Cited by 109Neuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration MechanismsPhagocytosis and Immune RegulationTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances

Neuronal integrity and complement control synaptic material clearance by microglia after CNS injury

Open access
Norris, Geoffrey T., Smirnov, Igor, Filiano, Anthony J., Shadowen, Hannah M., Cody, Kris R., Thompson, Jeremy A., Harris, Tajie H., Gaultier, Alban +2 more·2018·Journal of Experimental Medicine

Abstract

Phagocytosis of synaptic material by microglia is critical for central nervous system development. Less well understood is this microglial function in the injured adult brain. Assay of microglial phagocytosis is challenging, because peripheral myeloid cells engraft the site of injury, which could obscure interpretation of microglial roles. The model used here, optic nerve crush injury, results in degeneration of synapses in the dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus (dLGN), which stimulates rapid activation and engulfment of synaptic material by resident microglia without myeloid cell engraftment. Pharmacological depletion of microglia causes postinjury accumulation of synaptic debris, suggesting that microglia are the dominant postinjury phagocytes. Genetic or pharmacological manipulations revealed that neuronal activity does not trigger microglia phagocytosis after injury. RNA sequencing reveals C1q and CD11b/CR3 involvement in clearance of debris by dLGN-resident microglia. Indeed, C1qa−/− and Itgam−/− mice exhibit impaired postinjury debris clearance. Our results show how neurodegenerative debris is cleared by microglia and offers a model for studying its mechanisms and physiological roles.

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 · 10.1084/jem.20172244

Cites

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?

  • Neuron-glia signaling mechanisms also regulate synaptic dysfunction and loss following neural injury or in the context of neurodegenerative disease.

    “Neuron-glia signaling mechanisms also regulate synaptic dysfunction and loss following neural injury or in the context of neurodegenerative disease (Hong et al. 2016, Lui et al. 2016, Norris et al. 2018, Schafer et al. 2016, Vasek et al. 2016;reviewed in Salter & Stevens 2017).”

    From Neuron-glia signaling in synapse elimination (2019) · cites this paper as Norris et al. 2018

  • Complement-mediated microglial engulfment plays a role in synaptic elimination following nerve injury.

    “In addition to these chronic neurodegenerative paradigms, complement-mediated microglial engulfment also plays a role in synaptic elimination following nerve injury (Norris et al. 2018).”

    From Neuron-glia signaling in synapse elimination (2019) · cites this paper as Norris et al. 2018

  • Following optic nerve crush, microglia are the primary mediators of synaptic clearance at distal targets.

    “Following optic nerve crush, microglia are the primary mediators of synaptic clearance at distal targets.”

    From Neuron-glia signaling in synapse elimination (2019) · cites this paper as Norris et al. 2018

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 73 · Cited by 109

Authors
Norris, G. T., Smirnov, I., Filiano, A. J., Shadowen, H. M., Cody, K. R., Thompson, J. A., Harris, T. H., Gaultier, A., Overall, C. C., & Kipnis, J.
Affiliations
University of Virginia (US)
Corresponding author
Kipnis, Jonathan
Venue
Journal of Experimental Medicine
Published
2018-06-25
Volume
215
Issue
7
Pages
1789-1801
ISSN
  • 0022-1007 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-9538
OpenAlex
W2811414271
Cited by
109
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 5
FWCI
5.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of Experimental Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (MH096484, NS096967)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Neuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Phagocytosis and Immune Regulation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Traumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Keywords
microglia, phagocytosis, central nervous system injury, optic nerve crush, dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus, C1q, CD11b, neurodegeneration, neuronal activity, synaptic integrity
MeSH terms
Animals, Central Nervous System, Complement System Proteins, Geniculate Bodies, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Nerve Crush, Nerve Degeneration, Neurons, Optic Nerve, Phagocytosis, Synapses, Microglia, Gene Expression Profiling, CD11b Antigen, Cell Proliferation

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