982
; Wallace, 1984
; Stanfield and O'Leary, 1985
; Glover and Mason, 1986
; Gao and Macagno, 1987a
,b
; Jellies et al., 1987
; Baptista and
Macagno, 1988
; Callaway and Katz, 1990
; O'Rourke et al., 1994
). Synapse elimination at the neuromuscular junction (Redfern, 1970
; Balice-Gordon and Lichtman, 1993
) and the segregation of LGN
projections to the visual cortex in the formation of ocular dominance
column (LeVay et al., 1978
, 1980
) are well known examples of this
phenomenon. It has been suggested that axonal retraction may play an
important role in creating connectional diversity and specificity in
developing nervous systems (O'Leary, 1992
). The mechanisms underlying
axonal retraction in the developing nervous system, however, are not well understood.
At the neuromuscular junction, one of the most extensively studied
systems in which process pruning occurs, some of the axonal terminals
of each motoneuron disappear during a period of transition from
multiple innervation to single innervation (for review, see Colman and
Lichtman, 1993
). This transition is thought to occur as a result of a
local competition among the terminals of different motoneurons at each
individual junction. It is worth noting that at developing
neuromuscular junctions, as in other systems, a neuron withdraws only a
subset of its axonal terminals and maintains others. This raises an
interesting question, whether the growth or retention of an individual
terminal affects the retraction of sibling terminals. ("Sibling"
will be used in this paper to refer to nerve terminals or branches of
the same neuron.)
Several previous observations have provided evidence suggesting that
different branches of the same neuron do not grow independently, but
rather at the expense of one another (Devor and Schneider, 1975
;
Murphey and Lemere 1984
; Smalheiser and Crain, 1984
; Goldberg and
Schacher, 1987
; Gan and Macagno, 1995a
). Therefore, a particular branch
may be influenced to stop growing and to retract not only by inhibitory
factors in its local environment, but also by strong competition from
its more vigorously growing siblings. Indeed, in many developing
systems, the retraction of some axonal branches has often been seen to
be accompanied by growth of other branches (Innocenti, 1981
; Stanfield
and O'Leary, 1985
; Gao and Macagno, 1987a
,b
; Jellies et al., 1987
;
Baptista and Macagno, 1988
; Callaway and Katz, 1990
; Lamantia and
Rakic, 1990). Whether the outgrowth of some axonal branches does or
does not contribute to the retraction of their sibling branches,
however, has not been thoroughly tested experimentally thus far.
In this study, we specifically examined the role of competitive
interactions among sibling branches in the retraction of specific neurites by an identified central neuron, the AP cell, in the medicinal
leech (Hirudo medicinalis). The AP cell has longitudinal projections within anterior and posterior connective nerves and lateral
projections that extend to the periphery through both ganglionic nerve
roots (see Fig. 1). Previous studies have also determined that the lateral projections branch profusely in the periphery after embryonic day 10 (E10) (Gan and Macagno, 1995b
), whereas the longitudinal projections eventually retract during late
embryogenesis (Gao and Macagno, 1987b
). Ablating the homologs of an AP
neuron in adjacent ganglia, however, prevents this retraction and
induces the longitudinal projections to grow into the periphery through
adjacent ganglia (Gao and Macagno, 1987b
). A very similar response by
the longitudinal projections can be induced by cutting the two nerve
roots that contain its lateral projections at a time when these lateral
projections are innervating peripheral targets (Gao and Macagno,
1988
).
Fig. 1.
Schematic diagram of two AP cells in adjacent
ganglia at E12-E13. Each AP cell has two lateral projections
(Anterior and Posterior) that exit the
ganglion via the contralateral nerve roots to the periphery, where they
branch profusely. The posterior lateral projection further bifurcates
into the ventral posterior projection and the dorsal posterior
projection. In addition, each AP cell has two longitudinal projections
that overlap with those of adjacent homologs within the connective
nerves. LM, Lateral midline; DM, dorsal
midline. Anterior is at the top in this figure, as well
as in Figures 4 and 7.
[View Larger Version of this Image (33K GIF file)]
In the experiments described in this paper, by varying the extent of
outgrowth of either the lateral or the longitudinal projections using
different paradigms, we provide several lines of experimental evidence
in support of the idea that the lateral and longitudinal branches of
the AP cell grow at the expense of each other, and that the retraction
of the longitudinal branches is, in part, a consequence of the
extensive outgrowth of the lateral branches in the periphery.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Animals. H. medicinalis embryos were
obtained from our laboratory colony and maintained at 23°C. We staged
embryos according to the criteria proposed by Fernandez and Stent
(1982)
.
Cutting the lateral projections with a laser microbeam.
Embryos were anesthetized with 9% ethanol in sterile artificial pond water (0.5 gm/l Instant Ocean, Menasha Corporation) and were positioned in a groove cut into a SYLGARD-coated (Dow Corning, Arlington, TN)
microslide. To identify the AP cells and fill them with dye, a small
patch of skin over the experimental ganglion was removed using a sharp
pin. In these experiments, we always examined AP neurons in the ganglia
of midbody segments 10-16 (MG10-16). To cut specific processes of an
AP neuron with the laser microbeam, the cell was first filled with the
fluorescent dye 1,1
-dioctadecyl-3,3,3
,3
-tetramethylindocarbocyanine perchlorate (DiI; Molecular Probes, Eugene, OR), made up to a concentration of 1% in methylene chloride (Sigma, St. Louis, MO). Somata were penetrated with dye-filled microelectrodes (resistance, ~100 M
) under a Zeiss (Thornwood, NY) 40× water immersion
objective, and a depolarizing current (1 nA, 1 Hz) was applied for a
few seconds until a tiny crystal formed at the tip of the electrode. The electrode was then removed and the DiI crystal remained on or
inside the cell body. The embryos were then placed into fresh sterile
artificial pond water to recuperate (the wound seals rapidly) and to
allow the DiI to diffuse throughout the arbor of the cell. A few hours
later, a small patch of skin was again cut over the experimental
ganglion, and the projections within the lateral roots were illuminated
with a focused laser microbeam for 1-2 min, until the processes
acquired a beaded appearance.
