Abstract
Integration of inputs by a neuron depends on dendritic arborization patterns. In mammals, the genetic programs that regulate dynamic remodeling of dendrites during development and in response to activity are incompletely understood. Here we report that knockdown of the transcription factor Sp4 led to an increased number of highly branched dendrites during maturation of cerebellar granule neurons in dissociated cultures and in cerebellar cortex. Time-course analysis revealed that depletion of Sp4 led to persistent generation of dendritic branches and a failure in resorption of transient dendrites. Depolarization induced a reduction in the number of dendrites, and knockdown of Sp4 blocked depolarization-induced remodeling. Furthermore, overexpression of Sp4 wild type, but not a mutant lacking the DNA-binding domain, was sufficient to promote dendritic pruning in nondepolarizing conditions. These findings indicate that the transcription factor Sp4 controls dendritic patterning during cerebellar development by limiting branch formation and promoting activity-dependent pruning.
Keywords: branching, dendrite, depolarization, pruning, neuron
The nervous system is a complex and well coordinated network that depends on the formation of proper connections among diverse types of neurons. Dendritic arborization patterns determine the way a neuron integrates inputs. Defects in dendritic patterning correlate with severe neurodevelopmental disorders (1–3). Although proper dendritic arborizations are crucial for correct function of the nervous system, the genetic programs that govern dendritic morphology in mammals remain poorly described. Dendritic development is a highly dynamic process that involves many events, including neurite outgrowth, branching, stabilization, and pruning of dendrites (4–6). There is a delicate balance between addition and elimination of neuronal projections (7, 8). During development, transient overproduction of branched dendrites appears in most neurons, after which some neurites are eliminated, whereas other neurites are stabilized to achieve the mature pattern (9–11). Recent studies have described intracellular signaling pathways that operate locally to regulate cytoskeletal elements important for branch formation or elimination (12–14).
Extrinsic factors are coordinated with cell-intrinsic, gene expression programs to determine dendritic morphology. Genetic studies in Drosophila and Caenorhabditis elegans have identified transcription factors that regulate diverse aspects of dendritic morphology (15–18). Transcriptional control of the fine balance between formation and elimination of processes is illustrated by the finding that, in Drosophila, the homeodomain protein, Cut, promotes branching, whereas the BTB/POZ Zinc finger transcription, Abrupt, limits branch formation (18, 19). In mammals, the transcriptional regulators CREB, NeuroD, and CREST have been identified to promote dendritic growth and branching (20–23). Transcriptional regulators that balance these activities to restrict dendritic branching and promote pruning have not been previously described in mammals.
The Zinc finger transcription factor Sp4 is highly expressed in the developing mammalian brain (24, 25). The highly related Sp1, Sp3, and Sp4 transcription factors bind to a GC box DNA element important for the regulation of genes that control diverse cellular functions (26, 27). In contrast to Sp1 and Sp3, which are ubiquitously expressed, Sp4 is enriched in heart and skeletal muscle, with the highest levels in the brain (24, 28). Sp4 expression in both cardiomyogenic and neural crest lineages has been found to be important for development of the cardiac conduction system; however, the role of Sp4 in nervous system development remains to be elucidated (24, 28–30).
In the nervous system, Sp4 mRNA is highly expressed in the developing hippocampus and cerebellum, in particular, in cerebellar granule neurons (25). Dendritic development in cerebellar granule neurons occurs postnatally after these cells have migrated to their final positions in the internal granule layer. Several stages in the development of mature dendritic arbors have been described in granule neurons. In particular, some intermediate stages show exuberant dendritic arbors, which are later remodeled to reach their mature pattern (9, 31, 32). Many of the stages of cerebellar granule neuron development, including neuronal polarity and dendritic growth, are faithfully recapitulated in culture, which make them a reliable system to study neuronal morphogenesis (20, 33–35).
We have used cerebellar granule neurons as our experimental model to investigate the role of Sp4 in postmitotic neurons. We have found that depletion of Sp4 from granule neurons using RNA-mediated interference (RNAi) disrupted dendritric patterning by promoting persistent branching and impairing dendritic pruning. We report that depolarization induced a significant reduction in the number of primary and secondary dendrites, and knockdown of Sp4 blocked depolarization-induced dendritic remodeling. Furthermore, overexpression of Sp4 wild type, but not a mutant lacking the DNA-binding domain, was sufficient to restore dendritic pruning in nondepolarizing conditions. Our results indicate that Sp4 limits branching and is required for activity-dependent dendritic pruning during cerebellar development.
Results
Knockdown of Sp4 Leads to Exuberant Dendritic Arborization in Cerebellar Granule Neurons.
