![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||
Postnatal deletion of Numb/Numblike reveals repair and remodeling capacity in the subventricular neurogenic niche. 1 Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Departments of Physiology and Biochemistry 2 Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94143 3 Laboratorio de Morfología Celular. Unidad Asociada Centro de Investigación Principe Felipe-Universidad de Valencia. Valencia. Spain 4 Department of Neurobiology and Kavli Institute for Neuroscience, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06510 5 Center for Neurologic Diseases, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115 *Corresponding author: Email: YuhNung.Jan/at/ucsf.edu SUMMARY Neural stem cells are retained in the postnatal subventricular zone (SVZ), a specialized neurogenic niche with unique cytoarchitecture and cell-cell contacts. Although the SVZ stem cells continuously regenerate, how they and the niche respond to local changes is unclear. Here we generated nestin-creERtm transgenic mice with inducible Cre recombinase in the SVZ, and removed Numb/Numblike, key regulators of embryonic neurogenesis from postnatal SVZ progenitors and ependymal cells. This resulted in severe damage to brain lateral ventricle integrity, and identified previously unknown roles for Numb/Numblike in regulating ependymal wall integrity and SVZ neuroblast survival. Surprisingly, the ventricular damage was eventually repaired: SVZ reconstitution and ventricular wall remodeling were mediated by progenitors that escaped Numb deletion. Our results show a self-repair mechanism in the mammalian brain, and may have implications for niche plasticity in other areas of stem cell biology, and for the therapeutic use of neural stem cells in neurodegenerative diseases. INTRODUCTION Neuroprogenitors in the embryonic, neonatal, and adult brain give rise to differentiated cell types including neurons, astrocytes, ependymal cells, and oligodendrocytes. Despite similarities in function, embryonic and postnatal neuroprogenitors reside in different specialized environments, or niches. During embryonic neurogenesis, neuroprogenitors (also known as radial glia) form a neuroepithelial layer adjacent to the central nervous system (CNS) ventricles (reviewed in Rakic, 2003; Kriegstein and Noctor, 2004; Gotz and Barde, 2005). Shortly after birth, this embryonic niche begins a transformation into the postnatal neural stem cell niche in the subventricular zone (SVZ) of the lateral ventricles (reviewed in Temple, 2001; Tramontin et al., 2003). Postnatally, a subpopulation of radial glia gives rise to ependymal cells that form the epithelial lining of the ventricles (Spassky et al., 2005). Other radial glial cells transform into SVZ Type B cells that have the structural properties of astrocytes (Merkle et al., 2004). These type B cells function as the primary progenitors of new neurons in the adult mouse forebrain, and generate transiently-amplifying Type C cells which in turn differentiate into neuroblasts that migrate to the olfactory bulb (reviewed in Alvarez-Buylla and Lim, 2004). Some of the molecular programs that govern embryonic neuroprogenitor differentiation (reviewed in Bertrand et al., 2002; Campbell, 2005; Sur and Rubenstein, 2005; Tsai and Gleeson, 2005; Fuccillo et al., 2006) have also been shown to function in the postnatal SVZ niche. For example, TGFα, which activates the EGF receptor, regulates SVZ cellular proliferation and migration of neurons to the olfactory bulb (Tropepe et al., 1997). Likewise, bone morphogenetic proteins and their antagonist Noggin affect SVZ neuroprogenitor differentiation postnatally (Lim et al., 2000). The sonic hedgehog pathway is involved in maintaining the proliferative capacity of SVZ stem cells (Machold et al., 2003; Ahn and Joyner, 2005). Activated-Notch suppresses neuronal differentiation and prevent neuroblast migration to the olfactory bulb (Chambers et al., 2001), and EphB receptors can increase the proliferative capacity of SVZ progenitors in vivo (Conover et al., 2000). Our understanding of embryonic neurogenesis derives largely from in vivo analyses of mutants with corroborative findings from in vitro studies. However, experiments in the postnatal SVZ thus far have relied on in vitro differentiation, in vivo injection of constructs/growth factors, and postnatal analyses of gene deleted during embryogenesis. Though informative, without ways to genetically target the postnatal SVZ, molecular programs that control this stem cell niche cannot be studied effectively. For example, it is known that SVZ progenitors can regenerate after short periods of drug-induced depletion (Doetsch et al., 1999), but how they and the niche respond to environmental changes such as tissue damage are unclear. Numb and Numblike (Numbl) are functionally related proteins that critically regulate progenitor differentiation and neuroepithelial integrity during embryonic neurogenesis (Petersen et al., 2002; Shen et al., 2002; Li et al., 2003; Petersen et al., 2004). They were first identified as the mammalian homologues of Drosophila numb, which functions during neural precursor asymmetric cell division to antagonize Notch function in one of the daughter cells (reviewed in Roegiers and Jan, 2004). We hypothesized that these proteins might play similarly important roles during postnatal neurogenesis, and that their deletion postnatally might reveal not only the functions of Numb/Numbl during SVZ neurogenesis, but also how this stem cell niche responds to environmental changes. We generated a tamoxifen-inducible Cre transgene that is active in the postnatal SVZ, and used this tool to reveal that Numb/Numbl maintain SVZ homeostasis by regulating ependymal integrity and survival of SVZ neuroblasts. In the process, we also discovered that the postnatal SVZ stem cell niche has remarkable plasticity, and can mediate local repair of brain ventricular wall damage. RESULTS Generation of nestin-creERtm mice with inducible Cre activity in postnatal SVZ neurogenic niche To delete genes postnatally, we used a tamoxifen-inducible form of the Cre recombinase, CreERtm, that has activity in most mouse tissues including the brain (Hayashi and McMahon, 2002). To express CreERtm in neuroprogenitors, we replaced the Cre coding sequence in the Nestin-Cre DNA construct (Tronche et al., 1999), with that of CreERtm to generate nestin-creERtm mice (Figure 1A
To visualize postnatal Cre activity in nestin-creERtm4, we injected single dose of tamoxifen into nestin-creERtm4; r26r+/− pups at either postnatal day 0 (P0), P7, or P14, and waited until 5 weeks of age for analysis. At P0, as embryonic neuroprogenitors undergo terminal differentiation in the cerebral cortex, transient Cre activity in those progenitors would give rise to differentiated progeny that are β-gal+, which is what we observed in the P0-induced mice, along with β-gal+ cells surrounding the lateral ventricle (LV) walls (Figure 1C SVZ neuroprogenitors continuously produce proliferating neuroblasts that migrate to the olfactory bulb (OB) via the rostral migratory stream (RMS). To test if the nestin-creERtm4; r26r+/− SVZ β-gal+ cells retained such property we injected tamoxifen at P14, and analyzed brains at either 1 week or 1 month post injection. In sagittal sections 1 week after tamoxifenind, we observed many β-gal+ cells around the LV, but only few cells within the RMS and OB (Figure 1D To further confirm that we could induce Cre recombination in postnatal SVZ neuroprogenitors, we used electron microscopy (EM) to examine β-gal+ cells around the LV of nestin-creERtm4; r26r+/− mice induced by tamoxifen at P14. In addition to β-gal+ SVZ astrocytic neuroprogenitors, we also saw labeled transiently-amplifying C cells, neuroblasts, and ependymal cells surrounding the LV (Figure 1F Numb is expressed by postnatal SVZ neuroprogenitors and ependymal cells Numb is highly expressed by embryonic neuroprogenitors throughout cortical development (Zhong et al., 1996). To assay whether Numb is expressed in the postnatal SVZ niche, we co-stained P0 RC2+ radial glial neuroprogenitors and P14 GFAP+ SVZ astrocytic neuroprogenitors with anti-Numb antibody, which showed that Numb continued to be expressed in postnatal SVZ progenitors (Figure S2A), as well as in transiently-amplifying C cells and neuroblasts (Figure S2B). Interestingly, we also observed increased Numb immunoreactivity in postnatal ependymal cells as they developed from immature GLAST+S100β− to mature GLAST−S100β+ ependyma (Figure S2C). To be certain that immunoreactivity in these post-mitotic epithelial cells represents Numb protein, we repeated Numb antibody staining in nestin-creERtm4; floxed Numb(F/F) mice (wild-type Numbl). Since our inducible Cre transgene had postnatal recombinase activity in ependymal cells starting at P0 (Figure 1C Postnatal deletion of Numb/Numbl results in lost of brain ventricular wall integrity To understand if Numb/Numbl played a role in the postnatal SVZ, we used the nestin-creERtm4 transgene to delete Numb postnatally in phenotypically normal Numbl-null mutant mice. Due to lower fertility of Numbl−/ − mice, we crossed nestin-creERtm4; NumbF/F; Numbl+/− males to NumbF/F; Numbl+/− females to generate the nestin-creERtm4; NumbF/F; Numbl−/ − animals which we termed cDKO mice. Tamoxifenind of cDKO mice postnatally would remove Numb/Numbl without disturbing embryonic neurogenesis. These cDKO mice were born at expected mendelian ratios (47/385, 1 per 8.2), and appeared phenotypically normal in comparison to control littermates (data not shown). Analysis of P0 cDKO newborn brains showed no obvious developmental or structural defects when compared to control littermates (Figure S3A). To postnatally delete floxed-Numb in the cDKO mice, we injected the entire litter each with a single dose of tamoxifen at P0. Since we showed earlier that ependymal Numb expression was subsided by P14 in P0-tamoxifenind mice, we analyzed these mice at 1 and 2 weeks after P0 injection. At P7, we saw consistent LV enlargement in the induced cDKO mice when compared to uninduced cDKO and induced littermate controls (Figure 2A
Having found Numb expression in ependymal cells during the postnatal period (Figure S2C), we closely examined these areas in the induced cDKO mice. At P7, the ependymal layer lining the medial walls of the LVs was formed in the induced cDKO brain (Figure 2B Numb/Numbl are required for postnatal ependymal adhesion and SVZ neuroblast survival We used EM to further characterize the ventricular wall defects in the induced cDKO mice. Semi-thin brain sections showed that P7 mutant ependymal cells extended cilia from their apical membrane like control cells (Figure 3A
Since EM revealed substantial ependymal border abnormalities by P14, we stained P7 brain sections with antibodies against cell border and adhesion junction molecules. While there were no apparent differences in tight junction marker ZO-1 and desmosomal protein Desmoglein staining between control and mutant ependymal cells (data not shown), anti-Phalloidin antibody against F-actin showed that the strong apical border staining in P7 control ependyma was completely abolished in Numb/Numbl mutant ependyma (Figure 3B These results, together with the fact that E-cadherin was up-regulated during postnatal ependymal maturation similarly to Numb (Figure 3C In addition to ependymal abnormalities, we observed significant postnatal SVZ neurogenesis defects in the induced cDKO mice. At P7 and prior to ependymal detachment, the mutant mice showed significantly increased cellularity at the striato-cortical junction (SCJ) of the LV, which marks the beginning of the rostral neuroblast migratory path (Figure 3E The SVZ neurogenesis defects could be secondary to ependymal abnormalities, so to determine if Numb/Numbl played cell-intrinsic roles in regulating SVZ neurogenesis, we used an adeno-Cre virus to generate subpopulations of Numb/Numbl mutant radial glia (Merkle et al., 2004). This technique targets SVZ progenitor cells that later give rise to migrating neuroblasts while sparing LV ependymal cells. In P14 Numb(F/F); Numbl(+/−); r26r control mice injected with adeno-Cre at P0, we saw β-gal+ cells in the SVZ as well as in the OBs, which increased in numbers by 5 weeks of age, indicating that recombined SVZ progenitors were giving rise to neuroblasts that migrated into the OB (Figure S4C). Although we also detected β-gal+ cells in the SVZ of P14 Numb(F/F); Numbl(−/ −); r26r mutant mice, we saw few, if any β-gal+ cells in the corresponding OBs, both at P14 and at 5 weeks of age (Figure S4C). The ability of Numb/Numbl mutant SVZ progenitors to proliferate and differentiate was confirmed by harvesting postnatal SVZ progenitors from uninduced cDKO mice and then