The 528 nm line of a 15 M
argon laser was used to ablate branches of
DiI-filled cells in some experiments. The laser beam was focused
through the 40× water immersion objective, generating a 1-2 µm spot
at the focal plane. The actual size of the spot at the specimen was
somewhat larger because of the refractile properties of the living
tissues through which the light traveled.
Cutting the roots. The anesthetized embryos were first
positioned as described above. A sharp pin was used first to penetrate the skin above the roots under the dissecting microscope. The roots
were then cut with the pin. After surgery, the embryos were returned to
sterile pond water.
There was no regeneration of posterior lateral projections when the cut
was made at E9-E10. When cutting at E11-E12, however, there were 4 of
21 cases in which the regeneration of posterior lateral projections
occurred. The regenerated ones were thinner and occupied much smaller
territories than their contralateral homologs. We did not distinguish
the cases in which regeneration did occur versus no regeneration when
we quantified the effect of cutting the posterior roots on the growth
of longitudinal projections.
Cell ablations. Cell ablations were performed as in Gan and
Macagno (1995a)
. Briefly, the identified AP cells were penetrated by
microelectrodes (100 M
) filled with 1% 5(6)-carboxyfluorescein (Sigma) in 0.2 M KCl. The dye was iontophoresed using
negative pulses (1 nA at 1 Hz for 3 min). The injected AP cells and
parts of their branches were illuminated with a Xenon arc lamp for 1 min. Cell death, as indicated by a swollen soma and beaded structures along the axons, ensued within a few hours.
DiI staining and imaging of the AP neuron. The procedures
for staining and imaging have been described in detail in a previous publication (Gan and Macagno, 1995a
). Briefly, anesthetized embryos were first opened dorsally and freed of yolk, then cut along the ventral midline to expose the ganglia of interest. A small DiI crystal
was then injected into the AP cell body as described above.
After staining, preparations were immediately fixed in 4%
paraformaldehyde, maintained in this solution at room temperature for
2-7 d, and mounted on a slide for observation and study. Images were
taken with a confocal microscope (MRC-600, Bio-Rad, Richmond, CA) by
optically sectioning the embryo and then superimposing the optical
sections to generate the final images.
Quantification of the outgrowth of the AP longitudinal and
lateral projections. The length of the AP longitudinal projections relative to the interganglionic length of the connective nerve was used
to quantify its outgrowth (Fig. 2A,
diagram). Such a method of measurement avoids possible
variations inherent in the manual stretching of the preparation during
dissection and fixation. The length of the longitudinal projection was
measured from the edge of the ganglion to the tip of the growth cone,
and the length of the connective nerve was measured from the anterior
edge of one ganglion to the posterior edge of its neighbor in the
anterior neighboring segment.
Fig. 2.
Relative lengths of the longitudinal
projections as a function of time in development. A,
Diagram showing the parameters measured to obtain the relative lengths
of the AP longitudinal projections in the connective nerve between
adjacent ganglia (L1/L2). B, Comparison
of relative lengths in the posterior and anterior directions at
different stages. Only at E12 are the differences in
relative length significant, with the anterior projections (*) slightly
longer (p < 0.005). Between
E12 and E20, average relative lengths
remain the same, but a large reduction was found at E30.
In the adult, these projections are effectively absent. C, The distribution of relative lengths changes with
embryonic age. Anterior and posterior longitudinal projections were not distinguished here. The asterisk associated with the
left-most data point at E12 denotes that there are no
longitudinal projections with relative lengths between 0 and 0.2 at
this stage.
[View Larger Version of this Image (24K GIF file)]
The AP cells follow axonal branches of the PD cells in the
dorsal germinal plate and form six first-order branches approximately perpendicular to the main projection, similar to the branching pattern
of the PD cell (Fig. 1). By taking advantage of the regular growth pattern of AP lateral projections, we quantitated the amount of
growth of the AP cell in the dorsal germinal plate in the same way as
we quantified previously the growth of PD cells (Gan and Macagno, 1995b
). The growth of each of the six first-order branches was
measured in terms of the number of annuli it covered from its
initiation on the main projection to the furthest anterior or posterior
extension of its high-order branches. (There are five annuli per
segment in the midbody of H. medicinalis.) The amount of
growth of the AP lateral projection in the dorsal germinal plate was
then calculated as the sum of the extension of all six first-order
branches. Such a method of measurement has the advantage that it also
normalizes for possible variations in the stretching of the preparation
during dissection and fixation.
RESULTS
The extension and retraction of AP longitudinal projections is a
protracted process that occurs over several weeks
The average relative length of the anterior and the
posterior longitudinal projections remained approximately the same from E12 to E20, but decreased by more than half from E20 to E30 (0.7 to
~0.3) (Fig. 2B). Because the absolute length of the
connective nerve increased ~1.5-fold from E12 (n = 58) to E20 (n = 84) and ~1.6-fold from E20
(n = 84) to E30 (n = 18), the average
absolute length of the longitudinal projections actually increased from E12 to E20 but then decreased sometime between E20 and E30.
