Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Golgi and Cajal: The neuron doctrine and the 100th anniversary of the 1906 Nobel Prize

2006; Elsevier BV; Volume: 16; Issue: 5 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1016/j.cub.2006.02.053

1879-0445

Mitch Glickstein,

Genetic Neurodegenerative Diseases

The first Nobel Prizes were awarded in 1901 with a legacy from Alfred Nobel, the discoverer of dynamite. One of the five prizes to be awarded was in Physiology or Medicine, the decision of whom to receive it to be made by a committee of Professors from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm [1Lemmel B. The Nobel Foundation: A century of growth and change.http://nobelprize.org/nobel/nobel-foundation/history/lemmel/Date: 2000Google Scholar]. The Swiss histologist Rudolf Kölliker had suggested that Camillo Golgi receive the prize in 1901, the very first year that it was to be awarded. But it was not until 1906 that Golgi shared the prize with Santiago Ramón y Cajal. For the first time the prize was shared between two people. The deliberations of the committee [2Grant G. How Golgi shared the 1906 Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine with Cajal.http://nobelprize.org/medical/articles/grant/index.html/Date: 1999Google Scholar] reflected the relative contributions of the two men: Golgi had provided the method; Cajal had given us new and penetrating insights into the structure of the brain and spinal cord. Our current understanding of the structure and function of the nervous system is based to a great extent on two principles that were first established in the nineteenth century: functional localization and the neuron doctrine. Functional localization means that different parts of the nervous system, and especially the cerebral cortex, do different things. The neuron doctrine means that the brain and spinal cord are made up of individual elements, called neurons, and their supporting structures. Neurons may touch one another, but they do not fuse. The evidence for functional localization came from a long series of clinical and experimental discoveries throughout the 19th century. The neuron doctrine was based on two contributions; Golgi's stain and Cajal's histological studies. The neuron doctrine was named and popularized by Heinrich Wilhelm Gottfried von Waldeyer-Hartz [3Waldeyer-Hartz H.W.G. Über einige neuere Forschungen im Gebiete der Anatomie des Centralnervensystems.Deutsch. Med. Wchnschr. 1891; 17 (1244-1246, 1267-1269, 1287-1289, 1331-1332, 1352-1356): 1213-1218Crossref Scopus (55) Google Scholar], who coined the name neuron to refer to the nerve cell. Early microscopists had studied peripheral nerves and spinal tracts, looking for hollow tubes, the carriers of a hypothesized fluid that brings signals from the skin to the brain, and from the brain and spinal cord to muscles. Anton van Leeuwenhoek [4Van Leeuwenhoek A. Epistolae physiologicae super compluribus naturae arcanis. Beman, Delft1719Google Scholar] drew small tube-like structures contained within compound nerves that probably represent cross sections of large myelinated axons. Nerve cells were recognized much later, for biological and technical reasons. Fresh tissue from the brain or spinal cord is soft and it is difficult to make clean cuts in it. Francesco Gennari [5Gennari F. De Peculiari Structura Cerebri Nonnulisque Ejus Morbis. Ex regio typographeo, Parma1782Google Scholar] froze whole brains, which allowed him to make flat cuts. Gennari's gross inspection of the cut surfaces allowed him to see subtle differences in the structure of different areas of the cerebral cortex, but not the individual elements that make it up [6Glickstein M. Rizzolatti G. Francesco Gennari and the structure of the cerebral cortex.Trends Neurosci. 1984; 7: 464-467Abstract Full Text PDF Scopus (10) Google Scholar]. But even when it is hardened, cut into thin sections, and examined under the microscope, much of the brain appears to be relatively featureless. Moreover, aberrations of the early microscopes set limits to the size of the objects that they could resolve. In the early part of the nineteenth century, manufacturers began to make compound lenses, combining glass with different refractive properties and thus sharply reducing chromatic aberration. The new microscopes made possible new discoveries. One of these was the recognition of the cell as a basic element in the structure of animals and plants. But as Marcus Jacobson [7Jacobson M. Foundations of Neuroscience. Plenum, New York1993Crossref Google Scholar] pointed out, although boundaries between plant cells could be identified, there was as yet no recognition that cells in the brain or spinal cord are physically separated from one another. The final proof of the existence of the cell membrane did not come until many years later, with the greater resolution made possible by the electron microscope. How do the elements of the brain fit together? Most early theories of brain organization postulated a system whereby neighbouring elements are fused in a net-like arrangement or reticulum. There were several versions of the reticular theory of nervous organization. Gerlach [8Gerlach J. Über die Struktur der grauern Substanz des menschlischen Gehirns.Zentralbl. Med. Wissensch. 