To investigate the function of Sp4 in postmitotic neurons, we used RNAi to knock down Sp4 in cerebellar granule neurons. This approach allows us to examine the effects of Sp4 loss of function during a late developmental window in postmitotic cells and avoids potential complications due to Sp4 functions in progenitor or neighboring cells, as well as compensatory mechanisms that may act during ontogeny. Morphogenesis of cerebellar granule neurons has been faithfully recapitulated in vitro under depolarizing culture conditions, which support maximal health and survival of rat cerebellar granule neurons; we have used these culture conditions in our analysis (36–38). We generated plasmids encoding two different short hairpin RNAs that specifically reduced expression of cotransfected FlagSp4 in Neuro 2A cells (Fig. 1A) and endogenous nuclear Sp4 protein in cerebellar granule neurons [Fig. 1B and supporting information (SI) Fig. 7]. There was no increase in apoptosis in granule neurons transfected with either Sp4 RNAi or control as judged by the appearance of condensed chromatin 5 days after transfection (Fig. 1B and data not shown).
Fig. 1.
Knockdown of Sp4 transcription factor alters dendritic patterning in cerebellar granule neurons. (A) Lysates from Neuro 2A cells cotransfected with the indicated RNAi plasmid or empty vector, together with pRC-Flag-Sp4 or pRC/CMV (Vec) and GFP, were immunoblotted with antibodies against Flag and GFP. (B) Cerebellar granule neurons transfected with Scr control RNAi or the indicated RNAi targeting Sp4 and an expression plasmid encoding GFP at 2 DIV were immunostained with antibodies against GFP and Sp4 5 days posttransfection. Nuclei were stained with Hoechst. Arrowheads indicate the nucleus of a transfected neuron. (C–E) Cerebellar granule neurons were transfected as indicated in B and immunostained for GFP. (C) Representative images of neurons transfected with different RNAi constructs. Arrowhead indicates axon and asterisk cell bodies of transfected neuron, respectively. Total number of primary, secondary, and tertiary dendrites (D) or branching points in primary dendrites (E) was quantified. Values represent mean ± SEM (ANOVA; ∗∗∗, P < 0.001; ∗∗, P < 0.01; n = 18–41 per condition, total n = 115). For each parameter measured, neurons transfected with Scr control RNAi did not show differences compared with U6 vector alone.
Strikingly, we found that the dendritic morphology of neurons transfected with either of the two Sp4 RNAis was highly aberrant compared with neurons transfected with a control hairpin or RNAi for the related transcription factor Sp1 (Fig. 1C and SI Fig. 8). Immunostaining of cerebellar granule neurons for the axonal tau-1 or dendritic Map-2 proteins revealed that the major alteration in granule cells depleted for Sp4 was in the dendrites (SI Fig. 7 B and C).
We quantified the changes in dendritic patterning by counting the number of primary, secondary, and tertiary dendrites per neuron. Both Sp4 RNAi constructs increased the number of dendrites at least 2-fold compared to control-transfected neurons (Fig. 1D). The frequency of branch points on the shaft of a primary dendrite for neurons depleted of Sp4 was 3- to 4-fold higher than control-transfected neurons, supporting the observation that Sp4 knockdown neurons have more complex dendritic arbors (Fig. 1E). Total dendritic length was not significantly affected after knocking down Sp4 (SI Fig. 8B). Similarly, total axonal growth was not reduced after depletion of Sp4 (data not shown). Thus, depletion of Sp4 led to altered dendritic patterning, but did not compromise the growth of neuronal processes.
To confirm that the observed exuberant dendritic arborization was due specifically to the depletion of Sp4 and not because of nonspecific off-target effects of the RNAi pathway, we generated a Flag-Sp4 “rescue” vector bearing two silent point mutations in the Sp4 cDNA that was resistant to RNAi-mediated knockdown (Fig. 2A). When the the Flag-Sp4 rescue vector was cotransfected with the Sp4RNAi into granule neurons, the numbers of dendrites were completely restored to wild-type levels (Fig. 2B). Taken together, these data show that the more complex dendritic arbors induced by Sp4 RNAi are the result of specific depletion of Sp4.
Fig. 2.
RNAi-resistant Sp4 rescues the altered dendritic patterning induced by Sp4 knockdown. (A) Lysates from Neuro 2A cells cotransfected with U6/Scr or U6/Sp4 #1 RNAi plasmid, together with an expression vector encoding an RNAi-resistant Sp4 protein (Sp4 Rescue) or pRC/CMV vector (Vec) and an expression vector encoding GFP, were immunoblotted with the indicated antisera. (B) Cerebellar granule neurons were analyzed after transfection with U6/Scr or U6/Sp4 #1 RNAi plasmid, together with an expression vector encoding GFP and RNAi-resistant Sp4 Rescue or pRC/CMV vector, as described in Fig. 1. Values represent mean ± SEM of number of primary, secondary, or tertiary dendrites per neuron (ANOVA; ∗∗∗, P < 0.001; ∗∗, P < 0.01; n = 16–21 per condition, total n = 79).
