Abstract:Following nerve injury, axonal disconnection in neurons usually results in persistent functional deficits, such as paralysis. However, axons in the adult mammalian central nervous system (CNS) have very limited regenerative ability. Understanding the molecular mechanism of controlling axon regeneration can provide idea for the design of effective therapeutic interventions for CNS injury, such as spinal cord injuries. Efficient axonal regeneration is achieved via gene expression in the neuronal soma, axonal transport of raw materials along the shaft, and membrane and cytoskeleton assembly at the nerve growth cone. Each process is delicately regulated by spatial-temporal controlled signaling pathways that target distinct effectors. Gene expression in the neuronal soma, especially of transcription factors, is often activated immediately following nerve injury. Injury signals at distal axons are interpreted and transmitted back to the soma, initiating a stream of gene expression events which positively regulate subsequent axonal regeneration. Over the past few decades, extensive studies have identified many regeneration-associated genes, including CREB, nuclear factor of activated T-cells, protein 53, Sprr1a, c-Jun, Smad1, activating transcription factor 3, signal transducer and activator of transcription 3, SRF, Sox11, and Kruppel-like factors. However, we know far less about how the coordinated expression of these regeneration-associated genes is regulated during axonal regeneration. Indeed, it is possible that they are regulated by a single common upstream regulator. If so, identification of this upstream regulator will provide us with an invaluable target for the development of more effective treatments for traumatic nerve injuries. Adult dorsal root ganglion (DRG) neurons represent a favorable medium in which to study the molecular mechanisms controlling intrinsic neuronal axon growth ability. Axotomy of the peripheral branch of a DRG neuron, known as a “conditioning lesion”, has been well-documented to greatly accelerate axonal growth both in vivo and in vitro, by enhancing the neuronal intrinsic growth potential. Enhancement of the growth state is thought to be mediated by a transcription-dependent axonal growth system that controls the expression of a number of regeneration-associated genes. Indeed, after peripheral axotomy, well-known regeneration-associated genes such as gap43, c-jun, transcription factor 3, gadd45a, and sprr1a, are all markedly up-regulated in adult DRG neurons. However, signaling pathways specifically triggered by peripheral axotomy that lead to activation of intrinsic axonal growth ability and subsequent axonal regeneration remain poorly understood. In our latest study (Saijilafu et al., 2013), using adult DRG neurons, we demonstrated that peripheral nerve injury activates the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) pathway, and inhibition of PI3K using pharmacological agents markedly suppressed axonal growth. Downstream of PI3K, we found that peripheral nerve injury could increase the phosphorylation of glycogen synthase kinase 3 (GSK3), which is regulated by PI3K signaling during axonal regeneration. We also confirmed that PI3K-GSK3β signaling plays an essential part in enhancing intrinsic growth ability, by inducing expression of the Smad1 transcription factor. Most importantly, it has been shown that activation of Smad1 promotes axonal regeneration after a spinal cord injury. These findings indicate that GSK3 plays a key regulator effect in controlling the axonal growth potential of adult neurons. GSK3, a serine/threonine kinase, was first identified and purified as a key kinase in glycogen metabolism in the 1980s. GSK3 has been found to be ubiquitously expressed in various tissue types, and to play crucial roles in numerous signaling cascades governing physiological or pathological processes, such as inflammation, tumorigenesis, and neurite outgrowth. Interestingly, numerous studies have shown that many of these regeneration-associated transcription factors are well-established GSK3 substrates. For example, one study demonstrated that GSK3-induced serine-129 phosporylation facilitates and fully activates CREB, which is necessary for CREB functions (Fiol et al., 1994). Inactivation of GSK3 would therefore stabilize Smad1 by preventing its phosphorylation and subsequent recognition by Smurf1. Several early studies also suggest that phosphorylation of the C-terminus of C-Jun by GSK3 tags it for degradation (Wei et al., 2005). Although some transcription factors have not been confirmed directly as GSK3 substrates, such as SRF, Sox11, Id2, and Kruppel-like factors, they contain multiple and well-conserved GSK3β sites. Epigenetic regulation is another way to control gene activity without changes in DNA sequences. Usually, epigenetic regulation uses DNA methylation, histone modification, and non-coding RNAs. Micro-RNAs (miRNAs) are non-coding RNAs, which regulate a variety