At any one embryonic stage, the length of the longitudinal projections
varied greatly among AP cells in different animals or in different
segments within an animal. For the 119 AP cells examined at E12, for
example, the relative lengths of these projections showed a bell-shaped
distribution (Fig. 2C), with the largest fraction having
relative lengths of 0.6-0.8. As a function of developmental age, this
distribution changed significantly in shape. Interestingly, both the
very short and very long projections increased in number between E12
and E20, indicating that some projections retracted, whereas others
continued to grow throughout this period. By the end of embryogenesis
(E30), 33% of the longitudinal projections had retracted entirely and
many others were quite short, but ~8% still extended into adjacent
ganglia. Because longitudinal projections are almost never found in
adults, and never extending as far as adjacent ganglia, process
retraction must continue beyond the end of embryogenesis.
Our observations show that the extension and retraction of longitudinal
projections by AP neurons occurs in a time frame of several weeks. In
addition, when a particular process will stop growing and begin to
retract seems unpredictable, although the distributions of relative
lengths versus embryonic age suggest that longer projections,
particularly those that reach the adjacent ganglia, may be relatively
more stable. The probability of retraction can be strongly modulated,
however, by the extent of growth of the lateral projections of the AP
cell in the periphery, as shown by the results of the experiments that
follow.
The posterior longitudinal projection grows faster than the
anterior one after the cutting of both lateral roots
As reported in a previous study (Gao and Macagno, 1988
), cutting
both of the nerve roots that contain the lateral projections of an AP
neuron induces its longitudinal projections to grow into the periphery
through adjacent ganglia. To get a better understanding of the dynamics
of this response, we cut both lateral roots at E12-E13 and
subsequently examined the longitudinal projections of the experimental
AP cells at several time points. The intact contralateral AP homologs
in the same ganglia served as controls.
Neither the anterior nor the posterior longitudinal projections showed
significant growth relative to controls 7-8 hr after the operation
(p > 0.4; n = 20; Fig.
3). After another 7 hr, however, both projections were
significantly longer in the experimental AP cells. For the anterior
projection, the relative length increased 26% over controls, from
0.77 ± 0.07 (mean ± SEM) to 0.97 ± 0.06 (n = 14; p < 0.02), whereas for the
posterior longitudinal projections, this value increased 51%, from
0.73 ± 0.06 (control) to 1.1 ± 0.05 (n = 16; p < 0.001) (Fig. 3). The change in the posterior projection was significantly greater than that in the anterior one
(p < 0.05; n = 20). Seven hours
later this effect was even more pronounced; by this time the increase
in relative length of the anterior projection was ~39%, whereas the
posterior projection showed an increase of ~78% (Fig. 3). By then
both longitudinal projections had reached or were about to exit from
the adjacent ganglia. As we discuss later, the greater early response
of the posterior longitudinal projection may well reflect local effects of reducing lateral outgrowth.
Fig. 3.
Cutting both nerve roots greatly enhances the
growth of the longitudinal projections of the AP cell. The difference
in relative length was calculated as the difference in relative length
(as defined in Fig. 2A) between the longitudinal
projections of the experimental AP neuron (the lateral projections of
which were cut) and those of the intact contralateral homolog in the
same ganglion. By 14-15 hr after root cutting, the relative lengths of
both the anterior and posterior longitudinal projections of the
experimental cells were significantly longer than controls. The
posterior longitudinal projection grew significantly more than the
anterior one at both 14-15 hr and 21 hr after the surgery.
[View Larger Version of this Image (22K GIF file)]
Cutting both lateral projections with the laser microbeam causes
the longitudinal projections to grow into the periphery through
adjacent ganglia
Because many axons beside those of the AP cell are severed when
the ganglionic nerve roots are cut as described above, it is possible
that the response of enhancing longitudinal extension of the AP cell is
triggered by some factor other than the loss of its lateral
projections. To test whether cutting just the lateral projections of
the AP cell has the same effect, we used a laser microbeam to cut the
lateral projections of a series of AP neurons several hours after they
had been injected with DiI (see Materials and Methods). These
experiments were performed at E12-E13, when the lateral projections
are growing vigorously, but many of the longitudinal ones have already
slowed down or stopped their extension along the connective nerves. Two
days after the laser surgery, in all of the 12 cases examined, the
longitudinal projections were found to have grown into the periphery
via the adjacent ganglia; one of the experimental AP cells is shown in
Figure 4.
Fig. 4.
Example of the effect of cutting both lateral
projections (crosses) with a laser microbeam at E12. Two
days after the operation, both anterior and posterior longitudinal
projections had grown into the periphery of adjacent segments in this
preparation. In addition, the longitudinal projections had grown past
the adjacent ganglia (G2 and G4)
and had almost reached the next ones (G1 and G5) (arrowheads). This cell had
collateral projections, which can be seen in the interganglionic
nerves, a feature that can also be found in some normal cells. This
cell, however, also extended a novel ipsilateral longitudinal
projection (arrow) in the posterior direction;
ipsilateral projections were never seen in controls. Dotted
lines added to outline the boundaries of the ganglia and interganglionic connectives. Scale bar, 200 µm.
[View Larger Version of this Image (30K GIF file)]
Two controls were performed for these experiments. First, to test for
possible effects of dye filling, six AP cells were stained with DiI but
not irradiated; they were examined 2 d later. Second, to test for
effects of possible damage to other components of the nerves, both
lateral nerves containing no stained AP projections were illuminated
with the focused laser microbeam for 6 min (three times as long as
required to ablate stained AP projections) in six different ganglia of
three animals. The AP cells in these ganglia were stained with DiI
2 d later. None of the AP cells subjected to these two protocols
was found to have extended longitudinal projections into the periphery
of adjacent segments. In addition, we also performed the experiment in
which five AP cells were stained with DiI, but only one of their two
lateral projections was ablated (three posterior and two anterior
ones). In none of these five cases were the longitudinal projections
found to extend beyond the adjacent ganglia into the periphery.