Sp4 Is Required for Dendritic Maturation of Granule Neurons in Cerebellar Cortex.
The finding that depletion of Sp4 leads to more complex dendritic trees in primary granule neurons led us to investigate Sp4 function in dendritic development in the context of the cerebellum cortex. We used sagittal cerebellar slices maintained in nondepolarizing concentrations of potassium, where tissue is preserved and dendrites develop their physiological morphology (20, 35). We introduced the control, Sp4, or Sp1 RNAi constructs into cerebellar slices using biolistic method of gene delivery. We confirmed that tissue structure was intact by staining with the DNA dye Hoechst (Fig. 3A). Control-transfected granule neurons displayed mature dendritic arbors with two or three robust primary dendrites with few branches (Fig. 3A). Neurons depleted of Sp4 exhibited exuberant dendritic trees, with more numerous and highly branched dendrites around the soma compared with control Scr or Sp1 RNAi-transfected neurons (Fig. 3B). The appearance of Sp4 knockdown neurons closely resembled classic descriptions of granule neurons at an intermediate stage of dendritic maturation, exhibiting numerous, highly branched, primary dendrites that are later remodeled (9, 31). Quantitative analysis confirmed that Sp4 knockdown led to an increase in the number of dendrites and the frequency of branching compared to control and Sp1 RNAi, consistent with the phenotype observed in dissociated primary neurons (Fig. 3 C and D). Taken together, these results suggest that Sp4 contributes to dendritic patterning by controlling remodeling and/or restricting branching associated with maturation of cerebellar granule neurons.
Fig. 3.
Sp4 is required for dendritic maturation in intact cerebellar cortex. Organotypic cerebellar slices from P9 rat pups were transfected after 3 days in culture using gene gun-delivery methodology with U6/Scr, U6/Sp4 #1, or U6/Sp1 RNAi plasmids, together with expression vectors encoding Bcl-xL and GFP. After 5 days, slices were fixed and immunostained with a monoclonal antibody against GFP. (A) Image shows layers of cerebellar cortex stained with Hoechst 33258 (Upper) and a representative cerebellar granule neuron (Lower). Arrowhead indicates axon, and asterisk indicates cell bodies of transfected neuron. (Scale bar: 10 μm.) (B) Representative images of cerebellar granule neurons transfected in slice with the indicated plasmids. Arrowhead indicates axon, and asterisk indicates cell bodies of transfected neuron. (C and D) Quantification of the number of primary, secondary, and tertiary dendrites (C) and branching points in 100 μm of a primary dendritic shaft (D). Values represent mean ± SEM (ANOVA; ∗∗∗, P < 0.001; ∗∗, P < 0.01; n = 104–136 neurons per condition, total n = 352). For each parameter measured, neurons transfected with Scr control RNAi did not show differences compared with U6 vector alone.
Sp4 Knockdown Impairs Dendritic Pruning and Leads to Persistent Branching.
Dendritic development involves highly dynamic and choreographed events, including the formation and elimination of primary dendrites and branches (4–6, 39). To determine the steps of dendritic development controlled by Sp4, we performed a time-course analysis. We transfected primary cerebellar granule neurons with control or Sp4 RNAi and monitored the number of primary and secondary dendrites over time. Consistent with the pruning that occurs during development in vivo, as described by Ramon y Cajal and others (9, 31), in control neurons, we observed a decrease in the number of dendrites from day 4 to day 6 in vitro. In contrast, pruning of dendrites was blocked in neurons depleted for Sp4 (Fig. 4 A–C and SI Fig. 9). In fact, we observed that the addition of branches was persistent in Sp4 RNAi-transfected neurons, thereby accumulating more than twice as many branches and resulting in a 4-fold increase of branching points compared to control neurons (Fig. 4 C and D). Total dendritic length was not affected on depletion of Sp4 (SI Fig. 9B). These studies reveal that Sp4 is required for pruning and limiting branching during dendritic maturation.
Fig. 4.
Sp4 is required for dendritic remodeling and limiting branching during morphogenesis. Cerebellar granule neurons were transfected after 2 DIV with U6/Scr or U6/Sp4 #1 RNAi plasmid and an expression vector encoding GFP, inmunostained and analyzed as in Fig. 1. (A) Representative images of transfected neurons at the indicated DIV. Arrowhead indicates axon and, asterisk cell body of transfected neuron. (B–D) Quantitation of the number of primary dendrites (B), secondary dendrites (C), and total branching points per 100 μm of primary dendritic shaft (D) were performed in neurons transfected with U6/Scr or Sp4 RNAi at the indicated times (ANOVA comparing with U6/Scr control or Sp4 RNAi vector-transfected neurons after 3 days; ∗∗∗, P < 0.001; ∗∗, P < 0.01; ∗, P < 0.05; n = 33–69 per condition, total n = 344 neurons). Values represent mean ± SEM.
