Stem Cells International

Stem Cells International / 2019 / Article

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2019 |Article ID 2054783 | 16 pages | https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/2054783

Cend1, a Story with Many Tales: From Regulation of Cell Cycle Progression/Exit of Neural Stem Cells to Brain Structure and Function

Academic Editor: Leonardo Romorini
Received12 Nov 2018
Revised21 Jan 2019
Accepted07 Feb 2019
Published02 May 2019

Abstract

Neural stem/precursor cells (NPCs) generate the large variety of neuronal phenotypes comprising the adult brain. The high diversity and complexity of this organ have its origin in embryonic life, during which NPCs undergo symmetric and asymmetric divisions and then exit the cell cycle and differentiate to acquire neuronal identities. During these processes, coordinated regulation of cell cycle progression/exit and differentiation is essential for generation of the appropriate number of neurons and formation of the correct structural and functional neuronal circuits in the adult brain. Cend1 is a neuronal lineage-specific modulator involved in synchronization of cell cycle exit and differentiation of neuronal precursors. It is expressed all along the neuronal lineage, from neural stem/progenitor cells to mature neurons, and is associated with the dynamics of neuron-generating divisions. Functional studies showed that Cend1 has a critical role during neurogenesis in promoting cell cycle exit and neuronal differentiation. Mechanistically, Cend1 acts via the p53-dependent/Cyclin D1/pRb signaling pathway as well as via a p53-independent route involving a tripartite interaction with RanBPM and Dyrk1B. Upon Cend1 function, Notch1 signaling is suppressed and proneural genes such as Mash1 and Neurogenins 1/2 are induced. Due to its neurogenic activity, Cend1 is a promising candidate therapeutic gene for brain repair, while the Cend1 minimal promoter is a valuable tool for neuron-specific gene delivery in the CNS. Mice with Cend1 genetic ablation display increased NPC proliferation, decreased migration, and higher levels of apoptosis during development. As a result, they show in the adult brain deficits in a range of motor and nonmotor behaviors arising from irregularities in cerebellar cortex lamination and impaired Purkinje cell differentiation as well as a paucity in GABAergic interneurons of the cerebral cortex, hippocampus, and amygdala. Taken together, these studies highlight the necessity for Cend1 expression in the formation of a structurally and functionally normal brain.

1. Introduction

Neural stem and progenitor cells are the building blocks of the brain. In the embryo, these cells are located in proliferative zones and produce a variety of neurons and glia through tightly regulated processes that result in the generation of the diversity and complexity of the cellular phenotypes found in the adult brain [18]. Neural stem/precursor cells (NPCs) initially undergo symmetric proliferative divisions to expand the NPC pool and later switch to asymmetric self-renewing divisions that yield one NPC daughter cell and one daughter cell with a more committed neuronal fate. Finally, symmetric differentiative divisions take place during the late embryonic stage to produce two daughter neurons thus increasing neuronal output [5, 9, 10]. NPCs proliferate in the ventricular and subventricular zones of the developing forebrain, then exit the cell cycle, and differentiate as they migrate away from these zones. During this process, coordinated regulation of cell cycle exit and differentiation is essential for generation of the appropriate number of neurons and formation of the correct structural and functional connections of neuronal circuits. Previous studies have shown that progression of progenitor cells towards neuronal differentiation is tightly linked with cell cycle control and that the two events are coordinately regulated [9, 1113]. Maintaining the balance between progenitor cell proliferation and neuronal differentiation is critical for the generation of the right number of neurons at the right time and place, thus ensuring proper CNS structure and function. Present evidence supports that cell cycle regulators can influence neural cell fate and differentiation, and conversely, cell fate determinants and differentiation-inducing proteins regulate the cell cycle [9, 14]. Over the years, the identification of cellular and molecular determinants that regulate and orchestrate cell cycle progression/exit and differentiation in the central nervous system (CNS) has been a subject of intense investigation with a large number of molecules implicated in the regulation of these processes. Among the different proteins that act as cell cycle regulators, Cend1 (for cell cycle exit and neuronal differentiation 1; also known as BM88) is a neuronal lineage-specific modulator that plays a role in synchronization of cell cycle exit and differentiation of neuronal progenitors in the developing nervous system. Notably, Cend1 is a neuron-specific protein which is expressed in NPCs of the embryonic forebrain and spinal cord at a time window when these cells are destined to generate neurons, while it ceases to be expressed when they give rise to glial cells [1518]. Further, Cend1 is associated with the dynamics of neuron-generating divisions [15]. Interestingly, Cend1 marks dividing NPCs, young neurons, and terminally differentiated neuronal cells all along the neuronal lineage [1522]. Functional studies have shown that Cend1 has a dual role during neurogenesis, promoting cell cycle exit, and neuronal differentiation. Especially, Cend1 negatively regulates proliferation via the p53/Cyclin D1/pRb signaling pathway [23] that controls the balance between cell cycle progression and exit, while its neuronal differentiation-promoting activity involves downregulation of Notch signaling and activation of proneural gene networks [16]. Moreover, tripartite functional interactions between Cend1, RanBPM, and the Mirk/Dyrk1B minibrain kinase affect Cyclin D1 levels and cell cycle progression/exit [24]. Here, we review the biochemical properties, expression profile, and functional characteristics of Cend1 and discuss its role in cell cycle progression/exit and the generation of proper brain structure and function. We also describe a recent finding that highlights its implication in Zika virus infection [25].

2. Biochemical Properties and Intracellular Localization of Cend1 Protein

Purification and biochemical characterization of Cend1 protein showed that it is an integral membrane protein apparently not glycosylated, composed of two identical 22-23 kDa polypeptide chains depending on the species tested, and linked together by disulphide bridges [17, 20, 21, 26]. Electron microscopy observations have shown that Cend1 protein is anchored to the lipid bilayer of a number of intracellular organelles, including the endoplasmic reticulum (ER), outer mitochondrial membrane (MOM), and small electron-lucent vesicles, and to a lesser extent to the plasma membrane, especially at the level of synaptic densities [20]. Cend1 consists of 149 amino acids in humans, mice, and rats, while the porcine and chick homologues consist of 140 and 130 amino acids, respectively [17, 21, 26]. Cend1 is anchored to intracellular membranes via a transmembrane domain of 20 hydrophobic amino acids, followed by a short tail of 3 positively charged residues (RKK) on the C-terminus, in such a way that the bulk of the protein faces the cytoplasm [20, 21, 26] (Gaitanou and Matsas, unpublished data) (Figure 1). The three positively charged residues (RKK) located at the C-terminus next to a hydrophobic transmembrane domain act as a MOM targeting signal (Gaitanou and Matsas, unpublished data), as has been shown for the Bcl-2 family of anti- and proapoptotic proteins [2729]. Furthermore, short specific N- and C-terminal amino acid sequences have been shown to be essential for proper Cend1 targeting to MOM and ER (Gaitanou and Matsas, unpublished data).

Cend1 protein in all tested species contains a proline-rich signaling domain that maybe involved in protein-protein interactions [17, 21]. This proline-rich domain contains several PXXP repeats, which represent putative SH3-binding sites and have been detected in a variety of proteins comprising diverse signal-transduction pathways [30]. To date, Cend1 has been shown to interact directly with RanBPM, a promiscuous scaffolding protein of the nervous and immune systems, and Ahi1, a protein implicated in Joubert syndrome, which is a rare autosomal recessive disorder characterized by an abnormal brain structure [24, 31]. Recently, Cend1 has also been demonstrated to interact directly with NS4B, a nonstructural Zika virus protein [25]. The functional implications of these protein-protein interactions are described below.

3. Cend1 Is an Early Marker of the Neuronal Lineage Associated with the Dynamics of Neurogenic Divisions

3.1. Embryonic Neurogenesis

As previously discussed, progression of progenitors towards neuronal differentiation is tightly linked with cell cycle control and the two events are coordinately regulated. Early in the neurogenic period, the transition from a symmetric towards an asymmetric pattern of divisions marks the onset of neurogenesis [5, 32]. Conversely, during late neurogenesis, an increasing number of progenitors divide symmetrically to produce two postmitotic daughter neurons. At this time, the neurogenic potential of precursors decreases while their gliogenic potential increases [11, 33]. Numerous studies have unveiled molecules affecting neurogenic divisions, thus linking cell cycle exit with neuronal differentiation. Genetic studies on Drosophila have identified a number of genes acting to specify asymmetric divisions [3436]. Accordingly, in vertebrates, Numb [3741], the antiproliferative genes PC3/Tis21 [42] and pRb [43], and the transcription factor Pax6 [44, 45] seem to affect the progression from symmetric/proliferative to asymmetric/neuron-generating divisions.

Cend1 was initially identified and studied by our group as a component of mature neurons with the use of a monoclonal antibody (mab BM88) raised against Triton X-114-treated pig synaptic membranes [46]. Immunohistochemistry revealed that in the CNS, Cend1 is widely expressed throughout the gray matter of the brain and spinal cord. In the peripheral nervous system (PNS), Cend1 is expressed in the perikarya and processes of dorsal root ganglion neurons, as well as in the myelinated and unmyelinated neuronal processes of the dorsal roots. Cend1 was also detected in neuronal cell bodies and fibers of the enteric ganglia. In addition, Cend1 expression was observed in primary cultures of neurons derived from pig and rat brains [19, 46, 47]. Notably, Cend1 expression is first detectable at embryonic day (E) 12.5 in the rat brain and is increased in an age-dependent manner, reaching a maximum at postnatal day (P) 15 [20].

Although Cend1 was identified as a protein expressed in postmitotic neurons [1921, 46], subsequent studies revealed that it marks neural stem/progenitor cells all along the different stages of the neuronal lineage as well as terminally differentiated neurons, both in rodents and in chicks [1518]. Cend1 is expressed at low levels in neuronal progenitors, including radial glia, while its expression is distinctly upregulated in young postmitotic neurons and remains high in mature neurons [15, 20, 21]. Especially in the embryonic rodent forebrain, Cend1 is expressed in multipotential progenitor cells before terminal mitosis and in their neuronal progeny during the neurogenic period [15]. Double-labeling experiments with 5-bromo-2-deoxyuridine (BrdU) and 3H-thymidine to define a cohort of proliferative progenitors that exit S phase in synchrony, revealed that Cend1 is associated with the dynamics of asymmetric/neuron-generating divisions [15].

3.2. Adult Neurogenesis

Over the last two decades, it has become apparent that persistent neurogenesis throughout life occurs in two specific brain areas of the adult mammalian forebrain: the subventricular zone (SVZ) adjacent to the lateral wall of the lateral ventricles and the subgranular zone (SGZ) of the hippocampal dentate gyrus (DG) [4855]. In the adult SVZ, a subset of relatively quiescent GFAP+ radial cells (type B cells) has the potential to serve as adult neural stem cells and generate rapidly dividing, transit-amplifying nonradial progenitors (type C cells), which in turn give rise to neuroblasts (type A cells) that migrate through the rostral migratory stream (RMS) to the olfactory bulb (OB). In the adult SGZ, a population of GFAP+/Sox2+ radial cells corresponds to quiescent neural stem cells (type 1 cells). They coexist with actively proliferating, GFAP+/Sox2+ nonradial NPCs (type 2 cells) that generate both astrocytes and neuroblasts. Neuroblasts then migrate into the granule cell layer and mature into neurons [54]. This process is sustained by the life-long persistence of neural stem cells in these two areas, with the SVZ being the richest source of neural stem/progenitor cells in the adult brain, thus providing a continuous supply of newborn neurons to the olfactory bulb (OB). Cend1 is expressed in the adult SVZ, while its expression rises along the adult mouse SVZ-RMS-OB pathway [15, 22]. In particular, Cend1 is expressed in type B and transit-amplifying type C progenitor cells of the adult SVZ and its expression increases concomitantly with the degree of neuroblast maturation. In addition, Cend1 is highly expressed by NeuN+ and GABA+ interneurons of the OB [22]. Taken together, these data indicate that Cend1 is present in neuronal progenitors and postmitotic neurons along the SVZ-RMS-OB pathway, thus marking the neuronal lineage in this region of the adult brain.

4. Cend1 Expression in the Developing Chick and Mouse Spinal Cord Is Inversely Correlated with the Proliferation Gradient

Early in development, a population of ectodermal cells is committed to neural fate, to form the neural plate and later to produce the neural tube, of which the anterior part generates the forebrain and the posterior part the spinal cord. The spinal cord develops from a small number of highly plastic neural stem/progenitor cells that proliferate, acquire regional identities, and generate a progressively restricted repertoire of cell types, first neurons and later glial cells, oligodendrocytes, and astrocytes. Soon after the onset of neural induction, the anteroposterior (rostro-caudal) identity of progenitors is specified and the hindbrain and spinal cord adopt their posterior identity. This is achieved by signaling centers located in the neural tube and surrounding tissues that produce fibroblast growth factors (FGFs), bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs), retinoids, and Wnt proteins [1, 5659]. The result of this early patterning is a structure in which distinct anteroposterior segments are defined by the expression of combinations of different transcription factors, mainly members of the Hox family [59, 60]. Similarly, after neural tube formation, dorsoventral organization is already acquired. The proliferation rate of neural progenitors is higher in the dorsal as compared to the ventral part, whereas the opposite is true for the differentiation rate [18, 61]. In this early neural tube, the region between the roof plate (RP) and floor plate (FP) is densely occupied by neural progenitors. The identity of these progenitors is modulated along the dorsoventral axis by extrinsic signals that activate hierarchies of transcription factors, expressed in a region- and cell-specific manner, to regionalize the early neural tube [1, 2, 18]. Floor plate differentiation is mediated by inductive signaling from the notochord and especially by the secreted protein Sonic hedgehog (Shh). Shh expression gradient is increased dorsoventrally and controls ventral patterning by the repression of the homeodomain proteins Pax6, Pax7, Dbx1, Dbx2, and Irx3 and the induction of expression of Nkx6.1 and Nkx2.2 homeodomain transcription factors [1].

Expression studies in the developing chick and mouse spinal cord confirmed the expression of Cend1 by cycling neuroepithelial precursors located in the ventricular zone (VZ) and by postmitotic neurons of the mantle zone (MZ). Cend1 mRNA expression was first detected in the MZ of chick spinal cord at HH stage 15 embryos. Less intense Cend1 expression was observed in the proliferative VZ at the same embryonic stage [1618]. In accordance, Cend1 expression is detected at E12.5 mouse embryo in the spinal cord and brain, at a time when neurogenesis takes place throughout the rostro-caudal axis of the CNS [17].

Interestingly, in the embryonic mouse and chick spinal cord, a mediolateral and dorsoventral gradient of Cend1 expression is apparent, with lower Cend1 levels in the neural stem/progenitor cell population of the VZ and higher in the differentiated cells of the MZ in the mediolateral axis. In the dorsoventral axis, highest Cend1 expression levels are evident in ventral and lowest in dorsal areas [17, 18]. These expression gradients are, on one hand, inversely correlated with the proliferation gradients and, on the other hand, proportionate to the differentiation gradients existing in the spinal cord, where proliferation is higher in dorsal and medial areas, in contrast to differentiation which persists in ventral and lateral areas [18, 61], suggesting that Cend1 may be functionally involved in these processes [18].

5. Functional and Mechanistic Studies in Neuro2a Cells

5.1. Cend1 Promotes Cell Cycle Exit through the p53/Cyclin D1/pRb Signaling Pathway

Functional evidence supporting the dual role of Cend1 in coordination of cell cycle exit and neuronal differentiation came from analysis of its overexpression in the mouse neuroblastoma Neuro2A cell line, which is inherently capable of neuronal differentiation. Stably transfected Neuro2A cells overexpressing Cend1 exhibited a significant change in morphology, reflected by enhanced process outgrowth and a slower rate of division [26]. Moreover, in the presence of retinoic acid, these cells exhibited an accelerated morphological and molecular differentiation. Cend1 could also induce accelerated neuronal differentiation of mouse embryonic teratocarcinoma P19 cells upon treatment with retinoic acid [62] with concomitant downregulation of the pluripotency marker Oct3 and upregulation of the proneural genes Neurogenin 1 and Mash1 [63].

Gain and loss-of-function approaches in Neuro2A cells by means of Cend1 overexpression or knockdown provided direct evidence that Cend1 activates the p53-pRb signaling pathway controlling the balance between cell proliferation and cell cycle exit [23]. Moreover, the antiproliferative effect of Cend1 is associated with Cyclin D1 downregulation and its cytoplasmic relocation from the nucleus, concomitantly to pRb hypophosphorylation resulting in withdrawal from the cell cycle at the G1/G0 transition point [23] (Figure 2).

Interestingly, overexpression of Cend1 in 3T3 fibroblasts triggered cell cycle exit, but apparently, because of absence of the appropriate cellular machinery required for neuronal differentiation, these cells were driven towards a proapoptotic pathway, suggesting a context-dependent cellular function for Cend1 [23]. As the antiproliferative effect of Cend1 could be extended to nonneural cells, coupled to proapoptotic induction, we considered the possibility that Cend1 has a more generalized antitumor action that may become of use in cancer therapeutics. Histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACIs) have been reported to arrest cell cycle and induce differentiation [64, 65]. Especially, trichostatin A (TSA), which is a potent inhibitor of histone deacetylases [65], inhibits growth and induces differentiation and apoptosis in Neuro2A cells [6668]. In this context, it was demonstrated that TSA stimulates indirectly Cend1 promoter activity and upregulates Cend1 mRNA and protein levels in Neuro2A cells. The operation of such an indirect mechanism for regulating the transcriptional repression/activation of Cend1 in neuronal cells is further supported by the fact that HDAC inhibition is not sufficient to derepress Cend1 promoter activity in nonneural cells [69]. TSA-mediated upregulation of Cend1 is associated with a concomitant p53-independent induction of p21 [69, 70], suggesting that Cend1 may participate in both p53-dependent [23] and independent pathways leading to cell cycle arrest [24, 69], as we will discuss below.

5.2. Cend1, RanBPM, and Dyrk1B Tripartite Interactions in Cell Cycle Progression/Exit

Although the mechanistic studies described above elucidated Cend1-associated antiproliferative pathways, the protein partners interacting directly with Cend1 remained elusive. Using a yeast two-hybrid system Ran-binding protein M (RanBPM) was identified as a direct interacting partner for Cend1 via its SPRY-LISH-CTLH domain [24]. RanBPM is a multidomain intracellular protein that shuttles between the cytoplasm and the nucleus and has been shown to act as a scaffold for signal transduction for several receptors, nuclear proteins, transcription factors, and cytoplasmic kinases in the immune and nervous systems [71]. Among its different functions, RanBPM has been implicated in cell cycle progression of neuronal precursors via an as yet unknown mechanism [72], while it has been identified as a binding partner for the growth arrest protein Dyrk1B in lung epithelial cells [73]. Dyrk1B belongs to the nuclear family of dual-specificity tyrosine phosphorylation-regulated kinases (Dyrks), which include several vertebrate, invertebrate, and lower eukaryotic orthologs characterized by highly conserved Dyrk homology and kinase domains [74, 75]. Mammalian Dyrk1A and Dyrk1B and the Drosophila minibrain kinases have been shown to affect proliferation and/or differentiation in a variety of cell types [7477]. Moreover, Dyrk1B has been reported to control Cyclin D1 levels by promoting Cyclin D1 phosphorylation and its subsequent degradation [7880]. These observations triggered the hypothesis for a tripartite interaction between Cend1, RanBPM, and Dyrk1B in neuronal cells, which was further investigated.

Cend1, RanBPM, and Dyrk1B are expressed in the mouse brain and in cultured embryonic cortical neurons, while RanBPM can form separate complexes with either of the two other proteins when expressed in HEK293T cells [24]. Further, in Neuro2A cells, a Cend1-dependent or Dyrk1B-dependent downregulation of Cyclin D1 was observed that could be reversed following their interaction with RanBPM. Interestingly, binding of RanBPM to either Cend1 or Dyrk1B stabilized Cyclin D1 in the nucleus and increased 5-bromo-2-deoxyuridine (BrdU) incorporation, which was used as a measure of cellular proliferation [24]. In the case of Dyrk1B-RanBPM interaction, this occurred because RanBPM facilitated Dyrk1B proteasomal turnover. However, when all three proteins were coexpressed, Dyrk1B was rescued in the nucleus to target Cyclin D1. Additionally, coexpression of RanBPM with either Cend1 or Dyrk1B also had a negative effect on Neuro2A cell differentiation in the presence of retinoic acid, as compared with cells expressing each protein separately. These results demonstrated that functional interactions between Cend1, RanBPM, and Dyrk1B influence the balance between cellular proliferation and differentiation in Neuro2A cells, suggesting that the three proteins may also play a similar role in cell cycle progression/exit and differentiation of neuronal precursors during neurogenesis [24]. This is in agreement with the fact that both RanBPM and DyrK1B are expressed in neuronal precursors in parallel with Cend1 [72] (Kokkorakis, Matsas, and Gaitanou unpublished data). A model of Cend1, RanBPM, and Dyrk1B interactions in NPCs and neurons is presented in Figure 3. In NPCs, where expression of Cend1 is low, RanBPM interacts with Dyrk1B promoting its degradation by the 26S proteasome. Thus, Cyclin D1 remains active in the nucleus to drive cell cycle progression by association with the CDK4/6-PCNA and phosphorylation of the retinoblastoma (Rb) protein. Before terminal mitosis of NPCs, Cend1 is elevated and remains high in postmitotic neurons, where Cend1 binds to RanBPM in the cytoplasm. Consequently, Dyrk1B kinase is maintained intact in the nucleus to phosphorylate Cyclin D1 and induce its degradation by the 26S proteasome, resulting in the cell cycle exit (Figure 3). To date, our findings suggest two mechanisms by which Cend1 controls Cyclin D1 levels and promotes cell cycle exit in neuronal precursors during neurogenesis.