of biological functions. There is increasing evidence to suggest that axonal regeneration processes are also regulated by miRNA pathways. Our latest study, for example, has shown that endogenous miR-26a is a physiological regulator of mammalian axonal regeneration both in vitro and in vivo, and that this regulatory effect is mediated by GSK3β (Jiang et al., 2015). Additionally, miR-133b regulates axon growth via PI3K/Akt signaling in PCNs pathway by suppressing RhoA (Lu et al., 2015). Taken together, all of this evidence suggests that GSK3 is potentially a key regulator of intrinsic axonal growth ability during axonal regeneration. Along with gene transcription, microtubule-dependent local axon assembly in the neuronal growth cone is another determinant for successful axonal regeneration. Microtubule assembly usually includes three steps: microtubule polymerization, stabilization, and the maintenance of dynamicity. During axonal regeneration, microtubule assembly is regulated by many molecules, including microtubule associated proteins (MAPs) and plus-end tracking proteins. MAPs are proteins that interact with cytoskeletal microtubules and bind to tubulin subunits to regulate their dynamics and stabilities in the growth cone. Interestingly, it has been reported that GSK3β directly phosphorylates many well-known MAPs such as collapsin response mediator protein-2, adenomatous polyposis coli, MAP1b, and tau proteins. Recently, a study revealed that GSK3 supports the axon growth by stabilizing microtubules (Inami et al., 2018). Our study also demonstrated that function of cytoplasmic linker protein-associated protein, a microtubule plus-end binding protein, is regulated by GSK3β during axonal regeneration (Hur et al., 2011). Additionally, Rho-ROCK signaling pathway activity is another well-known key regulator of the actin cytoskeleton remodeling during axon regeneration. Moreover, it has been reported that inhibition of GSK-3 can remarkably inhibits RhoA activity (Liu et al., 2013). Thus, it is clear that GSK3β is a principle regulator of local cytoskeleton assembly in the neuronal growth cone as well. In addition to the pathways described above, GSK3 signaling also plays key roles in regulating raw materials axonal transport during axonal regeneration. The intracellular transport of raw materials such as proteins, lipids, and RNA along the axon shaft from the neuronal soma to the growth cone is essential for axonal regeneration. Typically in such a scenario, two microtubule-based motor protein types, kinesins and dyneins, carry cargos along the axon shaft in the anterograde and retrograde directions, respectively. Knocking down of endogenous dynein by siRNA has been shown to significantly inhibit microtubule protrusion in the neuronal growth cone (Myers et al., 2006). In contrast, knocking down of endogenous kinesin significantly promotes axonal growth. It has been reported that GSK3β can directly phosphorylate cytoplasmic kinesins and dyneins, or their assistant adaptor proteins (Gibbs et al., 2015). For instance, recent data indicate that one of the transportation motor proteins, kinesin, can be negatively regulated by GSK3β (Weaver et al., 2013). Another published literature also suggested that GSK3 regulates motor proteins during axon regeneration via the presenilin loop region (Banerjee et al., 2018). Thus, GSK3β controls axon regeneration by regulation of axonal transport as well. Axonal regeneration in the injured mammalian nervous system is a very complex process. In order to achieve long distance axonal regeneration, combinational strategies are necessary in spinal cord injury treatment. Fortunately, GSK3 plays several key regulating roles during axon regeneration, from gene expression in the soma and local axon assembly at the growth cone, to axonal transport (Figure 1). GSK3 kinase has two closely homologous isoforms, GSK3α and GSK3β. However, interestingly, they have the distinct effect on axon regeneration. GSK3β deletion alone can promote significant axon regeneration; in contrast, the deletion of GSK3α exerts little effect. Thus, better understanding of the precise mechanisms of GSK3 activity on axon regeneration may give us a valuable tool to treat intractable nerve injury, such as spinal cord injuries.Figure 1: Glycogen synthase kinase 3β controls axonal growth by coordinating gene transcription, axonal transport, and local cytoskeleton assembly.APC: Adenomatous polyposis colil; CLASP: CLIP-associated protein; CREB: cAMP response element binding protein; CRMP2: collapsin response mediator protein 2; GSK3: glycogen synthase kinase-3; MAP1b: microtubule associated protein 1b; PI3K: phosphatidylinositol-3 kinase.Dr. Saijilafu was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 81772353 and 81571189), the National Key Research and Development Program (No. 2016YFC 1100203), the Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions, and Innovation and Entrepreneurship Program of Jiangsu Province of China.