1872; 10: 273-275Google Scholar], for example, believed that the dendritic arborizations fused. Others thought that axons might be interconnected in a giant reticulum. Perhaps the most important technical advance in the study of the structure of the nervous system was the discovery by Camillo Golgi [9Golgi, C. (1885). Sulla fina anatomia degli organi centrali del sistema nervosa. Revista sperimentale di Freniatria. Reprinted in: Golgi, C. Opera Omnia. Milano, Hoepli: 1903.Google Scholar] of "la reazione nera; the black reaction". Golgi hardened blocks of nervous tissue in potassium bichromate, followed by immersion in silver nitrate solution. The Golgi stain selects a small percentage of the elements in a block of tissue. When the tissue was sectioned and examined under the microscope, entire nerve cells could be seen along with their attached dendritic trees and axons. Figure 1 shows two Golgi-stained pyramidal cells in the cerebral cortex of a cat. The small, pale red objects that fill up the rest of the field are neurons and glial cells that have been counter-stained with a neutral red dye. At first, the new method did not make much of a stir. It was, and remains, a bit finicky. Each tissue seemed to require a slightly different procedure; different times in the various solutions were needed in winter and in summer. But when successfully stained the results are spectacular. Golgi could now see nerve cells and their processes in their entirety, and he used his stain to make fundamental discoveries about their structure. Golgi's thinking, however, was impeded by a basic misconception. For Golgi, the essential processing by the nervous system is done by a giant net, a plexus of fused axonal branches which make up the fundamental integrative structure of the brain, and dendrites had a purely nutritive function. In 1887 Santiago Ramón y Cajal, then a young anatomist, visited his colleague in Madrid, Don Luis Simarro. Simarro was a psychiatrist who was experimenting with some of the newer staining methods. Cajal was awestruck by the appearance of Simarro's Golgi-stained sections. In his great textbook, Cajal [10Mazzarello, P. (1999) The Hidden Structure. Translated from Cajal's Histologie du Systeme Nerveux, describing a first view of the results of the Golgi-staining method.Google Scholar] described the appearance of Golgi-stained material:"Against a clear background stood black threadlets, some slender and smooth, some thick and thorny in a pattern punctuated by small dense spots. All was sharp as a sketch with Chinese ink on transparent Japanese paper. And to think that this was the same tissue which, when stained with carmine or logwood left the eye in a tangled thicket where sight may stare and grope ever fruitlessly, baffled in its efforts to unravel confusion, and lost forever in twilit doubt. Here, on the contrary, all was clear and plain as a diagram. A look was enough. Dumbfounded, I could not take my eyes from the microscope." Cajal began immediately to use the Golgi method. His first publications using it were on the cerebellum [11Cajal S.R. Estructura del cerebelo.Gac. Med. Catalana. 1888; 11: 449-457Google Scholar] and the retina [12Cajal S.R. La rétine des vertébrés. La Cellule, 1892Google Scholar]. Cajal confirmed the cell types in the cerebellum that Golgi had described, and he added a detailed description of the two types of afferent fibre to the cerebellar cortex, which he named 'mossy' and 'climbing' fibres. Golgi had previously discovered and described correctly the shape and characteristic pattern of right-angle branching of the axons of Purkinje cells in the cerebellum, but he illustrated these branches forming a net in which they fuse with incoming afferent fibres. Figure 2 shows Golgi's drawing of the cell types of the cerebellar cortex. The pale brown ovals are the cell bodies of the Purkinje cell. The black stained cells in the molecular layer are basket cells. Golgi believed that basket cell axons continue on past the Purkinje cell body to end in an axonal net within the granular layer. Golgi also described for the first time a cell type, still called a Golgi cell, whose dendrites ramify in the molecular layer, but whose axon remains confined within the granular layer of the cerebellar cortex, an example of his 'Type II' cell whose axon remains in the vicinity of the cell body. Figure 3 shows Golgi's beautiful drawing of this cell, Cajal came to a very different conclusion from that of Golgi about the way in which nerve cells are interconnected. For Cajal, nerves were individual elements. They may touch one another, but they do not fuse. Initially, few authors accepted Cajal's views on the structure of the nervous system. One of the first to accept the evidence on the individual nature of nerve cells and the structure and importance of dendrites, and to suggest a function for neurons in learning, was the Italian psychiatrist Eugenio Tanzi [13Tanzi E.I. Sulle modificazione morfologiche funzionali dei dendtriti delle cellule nervose.Riv. Di Patol. Nervosa e mentale. 1898; 3: 337-359Google Scholar]. He wrote:"…neurons which are active hypertrophy in a way which is no different from that of working muscles. Suppose that the activity is accompanied, as it is in muscles, by hypertrophy. Suppose that the increase in volume takes the form, as is probable, in the dimensions of length. Then use in a functional act would tend to diminish the distance between individual or contiguous neurons. The set of neurons which are jointly active would tend to be brought closer together, thus forming an ever more coherent anatomical unity in which the inter-neuronal spaces eventually become reduced to zero." Donald Hebb and Francis Crick were to suggest similar mechanisms fifty, and then one hundred years later. When stained with Golgi's method, cells in the brain appear to be covered with sharp, thorn-like structures. Cajal and Golgi disagreed on whether spines are real or an artefact of the staining method. The proof and acceptance of the existence of dendritic spines was a critical step in the development of the neuron doctrine. Although Golgi and other anatomists must have seen spines in some of their preparations, they discounted them. Figure 4 shows Golgi's drawing of the cell types in the human cerebral cortex. None of the cells is drawn as having dendritic spines. Rudolf Kölliker [14Koelliker A. Handbuch der Gewebelehre des Menschen. Engelmann, Leibzig1896Google Scholar] wrote:"….S. Ramón y Cajal found a characteristic structure, that is a rich covering of lateral extensions which end shortly in a little round ball. According to my studies in adult humans and mammals (horse, dog, and rabbit) no such thorn-like appendages were present…although perhaps in younger creatures… ….the thorns can be interpreted for the most part as an artefact." In the face of almost universal scepticism, Cajal [11Cajal S.R. Estructura del cerebelo.Gac. Med. Catalana. 