Volume 61, Issue 1, Pages (January 2009)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Volume 86, Issue 5, Pages (June 2015)
Advertisements

Sami Boudkkazi, Aline Brechet, Jochen Schwenk, Bernd Fakler  Neuron 
Synaptic AMPA Receptor Exchange Maintains Bidirectional Plasticity
Volume 49, Issue 4, Pages (February 2006)
Maturation of a Recurrent Excitatory Neocortical Circuit by Experience-Dependent Unsilencing of Newly Formed Dendritic Spines  Michael C. Ashby, John T.R.
Linking Cholinergic Interneurons, Synaptic Plasticity, and Behavior during the Extinction of a Cocaine-Context Association  Junuk Lee, Joel Finkelstein,
Efficient, Complete Deletion of Synaptic Proteins using CRISPR
Volume 54, Issue 6, Pages (June 2007)
Volume 80, Issue 2, Pages (October 2013)
Functional Convergence at the Retinogeniculate Synapse
Endocannabinoids Control the Induction of Cerebellar LTD
Pathway-Specific Trafficking of Native AMPARs by In Vivo Experience
Rapid Synaptic Scaling Induced by Changes in Postsynaptic Firing
Daniel Meyer, Tobias Bonhoeffer, Volker Scheuss  Neuron 
Linking Cholinergic Interneurons, Synaptic Plasticity, and Behavior during the Extinction of a Cocaine-Context Association  Junuk Lee, Joel Finkelstein,
Volume 80, Issue 4, Pages (November 2013)
Volume 54, Issue 6, Pages (June 2007)
Volume 96, Issue 1, Pages e4 (September 2017)
Dopaminergic Stimulation of Local Protein Synthesis Enhances Surface Expression of GluR1 and Synaptic Transmission in Hippocampal Neurons  W. Bryan Smith,
Alternative N-Terminal Domains of PSD-95 and SAP97 Govern Activity-Dependent Regulation of Synaptic AMPA Receptor Function  Oliver M. Schlüter, Weifeng.
First Node of Ranvier Facilitates High-Frequency Burst Encoding
Contactin Supports Synaptic Plasticity Associated with Hippocampal Long-Term Depression but Not Potentiation  Keith K. Murai, Dinah Misner, Barbara Ranscht 
LTP Requires a Unique Postsynaptic SNARE Fusion Machinery
Volume 86, Issue 2, Pages (April 2015)
Volume 5, Issue 5, Pages (December 2013)
Volume 86, Issue 5, Pages (June 2015)
Jason Aoto, Christine I. Nam, Michael M. Poon, Pamela Ting, Lu Chen 
Volume 11, Issue 12, Pages (June 2015)
Volume 80, Issue 1, Pages (October 2013)
Volume 78, Issue 4, Pages (May 2013)
Volume 88, Issue 5, Pages (December 2015)
Postsynaptically Silent Synapses in Single Neuron Cultures
The Retromer Supports AMPA Receptor Trafficking During LTP
Rebecca S. Jones, Reed C. Carroll, Scott Nawy  Neuron 
A Role for Stargazin in Experience-Dependent Plasticity
Carleton P. Goold, Roger A. Nicoll  Neuron 
Subunit-Specific NMDA Receptor Trafficking to Synapses
Volume 52, Issue 2, Pages (October 2006)
Volume 31, Issue 1, Pages (July 2001)
Role of AMPA Receptor Cycling in Synaptic Transmission and Plasticity
Volume 52, Issue 5, Pages (December 2006)
Volume 77, Issue 6, Pages (March 2013)
Experience-Dependent Equilibration of AMPAR-Mediated Synaptic Transmission during the Critical Period  Kyung-Seok Han, Samuel F. Cooke, Weifeng Xu  Cell.
Volume 57, Issue 2, Pages (January 2008)
Volume 50, Issue 3, Pages (May 2006)
Volume 59, Issue 1, Pages (July 2008)
CAPS-1 and CAPS-2 Are Essential Synaptic Vesicle Priming Proteins
Noradrenergic Control of Associative Synaptic Plasticity by Selective Modulation of Instructive Signals  Megan R. Carey, Wade G. Regehr  Neuron  Volume.
Volume 71, Issue 6, Pages (September 2011)
Volume 62, Issue 2, Pages (April 2009)
Bo Li, Ran-Sook Woo, Lin Mei, Roberto Malinow  Neuron 
Tiago Branco, Kevin Staras, Kevin J. Darcy, Yukiko Goda  Neuron 
Volume 125, Issue 4, Pages (May 2006)
Volume 73, Issue 5, Pages (March 2012)
Volume 60, Issue 5, Pages (December 2008)
PKA-GluA1 Coupling via AKAP5 Controls AMPA Receptor Phosphorylation and Cell- Surface Targeting during Bidirectional Homeostatic Plasticity  Graham H.
