Trans-Axonal Signaling in Neural Circuit Wiring

Abstract

The development of neural circuits is a complex process that relies on the proper navigation of axons through their environment to their appropriate targets. While axon–environment and axon–target interactions have long been known as essential for circuit formation, communication between axons themselves has only more recently emerged as another crucial mechanism. Trans-axonal signaling governs many axonal behaviors, including fasciculation for proper guidance to targets, defasciculation for pathfinding at important choice points, repulsion along and within tracts for pre-target sorting and target selection, repulsion at the target for precise synaptic connectivity, and potentially selective degeneration for circuit refinement. This review outlines the recent advances in identifying the molecular mechanisms of trans-axonal signaling and discusses the role of axon–axon interactions during the different steps of neural circuit formation.

Full text

International Journal of
Molecular Sciences
Review
Trans-Axonal Signaling in Neural Circuit Wiring
Olivia Spead and Fabienne E. Poulain *
Department of Biological Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA; spead@email.sc.edu
*Correspondence: fpoulain@mailbox.sc.edu
Received: 17 June 2020; Accepted: 17 July 2020; Published: 21 July 2020


Abstract:
The development of neural circuits is a complex process that relies on the proper navigation
of axons through their environment to their appropriate targets. While axon–environment and
axon–target interactions have long been known as essential for circuit formation, communication
between axons themselves has only more recently emerged as another crucial mechanism. Trans-axonal
signaling governs many axonal behaviors, including fasciculation for proper guidance to targets,
defasciculation for pathfinding at important choice points, repulsion along and within tracts for
pre-target sorting and target selection, repulsion at the target for precise synaptic connectivity,
and potentially selective degeneration for circuit refinement. This review outlines the recent advances
in identifying the molecular mechanisms of trans-axonal signaling and discusses the role of axon–axon
interactions during the different steps of neural circuit formation.
Keywords:
axon–axon communication; growth cone; guidance; fasciculation; adhesion; repulsion;
axon sorting; topographic maps
1. Introduction
The formation of neural circuits is a complex developmental process that gives rise to intricate and
precise networks essential for brain function [
1
,
2
]. Defects in axonal connectivity have been associated
with a number of neurological disorders including Autism Spectrum Disorders [
3
,
4
], congenital mirror
movements [
5
,
6
], horizontal gaze palsy with progressive scoliosis [
7
], and others [
8
–
10
], making it
crucial to better understand the mechanisms governing axon guidance and neural circuit wiring.
During development, axons navigate along precise pathways to reach their final target by
responding to attractive or repulsive guidance cues present in their environment. This navigation is
ensured by motile structures at their leading ends, the growth cones, which possess numerous
receptors at their surface allowing them to respond to the various extra-cellular signals they
encounter [
11
,
12
]. A panoply of factors are known to provide long-range and/or contact-mediated
signals, including the classical guidance cues Ephrins, Slits, Netrins, and Semaphorins [
13
], adhesion
molecules [
14
,
15
], neurotrophic and growth factors [
16
], or morphogens such as Sonic Hedgehog (Shh),
Bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs), and Wnts [
17
,
18
]. The activity of these signaling factors has
mostly been studied in classical model systems for axon guidance such as the sensory and motor
innervation of the limb [
19
], the midline [
20
,
21
], and the retinotectal and olfactory systems [
22
–
25
].
These models have been instrumental in defining the general rules of axon navigation and targeting.
For instance, studying the formation of retinotectal maps in the frog led Sperry to formulate his
chemoaffinity hypothesis [
26
], whereby retinal axons with a unique profile of receptors interpret
guidance cues distributed in a gradient at their target. While axon–target and axon–extracellular
environment interactions have been widely recognized as essential for the formation of circuits,
communication between axons themselves has recently emerged as another crucial, yet understudied,
mechanism [27,28].
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020,21, 5170; doi:10.3390/ijms21145170 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijms

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020,21, 5170 2 of 19
The first indication for a role of axon–axon communication, or trans-axonal signaling, in circuit
wiring came from early experiments in chick, amphibians, and mice, showing that sensory projections
in the limb were disturbed following motor neuron ablation [
29
–
31
], or that retinal and olfactory axons
were still able to order themselves in the absence of their respective target [
32
,
33
]. Additional studies in
vertebrates and invertebrates have highlighted the importance of neuronal birth timing and age-related
axonal elongation in axon–axon communications, with early-born pioneer axons often dictating the
trajectory of later-born axons that follow them [
34
,
35
]. In the retinotectal system, for instance, pioneer
retinal axons guide follower axons out of the eye, at the midline and along the optic tract [
36
,
37
].
In addition to the temporal control of axon outgrowth, the temporal regulation of receptor availability
at the surface of axons is critical in determining the sensitivity of axons to signals presented by other
axons. It also allows axons to change their responsiveness to a cue in a precise spatial and temporal
manner [
11
,
38
]. While homotypic and heterotypic interactions between axons have been recognized
as essential for proper neuronal connectivity for more than four decades, our understanding of the
cellular and molecular mechanisms at play has only more recently progressed. In this review, we
describe specific examples that highlight the importance of trans-axonal signaling in circuit wiring
during development, focusing on the mechanisms underlying selective fasciculation and adhesion,
repulsion, and selective defasciculation.
2. Axon Fasciculation and Adhesion
Homotypic and heterotypic fasciculation between axons facilitates and coordinates the formation
of tracts en route to a common target or between inter-connected brain regions. Early studies
demonstrating the importance of pioneer-follower axon interactions in neural circuit formation have
suggested a crucial role for adhesion and fasciculation between axons as they navigate towards their
target. For example, in the Drosophila olfactory system, ablation of early-born olfactory receptor
neurons, whose axons act as pioneers, prevents the targeting of later-born axons to the antennal lobe
structure [
39
]. Similarly, ablation of early-born pioneer neurons in the olfactory [
40
] or visual [
36
]
systems in zebrafish causes later-born follower axons to misroute on their way to their target and
fail to establish proper connections. Interestingly, in the zebrafish forebrain commissure, leading and
following commissural axons show a difference in kinetics at the midline: while leading axons pause
slightly before speeding back up to cross the midline, followers do not slow down and continue across
the midline at a constant speed [
41
]. Follower axons notably change their kinetics at the midline
and adopt a leader behavior upon ablation of leading axons, suggesting a direct interaction between
leading and following axons, with follower axons fasciculating and navigating along the pioneering
axons. Interestingly, axon fasciculation can not only occur after a growth cone encounters the shaft of a
neighboring axon and moves along it, but also through a “zippering” mechanism involving direct
interactions between axonal shafts [
42
]. Overall, interactions between axons are facilitated by cell
birth order, expression of adhesion molecules, and conserved signaling pathways that mediate proper
fasciculation as axons elongate to their target.
2.1. Homotypic Fasciculation
Cell adhesion molecules (CAMs) are highly conserved across species and have been found to
regulate both homotypic and heterotypic axon–axon interactions in several circuits (Figure 1) [
14
,
15
,
43
].
For example, Neuroglian (Nrg), the Drosophila ortholog of L1-CAMs in vertebrates, is required for the
fasciculation between axons projecting to the peduncle of the mushroom bodies [
44
]. Two intracellular
adaptor proteins, Ankyrin-2 and Moesin, interact with Nrg to cluster it along the axonal surface, thereby
allowing for stable homophilic Nrg complexes to form between axons as they elongate (Figure 1AI).
Similarly, the adhesion molecule L1 facilitates fasciculation between sensory axons during hindlimb
development in chick, allowing them to form bundles important for the guidance of later-growing
axons [
45
]. Indeed, injecting an anti-L1 antibody into the chick hindlimb at a timepoint when all motor
axons, but only a few sensory axons, have reached the plexus, causes sensory axons to defasciculate

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020,21, 5170 3 of 19
and fail to navigate along their proper peripheral nerve [
46
]. While injecting an antibody against the
neural cell adhesion molecule (NCAM) does not alter sensory axon projections, the enzymatic removal
of polysialic acid (PSA) from NCAM causes an increase in sensory axon fasciculation, demonstrating
that post-translational modifications of CAMs can modulate axon–axon interactions [
46
]. Similar
observations have been made in the neuromuscular and visual systems: in ovo injection of an anti-L1
or an anti-NCAM antibody directly into the iliofibularis muscle in chick leads to the defasciculation of
motor axons, while removal of PSA from NCAM increases their fasciculation [
47
]. Likewise, injecting
an anti-NCAM antibody into the developing chick retina causes a disorganization of the optic nerve
suggestive of retinal axon defasciculation [48].
Along with L1 and NCAM, early studies in the chick and goldfish retinotectal systems indicate
that the adhesion molecule ALCAM (also called BEN, DM-GRASP, SC1, or Neurolin) is also necessary
for the proper bundling of retinal axons into fascicles [
49
,
50
]. Adding an antiserum against ALCAM to
chick retinal explants in culture blocks the elongation of retinal axons on other retinal axons, but not
on laminin [
49
]. Similarly, injecting an anti-ALCAM antibody into the eyes of growing goldfish causes
retinal axons to defasciculate, leading to disorganized optic nerves [
50
]. Interestingly, ALCAM mRNA
is locally translated in growth cones of retinal axons, and reducing ALCAM local translation in chick
retinal axons in culture prevents axons from elongating on ALCAM, but not laminin, coverslips [
51
].
Retinal axons also show fasciculation defects in Alcam knock-out mice [
52
], indicating that ALCAM’s
function in mediating adhesion between axons is conserved across species.
Other members of the immunoglobulin superfamily of CAMs are also known to regulate axon
fasciculation. In the mouse visual system, DSCAM (Down Syndrome Cell Adhesion Molecule) is
necessary for the fasciculation of retinal axons along the optic tract [
53
]. Retinal axons defasciculate
in Dscam mutants, causing them to stray from their normal path. In the chick peripheral system,
the Synaptic cell adhesion molecules SynCAMs were found to regulate axon–axon contacts between
afferent fibers as they enter the dorsal root entry zone (DREZ) of the spinal cord [
54
]. Both overexpression
and knockdown of SynCAMs lead to disorganized axon–axon contacts between sensory afferents.
In particular, knockdown of SynCAM2 and SynCAM3 leads to the segmentation of axon bundles and
mistargeting of axons to the dorsal part of the spinal cord as well as aberrant pathfinding at the DREZ.
Finally in the mouse motor system, Contactin-2 (also known as TAG-1) has been detected in the distal
segment of motor axons as they elongate into the periphery [
55
]. Specific inactivation of TAG-1 in
motor neurons causes a thickening of the ventral root of the spinal cord and a defasciculation of motor
axons in vitro.
In addition to the immunoglobulin superfamily of CAMs, members of the cadherin superfamily
form another class of CAMs that mediate neural circuit formation through axon–axon interactions.
In C. elegans, fmi-1, the ortholog of vertebrate Celsr and Drosophila flamingo, is needed for adhesion
between pioneer and follower axons that form the ventral nerve cord [
56
]. More recently in the mouse,
Protocadherin-17 (Pcdh17) has been shown to be required for growth cone migration at axon–axon
contact sites between amygdala axons as they extend to the hypothalamus and ventral striatum [
57
].
Pcdh17 accumulates at homotypic contacts between cells, and growth cones lacking Pdch17 are no
longer able to migrate properly along other axons both
in vivo
and
in vitro
. Conversely, ectopic
expression of Pcdh17 in axons that do not normally express Pcdh17 causes these axons to mix with
axons expressing endogenous Pcdh17. Elegant live imaging and biochemical experiments further
showed that Pcdh17 recruits the WAVE complex and the actin-associated proteins Lamellipodin (Lpd)
Ena/VASP to axon–axon contact sites, thereby promoting the motility of growth cones as they make
contact with other axons of the same tract.
The function or abundance of adhesion molecules at the axonal surface is tightly regulated by
classical guidance cues (Figure 1AIV–VII). In particular, Semaphorins have been identified as major
regulators of axon fasciculation. In the Drosophila visual system, transmembrane Sema1a and PlexA
are both expressed on the surface of photoreceptor axons that project to the medulla of the optic lobe.
While Semaphorins usually act as ligands activating Plexin receptors [
58
,
59
], in this system Sema1a

