| Title |
Injured sensory neuron–derived CSF1 induces microglial proliferation and DAP12-dependent pain
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nature Neuroscience, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1038/nn.4189 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zhonghui Guan, Julia A Kuhn, Xidao Wang, Bradley Colquitt, Carlos Solorzano, Smitha Vaman, Andrew K Guan, Zoe Evans-Reinsch, Joao Braz, Marshall Devor, Sherry L Abboud-Werner, Lewis L Lanier, Stavros Lomvardas, Allan I Basbaum |
| Abstract |
Although microglia have been implicated in nerve injury-induced neuropathic pain, the manner by which injured sensory neurons engage microglia remains unclear. We found that peripheral nerve injury induced de novo expression of colony-stimulating factor 1 (CSF1) in injured sensory neurons. CSF1 was transported to the spinal cord, where it targeted the microglial CSF1 receptor (CSF1R). Cre-mediated sensory neuron deletion of Csf1 completely prevented nerve injury-induced mechanical hypersensitivity and reduced microglial activation and proliferation. In contrast, intrathecal injection of CSF1 induced mechanical hypersensitivity and microglial proliferation. Nerve injury also upregulated CSF1 in motoneurons, where it was required for ventral horn microglial activation and proliferation. Downstream of CSF1R, we found that the microglial membrane adaptor protein DAP12 was required for both nerve injury- and intrathecal CSF1-induced upregulation of pain-related microglial genes and the ensuing pain, but not for microglial proliferation. Thus, both CSF1 and DAP12 are potential targets for the pharmacotherapy of neuropathic pain. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 50% |
| Canada | 1 | 13% |
| Australia | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 2 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 50% |
| Scientists | 2 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 363 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 1% |
| Germany | 2 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 355 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 75 | 21% |
| Researcher | 61 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 39 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 37 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 21 | 6% |
| Other | 62 | 17% |
| Unknown | 68 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 100 | 28% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 70 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 37 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 28 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 18 | 5% |
| Other | 31 | 9% |
| Unknown | 79 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 May 2021.
All research outputs
#1,060,761
of 22,834,308 outputs
Outputs from Nature Neuroscience
#1,663
of 5,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,788
of 388,302 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Neuroscience
#33
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,834,308 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,229 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 53.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 388,302 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.