Death receptor 6 does not regulate axon degeneration and Schwann cell injury responses during Wallerian degeneration
Curation statements for this article:-
Curated by eLife
eLife Assessment
In this valuable study, through carefully executed and rigorously controlled experiments, the authors challenged a previously reported role of the Death Receptor 6 (DR6/Tnfrsf21) in Wallerian degeneration (WD). Using two DR6 knockout mouse lines and multiple WD assays, both in vitro and in vivo, the authors provided convincing evidence that loss of DR6 in mice does not protect peripheral axons from WD after injury. Questions remain about whether this conclusion is generalizable to CNS axonal degeneration in disease models such as ALS, AD, and prion diseases. In addition, the authors need to provide information about the sex, age, and genetic background of their animal studies to allow readers to better assess the basis for inconsistencies from previous reports on the protective effects of DR6.
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
- Evaluated articles (eLife)
Abstract
Abstract
Axon degeneration (AxD), accompanied by glial remodeling, is a pathological hallmark of many neurodegenerative diseases, leading to the disruption of neuronal connectivity [1–3]. Understanding the mechanisms in neurons and glia that regulate AxD is essential for developing therapeutic strategies to prevent or mitigate axon loss. Wallerian degeneration (WD) is a well-established model to study the mechanisms of nerve injury-induced AxD, glial responses, and axon-glia interactions. We recently showed that Schwann cells (SCs), the axon-associated glia of the peripheral nervous system, exert protective effects on axons through their rapid metabolic injury response [4]. Enhancing this SC response promotes axon protection during WD [4]. A prior study reported that eliminating the orphan tumor necrosis factor receptor DR6 (death receptor 6, Tnfrsf21) strongly delays AxD and alters SC injury responses during WD, suggesting a possible intersection with our findings [5].
Here, we rigorously revisit the role of DR6 in WD using two independent DR6 knockout mouse lines including the same model used in the previous study. Surprisingly, in striking contrast to the earlier report, we observed no impact of DR6 deletion on AxD kinetics or SC injury responses across a range of WD assays. Moreover, injured axons in primary neuronal cultures lacking DR6 degenerated at a similar rate as wild-type axons. We conclude that DR6 is dispensable for the regulation of AxD and glial nerve injury responses during WD. Our data argue that any therapeutic benefit from DR6 suppression in neurodegeneration models occurs through mechanisms independent of WD.
Article activity feed
-
-
-
eLife Assessment
In this valuable study, through carefully executed and rigorously controlled experiments, the authors challenged a previously reported role of the Death Receptor 6 (DR6/Tnfrsf21) in Wallerian degeneration (WD). Using two DR6 knockout mouse lines and multiple WD assays, both in vitro and in vivo, the authors provided convincing evidence that loss of DR6 in mice does not protect peripheral axons from WD after injury. Questions remain about whether this conclusion is generalizable to CNS axonal degeneration in disease models such as ALS, AD, and prion diseases. In addition, the authors need to provide information about the sex, age, and genetic background of their animal studies to allow readers to better assess the basis for inconsistencies from previous reports on the protective effects of DR6.
-
Reviewer #1 (Public review):
Summary:
The authors show that genetic deletion of the orphan tumor necrosis factor receptor DR6 in mice does not protect peripheral axons against degeneration after axotomy. Similarly, Schwann cells in DR6 mutant mice react to axotomy similarly to wild-type controls. These negative results are important because previous work has indicated that loss or inhibition of DR6 is protective in disease models and also against Wallerian degeneration of axons following injury. This carefully executed counterexample is important for the field to consider.