We conclude that extension of longitudinal projections into the
periphery is a specific effect of laser cutting both lateral projections of a developing AP neuron.
Partially reducing the outgrowth of the lateral projections also
induces additional growth of the longitudinal axons
Cutting only the posterior root can also induce greater
outgrowth of the longitudinal projections. We first cut the posterior nerve root in ganglia of E9-E10 animals, at a time when the posterior lateral projection of the AP neuron has just entered the periphery but
has not yet branched vigorously. In 14 cases examined 4 d after
cutting, the relative length of the posterior longitudinal projections
of the experimental AP neurons was found to be 1.02 ± 0.04 (mean ± SEM), significantly greater (p < 0.005; n = 14) than that of the control contralateral
homologs (0.77 ± 0.05). The anterior longitudinal projections,
however, did not show a statistically significant effect
(p > 0.05; n = 14) in this
experiment (Fig. 5).
Fig. 5.
Cutting only the posterior nerve root also
enhances the growth of the longitudinal projections. Four days after
cutting the posterior root at either E9-E10 or E11-E12, the
longitudinal projections of the experimental cells (*), with the
exception of the anterior longitudinal projection when cutting was
performed at E9-E10, had grown significantly more than controls. In
contrast, however, to the effects of cutting both nerve roots or
cutting both lateral projections with the laser microbeam (see Fig. 4),
here the longitudinal projections did not grow beyond adjacent ganglia
or out to the periphery from them.
[View Larger Version of this Image (32K GIF file)]
A somewhat different result was obtained when the posterior root was
cut at E11-E12, a time when the posterior lateral projections were
already elaborating extensive arbors in the periphery. Four days after
this operation, both anterior and posterior longitudinal projections
showed significantly greater outgrowth than the controls (p < 0.005; n = 21) (Fig. 5).
The posterior root seldom regenerated (4 cases of 21), and the
territory vacated was usually invaded by the intact anterior lateral
projection of the AP cell. In 2 of 21 cases, a displaced thin posterior
lateral projection was found to exit along the anterior root into the
periphery (data not shown).
It is worth noting that after cutting the posterior root, the
longitudinal projections never grew into the periphery through adjacent
ganglia although they grew longer than the controls. We did not perform
a series of anterior root cuts, because previously reported
observations suggested that cutting either root would yield the same
results (Gao and Macagno, 1988
).
Ablation of the dorsal P cell, which reduces severely the growth of
the posterior lateral projection, enhances the growth of the posterior
longitudinal projection
After exiting through the posterior root, the posterior lateral
projection of the AP cell bifurcates into two branches that extend
along the dorsoposterior (DP) and
ventroposterior (VP) nerves. These branches then branch
again extensively to innervate the corresponding areas in the body
wall. In a previous study, we reported that the peripheral projections
of the AP cell grow very accurately along the earlier-growing
peripheral arbors of the contralateral ventral and dorsal P cells (Gan
and Macagno, 1995b
). In addition, we found that ablating the dorsal P
cell reduced significantly the arborization of the DP projection of the
AP cell, whereas the VP projection remained essentially intact. Here,
we were specifically interested in whether reducing the outgrowth of
the DP lateral projection of the AP cell by ablating the dorsal P cell
might also induce additional growth of its longitudinal projections.
Ablating the dorsal P cell between E8 and E9 did not induce
significantly more outgrowth (p > 0.2;
n = 18) of either anterior or posterior
longitudinal projections of the AP cell by E12, a time when the AP cell
has just begun vigorous arborization in the periphery (Fig.
6). By E14, however, the posterior longitudinal projection of the AP cell was found to have significantly greater outgrowth than the control (p < 0.01;
n = 29), whereas the anterior longitudinal
projection showed no significant effects (p > 0.2; n = 29). Not unexpectedly, the increased
outgrowth of the posterior longitudinal projection induced by reducing
the dorsal arbor of the posterior lateral projection is clearly smaller
than the effect produced by cutting the posterior root, which
eliminated both the dorsal and the ventral arbors of the posterior
lateral projection.
Fig. 6.
Effect of ablating a PD cell on the
outgrowth of the AP longitudinal projections. The ablation was
performed at E8-E9, but the embryos were examined at E12, when the
lateral projections of the AP cell are initially established, or E14,
when normally there is already an extensive arbor. At E12, neither the
anterior nor the posterior longitudinal projections were significantly longer than the controls (p > 0.2). At E14,
however, the posterior longitudinal projections (*), but not the
anterior ones, had grown significantly more than the controls
(p < 0.01).
[View Larger Version of this Image (28K GIF file)]
Intact lateral projections have smaller arbors when the
longitudinal projections are induced to grow into the periphery of
adjacent segments by the ablation of segmental homologs of the AP
neuron
The results described above show that reduced outgrowth of the
lateral projections under various conditions enhances the outgrowth of
the longitudinal projections. As a complementary experiment, we asked
whether inducing greater outgrowth of the longitudinal projections
reduces the outgrowth of intact lateral projections.
Previous studies have shown that the longitudinal projections of the AP
cell will grow into the periphery of adjacent segment within 2 d
after ablating the adjacent AP homologs at E9-E12 (Gao and Macagno,
1987b
). We repeated these experiments here but concentrated our
analysis on the peripheral growth of the lateral projections. Two days
after killing, at E9-E10, the AP homologs in two adjacent anterior and
two adjacent posterior ganglia, we observed that the lateral
projections of the experimental AP neuron had reduced arbors in the
periphery relative to controls, whereas the longitudinal branches now
extended into the periphery through the adjacent ganglia (Fig.