Abstract:DNA damage has been linked to neuropathology. Diverse DNA damage response (DDR) pathways help preserve DNA integrity in the nervous system during both the developmental and mature stages. Mutations of factors in various signaling pathways responsive to different types of DNA damage have been associated with developmental syndromes with neurological symptoms (McKinnon, 2009; Araújo and Kuraoka, 2019; Khokhlova et al., 2020). For example, mutations in a single gene encoding ataxia-telangiectasia mutated (ATM), which is activated by DNA double-strand breaks for checkpoint initiation, can lead to ataxia telangiectasia (McKinnon, 2004). It is believed that neuropathology can result from cellular DNA damage, or even DNA damage within the mitochondria, as has been shown to correlate with aging and Parkinson’s disease (Bender et al., 2006). However, attributing all the mechanisms underlying neurological diseases caused by DDR gene deficiencies to the accumulation of genetic alterations is an oversimplification. In particular, non-canonical DDRs have exhibited examples of uncoupling of upstream triggers (DNA damage) and downstream events. Other than single/double-strand breaks of DNA, for instance, telomere maintenance and oxidative stress in cells can also activate DDR (Burgess and Misteli, 2015). The consequences of DDR have been typically characterized as cell-cycle arrest, expression of repair genes, apoptosis, etc. However, the specific effects of DDR pathway activation in various types of cells, especially the terminally differentiated cells, warrant further exploration. Whether the DDR machinery can function beyond its traditional role remains an open question. A recent study identified a novel role of the DDR pathway in neurons. Using an axonal injury and repair paradigm in Drosophila melanogaster, this study uncovered the ATM and rad3-related (ATR) pathway as a key regulator in axon regeneration (Li et al., 2021). As a serine/threonine kinase, ATR responds to DNA single-strand breaks and replication stress. ATR, together with ATM, mediates the two major checkpoints to protect the integrity of the genome. The ATM pathway is dispensable for cell survival and mutations of its components are frequently observed in tumor cells. The ATR pathway appears more critical for viability, as mice embryos bearing ATR loss-of-function mutations die at an early developmental stage, confounding investigations into ATR’s role out of the cell cycle (Yazinski and Zou, 2016). In this study, gene candidates were specifically manipulated in subtypes of sensory neurons, revealing a new function of the ATR pathway. After knocking down the fly homolog of ATR, meiotic 41, in class III dendritic arborization sensory neurons, the authors noticed increased capacity of these neurons to regrow axons after injury, and the same effect was observed in ATR null flies (Li et al., 2021). This finding suggests that, in non-dividing cells, DDR pathways have developed non-canonical functions to help cells adapt to their environment and cope with their unique perturbations. It is intriguing to ask what the upstream signal is that activates the ATR pathway in the scenario of axon injury, whether it is still DNA damage, and whether other components in the same pathway are also involved. A large range of genomic aberrations can activate the ATR pathway. In addition, it has been reported that mechanical stress on the nuclear envelope can relocalize ATR to the nuclear membrane to protect the perinuclear chromatin, suggesting that ATR directly or indirectly senses mechanical stimuli to prevent cells from mechanical insults (Kumar et al., 2014). In the context of axon regeneration, it has been shown that a mechanosensitive ion channel, Piezo, inhibits axon regrowth after injury by sensing the mechanical force in the environment around the axon tip (Song et al., 2019). While possible mechanisms for Piezo activation to generate a regenerative halt have been proposed, it is exciting to find that ATR is implicated in the Piezo-induced inhibition of axon regeneration. This study demonstrated that, instead of DNA damage, ATR responds to mechanical stimuli from the environment. γH2AX (phosphorylation of the Ser-139 residue of the histone variant H2AX) staining, which detects DNA-damage events in situ, showed no difference between injured and uninjured fly sensory neurons. Moreover, targeting the replication protein A complex, the machinery that monitors single-stranded DNAs and recruits ATR, did not result in a similar axon regeneration phenotype as ATR ablation. These results thus suggested that DNA damage is not directly induced by axon injury and that a signal transduction pathway is activated downstream of ATR, but not by DNA damage per se. In the following experiment using a cultured cell model of osmotic stress to induce ATR clustering in the nucleus, PIEZO1 was demonstrated to be required and act upstream, as ATR clustering was significantly reduced in the PIEZO1 knock-out cell line. By genetic interaction analyses in flies, Piezo and ATR were demonstrated to function in the same genetic pathway during axon regeneration. Furthermore, nitric