inducing Numb deletion in culture via tamoxifenind (data not shown). These results show that Numb/Numbl are required for multiple aspects of postnatal SVZ homeostasis, including ependymal wall integrity and neuroblast survival. Since Numb antagonizes Notch during fly neural precursor division (reviewed in Roegiers and Jan, 2004), and aberrant Notch activity can inhibit SVZ neuroblast maturation and survival (Chambers et al., 2001), we wondered if increased Notch activation in mutant neuroblasts could have caused the survival defects. Because spatial and temporal regulation of Notch activity is difficult to detect in vivo, we took a genetic approach to over-express activated intracellular Notch (NICD) (Yang et al., 2004) in the postnatal SVZ using the nestin-creERtm4 transgene. This resulted in greatly increased DCX+ neuroblast cellularity and apoptosis at the SCJ (Figure 3F Ventricular wall remodeling in adult cDKO mutant mice With the massive LV enlargement seen at P14 (Figure 2A
To further characterize this remodeled ventricular wall, we stained the 6 week LV wall with markers for both ependymal cells (S100β) and astrocytes (GFAP). In control mice, as expected the medial wall was covered by ependymal cells expressing S100β but not GFAP (Figure 4B How did this remodeling come about? We considered the possibility that Numb/Numbl mutant cells changed their developmental fate and contributed to the generation of this new ventricular lining, and tested this by crossing rosa26-reporter onto the cDKO background. We reasoned that if Numb/Numbl mutant cells could repair the damaged ventricular wall, then these structures should be β-gal+ from Cre-mediated recombination. For the mutant nestin-creERtm4; NumbF/F; Numbl−/ −; r26r+/− mice and control littermates, again we induced with tamoxifen at P0 and studied the ventricular wall at 6 weeks of age. However, unlike control littermates which showed populations of β-gal+ cells in both the SVZ and in the ependyma, in the induced mutant animals we could not detect significant contributions of β-gal+ cells in the remodeled ventricular wall (Figure 4D Numb-expressing SVZ progenitors participate in local repair and remodeling It is also possible that existing cells in the CNS can line the damaged walls, or that Numb+ SVZ progenitor cells escaping initial P0-tamoxifenind can participate in the repair. To see if there are indeed neuroprogenitors that escaped P0 tamoxifen-mediated Numb deletion, we looked for Numb expression in the damaged SVZ of P14 mutant mice, which revealed that the remaining cell clusters along the damaged lateral wall were Numb+ (Figure 5A
Since the Numb-expressing clusters along the damaged P14 mutant ventricular wall were highly proliferative, we wondered if these cells contributed to the remodeling of the ventricular wall and SVZ niche. To answer this question, we used BrdU birth-dating to track the cells participating in the repair process. We reasoned that as the SVZ progenitors divide and proliferate during the postnatal period, transient BrdU exposure will be diluted out weeks later after proliferating BrdU-labeled progenitors produced their migrating progeny. However, if the Numb+ SVZ progenitors in the P14 mutant mice were able to give rise to terminally differentiated cells that repaired the damaged ventricular wall, we should be able to detect their local BrdU incorporation. For both control and cDKO mice we again tamoxifenind at P0, gave the animals 3 days of twice per day BrdU injections at P16, and analyzed their brains at 6 weeks of age (Figure 5C Results from these experiments are consistent with the notion that Numb-expressing SVZ progenitors escaping initial tamoxifenind can participate in the subsequent structural repair. To further test this, we reasoned that repeated tamoxifen injections during the postnatal period to delete the floxed-Numb gene in more SVZ progenitors should delay or abolish this repair. In 6-week old cDKO mice injected with tamoxifen serially at P0, P7, P14, and P21, we saw dramatic ventricular enlargement in contrast to normal morphology of littermate controls injected with the same dosing schedule, as well as reduction in the numbers of neuroblasts reaching the OB (Figure 5D DISCUSSION Using a tamoxifen-inducible Cre