Considering its interaction with RanBPM, it is possible that Cend1 might also play a role in mitotic regulation. RanBPM has been previously implicated in the progression of neuronal precursors through the M phase at the surface of the neocortical ventricular zone [72]. This is an interesting observation, given the implication of Cend1 in the transition from a symmetric to an asymmetric pattern of cell divisions [15]. Since this transition is an important determinant of neuronal production during brain development, it would be important to investigate further the role of Cend1 in this process. Interestingly, using GST pull-down assays combined with proteomics profiling, we were recently able to show that Cend1 interacts with the cytoskeletal dihydropyrimidinase-related protein-2 also known as Collapsin response mediator protein 2 (CRMP2) (Gaitanou and Matsas, unpublished observations). CRMP2 is a microtubule-associated protein that plays a critical role in dividing cells. It stabilizes the mitotic apparatus during cell division while CRMP2-depleted cells exhibit destabilized anaphase, reduced astral microtubules, and altered spindle position [81]. Investigation of the consequences of Cend1-CRMP2 interaction in mitosis is in progress and could well explain how Cend1 affects the transition from symmetric to asymmetric/neuron-generating cell divisions [15].

5.3. Cend1 Promotes Neuronal Differentiation by Suppressing Notch Signaling

The most important observations concerning the neurogenic activity of Cend1 have come from studies in the developing spinal cord. Cend1 is sufficient to initiate the differentiation of spinal cord neural precursors toward acquisition of generic neuronal- and subtype-specific traits. Gain-of-function approaches in the neural tube of the chicken embryo, where Cend1 forced expression was promoted by unilateral electroporation, showed that Cend1 negatively regulates proliferation of neuronal precursors, driving them to prematurely exit the cell cycle, downregulate Notch1, Hes5, Olig2, Cash1, and Pax7, and commit to a neuronal differentiation pathway [16]. Conversely, loss-of-function conferred by siRNA targeting Cend1 in neural progenitor cells (NPCs) derived from E12.5 mouse spinal cord enhanced proliferation and impaired neuronal differentiation, further corroborating that Cend1 participates in the molecular machinery that coordinates cell cycle exit and differentiation of neuronal precursors [16]. The combined effect on proliferation and differentiation results in precocious induction of neurogenesis and generation of postmitotic neurons within the ventricular zone. The dual function of Cend1 is not recapitulated by overexpression of the cell cycle inhibitor p27Kip1, suggesting that cell cycle exit does not induce differentiation by default. Thus, Cend1 is capable not only to cause exit of neuronal progenitors from the cell cycle but also to coordinately induce neuronal differentiation. Moreover, induction of endogenous Cend1 is promoted by forced expression of the proneural gene Mash1, indicating that Cend1 is a part of the differentiation program activated and regulated by proneural genes [16].

Suppression of Notch1 signaling by Cend1 may be mediated through the Dyrk family of proteins [76]. Considering the negative correlation between the functions of Notch and Cend1, it seems a reasonable assumption that Cend1 might be the target of basic helix-loop-helix proneural genes, thus defining a late molecular switch for generic neurogenesis [16]. Because proneural genes are expressed transiently in neural progenitors and are usually downregulated before progenitor cells exit the VZ and begin to differentiate [16, 8284], their ability to potentiate full neuronal differentiation relies on the induction of downstream differentiation genes that can further implement neuronal differentiation programs [3, 16]. Cend1 is a strong candidate for such a function, whereas induction of endogenous Cend1 after misexpression of Mash1 in the chick neural tube strongly supports this hypothesis. In agreement, Neurogenins 1 and 2 directly transactivate the human Cend1 promoter [22, 85].

6. Cend1 as a Valuable Gene Therapy Tool

6.1. Cend1 Can Be Used as a Therapeutic Gene for Brain Repair

The adult cerebral cortex has limited ability for regeneration after brain damage, due to the lack of a resident population of neural stem/progenitor cells responsive to injury-induced signals. Limited compensatory cortical neurogenesis has been reported following stroke [78] or induced apoptotic degeneration [86], but the number of neurons produced is insufficient to replenish neuronal loss after injury and restore cortical function [87, 88]. To overcome this limitation, efforts have been made to stimulate the endogenous NPC population of the neighboring subventricular zone (SVZ) with growth factors, in order to recruit a population of NPCs to the lesioned cortex. Moreover, transplantation of suitable cell types has also attracted considerable interest as an alternative strategy to overcome the regenerative limitations of the lesioned brain [8991]. NPC transplantation has been combined with ex vivo gene delivery for expression of regeneration-promoting molecules. So far, several studies have addressed the efficacy of transplanting embryonic stem cells preconditioned to restrict their differentiation to neural lineages as well as neural stem/precursor cells from the embryonic or adult CNS into animal models of brain and spinal cord injury [9294]. Additionally, a number of molecules have been used to enhance the capacity of embryonic stem cells and NPCs to repair CNS damage in animal models of brain injury. These include trophic factors such as NGF [95], GDNF [96], EGF [97], FGF2 [98], IGF1 [99101], and cytokines such as erythropoietin [102] and also cell adhesion molecules [103106] and extracellular matrix proteins [107].

Due to its neurogenic activity, Cend1 is a promising candidate for ex vivo gene therapy approaches aiming at neuronal replacement. Towards this direction, genetically modified NPCs from E14.5 mouse brain overexpressing Cend1 with the help of a lentiviral vector were grafted in a mouse model of acute cortical injury [108]. Extensive cellular loss of NeuN+ neurons was observed the day following the injury while GFAP+-reactive astrocytes started to populate the area around the lesion site, indicating an early response to injury. Four weeks postinjury, GFAP+-reactive astrocytes formed a glial scar that surrounded and limited the injury site while transplanted cells were found within the lesion. Cend1 overexpression enhanced the differentiation of the grafted NPCs into neurons, which acquired a GABAergic interneuron phenotype [108]. An interesting, potentially beneficial effect was the significant reduction of astrogliosis in animals that had received NPCs with Cend1 overexpression. This was demonstrated by a decrease in the density of activated astrocytes present within the glial scar, as well as the degree of hypertrophy of the activated astroglial cells. It is noteworthy that the effect of Cend1 was specifically targeted to the GFAP+ cells forming the gliotic scar, whereas no effect was noted on the host NG2+ glial precursors participating in glial scar formation, which are thought to contribute to tissue regeneration [108, 109]. Cend1 effect on astrogliosis suggested for the first time a noncell autonomous function, which probably impacts on Cyclin D1-dependent regulation of astrocyte proliferation and possibly also on their survival, deserving further study. Cend1 involvement in regulation of stimulus-induced intracellular calcium mobilization may provide a link to explain the propagation of Cend1 action to the host cortical tissue [110].

Glial scar formation around the injured area has both beneficial and detrimental consequences after CNS insults. Initially, it is fundamental for sealing off the injured tissue and restricting inflammation and neuronal death [111, 112], but at later stages, it inhibits regeneration [113, 114]. Cend1-overexpressing grafts were found to attenuate astrogliosis one month after injury when the adverse effects of activated astroglia are likely to outnumber their positive contributions, without impinging on lesion size [108]. As such, the reduction in astrogliosis by Cend1 overexpression should contribute in enhancing regenerative processes leading to repair. Therefore, the enhanced neuronal output within the graft and the attenuation of astrogliosis render Cend1 a promising candidate for cell replacement approaches, especially if used in combination with other regenerative molecules.

6.2. Cend1 Minimal Promoter, a Gene Therapy Tool for Neuron-Specific Gene Delivery

The human Cend1 gene maps to chromosome 11p15.5, a region characterized by genomic imprinting, an epigenetic phenomenon that causes genes to be expressed in a parent-of-origin-specific manner [21]. This chromosomal region is implicated in Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome (BWS), an overgrowth genetic disorder, as well as in several types of embryonic, childhood, and adult cancers [115119]. The human Cend1 gene contains a promoter with multiple transcription start sites, lying within CpG islands and lacking TATA boxes. Within the promoter region, there are four functional Sp1-binding sites. Simultaneous mutations of all four Sp1 sites resulted in complete loss of promoter activity. Transactivation experiments revealed that Sp1 directly activates the Cend1 promoter, while activation also occurs in the presence of Neurogenin 1 [85]. Functional studies of the human Cend1 promoter in neural and nonneural cell lines revealed that it is preferentially active only in neural cells. Moreover, deletion analysis revealed a minimal promoter fragment of 88 bp, which is sufficient to drive and restrict reporter gene expression in primary neurons, but not in glial cells [85].

Neurogenins 1/2 and Olf-1 binding sites are both present on the minimal human Cend1 promoter. Neurogenins 1/2 and Olf-1 act upstream of NeuroD to promote neurogenesis [120122]. Interestingly, Neurogenins 1/2 directly transactivate the human Cend1 promoter in the ND26 neuronal cell line, as well as in neurospheres [22, 85], confirming that Cend1 is part of the differentiation program activated by proneural genes during neurogenesis. Importantly, alleviation of Cend1 activation by Neurogenin 1 upon mutation of the E-box consensus sequence present in the Cend1 proximal promoter that constitutes a putative bHLH protein binding site [123] indicates a direct action of Neurogenin 1 on Cend1 transcription [22, 85]. Since proneural genes are transiently expressed in precursor cells and are readily downregulated in differentiated neurons, it appears that their ability to sustain neuronal differentiation relies on activation of downstream genes, including Cend1, participating in cellular differentiation networks.

The short but potent Cend1 promoter fragment of 88 bp may be useful for the development of novel, neuron-specific gene therapy tools. Such an approach has been recently developed through generation of adeno-associated viral vector serotype 8 (AAV8) for neuron-specific delivery of therapeutic genes in the CNS [124]. AAV8 vectors carrying enhanced green fluorescent protein as reporter gene under the transcriptional control of five different small-sized CNS-specific promoters were made. Specifically, three glia-specific vectors were constructed using two truncated forms of the human promoter for glial fibrillar acidic protein (GFAP) as well as a truncated form of the murine GFAP promoter. All three resulted in primarily glial expression in vivo after stereotactic injection in the mouse brain. On the other hand, robust neuron-specific expression was observed using the minimal promoters for the neuronal protein Cend1 and the neuronal nicotinic receptor β2 (CHRNB2). The Cend1 minimal promoter conferred the strongest GFP expression to a high percentage of transduced neurons [124], indicating that it is a valuable tool for gene therapy approaches.