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020,21, 5170 4 of 19
reverse signaling mediates axonal adhesion as photoreceptor axons extend through intermediate target
zones to the lamina of the optic lobe [
60
,
61
]. Interestingly, Sema1a reverse signaling increases the
adhesive function of Fascilin 2 (Fas2) at the surface of photoreceptor axons by down-regulating the
activity of the small GTPase Rho1 [
61
]. This is in sharp contrast to its role in the Drosophila motor
system, where Sema1a reverse signaling activates Rho1 to promote axon–axon repulsion, thus balancing
the adhesive activity of Fas2 and another CAM, Connectin (Conn), for proper motor axon targeting [
62
].
A similar mechanism whereby Semaphorin signaling regulates the expression of an adhesion molecule
has been described in zebrafish [
63
]. Knockdown of both Sema3D and L1-CAM leads to a loss of
adhesion between medial longitudinal fascicle (MLF) axons. Importantly, Sema3D regulates the
axonal levels of L1: Sema3D overexpression increases L1 protein levels, whereas Sema3D knockdown
decreases them. Which signaling pathway is activated by Sema3D to regulate L1 protein levels remains
unclear, but it could involve the Semaphorin-3 receptor Neuropilin-1 (Nrp1). Interestingly, Nrp1 and
L1 were found to associate via their extracellular domains [
64
], and Nrp1 is known to be required for
proper homotypic fasciculation of both motor and sensory axons in the developing limb in mice [
65
].
Altogether, these different studies highlight the control of adhesion molecules by Semaphorin signaling
as a key conserved mechanism for regulating homotypic axon fasciculation.
Other classical guidance cues have been shown to mediate homotypic fasciculation, however it
remains unknown whether they do so directly or by regulating adhesion molecules (Figure 1AVIII–X).
For example, fasciculation in the sensorimotor system of mice is, at least in part, mediated through
Ephrin-B/EphB signaling [
66
]. Ephrin-B1 is present on developing sensory axons as well as in the
surrounding limb bud mesenchyme while its receptor, EphB2, is expressed on both sensory and
motor axons. Mice lacking Ephrin-B1 exhibit defasciculated sensory and motor axons, supporting a
model whereby Ephrin-B1 signaling from the mesenchyme maintains the fasciculation of peripheral
projections through a surround-repulsion mechanism. However, defasciculation appears more robust in
full knock-out embryos compared to conditional knock-outs lacking Ephrin-B1 from the mesenchyme,
suggesting that Ephrin-B1 might also promote the fasciculation of sensory axons via a distinct
mechanism involving axon–axon communication [
66
]. In addition to EphB2, the guidance cue Slit2 and
its receptors, Robo1 and Robo2, are expressed by motor neurons in mice as well. Inactivation of any
of these three proteins causes motor axons to prematurely defasciculate before reaching their muscle
target at the diaphragm [
67
]. While it remains unclear how Slit2, a secreted factor, promotes motor
axon fasciculation, signaling could possibly involve N-cadherin, whose distribution at the surface
of placodal cells in chick is increased by Slit/Robo signaling [
68
]. Finally, another classical guidance
pathway that has recently been implicated in mediating axon fasciculation involves the secreted factors
Netrin and Draxin and their receptor DCC [
69
]. Draxin was first identified as a repulsive guidance
cue that also promotes homotypic fasciculation between commissural axons in the mouse corpus
callosum [
70
]. A screen for large extracellular protein interactions and immunoprecipitation assays
later demonstrated that Draxin interacts with both DCC and Netrin [
71
,
72
]. Crystal structures of
Draxin/DCC and Draxin/Netrin-1 complexes were recently analyzed and suggest that Draxin tethers
Netrin-1 and DCC together to promote axon fasciculation [73].
Along with classical guidance cues, other signaling molecules regulate axon fasciculation in
addition to their other better-known functions. Endocannabinoids, for instance, have been identified
as guidance cues regulating axon pathfinding and elongation in mouse and xenopus [
74
], and deletion
of the cannabinoid receptor CB
1
R from mouse cortical neurons
in vivo
causes a defasciculation of
their axons [
75
,
76
]. A recent study reported that Kinesin-1 regulates the trafficking and sub-cellular
localization of CB
1
R in mouse cortical neurons, thereby modulating endocannabinoid signaling and
axon fasciculation [76].
2.2. Heterotypic Fasciculation
The nervous system comprises many axonal tracts formed by different neuron types. Selective
heterotypic fasciculation between different axon types coordinates the development of these tracts

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020,21, 5170 5 of 19
into neural circuits (Figure 1B). For example, in the developing cerebral cortex, pioneer axons that
form the corpus callosum originate from neurons in the cingulate cortex and guide follower axons
arising from the neocortex. While cingulate axons are guided toward and across the midline by
cues present in the environment, neocortical axons fasciculate with pioneer axons and use them as a
guide [
77
]. Innervation of the habenula is another developmental process that relies on heterotypic axon
fasciculation. The habenula includes the lateral habenula (lHb) that projects axons to monoaminergic
nuclei, including dopaminergic nuclei, in the ventral tegmental area (VTA). Conversely, the lHb
receives reciprocal dopaminergic inputs from the VTA [
78
–
80
]. Interestingly, the genetic ablation of
the habenula in the mouse leads to the loss of dopaminergic projections to the lHB [
81
]. Furthermore,
physically preventing the outgrowth of habenular axons from the lHb also inhibits the elongation
of dopaminergic axons to the lHb in mouse brain hemisections, indicating that lHb axons extending
to the ventral midbrain sort and guide afferent dopaminergic axons to the lHb [
81
]. This pre-target
reciprocal trans-axonal signaling is mediated by the adhesive molecule Limbic-system-associated
protein (LAMP) present at the surface of lHb axons. LAMP likely engages in homophilic interactions
to mediate adhesion, as it is also expressed by dopaminergic neurons projecting to the lHb.
Another example of interactions between reciprocal, afferent, and efferent axons involves
thalamocortical and corticothalamic axons that meet in the subpallium to form the internal capsule
before projecting to their respective targets [
82
]. Several studies have suggested that cortical and
thalamic axons may rely on each other for proper guidance in the internal capsule. Mutations affecting
thalamic axons were shown to alter cortical axons, and conversely [
83
]. Further studies later confirmed
that reciprocal interactions between thalamocortical axons and pioneer cortical axons that are generated
by cells in the subplate are required for the guidance of both thalamocortical and corticothalamic
projections in the subpallium and within the neocortex. Genetically ablating the thalamus
in vivo
causes
corticothalamic axons to be misguided along a different trajectory towards the cerebral peduncle [
84
].
The interaction between thalamocortical axons and pioneer cortical axons in the subpallium is required
for proper guidance but relies on a tight temporal control of axon elongation [
84
]. Pioneer cortical
axons indeed reach the lateral subpallium before thalamic axons and must halt their elongation and
pause until thalamic axons reach the proper location to guide them. This waiting period is triggered by
the transient expression of PlexinD1 by pioneer cortical axons that allows them to pause in response to
Sema3E secreted by the radial glia. Conversely in the neocortex, cortical efferent axons are required for
thalamic axons to cross the pallial-subpallial boundary [85].
In the peripheral nervous system, sensory and motor axons also use heterotypic interactions
to extend to their appropriate targets (Figure 1B). Along with mediating homotypic fasciculation
of motor and sensory axons, Nrp1 regulates heterotypic fasciculation between motor and sensory
axons in the developing limb of the mouse [
65
]. Specific ablation of Nrp1 from sensory axons causes
not only sensory but also motor axons to defasciculate. This observation suggests a model whereby
Nrp1 acts with a yet unidentified ligand on sensory and motor axons to mediate their fasciculation.
Interestingly, Nrp1 and Sema3A are both expressed by motor and sensory neurons, suggesting that
motor axons might also defasciculate in response to increased extra-cellular levels of Sema3A that
would occur upon Nrp1 ablation from sensory axons. Additional studies in the chick hindlimb have
further demonstrated that motor axons extend first and provide a guiding path for the follower sensory
axons [
30
]. It was later found in vertebrates that earlier-projecting motor neurons express EphA3
and EphA4, while sensory axons express Ephrin-A [
86
]. Inactivation of EphA3 and EphA4 in mouse
motor neurons leads to the loss of sensory axon projections. Moreover, the EphA3 ectodomain was
shown to promote sensory axon elongation in an Ephrin-A-dependent manner
in vitro
, suggesting
that Ephrin-A reverse signaling mediates interactions between sensory and motor axons. Altogether,
these studies highlight the importance of heterotypic axon–axon fasciculation in the establishment of
peripheral nerves.

