Amacrine cell subtypes differ in their intrinsic neurite growth capacity.

PURPOSE: Amacrine cell neurite patterning has been extensively studied in vivo, and more than 30 subpopulations with varied morphologies have been identified in the mammalian retina. It is not known, however, whether the complex amacrine cell morphology is determined intrinsically, is signaled by extrinsic cues, or both. METHODS: Here we purified rat amacrine cell subpopulations away from their retinal neighbors and glial-derived factors to ask questions about their intrinsic neurite growth ability. In defined medium strongly trophic for amacrine cells in vitro, we characterized survival and neurite growth of amacrine cell subpopulations defined by expression of specific markers. RESULTS: We found that a series of amacrine cell subtype markers are developmentally regulated, turning on through early postnatal development. Subtype marker expression was observed in similar fractions of cultured amacrine cells as was observed in vivo, and was maintained with time in culture. Overall, amacrine cell neurite growth followed principles very similar to those in postnatal retinal ganglion cells, but embryonic retinal ganglion cells demonstrated different features, relating to their rapid axon growth. Surprisingly, the three subpopulations of amacrine cells studied in vitro recapitulated quantitatively and qualitatively the varied morphologies they have in vivo. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that cultured amacrine cells maintain intrinsic fidelity to their identified in vivo subtypes, and furthermore, that cell-autonomous, intrinsic factors contribute to the regulation of neurite patterning.

Foxn4 is required for retinal ganglion cell distal axon patterning.

The regulation of retinal ganglion cell (RGC) axon growth and patterning in vivo is thought to be largely dependent on interactions with visual pathway and target cells. Here we address the hypothesis that amacrine cells, RGCs' presynaptic partners, regulate RGC axon growth or targeting. We asked whether amacrine cells play a role in RGC axon growth in vivo using Foxn4(-/-) mice, which have fewer amacrine cells, but a normal complement of RGCs. We found that Foxn4(-/-) mice have a similar reduction in most subtypes of amacrine cells examined. Remarkably, spontaneous retinal waves were not affected by the reduction of amacrine cells in the Foxn4(-/-) mice. There was, however, a developmental delay in the distribution of RGC projections to the superior colliculus. Furthermore, RGC axons failed to penetrate into the retinorecipient layers in the Foxn4(-/-) mice. Foxn4 is not expressed by RGCs and was not detectable in the superior colliculus itself. These findings suggest that amacrine cells are critical for proper RGC axon growth in vivo, and support the hypothesis that the amacrine cell-RGC interaction may contribute to the regulation of distal projections and axon patterning.

Amacrine cell gene expression and survival signaling: differences from neighboring retinal ganglion cells.

PURPOSE. To describe how developing amacrine cells and retinal ganglion cells (RGCs) differ in survival signaling and global gene expression. METHODS. Amacrine cells were immunopurified and processed for gene microarray analysis. For survival studies, purified amacrine cells were cultured at low density in serum-free medium, with and without peptide trophic factors and survival pathway inhibitors. The differences in gene expression between amacrine cells and RGCs were analyzed by comparing the transcriptomes of these two cell types at the same developmental ages. RESULTS. The amacrine cell transcriptome was very dynamic during development. Amacrine cell gene expression was remarkably similar to that of RGCs, but differed in several gene ontologies, including polarity- and neurotransmission-associated genes. Unlike RGCs, amacrine cell survival in vitro was independent of cell density and the presence of exogenous trophic factors, but necessitated Erk activation via MEK1/2 and AKT signaling. Finally, comparison of the gene expression profile of amacrine cells and RGCs provided a list of polarity-associated candidate genes that may explain the inability of amacrine cells to differentiate axons and dendrites as RGCs do. CONCLUSIONS. Comparison of the gene expression profile between amacrine cells and RGCs may improve our understanding of why amacrine cells fail to differentiate axons and dendrites during retinal development and of what makes amacrine cells differ in their resistance to neurodegeneration. Switching RGCs to an amacrine cell-like state could help preserve their survival in neurodegenerative diseases like glaucoma, and amacrine cells could provide a ready source of replacement RGCs in such optic neuropathies.