Ziv Y, Ron N, Butovsky O, Landa G, Sudai E, Greenberg N, Cohen H, Kipnis J, Schwartz M.
Immune cells contribute to the maintenance of neurogenesis and spatial learning abilities in adulthood.
Nat Neurosci. 2006 Feb;9(2):268-75.
PubMed.
The paper by Ziv et al. brings together two often disparate fields of study: immunology and neuroscience. The group of Michal Schwartz is one of a relatively few in the world who draws on tools of both trades to study how the immune and nervous systems intersect to influence brain function.
The authors propose the interesting hypothesis that the hippocampal (and olfactory) neurogenesis required for optimal functioning of the adult brain is dependent on cues from peripheral immune cells. It had been shown previously that inflammatory activation of the peripheral immune system can diminish neurogenesis in the brain. This work suggests that the converse, that is, that neurogenesis depends in some way on immune support, may also hold true.
The authors' use of SCID and nude mice for these studies is quite innovative, and the experiments carefully control for differences in genetic background that are known to influence adult neurogenesis. The decrement in BrdU+ cells, and specifically BrdU/DCX and BrdU/NeuN cells, in the immune-deficient mice is consistent with their hypothesis.
However, it is the reconstitution experiments examining neurogenesis after replenishing the immune system with normal or T cell-depleted splenocytes that to me forms the crux of this study. Restoration of normal neurogenesis by the introduction of donor splenocytes is the definitive proof that the neuronal precursor cell population is intact and simply requires external activation from the added immune cells. The description of these experiments might have benefited from more detailed display of this data on which to evaluate the results. For instance, in Figure 2 showing the first of the reconstitution experiments, the number of BrdU/DCX+ cells per dentate gyrus after addition of normal splenocytes (panel d) appears comparable to the number of BrdU/DCX+ cells found in unreconstituted SCID mice at the same age (panel a). The intended comparison is to SCID mice reconstituted with T cell-depleted splenocytes, but data for the level of neurogenesis in untreated mice would have been a good control to include in the same panel.
The reconstitution experiments are especially important in evaluating the data shown in Figure 4, which presents data of the study of neurogenesis in nude mice. The very disrupted DCX staining in the nude mice of Figure 4c suggests that the gene defect in these mice may affect neurogenesis in ways independent of T cell function. After all, the mice are also nude, and have hair follicle deficits that may have nothing to do with alterations in the immune system. For these experiments, the authors do plot the data one would have liked to see for the SCID experiments; specifically, they show untreated nude vs. nude + splenocytes, demonstrating that there is significant recovery of newly dividing cells in the hippocampus. Here it is worth noting that PCNA staining does not equal neurogenesis (PCNA, like BrdU, does not distinguish between cell types), and the experiment could be stronger if it provided the same comparison (untreated nude vs. nude + splenocytes) for BrdU/DCX+ double labeled cells to show a specific effect on neuronal production.
One goal to tackle for follow-up work is to convincingly connect the function of peripheral T cells to the effector microglia in the brain, and to explain how microglia then act on progenitor cells to increase neurogenesis. The present work shows T cells in the ventricles, where they might be able to directly influence the turnover and/or differentiation of precursor cells in the subventricular zone (the source of neurogenesis for olfactory bulb interneurons). It would be fascinating to know how they signal to microglia in the parenchyma of the brain to activate precursor cells deep in the dentate gyrus. Identifying the signaling factors used to communicate between these distant areas will solve the spatial paradox that exists based on the data available so far.
This paper should serve to start the neuroscience community thinking more seriously about the interaction of body and mind. There may be a lot more to it than most researchers or clinicians now realize.
Comments
Baylor College of Medicine
The paper by Ziv et al. brings together two often disparate fields of study: immunology and neuroscience. The group of Michal Schwartz is one of a relatively few in the world who draws on tools of both trades to study how the immune and nervous systems intersect to influence brain function.
The authors propose the interesting hypothesis that the hippocampal (and olfactory) neurogenesis required for optimal functioning of the adult brain is dependent on cues from peripheral immune cells. It had been shown previously that inflammatory activation of the peripheral immune system can diminish neurogenesis in the brain. This work suggests that the converse, that is, that neurogenesis depends in some way on immune support, may also hold true.
The authors' use of SCID and nude mice for these studies is quite innovative, and the experiments carefully control for differences in genetic background that are known to influence adult neurogenesis. The decrement in BrdU+ cells, and specifically BrdU/DCX and BrdU/NeuN cells, in the immune-deficient mice is consistent with their hypothesis.
However, it is the reconstitution experiments examining neurogenesis after replenishing the immune system with normal or T cell-depleted splenocytes that to me forms the crux of this study. Restoration of normal neurogenesis by the introduction of donor splenocytes is the definitive proof that the neuronal precursor cell population is intact and simply requires external activation from the added immune cells. The description of these experiments might have benefited from more detailed display of this data on which to evaluate the results. For instance, in Figure 2 showing the first of the reconstitution experiments, the number of BrdU/DCX+ cells per dentate gyrus after addition of normal splenocytes (panel d) appears comparable to the number of BrdU/DCX+ cells found in unreconstituted SCID mice at the same age (panel a). The intended comparison is to SCID mice reconstituted with T cell-depleted splenocytes, but data for the level of neurogenesis in untreated mice would have been a good control to include in the same panel.
The reconstitution experiments are especially important in evaluating the data shown in Figure 4, which presents data of the study of neurogenesis in nude mice. The very disrupted DCX staining in the nude mice of Figure 4c suggests that the gene defect in these mice may affect neurogenesis in ways independent of T cell function. After all, the mice are also nude, and have hair follicle deficits that may have nothing to do with alterations in the immune system. For these experiments, the authors do plot the data one would have liked to see for the SCID experiments; specifically, they show untreated nude vs. nude + splenocytes, demonstrating that there is significant recovery of newly dividing cells in the hippocampus. Here it is worth noting that PCNA staining does not equal neurogenesis (PCNA, like BrdU, does not distinguish between cell types), and the experiment could be stronger if it provided the same comparison (untreated nude vs. nude + splenocytes) for BrdU/DCX+ double labeled cells to show a specific effect on neuronal production.
One goal to tackle for follow-up work is to convincingly connect the function of peripheral T cells to the effector microglia in the brain, and to explain how microglia then act on progenitor cells to increase neurogenesis. The present work shows T cells in the ventricles, where they might be able to directly influence the turnover and/or differentiation of precursor cells in the subventricular zone (the source of neurogenesis for olfactory bulb interneurons). It would be fascinating to know how they signal to microglia in the parenchyma of the brain to activate precursor cells deep in the dentate gyrus. Identifying the signaling factors used to communicate between these distant areas will solve the spatial paradox that exists based on the data available so far.
This paper should serve to start the neuroscience community thinking more seriously about the interaction of body and mind. There may be a lot more to it than most researchers or clinicians now realize.
View all comments by Joanna Jankowsky