Go to The Journal of Clinical Investigation
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Journal stats
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Transfers
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
  • Physician-Scientist Development
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • By specialty
    • COVID-19
    • Cardiology
    • Immunology
    • Metabolism
    • Nephrology
    • Oncology
    • Pulmonology
    • All ...
  • Videos
  • Collections
    • In-Press Preview
    • Resource and Technical Advances
    • Clinical Research and Public Health
    • Research Letters
    • Editorials
    • Perspectives
    • Physician-Scientist Development
    • Reviews
    • Top read articles

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Specialties
  • In-Press Preview
  • Resource and Technical Advances
  • Clinical Research and Public Health
  • Research Letters
  • Editorials
  • Perspectives
  • Physician-Scientist Development
  • Reviews
  • Top read articles
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Journal stats
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Transfers
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
Full-length optic nerve regeneration in the absence of genetic manipulations
Qian Feng, Kimberly A. Wong, Larry I. Benowitz
Qian Feng, Kimberly A. Wong, Larry I. Benowitz
View: Text | PDF
Research Article Inflammation Neuroscience

Full-length optic nerve regeneration in the absence of genetic manipulations

  • Text
  • PDF
Abstract

The inability of mature retinal ganglion cells (RGCs) to regenerate axons after optic nerve injury can be partially reversed by manipulating cell-autonomous and/or -nonautonomous factors. Although manipulations of cell-nonautonomous factors could have higher translational potential than genetic manipulations of RGCs, they have generally produced lower levels of optic nerve regeneration. Here, we report that preconditioning resulting from mild lens injury (conditioning LI, cLI) before optic nerve damage induced far greater regeneration than LI after nerve injury or the pro-inflammatory agent zymosan given either before or after nerve damage. Unlike zymosan-induced regeneration, cLI was unaltered by depleting mature neutrophils or T cells or blocking receptors for known inflammation-derived growth factors (oncomodulin, stromal cell–derived factor 1, CCL5) and was only partly diminished by suppressing CCR2+ monocyte recruitment. Repeated episodes of LI led to full-length optic nerve regeneration, and pharmacological removal of local resident macrophages with the colony stimulating factor 1 receptor inhibitor PLX5622 enabled some axons to reinnervate the brain in just 6 weeks, comparable to the results obtained with the most effective genetic manipulations of RGCs. Thus, cell-nonautonomous interventions can induce high levels of optic nerve regeneration, paving the way to uncovering potent, translatable therapeutic targets for CNS repair.

Authors

Qian Feng, Kimberly A. Wong, Larry I. Benowitz

×

Figure 1

Robust optic nerve regeneration by conditioning LI.

Options: View larger image (or click on image) Download as PowerPoint
Robust optic nerve regeneration by conditioning LI.
(A) Experimental tim...
(A) Experimental timeline. LI, zymosan, or PBS was introduced 14 days before or immediately after optic nerve crush (ONC). (B) Left: representative longitudinal sections through the optic nerve showing CTB-labeled regenerating axons 14 days post-ONC. Preconditioning by LI before crush (LI pre-ONC: cLI) induced far greater regeneration than other treatments. Dashed white line, crush site. Right: whole-mounted retinas showing βIII-tubulin+ RGCs. Scale bar, 100 μm. (C) Quantitation of regenerating axons 0.5 mm from crush site in B by 1-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparisons test; PBS (post-ONC) vs. zymosan (post-ONC), P = 0.007; PBS (post-ONC) vs. LI (post-ONC), P = 0.0321; LI (post-ONC) vs. LI (pre-ONC), P < 0.0001; zymosan (post-ONC) vs. LI (pre-ONC), P < 0.0001, n = 4 or 5 mice in each group. (D) Quantitation of βIII-tubulin+ cells (surviving RGCs) in B by 1-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparisons test; LI (pre-ONC: cLI) vs. zymosan (post-ONC) P = 0.019; vs. LI (post-ONC) P = 0.0064; n = 4 or 5 mice in each group; 7–8 fields were analyzed for each retina. (E) Top: timeline: first LI 14 days before ONC, second LI 3 days before ONC, and 3-week survival after ONC. Bottom: optic nerve sections showing axon regeneration 3 weeks after ONC in mice treated with 1× versus 2× LI. Boxes in center: magnified images of axons 2 mm from crush site. White line, crush site. Both scale bars, 100 μm. (F) Top: experimental timeline as in E but with third and fourth LI 14 and 28 days post-ONC and a 6-week survival time after ONC. Bottom: sections showing full-length optic nerve regeneration. White line, crush site. Yellow dashed box, optic chiasm. Scale bar, 100 μm. (G) Enlarged image of optic chiasm. Scale bar, 100 μm. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ****P < 0.0001.

Copyright © 2026 American Society for Clinical Investigation
ISSN 2379-3708

Sign up for email alerts