Sp4 Is Required for Dendritic Remodeling Regulated by Neuronal Activity.
It has been observed that maturation of cerebellar granule neurons in vivo is concomitant with the arrival of mossy fibers, raising the possibility that dendritic remodeling in these cells is regulated by neuronal activity, as shown in many other types of neurons (9, 40–44). We therefore investigated, first, whether depolarization regulates remodeling in cerebellar granule neurons, and, second, whether Sp4 contributes to activity-dependent remodeling in these cells. Neurons transfected with GFP were maintained in conditioned medium with 25 mM potassium up to 4 days in vitro (DIV) to allow dendritic growth and branching. Then granule neurons were switched to fresh medium containing depolarizing (25 mM) or nondepolarizing (5 mM) concentrations of KCl for 3 days. A vector expressing BclxL was included in these studies to prevent apoptosis induced by low potassium (38). At 4 DIV, we observed complex dendritic trees, which were remodeled to simpler arbors when neurons were maintained in high potassium concentrations for the next 3 days (Fig. 5A). When switched to nondepolarizing media, however, dendrites were not pruned, showing more complex trees (Fig. 5A and SI Fig. 10). Quantitation revealed a significant reduction of dendrites under depolarizing concentrations of potassium, whereas the number of dendrites was maintained in nondepolarizing conditions (Fig. 5B). Consistent with these findings, pharmacological inhibition of l-type voltage-sensitive calcium channels (l-VSCC) with nimodipine in cerebellar slices from P9 pups delayed dendritic pruning (SI Fig. 11). Thus, dendritic remodeling in cerebellar granule neurons is regulated by depolarization and voltage-sensitive calcium channels.
Fig. 5.
Sp4 is essential for dendritic remodeling regulated by depolarization in cerebellar granule neurons. Cerebellar granule neurons were transfected with the indicated RNAi plasmid, together with expression vectors encoding GFP and Bcl-xL to prevent cell death. At 4 DIV, cerebellar granule neurons maintained in conditioned media (COND) with 25 mM KCl were switched to fresh culture medium containing 25 mM or 5 mM KCl. At the indicated DIV, cells were immunostained as described above. (A) Representative images of transfected neurons at 4 DIV in conditioned medium with 25 mM KCl (Left), and at 6 DIV in fresh culture medium with 25 mM KCl (Middle) or 5 mM KCl (Right). Arrowhead indicates axon, asterisk indicates cell body, and arrows indicate primary dendrites of transfected neuron. (B and C) Quantitation of the number of primary and secondary dendrites per neuron was performed in neurons transfected and maintained as described above at the indicated times (B) or at 7 DIV (C) [ANOVA analysis comparing to transfected neurons at 4 DIV; ∗∗∗, P < 0.001; ∗∗, P < 0.01; ∗, P < 0.05; n = 18–40 per condition, total n = 321 (B); n = 18–20 per condition, total n = 79 (C)]. Values represent mean ± SEM. In C, the indicated P values (> 0.05) as determined by two-tailed t test are not considered significant.
We next induced knockdown of Sp4 in neurons maintained in depolarizing or nondepolarizing conditions to investigate the contribution of Sp4 function to activity-dependent remodeling. In control RNAi-transfected neurons, the number of dendrites was reduced in neurons maintained in depolarizing compared to nondepolarizing conditions (Fig. 5C). In contrast, in neurons depleted of Sp4, there was not a significant difference in the number of dendrites on membrane depolarization (Fig. 5C). Thus, Sp4 knockdown blocked depolarization-induced remodeling. These findings support the conclusion that Sp4 is required for activity-dependent remodeling in cerebellar granule neurons.
Overexpression of Sp4 Promotes Dendritic Pruning in Nondepolarizing Conditions.
To investigate the contribution of Sp4 transcriptional activity to activity-dependent dendritic pruning, we generated a deletion mutant of Sp4 lacking the Zinc finger DNA-binding domain (Sp4 ΔZnF). Wild-type Sp4, but not Sp4ΔZnF, activated expression of a cotransfected Sp4-responsive reporter, p35-luciferase (45) (Fig. 6A). Transfection with wild-type Sp4 led to a significant decrease in the number of dendrites in granule neurons maintained in nondepolarizing conditions (Fig. 6B). In contrast, expression of transcriptionally inactive Sp4ΔZnF did not lead to a change in dendrite number (Fig. 6B). These results demonstrate that high levels of Sp4 are sufficient to promote dendritic pruning in these cells when calcium signaling is blocked, and, furthermore, transcriptional activity of Sp4 is required to promote elimination of dendrites during the development of cerebellar granule neurons.
Fig. 6.