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020,21, 5170 6 of 19
Int.J.Mol.Sci.2020,21,xFORPEERREVIEW  6of19

Figure1.Trans‐axonalsignalingmediateshomotypic(A)andheterotypic(B)fasciculation.(AI–III)
Celladhesionmolecules(CAMs)regulatehomotypicaxon–axonfasciculation.(AI)Neuroglian(Nrg)
isclusteredalongthesurfaceofDrosophilasensoryaxonstomediatehomotypicfasciculation[44].
(AII)L1CAMandSynCAMbothmediatehomotypicfasciculationofchicksensoryaxons[45,54].
(AIII)Pcdh17facilitatestrans‐axonalhomotypicfasciculationinmouseamygdalaaxonsbyrecruiting
theWAVEcomplex,Lamellipodin(Lpd),andVASP[57].(AIV–VII)CrosstalkbetweenCAMsand
classicalguidancecuesregulatehomotypicaxon–axoninteractions.(AIV)Sema1areversesignaling
increasestheadhesivefunctionofFas2inDrosophilaphotoreceptoraxons[61],whileitbalancesthe
adhesivefunctionsofConnectin(Conn)andFas2inmotoraxons(AV)[62].(AVI)Sema3Dsignaling
likelyinvolvingNrp1andPlexinco‐receptorsregulatestheexpressionlevelsofL1CAMtomediate
homotypicfasciculationofzebrafishmediallongitudinalfascicle(MLF)axons[63].(AVII)Inmouse
motorandsensoryaxons,Nrp1,eitheronitsownorwithanunknownligand,facilitateshomotypic
axon–axonfasciculation[65].(AVIII–X)Otherclassicalguidancecuesalsomediatehomotypictrans‐
axonalsignaling.(AVIII)Ephrin‐B1andEphB2,expressedonmousesensoryaxons,mayregulate
homotypicaxonfasciculationbybindingintrans[66].(AIX)Slit/Robosignalingmediateshomotypic
fasciculationofmotoraxons,possiblybyregulatingthesurfacelevelsofN‐cadherin[67].(AX)
InteractionsbetweenNetrin‐1,DraxinandDCCfacilitatefasciculationofmousecallosalaxons[70,73].
(BI–II)Classicalguidancecuesalsomediateheterotypictrans‐axonalsignaling.Nrp1,throughan
Figure 1.
Trans-axonal signaling mediates homotypic (
A
) and heterotypic (
B
) fasciculation. (
AI–III
)
Cell adhesion molecules (CAMs) regulate homotypic axon–axon fasciculation. (AI) Neuroglian (Nrg)
is clustered along the surface of Drosophila sensory axons to mediate homotypic fasciculation [
44
].
(
AII
) L1CAM and SynCAM both mediate homotypic fasciculation of chick sensory axons [
45
,
54
].
(
AIII
) Pcdh17 facilitates trans-axonal homotypic fasciculation in mouse amygdala axons by recruiting the
WAVE complex, Lamellipodin (Lpd), and VASP [
57
]. (
AIV–VII
) Crosstalk between CAMs and classical
guidance cues regulate homotypic axon–axon interactions. (
AIV
) Sema1a reverse signaling increases
the adhesive function of Fas2 in Drosophila photoreceptor axons [
61
], while it balances the adhesive
functions of Connectin (Conn) and Fas2 in motor axons (
AV
) [
62
]. (
AVI
) Sema3D signaling likely
involving Nrp1 and Plexin co-receptors regulates the expression levels of L1CAM to mediate homotypic
fasciculation of zebrafish medial longitudinal fascicle (MLF) axons [
63
]. (
AVII
) In mouse motor and
sensory axons, Nrp1, either on its own or with an unknown ligand, facilitates homotypic axon–axon
fasciculation [
65
]. (
AVIII–X
) Other classical guidance cues also mediate homotypic trans-axonal
signaling. (
AVIII
) Ephrin-B1 and EphB2, expressed on mouse sensory axons, may regulate homotypic
axon fasciculation by binding in trans [
66
]. (
AIX
) Slit/Robo signaling mediates homotypic fasciculation
of motor axons, possibly by regulating the surface levels of N-cadherin [
67
]. (
AX
) Interactions between
Netrin-1, Draxin and DCC facilitate fasciculation of mouse callosal axons [
70
,
73
]. (
BI–II
) Classical
guidance cues also mediate heterotypic trans-axonal signaling. Nrp1, through an unknown ligand,
as well as Ephrin-A/EphA signaling, mediate trans-axonal heterotypic fasciculation of motor and
sensory axons [65,86].

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020,21, 5170 7 of 19
3. Trans-Axonal Repulsion
As important as selective homotypic and heterotypic fasciculation, trans-axonal repulsive
interactions mediate the segregation of axons within a tract or the dissociation of axons into distinct
tracts forming different circuits. Typically, repulsion between homotypic axons leads to their segregation
and sorting en route to or at their target, while heterotypic repulsion generates independent axonal
tracts [
28
]. Repulsion between axonal arbors from same-type neurons also leads to the formation of
separate projection fields at the target, thereby ensuring optimal spatial coverage required for efficient
connectivity [27,87].
3.1. Repulsion and Selective Defasciculation at Choice Points
As they navigate to their final destination, axons often encounter several successive choice points
where intermediate targets such as guidepost cells steer them along the proper path. Interestingly,
axons themselves also provide directional information to other axons at choice points (Figure 2A).
In the mouse visual system, axons from retinal ganglion cells (RGCs) either cross the midline at the
optic chiasm to project contralaterally to the opposite optic tract or do not cross and project ipsilaterally.
A recent study demonstrated that contralateral retinal axons that reach the chiasm first transport
and secrete Shh at the optic chiasm, thereby repelling later-extending ipsilateral axons that express
the receptor Boc (Figure 2AI) [
88
]. Thus, in this system, trans-axonal repulsive signaling between
contralateral and ipsilateral axons provides a spatiotemporal regulation of axon segregation at the
optic chiasm that ensures proper subsequent axonal targeting.
Axon–axon repulsion and selective defasciculation at choice points also allow a subgroup of axons
to segregate from the main bundle and navigate to an independent target. Periphery muscle innervation
by motor axons, for instance, requires selective axon defasciculation. It has been extensively studied in
Drosophila, where motor axons initially exit the central nervous system (CNS) as the intersegmental
nerve (ISN) and segmental nerve (SN) before further dividing into five distinct motor branches—the
ISN, ISNb, ISNd, SNa, and SNc [
89
]. Each of these five bundles defasciculates again, so that motor axons
innervate individual muscle targets. Sema1a signaling has been shown to regulate the defasciculation
of motor axons at specific choice points [
90
]. Both Sema1a and its receptor PlexA are expressed by motor
neurons, and ISN and ISNb axons fail to defasciculate from each other and project to improper targets in
sema1a and plexA mutants. Interestingly, forward and reverse signaling are both required for motor axon
defasciculation, with Sema1a reverse signaling being modulated by two counteracting Rho1 GTPase
regulators [
91
]. In particular, the Rho guanine nucleotide exchange factor Pebble (Pbl) acts downstream
of Sema1a to promote the defasciculation of ISNb axons at their choice points (Figure 2AII). In absence
of Pbl, ISNb motor axons become hyperfasciculated, leading to improper targeting. What mechanism
could control the specific activation of Sema1a signaling at choice points? Interestingly, a secreted
member of the heparan sulfate proteoglycan (HSPG) family, Perlecan, is found at higher levels in the
extracellular matrix (ECM) at defasciculation choice points and appears to be expressed by a subset of
motor neurons [
92
]. Like in sema1a and plexA mutants, motor axons fail to defasciculate in perlecan
mutants, and re-expressing perlecan in neurons rescues axon fasciculation defects. Whether Perlecan is
selectively secreted by motor axons at choice points to regulate Sema1a/PlexA signaling and motor
axon defasciculation remains to be established.
Complementary to Semaphorin signaling, the cell adhesion receptors Integrins have also been
reported to regulate motor axon defasciculation in Drosophila [
93
]. Mutants lacking Integrin
α
1 or
Integrin
α
2 have increased fasciculation of ISNb and SNa axons that causes a lack muscle innervation.
Interestingly, DCas, the Drosophila member of the Crk-associated substrate (Cas) family known to act
downstream of Integrins, is highly detected in developing motor axons [
93
]. Like in Integrin mutants,
ISNb axons fail to defasciculate from the ISN bundle in DCas mutants and double Dcas/+;Integrin/+
heterozygotes, suggesting that Integrin signaling through Dcas is needed for proper motor axon
defasciculation. Surprisingly, overexpressing DCas in neurons causes a similar hyperfasciculation
defect in an Integrin-dependent manner, suggesting that Integrin/DCas signaling regulates both

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020,21, 5170 8 of 19
axon–axon and axon–ECM interactions at choice points. How integrin signaling and other pathways
co-regulate axon–axon repulsion to direct defasciculation has yet to be determined.
3.2. Axon–Axon Repulsion between and within Tracts
Trans-axonal repulsive signaling between heterotypic tracts allows axons to form distinct bundles
and take different trajectories towards their respective targets. In the sensorimotor system, for instance,
motor and sensory axon bundles elongate closely to each other in a coordinated manner but remain
physically segregated through contact-dependent repulsive interactions as they elongate to the muscle
and dermis, respectively [
30
,
45
]. Interestingly in mice, EphA3 and EphA4 are present at the surface of
motor axons while DRG sensory neurons express high levels of Ephrin-A. Disrupting Ephrin signaling
by selectively inactivating EphA3 and EphA4 in motor neurons leads to the intermingling of adjacent
motor and sensory axons [
94
], indicating that Ephrin-A/EphA trans-axonal signaling mediates the
repulsion between motor and sensory axons required for their segregation.
Similar trans-axonal repulsive interactions are observed in the developing corpus callosum,
where axons from the medial and lateral regions of the cortex project to the contralateral medial
and lateral cortical regions, respectively. As they elongate across the midline, medial and lateral
cortical axons are organized into separate bundles, with medial axons passing through the dorsal
part of the corpus callosum and lateral axons elongating through its ventral part. EphA3 is expressed
on lateral-projecting axons and repels medial-projecting axons upon contact, thereby ensuring the
segregation of the two axonal tracts [
95
]. Interestingly, Sema3A-Nrp1 signaling also regulates the
topographic ordering of callosal axons [
96
]. Axons extending from the motor and sensory cortex are
spatially segregated into distinct bundles in the corpus callosum. Selectively inactivating Nrp1 or
Sema3A in neurons from the motor or sensory cortex, respectively, causes defects in axon segregation,
with motor and sensory cortical axons intermixing within the corpus callosum. Disruption of callosal
axon organization further leads to subsequent defects in contralateral projections and mapping,
highlighting the importance of pre-target topographic ordering of axons for proper brain wiring.
Outside of the corpus callosum, pre-target topographic axon sorting has been observed in many
other systems and shown indeed to be an essential step for map formation. For example, thalamocortical
axons originating from distinct thalamic nuclei are already ordered in the subpallium before reaching
the cortex [
97
]. Selectively disturbing subpallium development without affecting the thalamus or cortex
causes thalamocortical axons to intermix en route to their target and subsequently fail to form functional
topographic maps in the cortex [
98
]. Similarly, pre-target axon sorting is critical for the formation of a
functional topographic map in the vertebrate olfactory system [
99
]. In the mouse olfactory system,
about one thousand types of olfactory sensory neurons (OSNs) convey odor information perceived
in the olfactory epithelium (OE) to the olfactory bulb (OB). Each OSN expresses a single type of G
protein-coupled odorant receptor (OR), and same-type OSNs expressing the same OR extend axons
that converge onto common individual target sites called glomeruli in the olfactory bulb [
100
]. As the
organization of glomeruli does not correlate with the position of the OSNs in the OE, convergence of
olfactory axons onto specific glomeruli along the antero-posterior axis is ensured by pre-target axon
sorting (Figure 2B). Interestingly, ORs themselves have an instructive role in the sorting and targeting
of axons that is independent of their odor ligand specificity [
101
,
102
]. The spontaneous activity of each
OR generates a unique level of cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) that in turn, initiates signal
transduction cascades activating the transcription of specific genes [
103
,
104
]. cAMP notably positively
regulates the expression of Nrp1, causing OSNs to express variable Nrp1 levels. Interestingly, Nrp1 and
Sema3A are expressed in a complementary manner in the olfactory nerve. Axons with high levels
of Nrp1 elongate along the outer, lateral part of the bundle, while axons with high levels of Sema3A
are confined within its center [
99
]. Specific inactivation of Nrp1a or Sema3A in OSNs causes axons to
intermingle and lose their topographic order within the nerve, indicating that repulsive trans-axonal
signaling mediated by Sema3A/Nrp1 determines the relative positioning of olfactory axons. A similar

