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.

Interleukin (IL)-1 family cytokines potently regulate inflammation, with the majority of the IL-1 family proteins being secreted from immune cells via unconventional pathways. In many cases, secretion of IL-1 cytokines appears to be closely coupled to cell death, yet the secretory mechanisms involved remain poorly understood. Here, we studied the secretion of the three best-characterized members of the IL-1 superfamily, IL-1α, IL-1β, and IL-18, in a range of conditions and cell types, including murine bone marrow–derived and peritoneal macrophages, human monocyte–derived macrophages, HeLa cells, and mouse embryonic fibroblasts. We discovered that IL-1β and IL-18 share a common secretory pathway that depends upon membrane permeability and can operate in the absence of complete cell lysis and cell death. We also found that the pathway regulating the trafficking of IL-1α is distinct from the pathway regulating IL-1β and IL-18. Although the release of IL-1α could also be dissociated from cell death, it was independent of the effects of the membrane-stabilizing agent punicalagin, which inhibited both IL-1β and IL-18 release. These results reveal that in addition to their role as danger signals released from dead cells, IL-1 family cytokines can be secreted in the absence of cell death. We propose that models used in the study of IL-1 release should be considered context-dependently.