Overexpression of Sp4 promotes dendritic pruning in nondepolarizing conditions. Neuro 2A cells (A) or granule neurons at 2 DIV (B) cells were transfected with expression vectors encoding full-length FlagSp4 (Sp4), a deletion mutant of FlagSp4 lacking the Zinc finger DNA-binding domain (Sp4ΔZnF) or empty vector (Vec) together with GFP and Bcl-xL (A). The figure illustrates domains in full-length Sp4 and the Sp4ΔZnF deletion mutant. AD, activation domain; S/T, serine/threonine-rich region. Relative luciferase activity after cotransfection of the indicated expression vectors, together with a p35-promoter luciferase reporter plasmid and pRL-TK renilla reporter, are shown. Values represent mean ± SE. Immunoblot analysis with anti-flag antisera confirmed that the inactive Sp4ΔZnF protein was expressed (data not shown). (B) At 4 DIV, neurons were switched to fresh medium with 5 mM or 25 mM KCl. Quantitation of primary and secondary dendrites per neuron was performed in neurons at 6 DIV. Values represent mean ± SEM (ANOVA analysis comparing to control-transfected neurons in depolarizing conditions; a two-tailed t test was also performed to compare differences between two different conditions; ∗∗∗, P < 0.001; ∗∗, P < 0.01; ∗, P < 0.05; n = 21–50 per condition, total n = 154).
Discussion
In this study, we identified a function of the transcription factor Sp4 in specifying proper dendritic patterning in the developing cerebellum. Dendritic development involves the coordination of several events, including growth, branching, and pruning (reviewed in refs. 4–6). We report that knockdown of Sp4 leads to highly complex dendritic arborizations of granule neurons in dissociated culture and in cerebellar cortex (Figs. 1 and 3). Increased complexity when Sp4 is depleted is because of both a persistent generation of secondary dendrites (Fig. 4C) and a failure of pruning both primary and secondary dendrites during later stages of dendritic development (Fig. 4 B and C). Consistent with an essential role of Sp4 in regulating dendritic pruning during development, we have observed that Sp4 protein levels peak in the cerebellum 2 weeks after birth, concomitant with the time of dendritic maturation in vivo (data not shown). Together these experiments support the hypothesis that Sp4 promotes the transition from complex to simple dendritic trees during maturation of cerebellar granule neurons.
We also observed that remodeling of dendrites during development of cerebellar granule neurons is regulated by depolarization in dissociated cultures and by l-VSCC in cerebellar cortex (Fig. 5 and SI Fig. 11). Depolarization-induced dendritic pruning was blocked when Sp4 was depleted (Fig. 5). Overexpression of wild-type Sp4, but not a mutant lacking the DNA-binding domain, promoted dendritic pruning in nondepolarizing conditions, revealing that high levels of Sp4 are sufficient to promote remodeling in developing cerebellar granule neurons, and transcriptional activity of Sp4 is required for this process (Fig. 6B). Notably, we did not observe a reduction in dendrite number when Sp4 was overexpressed in depolarizing conditions (data not shown), consistent with the idea that other factors act to stabilize some dendrites and limit the extent of pruning. Thus, these studies demonstrate that the transcription factor Sp4 is essential for activity-dependent remodeling during cerebellar development. Activity-dependent signaling pathways have been shown to regulate several transcription factors (20–22); it remains to be determined how Sp4 activity is coupled to calcium signaling pathways that regulate dendritic morphology.
Recent studies in both vertebrates and invertebrates highlight the important role of cell-intrinsic genetic programs in controlling diverse aspects of dendritic morphology. Previous studies in the mammalian nervous system have identified transcription factors that function to induce dendritic growth and branching, but transcription factors that act to balance these activities by restricting branching and/or promoting pruning have previously been described only in invertebrates (17, 19–21). Our analysis of Sp4 function in dendritic maturation provides evidence of a genetic program controlling limiting of branching and activity-dependent pruning in the mammalian nervous system. Understanding how opposing transcriptional programs are coordinated to balance growth, elimination, and maintenance of neurites during development is an exciting new area of investigation.
Aberrant dendritic patterning is associated with neurological disorders and defects in learning and memory (2, 3, 46). Sp4 knockout mice exhibit pleiotropic phenotypes, including high mortality in the first postnatal month, which has complicated cellular and behavorial analyses in these animals (24, 28, 47, 48). Interestingly, viable mice with significantly reduced expression of Sp4 exhibit memory defects characteristic of neuropsychiatric disorders (48). Sp4 is highly expressed in many regions of the developing brain, and it is likely that Sp4 contributes to diverse aspects of neuronal development dependent on cellular and developmental context, as shown for Sp4 function in the developing heart (28). Consistent with this idea, reduced cell proliferation was observed in hippocampus, but not cerebellum of Sp4 knockout mice (49). Sp4 continues to be expressed in the adult brain, raising the possibility that Sp4 may regulate dynamic changes in dendritic patterning in response to synaptic activity in the mature nervous system.
