Matrix metalloproteinase production in regenerating axolotl spinal cord

• Published in: Wound repair and regeneration 2000-07, Vol.8 (4), p.282-291
• Main Authors: Chernoff, Ellen A. G., O'hara, Christina M., Bauerle, Debra, Bowling, Michael
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Ambystoma mexicanum; Animals; Collagen; Culture Techniques; Gels; Immunoblotting; Matrix Metalloproteinase 1 - metabolism; Matrix Metalloproteinase 2 - metabolism; Matrix Metalloproteinase 9 - metabolism; Matrix Metalloproteinases - metabolism; Regeneration - physiology; Spinal Cord - physiology; Substrate Specificity; Tissue Inhibitor of Metalloproteinase-1 - biosynthesis
• ISSN: 1067-1927; 1524-475X
• DOI: 10.1046/j.1524-475x.2000.00282.x

In urodele amphibian spinal cord regeneration, the ependymal cells lining the central canal remodel the lesion site to favor axonal regrowth. We profiled the production of matrix metalloproteinases by injury‐reactive mesenchymal ependymal cells in vivo and in vitro and found that matrix metalloproteinases are involved in this remodeling process in the axolotl (Ambystoma mexicanum). The production of cell‐associated matrix metalloproteinases in vivo was shown to be identical to that in our cultured ependymal cell model system. Activated and zymogen forms of matrix metalloproteinases were identified using zymography, chemical inhibitors of matrix metalloproteinases, and cleavage of propeptides by organomercurials. The principal cellular proteinases consisted of matrix metalloproteinase‐2 (gelatinase A) and matrix metalloproteinase‐1 (type I collagenase), which display characteristic shifts in molecular weight following proenzyme processing by organomercurials. In addition, ependymal cell conditioned medium contained secreted forms of the enzyme undetectable in situ. Matrix metalloproteinase‐9 (gelatinase B) as well as matrix metalloproteinase‐2 and matrix metalloproteinase‐1 were secreted and casein substrate zymography showed the presence of a small amount of a very high molecular weight matrix metalloproteinase‐3 (prostromelysin) secreted into the culture medium. Matrix metalloproteinases were still present at 4 weeks post‐lesioning when the ependymal cells have just re‐epithelialized, but decreased near the completion of regeneration (8 weeks post‐lesioning). Zymography showed no detectable matrix metalloproteinases in unlesioned cord but the presence of tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase‐1 in intact cord was seen by Western blotting. This study shows that matrix metalloproteinases are associated with urodele spinal cord regeneration and validates the use of our ependymal cell tissue culture model system to evaluate ependymal cell behavior during spinal cord regeneration.