The major finding of this study is that in GIT1 KO mice, neurons exhibit decreased dendritic length and spine density in the hippocampus. Our behavioral analysis demonstrates that GIT1 KO mice adapt poorly to new or changing environments as shown by impaired performance in learning tasks. Histological analysis of different regions of the brain in GIT1 KO indicates that these mice exhibit no detectable abnormalities in the gross anatomy. The lack of anatomical deficits in the knockout mice is most likely caused by functional redundancy or developmental compensation by the ortholog protein GIT2. Premont’s group previously showed that with the exception of the cerebellar granule cells where no detectable GIT1 was observed, both GIT genes are co-expressed in all the major areas of the brain including hippocampus, cortex, striatum, and olfactory bulb (
Schmalzigaug et al., 2007). Although we did not observe compensation of GIT2 expression in the adult GIT1 KO brain, an increase in GIT2 protein expression at postnatal days 1 and 2 (1.7 and 1.5 fold with respect to WT control respectively) was observed (
Supplementary Fig. 5). This suggests that early compensatory mechanisms might be involved during development. Though 60% of the GIT1 KO mice are postnatally lethal due to defective pulmonary vasculature (
Pang et al., 2009), the surviving animals develop normally and exhibit normal morphology of different tissues where GIT1 is expressed. However, despite the normal brain morphology, the GIT1 KO mice exhibit deficits in dendritic length and spine density in the hippocampus.
GIT1 is highly expressed in the brain, enriched in synaptic densities and shown to regulate synapse formation by targeting actin modulators in cultured rat hippocampal neurons (
Albertinazzi et al., 2003;
Kim et al., 2003;
Ko et al., 2003;
Segura et al., 2007,
Webb et al., 2007). By Golgi stain analysis, we observed that dendritic length and spine density were decreased by 36.7 % and 35.1 % respectively in GIT1 KO compared to WT controls. However, deletion of GIT1 did not affect other parameters of neuronal plasticity like number of dendritic branch points and neuronal cells bodies in the hippocampus (
Supplementary Fig. 4). Altered synapse formation within the hippocampus is usually associated with difficulty in learning related tasks (
Kitabatake et al., 2007;
Leuner and Shors, 2004). To correlate the anatomical deficits observed in GIT1 KO to behavior, we subjected the mice to operant learning procedures. Advantages of using operant acquisition procedure compared to other behavioral procedures are (a) that the computer controlled procedure provides quantitative measures of relatively discrete behavior (b) automation minimizes the effect of experimenter intrusion (c) operant acquisition can be established quickly and reliably (
McKerchar et al., 2005;
Sagare et al., 2007). During operant training, GIT1 KO mice did not emit active operant response as quickly as the WT mice (). During fixed fading interval training, the KO mice did not adjust to the changing reward schedule as quickly as the WT (). Even after the final reward parameters were met, GIT1 KO mice were still missing rewards (reward counts) as shown in . Since impaired motor function can affect operant and fixed interval training, we probed for response duration (time from the start of a response to the end of that same response) and reward reaction (time from end of an operant response to a hopper entry when the reward is presented by the dipper) that are indicators of motor differences. While response duration time, measures only one response (e.g; hopper entry or hole poke), reward reaction time measures the coordinated movements after a mouse has removed its snout from the operant hole, detected that the houselight was turned off and that the dipper has been activated, turns 180 degrees, takes 1 to 3 steps and put its head into the dipper hopper in order to lick the milk from the dipper. If either motor or sensory functions were affected, we would have expected to see consistent differences in these temporal measures. The data shown in Supplementary Table
1B and
2B shows that response duration time for active and inactive operant responses during operant and fading interval training were not statistically different between GIT1 WT and KO. Although there was a statistical significance in the reward reaction time between WT and KO during operant training, continued practice under FI schedule resulted in reward reaction time measures becoming equivalent between GIT1 KO and WT (Supplementary Table
1C and
2C). The change in reward reaction time by the GIT1 KO mice suggests that the initial differences were due to learning and not motor deficits. Additionally, we did not observe any changes in cerebellum (morphology, vessel density, vascular space, vascular permeability, cerebral blood flow) (
Supplementary Fig. 3A-E) which mediates motor coordination, further suggesting that the behavioral differences observed in GIT1 KO mice are due to cognitive and not motor defects. It is important to note that despite these significant differences in behavior, GIT1 KO mice appeared to catch up to the WT mice on most measures of performance suggesting that the physiological differences may specifically influence process of adaptation to changes in the environment.