Strengths:
A strength of the paper is the use of two independent mouse strains that knock out DR6 in slightly different ways. The authors confirm that DR6 mRNA is absent in these models (western blots for DR6 protein are less convincingly null, but given the absence …
Reviewer #1 (Public review):
Summary:
The authors show that genetic deletion of the orphan tumor necrosis factor receptor DR6 in mice does not protect peripheral axons against degeneration after axotomy. Similarly, Schwann cells in DR6 mutant mice react to axotomy similarly to wild-type controls. These negative results are important because previous work has indicated that loss or inhibition of DR6 is protective in disease models and also against Wallerian degeneration of axons following injury. This carefully executed counterexample is important for the field to consider.
Strengths:
A strength of the paper is the use of two independent mouse strains that knock out DR6 in slightly different ways. The authors confirm that DR6 mRNA is absent in these models (western blots for DR6 protein are less convincingly null, but given the absence of mRNA, this is likely an issue of antibody specificity). One of the DR6 knockout strains used is the same strain used in a previous paper examining the effects of DR6 on Wallerian degeneration.
The authors use a series of established assays to evaluate axon degeneration, including light and electron microscopy on nerve histological samples and cultured dorsal root ganglion neurons in which axons are mechanically severed and degeneration is scored in time-lapse microscopy. These assays consistently show a lack of effect of loss of DR6 on Wallerian degeneration in both mouse strains examined.
Therefore, in the specific context of these experiments, the author's data support their conclusion that loss of DR6 does not protect against Wallerian degeneration.
Weaknesses:
The major weaknesses of this paper include the tone of correcting previously erroneous results and the lack of reporting on important details around animal experiments that would help determine whether the results here really are discordant with previous studies, and if so, why.
The authors do not report the genetic strain background of the mice used, the sex distributions of their experimental cohorts, or the age of the mice at the time the experiments were performed. All of these are important variables.
The DR6 knockout strain reported in Gamage et al. (2017) was on a C57BL/6.129S segregating background. Gamage et al. reported that loss of DR6 protected axons from Wallerian degeneration for up to 4 weeks, but importantly, only in 38.5% (5 out of 13) mice they examined. In the present paper, the authors speculate on possible causes for differences between the lack of effect seen here and the effects reported in Gamage et al., including possible spontaneous background mutations, epigenetic changes, genetic modifiers, neuroinflammation, and environmental differences. A likely explanation of the incomplete penetrance reported by Gamage et al. is the segregating genetic background and the presence of modifier loci between C57BL/6 and 129S. The authors do not report the genetic background of the mice used in this study, other than to note that the knockout strain was provided by the group in Gamage et al. However, if, for example, that mutation has been made congenic on C57BL/6 in the intervening years, this would be important to know. One could also argue that the results presented here are consistent with 8 out of 13 mice presented in Gamage et al.
Age is also an important variable. The protective effects of the spontaneous WldS mutation decrease with age, for example. It is unclear whether the possible protective effects of DR6 also change with age; perhaps this could explain the variable response seen in Gamage et al. and the lack of response seen here.
It is unclear if sex is a factor, but this is part of why it should be reported.
The authors also state that they do not see differences in the Schwann cell response to injury in the absence of DR6 that were reported in Gamage et al., but this is not an accurate comparison. In Gamage et al., they examined Schwann cells around axons that were protected from degeneration 2 and 4 weeks post-injury. Those axons had much thinner myelin, in contrast to axons protected by WldS or loss of Sarm1, where the myelin thickness remained relatively normal. Thus, Gamage et al. concluded that the protection of axons from degeneration and the preservation of Schwann cell myelin thickness are separate processes. Here, since no axon protection was seen, the same analysis cannot be done, and we can only say that when axons degenerate, the Schwann cells respond the same whether DR6 is expressed or not.
The authors also take issue with Colombo et al. (2018), where it was reported that there is an increase in axon diameter and a change in the g-ratio (axon diameter to fiber diameter - the axon + myelin) in peripheral nerves in DR6 knockout mice. This change resulted in a small population of abnormally large axons that had thinner myelin than one would expect for their size. The change in g-ratio was specific to these axons and driven by the increased axon diameter, not decreased myelin thickness, although those two factors are normally loosely correlated. Here, the authors report no changes in axon size or g-ratio, but this could also be due to how the distribution of axon sizes was binned for analysis, and looking at individual data points in supplemental figure 3A, there are axons in the DR6 knockout mice that are larger than any axons in wild type. Thus, this discrepancy may be down to specifics and how statistics were performed or how histograms were binned, but it is unclear if the results presented here are dramatically at odds with the results in Colombo et al. (2018).
