Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T06:51:23.182Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Using comparative anatomy in the axotomy model to identify distinct roles for microglia and astrocytes in synaptic stripping

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2012

Shozo Jinno*
Affiliation:
Department of Developmental Molecular Anatomy, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan
Jun Yamada
Affiliation:
Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: Shozo Jinno, Department of Developmental Molecular Anatomy, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka 812-8582, Japan phone: 81-92-642-6051 fax: 81-92-642-6202 email: sjnno@med.kyushu-u.ac.jp
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The synaptic terminals' withdrawal from the somata and proximal dendrites of injured motoneuron by the processes of glial cells following facial nerve axotomy has been the subject of research for many years. This phenomenon is referred to as synaptic stripping, which is assumed to help survival and regeneration of neurons via reduction of synaptic inputs. Because there is no disruption of the blood–brain barrier or infiltration of macrophages, the axotomy paradigm has the advantage of being able to selectively investigate the roles of resident glial cells in the brain. Although there have been numerous studies of synaptic stripping, the detailed mechanisms are still under debate. Here we suggest that the species and strain differences that are often present in previous work might be related to the current controversies of axotomy studies. For instance, the survival ratios of axotomized neurons were generally found to be higher in rats than in mice. However, some studies have used the axotomy paradigm to follow the glial reactions and did not assess variations in neuronal viability. In the first part of this article, we summarize and discuss the current knowledge on species and strain differences in neuronal survival, glial augmentation and synaptic stripping. In the second part, we focus on our recent findings, which show the differential involvement of microglia and astrocytes in synaptic stripping and neuronal survival. This article suggests that the comparative study of the axotomy paradigm across various species and strains may provide many important and unexpected discoveries on the multifaceted roles of microglia and astrocytes in injury and repair.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011
Figure 0

Table 1. Species and strain differences in survival rates of neurons after axotomy.

Figure 1

Table 2. Species and strain differences in microglial and astrocyte proliferation after axotomy.

Figure 2

Table 3. Species and strain differences in microglial and astrocytic synaptic stripping after axotomy.

Figure 3

Fig. 1. Species differences in synaptic transmission and microglial reaction after DMV nerve axotomy. (A) The spontaneous EPSCs recorded from the lesioned DMV neurons in rats (open circles) and in mice (filled circles). (B) The areal density of synaptophysin-positive puncta in the lesioned DMV in rats and in mice. (C) The areal density of Iba-1-positive microglial processes in the lesioned DMV in rats and in mice. (D) The microglial coverage ratio of perikarya in the lesioned DMV in rats and in mice. Horizontal bars (open bar = rat; filled bar = mouse) at the upper-level of each graph show statistical significances between sham-operated and axotomized animals. Asterisks show statistically significant differences between rats and mice, **P < 0.01. Modified and reproduced from Yamada et al. (2008), with permission of the publisher.

Figure 4

Fig. 2. Species differences in glial reactions in the synaptic and extrasynaptic environment after hypoglossal nerve axotomy. (A) Synaptophysin crossing lines are classified into S-type, A-type and M-type. (B–D) Axotomy-induced alterations in the fractions of S-type (B), A-type (C) and M-type (D) in rats (open circles) and in mice (filled circles). (E) Synaptophysin-avoiding lines are classified into EA-type, EM-type and unclassified. (F–G) Axotomy-induced alterations in the fractions of unclassified type (F), EA-type (G) and EM-type (H) in rats and mice. Horizontal bars (open bar = rat; filled bar = mouse) at the upper-level of each graph show statistical significances between sham-operated and axotomized animals. Asterisks show statistically significant differences between rats and mice, *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01. Modified and reproduced from Yamada et al. (2011), with permission of the publisher.