7. Cend1 Is Necessary for Formation of a Structurally and Functionally Normal Brain: Lessons from Cend1 Knockout Mice

To gain further insight into the physiological function of Cend1, we generated knockout mice which completely lack Cend1 [125]. Homozygous Cend1−/− mice are viable and fertile with a life expectancy that does not differ from that of wild-type animals. Although macroscopically Cend1−/− mice show no overt morphological defects in the brain, closer observations revealed a number of structural and functional deficits in the cerebellum and other brain regions, which are described below.

7.1. Impaired Cerebellar Development and Deficits in Motor Coordination in Mice Lacking Cend1

The cerebellum is a primary site for motor coordination, and lesions in this region result in ataxia, a movement incoordination disorder. Two types of neurons present in the cerebellar cortex play dominant roles: the Purkinje cells and the granule cells [126, 127]. Granule cell precursors (GCPs) generated in the embryonic rhombic lip move across the developing cerebellar surface to form the external granule layer (EGL). GCPs in the outer part of the EGL proliferate extensively during the first postnatal week and then migrate inwards, through the Purkinje cell layer to form the internal granule layer (IGL) [128, 129]. GC radial migration is contact guided by Bergmann glial cell processes [130]. Purkinje cells from the germinal zone of the fourth ventricle migrate towards the cerebellar surface and settle into a monolayer where postnatally, they differentiate and develop an extensively arborized dendritic tree [131]. Purkinje cell dendrites are targeted by GC axons, the parallel fibers, and together constitute the bulk of the molecular layer (ML). Cerebellar development is complete after the third postnatal week in mice.

Genetic ablation of Cend1 leads to irregularities in cerebellar layering arising from increased proliferation of GCPs, delayed radial granule cell migration, and impaired Purkinje cell differentiation, leading to ataxic gait and deficits in motor coordination. In particular, GCPs of P0–P9 Cend1−/− mice show increased proliferation and significant Cyclin D1 upregulation, resulting in expansion of the EGL. Cyclin D1 expression is prominent in GCPs of the EGL [132], which proliferate under the influence of the potent mitogen Sonic hedgehog (Shh) secreted by Purkinje cells [133]. Cyclin D1 is a direct target of Shh signaling [134] and is mediated by its receptor Patched1. Patched1 is expressed in GCPs, and upon binding of Shh, the inhibition of smoothened-mediated signal transduction is alleviated thus triggering activation of the Gli family of transcriptional regulators, which in turn promote downstream proliferation events [135]. In relevance, altered levels of Patched1 are found in the cerebellum of Cend1−/− mice confirming aberrant Shh signaling [125].

Delayed radial GC migration was also observed in Cend1−/− mice cerebella, as a consequence of reduced BDNF expression. Nevertheless, despite their increased proliferation and delayed migration, GC differentiation and extension of parallel fibers were not affected in Cend1−/− mutant mice [125].

By contrast, Cend1−/− mice exhibit an obvious disruption in Purkinje cell differentiation. A largely stunted dendritic arborization was evident in the Purkinje cells of early postnatal mutant animals that was maintained in adulthood. Purkinje cells elaborate a complex and highly branched dendritic arbor, which allows them to integrate numerous signals from the cerebellar circuitry. The stunted branching of Purkinje cell dendrites observed in Cend1−/− mice is a phenotype also seen upon Reelin deficiency [136]. Interestingly, Reelin has been implicated in dendrite maturation not only in cerebellar Purkinje cells but also in hippocampal neurons [137]. Strikingly, the expression of Reelin was reduced by 30–40% of normal levels in mice lacking Cend1. Reelin is secreted by cells in the EGL as well as in the deep nuclei of the developing cerebellum and is a major player in the migration and positioning of Purkinje cells in a monolayer, a process completed by the first postnatal week [138, 139]. Thus, in the homozygous reeler mutant mouse which contains a mutation in the gene-encoding Reelin, 95% of Purkinje cells are ectopic [140]. However, in the Math1-null mutant mice, which completely lack EGL cells, the majority of Purkinje neurons migrate normally [141], suggesting that residual Reelin secreted from the deep cerebellar nuclei is sufficient for proper positioning of these cells [142], thus explaining the fact that normal Purkinje cell migration is observed in Cend1 mutant mice.

Heterozygous reeler mice do not have an overt phenotype but manifest perturbed dendritic differentiation of Purkinje cells [143] in line with our observations in Cend1 mutants. Reelin exerts its function by binding to and activating the very low-density lipoprotein receptor and the apolipoprotein E receptor 2 [136]. Both receptors bind mDab1 on their cytoplasmic tails, an adaptor protein related to the Drosophila-disabled gene product. Targeted disruption of components of this pathway either in knockout mice or in the naturally occurring reeler and scrambler mutant mice results in similar neuropathological features [144]. These include abnormal dendritic arborization of Purkinje cells as in Cend1 mutants. These findings suggest that Cend1 influences directly or indirectly the Reelin signaling pathway [125] (Figure 4). As expected, abnormal cerebellar layering and morphological defects in Purkinje cells in Cend1−/− mice are associated with locomotion and learning deficits [125].

Interestingly, a study that produced an interaction network for 54 proteins involved in 23 human inherited ataxias characterized by loss of balance due to cerebellar Purkinje cell (PC) degeneration revealed that Cend1 is a direct protein partner of ataxin-1-interacting protein (A1Up) [145]. This interactome map provides a tool for better understanding of pathogenic mechanisms common for this class of neurodegenerative disorders and for identifying candidate genes for inherited ataxias, providing an additional link for the role of Cend1 in cerebellar development and function.

Another intriguing finding that implicates Cend1 in human disease came from a study showing that Cend1 associates with Ahi1 [31], also known as Jouberin [146], a protein encoded by the Abelson helper integration-1 (AHI1) gene. AHI1 mutations lead to Joubert syndrome, a rare autosomal recessive disorder characterized by an abnormal brain structure, cerebellar hypoplasia, retinal dystrophy, renal degeneration, and delayed development [147154].

7.2. Cend1 Expression Is Necessary for Generation of the Right Numbers of GABAergic Neurons in the Cortex, Hippocampus, and Amygdala

Further studies in Cend1−/− mice revealed functional deficits in a range of behaviors, including anxiety and exploratory behavior in the elevated plus maze and open field, associative learning in fear conditioning, and spatial learning and memory in the Morris water maze [155]. These observations were associated with reduced numbers of GABAergic interneurons, but not glutamatergic neurons, in functionally relevant brain areas, including the cortex, amygdala, and hippocampus. Association of Cend1 with a GABAergic fate is in agreement with previous observations demonstrating that Cend1-overexpressing NPCs adopt a GABAergic phenotype after transplantation in the lesioned cerebral cortex [108] as well as with the fact that Cend1 drives reprogramming of cortical astrocytes to a GABAergic neuronal fate when used as a cellular reprogramming factor [156].

GABAergic interneurons comprise approximately one-fifth of the total neuronal population in the adult cortex and play central roles in cortical circuitry and activity. They provide the main source of inhibition to cortical circuits and regulate the activity of excitatory projection neurons [157, 158]. Previous studies have indicated that alterations in the number, function, and distribution of cortical interneurons are associated with a variety of severe neurological disorders such as schizophrenia, autism, and epilepsy [159, 160]. Cortical interneurons originate from the ganglionic eminences (GEs), mostly the medial ganglionic eminence (MGE), which is a well-defined domain of the subpallial ventricular area, and migrate tangentially to populate the developing cortex [161, 162]. Apart from cortical interneurons, the GE gives rise to GABAergic interneuron subtypes that contribute to the mammalian amygdala [163]. This region is subdivided to the lateral, basolateral (BLA), and central amygdala and has been identified as a key anatomic structure of the circuitry that mediates fear conditioning [164, 165]. An important function of this region is to control behaviors that are related to fear and anxiety, in concert with the cerebral cortex and the hippocampus [166] whose GABAergic interneurons also originate from the GEs [167].

In agreement with Cend1 function, the reduced numbers of GABAergic interneurons in the adult Cend1−/− cortex and amygdala correlated with increased proliferation and apoptosis as well as with reduced migration of neuronal progenitors from the embryonic GE from which these cells originate. Additionally, we noted aberrant neurogenesis in the adult dentate gyrus of the hippocampus, which is a key structure in learning and memory [155]. In this region, new neurons are produced throughout adult life and become functionally integrated in preexisting neuronal circuits [52, 168172]. An increasing number of studies indicate a functional link between hippocampal-dependent learning and adult hippocampal neurogenesis [53, 173177]. Our analysis showed an activation of the earlier stages of adult hippocampal neurogenesis in Cend1−/− mice, accompanied by increased cell apoptosis. These events may be causally related to a parallel decrease in local Parvalbumin interneurons (a subtype of GABAergic cells), which are known on one hand to suppress the activation of neural stem cells [171] and support the survival of newborn neurons on the other [178]. Taken together, our data highlight the requirement for Cend1 expression in the formation of a structurally and functionally normal phenotype.

8. Cend1 in Zika Virus Infection

In an important recent study aiming to understand how Zika virus (ZIKV) affects neuronal cells, Scaturro and colleagues applied an integrated approach in human NPCs and the neuronal cell line SK-N-BE2 to characterize cellular responses to viral infection at the proteome and phosphoproteome levels [25]. Further, they used affinity proteomics to identify cellular targets of ZIKV proteins, using as baits three structural and seven nonstructural viral proteins (NS1, NS2A, NS2B, NS3, NS4A, NS4B, and NS5). These 386 ZIKV-interacting proteins were identified possessing ZIKV-specific or pan-flaviviral activities, as well as host-interacting proteins with known functions in neuronal development, retinal defects, and infertility. Among these, Cend1 was found to interact specifically with the nonstructural viral protein NS4B, which has been previously implicated in inhibition of neuronal development [179]. The NS4B-Cend1 interaction was validated upon ZIKV infection of SK-N-BE2 cells transduced with a lentivirus expressing Cend1, followed by reciprocal coimmunoprecipitation experiments. Moreover, to assess the functional relevance of the newly identified host proteins, 17 selected cellular ZIKV partners including Cend1 were further evaluated for their implication in ZKV infection by gene silencing. Interestingly, Cend1 knockdown resulted in inhibition of ZIKV replication [25], suggesting that Cend1 is a promising new therapeutic target in Zika virus infection.