A reduction in spines or alteration in the morphology of the spines is usually associated with Mental retardation (MR) (
Luo, 2000;
Luo, 2002;
Ramakers, 2002). In particular several downstreams mediators of small GTPase signaling are involved in MR syndrome. Examples include (a) Rac GEF-alpha pix (
Kutsche et al., 2000), (b) Rac activated PAK3 (
Allen et al., 1998) and (c) Rho GAP oligoprhenin (
Billuart et al., 1998;
Govek et al., 2004), (d) WASP (Wiskott Aldrich syndrome protein) (
Wegner et al., 2008) and (e) WAVE proteins (Wiskott Aldrich synrome protein family/Scar (suppressor of cAMP receptor) (
Soderling et al., 2003;
Soderling et al., 2007). These Rho GTPase modulators have shown to play important roles in learning and memory (
Ramakers, 2002).
In vitro studies have suggested that GIT1 might be a potential mental retardation gene by regulating spine density forming a GIT1-βPIX complex in association with PAK and thus regulating small Rho GTPases and other downstream targets (
Lieu et al., 2006,
Zhang et al., 2003,
Zhang et al., 2005,
Jones and Katan, 2007;
Zhang et al., 2005,
Morimura et al., 2009,
Saneyoshi et al., 2008). Here we confirm these
in vitro studies by
in vivo analysis and show that GIT1 KO mice have decreased spine density and dendritic length in the hippocampus. Future studies on the exact signaling pathway(s) as how GIT1 regulates spine density in the brain will be necessary.
An unexpected observation was that GIT1 KO mice showed no abnormalities in BBB function. We have previously shown that depletion of GIT1 increased agonist-stimulated EC rounding and contraction, which caused endothelial hyperpermeability (
van Nieuw Amerongen et al., 2004). Stockton et al also showed that PAK-PIX-GIT1 complex was found to be necessary for ERK1/2-mediated myosin phosphorylation, EC contraction and permeability (
Stockton et al., 2007). These data suggested that GIT1 deficiency should result in BBB disruption. Surprisingly, vascular space, vascular permeability and cerebral blood flow measured by radioactive isotope infusion were similar in GIT1 WT and KO mice. Evidence for intact BBB was further confirmed by showing that expression of tight junction proteins were unaltered in GIT1 KO mice. Vascularization in the developing vertebrate brain occurs during embryogenesis, capillaries originating in the perineural vascular plexus begin to invade the mouse neuroectoderm as early as embryonic day 10.0 (E 10.0). The microvessels then become associated with perivascular mural cells (pericytes). Once within the neuroectoderm, EC come in close contact with other brain parenchymal cell types (neuroblasts, neuroepithelial cells, radial glia, and astrocytes) (
Bass et al., 1992;
Janzer and Raff, 1987). These multicellular interactions eventually form the highly selective barrier between blood and brain (
McCarty et al., 2002). Embryonic development was normal in the GIT1 KO (
Pang et al., 2009), suggesting that these processes do not require GIT1 and/or are compensated by GIT2. These results suggest that in GIT1 KO, BBB and cerebral vasculature is intact, perhaps due to compensation by GIT2 and/or differences in vascular development in brain compared to lung. It is possible that under pathophysiologic conditions such as ischemia that the BBB of the GIT1 KO mice might exhibit greater dysfunction than GIT1 WT.
In conclusion, we provide in vivo evidence that GIT1 is critical for regulating spine density and dendritic length, deficits in which correlates with delayed learning and adaptive behavior in GIT1 KO mice. This study demonstrates that deletion of GIT1 a key scaffold protein that plays an important role in cytoskeleton remodeling events is required for normal cognitive learning processes.