7A). The reduction of the AP terminal
arborization can be observed in the ventral as well as the dorsal
germinal plate, but it is much more obvious in the dorsal region. An
example of this is shown in Figure 7, B and C,
which show, respectively, the control and experimental arbors of AP
cells in the dorsal germinal plate 4 d after homolog
deletion. The longitudinal projections of the experimental AP cell grew
extensively in the dorsal region of the adjacent segments (Fig.
7C), whereas its lateral projection was reduced greatly in
the dorsal germinal plate compared with that of its contralateral
homolog (Fig. 7B).
Fig. 7.
Greater outgrowth of its longitudinal projections
reduces the arborization of the lateral projections of the AP cell.
A, In this preparation, four AP cells were ablated at
E9-E10 on the same side in the two ganglia adjacent to the ganglion of
interest (crosses) as well as the next two ganglia (not
shown). Two days later, the experimental AP cell on the same side as
the ablated AP cells had extended its longitudinal projections
ectopically to the periphery, through the adjacent ganglia (on the
right of the picture). At the same time, the lateral
projections of this AP cell grew less in its own segment than those of
its contralateral homolog, which serves as the control. The effect is
more obvious in the dorsal germinal plate (arrows).
Dotted lines were added to show boundaries of ganglia
and interganglionic connectives. B,C, Another example,
4 d after ablation of the four adjacent ipsilateral AP cells, of
the difference in outgrowth of control (B) and
experimental (C) AP cells in the dorsal germinal plate (corresponding to the region in A indicated by
arrows). The longitudinal projections of the
experimental AP cell had grown extensively in the dorsal region of the
adjacent segments (panel C), but the lateral
projection had significantly reduced outgrowth in the dorsum of its own
segment (arrow), compared with the contralateral homolog
shown in B (arrow). D,
Quantitative measurements of the arbors of control and experimental AP
cells in the dorsal germinal plate of their own segments. The data,
taken 2 d after ablating either one AP cell located ipsilaterally
in either an anterior or a posterior adjacent ganglion
(left) or both adjacent ipsilateral AP cells
(right), show 35 and 50% reductions in outgrowth,
respectively (asterisks). Anterior is at the
top in panels A-C. Scale bars, 100 µm;
scale bar in C also applies to B.
[View Larger Version of this Image (32K GIF file)]
To get a quantitative assessment of this effect, we made the following
measurement. Because the DP projection of the AP cell in the dorsal
germinal plate forms three first-order branches that are approximately
perpendicular to the shaft of the DP projection, we estimated the total
length of the six first-order branches in units of annular width as a
measure of the amount of outgrowth of the DP projection (Fig. 1
schematic and Materials and Methods). Figure 7D shows that
2 d after either one or both longitudinal projections had grown
into adjacent segments because of the ablation of adjacent homologs,
the total length of the six first-order branches of the DP projection
was significantly shorter in experimental cells than in the controls
(p < 0.005).
In all the cases examined, visual inspection of the dye-stained arbors
gave the impression of an inverse relation between the amount of
outgrowth of the longitudinal projections in adjacent segments and the
extent of reduction of the lateral arbor. Because of the great
difficulty in measuring the size of terminal arbors, however,
especially in the ventral region, we did not confirm this apparent
inverse relationship quantitatively.
DISCUSSION
The observations reported here extend significantly previous
findings on the outgrowth of the AP cell (Gao and Macagno, 1987b
; 1988
). We demonstrate here that the lateral and longitudinal
projections of the AP cell do not grow independently of one another
but, rather, at the expense of each other. Furthermore, our results
show that such competition among the projections of the AP cell plays a critical role in preventing the longitudinal projections from growing
through adjacent ganglia to form permanent arbors in the periphery. We
propose, therefore, that sibling neurite competition is normally a key
component, along with inhibition by the AP homolog (Gao and Macagno,
1987b
), of the process that culminates in the retraction of the AP
longitudinal projections. Mechanisms such as this one may play similar
roles in defining the patterns of neural arborization in other
developing nervous systems.
Sibling projections compete with one another, limiting the growth
of each other
We used four different experimental manipulations to demonstrate
that reducing or eliminating the growth of the lateral projections enhances the growth of the longitudinal projections: (1) cutting both
nerve roots; (2) cutting only the lateral projections of the AP cell in
the two nerve roots, with a laser microbeam; (3) cutting only the
posterior nerve root; and (4) ablating the dorsal P cell (Fig.
8). One interesting observation from all these
manipulations is that the more the outgrowth of the lateral projections
is reduced, the more the outgrowth of the longitudinal projections
increases. In the first three cases in which the lateral projections
were cut (manipulations 1-3), the observed effect was greater
outgrowth of one or both of the longitudinal projections. This
approach, however, leaves open the possibility that the enhanced growth of the longitudinal projections is a consequence of cell damage. Axotomy-induced responses, such as changes in protein synthesis or
increases in excitability (Giulian et al., 1980
; Goldberg and Ambron,
1986
; Simoni et al., 1990
), might also influence the growth of the
longitudinal projections. This concern, however, is allayed by the
results of experiment 4. In this case, there was no damage to the AP
neuron itself, because the reduced growth of the lateral dorsal arbor
was an indirect response to the ablation of the pioneer PD
cell used by the AP cell as a template to construct its dorsal arbor
(Gan and Macagno, 1995b
). Considered together, the results of all four
kinds of experiments suggest strongly that the lateral projections
compete with the longitudinal projections for something required for
neurite outgrowth.
Fig. 8.
Schematic diagrams summarizing the results of the
different types of protocols used in the experiments reported here. In
each case, the circled sign indicates a reduction (
)
or an increase (+) in the arbor of the experimental AP neuron.