Finally, it is important to note that previously reported effects of DR6 inhibition, such as protection of cultured cortical neurons from beta-amyloid toxicity, are not necessarily the same as Wallerian degeneration of axons distal to an injury studied here. The negative results presented here, showing that loss of DR6 is not protective against Wallerian degeneration induced by injury, are important given the interest in DR6 as a therapeutic target, but they are specific to these mice and this mechanism of induced axon degeneration. The extent to which these findings contradict previous work is difficult to assess due to the lack of detail in describing the mouse experiments, and care should be taken in attempting to extrapolate these results to other disease contexts, such as ALS or Alzheimer's disease.
-
Reviewer #2 (Public review):
Summary:
This manuscript by Beirowski, Huang, and Babetto revisits the proposed role of Death Receptor 6 (DR6/Tnfrsf21) in Wallerian degeneration (WD). A prior study (Gamage et al., 2017) suggested that DR6 deletion delays axon degeneration and alters Schwann cell responses following peripheral nerve injury. Here, the authors comprehensively test this claim using two DR6 knockout mouse models (the line used in the earlier report plus a CMV-Cre derived floxed ko line) and multiple WD assays in vivo and in vitro, aligned with three positive controls, Sarm1 WldS and Phr1/Mycbp2 mutants. Contrary to the prior findings, they find no evidence that DR6 deletion affects axon degeneration kinetics or Schwann cell dynamics (assessed by cJun expression or [intact+degenerating] myelin abundance after injury) during WD. …
Reviewer #2 (Public review):
Summary:
This manuscript by Beirowski, Huang, and Babetto revisits the proposed role of Death Receptor 6 (DR6/Tnfrsf21) in Wallerian degeneration (WD). A prior study (Gamage et al., 2017) suggested that DR6 deletion delays axon degeneration and alters Schwann cell responses following peripheral nerve injury. Here, the authors comprehensively test this claim using two DR6 knockout mouse models (the line used in the earlier report plus a CMV-Cre derived floxed ko line) and multiple WD assays in vivo and in vitro, aligned with three positive controls, Sarm1 WldS and Phr1/Mycbp2 mutants. Contrary to the prior findings, they find no evidence that DR6 deletion affects axon degeneration kinetics or Schwann cell dynamics (assessed by cJun expression or [intact+degenerating] myelin abundance after injury) during WD. Importantly, in DRG explant assays, neurites from DR6-deficient mice degenerated at rates indistinguishable from controls. The authors conclude that DR6 is dispensable for WD, and that previously reported protective effects may have been due to confounding factors such as genetic background or spontaneous mutations.
Strengths:
The authors employ two independently generated DR6 knockout models, one overlapping with the previously published study, and confirm loss of DR6 expression by qPCR and Western blotting.
Multiple complementary readouts of WD are applied (structural, ultrastructural, molecular, and functional), providing a robust test of the hypothesis.Comparisons are drawn with established positive controls (WldS, SARM1, Phr1/Mycbp2 mutants), reinforcing the validity of the assays.
By directly addressing an influential but inconsistent prior report, the manuscript clarifies the role of DR6 and prevents potential misdirection of therapeutic strategies aimed at modulating WD in the PNS. The discussion thoughtfully considers possible explanations for the earlier results, including colony-specific second-site mutations that could explain the incomplete penetrance of the earlier reported phenotype of only 36%.