Our findings indicate that the Zinc finger transcription factor Sp4 contributes to the simple arborization pattern characteristic of mature cerebellar granule neurons. Dendritic arborization patterns are the result of tightly controlled addition and elimination of neurites and branches. Despite recent progress, knowledge of the proteins and signaling pathways whose coordinated activity determines final dendritic arborization patterns remains incomplete (7, 14, 44, 50). We propose that the transcription factor Sp4 regulates a gene expression program essential for proper dendritic patterning. Identification of target genes that act downstream of Sp4 to limit dendritic branching and promote pruning will provide additional insight into the pathways that control dendritic morphogenesis.
Materials and Methods
Plasmids.
Flag-Sp4 and Flag-Sp1 were expressed from the CMV promoter in pRC-Flag-Sp4 and pRC-Flag-Sp1. Short hairpin RNAs were expressed from the U6 promoter in pBSSK (51). Sequences targeted by the short hairpin RNAs were: Scrambled Sp3 control (gggaattaatatgcacacaggcc), Sp4 #1 nucleotides 1551– 1571 (gggctccaactttaacacctt), Sp4 #2 nucleotides 1804–1824 (gggtgctgcgggtgttcaagt), and Sp1 nucleotides 881–901 (gggaacatcaccttgctacct) [accession nos. NM 003112 (Sp4) and XM 028606 (Sp1)]. Silent mutations resistant to Sp4 RNAi hairpin #1 were introduced into Flag-Sp4 by PCR, and nucleotides were mutated to gggctccaacACtaacacctt. The Sp4ΔZnF mutant was generated by an inframe deletion of Sp4 amino acids 625–775. The reporter plasmid containing p35 promoter sequence −467 upstream of the luciferase gene has been described (45).
Cell Culture and Transfection.
Cerebellar granule neurons were obtained from postnatal day 6 rat pups as described (52). Briefly, neurons were maintained in BMEM supplemented with 10% FCS, 25 mM KCl, penicillin (50 units per ml), streptomycin (50 μg/ml), and 2 mM glutamine at 4.2 × 103 cells per mm2 density. After 18 h, 10 μM cytosine arabinofuranoside was added. Cells were transfected by calcium phosphate precipitation at DIV 2 as described (37). In some experiments, cerebellar granule neurons were switched to BEM with 5 mM KCl or 25 mM KCl 2 days after transfection. Where indicated, a vector expressing the antiapoptotic protein Bcl-xL was included.
Neuro2A cells were plated at 3.6 × 104 cells per cm2 24 h before transfection with Lipofectamine (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA). The ratio of Flag-Sp4 vector and U6/RNAi hairpin vector was 1:5. Relative luciferase assays were performed as indicated by the manufacturer (Promega, Madison, WI).
Cerebellar Slice Cultures and Transfection.
Slice cultures and transfections were done as described (20). Briefly, cerebella from postnatal day 9 rats were cut sagitally into 400-μm sections, transferred onto a porous membrane (Millipore Corporation, Billerica, CA), and maintained in α-MEM medium (5 mM KCl) supplemented with 12.5 mM Hepes, 30 mM glucose, 0.25% HBSS, 25% Horse serum, 2 mM glutamine, penicillin (50 units per ml), and streptomycin (50 μg/ml). Individual neurons were transfected after 3 days by using biolistics (Helios gene gun; Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA) with 1 μm gold particle coated with the test plasmids together with GFP and Bcl-xL expression plasmids.
Immunofluorescence and Immunoblotting.
At the indicated times, cells were fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde. Neurons were immunolabeled by using a rabbit antibody to GFP (Molecular Probes, Eugene, OR) or Sp4 (Santa Cruz Technology, Santa Cruz, CA) or monoclonal antibody against MAP-2 (Sigma–Aldrich, St. Louis, MO), Tau-1 (Chemicon International, Temecula, CA), or GFP (Molecular Probes), followed by goat anti-rabbit or anti-mouse conjugated to Cy2 or Cy3 (Amersham Biosciences, Piscataway, NJ) and stained with the DNA dye bisbenzimide (Hoechst 33258). Neuro2A extracts were prepared in 1% Nonidet P-40 lysis buffer for 30 min on ice, followed by sonication and centrifugation at 15,000 × g for 15 min. Lysates were resolved by SDS/PAGE and immunoblotted with monoclonal anti-flag antibody (Sigma–Aldrich) or polyclonal antibody against GFP (BD Biosciences, San Jose, CA).
Morphometric Analysis of Dendrites.
Images of individual transfected neurons with no overlapping processes from other transfected neurons were captured randomly in a blinded manner at ×400 magnification using a Nikon eclipse TE2000 epifluorescence microscope with a CCD camera (Diagnostic Instruments, Sterling Heights, MI). Digital zoom magnification and quantitation of the length of individual primary, secondary, and tertiary dendrites were performed by using SPOT imaging software. Total dendritic length corresponds to the sum of the length of all individual dendrites per neuron. The number of branching points in 100 μm primary dendrites was determined by counting total secondary dendrites and total length of all primary dendrites in a neuron. The following formula was applied:
![]() |
where TS is total number of secondary dendrites and TPL is total primary dendritic length.