9. Concluding Remarks and Future Perspectives

The studies described herein have revealed that Cend1 is a protein expressed all along the neuronal lineage, from neural stem/progenitor cells to mature neurons. Cend1 plays a critical role in cell cycle progression/exit or apoptosis of neuronal progenitors that affect neuronal differentiation. Its combined actions thus contribute to the generation of a structurally and functionally normal brain. The search for Cend1-interacting partners, particularly in the developing vertebrate brain, could be further enriched with GST pull-down assays in the embryonic mouse brain homogenates combined with proteomics profiling or with proximity ligation assays. These approaches should help understand better the mechanism of action of this protein. Nevertheless, in line with its functional properties, Cend1 has been used successfully in direct reprogramming of mouse astrocytes to functional neurons [156], further highlighting its importance in acquisition of a neuronal fate. Moreover, in light of Cend1 antiproliferative activity in nonneural cells, which is coupled to proapoptotic induction, it is interesting to consider this molecule in cancer therapeutics. Finally, the recent finding that Cend1 is necessary for Zika virus infection opens up new perspectives for uncovering the multiple mechanisms that this virus has evolved to usurp, exploit, or perturb fundamental cellular processes, ultimately contributing to the broad spectrum of pathological abnormalities observed in humans. Future studies should delineate if Cend1 is a promising target for therapeutic interventions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the members of the Matsas Lab for stimulating discussions and comments. We acknowledge the support of this work by the project “Infectious, Autoimmune and Neurodegenerative Diseases: Study of the Pathogenetic Mechanisms and Development of Diagnostic, Prognostic and Therapeutic Approaches” (MIS 5002486) which is implemented under the “Action for the Strategic Development on the Research and Technological Sector”, funded by the Operational Programme “Competitiveness, Entrepreneurship and Innovation” (NSRF 2014-2020) and cofinanced by the Greece and the European Union (European Regional Development Fund).