Weaknesses:
(1) The study focuses on peripheral nerves. The manuscript frequently refers to CNS studies to argue for consistency with their findings. It would be more accurate to frame PNS/CNS similarities as reminiscences rather than as consistencies (e.g., line 205ff in the Discussion).
(2) The DRG explant assays are convincing, though the slight acceleration of degeneration in the DR6 floxed/Cre condition is intriguing (Figure 4E). Could the authors clarify whether this is statistically robust or biologically meaningful?
(3) In the summary (line 43), the authors refer to Hu et al. (2013) (reference 5) as the study that previously reported AxD delay and SC response alteration after injury. However, this study did not investigate the PNS, and I believe the authors intended to reference Gamage et al. (2017) (reference 10) at this point.
(4) In line 74ff of the results section, the authors claim that developmental myelination is not altered in DR6 mutants at postnatal day 1. However, the variability in Figure S2 appears substantial, and the group size seems underpowered to support this claim. Colombo et al. (2018) (reference 11) reported accelerated myelination at P1, but this study likewise appears underpowered. Possible reasons for these discrepancies and the large variability could be that only a defined cross-sectional area was quantified, rather than the entire nerve cross-section.
(5) The authors stress the data of Gamage et al. (2017) on altered SC responses in DR6 mutants after injury. They employed cJun quantification to show that SC reprogramming after injury is not altered in DR6 mutants. This approach is valid and the conclusion trustworthy. Here, the addition of data showing the combined abundance of intact and degenerated myelin does not add much insight. However, Gamage et al. (2017) reported altered myelin thickness in a subset of axons at 14 days after injury, which is considerably later than the time points analyzed in the present study. While, in the Reviewer's view, the thin myelin observed by Gamage et al. in fact resembles remyelination, the authors may wish to highlight the difference in the time points analyzed.
-
Reviewer #3 (Public review):
Summary:
The authors revisit the role of DR6 in axon degeneration following physical injury (Wallerian degeneration), examining both its effects on axons and its role in regulating the Schwann cell response to injury. Surprisingly, and in contrast to previous studies, they find that DR6 deletion does not delay the rate of axon degeneration after injury, suggesting that DR6 is not a mediator of this process.
Overall, this is a valuable study. As the authors note, the current literature on DR6 is inconsistent, and these results provide useful new data and clarification. This work will help other researchers interpret their own data and re-evaluate studies related to DR6 and axon degeneration.
Strengths:
(1) The use of two independent DR6 knockout mouse models strengthens the conclusions, particularly when …
Reviewer #3 (Public review):
Summary:
The authors revisit the role of DR6 in axon degeneration following physical injury (Wallerian degeneration), examining both its effects on axons and its role in regulating the Schwann cell response to injury. Surprisingly, and in contrast to previous studies, they find that DR6 deletion does not delay the rate of axon degeneration after injury, suggesting that DR6 is not a mediator of this process.
Overall, this is a valuable study. As the authors note, the current literature on DR6 is inconsistent, and these results provide useful new data and clarification. This work will help other researchers interpret their own data and re-evaluate studies related to DR6 and axon degeneration.
Strengths:
(1) The use of two independent DR6 knockout mouse models strengthens the conclusions, particularly when reporting the absence of a phenotype.
(2) The focus on early time points after injury addresses a key limitation of previous studies. This approach reduces the risk of missing subtle protective phenotypes and avoids confounding results with regenerating axons at later time points after axotomy.
Weaknesses:
(1) The study would benefit from including an additional experimental paradigm in which DR6 deficiency is expected to have a protective effect, to increase confidence in the experimental models, and to better contextualize the findings within different pathways of axon degeneration. For example, DR6 deletion has been shown in more than one study to be partially axon protective in the NGF deprivation model in DRGs in vitro. Incorporating such an experiment could be straightforward and would strengthen the paper, especially if some of the neuroprotective effects previously reported are confirmed.
(2) The quality of some figures could be improved, particularly the EM images in Figure 2. As presented, they make it difficult to discern subtle differences.
-
