2019
DOI: 10.1038/s41589-019-0274-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Glycan sulfation patterns define autophagy flux at axon tip via PTPRσ-cortactin axis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
61
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 68 publications
(65 citation statements)
references
References 51 publications
0
61
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Autophagy is a crucial cellular process in neurons/peripheral nerves after PNI because it (i) removes the degenerated axons allowing for a permissive microenvironment for regeneration [34], (ii) enhances axonal growth and functional recovery after spinal cord injury [35], and (iii) increases sensory and motor axon regeneration [22,36]. Moreover, autophagy flux disruption has been described as sufficient to block axon regeneration [37]. Different ATG proteins have been linked with the regenerative process.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Autophagy is a crucial cellular process in neurons/peripheral nerves after PNI because it (i) removes the degenerated axons allowing for a permissive microenvironment for regeneration [34], (ii) enhances axonal growth and functional recovery after spinal cord injury [35], and (iii) increases sensory and motor axon regeneration [22,36]. Moreover, autophagy flux disruption has been described as sufficient to block axon regeneration [37]. Different ATG proteins have been linked with the regenerative process.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Chondroitin sulfate E activates PTPRσ, which dephosphorylates cortactin and disrupts autophagy flux at the autophagosome‐lysosome fusion step. Such disruption is required and sufficient for the dystrophic endball formation and inhibition of axonal regeneration (Sakamoto et al, ).…”
Section: Glycosaminoglycans In Axonal Regenerationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Such interactions are glycosaminoglycan‐dependent because removing most of the core proteins of the proteoglycans does not affect the development, whereas knocking out glycosaminoglycan modification enzymes in various animal models are detrimental to development (Hayes & Melrose, ; Townley & Bulow, ). Furthermore, specific sulfation patterns in heparan sulfate and chondroitin sulfate are not only responsible for specific biological activities but also for axonal growth or inhibition (Griffith et al, ; Sakamoto et al, ; Shukla, Liu, & Blaiklock, ; Zhang et al, ), which suggest that the patterning information residing in glycosaminoglycans might be crucial for spinal cord regeneration.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Biochemical analyses revealed that both CS-E and DS as well as heparin, a mimetic of HS, bound to RPTPσ with K d s in the nanomolar range (Katagiri et al, 2018 ). Phosphatase activity is essential for the biological effects of GAG binding to RPTPσ and LAR (Fisher et al, 2011 ; Lee et al, 2016 ), and several proteins, including cortactin, are substrates of RPTPσ (Sakamoto et al, 2019 ). A model was proposed where HS binding to the common GAG-binding site on RPTPσ induced clustering of the extracellular region of RPTPσ, whereas CS binding did not, and the opposing effects of HS and CS GAG chains were attributed to the differential oligomeric state of RPTPσ (Coles et al, 2011 ).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…More recently, we identified a novel binding site for HS in the juxtamembrane domain on RPTPσ, providing an additional mechanism through which RPTPσ is bifunctional (Katagiri et al, 2018 ; Figure 4 ). Further, a synthetic CS oligosaccharide was found to disrupt autophagy in a sulfation-dependent manner, leading to the inhibition of axonal regeneration (Sakamoto et al, 2019 ). Of particular interest is that presynaptically-expressed LAR and RPTPσ not only bind to GAG chains but also associate with postsynaptic binding partners that are involved in synaptic organization (Takahashi and Craig, 2013 ; Coles et al, 2014 ; Bomkamp et al, 2019 ).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%