References

  1. T. M. Jessell, “Neuronal specification in the spinal cord: inductive signals and transcriptional codes,” Nature Reviews. Genetics, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 20–29, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. T. Marquardt and S. L. Pfaff, “Cracking the transcriptional code for cell specification in the neural tube,” Cell, vol. 106, no. 6, pp. 651–654, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. N. Bertrand, D. S. Castro, and F. Guillemot, “Proneural genes and the specification of neural cell types,” Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, vol. 3, no. 7, pp. 517–530, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. L. Cheng, A. Arata, R. Mizuguchi et al., “Tlx3 and Tlx1 are post-mitotic selector genes determining glutamatergic over GABAergic cell fates,” Nature Neuroscience, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 510–517, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. M. Gotz and W. B. Huttner, “The cell biology of neurogenesis,” Nature Reviews. Molecular Cell Biology, vol. 6, no. 10, pp. 777–788, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. P. Arlotta, B. J. Molyneaux, D. Jabaudon, Y. Yoshida, and J. D. Macklis, “Ctip2 controls the differentiation of medium spiny neurons and the establishment of the cellular architecture of the striatum,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 622–632, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. K. Achim, M. Salminen, and J. Partanen, “Mechanisms regulating GABAergic neuron development,” Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, vol. 71, no. 8, pp. 1395–1415, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. M. Gotz, M. Nakafuku, and D. Petrik, “Neurogenesis in the developing and adult brain-similarities and key differences,” Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology, vol. 8, no. 7, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. L. J. A. Hardwick, F. R. Ali, R. Azzarelli, and A. Philpott, “Cell cycle regulation of proliferation versus differentiation in the central nervous system,” Cell and Tissue Research, vol. 359, no. 1, pp. 187–200, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. W. Zhong and W. Chia, “Neurogenesis and asymmetric cell division,” Current Opinion in Neurobiology, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 4–11, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. X. Qian, Q. Shen, S. K. Goderie et al., “Timing of CNS cell generation: a programmed sequence of neuron and glial cell production from isolated murine cortical stem cells,” Neuron, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 69–80, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. S. Ohnuma and W. A. Harris, “Neurogenesis and the cell cycle,” Neuron, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 199–208, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. I. Vitali, S. Fièvre, L. Telley et al., “Progenitor hyperpolarization regulates the sequential generation of neuronal subtypes in the developing neocortex,” Cell, vol. 174, no. 5, pp. 1264–1276.e15, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. S. Ohnuma, A. Philpott, and W. A. Harris, “Cell cycle and cell fate in the nervous system,” Current Opinion in Neurobiology, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 66–73, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. Y. Koutmani, C. Hurel, E. Patsavoudi et al., “BM88 is an early marker of proliferating precursor cells that will differentiate into the neuronal lineage,” The European Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 20, no. 10, pp. 2509–2523, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. P. K. Politis, G. Makri, D. Thomaidou, M. Geissen, H. Rohrer, and R. Matsas, “BM88/CEND1 coordinates cell cycle exit and differentiation of neuronal precursors,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 104, no. 45, pp. 17861–17866, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. P. K. Politis, H. Rohrer, and R. Matsas, “Expression pattern of BM88 in the developing nervous system of the chick and mouse embryo,” Gene Expression Patterns, vol. 7, no. 1-2, pp. 165–177, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. P. K. Politis, D. Thomaidou, and R. Matsas, “Coordination of cell cycle exit and differentiation of neuronal progenitors,” Cell Cycle, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 691–697, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. E. Patsavoudi, C. Hurel, and R. Matsas, “Purification and characterization of neuron-specific surface antigen defined by monoclonal antibody BM88,” Journal of Neurochemistry, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 782–788, 1991. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. E. Patsavoudi, E. Merkouri, D. Thomaidou, F. Sandillon, G. Alonso, and R. Matsas, “Characterization and localization of the BM88 antigen in the developing and adult rat brain,” Journal of Neuroscience Research, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 506–518, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. M. Gaitanou, P. Buanne, C. Pappa et al., “Cloning, expression and localization of human BM88 shows that it maps to chromosome 11p15.5, a region implicated in Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome and tumorigenesis,” The Biochemical Journal, vol. 355, Part 3, no. 3, pp. 715–724, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. L. Katsimpardi, M. Gaitanou, C. E. Malnou et al., “BM88/Cend1 expression levels are critical for proliferation and differentiation of subventricular zone-derived neural precursor cells,” Stem Cells, vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 1796–1807, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. N. Georgopoulou, C. Hurel, P. K. Politis, M. Gaitanou, R. Matsas, and D. Thomaidou, “BM88 is a dual function molecule inducing cell cycle exit and neuronal differentiation of neuroblastoma cells via cyclin D1 down-regulation and retinoblastoma protein hypophosphorylation,” The Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 281, no. 44, pp. 33606–33620, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. K. Tsioras, F. Papastefanaki, P. K. Politis, R. Matsas, and M. Gaitanou, “Functional interactions between BM88/Cend1, Ran-binding protein M and Dyrk1B kinase affect cyclin D1 levels and cell cycle progression/exit in mouse neuroblastoma cells,” PLoS One, vol. 8, no. 11, article e82172, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. P. Scaturro, A. Stukalov, D. A. Haas et al., “An orthogonal proteomic survey uncovers novel Zika virus host factors,” Nature, vol. 561, no. 7722, pp. 253–257, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. A. Mamalaki, E. Boutou, C. Hurel, E. Patsavoudi, S. Tzartos, and R. Matsas, “The BM88 antigen, a novel neuron-specific molecule, enhances the differentiation of mouse neuroblastoma cells,” The Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 270, no. 23, pp. 14201–14208, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. I. S. Goping, A. Gross, J. N. Lavoie et al., “Regulated targeting of BAX to mitochondria,” The Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 143, no. 1, pp. 207–215, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. A. Nechushtan, C. L. Smith, Y. T. Hsu, and R. J. Youle, “Conformation of the Bax C-terminus regulates subcellular location and cell death,” The EMBO Journal, vol. 18, no. 9, pp. 2330–2341, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. M. Nguyen, D. G. Millar, V. W. Yong, S. J. Korsmeyer, and G. C. Shore, “Targeting of Bcl-2 to the mitochondrial outer membrane by a COOH-terminal signal anchor sequence,” The Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 268, no. 34, pp. 25265–25268, 1993. View at: Google Scholar
  30. H. Yu, J. K. Chen, S. Feng, D. C. Dalgarno, A. W. Brauer, and S. L. Schreiber, “Structural basis for the binding of proline-rich peptides to SH3 domains,” Cell, vol. 76, no. 5, pp. 933–945, 1994. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  31. L. Weng, Y. F. Lin, A. L. Li et al., “Loss of Ahi1 affects early development by impairing BM88/Cend1-mediated neuronal differentiation,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 33, no. 19, pp. 8172–8184, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. A. Chenn and S. K. McConnell, “Cleavage orientation and the asymmetric inheritance of Notch1 immunoreactivity in mammalian neurogenesis,” Cell, vol. 82, no. 4, pp. 631–641, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  33. T. Morrow, M. R. Song, and A. Ghosh, “Sequential specification of neurons and glia by developmentally regulated extracellular factors,” Development, vol. 128, no. 18, pp. 3585–3594, 2001. View at: Google Scholar
  34. C. A. Dye, J. K. Lee, R. C. Atkinson, R. Brewster, P. L. Han, and H. J. Bellen, “The Drosophila sanpodo gene controls sibling cell fate and encodes a tropomodulin homolog, an actin/tropomyosin-associated protein,” Development, vol. 125, no. 10, pp. 1845–1856, 1998. View at: Google Scholar
  35. E. Frise, J. A. Knoblich, S. Younger-Shepherd, L. Y. Jan, and Y. N. Jan, “The Drosophila Numb protein inhibits signaling of the Notch receptor during cell-cell interaction in sensory organ lineage,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 93, no. 21, pp. 11925–11932, 1996. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. M. S. Rhyu, L. Y. Jan, and Y. N. Jan, “Asymmetric distribution of Numb protein during division of the sensory organ precursor cell confers distinct fates to daughter cells,” Cell, vol. 76, no. 3, pp. 477–491, 1994. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  37. M. Cayouette and M. Raff, “Asymmetric segregation of Numb: a mechanism for neural specification from Drosophila to mammals,” Nature Neuroscience, vol. 5, no. 12, pp. 1265–1269, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  38. Q. Shen, W. Zhong, Y. N. Jan, and S. Temple, “Asymmetric Numb distribution is critical for asymmetric cell division of mouse cerebral cortical stem cells and neuroblasts,” Development, vol. 129, no. 20, pp. 4843–4853, 2002. View at: Google Scholar
  39. Y. Wakamatsu, T. M. Maynard, and J. A. Weston, “Fate determination of neural crest cells by NOTCH-mediated lateral inhibition and asymmetrical cell division during gangliogenesis,” Development, vol. 127, no. 13, pp. 2811–2821, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
  40. W. Zhong, J. N. Feder, M. M. Jiang, L. Y. Jan, and Y. N. Jan, “Asymmetric localization of a mammalian Numb homolog during mouse cortical neurogenesis,” Neuron, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 43–53, 1996. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  41. W. Zhong, M. M. Jiang, G. Weinmaster, L. Y. Jan, and Y. N. Jan, “Differential expression of mammalian Numb, Numblike and Notch1 suggests distinct roles during mouse cortical neurogenesis,” Development, vol. 124, no. 10, pp. 1887–1897, 1997. View at: Google Scholar
  42. P. Malatesta, M. Götz, G. Barsacchi, J. Price, R. Zoncu, and F. Cremisi, “PC3 overexpression affects the pattern of cell division of rat cortical precursors,” Mechanisms of Development, vol. 90, no. 1, pp. 17–28, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  43. K. L. Ferguson, J. L. Vanderluit, J. M. Hébert et al., “Telencephalon-specific Rb knockouts reveal enhanced neurogenesis, survival and abnormal cortical development,” The EMBO Journal, vol. 21, no. 13, pp. 3337–3346, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  44. G. Estivill-Torrus, H. Pearson, V. van Heyningen, D. J. Price, and P. Rashbass, “Pax6 is required to regulate the cell cycle and the rate of progression from symmetrical to asymmetrical division in mammalian cortical progenitors,” Development, vol. 129, no. 2, pp. 455–466, 2002. View at: Google Scholar
  45. N. Heins, P. Malatesta, F. Cecconi et al., “Glial cells generate neurons: the role of the transcription factor Pax6,” Nature Neuroscience, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 308–315, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  46. E. Patsavoudi, C. Hurel, and R. Matsas, “Neuron- and myelin-specific monoclonal antibodies recognizing cell-surface antigens of the central and peripheral nervous system,” Neuroscience, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 463–478, 1989. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  47. J. D. Liang, J. Liu, P. McClelland, and M. Bergeron, “Cellular localization of BM88 mRNA in paraffin-embedded rat brain sections by combined immunohistochemistry and non-radioactive in situ hybridization,” Brain Research. Brain Research Protocols, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 121–130, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  48. A. Alvarez-Buylla and J. M. Garcia-Verdugo, “Neurogenesis in adult subventricular zone,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 629–634, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  49. F. H. Gage, “Neurogenesis in the adult brain,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 612-613, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  50. G. Kempermann, E. J. Chesler, L. Lu, R. W. Williams, and F. H. Gage, “Natural variation and genetic covariance in adult hippocampal neurogenesis,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 780–785, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  51. G. Kempermann, D. Gast, G. Kronenberg, M. Yamaguchi, and F. H. Gage, “Early determination and long-term persistence of adult-generated new neurons in the hippocampus of mice,” Development, vol. 130, no. 2, pp. 391–399, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  52. G. Kempermann, S. Jessberger, B. Steiner, and G. Kronenberg, “Milestones of neuronal development in the adult hippocampus,” Trends in Neurosciences, vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 447–452, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  53. G. Kempermann, H. Song, and F. H. Gage, “Neurogenesis in the adult hippocampus,” Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology, vol. 7, no. 9, article a018812, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  54. Y. Mu, S. W. Lee, and F. H. Gage, “Signaling in adult neurogenesis,” Current Opinion in Neurobiology, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 416–423, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  55. K. Obernier, A. Cebrian-Silla, M. Thomson et al., “Adult neurogenesis is sustained by symmetric self-renewal and differentiation,” Cell Stem Cell, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 221–234.e8, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  56. T. Doniach, “Basic FGF as an inducer of anteroposterior neural pattern,” Cell, vol. 83, no. 7, pp. 1067–1070, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  57. A. Lumsden and R. Krumlauf, “Patterning the vertebrate neuraxis,” Science, vol. 274, no. 5290, pp. 1109–1115, 1996. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  58. C. D. Stern, “Neural induction: old problem, new findings, yet more questions,” Development, vol. 132, no. 9, pp. 2007–2021, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  59. L. R. Hernandez-Miranda, T. Muller, and C. Birchmeier, “The dorsal spinal cord and hindbrain: from developmental mechanisms to functional circuits,” Developmental Biology, vol. 432, no. 1, pp. 34–42, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  60. P. Philippidou and J. S. Dasen, “Hox genes: choreographers in neural development, architects of circuit organization,” Neuron, vol. 80, no. 1, pp. 12–34, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  61. S. G. Megason and A. P. McMahon, “A mitogen gradient of dorsal midline Wnts organizes growth in the CNS,” Development, vol. 129, no. 9, pp. 2087–2098, 2002. View at: Google Scholar