Statistical differences were determined by ANOVA and a post hoc Tukey test or a two-tailed t test using GraphPad Prism Software. For every condition, quantitation was performed in three independent experiments with similar results.
Supplementary Material
Acknowledgments
We thank G.G. laboratory members Alvaro Valin and Sarah Ross for the gifts of control (scrambled Sp3) and Sp1 RNAis and for flag-Sp4 and flag-Sp1, respectively; Aryaman Shalizi, Angeles Fernandez-Gonzalez, and members of the Gill laboratory for their comments on the manuscript; and Bonni laboratory members for their helpful advice. This work was supported by a fellowship from the Spanish Ministry of Education/Fulbright (Secretaries of State, Education, and Universities, and the European Social Fund) (to B.R.) and National Institutes of Health Grants HD043364 (to G.G.) and NS051255 and NS041021 (to A.B.).
Abbreviation
- DIV
days in vitro.
Footnotes
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.
This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/0701946104/DC1.
References
- 1.Purpura DP. UCLA Forum Med Sci. 1975;18:141–169. doi: 10.1016/b978-0-12-139050-1.50014-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Galvez R, Smith RL, Greenough WT. Brain Res Dev Brain Res. 2005;157:214–216. doi: 10.1016/j.devbrainres.2005.03.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Lee A, Li W, Xu K, Bogert BA, Su K, Gao FB. Development (Cambridge, UK) 2003;130:5543–5552. doi: 10.1242/dev.00792. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Cline HT. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2001;11:118–126. doi: 10.1016/s0959-4388(00)00182-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Scott EK, Luo L. Nat Neurosci. 2001;4:359–365. doi: 10.1038/86006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Grueber WB, Yang CH, Ye B, Jan YN. Curr Biol. 2005;15:R730–R738. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2005.08.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Wu GY, Cline HT. Science. 1998;279:222–226. doi: 10.1126/science.279.5348.222. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Dailey ME, Smith SJ. J Neurosci. 1996;16:2983–2994. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.16-09-02983.1996. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Ramón y Cajal S. Histology of the Nervous System of Man and Vertebrates. New York: Oxford Univ Press; 1911. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Miller MW. J Comp Neurol. 1988;274:387–405. doi: 10.1002/cne.902740308. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Koester SE, O'Leary DD. J Neurosci. 1992;12:1382–1393. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.12-04-01382.1992. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Emoto K, He Y, Ye B, Grueber WB, Adler PN, Jan LY, Jan YN. Cell. 2004;119:245–256. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2004.09.036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Threadgill R, Bobb K, Ghosh A. Neuron. 1997;19:625–634. doi: 10.1016/s0896-6273(00)80376-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Buttery P, Beg AA, Chih B, Broder A, Mason CA, Scheiffele P. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2006;103:1924–1929. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0510655103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Parrish JZ, Kim MD, Jan LY, Jan YN. Genes Dev. 2006;20:820–835. doi: 10.1101/gad.1391006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Lee T, Marticke S, Sung C, Robinow S, Luo L. Neuron. 2000;28:807–818. doi: 10.1016/s0896-6273(00)00155-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Kage E, Hayashi Y, Takeuchi H, Hirotsu T, Kunitomo H, Inoue T, Arai H, Iino Y, Kubo T. Curr Biol. 2005;15:1554–1559. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2005.07.057. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Grueber WB, Jan LY, Jan YN. Cell. 2003;112:805–818. doi: 10.1016/s0092-8674(03)00160-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Li W, Wang F, Menut L, Gao FB. Neuron. 2004;43:823–834. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2004.08.040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Gaudilliere B, Konishi Y, de la Iglesia N, Yao G, Bonni A. Neuron. 2004;41:229–241. doi: 10.1016/s0896-6273(03)00841-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Aizawa H, Hu SC, Bobb K, Balakrishnan K, Ince G, Gurevich I, Cowan M, Ghosh A. Science. 2004;303:197–202. doi: 10.1126/science.1089845. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Redmond L, Kashani AH, Ghosh A. Neuron. 2002;34:999–1010. doi: 10.1016/s0896-6273(02)00737-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Wayman GA, Impey S, Marks D, Saneyoshi T, Grant WF, Derkach V, Soderling TR. Neuron. 2006;50:897–909. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2006.05.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Supp DM, Witte DP, Branford WW, Smith EP, Potter SS. Dev Biol. 1996;176:284–299. doi: 10.1006/dbio.1996.0134. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Gong S, Zheng C, Doughty ML, Losos K, Didkovsky N, Schambra UB, Nowak NJ, Joyner A, Leblanc G, Hatten ME, Heintz N. Nature. 