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020,21, 5170 9 of 19
repulsive signaling mediated by Eph-Ephrin has been suggested to regulate the segregation of olfactory
receptor cell axons in the moth [105].
Pre-target axon sorting has also been extensively studied in the visual system. In vertebrates,
retinal axons are preordered along the dorso-ventral axis in the optic tract before reaching the
tectum, with dorsal and ventral axons elongating along the ventral and dorsal branches of the tract,
respectively [
106
–
110
]. As in the olfactory and thalamocortical systems, pre-target ordering of retinal
axons is thought to facilitate proper topographic mapping at the target [
108
]. The signaling mechanism
mediating optic tract sorting has not yet been determined, but several studies in zebrafish have
highlighted an essential role for heparan sulfate (HS) [
111
–
113
]. In embryos lacking HS due to
mutations in the glycosyltransferases Ext2 and Extl3, pre-target sorting is disrupted, with several
dorsal axons misrouting along the dorsal part of the optic tract. Although the mechanism by which HS
regulates retinal axon sorting is not well understood, it might involve Nrp1 signaling [
114
]. Indeed,
knockdown of Hermes, an RNA-binding protein expressed in RGCs, leads to partial missorting of dorsal
axons through the upregulation of Nrp1 expression, suggesting that Nrp1 levels must be temporally
regulated for proper sorting. Interestingly, a micro-RNA, miR-124, indirectly regulates the onset of
Nrp1 expression in retinal axons in Xenopus, thereby controlling the sensitivity of retinal growth
cones to Sema3A [
115
]. While Sema3A, Nrp1 and several Plexins are known to be expressed in RGCs,
their contribution to retinal axon sorting, and possibly trans-axonal signaling in that system, remains to
be tested. Additional studies in Xenopus have highlighted the role of axon–axon interactions in optic
tract sorting [
116
].
In vivo
, growth cones of dorsal and ventral axons show a range of behavior upon
contact with other axons along the tract, including crossing over the contacted axon, fasciculating with
it, or following it at a distance. Further experiments
in vitro
revealed that homotypic contacts between
either dorsal or ventral axons usually lead to axon crossing or fasciculation, while heterotypic contacts
are usually followed by axon crossing, stalling or retraction. Interestingly, both homotypic fasciculation
and heterotypic repulsion appear to be regulated by the cytoplasmic FMR1-interacting protein 2
(CYFIP2). CYFIP2 translocates to the growth cone periphery upon axonal contact, where it interacts
with members of the WAVE regulatory complex (WRC) to regulate actin dynamics. Knockdown of
CYFIP2 reduces homotypic fasciculation events and increases axonal stalling and retraction after a
growth cone contacts an axon in vitro. In vivo, interaction between CYFIP2 and the WRC is required
for the sorting of dorsal axons along the tract, which is disrupted in cyfip2 zebrafish mutants [
117
].
While the role of CYFIP2 provides insight into the regulation of heterotypic and homotypic axonal
interactions during optic tract sorting, the ligands and receptors upstream of CYFIP2 that would
mediate trans-axonal signaling in that system remain unidentified. The importance of axonal birth
order and the potential role of pioneer vs. follower axon interactions for the segregation of ventral and
dorsal axons have also yet to be addressed.
3.3. Axon Repulsion at the Target
Axon–axon interactions continue to dictate the pathway taken by axons as they reach their target
and subsequently arborize. In the mouse olfactory system, for instance, olfactory axons are segregated
along the dorso-ventral axis and maintain their relative position from their exit from the OE to their
entry of the OB. Axons from the dorsomedial zone of the OE project to the dorsal part of the OB first
and are followed by axons from the ventrolateral zone that project to the ventral OB [
100
,
118
,
119
].
Interestingly, Sema3F and its receptor Neuropilin-2 (Nrp2) are expressed in a complementary graded
manner along the dorso-ventral axis in OSNs. Early-arriving dorsomedial axons exhibit high levels of
Sema3F, and later-arriving ventrolateral axons express high levels of Nrp2 [
120
]. Selective inactivation
of Sema3F in OSNs does not affect the sorting of dorsomedial and ventrolateral axons en route to
the OB, but it causes Nrp2-expressing axons to mistarget to the dorsal region of the OB upon arrival.
The detection of Sema3F protein, but not of Sema3F transcript, in the outer nerve layer of the dorsal OB
suggests an “indirect” trans-axonal signaling model, whereby pioneer dorsomedial axons produce
and deposit Sema3F in the dorsal OB, which in turn repels ventrolateral axons and restricts them to

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020,21, 5170 10 of 19
the ventral OB [
121
]. A similar trans-axonal signaling mechanism between early- and later-arriving
axons has been described in the Drosophila olfactory system, where antennal ORN axons expressing
high levels of Sema1A reach the peripheral antennal lobe first and repel later-arriving maxillary palp
olfactory axons, constraining them to central glomeruli [122].
Trans-axonal signaling also dictates the fine mapping of axons at their final destination. Once axons
have elongated and reached their target, they form elaborate axonal arbors within specific territories
or termination zones, establishing precise synaptic connections essential for an efficient transfer of
information. Several studies have demonstrated that competitive axon–axon interactions facilitate
different steps of circuit development, including topographic order and mapping [
22
]. Repulsive
interactions between axons at the target regulate the size and shape of individual axonal arbors, thereby
restricting them to precise termination zones. In zebrafish, for instance, interactions between sensory
axon arbors limit the size of individual arbors and confine them to restricted territories. In the absence of
neighboring neurons, sensory axon arbors continue to grow without restriction [
123
]. Similarly, retinal
axons form larger and more complex arbors at the tectum in the absence of neighboring axons [
124
,
125
].
Consequently, disturbing axon–axon interactions independently of the target modifies the formation
of precise topographic maps at the target. In the mouse visual system, for instance, trans-axonal
signaling between nasal and temporal retinal axons contributes to retinocollicular mapping along the
antero-posterior axis (Figure 2CI) [
126
]. Temporal retinal axons that express high levels of EphA project
to the rostral superior colliculus (SC) that expresses Ephrin-As at low levels. Conversely, nasal retinal
axons with low levels of EphA project to the caudal SC that expresses high levels of Ephrin-As.
Interestingly, the targeting of temporal axons is not affected after selectively inactivating EphrinA5
in the SC, but becomes altered and posteriorly shifted to the caudal SC (that is, the area targeted
by nasal axons), upon EphrinA5 ablation in both the SC and the retina. Thus, target-independent
trans-axonal signaling prevents temporal and nasal axons from forming overlapping termination
zones, thus ensuring proper mapping.
Homotypic axon–axon repulsive interactions finally ensure that axonal arbors from neurons sharing
the same function do not overlap with each other and are properly spaced. This “tiling” mechanism
allows axons to maximize the coverage of an area while minimizing redundancy of targeting [
87
].
Interestingly, different types of neurons that innervate a common target tile independently of one
another, implicating a specificity of signaling and suggesting an essential role for contact-mediated
repulsion. Live imaging studies of trigeminal and spinal cord sensory neurons in zebrafish have
indeed confirmed that axons repel each other and limit the size of their arborizations through direct
contact-mediated repulsion [
123
]. Several studies in Drosophila have highlighted the role of adhesion
molecules in mediating proper spacing between axonal arbors (Figure 2CII). In the visual system,
for instance, the atypical cadherin Flamingo (Fmi) enables proper spacing between R8 photoreceptor
axons in the medulla by facilitating competitive interactions between adjacent R8 axonal arbors [
127
].
When fmi is mosaically knocked out in R8 cells, growth cones become irregularly spaced and often
overlap, suggesting that Fmi mediates repulsive interactions between R8 cells in a cell-autonomous
manner. Interestingly, aggregation assays
in vitro
and clonal analyses
in vivo
have recently revealed
that Fmi interacts in cis with another transmembrane receptor, Golden goal (Gogo) [
128
]. Like Fmi,
Gogo mediates repulsive axon–axon interactions between R8 axons [
129
], and fmi and gogo genetically
interact to regulate R8 axon targeting in the medulla [
128
]. As both Fmi and Gogo colocalize at cell–cell
contacts when expressed in cultured cells [
128
], the formation of Fmi-Gogo complexes might be needed
for the proper spacing of R8 axonal arbors. Along with photoreceptor cells, L1-L5 neurons in the
lamina also project axons to spatially restricted columns in the medulla, with each column containing
only one axon of each neuron type [
130
]. Homophilic binding between Dscam2, a member of the
DSCAM family, mediates repulsion between L1 axonal arbors, thereby restricting them to specific
columns. In dscam2 mutants, L1 axons still target the correct layer of the medulla but are no longer
restricted to a single column.

