Cited by 450Nerve injury and regenerationProteoglycans and glycosaminoglycans researchNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms

NgR1 and NgR3 are receptors for chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans

Open access
Dickendesher, Travis L, Baldwin, Katherine T, Mironova, Yevgeniya A, Koriyama, Yoshiki, Raiker, Stephen J, Askew, Kim L, Wood, Andrew, Geoffroy, Cédric G +6 more·2012·Nature Neuroscience

Abstract

In the adult mammalian CNS, chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans (CSPGs) and myelin-associated inhibitors (MAIs) stabilize neuronal structure and restrict compensatory sprouting following injury. The Nogo receptor family members NgR1 and NgR2 bind to MAIs and have been implicated in neuronal inhibition. We found that NgR1 and NgR3 bind with high affinity to the glycosaminoglycan moiety of proteoglycans and participate in CSPG inhibition in cultured neurons. Nogo receptor triple mutants (Ngr1(-/-); Ngr2(-/-); Ngr3(-/-); which are also known as Rtn4r, Rtn4rl2 and Rtn4rl1, respectively), but not single mutants, showed enhanced axonal regeneration following retro-orbital optic nerve crush injury. The combined loss of Ngr1 and Ngr3 (Ngr1(-/-); Ngr3(-/-)), but not Ngr1 and Ngr2 (Ngr1(-/-); Ngr2(-/-)), was sufficient to mimic the triple mutant regeneration phenotype. Regeneration in Ngr1(-/-); Ngr3(-/-) mice was further enhanced by simultaneous ablation of Rptpσ (also known as Ptprs), a known CSPG receptor. Collectively, our results identify NgR1 and NgR3 as CSPG receptors, suggest that there is functional redundancy among CSPG receptors, and provide evidence for shared mechanisms of MAI and CSPG inhibition.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nn.3070

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dickendesher, T. L., Baldwin, K. T., Mironova, Y. A., Koriyama, Y., Raiker, S. J., Askew, K. L., Wood, A., Geoffroy, C. G., Zheng, B., Liepmann, C. D., Katagiri, Y., Benowitz, L. I., Geller, H. M., & Giger, R. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Boston Children's Hospital (US)
  • Pfizer (United States) (US)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
Giger, Roman J
Venue
Nature Neuroscience
Published
2012-03-11
Volume
15
Issue
5
Pages
703-712
ISSN
  • 1097-6256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1726
OpenAlex
W2157650341
Cited by
449
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 40 · 2017: 38 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 47 · 2014: 55 · 2013: 42 · 2012: 15
FWCI
20.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (I01 RX000229)
  • Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (22791651)
  • National Eye Institute (T32EY017878)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (T32GM007315)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS054734, R01NS047333, R56NS047333, F31NS061589, T32NS007489, T32NS076401)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Nerve injury and regeneration
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Proteoglycans and glycosaminoglycans research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Developmental Neuroscience › Neurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
Keywords
NgR1, Nogo receptor, chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans, myelin-associated inhibitors, axon growth inhibition, axon regeneration, optic nerve crush, glycosaminoglycan binding, functional redundancy, central nervous system injury
MeSH terms
Nogo Receptor 1, Analysis of Variance, Animals, Animals, Newborn, Cells, Cultured, Central Nervous System, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Embryo, Mammalian, Ganglia, Spinal, Gene Expression Regulation, Humans, Mutation, Myelin Proteins, Nerve Regeneration, Neurons, Protein Binding, Chondroitin Sulfate Proteoglycans, Receptors, Cell Surface, Transfection, Tubulin, Receptors, Tumor Necrosis Factor, Mice, Knockout, Myelin-Associated Glycoprotein, Optic Nerve Injuries, Mice, Rats, Receptor-Like Protein Tyrosine Phosphatases, Class 4, GPI-Linked Proteins

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review