1888; 11: 449-457Google Scholar] demonstrated that dendritic spines exist. In his first paper on the bird cerebellum, Cajal illustrated the spines on Purkinje cell dendrites, even though most authors had dismissed them as an artefact. Cajal found them always to be present on dendrites, and he argued forcefully [15Cajal S.R. Les épine collarérales des cellules du cerveau colorées au bleu de méthylène. Rev Trimestr.Micrograf. 1896; 1: 5-19Google Scholar] for their validity, raising the following arguments: First, if spines are merely an artefact of a silver precipitate, why do they appear to be confined to the dendrites? Why don't we see them on axons or on the cell body? And second, modifications of the Golgi method use mercury, rather than silver-based impregnation. Why do we see spines using these methods as well? But in order to prove their existence, Cajal reasoned that spines should be demonstrable with an entirely different method. He tried two commonly used variants of Ehrlich's methylene blue, but failed to see the spines. His third attempt worked. Figure 5 shows a drawing that Cajal made of the successful impregnation of dendritic spines with the methylene blue technique. Textbooks that were written before Golgi's stain became available had poor representations of the true structure of cortical cells. Figure 6 shows a drawing from Ranvier's textbook of 1875. The lack of a clear picture of the cell bodies, the depiction of only the initial portion of the apical dendrite and the absence of an axon reflect the poor techniques available to histologists prior to Golgi's discovery of the black reaction. After 1896, textbooks began routinely to show spines on dendrites when illustrating neurons. Although Kölliker had denied the existence of spines in his 1896 textbook, it was published just before Cajal's definitive study had appeared. Spines are important. Nimchinsky et al. [16Nimchinsky E. Sabatini B. Svoboda K. Structure and function of dendritic spines.Annu. Rev. Physiol. 2002; 64: 313-353Crossref PubMed Scopus (871) Google Scholar] reviewed recent descriptions and interpretations of the structure and function of spines. It is estimated that over 90% of excitatory connections in the brain are made onto dendritic spines. Spines vary in shape and dimensions; human cortical pyramidal cells have spines whose necks are between 0.5 and 3.5 μm. in length, with a 1μm head at the end. Various authors have suggested a number of possible functions of spines:(1)A mechanism for increasing the total post-synaptic area of dendrites.(2)A device whereby the electrical resistance from a single synaptic input to the main body of the dendrite can be varied.(3)A device allowing isolated concentration of one or another second messenger; usually calcium.(4)The locus for long-term potentiation and long-term depression, hence critically associated with learning. The importance of spines is apparent in cases where they differ from normal. Some forms of mental retardation may be associated with malformation of spines or a reduction in their number [17Marin-Padilla M. Structural abnormalities of the cerebral cortex in human chromosomal aberrations. A Golgi study.Brain Res. 1972; 44: 625-629Crossref PubMed Scopus (205) Google Scholar]. The neuron doctrine as developed by Cajal was, in a sense, paradoxical. Although Cajal rejected Golgi's interpretations, his histological studies depended on Golgi's earlier contribution. The neuron doctrine could not be formally proven until the application of the electron microscope to the nervous system. The neuron doctrine served as the basic structural description for all subsequent neuroscience. The principle of separation between nerve cells was accepted by Sherrington, who coined the word synapse to describe the junction between two successive neurons. The neuron doctrine allowed physiologists and pharmacologists to pose (and fight over) the next fundamental question of how a neuron excites or inhibits the successive cell to which it is connected. The neuron doctrine remains a fundamental principle for understanding the structural organization of the brain and spinal cord. The first accurate pictures of neurons were provided by Golgi's pioneering method. Current understanding of the way in which neurons are interconnected was based on Cajal's unique insights into brain structure. Few textbooks are still actively consulted over one hundred years since they first appeared. Cajal's work [18Cajal S.R. Histologia del sistema nervioso. Moya, Madrid1899Google Scholar] remains as one of the greatest contributions to neuroscience. I thank Gunnar Grant and Miguel Marin-Padilla for reading and commenting on an earlier draft of this essay. The Cajal Institute in Madrid provided me with a slide of Cajal's drawing of a methylene-blue stained neuron. The photographs from Golgi's Opera omnia were provided as slides by the Wellcome Library for the History of Medicine. Jane Pendjiky of the Anatomy Department University College helped to prepare all of the figures.