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020,21, 5170 11 of 19
Int.J.Mol.Sci.2020,21,xFORPEERREVIEW  11of19
andevenlyspacedintheirtargetfieldsinthebasalgangliaandhippocampus,theyappear
disorganized,tangled,andclumpedtogetherinmicelackingPcdhαC2.Thisphenotypecouldalsobe
observeduponspecificablationofPcdhαC2inserotonergicneurons[120],suggestingthatPcdhαc2
mediateshomophilicrepulsiveinteractionstopromotetilingbetweenserotonergicaxonterminals.
Interestingly,thePcdhαgeneclusterhasbeenassociatedwithschizophreniaandautismspectrum
disorders,suggestingthepossibleinvolvementofdefectivetrans‐axonalsignalingintheetiologyof
theseneurodevelopmentaldisorders.


Figure2.Axon–axoninteractionsregulateaxonalrepulsionduringneuralcircuitwiring.(AI)Inthe
mousevisualsystem,contralateralretinalaxonsarrivingearlyattheopticchiasmsecreteSonic
Hedgehog(Shh),whichrepelslater‐arrivingipsilateralaxonsthatexpresstheShhreceptorBoc[88].
(AII)BothforwardandreverseSema1asignalingregulatemotoraxonrepulsioninDrosophila.
ReversesignalingreliesontheactivationofRho1byPebble(Pbl),andpossiblysecretedPerlecan[90–
92].(B)Inthemouse,axon–axonrepulsionestablishespre‐targetaxonsortingofolfactorysensory
axons.ORsproducepatternsofspontaneousactivitythatgeneratedifferentlevelsofcyclicadenosine
monophosphate(cAMP).cAMPthenactivatestranscriptionofNrp1,whichisexpressedina
complementarymannertoitsligand,Sema3A,intheolfactorynerve.Repulsivesignalingbetween
Figure 2.
Axon–axon interactions regulate axonal repulsion during neural circuit wiring. (
AI
) In the
mouse visual system, contralateral retinal axons arriving early at the optic chiasm secrete Sonic Hedgehog
(Shh), which repels later-arriving ipsilateral axons that express the Shh receptor Boc [
88
]. (
AII
) Both
forward and reverse Sema1a signaling regulate motor axon repulsion in Drosophila. Reverse signaling
relies on the activation of Rho1 by Pebble (Pbl), and possibly secreted Perlecan [
90
–
92
]. (
B
) In the mouse,
axon–axon repulsion establishes pre-target axon sorting of olfactory sensory axons. ORs produce
patterns of spontaneous activity that generate different levels of cyclic adenosine monophosphate
(cAMP). cAMP then activates transcription of Nrp1, which is expressed in a complementary manner to
its ligand, Sema3A, in the olfactory nerve. Repulsive signaling between Nrp1- and Sema3A-expressing
axons sorts axons as they extend to the olfactory bulb (OB) [
99
–
104
]. (
CI
) Repulsion between nasal
and rostral retinal axons at the superior colliculus (SC) contributes to topographic mapping. EphrinA5
is highly expressed by nasal retinal axons while EphA is high on temporal retinal axons. Temporal
axons are repelled from the caudal SC by EphrinA5 present in both the environment and at the surface
of nasal axons [
126
]. (
CII
) In the Drosophila visual system, Dscam2 interactions mediate repulsion
and proper spacing of L1-L5 axon arbors in the medulla. Spacing of R7/R8 axon arbors is mediated by
Flamingo (Fmi) and Golden goal (Gogo) interactions [127–129].

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020,21, 5170 12 of 19
In addition to mediating the correct spacing of axonal arbors in the Drosophila visual system,
atypical cadherins have recently emerged as regulators of axonal tiling in vertebrates [
131
,
132
].
Among the 70 different protocadherins (Pcdh) identified in mammals, Pcdh
α
C2 is the only Pcdh
α
isoform expressed in serotonergic neurons. While serotonergic axon terminals are precisely ordered
and evenly spaced in their target fields in the basal ganglia and hippocampus, they appear disorganized,
tangled, and clumped together in mice lacking Pcdh
α
C2. This phenotype could also be observed
upon specific ablation of Pcdh
α
C2 in serotonergic neurons [
120
], suggesting that Pcdh
α
c2 mediates
homophilic repulsive interactions to promote tiling between serotonergic axon terminals. Interestingly,
the Pcdh
α
gene cluster has been associated with schizophrenia and autism spectrum disorders,
suggesting the possible involvement of defective trans-axonal signaling in the etiology of these
neurodevelopmental disorders.
4. Concluding Remarks and Future Perspectives
Trans-axonal signaling regulates a striking number of developmental processes that are essential
for neural circuit wiring. Both homotypic and heterotypic axon–axon interactions not only mediate
axon adhesion and bundling for guidance to the proper target, but also defasciculation for pathfinding
at important choice points, repulsion within and between tracts for pre-target sorting and target
selection, and repulsion at the target for precise synaptic connectivity. Interestingly, one axonal behavior
that is notably lacking from this list is selective axon degeneration. Local axon degeneration refines
nervous system connectivity in many species, for instance by remodeling axonal projections during
metamorphosis in insects, or by pruning mistargeted axons or axonal branches in vertebrates [
133
].
In the zebrafish visual system, for example, some dorsal retinal axons initially misroute along the
dorsal branch of the optic tract, indicating that pre-target sorting of retinal axons is not precisely
established during initial pathfinding. Topographic order is eventually achieved through the selective
degeneration of these missorted dorsal axons [
103
]. The observations that axon–axon interactions
participate in the segregation of retinal axons along the tract [
106
] and that ventral axons elongate along
the tract first in zebrafish [
134
], raise the intriguing possibility that ventral axons might trigger the
selective degeneration of missorted dorsal axons. As HS functions non-cell-autonomously to trigger
this degeneration [
103
], testing its role in trans-axonal signaling between ventral and dorsal axons
might provide clues about the molecular mechanism involved.
While many studies have highlighted the importance of axon–axon interactions, the signaling
mechanisms and cellular dynamics governing trans-axonal communication are only beginning to
emerge
in vivo
. The recent development of innovative genetic, molecular, and imaging techniques
will undoubtedly open new avenues of research by enabling the molecular profiling of single neurons,
the selective manipulation of specific axons, and the visualization of axon–axon dynamics at high
resolution. Characterizing the molecular and cellular mechanisms by which axons communicate with
each other remains a key question to address for better understanding how precise and efficient neural
circuits are formed and maintained.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, O.S. and F.E.P.; Writing—original draft preparation, O.S.; Writing—review
and editing, O.S., and F.E.P.; Visualization, O.S. and F.E.P.; Supervision, F.E.P.; Funding acquisition, F.E.P. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding:
This study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, grant number
R01NS109197.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020,21, 5170 13 of 19
Abbreviations
ALCAM Activated leukocyte cell adhesion molecule
BMP Bone morphogenetic protein
CAM Cell adhesion molecule
cAMP Cyclic adenosine monophosphate
Cas Crk-associated substrate
CNS Central nervous system
Conn Connectin
CYFIP2 Cytoplasmic FMR1-interacting protein 2
DREZ Dorsal root entry zone
DSCAM Down syndrome cell adhesion molecule
ECM Extracellular matrix
Fas2 Fascilin 2
Fmi Flamingo
Gogo Golden goal
HS Heparan sulfate
HSPG Heparan sulfate proteoglycan
ISN Intersegmental nerve
LAMP Limbic-system-associated protein
lHB Lateral habenula
Lpd Lamellipodin
MLF Medial longitudinal fascicle
NCAM Neural cell adhesion molecule
Nrg Neuroglian
Nrp Neuropilin
OB Olfactory bulb
OE Olfactory epithelium
OSN Olfactory sensory neuron
Pbl Pebble
Pcdh Protocadherin
Plex Plexin
PSA Polysialic Acid
RGC Retinal ganglion cell
SC Superior colliculus
Sema Semaphorin
Shh Sonic hedgehog
SN Segmental nerve
SynCAM Synaptic cell adhesion molecule
TAG-1 Transient axonal glycoprotein type-1
VTA Ventral tegmental area
WRC WAVE regulatory complex
References
1.
Cang, J.; Feldheim, D.A. Developmental mechanisms of topographic map formation and alignment. Annu. Rev.
Neurosci. 2013,36, 51–77. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2.
Roig-Puiggros, S.; Vigouroux, R.J.; Beckman, D.; Bocai, N.I.; Chiou, B.; Davimes, J.; Gomez, G.; Grassi, S.;
Hoque, A.; Karikari, T.K.; et al. Construction and reconstruction of brain circuits: Normal and pathological
axon guidance. J. Neurochem. 2020,153, 10–32. [CrossRef]
3. McFadden, K.; Minshew, N.J. Evidence for dysregulation of axonal growth and guidance in the etiology of
ASD. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2013,7, 671. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4.
Amaral, D.G.; Schumann, C.M.; Nordahl, C.W. Neuroanatomy of autism. Trends Neurosci.
2008
,31, 137–145.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020,21, 5170 14 of 19
5.
Leinsinger, G.L.; Heiss, D.T.; Jassoy, A.G.; Pfluger, T.; Hahn, K.; Danek, A. Persistent mirror movements:
Functional MR imaging of the hand motor cortex. Radiology 1997,203, 545–552. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6.
Srour, M.; Rivi
è
re, J.B.; Pham, J.M.; Dub
é
, M.P.; Girard, S.; Morin, S.; Dion, P.A.; Asselin, G.; Rochefort, D.;
Hince, P.; et al. Mutations in DCC cause congenital mirror movements. Science 2010,328, 592. [CrossRef]
7.
Volk, A.E.; Carter, O.; Fricke, J.; Herkenrath, P.; Poggenborg, J.; Borck, G.; Demant, A.W.; Ivo, R.; Eysel, P.;
Kubisch, C.; et al. Horizontal gaze palsy with progressive scoliosis: Three novel ROBO3 mutations and
descriptions of the phenotypes of four patients. Mol. Vis. 2011,17, 1978–1986.
8.
Nugent, A.A.; Kolpak, A.L.; Engle, E.C. Human disorders of axon guidance. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol.
2012
,22,
837–843. [CrossRef]
9.
Van Battum, E.Y.; Brignani, S.; Pasterkamp, R.J. Axon guidance proteins in neurological disorders.
Lancet Neurol. 2015,14, 532–546. [CrossRef]
10.
Marsh, A.P.L.; Edwards, T.J.; Galea, C.; Cooper, H.M.; Engle, E.C.; Jamuar, S.S.; M
é
neret, A.; Moutard, M.L.;
Nava, C.; Rastetter, A.; et al. DCC mutation update: Congenital mirror movements, isolated agenesis of the
corpus callosum, and developmental split brain syndrome. Hum. Mutat. 2018,39, 23–39. [CrossRef]
11.
Bellon, A.; Mann, F. Keeping up with advances in axon guidance. Cur. Opin. Neurobiol.
2018
,53, 183–191.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
12.
Stoeckli, E.T. Understanding axon guidance: Are we nearly there yet? Development
2018
,145. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
13. Dickson, B.J. Molecular mechanisms of axon guidance. Science 2002,298, 1959–1964. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14.
Missaire, M.; Hindges, R. The role of cell adhesion molecules in visual circuit formation: From neurite
outgrowth to maps and synaptic specificity. Dev. Neurobiol. 2015,75, 569–583. [CrossRef]
15.
Frei, J.A.; Stoeckli, E.T. SynCAMs—From axon guidance to neurodevelopmental disorders. Mol. Cell Neurosci.
2017,81, 41–48. [CrossRef]
16.
Carmeliet, P.; Ruiz de Almodovar, C. VEGF ligands and receptors: Implications in neurodevelopment and
neurodegeneration. Cell Mol. Life Sci. 2013,70, 1763–1778. [CrossRef]
17.
S
á
nchez-Camacho, C.; Bovolenta, P. Emerging mechanisms in morphogen-mediated axon guidance. Bioessays
2009,31, 1013–1025. [CrossRef]
18.
Yam, P.T.; Charron, F. Signaling mechanisms of non-conventional axon guidance cues: The Shh, BMP and
Wnt morphogens. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 2013,23, 965–973. [CrossRef]
19. Bonanomi, D. Axon pathfinding for locomotion. Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 2019,85, 26–35. [CrossRef]
20.
Howard, L.J.; Brown, H.E.; Wadsworth, B.C.; Evans, T.A. Midline axon guidance in the Drosophila embryonic
central nervous system. Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 2019,85, 13–25. [CrossRef]
21.
Comer, J.D.; Alvarez, S.; Butler, S.J.; Kaltschmidt, J.A. Commissural axon guidance in the developing spinal
cord: From Cajal to the present day. Neural. Dev. 2019,14, 9. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22.
Feldheim, D.A.; O’Leary, D.D. Visual map development: Bidirectional signaling, bifunctional guidance
molecules, and competition. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2010,2, a001768. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23.
Erskine, L.; Herrera, E. Connecting the retina to the brain. ASN Neuro
2014
,6, 1759091414562107. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
24.
Komiyama, T.; Luo, L. Development of wiring specificity in the olfactory system. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol.
2006
,
16, 67–73. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25.
Imai, T. Positional information in neural map development: Lessons from the olfactory system. Dev. Growth
Differ. 2012,54, 358–365. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26.
Sperry, R.W. Chemoaffinity in the Orderly Growth of Nerve Fiber Patterns and Connections. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA 1963,50, 703–710. [CrossRef]
27.
Petrovic, M.; Schmucker, D. Axonal wiring in neural development: Target-independent mechanisms help to
establish precision and complexity. Bioessays News Rev. Mol. Cell. Dev. Biol. 2015,37, 996–1004. [CrossRef]
28.
Wang, L.; Marquardt, T. What axons tell each other: Axon-axon signaling in nerve and circuit assembly.
Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 2013,23, 974–982. [CrossRef]
29.
Landmesser, L.; Honig, M.G. Altered sensory projections in the chick hind limb following the early removal
of motoneurons. Dev. Biol. 1986,118, 511–531. [CrossRef]
30.
Honig, M.G.; Lance-Jones, C.; Landmesser, L. The development of sensory projection patterns in embryonic
chick hindlimb under experimental conditions. Dev. Biol. 1986,118, 532–548. [CrossRef]

