BackgroundIn contrast to mammals, amphibians, such as adult urodeles (for example, newts) and anuran larvae (for example, Xenopus) can regenerate their spinal cord after injury. However, the cellular and molecular mechanisms involved in this process are still poorly understood.ResultsHere, we report that tail amputation results in a global increase of Sox2 levels and proliferation of Sox2+ cells. Overexpression of a dominant negative form of Sox2 diminished proliferation of spinal cord resident cells affecting tail regeneration after amputation, suggesting that spinal cord regeneration is crucial for the whole process. After spinal cord transection, Sox2+ cells are found in the ablation gap forming aggregates. Furthermore, Sox2 levels correlated with regenerative capabilities during metamorphosis, observing a decrease in Sox2 levels at non-regenerative stages.ConclusionsSox2+ cells contribute to the regeneration of spinal cord after tail amputation and transection. Sox2 levels decreases during metamorphosis concomitantly with the lost of regenerative capabilities. Our results lead to a working hypothesis in which spinal cord damage activates proliferation and/or migration of Sox2+ cells, thus allowing regeneration of the spinal cord after tail amputation or reconstitution of the ependymal epithelium after spinal cord transection.

BackgroundXenopus laevis has regenerative and non-regenerative stages. As a tadpole, it is fully capable of functional recovery after a spinal cord injury, while its juvenile form (froglet) loses this capability during metamorphosis. We envision that comparative studies between regenerative and non-regenerative stages in Xenopus could aid in understanding why spinal cord regeneration fails in human beings.ResultsTo identify the mechanisms that allow the tadpole to regenerate and inhibit regeneration in the froglet, we obtained a transcriptome-wide profile of the response to spinal cord injury in Xenopus regenerative and non-regenerative stages. We found extensive transcriptome changes in regenerative tadpoles at 1 day after injury, while this was only observed by 6 days after injury in non-regenerative froglets. In addition, when comparing both stages, we found that they deployed a very different repertoire of transcripts, with more than 80% of them regulated in only one stage, including previously unannotated transcripts. This was supported by gene ontology enrichment analysis and validated by RT-qPCR, which showed that transcripts involved in metabolism, response to stress, cell cycle, development, immune response and inflammation, neurogenesis, and axonal regeneration were regulated differentially between regenerative and non-regenerative stages.ConclusionsWe identified differences in the timing of the transcriptional response and in the inventory of regulated transcripts and biological processes activated in response to spinal cord injury when comparing regenerative and non-regenerative stages. These genes and biological processes provide an entry point to understand why regeneration fails in mammals. Furthermore, our results introduce Xenopus laevis as a genetic model organism to study spinal cord regeneration.

Unlike mammals, regenerative model organisms such as amphibians and fish are capable of spinal cord regeneration after injury. Certain key differences between regenerative and nonregenerative organisms have been suggested as involved in promoting this process, such as the capacity for neurogenesis and axonal regeneration, which appear to be facilitated by favorable astroglial, inflammatory and immune responses. These traits provide a regenerative-permissive environment that the mammalian spinal cord appears to be lacking. Evidence for the regenerative nonpermissive environment in mammals is given by the fact that they possess neural stem/progenitor cells, which transplanted into permissive environments are able to give rise to new neurons, whereas in the nonpermissive spinal cord they are unable to do so. We discuss the traits that are favorable for regeneration, comparing what happens in mammals with each regenerative organism, aiming to describe and identify the key differences that allow regeneration. This comparison should lead us toward finding how to promote regeneration in organisms that are unable to do so.

Here we present a protocol for the husbandry of Xenopus laevis tadpoles and froglets, and procedures to study spinal cord regeneration. This includes methods to induce spinal cord injury (SCI); DNA and morpholino electroporation for genetic studies; in vivo imaging for cell analysis; a swimming test to measure functional recovery; and a convenient model for screening for new compounds that promote neural regeneration. These protocols establish X. laevis as a unique model organism for understanding spinal cord regeneration by comparing regenerative and nonregenerative stages. This protocol can be used to understand the molecular and cellular mechanisms involved in nervous system regeneration, including neural stem and progenitor cell (NSPC) proliferation and neurogenesis, extrinsic and intrinsic mechanisms involved in axon regeneration, glial response and scar formation, and trophic factors. For experienced personnel, husbandry takes 1-2 months; SCI can be achieved in 5-15 min; and swimming recovery takes 20-30 d.

No abstract

No abstract

Transposable elements comprise a large proportion of animal genomes. Transposons can have detrimental effects on genome stability but also offer positive roles for genome evolution and gene expression regulation. Proper balance of the positive and deleterious effects of transposons is crucial for cell homeostasis and requires a mechanism that tightly regulates their expression. Herein we describe the expression of DNA transposons of the Tc1/mariner superfamily during Xenopus development. Sense and antisense transcripts containing complete Tc1-2_Xt were detected in Xenopus embryos. Both transcripts were found in zygotic stages and were mainly localized in Spemann's organizer and neural tissues. In addition, the Tc1-like elements Eagle, Froggy, Jumpy, Maya, Xeminos and TXr were also expressed in zygotic stages but not oocytes in X. tropicalis. Interestingly, although Tc1-2_Xt transcripts were not detected in Xenopus laevis embryos, transcripts from other two Tc1-like elements (TXr and TXz) presented a similar temporal and spatial pattern during X. laevis development. Deep sequencing analysis of Xenopus tropicalis gastrulae showed that PIWI-interacting RNAs (piRNAs) are specifically derived from several Tc1-like elements. The localized expression of Tc1-like elements in neural tissues suggests that they could play a role during the development of the Xenopus nervous system.

Next generation sequencing technologies may now be applied to the study of transcriptomics. RNA-Seq or RNA sequencing employs high-throughput sequencing of complementary DNA fragments delivering a transcriptional profile. In this chapter, we aim to provide a starting point for Xenopus researchers planning on starting an RNA-Seq transcriptomics study. We begin by providing a section on template isolation and library preparation. The next section comprises the main bioinformatics procedures that need to be performed for raw data processing, normalization, and differential gene expression. Finally, we have included a section on studying deep sequencing results in Xenopus, which offers general guidance as to what can be done in this model.