oxide, produced by nitric oxide synthases, was suggested to act as the signal from Piezo to ATR (Li et al., 2021). Previous work has established that calcium elevation immediately after axotomy is critical for the initiation of growth cone reformation and that calcium, as a second messenger, is derived from extracellular and internal sources and spreads rapidly to the whole axon and cell body (Mahar and Cavalli, 2018). However, the identity of a possible signal communicating between the axon and nucleus when regenerating axons elongate remains unknown. This study presented evidence that nitric oxide is a strong candidate, as it is produced in the axon tip and propagates to the nucleus, enabling neurons to respond to the mechanical force from the extracellular matrix (Li et al., 2021) (Figure 1).Figure 1: The ataxia-telangiectasia mutated and rad3-related (ATR) pathway responds to mechanical force to inhibit axon regeneration.Following Piezo activation, nitric oxide synthase (NOS) produces nitric oxide (NO), which propagates along the axon to the nucleus. Then, ATR, under the regulation of ATR interacting protein (ATRIP), TOPBP1, and the 9-1-1 complex, phosphorylates CHEK1 and inhibits CDC25. CDC25 dephosphorylates CDK1 to promote axon regeneration. Through the axis of ATR-CHEK1-CDC25-CDK1, axon regeneration is inhibited.Although ATR relocalization at the nuclear envelope induced by osmotic stress is independent of replication protein A-single-stranded DNA nucleofilaments, phosphorylated CHEK1 and ATR interacting protein were found at the nuclear envelope with ATR (Kumar et al., 2014). During axon regeneration, fly homologs of CHEK1/grapes and ATR interacting protein/mus304 were also found to participate in the ATR-activation-induced regeneration inhibition. In the fly sensory neurons, knockdown of CHEK1/grapes or ATR interacting protein/mus304 recapitulated the axon regeneration enhancement caused by ATR deficiency. Moreover, overexpression of CHEK1/grapes sufficiently inhibited axon regeneration (Li et al., 2021). These results indicate that other components of the ATR pathway, mainly in the execution steps, cooperate to carry out this non-canonical function. In DNA repair, after ATR recruitment to replication protein A-single-stranded DNA, its activity is regulated by TOPBP1 (DNA Topoisomerase II Binding Protein 1), which is mediated by the 9-1-1 complex composed of RAD9-HUS1-RAD1 and RAD17. After CHEK1 is phosphorylated by ATR, it can in turn phosphorylate and inhibit CDC25, which is a phosphatase for CDK1. Although RAD17 and TOPBP1 were not found to respond to the osmotic-stress-induced ATR relocalization (Kumar et al., 2014), they are indispensable for axon regeneration inhibition. Knockdown of fly homologs of RAD17, TOPBP1, and RAD1 in the sensory neurons all significantly increased axon regeneration, while loss of function of fly homologs of CDC25 and CDK1 reduced axon regeneration (Li et al., 2021). It is thus demonstrated that ATR-CHEK1-CDC25-CDK1 is an axis regulating axon regeneration in response to the mechanical force from the extracellular matrix (Figure 1). CDK1 phosphorylation at the end of this axis typically leads to cell cycle arrest. However, this study provided evidence that, in terminally differentiated cells, such as neurons, the ATR-activation machinery, together with its downstream effectors, modulates cellular regeneration when encountering axonal injury. Therefore, cells are capable of utilizing or repurposing seemingly “redundant/obsolete” regulatory pathways to adapt to unusual scenarios, such as cellular stress. It remains a fascinating question when/how such a functional switch was made, from an evolutionary standpoint. Discovering novel neuronal intrinsic regulators for axon regeneration is one of the key areas for the development of new therapeutics for nervous system trauma (Mahar and Cavalli, 2018). The ATR pathway identified in Drosophila thus provides potential targets for treatments. This study further tested the conservation of the ATR pathway in axon regeneration in mammalian injury models, confirming that manipulations of ATR and CHEK1 in mice neurons in vitro and in vivo also affect axon regeneration. Lastly, ATR and CHEK1 pharmacological inhibitors have been developed to treat various types of cancers, and they were found to promote axon regeneration in cultured mammalian neurons and flies. Other DNA repair pathways, such as ATM, were proved not essential for regulating axon regeneration in the injured fly sensory neurons, demonstrating the specificity of the ATR pathway (Li et al., 2021). However, we cannot rule out the possibility that the ATM-CHEK2 pathway may be involved under other injury paradigms in other cell types. To conclude, this study raises the possibility that pathways with conventionally known functions may exhibit non-canonical roles in unexpected situations, and suggests that utilizing the screening platform in Drosophila will be a fruitful strategy to identify more factors controlling axon regeneration. The present work was supported by the National Institutes of Health Grant, 1R01NS107392 (to YS). C-Editors: Zhao M, Liu WJ, Qiu Y; T-Editor: Jia Y.