2003;425:917–925. doi: 10.1038/nature02033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Black AR, Black JD, Azizkhan-Clifford J. J Cell Physiol. 2001;188:143–160. doi: 10.1002/jcp.1111. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Philipsen S, Suske G. Nucleic Acids Res. 1999;27:2991–3000. doi: 10.1093/nar/27.15.2991. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Nguyen-Tran VT, Kubalak SW, Minamisawa S, Fiset C, Wollert KC, Brown AB, Ruiz-Lozano P, Barrere-Lemaire S, Kondo R, Norman LW, et al. Cell. 2000;102:671–682. doi: 10.1016/s0092-8674(00)00089-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.St Amand TR, Lu JT, Zamora M, Gu Y, Stricker J, Hoshijima M, Epstein JA, Ross JJ, Jr, Ruiz-Lozano P, Chien KR. Dev Biol. 2006;291:208–217. doi: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2005.10.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Hewett KW, Norman LW, Sedmera D, Barker RJ, Justus C, Zhang J, Kubalak SW, Gourdie RG. Cardiovasc Res. 2005;67:548–560. doi: 10.1016/j.cardiores.2005.04.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Altman J BSA. Development of the Cerebellar System: In Relation to Its Evolution, Structure, and Functions. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 1997. [Google Scholar]
- 32.Hamori J, Somogyi J. J Comp Neurol. 1983;220:365–377. doi: 10.1002/cne.902200402. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Powell SK, Rivas RJ, Rodriguez-Boulan E, Hatten ME. J Neurobiol. 1997;32:223–236. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-4695(199702)32:2<223::aid-neu7>3.0.co;2-a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Konishi Y, Stegmuller J, Matsuda T, Bonni S, Bonni A. Science. 2004;303:1026–1030. doi: 10.1126/science.1093712. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Shalizi A, Gaudilliere B, Yuan Z, Stegmuller J, Shirogane T, Ge Q, Tan Y, Schulman B, Harper JW, Bonni A. Science. 2006;311:1012–1017. doi: 10.1126/science.1122513. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.D'Mello SR, Galli C, Ciotti T, Calissano P. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1993;90:10989–10993. doi: 10.1073/pnas.90.23.10989. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Konishi Y, Lehtinen M, Donovan N, Bonni A. Mol Cell. 2002;9:1005–1016. doi: 10.1016/s1097-2765(02)00524-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Gaudilliere B, Shi Y, Bonni A. J Biol Chem. 2002;277:46442–46446. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M206653200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Jan YN, Jan LY. Neuron. 2003;40:229–242. doi: 10.1016/s0896-6273(03)00631-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Libersat F, Duch C. Mol Neurobiol. 2004;29:303–320. doi: 10.1385/MN:29:3:303. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Altman J. J Comp Neurol. 1972;145:465–513. doi: 10.1002/cne.901450403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Inglis FM, Crockett R, Korada S, Abraham WC, Hollmann M, Kalb RG. J Neurosci. 2002;22:8042–8051. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.22-18-08042.2002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Wingate RJ, Thompson ID. J Neurosci. 1994;14:6621–6637. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.14-11-06621.1994. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Wong WT, Faulkner-Jones BE, Sanes JR, Wong RO. J Neurosci. 2000;20:5024–5036. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.20-13-05024.2000. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Ross S, Tienhaara A, Lee MS, Tsai LH, Gill G. J Biol Chem. 2002;277:4455–4464. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M110771200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Kaufmann WE, Moser HW. Cereb Cortex. 2000;10:981–991. doi: 10.1093/cercor/10.10.981. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Gollner H, Bouwman P, Mangold M, Karis A, Braun H, Rohner I, Del Rey A, Besedovsky HO, Meinhardt A, van den Broek M, et al. Genes Cells. 2001;6:689–697. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2443.2001.00455.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Zhou X, Long JM, Geyer MA, Masliah E, Kelsoe JR, Wynshaw-Boris A, Chien KR. Mol Psychiatry. 2005;10:393–406. doi: 10.1038/sj.mp.4001621. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Zhou X, Qyang Y, Kelsoe JR, Masliah E, Geyer MA. Genes Brain Behav. 2007;3:269–276. doi: 10.1111/j.1601-183X.2006.00256.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Li Z, Van Aelst L, Cline HT. Nat Neurosci. 2000;3:217–225. doi: 10.1038/72920. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Sui G, Soohoo C, Affar el B, Gay F, Shi Y, Forrester WC. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2002;99:5515–5520. doi: 10.1073/pnas.082117599. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Bonni A, Brunet A, West AE, Datta SR, Takasu MA, Greenberg ME. Science. 1999;286:1358–1362. doi: 10.1126/science.286.5443.1358. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.