A, Cutting both roots or ablating both lateral
projections (
) leads to increased growth of longitudinal projections
(+). B, Cutting the posterior nerve root (
) causes
additional growth of both longitudinal projections (+), but neither of
these grows sufficiently to exit to the periphery through the next
ganglia. C, Ablating the PD cell
(X) that serves as a template reduces the dorsal
arborization of the AP neuron (
) and increases the growth of its
posterior longitudinal projection (+). D, Ablating
ipsilateral homologs (X) results in enhanced growth of the longitudinal projections of an AP cell (+), but a
diminution of its lateral arborization (
).
[View Larger Version of this Image (21K GIF file)]
A final line of experimental evidence supporting this conclusion is
provided by the converse experimental protocol, directly enhancing the
growth of the longitudinal projections instead of perturbing the growth
of the lateral projections. Increasing the growth of the longitudinal
branches by ablating the adjacent homologs leads to a significant
reduction in the growth of the lateral branches. There was no damage to
the AP cell in this experiment, the response to the perturbation being
indirect. All the results we have obtained, therefore, are consistent
with one another and lead to the same conclusion.
The growth of the lateral projections seemed to influence the outgrowth
of the anterior and posterior longitudinal projections differentially.
When both nerve roots were cut, for example, posterior longitudinal
projections showed more extensive growth than did anterior ones 14-15
hr after the surgery. Furthermore, the posterior longitudinal
projections, but not the anterior ones, showed significant growth
relative to controls 4 d after the cutting of the posterior root
at E9-E10 in experiment 3 or 6 d after the ablation of the PD cell in experiment 4. Because posterior longitudinal
projections are physically nearer to the lateral projections than are
anterior longitudinal projections (Fig. 1), these results suggest that closely situated branches may interact more strongly than branches located farther apart.
Competition among different branches of the same neuron has been
proposed in several other systems (Schneider, 1973
; Devor and
Schneider, 1975
; Murphey and Lemere, 1984
; Gan and Macagno, 1995a
). For
instance, when retinal axons in newborn hamsters projected to the
ipsilateral superior colliculus (SC) as well as to the thalamic nucleus
lateralis posterior (LP) after lesions of the contralateral SC, the
greater the amount of terminal arborization found in the SC, the less
was found in the LP (Schneider, 1973
). Recently, we have demonstrated
at the single cell level that different branches of the dorsal P cell
grow at the expense of each other in the periphery (Gan and Macagno,
1995a
). Such interactions among sibling branches may reflect
competition for a limited supply of materials, such as cytoskeletal
elements or other components important for outgrowth, which are
generated at the soma at rates that cannot support extensive growth of
all branches (Schneider, 1973
; Devor and Schneider, 1975
; Smalheiser
and Crain, 1984
).
Competition among sibling branches contributes to
process retraction
The results presented here, along with those of previous work (Gao
and Macagno, 1987b
; Wolszon et al., 1994a
,b
), demonstrate that two
factors are necessary for the eventual retraction of the longitudinal
projections of the AP neurons: (1) competitive interactions among
sibling branches and (2) inhibitory interactions among homologs.
Neither alone is sufficient to ensure retraction, because in the
absence of either factor the longitudinal projections grow through
adjacent ganglia and form permanent peripheral arbors.
How does the retraction of the AP longitudinal projections occur? Our
results indicate that the retraction of the longitudinal projections
happens within a time window of several weeks (Fig. 2). Interestingly,
the longitudinal projections of many AP cells continue to grow in
absolute length after E12, when the joint action of sibling neurite
competition and inhibition by adjacent homologs keeps these projections
from growing out to the periphery. Furthermore, even at the end of
embryogenesis (E30), 8% of the AP longitudinal projections were still
extended into the adjacent ganglia. It seems unlikely, therefore, that
homolog inhibition and sibling neurite competition directly induce the
retraction of the longitudinal projections. It is possible that the
role of inhibition and competition is to prevent the longitudinal
projections from growing into the periphery and other factors
eventually come into play to cause the actual retraction process.
Various extrinsic growth-inhibiting factors, such as a 33 kDa
glycoprotein in retinal tectum (Stahl et al., 1990
), collapsin (Luo et
al., 1993
), myelin-associated protein NI-35 (Schwab et al., 1993
),
netrin-1 (Colamarino and Tessier-Lavigne, 1995
), and several
neurotransmitters (Haydon et al., 1984
; Mattson et al., 1988
; McCobb et
al., 1988
) have been shown either to inhibit axonal outgrowth or to
induce axon retraction in vitro. Recently, it was found that
acetylcholine increased the probability of retraction of one specific
branch of Retzius neurons in a developing glossiphoniid leech (Elsas et
al., 1995
). Similar factors might be involved in triggering the
retraction of AP longitudinal projections within the connective nerve
of the embryonic leech.
Process loss has been observed in many nervous systems or parts
thereof, such as the corpus callosum (Innocenti, 1981
; LaMantia and
Rakic, 1990
), corticospinal projections (Stanfield and O'Leary, 1985
),
horizontal connectional axons of the visual cortex (Callaway and Katz,
1990
), and retinotectal axons (O'Rourke et al., 1994
). Several leech
neurons, other than the AP cell, trim some of their processes as well
(Wallace, 1984
; Glover and Mason, 1986
; Gao and Macagno, 1987a
,b
;
Jellies et al., 1987
; Baptista and Macagno, 1988
; Elsas et al., 1995
).