Glycogen Synthase Kinase 3: a Crucial Regulator of Axotomy-Induced Axon Regeneration

PI3 Kinase Regulation of Neural Regeneration and Muscle Hypertrophy after Spinal Cord Injury

Akt-independent GSK3 Inactivation Downstream of PI3K Signaling Regulates Mammalian Axon Regeneration.

Inhibition of Gecko GSK‐3β Promotes Elongation of Neurites and Oligodendrocyte Processes but Decreases the Proliferation of Blastemal Cells

mTORC1 is necessary but mTORC2 and GSK3β are inhibitory for AKT3-induced axon regeneration in the central nervous system

GSK‐3α/β‐mediated Phosphorylation of CRMP‐2 Regulates Activity‐dependent Dendritic Growth

Mtorc1 Is Necessary But Mtorc2 And Gsk3 Beta Are Inhibitory For Akt3-Induced Axon Regeneration In The Central Nervous System

The Mtor Substrate S6 Kinase 1 (S6K1) is a Negative Regulator of Axon Regeneration and a Potential Drug Target for Central Nervous System Injury

Mis-regulation of GSK-3β causes axonal microtubule curling through Shot and Tau

Axin and GSK3- Control Smad3 Protein Stability and Modulate TGF- Signaling.

Function of GSK‑3 signaling in spinal cord injury (Review)

GSK-3β activation mediates Nogo-66-induced inhibition of neurite outgrowth in N2a cells

Doublecortin-Like Kinases Promote Neuronal Survival and Induce Growth Cone Reformation Via Distinct Mechanisms.

S6 kinase inhibits intrinsic axon regeneration capacity via AMP kinase in Caenorhabditis elegans

271. Strategies Based on NexGen AAV2 to Improve AKT3-Induced CNS Axon Regeneration in Vivo

Suppression of Rho-kinase activity promotes axonal growth on inhibitory CNS substrates

RSK1 promotes mammalian axon regeneration by inducing the synthesis of regeneration-related proteins

Ca2+-Dependent Regulation of Rho GTPases Triggers Turning of Nerve Growth Cones

SGK1 in Schwann cells is a potential molecular switch involved in axonal and glial regeneration during peripheral nerve injury

Non-canonical Role of the ATR Pathway in Axon Regeneration As a Mechanosensitive Brake

GSK-3 Inhibitor Promotes Neuronal Cell Regeneration and Functional Recovery in a Rat Model of Spinal Cord Injury.