transgenic line we showed that Numb/Numbl are required to maintain postnatal SVZ neurogenesis, and revealed a post-mitotic function for Numb/Numbl in regulating ependymal wall integrity. The severely damaged brain ventricular wall resulting from Numb/Numbl deletion allowed us to examine how the SVZ stem cell niche responds to environmental change. These results showed surprisingly that postnatal ventricular wall damage can be self-repaired, and that the SVZ stem cell niche has considerable plasticity for local repair and remodeling, results that will likely have implications in other areas of stem cell biology. Numb/Numbl functions in SVZ niche homeostasis Postnatally, Numb-expression is induced during ependymal maturation and is required for ependymal wall integrity. Based on our current knowledge of Numb’s function during asymmetric cell division, these ependymal results are unexpected. Our data showing that a single Numb-expressing ependymal cell, in an otherwise mutant environment, can localize E-cadherin strongly suggests that the loss of cell border E-cadherin expression in mutant Numb/Numbl mice is a primary, cell-autonomous defect. Given that Numb and E-cadherin are concurrently upregulated in ependymal cells during the postnatal period, co-localized to cell borders, and associate with each other in vivo, it is possible that Numb is involved in cell border E-cadherin localization during ependymal maturation. The inability of NICD over-expression to mimic the ependymal phenotype of Numb/Numbl mutant mice is also consistent with the notion that Numb regulates the ependymal integrity via a Notch-independent mechanism. In Drosophila, Numb is known to inhibit Notch signaling through the endocytotic machinery (Berdnik et al., 2002), so it would be of interest to know whether Numb’s interaction with E-cadherin also involves similar mechanisms. Taken together, our results suggest that Numb/Numbl maintain the homeostasis of the SVZ neurogenic niche by regulating ependymal wall integrity through E-cadherin, and by ensuring neuroblast survival through Notch inhibition. During cortical neurogenesis, radial glia function both as neuroprogenitors and as neuroepithelial cells lining the ventricular wall, thus our findings here that Numb can participate in different pathways may help to explain the apparently contradictory Numb/Numbl embryonic knockout phenotypes (Petersen et al., 2002; Li et al., 2003; Petersen et al., 2004). SVZ plasticity and the ability to remodel after injury In deleting Numb/Numbl postnatally, we found that brain ventricular wall damage can be self-repaired. Part of this repair was likely accomplished by astrocytic invasion, in a process similar to scar tissue formation. But it was surprising that Numb-expressing SVZ progenitors can mediate this re-lining of the ventricular wall, and can subsequently maintain neurogenesis in this highly modified environment. As with inducible gene-deletion techniques, it is often not possible to target all cells. Since postnatal SVZ progenitors expressed Numb, it was difficult to accurately estimate our targeting efficiency in these cells prior to ependymal detachment due to residual Numb protein after gene deletion. The ependymal cells only up-regulated Numb expression postnatally, and revealed that we can target 80 to 90% of these cells after single P0-tamoxifenind. We were able to observe the ventricular wall repair because the nestin-creERtm4 transgene did not target SVZ progenitors with 100% efficiency. There are several possible explanations for how this niche remodeling occurs in the Numb/Numbl mutant mice. It is possible that Numb-expressing SVZ progenitors simply responded to the ependymal detachment by making differentiated progeny that provided similar niche functions to ependymal cells, and continued to support postnatal SVZ neurogenesis. It is also possible that the SVZ progenitors initially responding to ependymal detachment recreated a functional niche through differentiation, thus allowing other SVZ progenitors to populate this niche and continue with postnatal neurogenesis. The cells within the remodeled lateral wall of the LV, some of which expressed S100β, GFAP, and GLAST, do not resemble any known cell types within the normal SVZ neurogenic niche. To