The selective retraction of some branches generally seems to occur at
the same time as sibling branches are maintained or are growing
extensively. For example, in the medicinal leech, the RPE neurons and
the Retzius neurons of the fifth and sixth body segments retract axonal
branches within the connective nerves as well as within the body wall
when certain peripheral projections innervate reproductive tissues and
begin to arborize extensively. Early ablation of the reproductive
tissue not only eliminates the extensive arborization of those branches that normally innervate the target but also prevents the loss of
sibling axons (Jellies et al., 1987
; Loer et al., 1987
, 1989; Baptista
and Macagno, 1988
). Similarly, horizontal axon collaterals of pyramidal
cells in the cat striate cortex do not connect precisely to the
appropriate target early during development; instead, selective process
elimination occurs later when axon collaterals branch extensively
within the target area (Callaway and Katz, 1990
). Another example is
competition at the neuromuscular junction, where some axonal terminals
are eliminated and their siblings are maintained (Redfern, 1970
;
Balice-Gordon and Lichtman, 1993
). As is the case for the AP neurons,
competition among sibling neurites may contribute to process retraction
in each of these different systems.
FOOTNOTES
Received Nov. 27, 1996; revised March 13, 1997; accepted March 21, 1997.
This work was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation
and National Institutes of Health. We thank Drs. Laura Wolszon,
Beatrice Passani, Wei-Qiang Gao, and Fei-Chi Zhuong for their help and
useful discussions. We also thank Nicholas Necles for assistance with
photographic work.
Correspondence should be addressed to Dr. Eduardo R. Macagno,
Department of Biological Sciences, 1003 Fairchild Building, Columbia
University, New York, NY 10027.
Dr. Gan's present address: Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology,
Washington University School of Medicine, P. O. Box 8108, 660 South
Euclid Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63110.
REFERENCES
-
Balice-Gordon RJ,
Lichtman JW
(1993)
In vivo observations of pre- and postsynaptic changes during the transition from multiple to single innervation at developing neuromuscular junctions.
J Neurosci
13:834-855[Abstract].
-
Baptista CA,
Macagno ER
(1988)
Modulation of the pattern of axonal projections of a leech motor neuron by ablation or transplantation of its target.
Neuron
1:949-962[Web of Science][Medline].
-
Callaway EM,
Katz LC
(1990)
Emergence and refinement of clustered horizontal connections in cat striate cortex.
J Neurosci
10:1134-1153[Abstract].
-
Colamarino SA,
Tessier-Lavigne M
(1995)
The axonal chemoattractant netrin-1 is also a chemorepellent for trochlear motor axons.
Cell
81:621-629[Web of Science][Medline].
-
Colman H,
Lichtman JW
(1993)
Interactions between nerve and muscle: synapse elimination at the developing neuromuscular junction.
Dev Biol
156:1-10[Web of Science][Medline].
-
Devor M,
Schneider G
(1975)
Neuroanatomical plasticity: the principle of conservation of total axonal arborization.
In: Aspects of neural plasticity, Vol 43 (Vital-Durand F,
Jeannerod M,
eds), pp 191-200. Paris: INSERM Colloquia.
-
Elsas SM,
Kwak EM,
Stent GS
(1995)
Acetylcholine-induced retraction of an identified axon in the developing leech embryo.
J Neurosci
15:1419-1436[Abstract].
-
Fernandez J,
Stent GS
(1982)
Embryonic development of the hirudinid leech Hirudo medicinalis: structure, development and segmentation of the germinal plate.
J Embryol Exp Morphol
72:71-96[Web of Science][Medline].
-
Gan WB,
Macagno ER
(1995a)
Interactions between segmental homologues and between isoneuronal branches guide the formation of sensory terminal fields.
J Neurosci
15:3243-3253[Abstract].
-
Gan WB,
Macagno ER
(1995b)
Developing neurons use a putative pioneer's peripheral arbor to establish their terminal fields.
J Neurosci
15:3254-3262[Abstract].
-
Gao WQ,
Macagno ER
(1987a)
Extension and retraction of axonal projections by some developing neruons in the leech depends upon the existence of neighboring homologues. I. The HA cells. J.
Neurobiol
18:43-59.
-
Gao WQ,
Macagno ER
(1987b)
Extension and retraction of axonal projections by some developing neurons in the leech depends upon the existence of neighboring homologues. II. The AP and AE cells.
J Neurobiol
18:295-313[Web of Science][Medline].
-
Gao WQ,
Macagno ER
(1988)
Axon extension and retraction by leech neurons: severing early projections to peripheral targets prevents normal retraction of other projections.
Neuron
1:269-277[Web of Science][Medline].
-
Giulian D,
Des Ruisseaux H,
Cowburn D
(1980)
Biosynthesis and intra-axonal transport of proteins during neuronal regeneration.
J Biol Chem
255:6494-6501[Free Full Text].
-
Glover JC,
Mason A
(1986)
Morphogenesis of an identified leech neuron: segmental specification of axonal outgrowth.
Dev Biol
115:256-260[Web of Science][Medline].
-
Goldberg DJ,
Ambron RT
(1986)
Consequences of partial axotomy for production of neurotransmitter vesicles and routing of rapidly transported membrane glycoproteins in the axonal tree.
J Neurosci
6:1712-1718[Abstract].
-
Goldberg DJ,
Schacher SE
(1987)
Differential growth of the branches of a regenerating bifurcate axon is associated with differential axonal transport of organelles.
Dev Biol
124:35-40[Web of Science][Medline].
-
Haydon PG,
McCobb DP,
Kater SB
(1984)
Serotonin selectively inhibits growth cone motility and synaptogenesis of specific identified neurons.
Science
226:561-564[Abstract/Free Full Text].
-
Innocenti GM
(1981)
Growth and reshaping of axons in the establishment of visual callosal connections.