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020,21, 5170 15 of 19
31.
Swanson, G.J.; Lewis, J. Sensory nerve routes in chick wing buds deprived of motor innervation. J. Embryol.
Exp. Morphol. 1986,95, 37–52. [PubMed]
32.
Reh, T.A.; Pitts, E.; Constantine-Paton, M. The organization of the fibers in the optic nerve of normal and
tectum-less Rana pipiens. J. Comp. Neurol. 1983,218, 282–296. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
33.
St John, J.A.; Clarris, H.J.; McKeown, S.; Royal, S.; Key, B. Sorting and convergence of primary olfactory
axons are independent of the olfactory bulb. J. Comp. Neurol. 2003,464, 131–140. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
34.
Hidalgo, A.; Brand, A.H. Targeted neuronal ablation: The role of pioneer neurons in guidance and
fasciculation in the CNS of Drosophila. Development 1997,124, 3253–3262. [PubMed]
35.
Pike, S.H.; Melancon, E.F.; Eisen, J.S. Pathfinding by zebrafish motoneurons in the absence of normal pioneer
axons. Development 1992,114, 825–831. [PubMed]
36.
Pittman, A.J.; Law, M.Y.; Chien, C.B. Pathfinding in a large vertebrate axon tract: Isotypic interactions guide
retinotectal axons at multiple choice points. Development 2008,135, 2865–2871. [CrossRef]
37.
Osterhout, J.A.; El-Danaf, R.N.; Nguyen, P.L.; Huberman, A.D. Birthdate and outgrowth timing predict
cellular mechanisms of axon target matching in the developing visual pathway. Cell Rep.
2014
,8, 1006–1017.
[CrossRef]
38.
Pignata, A.; Ducuing, H.; Boubakar, L.; Gardette, T.; Kindbeiter, K.; Bozon, M.; Tauszig-Delamasure, S.;
Falk, J.; Thoumine, O.; Castellani, V. A Spatiotemporal Sequence of Sensitization to Slits and Semaphorins
Orchestrates Commissural Axon Navigation. Cell Rep. 2019,29, 347–362.e345. [CrossRef]
39.
Okumura, M.; Kato, T.; Miura, M.; Chihara, T. Hierarchical axon targeting of Drosophila olfactory receptor
neurons specified by the proneural transcription factors Atonal and Amos. Genes Cells Devoted Mol. Cell. Mech.
2016,21, 53–64. [CrossRef]
40.
Whitlock, K.E.; Westerfield, M. A transient population of neurons pioneers the olfactory pathway in the
zebrafish. J. Neurosci. 1998,18, 8919–8927. [CrossRef]
41.
Bak, M.; Fraser, S.E. Axon fasciculation and differences in midline kinetics between pioneer and follower
axons within commissural fascicles. Development (Camb. Engl.) 2003,130, 4999–5008. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
42.
Šm
í
t, D.; Fouquet, C.; Pincet, F.; Zapotocky, M.; Trembleau, A. Axontension regulates fasciculation/defasciculation
through the control of axon shaft zippering. eLife 2017,6, e19907. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
43.
Schwarting, G.A.; Henion, T.R. Regulation and function of axon guidance and adhesion molecules during
olfactory map formation. J. Cell Biochem. 2011,112, 2663–2671. [CrossRef]
44.
Siegenthaler, D.; Enneking, E.-M.; Moreno, E.; Pielage, J. L1CAM/Neuroglian controls the axon-axon
interactions establishing layered and lobular mushroom body architecture. J. Cell Biol.
2015
,208, 1003–1018.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
45.
Honig, M.G.; Camilli, S.J.; Xue, Q.-S. Effects of L1 blockade on sensory axon outgrowth and pathfinding in
the chick hindlimb. Dev. Biol. 2002,243, 137–154. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
46.
Honig, M.G.; Rutishauser, U.S. Changes in the segmental pattern of sensory neuron projections in the
chick hindlimb under conditions of altered cell adhesion molecule function. Dev. Biol.
1996
,175, 325–337.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
47.
Landmesser, L.; Dahm, L.; Schultz, K.; Rutishauser, U. Distinct roles for adhesion molecules during
innervation of embryonic chick muscle. Dev. Biol. 1988,130, 645–670. [CrossRef]
48. Thanos, S.; Bonhoeffer, F.; Rutishauser, U. Fiber-fiber interaction and tectal cues influence the development
of the chicken retinotectal projection. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1984,81, 1906–1910. [CrossRef]
49.
Pollerberg, G.E.; Mack, T.G. Cell adhesion molecule SC1/DMGRASP is expressed on growing axons of retina
ganglion cells and is involved in mediating their extension on axons. Dev. Biol.
1994
,165, 670–687. [CrossRef]
50.
Ott, H.; Bastmeyer, M.; Stuermer, C.A. Neurolin, the goldfish homolog of DM-GRASP, is involved in retinal
axon pathfinding to the optic disk. J. Neurosci. 1998,18, 3363–3372. [CrossRef]
51.
Thelen, K.; Maier, B.; Faber, M.; Albrecht, C.; Fischer, P.; Pollerberg, G.E. Translation of the cell adhesion
molecule ALCAM in axonal growth cones—Regulation and functional importance. J. Cell Sci.
2012
,125,
1003–1014. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
52.
Weiner, J.A.; Koo, S.J.; Nicolas, S.; Fraboulet, S.; Pfaff, S.L.; Pourqui
é
, O.; Sanes, J.R. Axon fasciculation defects
and retinal dysplasias in mice lacking the immunoglobulin superfamily adhesion molecule BEN/ALCAM/SC1.
Mol. Cell Neurosci. 2004,27, 59–69. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
53.
Bruce, F.M.; Brown, S.; Smith, J.N.; Fuerst, P.G.; Erskine, L. DSCAM promotes axon fasciculation and growth
in the developing optic pathway. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017,114, 1702–1707. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020,21, 5170 16 of 19
54.
Frei, J.A.; Andermatt, I.; Gesemann, M.; Stoeckli, E.T. The SynCAM synaptic cell adhesion molecules are
involved in sensory axon pathfinding by regulating axon-axon contacts. J. Cell Sci.
2014
,127, 5288–5302.
[CrossRef]
55.
Suter, T.; Blagburn, S.V.; Fisher, S.E.; Anderson-Keightly, H.M.; D’Elia, K.P.; Jaworski, A. TAG-1
Multifunctionality Coordinates Neuronal Migration, Axon Guidance, and Fasciculation. Cell Rep.
2020
,30,
1164–1177. [CrossRef]
56.
Steimel, A.; Wong, L.; Najarro, E.H.; Ackley, B.D.; Garriga, G.; Hutter, H. The Flamingo ortholog FMI-1 controls
pioneer-dependent navigation of follower axons in C. elegans.Development 2010,137, 3663–3673. [CrossRef]
57.
Hayashi, S.; Inoue, Y.; Kiyonari, H.; Abe, T.; Misaki, K.; Moriguchi, H.; Tanaka, Y.; Takeichi, M.
Protocadherin-17 mediates collective axon extension by recruiting actin regulator complexes to interaxonal
contacts. Dev. Cell 2014,30, 673–687. [CrossRef]
58.
Yoshida, Y. Semaphorin signaling in vertebrate neural circuit assembly. Front. Mol. Neurosci.
2012
,5, 71.
[CrossRef]
59.
Jongbloets, B.C.; Pasterkamp, R.J. Semaphorin signalling during development. Development
2014
,141,
3292–3297. [CrossRef]
60.
Yu, L.; Zhou, Y.; Cheng, S.; Rao, Y. Plexin a-semaphorin-1a reverse signaling regulates photoreceptor axon
guidance in Drosophila. J. Neurosci. Off. J. Soc. Neurosci. 2010,30, 12151–12156. [CrossRef]
61.
Hsieh, H.-H.; Chang, W.-T.; Yu, L.; Rao, Y. Control of axon-axon attraction by Semaphorin reverse signaling.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014,111, 11383–11388. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
62.
Yu, H.H.; Huang, A.S.; Kolodkin, A.L. Semaphorin-1a acts in concert with the cell adhesion molecules
fasciclin II and connectin to regulate axon fasciculation in Drosophila. Genetics
2000
,156, 723–731. [PubMed]
63.
Wolman, M.A.; Regnery, A.M.; Becker, T.; Becker, C.G.; Halloran, M.C. Semaphorin3D regulates axon axon
interactions by modulating levels of L1 cell adhesion molecule. J. Neurosci. 2007,27, 9653–9663. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
64.
Castellani, V.; Ch
é
dotal, A.; Schachner, M.; Faivre-Sarrailh, C.; Rougon, G. Analysis of the L1-deficient mouse
phenotype reveals cross-talk between Sema3A and L1 signaling pathways in axonal guidance. Neuron