  62. E. Boutou, C. Hurel, and R. Matsas, “Early expression of the BM88 antigen during neuronal differentiation of P19 embryonal carcinoma cells,” International Journal of Developmental Neuroscience, vol. 18, no. 2-3, pp. 321–328, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  63. T. Wakabayashi, J. Kosaka, M. Mochii et al., “C38, equivalent to BM88, is developmentally expressed in maturing retinal neurons and enhances neuronal maturation,” Journal of Neurochemistry, vol. 112, no. 5, pp. 1235–1248, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  64. S. Minucci and P. G. Pelicci, “Histone deacetylase inhibitors and the promise of epigenetic (and more) treatments for cancer,” Nature Reviews. Cancer, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 38–51, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  65. M. Yoshida, S. Horinouchi, and T. Beppu, “Trichostatin A and trapoxin: novel chemical probes for the role of histone acetylation in chromatin structure and function,” BioEssays, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 423–430, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  66. F. Ajamian, A. Salminen, and M. Reeben, “Selective regulation of class I and class II histone deacetylases expression by inhibitors of histone deacetylases in cultured mouse neural cells,” Neuroscience Letters, vol. 365, no. 1, pp. 64–68, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  67. J. Inokoshi, K. Shiomi, R. Masuma, H. Tanaka, H. Yamada, and S. Omura, “Funalenone, a novel collagenase inhibitor produced by Aspergillus niger,” Journal of Antibiotics, vol. 52, no. 12, pp. 1095–1100, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  68. B. F. Curtin, L. M. Tetz, J. R. Compton, B. P. Doctor, R. K. Gordon, and M. P. Nambiar, “Histone acetylase inhibitor trichostatin a induces acetylcholinesterase expression and protects against organophosphate exposure,” Journal of Cellular Biochemistry, vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 839–849, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  69. P. K. Politis, S. Akrivou, C. Hurel, O. Papadodima, and R. Matsas, “BM88/Cend1 is involved in histone deacetylase inhibition-mediated growth arrest and differentiation of neuroblastoma cells,” FEBS Letters, vol. 582, no. 5, pp. 741–748, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  70. Y. Sowa, T. Orita, S. Minamikawa et al., “Histone deacetylase inhibitor activates the WAF1/Cip1 gene promoter through the Sp1 sites,” Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, vol. 241, no. 1, pp. 142–150, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  71. L. C. Murrin and J. N. Talbot, “RanBPM, a scaffolding protein in the immune and nervous systems,” Journal of Neuroimmune Pharmacology, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 290–295, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  72. Y. Chang, M. Paramasivam, M. J. Girgenti, R. S. Walikonis, E. Bianchi, and J. LoTurco, “RanBPM regulates the progression of neuronal precursors through M-phase at the surface of the neocortical ventricular zone,” Developmental Neurobiology, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 1–15, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  73. Y. Zou, S. Lim, K. Lee, X. Deng, and E. Friedman, “Serine/threonine kinase Mirk/Dyrk1B is an inhibitor of epithelial cell migration and is negatively regulated by the Met adaptor Ran-binding protein M,” The Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 278, no. 49, pp. 49573–49581, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  74. S. Aranda, A. Laguna, and S. de la Luna, “DYRK family of protein kinases: evolutionary relationships, biochemical properties, and functional roles,” The FASEB Journal, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 449–462, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  75. S. E. Mercer and E. Friedman, “Mirk/Dyrk1B: a multifunctional dual-specificity kinase involved in growth arrest, differentiation, and cell survival,” Cell Biochemistry and Biophysics, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 303–315, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  76. B. Hammerle, E. Ulin, J. Guimera, W. Becker, F. Guillemot, and F. J. Tejedor, “Transient expression of Mnb/Dyrk1a couples cell cycle exit and differentiation of neuronal precursors by inducing p27KIP1 expression and suppressing NOTCH signaling,” Development, vol. 138, no. 12, pp. 2543–2554, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  77. F. J. Tejedor and B. Hammerle, “MNB/DYRK1A as a multiple regulator of neuronal development,” The FEBS Journal, vol. 278, no. 2, pp. 223–235, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  78. K. Jin, D. Z. Ewton, S. Park, J. Hu, and E. Friedman, “Mirk regulates the exit of colon cancer cells from quiescence,” The Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 284, no. 34, pp. 22916–22925, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  79. F. Takahashi-Yanaga, J. Mori, E. Matsuzaki et al., “Involvement of GSK-3β and DYRK1B in differentiation-inducing factor-3-induced phosphorylation of cyclin D1 in HeLa cells,” The Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 281, no. 50, pp. 38489–38497, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  80. Y. Zou, D. Z. Ewton, X. Deng, S. E. Mercer, and E. Friedman, “Mirk/dyrk1B kinase destabilizes cyclin D1 by phosphorylation at threonine 288,” The Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 279, no. 26, pp. 27790–27798, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  81. P. C. Lin, P. M. Chan, C. Hall, and E. Manser, “Collapsin response mediator proteins (CRMPs) are a new class of microtubule-associated protein (MAP) that selectively interacts with assembled microtubules via a taxol-sensitive binding interaction,” The Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 286, no. 48, pp. 41466–41478, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  82. N. Ben-Arie, A. McCall, S. Berkman, G. Eichele, H. J. Bellen, and H. Y. Zoghbi, “Evolutionary conservation of sequence and expression of the bHLH protein Atonal suggests a conserved role in neurogenesis,” Human Molecular Genetics, vol. 5, no. 9, pp. 1207–1216, 1996. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  83. G. Gradwohl, C. Fode, and F. Guillemot, “Restricted expression of a novel murine atonal-related bHLH protein in undifferentiated neural precursors,” Developmental Biology, vol. 180, no. 1, pp. 227–241, 1996. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  84. Q. Ma, C. Kintner, and D. J. Anderson, “Identification of neurogenin, a vertebrate neuronal determination gene,” Cell, vol. 87, no. 1, pp. 43–52, 1996. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  85. O. Papadodima, M. Sergaki, C. Hurel, A. Mamalaki, and R. Matsas, “Characterization of the BM88 promoter and identification of an 88 bp fragment sufficient to drive neurone-specific expression,” Journal of Neurochemistry, vol. 95, no. 1, pp. 146–159, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  86. S. S. Magavi, B. R. Leavitt, and J. D. Macklis, “Induction of neurogenesis in the neocortex of adult mice,” Nature, vol. 405, no. 6789, pp. 951–955, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  87. A. Arvidsson, T. Collin, D. Kirik, Z. Kokaia, and O. Lindvall, “Neuronal replacement from endogenous precursors in the adult brain after stroke,” Nature Medicine, vol. 8, no. 9, pp. 963–970, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  88. A. Bjorklund and O. Lindvall, “Cell replacement therapies for central nervous system disorders,” Nature Neuroscience, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 537–544, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  89. O. Lindvall and Z. Kokaia, “Stem cells for the treatment of neurological disorders,” Nature, vol. 441, no. 7097, pp. 1094–1096, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  90. O. Lindvall, Z. Kokaia, and A. Martinez-Serrano, “Stem cell therapy for human neurodegenerative disorders-how to make it work,” Nature Medicine, vol. 10, no. 7, pp. S42–S50, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  91. M. H. Tuszynski, “Rebuilding the brain: resurgence of fetal grafting,” Nature Neuroscience, vol. 10, no. 10, pp. 1229-1230, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  92. R. A. Fricker, M. K. Carpenter, C. Winkler, C. Greco, M. A. Gates, and A. Björklund, “Site-specific migration and neuronal differentiation of human neural progenitor cells after transplantation in the adult rat brain,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 19, no. 14, pp. 5990–6005, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  93. Y. Jin, K. Sura, and I. Fischer, “Differential effects of distinct central nervous system regions on cell migration and axonal extension of neural precursor transplants,” Journal of Neuroscience Research, vol. 90, no. 11, pp. 2065–2073, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  94. S. Wu, K. T. FitzGerald, and J. Giordano, “On the viability and potential value of stem cells for repair and treatment of central neurotrauma: overview and speculations,” Frontiers in Neurology, vol. 9, p. 602, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  95. G. Sinson, M. Voddi, and T. K. McIntosh, “Combined fetal neural transplantation and nerve growth factor infusion: effects on neurological outcome following fluid-percussion brain injury in the rat,” Journal of Neurosurgery, vol. 84, no. 4, pp. 655–662, 1996. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  96. A. Bakshi, S. Shimizu, C. A. Keck et al., “Neural progenitor cells engineered to secrete GDNF show enhanced survival, neuronal differentiation and improve cognitive function following traumatic brain injury,” The European Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 2119–2134, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  97. J. A. Boockvar, J. Schouten, N. Royo et al., “Experimental traumatic brain injury modulates the survival, migration, and terminal phenotype of transplanted epidermal growth factor receptor-activated neural stem cells,” Neurosurgery, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 163–171, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  98. A. G. Dayer, B. Jenny, M. O. Sauvain et al., “Expression of FGF-2 in neural progenitor cells enhances their potential for cellular brain repair in the rodent cortex,” Brain, vol. 130, no. 11, pp. 2962–2976, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  99. G. Kouroupi, A. A. Lavdas, M. Gaitanou, D. Thomaidou, F. Stylianopoulou, and R. Matsas, “Lentivirus-mediated expression of insulin-like growth factor-I promotes neural stem/precursor cell proliferation and enhances their potential to generate neurons,” Journal of Neurochemistry, vol. 115, no. 2, pp. 460–474, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  100. P. N. Koutsoudaki, F. Papastefanaki, A. Stamatakis et al., “Neural stem/progenitor cells differentiate into oligodendrocytes, reduce inflammation, and ameliorate learning deficits after transplantation in a mouse model of traumatic brain injury,” Glia, vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 763–779, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  101. P. Miltiadous, G. Kouroupi, A. Stamatakis, P. N. Koutsoudaki, R. Matsas, and F. Stylianopoulou, “Subventricular zone-derived neural stem cell grafts protect against hippocampal degeneration and restore cognitive function in the mouse following intrahippocampal kainic acid administration,” Stem Cells Translational Medicine, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 185–198, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  102. I. Yatsiv, N. Grigoriadis, C. Simeonidou et al., “Erythropoietin is neuroprotective, improves functional recovery, and reduces neuronal apoptosis and inflammation in a rodent model of experimental closed head injury,” The FASEB Journal, vol. 19, no. 12, pp. 1701–1703, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  103. C. Bernreuther, M. Dihne, V. Johann et al., “Neural cell adhesion molecule L1-transfected embryonic stem cells promote functional recovery after excitotoxic lesion of the mouse striatum,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 26, no. 45, pp. 11532–11539, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  104. T. Glaser, C. Brose, I. Franceschini et al., “Neural cell adhesion molecule polysialylation enhances the sensitivity of embryonic stem cell-derived neural precursors to migration guidance cues,” Stem Cells, vol. 25, no. 12, pp. 3016–3025, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  105. H. S. Keirstead and W. F. Blakemore, “The role of oligodendrocytes and oligodendrocyte progenitors in CNS remyelination,” Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, vol. 468, pp. 183–197, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  106. S. Vitry, V. Avellana-Adalid, F. Lachapelle, and A. Baron-van Evercooren, “Migration and multipotentiality of PSA-NCAM+ neural precursors transplanted in the developing brain,” Molecular and Cellular Neurosciences, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 983–1000, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  107. G. Hargus, Y. Cui, J. S. Schmid et al., “Tenascin-R promotes neuronal differentiation of embryonic stem cells and recruitment of host-derived neural precursor cells after excitotoxic lesion of the mouse striatum,” Stem Cells, vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 1973–1984, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  108. G. Makri, A. A. Lavdas, L. Katsimpardi, P. Charneau, D. Thomaidou, and R. Matsas, “Transplantation of embryonic neural stem/precursor cells overexpressing BM88/Cend1 enhances the generation of neuronal cells in the injured mouse cortex,” Stem Cells, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 127–139, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  109. V. J. Tom, M. P. Steinmetz, J. H. Miller, C. M. Doller, and J. Silver, “Studies on the development and behavior of the dystrophic growth cone, the hallmark of regeneration failure, in an in vitro model of the glial scar and after spinal cord injury,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 24, no. 29, pp. 6531–6539, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  110. R. Masgrau, C. Hurel, F. Papastefanaki, N. Georgopoulou, D. Thomaidou, and R. Matsas, “BM88/Cend1 regulates stimuli-induced intracellular calcium mobilization,” Neuropharmacology, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 598–609, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  111. M. V. Sofroniew, “Reactive astrocytes in neural repair and protection,” The Neuroscientist, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 400–407, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  112. S. Okada, M. Nakamura, H. Katoh et al., “Conditional ablation of Stat3 or Socs3 discloses a dual role for reactive astrocytes after spinal cord injury,” Nature Medicine, vol. 12, no. 7, pp. 829–834, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  113. M. Molcanyi, P. Riess, K. Bentz et al., “Trauma-associated inflammatory response impairs embryonic stem cell survival and integration after implantation into injured rat brain,” Journal of Neurotrauma, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 625–637, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  114. I. B. Wanner, A. Deik, M. Torres et al., “A new in vitro model of the glial scar inhibits axon growth,” Glia, vol. 56, no. 15, pp. 1691–1709, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  115. I. Ali, R. Lidereau, C. Theillet, and R. Callahan, “Reduction to homozygosity of genes on chromosome 11 in human breast neoplasia,” Science, vol. 238, no. 4824, pp. 185–188, 1987. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  116. A. Koufos, P. Grundy, K. Morgan et al., “Familial Wiedemann-Beckwith syndrome and a second Wilms tumor locus both map to 11p15.5,” American Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 711–719, 1989. View at: Google Scholar
  117. S. N. Sait, N. J. Nowak, P. Singh-Kahlon et al., “Localization of Beckwith-Wiedemann and rhabdoid tumor chromosome rearrangements to a defined interval in chromosome band 11p15.5,” Genes Chromosomes Cancer, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 97–105, 1994. View at: Google Scholar
