Abstract
The MAP3Ks Dual Leucine Kinase (DLK) and Leucine Zipper Kinase (LZK) are essential mediators of axon damage responses, but their responses are varied, complex, and incompletely understood. To characterize their functions in axon injury, we generated zebrafish mutants of each gene, labeled motor neurons (MN) and touch-sensing neurons in live zebrafish, precisely cut their axons with a laser, and assessed the ability of mutant axons to regenerate. DLK and LZK were required redundantly and cell autonomously for axon regeneration in MNs, but not in larval Rohon-Beard (RB) or adult dorsal root ganglion (DRG) sensory neurons. Surprisingly, in dlk lzk double mutants, the spared branches of wounded RB axons grew excessively, suggesting that these kinases inhibit regenerative sprouting in damaged axons. Uninjured trigeminal sensory axons also grew excessively in mutants when neighboring neurons were ablated, indicating that these MAP3Ks are general inhibitors of sensory axon growth. These results demonstrate that zebrafish DLK and LZK promote diverse injury responses, depending on the neuronal cell identity and type of axonal injury.
Significance statement The MAP3Ks DLK and LZK are damage sensors that promote diverse outcomes to neuronal injury, including axon regeneration. Understanding their context-specific functions is a prerequisite to considering these kinases as therapeutic targets. To investigate DLK and LZK cell-type specific functions, we created zebrafish mutants in each gene. Using mosaic cell labeling and precise laser injury we found that both proteins were required for axon regeneration in motor neurons, but, unexpectedly, were not required for axon regeneration in Rohon-Beard or dorsal root ganglion (DRG) sensory neurons, and negatively regulated sprouting in the spared axons of touch-sensing neurons. These findings emphasize that animals have evolved distinct mechanisms to regulate injury site regeneration and collateral sprouting, and identify differential roles for DLK and LZK in these processes.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
