I thank Mootaz Salman, Philip Kitchen, Jeffrey Iliff and Roslyn Bill for their additions to my recent Review (Molecular mechanisms of brain water transport. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 22, 326–344 (2021))1. In their correspondence, the authors argue that glymphatic flow deserves more attention (Aquaporin 4 and glymphatic flow have central roles in brain fluid homeostasis. Nat Rev. Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-021-00514-z (2021))2. This topic has been reviewed extensively by researchers both in favour of3 and in opposition to4,5 the concept (see the Review1 and correspondence for additional references). The concept was considered outside the scope of the present Review as it relates to paracellular fluid transport, as pointed out by the authors of the correspondence, rather than transmembrane water flow, which is the focus of my article (as specified in the opening pages of the Review). I therefore, again, refer the interested reader to the many reviews published on the topic. However, here, I briefly address the proposed role of AQP4 in this system in a reply to Salman and colleagues.
AQP4 has been implicated in glymphatic flow, as mentioned in the Review and highlighted by the authors of the correspondence. Although AQP4 has been assigned a role in the paracellular flow of fluorescent probes by their reduced penetration from cerebrospinal fluid into Aqp4–/–, Snat1–/– and mdx mouse brains (see the correspondence for references), the mechanism by which cellular AQP4 could contribute to paracellular fluorescent tracer movement remains incompletely, if at all, understood. In the original publication by Iliff et al.6, in which the glymphatic system was coined, the authors proposed that water would flow freely through AQP4 across the astrocytic endfoot and exit again towards the interstitium (see supplementary figure 9A and associated legend in ref.6 and figure 1 in the correspondence2). The fluorescent tracer would then “follow the resulting osmotic gradient” between the paravascular space and the interstitium and thus represent glymphatic flow6. However beautiful such a strategy may be, it is challenging to align it with basic biophysical considerations. First, pressure-dependent AQP4-mediated water entry into the astrocyte would be prevented by the resulting oppositely directed osmotic gradient. Second, the proposed interstitial osmotic gradient could only arise by (the non-endfeet) AQP4 permitting water transport against an osmotic gradient, which it does not. Third, the fluorescent particles will not “follow the resulting osmotic gradient into the interstitium through intercellular clefts”6 as water follows particles by osmosis, not the opposite. Last, osmosis occurs across a semipermeable membrane and not through intercellular clefts.
To my knowledge, AQP4-dependent water transport through AQP4 has not been documented in the glymphatic hypothesis, which, however, does not prevent AQP4 from serving a structural role in the system. Notably, Aqp4–/– mice display severely reduced expression of protein anchoring complexes in the astrocytic endfeet7, which may affect endfoot polarization of other astrocytic membrane proteins and thereby indirectly influence astrocyte function in a manner that could affect the paracellular flow of fluorescent particles. A specific and efficient inhibitor of AQP4 would provide the tool to reveal a requirement for AQP4-dependent transcellular water flux to support paracellular flow of fluorescent molecules. The authors rightly point out the futile search for such inhibitors. However, TGN-020 is among the most promising of its kind: it displays near-absent binding to Aqp4–/– mouse brain tissue8, it causes reduced rodent brain oedema formation9 and it acts directly on the pore of AQP4 in an isoform-specific manner10. I highly welcome future determination of direct versus indirect roles of AQP4 in a glymphatic system, as well as in its pathological relocalization promoting oedema formation11, and anticipate the associated delineation of the underlying driving forces supporting the proposed AQP4-dependent transmembrane water flow. It will be my pleasure to include such mechanistic findings in future review articles on the molecular mechanisms of brain water transport.
References
MacAulay, N. Molecular mechanisms of brain water transport. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 22, 326–344 (2021).
Salman, M. M., Kitchen, P., Iliff, J. J. & Bill, R. M. Aquaporin 4 and glymphatic flow have central roles in brain fluid homeostasis. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-021-00514-z (2021).
Mestre, H., Mori, Y. & Nedergaard, M. The brain’s glymphatic system: current controversies. Trends Neurosci. 43, 458–466 (2020).
Smith, A. J. & Verkman, A. S. The “glymphatic” mechanism for solute clearance in Alzheimer’s disease: game changer or unproven speculation? FASEB J. 32, 543–551 (2018).
Abbott, N. J., Pizzo, M. E., Preston, J. E., Janigro, D. & Thorne, R. G. The role of brain barriers in fluid movement in the CNS: is there a ‘glymphatic’ system? Acta Neuropathol. 135, 387–407 (2018).
Iliff, J. J. et al. A paravascular pathway facilitates CSF flow through the brain parenchyma and the clearance of interstitial solutes, including amyloid β. Sci. Transl Med. 4, 147ra111 (2012).
Eilert-Olsen, M. et al. Deletion of aquaporin-4 changes the perivascular glial protein scaffold without disrupting the brain endothelial barrier. Glia 60, 432–440 (2012).
Nakamura, Y. et al. Development of a novel ligand, [11C]TGN-020, for aquaporin 4 positron emission tomography imaging. ACS Chem. Neurosci. 2, 568–571 (2011).
Igarashi, H., Huber, V. J., Tsujita, M. & Nakada, T. Pretreatment with a novel aquaporin 4 inhibitor, TGN-020, significantly reduces ischemic cerebral edema. Neurol. Sci. 32, 113–116 (2011).
Toft-Bertelsen, T. L. et al. Clearance of activity-evoked K+ transients and associated glia cell swelling occur independently of AQP4: a study with an isoform-selective AQP4 inhibitor. Glia 69, 28–41 (2021).
Kitchen, P. et al. Targeting aquaporin-4 subcellular localization to treat central nervous system edema. Cell 181, 784–799 (2020).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The author declares no competing interests.
Additional information
Peer review information
Nature Reviews Neuroscience thanks R. Keep and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
MacAulay, N. Reply to ‘Aquaporin 4 and glymphatic flow have central roles in brain fluid homeostasis’. Nat Rev Neurosci 22, 651–652 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-021-00515-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-021-00515-y
This article is cited by
-
Non-coding RNAs and Aquaporin 4: Their Role in the Pathogenesis of Neurological Disorders
Neurochemical Research (2024)
-
Estimates of the permeability of extra-cellular pathways through the astrocyte endfoot sheath
Fluids and Barriers of the CNS (2023)
-
Ultrasound-mediated blood–brain barrier opening uncovers an intracerebral perivenous fluid network in persons with Alzheimer’s disease
Fluids and Barriers of the CNS (2023)