  118. C. Schwienbacher, L. Gramantieri, R. Scelfo et al., “Gain of imprinting at chromosome 11p15: a pathogenetic mechanism identified in human hepatocarcinomas,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 97, no. 10, pp. 5445–5449, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  119. A. Viel, F. Giannini, L. Tumiotto, F. Sopracordevole, M. C. Visentin, and M. Boiocchi, “Chromosomal localisation of two putative 11p oncosuppressor genes involved in human ovarian tumours,” British Journal of Cancer, vol. 66, no. 6, pp. 1030–1036, 1992. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  120. L. Dubois, L. Bally-Cuif, M. Crozatier, J. Moreau, L. Paquereau, and A. Vincent, “XCoe2, a transcription factor of the col/Olf-1/EBF family involved in the specification of primary neurons in Xenopus,” Current Biology, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 199–209, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  121. L. Dubois and A. Vincent, “The COE--Collier/Olf1/EBF--transcription factors: structural conservation and diversity of developmental functions,” Mechanisms of Development, vol. 108, no. 1-2, pp. 3–12, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  122. C. Fode, G. Gradwohl, X. Morin et al., “The bHLH protein NEUROGENIN 2 is a determination factor for epibranchial placode-derived sensory neurons,” Neuron, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 483–494, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  123. J. M. Coulson, C. E. Fiskerstrand, P. J. Woll, and J. P. Quinn, “E-box motifs within the human vasopressin gene promoter contribute to a major enhancer in small-cell lung cancer,” The Biochemical Journal, vol. 344, Part 3, no. 3, pp. 961–970, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  124. D. Pignataro, D. Sucunza, L. Vanrell et al., “Adeno-associated viral vectors serotype 8 for cell-specific delivery of therapeutic genes in the central nervous system,” Frontiers in Neuroanatomy, vol. 11, p. 2, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  125. M. C. Sergaki, F. Guillemot, and R. Matsas, “Impaired cerebellar development and deficits in motor coordination in mice lacking the neuronal protein BM88/Cend1,” Molecular and Cellular Neurosciences, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 15–29, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  126. R. V. Sillitoe and A. L. Joyner, “Morphology, molecular codes, and circuitry produce the three-dimensional complexity of the cerebellum,” Annual Review of Cell and Developmental Biology, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 549–577, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  127. J. Altman and S. A. Bayer, “Prenatal development of the cerebellar system in the rat. I. Cytogenesis and histogenesis of the deep nuclei and the cortex of the cerebellum,” The Journal of Comparative Neurology, vol. 179, no. 1, pp. 23–48, 1978. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  128. M. E. Hatten, J. Alder, K. Zimmerman, and N. Heintz, “Genes involved in cerebellar cell specification and differentiation,” Current Opinion in Neurobiology, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 40–47, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  129. T. Ohshima, E. C. Gilmore, G. Longenecker et al., “Migration defects of cdk5-/- neurons in the developing cerebellum is cell autonomous,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 19, no. 14, pp. 6017–6026, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  130. P. Rakic, “Neuron-glia relationship during granule cell migration in developing cerebellar cortex. A Golgi and electronmicroscopic study in Macacus rhesus,” The Journal of Comparative Neurology, vol. 141, no. 3, pp. 283–312, 1971. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  131. J. Altman and S. A. Bayer, “Embryonic development of the rat cerebellum. I. Delineation of the cerebellar primordium and early cell movements,” The Journal of Comparative Neurology, vol. 231, no. 1, pp. 1–26, 1985. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  132. J. Pogoriler, K. Millen, M. Utset, and W. du, “Loss of cyclin D1 impairs cerebellar development and suppresses medulloblastoma formation,” Development, vol. 133, no. 19, pp. 3929–3937, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  133. J. D. Corrales, S. Blaess, E. M. Mahoney, and A. L. Joyner, “The level of sonic hedgehog signaling regulates the complexity of cerebellar foliation,” Development, vol. 133, no. 9, pp. 1811–1821, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  134. A. M. Kenney and D. H. Rowitch, “Sonic hedgehog promotes G1 cyclin expression and sustained cell cycle progression in mammalian neuronal precursors,” Molecular and Cellular Biology, vol. 20, no. 23, pp. 9055–9067, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  135. C. Vaillant and D. Monard, “SHH pathway and cerebellar development,” Cerebellum, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 291–301, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  136. M. Trommsdorff, M. Gotthardt, T. Hiesberger et al., “Reeler/disabled-like disruption of neuronal migration in knockout mice lacking the VLDL receptor and ApoE receptor 2,” Cell, vol. 97, no. 6, pp. 689–701, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  137. S. Niu, O. Yabut, and G. D'Arcangelo, “The Reelin signaling pathway promotes dendritic spine development in hippocampal neurons,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 28, no. 41, pp. 10339–10348, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  138. T. Curran and G. D'Arcangelo, “Role of reelin in the control of brain development,” Brain Research. Brain Research Reviews, vol. 26, no. 2-3, pp. 285–294, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  139. T. Miyata, K. Nakajima, K. Mikoshiba, and M. Ogawa, “Regulation of Purkinje cell alignment by reelin as revealed with CR-50 antibody,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 17, no. 10, pp. 3599–3609, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  140. J. A. Heckroth, D. Goldowitz, and L. M. Eisenman, “Purkinje cell reduction in the reeler mutant mouse: a quantitative immunohistochemical study,” The Journal of Comparative Neurology, vol. 279, no. 4, pp. 546–555, 1989. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  141. N. Ben-Arie, H. J. Bellen, D. L. Armstrong et al., “Math1 is essential for genesis of cerebellar granule neurons,” Nature, vol. 390, no. 6656, pp. 169–172, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  142. P. Jensen, H. Y. Zoghbi, and D. Goldowitz, “Dissection of the cellular and molecular events that position cerebellar Purkinje cells: a study of the math1 null-mutant mouse,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 22, no. 18, pp. 8110–8116, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  143. W. S. Liu, C. Pesold, M. A. Rodriguez et al., “Down-regulation of dendritic spine and glutamic acid decarboxylase 67 expressions in the reelin haploinsufficient heterozygous reeler mouse,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 98, no. 6, pp. 3477–3482, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  144. D. S. Rice and T. Curran, “Mutant mice with scrambled brains: understanding the signaling pathways that control cell positioning in the CNS,” Genes & Development, vol. 13, no. 21, pp. 2758–2773, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  145. J. Lim, T. Hao, C. Shaw et al., “A protein-protein interaction network for human inherited ataxias and disorders of Purkinje cell degeneration,” Cell, vol. 125, no. 4, pp. 801–814, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  146. T. Dixon-Salazar, J. L. Silhavy, S. E. Marsh et al., “Mutations in the AHI1 gene, encoding jouberin, cause Joubert syndrome with cortical polymicrogyria,” American Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 75, no. 6, pp. 979–987, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  147. J. Gitten, D. Dede, E. Fennell, R. Quisling, and B. L. Maria, “Neurobehavioral development in Joubert syndrome,” Journal of Child Neurology, vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 391–397, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  148. Y. C. Hsiao, Z. J. Tong, J. E. Westfall, J. G. Ault, P. S. Page-McCaw, and R. J. Ferland, “Ahi1, whose human ortholog is mutated in Joubert syndrome, is required for Rab8a localization, ciliogenesis and vesicle trafficking,” Human Molecular Genetics, vol. 18, no. 20, pp. 3926–3941, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  149. B. Koshy, S. P. Oommen, S. Jasper, S. Danda, and N. R. S. Surendrababu, “Development and dysmorphism in Joubert syndrome--short case series from India,” Journal of Tropical Pediatrics, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 209–212, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  150. M. A. Lancaster, D. J. Gopal, J. Kim et al., “Defective Wnt-dependent cerebellar midline fusion in a mouse model of Joubert syndrome,” Nature Medicine, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 726–731, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  151. C. M. Louie, G. Caridi, V. S. Lopes et al., “AHI1 is required for photoreceptor outer segment development and is a modifier for retinal degeneration in nephronophthisis,” Nature Genetics, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 175–180, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  152. B. L. Maria, E. Boltshauser, S. C. Palmer, and T. X. Tran, “Clinical features and revised diagnostic criteria in Joubert syndrome,” Journal of Child Neurology, vol. 14, no. 9, pp. 583–590, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  153. J. E. Westfall, C. Hoyt, Q. Liu et al., “Retinal degeneration and failure of photoreceptor outer segment formation in mice with targeted deletion of the Joubert syndrome gene, Ahi1,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 30, no. 26, pp. 8759–8768, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  154. Y. Poirier and P. Jolicoeur, “Distinct helper virus requirements for Abelson murine leukemia virus-induced pre-B- and T-cell lymphomas,” Journal of Virology, vol. 63, no. 5, pp. 2088–2098, 1989. View at: Google Scholar
  155. K. Segklia, A. Stamatakis, F. Stylianopoulou, A. A. Lavdas, and R. Matsas, “Increased anxiety-related behavior, impaired cognitive function and cellular alterations in the brain of Cend1-deficient mice,” Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, vol. 12, no. 497, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  156. K. Aravantinou-Fatorou, F. Ortega, D. Chroni-Tzartou et al., “CEND1 and NEUROGENIN2 reprogram mouse astrocytes and embryonic fibroblasts to induced neural precursors and differentiated neurons,” Stem Cell Reports, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 405–418, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  157. C. Kelsom and W. Lu, “Development and specification of GABAergic cortical interneurons,” Cell & Bioscience, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 19, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  158. K. Lehmann, A. Steinecke, and J. Bolz, “GABA through the ages: regulation of cortical function and plasticity by inhibitory interneurons,” Neural Plasticity, vol. 2012, Article ID 892784, 11 pages, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  159. C. Catavero, H. Bao, and J. Song, “Neural mechanisms underlying GABAergic regulation of adult hippocampal neurogenesis,” Cell and Tissue Research, vol. 371, no. 1, pp. 33–46, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  160. C. le Magueresse and H. Monyer, “GABAergic interneurons shape the functional maturation of the cortex,” Neuron, vol. 77, no. 3, pp. 388–405, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  161. O. Marín and J. L. R. Rubenstein, “Cell migration in the forebrain,” Annual Review of Neuroscience, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 441–483, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  162. K. Nakajima, “Control of tangential/non-radial migration of neurons in the developing cerebral cortex,” Neurochemistry International, vol. 51, no. 2-4, pp. 121–131, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  163. R. R. Waclaw, L. A. Ehrman, A. Pierani, and K. Campbell, “Developmental origin of the neuronal subtypes that comprise the amygdalar fear circuit in the mouse,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 30, no. 20, pp. 6944–6953, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  164. J. LeDoux, “The emotional brain, fear, and the amygdala,” Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology, vol. 23, no. 4/5, pp. 727–738, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  165. J. E. LeDoux, “Emotion circuits in the brain,” Annual Review of Neuroscience, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 155–184, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  166. B. Roozendaal, B. S. McEwen, and S. Chattarji, “Stress, memory and the amygdala,” Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 423–433, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  167. S. Nery, G. Fishell, and J. G. Corbin, “The caudal ganglionic eminence is a source of distinct cortical and subcortical cell populations,” Nature Neuroscience, vol. 5, no. 12, pp. 1279–1287, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  168. P. S. Eriksson, E. Perfilieva, T. Björk-Eriksson et al., “Neurogenesis in the adult human hippocampus,” Nature Medicine, vol. 4, no. 11, pp. 1313–1317, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  169. Z. Nicola, K. Fabel, and G. Kempermann, “Development of the adult neurogenic niche in the hippocampus of mice,” Frontiers in Neuroanatomy, vol. 9, p. 53, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  170. J. M. Parent, “Adult neurogenesis in the intact and epileptic dentate gyrus,” Progress in Brain Research, vol. 163, p. 529, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  171. J. Song, C. Zhong, M. A. Bonaguidi et al., “Neuronal circuitry mechanism regulating adult quiescent neural stem-cell fate decision,” Nature, vol. 489, no. 7414, pp. 150–154, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  172. S. Trouche, B. Bontempi, P. Roullet, and C. Rampon, “Recruitment of adult-generated neurons into functional hippocampal networks contributes to updating and strengthening of spatial memory,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 106, no. 14, pp. 5919–5924, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  173. N. Kee, C. M. Teixeira, A. H. Wang, and P. W. Frankland, “Preferential incorporation of adult-generated granule cells into spatial memory networks in the dentate gyrus,” Nature Neuroscience, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 355–362, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  174. B. Leuner, S. Mendolia-Loffredo, Y. Kozorovitskiy, D. Samburg, E. Gould, and T. J. Shors, “Learning enhances the survival of new neurons beyond the time when the hippocampus is required for memory,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 24, no. 34, pp. 7477–7481, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  175. T. J. Shors, G. Miesegaes, A. Beylin, M. Zhao, T. Rydel, and E. Gould, “Neurogenesis in the adult is involved in the formation of trace memories,” Nature, vol. 410, no. 6826, pp. 372–376, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  176. J. S. Snyder, N. S. Hong, R. J. McDonald, and J. M. Wojtowicz, “A role for adult neurogenesis in spatial long-term memory,” Neuroscience, vol. 130, no. 4, pp. 843–852, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  177. G. Winocur, J. M. Wojtowicz, M. Sekeres, J. S. Snyder, and S. Wang, “Inhibition of neurogenesis interferes with hippocampus-dependent memory function,” Hippocampus, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 296–304, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  178. J. Song, J. Sun, J. Moss et al., “Parvalbumin interneurons mediate neuronal circuitry-neurogenesis coupling in the adult hippocampus,” Nature Neuroscience, vol. 16, no. 12, pp. 1728–1730, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  179. Q. Liang, Z. Luo, J. Zeng et al., “Zika virus NS4A and NS4B proteins deregulate Akt-mTOR signaling in human fetal neural stem cells to inhibit neurogenesis and induce autophagy,” Cell Stem Cell, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 663–671, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2019 Maria Gaitanou et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


More related articles

936 Views | 360 Downloads | 1 Citation
 PDF  Download Citation  Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

Related articles

We are committed to sharing findings related to COVID-19 as quickly and safely as possible. Any author submitting a COVID-19 paper should notify us at help@hindawi.com to ensure their research is fast-tracked and made available on a preprint server as soon as possible. We will be providing unlimited waivers of publication charges for accepted articles related to COVID-19. Sign up here as a reviewer to help fast-track new submissions.