2000
,
27, 237–249. [CrossRef]
65.
Huettl, R.E.; Soellner, H.; Bianchi, E.; Novitch, B.G.; Huber, A.B. Npn-1 contributes to axon-axon interactions
that differentially control sensory and motor innervation of the limb. PLoS Biol.
2011
,9, e1001020. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
66.
Luxey, M.; Jungas, T.; Laussu, J.; Audouard, C.; Garces, A.; Davy, A. Eph:ephrin-B1 forward signaling controls
fasciculation of sensory and motor axons. Dev. Biol. 2013,383, 264–274. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
67.
Jaworski, A.; Tessier-Lavigne, M. Autocrine/juxtaparacrine regulation of axon fasciculation by Slit-Robo
signaling. Nat. Neurosci. 2012,15, 367–369. [CrossRef]
68.
Shiau, C.E.; Bronner-Fraser, M. N-cadherin acts in concert with Slit1-Robo2 signaling in regulating aggregation
of placode-derived cranial sensory neurons. Development 2009,136, 4155–4164. [CrossRef]
69.
Boyer, N.P.; Gupton, S.L. Revisiting Netrin-1: One Who Guides (Axons). Front. Cell Neurosci.
2018
,12, 221.
[CrossRef]
70.
Islam, S.M.; Shinmyo, Y.; Okafuji, T.; Su, Y.; Naser, I.B.; Ahmed, G.; Zhang, S.; Chen, S.; Ohta, K.; Kiyonari, H.;
et al. Draxin, a repulsive guidance protein for spinal cord and forebrain commissures. Science
2009
,323,
388–393. [CrossRef]
71.
Ahmed, G.; Shinmyo, Y.; Ohta, K.; Islam, S.M.; Hossain, M.; Naser, I.B.; Riyadh, M.A.; Su, Y.; Zhang, S.;
Tessier-Lavigne, M.; et al. Draxin inhibits axonal outgrowth through the netrin receptor DCC. J. Neurosci.
2011,31, 14018–14023. [CrossRef]
72.
Gao, X.; Metzger, U.; Panza, P.; Mahalwar, P.; Alsheimer, S.; Geiger, H.; Maischein, H.M.; Levesque, M.P.;
Templin, M.; Söllner, C. A Floor-Plate Extracellular Protein-Protein Interaction Screen Identifies Draxin as a
Secreted Netrin-1 Antagonist. Cell Rep. 2015,12, 694–708. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
73.
Liu, Y.; Bhowmick, T.; Liu, Y.; Gao, X.; Mertens, H.D.T.; Svergun, D.I.; Xiao, J.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, J.-H.;
Meijers, R. Structural Basis for Draxin-Modulated Axon Guidance and Fasciculation by Netrin-1 through
DCC. Neuron 2018,97, 1261–1267.e1264. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
74.
Berghuis, P.; Rajnicek, A.M.; Morozov, Y.M.; Ross, R.A.; Mulder, J.; Urb
á
n, G.M.; Monory, K.; Marsicano, G.;
Matteoli, M.; Canty, A.; et al. Hardwiring the brain: Endocannabinoids shape neuronal connectivity. Science
2007,316, 1212–1216. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020,21, 5170 17 of 19
75.
Mulder, J.; Aguado, T.; Keimpema, E.; Barabas, K.; Ballester Rosado, C.J.; Nguyen, L.; Monory, K.;
Marsicano, G.; Di Marzo, V.; Hurd, Y.L.; et al. Endocannabinoid signaling controls pyramidal cell specification
and long-range axon patterning. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008,105, 8760–8765. [CrossRef]
76.
Saez, T.M.; Fernandez Bessone, I.; Rodriguez, M.S.; Alloatti, M.; Otero,M.G.; Cromberg, L.E.; Pozo Devoto, V.M.;
Oubina, G.; Sosa, L.; Buffone, M.G.; et al. Kinesin-1-mediated axonal transport of CB1 receptors is required for
cannabinoid-dependent axonal growth and guidance. Development 2020. [CrossRef]
77.
Rash, B.G.; Richards, L.J. A role for cingulate pioneering axons in the development of the corpus callosum.
J. Comp. Neurol. 2001,434, 147–157. [CrossRef]
78.
Bianco, I.H.; Wilson, S.W. The habenular nuclei: A conserved asymmetric relay station in the vertebrate
brain. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2009,364, 1005–1020. [CrossRef]
79.
Kowski, A.B.; Veh, R.W.; Weiss, T. Dopaminergic activation excites rat lateral habenular neurons
in vivo
.
Neuroscience 2009,161, 1154–1165. [CrossRef]
80.
Stamatakis, A.M.; Jennings, J.H.; Ung, R.L.; Blair, G.A.; Weinberg, R.J.; Neve, R.L.; Boyce, F.; Mattis, J.;
Ramakrishnan, C.; Deisseroth, K.; et al. A unique population of ventral tegmental area neurons inhibits the
lateral habenula to promote reward. Neuron 2013,80, 1039–1053. [CrossRef]
81.
Schmidt, E.R.E.; Brignani, S.; Adolfs, Y.; Lemstra, S.; Demmers, J.; Vidaki, M.; Donahoo, A.-L.S.; Lilleväli, K.;
Vasar, E.; Richards, L.J.; et al. Subdomain-mediated axon-axon signaling and chemoattraction cooperate to
regulate afferent innervation of the lateral habenula. Neuron 2014,83, 372–387. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
82.
Molnar, Z.; Adams, R.; Blakemore, C. Mechanisms underlying the early establishment of thalamocortical
connections in the rat. J. Neurosci. 1998,18, 5723–5745. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
83.
Hevner, R.F.; Miyashita-Lin, E.; Rubenstein, J.L.R. Cortical and thalamic axon pathfinding defects in Tbr1,
Gbx2, and Pax6 mutant mice: Evidence that cortical and thalamic axons interact and guide each other.
J. Comp. Neurol. 2002,447, 8–17. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
84.
Deck, M.; Lokmane, L.; Chauvet, S.; Mailhes, C.; Keita, M.; Niquille, M.; Yoshida, M.; Yoshida, Y.; Lebrand, C.;
Mann, F.; et al. Pathfinding of corticothalamic axons relies on a rendezvous with thalamic projections. Neuron
2013,77, 472–484. [CrossRef]
85.
Chen, Y.; Magnani, D.; Theil, T.; Pratt, T.; Price, D.J. Evidence that descending cortical axons are essential for
thalamocortical axons to cross the pallial-subpallial boundary in the embryonic forebrain. PLoS ONE
2012
,7,
e33105. [CrossRef]
86.
Wang, L.; Klein, R.; Zheng, B.; Marquardt, T. Anatomical coupling of sensory and motor nerve trajectory via
axon tracking. Neuron 2011,71, 263–277. [CrossRef]
87.
Grueber, W.B.; Sagasti, A. Self-avoidance and tiling: Mechanisms of dendrite and axon spacing. Cold Spring
Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2010,2, a001750. [CrossRef]
88.
Peng, J.; Fabre, P.J.; Dolique, T.; Swikert, S.M.; Kermasson, L.; Shimogori, T.; Charron, F. Sonic Hedgehog Is a
Remotely Produced Cue that Controls Axon Guidance Trans-axonally at a Midline Choice Point. Neuron
2018,97, 326–340.e324. [CrossRef]
89.
Ara
ú
jo, S.J.; Tear, G. Axon guidance mechanisms and molecules: Lessons from invertebrates. Nat. Rev.
Neurosci. 2003,4, 910–922. [CrossRef]
90.
Yu, H.H.; Araj, H.H.; Ralls, S.A.; Kolodkin, A.L. The transmembrane Semaphorin Sema I is required in
Drosophila for embryonic motor and CNS axon guidance. Neuron 1998,20, 207–220. [CrossRef]
91.
Jeong, S.; Juhaszova, K.; Kolodkin, A.L. The Control of semaphorin-1a-mediated reverse signaling by
opposing pebble and RhoGAPp190 functions in drosophila. Neuron
2012
,76, 721–734. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
92.
Cho, J.Y.; Chak, K.; Andreone, B.J.; Wooley, J.R.; Kolodkin, A.L. The extracellular matrix proteoglycan
perlecan facilitates transmembrane semaphorin-mediated repulsive guidance. Genes Dev.
2012
,26, 2222–2235.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
93.
Huang, Z.; Yazdani, U.; Thompson-Peer, K.L.; Kolodkin, A.L.; Terman, J.R. Crk-associated substrate (Cas)
signaling protein functions with integrins to specify axon guidance during development. Development
2007
,
134, 2337–2347. [CrossRef]
94.
Gallarda, B.W.; Bonanomi, D.; Muller, D.; Brown, A.; Alaynick, W.A.; Andrews, S.E.; Lemke, G.; Pfaff, S.L.;
Marquardt, T. Segregation of axial motor and sensory pathways via heterotypic trans-axonal signaling.
Science 2008,320, 233–236. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
95.
Nishikimi, M.; Oishi, K.; Tabata, H.; Torii, K.; Nakajima, K. Segregation and pathfinding of callosal axons
through EphA3 signaling. J. Neurosci. Off. J. Soc. Neurosci. 2011,31, 16251–16260. [CrossRef]