Science
212:824-827[Abstract/Free Full Text].
-
Jellies J,
Loer CM,
Kristan WB
(1987)
Morphological changes in leech Retzius neurons after target contact during embryogenesis.
J Neurosci
7:2618-2629[Abstract].
-
LaMantia AS,
Rakic P
(1990)
Axon overproduction and elimination in the corpus callosum of the developing Rhesus monkey.
J Neurosci
10:2156-2157[Abstract].
-
Land PW,
Lund RD
(1979)
Development of the rat's uncrossed retinotectal pathway and its relation to plasticity studies.
Science
205:698-700[Abstract/Free Full Text].
-
LeVay S,
Stryker MP,
Shatz CJ
(1978)
Ocular dominance columns and their development in layer IV of the cat's visual cortex: a quantitative study.
J Comp Neurol
179:223-244[Web of Science][Medline].
-
LeVay S,
Wiesel TN,
Hubel DH
(1980)
The development of ocular dominance columns in normal and visually deprived monkeys.
J Comp Neurol
191:1-51[Web of Science][Medline].
-
Loer CM,
Jellies J,
Kristan WB
(1987)
Segment-specific morphogenesis of leech Retzius neurons requires particular peripheral targets.
J Neurosci
7:2630-2638[Abstract].
-
Loer CM,
Kristan WB
(1989)
Peripheral target choice by homologous neurons during embryogenesis of the medicinal leech. I. Segment-specific preferences of Retzius cells.
J Neurosci
9:513-527[Abstract].
-
Luo Y,
Raible D,
Raper JA
(1993)
Collapsin: a protein in brain that induces the collapse and paralysis of neuronal growth cones.
Cell
75:217-227[Web of Science][Medline].
-
Mattson MP,
Dou P,
Kater SB
(1988)
Outgrowth regulating actions of glutamate in isolated hippocampal pyramidal neurons.
J Neurosci
8:2087-2100[Abstract].
-
McCobb DP,
Cohen CS,
Connor JA,
Kater SB
(1988)
Interactive effects of serotonin and acetylcholine on neurite elongation.
Neuron
1:377-385[Web of Science][Medline].
-
McLoon SC
(1982)
Alteration in precision of the crossed retinotectal projection during chick development.
Science
215:1418-1420[Abstract/Free Full Text].
-
Murphey RK,
Lemere CA
(1984)
Competition controls the growth of an identified axonal arborization.
Science
224:1352-1355[Abstract/Free Full Text].
-
O'Leary DDM,
Stanfield BB,
Cowan WM
(1981)
Evidence that the early postnatal restriction of the cells of origin of the corpus callosal projections is due to the elimination of axon collaterals rather than to the death of neurons.
Dev Brain Res
1:607-617.
-
O'Leary DDM
(1992)
Development of connectional diversity and specificity in the mammalian brain by the pruning of collateral projections.
Curr Opin Neurobiol
2:70-77[Medline].
-
O'Rourke NA,
Cline HT,
Fraser SE
(1994)
Rapid remodeling of retinal arbors in the tectum with and without blockade of synaptic transmission.
Neuron
12:921-934[Web of Science][Medline].
-
Redfern PA
(1970)
Neuromuscular transmission in new-born rats.
J Physiol (Lond)
209:701-709[Abstract/Free Full Text].
-
Schneider G
(1973)
Early lesions of superior colliculus: factors affecting the formation of abnormal retinal projections.
Brain Behav Evol
8:73-109[Web of Science][Medline].
-
Schwab ME,
Kapfhammer JP,
Bandtlow CE
(1993)
Inhibitors of neurite growth.
Annu Rev Neurosci
16:565-595[Web of Science][Medline].
-
Simoni A,
Pellegrini M,
Cecconi C,
Pellegrino M
(1990)
Axotomy affects density but not properties of potassium leak channels, in the leech AP neurons.
Brain Res
522:118-124[Web of Science][Medline].
-
Smalheiser NR,
Crain SM
(1984)
The possible role of "sibling neurite bias" in the coordination of neurite extension, branching, and survival.
J Neurobiol
15:517-529[Web of Science][Medline].
-
Stahl B,
Müller B,
von Boxberg Y,
Cox EC,
Bonhoeffer F
(1990)
Biochemical characterization of a putative axonal guidance molecule of the chick visual system.
Neuron
5:735-743[Web of Science][Medline].
-
Stanfield BB,
O'Leary DDM
(1985)
The transient corticospinal projection from the occipital cortex during the postnatal development of the rat.
J Com Neurol
238:236-248[Web of Science][Medline].
-
Wallace BG
(1984)
Selective loss of neurite during differentiation of cells in the leech central nervous system.
J Comp Neurol
228:149-153[Web of Science][Medline].
-
Wolszon LR,
Gao WQ,
Passani MB,
Macagno ER
(1994a)
Growth cone "collapse" in vivo: are inhibitory interactions mediated by gap junctions?
J Neurosci
14:999-1010[Abstract].
-
Wolszon LR,
Rehder V,
Kater SB,
Macagno ER
(1994b)
Calcium wave fronts that cross gap junctions may signal neuronal death during development.
J Neurosci
14:3437-3448[Abstract].
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
A. Mizrahi and F. Libersat
Synaptic Reorganization Induced by Selective Photoablation of an Identified Neuron
J. Neurosci.,
December 1, 2001;
21(23):
9280 - 9290.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
G. Ruthel and P. J. Hollenbeck
Growth Cones Are Not Required for Initial Establishment of Polarity or Differential Axon Branch Growth in Cultured Hippocampal Neurons
J. Neurosci.,
March 15, 2000;
20(6):
2266 - 2274.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|