The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Genetic Analysis Reveals that Amyloid Precursor Protein and Death Receptor 6 Function in the Same Pathway to Control Axonal Pruning Independent of β-Secretase
Abstract
In the developing brain, initial neuronal projections are formed through extensive growth and branching of developing axons, but many branches are later pruned to sculpt the mature pattern of connections. Despite its widespread occurrence, the mechanisms controlling pruning remain incompletely characterized. Based on pharmacological and biochemical analysis in vitro and initial genetic analysis in vivo, prior studies implicated a pathway involving binding of the Amyloid Precursor Protein (APP) to Death Receptor 6 (DR6) and activation of a downstream caspase cascade in axonal pruning. Here, we further test their involvement in pruning in vivo and their mechanism of action through extensive genetic and biochemical analysis. Genetic deletion of DR6 was previously shown to impair pruning of retinal axons in vivo. We show that genetic deletion of APP similarly impairs pruning of retinal axons in vivo and provide evidence that APP and DR6 act cell autonomously and in the same pathway to control pruning. Prior analysis had suggested that β-secretase cleavage of APP and binding of an N-terminal fragment of APP to DR6 is required for their actions, but further genetic and biochemical analysis reveals that β-secretase activity is not required and that high-affinity binding to DR6 requires a more C-terminal portion of the APP ectodomain. These results provide direct support for the model that APP and DR6 function cell autonomously and in the same pathway to control pruning in vivo and raise the possibility of alternate mechanisms for how APP and DR6 control pruning.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
sAPPβ induces axonal pruning but not neuronal death, and interacts with DR6 through the C-terminal E2 domain above the β-cleavage site.
“instead sAPPβ was reported to induce axonal pruning but not neuronal death, and to interact with DR6 through the more C-terminal E2 domain placed above the β-cleavage site (Olsen et al., 2014)”
From Emerging Alternative Proteinases in APP Metabolism and Alzheimer’s Disease Pathogenesis: A Focus on MT1-MMP and MT5-MMP (2019) · cites this paper as Olsen et al., 2014
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Bittner, T., Fuhrmann, M., Burgold, S., Jung, C. K. E., Volbracht, C., Steiner, H., Mitteregger, G., Kretzschmar, H. A., Haass, C., & Herms, J. (2009) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2288-09.2009 · Cited by 123
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 16
- 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2039-12.2012 · DOI
- 10.1186/1471-213X-7-103 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pbio.0040370 · DOI
- 10.1074/jbc.M111.315051 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0008477 · DOI
- 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4963-13.2014 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1146/annurev.neuro.28.061604.135632 · DOI
- 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2398-13.2013 · DOI
- 10.1038/nature07767 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1083/jcb.201305037 · DOI
- 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0922-10.2010 · DOI
- 10.1007/s11010-008-9966-3 · DOI
- 10.1038/nbt1037 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3012-12.2012 · DOI
- 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2939-10.2010 · DOI
- 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4660-04.2005 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Not just amyloid: physiological functions of the amyloid precursor protein family
Müller, U. C., Deller, T., & Korte, M. (2017) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn.2017.29 · Cited by 634
García-González, L., Pilat, D., Baranger, K., & Rivera, S. (2019) · Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnagi.2019.00244 · Cited by 88
The Tumor Necrosis Factor Family: Family Conventions and Private Idiosyncrasies
Wallach, D. (2018) · Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology · doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a028431 · Cited by 66
Metadata
- Authors
- Olsen, O., Kallop, D. Y., McLaughlin, T., Huntwork-Rodriguez, S., Wu, Z., Duggan, C. D., Simon, D. J., Lu, Y., Easley-Neal, C., Takeda, K., Hass, P. E., Jaworski, A., O'Leary, D. D. M., Weimer, R. M., & Tessier-Lavigne, M.
- Venue
- The Journal of Neuroscience
- Publisher
- Society for Neuroscience
- Published
- 2014-05-07
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 19
- Pages
- 6438-6447
- ISSN
- 0270-6474
- 1529-2401
- Cited by
- 64
- References
- 1
- Language
- en
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