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020,21, 5170 18 of 19
96.
Zhou, J.; Wen, Y.; She, L.; Sui, Y.N.; Liu, L.; Richards, L.J.; Poo, M.M. Axon position within the corpus
callosum determines contralateral cortical projection. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
2013
,110, E2714–E2723.
[CrossRef]
97.
Molnar, Z.; Garel, S.; Lopez-Bendito, G.; Maness, P.; Price, D.J. Mechanisms controlling the guidance of
thalamocortical axons through the embryonic forebrain. Eur. J. Neurosci. 2012,35, 1573–1585. [CrossRef]
98.
Lokmane, L.; Proville, R.; Narboux-N
ê
me, N.; Györy, I.; Keita, M.; Mailhes, C.; L
é
na, C.; Gaspar, P.;
Grosschedl, R.; Garel, S. Sensory map transfer to the neocortex relies on pretarget ordering of thalamic axons.
Curr. Biol. CB 2013,23, 810–816. [CrossRef]
99.
Imai, T.; Yamazaki, T.; Kobayakawa, R.; Kobayakawa, K.; Abe, T.; Suzuki, M.; Sakano, H. Pre-target axon
sorting establishes the neural map topography. Science 2009,325, 585–590. [CrossRef]
100.
Sakano, H. Developmental regulation of olfactory circuit formation in mice. Dev. Growth Differ.
2020
,62,
199–213. [CrossRef]
101.
Imai, T.; Suzuki, M.; Sakano, H. Odorant receptor-derived cAMP signals direct axonal targeting. Science
2006,314, 657–661. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
102.
Chesler, A.T.; Zou, D.J.; Le Pichon, C.E.; Peterlin, Z.A.; Matthews, G.A.; Pei, X.; Miller, M.C.; Firestein, S. A G
protein/cAMP signal cascade is required for axonal convergence into olfactory glomeruli. Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. USA 2007,104, 1039–1044. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
103.
Dang, P.; Fisher, S.A.; Stefanik, D.J.; Kim, J.; Raper, J.A. Coordination of olfactory receptor choice with
guidance receptor expression and function in olfactory sensory neurons. PLoS Genet.
2018
,14, e1007164.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
104.
Nakashima, A.; Takeuchi, H.; Imai, T.; Saito, H.; Kiyonari, H.; Abe, T.; Chen, M.; Weinstein, L.S.; Yu, C.R.;
Storm, D.R.; et al. Agonist-independent GPCR activity regulates anterior-posterior targeting of olfactory
sensory neurons. Cell 2013,154, 1314–1325. [CrossRef]
105.
Kaneko, M.; Nighorn, A. Interaxonal Eph-ephrin signaling may mediate sorting of olfactory sensory axons
in Manduca sexta. J. Neurosci. Off. J. Soc. Neurosci. 2003,23, 11523–11538. [CrossRef]
106.
Scholes, J.H. Nerve fibre topography in the retinal projection to the tectum. Nature
1979
,278, 620–624.
[CrossRef]
107.
Chan, S.O.; Guillery, R.W. Changes in fiber order in the optic nerve and tract of rat embryos. J. Comp. Neurol.
1994,344, 20–32. [CrossRef]
108.
Plas, D.T.; Lopez, J.E.; Crair, M.C. Pretarget sorting of retinocollicular axons in the mouse. J. Comp. Neurol.
2005,491, 305–319. [CrossRef]
109.
Stuermer, C.A. Retinotopic organization of the developing retinotectal projection in the zebrafish embryo.
J. Neurosci. 1988,8, 4513–4530. [CrossRef]
110.
Simon, D.K.; O’Leary, D.D. Relationship of retinotopic ordering of axons in the optic pathway to the formation
of visual maps in central targets. J. Comp. Neurol. 1991,307, 393–404. [CrossRef]
111.
Lee, J.S.; von der Hardt, S.; Rusch, M.A.; Stringer, S.E.; Stickney, H.L.; Talbot, W.S.; Geisler, R.;
Nusslein-Volhard, C.; Selleck, S.B.; Chien, C.B.; et al. Axon sorting in the optic tract requires HSPG
synthesis by ext2 (dackel) and extl3 (boxer). Neuron 2004,44, 947–960. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
112.
Trowe, T.; Klostermann, S.; Baier, H.; Granato, M.; Crawford, A.D.; Grunewald, B.; Hoffmann, H.;
Karlstrom, R.O.; Meyer, S.U.; Muller, B.; et al. Mutations disrupting the ordering and topographic
mapping of axons in the retinotectal projection of the zebrafish, Danio rerio. Development
1996
,123, 439–450.
[PubMed]
113.
Poulain, F.E.; Chien, C.B. Proteoglycan-mediated axon degeneration corrects pretarget topographic sorting
errors. Neuron 2013,78, 49–56. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
114.
Hornberg, H.; Cioni, J.M.; Harris, W.A.; Holt, C.E. Hermes Regulates Axon Sorting in the Optic Tract by
Post-Trancriptional Regulation of Neuropilin 1. J. Neurosci. 2016,36, 12697–12706. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
115.
Baudet, M.L.; Zivraj, K.H.; Abreu-Goodger, C.; Muldal, A.; Armisen, J.; Blenkiron, C.; Goldstein, L.D.;
Miska, E.A.; Holt, C.E. miR-124 acts through CoREST to control onset of Sema3A sensitivity in navigating
retinal growth cones. Nat. Neurosci. 2011,15, 29–38. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
116.
Cioni, J.M.; Wong, H.H.; Bressan, D.; Kodama, L.; Harris, W.A.; Holt, C.E. Axon-Axon Interactions Regulate
Topographic Optic Tract Sorting via CYFIP2-Dependent WAVE Complex Function. Neuron
2018
,97,
1078–1093.e1076. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020,21, 5170 19 of 19
117. Pittman, A.J.; Gaynes, J.A.; Chien, C.B. nev (cyfip2) is required for retinal lamination and axon guidance in
the zebrafish retinotectal system. Dev. Biol. 2010,344, 784–794. [CrossRef]
118.
Luo, L.; Flanagan, J.G. Development of continuous and discrete neural maps. Neuron
2007
,56, 284–300.
[CrossRef]
119.
Imai, T.; Sakano, H. Axon-axon interactions in neuronal circuit assembly: Lessons from olfactory map
formation. Eur. J. Neurosci. 2011,34, 1647–1654. [CrossRef]
120.
Goyal, G.; Zierau, A.; Lattemann, M.; Bergkirchner, B.; Javorski, D.; Kaur, R.; Hummel, T. Inter-axonal
recognition organizes Drosophila olfactory map formation. Sci. Rep. 2019,9, 11554. [CrossRef]
121.
Takeuchi, H.; Inokuchi, K.; Aoki, M.; Suto, F.; Tsuboi, A.; Matsuda, I.; Suzuki, M.; Aiba, A.; Serizawa, S.;
Yoshihara, Y.; et al. Sequential arrival and graded secretion of Sema3F by olfactory neuron axons specify
map topography at the bulb. Cell 2010,141, 1056–1067. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
122.
Sweeney, L.B.; Couto, A.; Chou, Y.-H.; Berdnik, D.; Dickson, B.J.; Luo, L.; Komiyama, T. Temporal target
restriction of olfactory receptor neurons by Semaphorin-1a/PlexinA-mediated axon-axon interactions. Neuron
2007,53, 185–200. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
123.
Sagasti, A.; Guido, M.R.; Raible, D.W.; Schier, A.F. Repulsive interactions shape the morphologies and
functional arrangement of zebrafish peripheral sensory arbors. Curr. Biol. 2005,15, 804–814. [CrossRef]
124.
Gosse, N.J.; Nevin, L.M.; Baier, H. Retinotopic order in the absence of axon competition. Nature
2008
,452,
892–895. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
125.
Triplett, J.W.; Pfeiffenberger, C.; Yamada, J.; Stafford, B.K.; Sweeney, N.T.; Litke, A.M.; Sher, A.; Koulakov, A.A.;
Feldheim, D.A. Competition is a driving force in topographic mapping. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
2011
,108,
19060–19065. [CrossRef]
126.
Suetterlin, P.; Drescher, U. Target-independent ephrina/EphA-mediated axon-axon repulsion as a novel
element in retinocollicular mapping. Neuron 2014,84, 740–752. [CrossRef]
127.
Senti, K.-A.; Usui, T.; Boucke, K.; Greber, U.; Uemura, T.; Dickson, B.J. Flamingo regulates R8 axon-axon and
axon-target interactions in the Drosophila visual system. Curr. Biol. CB 2003,13, 828–832. [CrossRef]
128.
Hakeda-Suzuki, S.; Berger-Müller, S.; Tomasi, T.; Usui, T.; Horiuchi, S.Y.; Uemura, T.; Suzuki, T. Golden Goal
collaborates with Flamingo in conferring synaptic-layer specificity in the visual system. Nat. Neurosci.
2011
,
14, 314–323. [CrossRef]
129.
Tomasi, T.; Hakeda-Suzuki, S.; Ohler, S.; Schleiffer, A.; Suzuki, T. The transmembrane protein Golden goal
regulates R8 photoreceptor axon-axon and axon-target interactions. Neuron 2008,57, 691–704. [CrossRef]
130.
Millard, S.S.; Flanagan, J.J.; Pappu, K.S.; Wu, W.; Zipursky, S.L. Dscam2 mediates axonal tiling in the
Drosophila visual system. Nature 2007,447, 720–724. [CrossRef]
131.
Katori, S.; Noguchi-Katori, Y.; Okayama, A.; Kawamura, Y.; Luo, W.; Sakimura, K.; Hirabayashi, T.; Iwasato, T.;
Yagi, T. Protocadherin-
α
C2 is required for diffuse projections of serotonergic axons. Sci. Rep.
2017
,7, 15908.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
132.
Chen, W.V.; Nwakeze, C.L.; Denny, C.A.; O’Keeffe, S.; Rieger, M.A.; Mountoufaris, G.; Kirner, A.;
Dougherty, J.D.; Hen, R.; Wu, Q.; et al. Pcdh
α
c2 is required for axonal tiling and assembly of serotonergic
circuitries in mice. Science 2017,356, 406–411. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
133.
Neukomm, L.J.; Freeman, M.R. Diverse cellular and molecular modes of axon degeneration. Trends Cell Biol.
2014,24, 515–523. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
134.
Burrill, J.D.; Easter, S.S., Jr. The first retinal axons and their microenvironment in zebrafish: Cryptic pioneers
and the pretract. J. Neurosci. 1995,15, 2935–2947. [CrossRef]
©
2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).