understand the behavior of these escapee Numb-expressing progenitor cells during the ventricular wall remodeling phase, we will need new tools to positively identify this cell population and their progeny. These results demonstrating a self-repair mechanism in the brain may have implications for niche remodeling in other areas of postnatal/adult stem cell biology. It has been reported that SVZ neuroblasts can migrate to distant sites caused by brain injury such as stroke (reviewed in Lindvall and Kokaia, 2004; Carmichael, 2006). Although the exact mechanisms are still being work on, these observations raise the possibility that postnatal neurogenesis can one day be used to repair brain damage. Our results here show that self-repair and local remodeling can indeed happen along the brain LV wall, and further insights into this process should shed light on whether SVZ neural stem cells participate in stroke/trauma-induced brain remodeling and postnatal/adult brain tumor formation. Furthermore, understanding how the SVZ cells participate in local repair should help bring us closer to the goal of using neural stem cells as therapeutic agents in neurodegenerative diseases. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES Animals All mouse experiments were performed according to an approved protocol by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at UCSF. Mice were backcrossed 3 generations onto the C57BL/6 background. Generation of nestin-creERtm mice Nestin-CreERtm DNA construct was made by replacing Cre coding sequence in pNesCre (Tronche et al., 1999) with CreERtm from pBS-CreERtm (Hayashi and McMahon, 2002). The resulting construct was subjected to pronuclear injection by standard methods. The following PCR primers: NesPr1 (CGCTTCCGCTGGGTCACTGTCG) and Cre3 (TCGTTGCATCGACCGGTAATGCAGGC) resulted in a roughly 250 base-pair product. Tamoxifen, BrdU administration Tamoxifen (Sigma) and 4OH-tamoxifen (Sigma) stocks, and embryonic CreERtm inductions were as described (Hayashi and McMahon, 2002). For postnatal induction, subcutaneous injection of tamoxifen (20 mg/ml) at 8 mg/40gm of body weight was administered at the times indicated. For proliferation assays, BrdU (Sigma) (10 mg/ml, dissolved in 0.9% saline) (50 μg/gm of body weight) was either injected once per 12 hrs for 3 continuous days, or just once 1 hr before sacrifice for transient assays. In vivo electroporation and immunoprecipitation For gene transfer into postnatal ependymal cells, P4 pups were injected with 3-4 μl of pFLAG-Numb65 (Roncarati et al., 2002) (concentrated at 4μg/l) into LV followed by electroporation (two 50 ms pulses of 150 V with 950 ms interval). P7 brains were sectioned (350 μm), and ependyma dissected under dissecting loupe (Zeiss Stemi SV6), and subjected to co-immunoprecipitation assays. Details are available in Supplemental Data. In vivo viral injection In vivo adeno-cre viral injection was performed as described (Merkle et al., 2004). EM, β-galactosidase, immunohistochemistry Processing for electron microscopy was performed as described (Herrera et al., 1999).β-galactosidase staining was performed as described: http://axon.med.harvard.edu/~cepko/protocol/xgalplap-stain.htm. Preparation of brain tissue for immunohistochemistry (IHC) and BrdU labeling was as described (Spassky et al., 2005). IHC was performed on 12 μm cryostat samples. Comparisons between control and mutant samples were imaged using identical confocal settings. Details are available in Supplemental Data. 01 Click here to view.(1.7M, pdf) Acknowledgments We thank R. Klein for the Nestin promoter / 2nd intron enhancer construct; A. McMahon for CreERtm construct; Dev. Studies Hybridoma Bank for RC2 antibody; T. Cheng for technical assistance; J. Rubenstein, S. Pleasure, N. Shah, D. Castaneda, J. Wildonger, P. Soba, M. Berger, and A. Buckley for helpful comments. This work was supported by National Institutes of Health Grant 5 R01 NS047200. C.T.K. is a Calif. Inst. of Regenerative Medicine postdoctoral scholar. Y.N.J. and L.Y.J. are Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigators. Footnotes Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. References
|
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||
Cereb Cortex. 2003 Jun; 13(6):541-9.
[Cereb Cortex. 2003]Trends Neurosci. 2004 Jul; 27(7):392-9.
[Trends Neurosci. 2004]Neuron. 2005 May 5; 46(3):369-72.
[Neuron. 2005]Nature. 2001 Nov 1; 414(6859):112-7.
[Nature. 2001]Cereb Cortex. 2003 Jun; 13(6):580-7.
[Cereb Cortex. 2003]Nat Rev Neurosci. 2002 Jul; 3(7):517-30.
[Nat Rev Neurosci. 2002]Neuron. 2005 May 5; 46(3):373-6.
[Neuron. 2005]Science. 2005 Nov 4; 310(5749):805-10.
[Science. 2005]Neuron. 2005 May 5; 46(3):383-8.
[Neuron. 2005]Nat Rev Neurosci. 2006 Oct; 7(10):772-83.
[Nat Rev Neurosci. 2006]Nature. 2002 Oct 31; 419(6910):929-34.
[Nature. 2002]Development. 2002 Oct; 129(20):4843-53.
[Development. 2002]Neuron. 2003 Dec 18; 40(6):1105-18.
[Neuron. 2003]Nat Neurosci. 2004 Aug; 7(8):803-11.
[Nat Neurosci. 2004]Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2004 Apr; 16(2):195-205.
[Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2004]Dev Biol. 2002 Apr 15; 244(2):305-18.
[Dev Biol. 2002]Nat Genet. 1999 Sep; 23(1):99-103.
[Nat Genet. 1999]Nat Genet. 1999 Jan; 21(1):70-1.
[Nat Genet. 1999]Mol Cell Neurosci. 2001 Feb; 17(2):259-73.
[Mol Cell Neurosci. 2001]Neuron. 1996 Jul; 17(1):43-53.
[Neuron. 1996]J Neurosci. 2005 Jan 5; 25(1):10-8.
[J Neurosci. 2005]Dev Cell. 2002 Sep; 3(3):367-81.
[Dev Cell. 2002]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 May 14; 99(10):7102-7.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002]Mol Biol Cell. 2006 Mar; 17(3):1273-85.
[Mol Biol Cell. 2006]Exp Dermatol. 2004 Aug; 13(8):505-11.
[Exp Dermatol. 2004]BMC Neurosci. 2003 Nov 13; 4():28.
[BMC Neurosci. 2003]Science. 2006 Feb 3; 311(5761):629-32.
[Science. 2006]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Dec 14; 101(50):17528-32.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004]Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2004 Apr; 16(2):195-205.
[Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2004]Development. 2001 Mar; 128(5):689-702.
[Development. 2001]Dev Biol. 2004 May 1; 269(1):81-94.
[Dev Biol. 2004]J Neurosci. 2005 Jan 5; 25(1):10-8.
[J Neurosci. 2005]Dev Cell. 2002 Aug; 3(2):221-31.
[Dev Cell. 2002]Nature. 2002 Oct 31; 419(6910):929-34.
[Nature. 2002]Neuron. 2003 Dec 18; 40(6):1105-18.
[Neuron. 2003]Nat Neurosci. 2004 Aug; 7(8):803-11.
[Nat Neurosci. 2004]Stroke. 2004 Nov; 35(11 Suppl 1):2691-4.
[Stroke. 2004]Ann Neurol. 2006 May; 59(5):735-42.
[Ann Neurol. 2006]Nat Genet. 1999 Sep; 23(1):99-103.
[Nat Genet. 1999]Dev Biol. 2002 Apr 15; 244(2):305-18.
[Dev Biol. 2002]Dev Biol. 2002 Apr 15; 244(2):305-18.
[Dev Biol. 2002]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 May 14; 99(10):7102-7.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Dec 14; 101(50):17528-32.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004]Ann Neurol. 1999 Dec; 46(6):867-77.
[Ann Neurol. 1999]J Neurosci. 2005 Jan 5; 25(1):10-8.
[J Neurosci. 2005]