Stephanie Rudolph, Linda Overstreet-Wadiche, Jacques I. Wadiche  Neuron 
Cecile Bats, Laurent Groc, Daniel Choquet  Neuron 
Volume 53, Issue 2, Pages (January 2007)
Spontaneous Neurotransmitter Release Shapes Dendritic Arbors via Long-Range Activation of NMDA Receptors  Laura C. Andreae, Juan Burrone  Cell Reports 
Volume 64, Issue 3, Pages (November 2009)
Volume 78, Issue 3, Pages (May 2013)
Volume 58, Issue 5, Pages (June 2008)
Volume 39, Issue 2, Pages (July 2003)
Volume 66, Issue 2, Pages (April 2010)
Volume 55, Issue 6, Pages (September 2007)
Arc/Arg3.1 Mediates Homeostatic Synaptic Scaling of AMPA Receptors
Matthew T. Rich, Yanhua H. Huang, Mary M. Torregrossa  Cell Reports 
Sami Boudkkazi, Aline Brechet, Jochen Schwenk, Bernd Fakler  Neuron 
Postsynaptic Complexin Controls AMPA Receptor Exocytosis during LTP
Presentation transcript:

Volume 61, Issue 1, Pages 71-84 (January 2009) Coordinated Changes in Dendritic Arborization and Synaptic Strength during Neural Circuit Development  Yi-Rong Peng, Shan He, Helene Marie, Si-Yu Zeng, Jun Ma, Zhu-Jun Tan, Soo Yeun Lee, Robert C. Malenka, Xiang Yu  Neuron  Volume 61, Issue 1, Pages 71-84 (January 2009) DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2008.11.015 Copyright © 2009 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 The Effects of Activity and Changes in the Cadherin/Catenin Complex on Dendritic Morphology (A) Graph of TDBL in neurons expressing GFP (2515.0 ± 140.4 μm), GFP-β-catenin∗ (β-cat∗, 3492.6 ± 251.5 μm, p < 0.005), treated with K+ (K+, 3122.9 ± 159.5 μm, p < 0.01), treated with K+ and expressing N(intra) [K+ + N(intra), 1754.2 ± 96.5 μm, p < 0.001 compared to GFP, p < 0.001 compared to K+] or expressing N(intra) [N(intra), 1875.1 ± 116.2 μm, p = 0.005]. (B) Graph of TDBTN for GFP (85.8 ± 8.0), β-cat∗ (108.0 ± 6.6, p < 0.05), K+ (110.5 ± 7.6, p < 0.05), K+ + N(intra) (63.7 ± 5.0, p < 0.05 compared to GFP, p < 0.001 compared to K+), and N(intra) (52.2 ± 4.7, p = 0.005). (C) Graph of total surface area for GFP (7859.6 ± 410.0 μm2), β-cat∗ (10976.0 ± 870.0 μm2, p < 0.005), K+ (9405.9 ± 559.6 μm2, p < 0.05), K+ + N(intra) [5191.4 ± 235.6 μm2, p < 0.001 compared to GFP, p < 0.001 compared to K+], and N(intra) (6579.9 ± 404.7, p < 0.05). (D) Representative images of neurons filled with Alexa 568 hydrazide from GFP, β-cat∗, K+, K+ + N(intra), and N(intra) groups. (E) Plot of TDBL versus TDBTN for neurons expressing GFP, linear regression represented by dotted line, n = 26, r2 = 0.52, p < 0.001. (F) Plot of TDBL versus total dendritic surface area for neurons expressing GFP, linear regression represented by dotted line, n = 26, r2 = 0.72, p < 0.001. (G) Plot of TDBL versus TDBTN for all neurons analyzed, linear regression represented by dotted line, n = 101, r2 = 0.63, p < 0.0001. (H) Plot of TDBL versus total dendritic surface area for all neurons analyzed, linear regression represented by dotted line, n = 101, r2 = 0.88, p < 0.001. ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗∗∗p < 0.001; error bars represent SEM. Neuron 2009 61, 71-84DOI: (10.1016/j.neuron.2008.11.015) Copyright © 2009 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 Expression of β-Catenin∗ Reduces mEPSC Amplitude while Expression of N(intra) Reverses the Effects of K+ (A) Representative mEPSC recordings and averaged mEPSC waveforms for each condition. The scale bars are 20 pA and 1000 ms for the sweeps, and 5 pA and 10 ms for the averaged traces. (B) Average mEPSC amplitudes from neurons transfected or treated with GFP (16.09 ± 1.09 pA), β-cat∗ (12.60 ± 0.99 pA, p < 0.05), K+ (11.41 ± 0.82 pA, p < 0.005), K+ + N(intra) [17.51 ± 1.46 pA, p = 0.43 versus GFP, p = 0.001 versus K+, p = 0.85 versus N(intra)], and N(intra) (17.11 ± 1.33 pA, p = 0.56). (C–F) Cumulative distributions of mEPSC amplitudes, each manipulation (dark gray) plotted against GFP (light gray). (C) β-cat∗ versus GFP, p < 0.005; inset, scaled β-cat∗ mEPSC distribution transformed according to best fit: β-cat∗ = control × 0.5954 + 2.915, r2 = 0.9995, p = 1.0. (D) K+ versus GFP, p < 0.0001; inset, scaled K+ mEPSC distribution transformed according to best fit: K+ = control × 0.5407 + 2.912, r2 = 0.9986, p = 1.0. (E) N(intra) versus GFP, p = 1.00. (F) K+ + N(intra) versus GFP, p = 0.85. (G) mEPSC amplitudes grouped according to rise time. For those with rise time < 1 ms, the amplitudes are GFP (18.09 ± 1.54 pA), β-cat∗ (13.22 ± 1.24 pA, p < 0.05), K+ (11.88 ± 1.05 pA, p < 0.005), K+ +N(intra) (19.62 ± 1.78 pA, p = 0.52 versus GFP, p < 0.001 versus K+), N(intra) (20.03 ± 1.84 pA, p = 0.44). ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗∗∗p < 0.001; error bars represent SEM. Neuron 2009 61, 71-84DOI: (10.1016/j.neuron.2008.11.015) Copyright © 2009 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 An Inverse Correlation between TDBL and mEPSC Amplitude (A) Plot of TDBL versus mEPSC amplitude for neurons expressing GFP, linear regression represented by dotted line, n = 26, r2 = 0.18, p < 0.05. (B) Plot of TDBL versus mEPSC amplitude for neurons from all experimental conditions, linear regression represented by dotted line, n = 101, r2 = 0.13, p < 0.001. (C) Bar graphs of average mEPSC amplitudes from all data presented in (B), grouped according to TDBL, (0–1499 μm) 18.66 ± 2.12 pA, (1500–2499 μm) 15.67 ± 0.93 pA, (2500–3499 μm) 14.07 ± 0.99 pA, (3500–5500 μm) 11.33 ± 0.68 pA. Compared to the (0–1499 μm) group, p = 0.2, p < 0.05, p = 0.01 for the latter groups; compared to the (1500–2499 μm) group, p = 0.27, p = 0.005; compared to the (2500–3499 μm) group, p = 0.09. ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01, error bars represent SEM. Neuron 2009 61, 71-84DOI: (10.1016/j.neuron.2008.11.015) Copyright © 2009 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 4 The Effects of In Vivo β-Catenin∗ Expression on EPSC Amplitudes and Dendritic Morphology in Hippocampal Slices (A) Average sEPSC amplitudes of neurons in utero electroporated with β-catenin∗ (6.96 ± 0.41 pA, p < 0.05) compared to nonelectroporated neighbors (control, 13.80 ± 1.83 pA). (B) TDBL of neurons electroporated with YFP alone (319.89 ± 15.98 μm) or β-catenin∗ and YFP (387.59 ± 18.02 μm, p = 0.01). (C) TDBTN of neurons electroporated with YFP alone (10.78 ± 0.65) or β-catenin∗ and YFP (12.93 ± 0.61, p < 0.005). (D) Average mEPSC amplitudes of neurons infected with a virus expressing β-catenin∗ (9.60 ± 0.43 pA, p < 0.01) compared to uninfected neighbors (control, 12.33 ± 0.57 pA). (E) Cumulative distributions of mEPSC amplitudes of neurons infected with β-catenin∗ (dark gray) plotted against uninfected neighbors (light gray), p < 0.005; inset, scaled β-cat∗ mEPSC distribution transformed according to best fit: β-cat∗ = control × 0.6461 + 1.7239, r2 = 0.99, p = 0.89. ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01; error bars represent SEM. Neuron 2009 61, 71-84DOI: (10.1016/j.neuron.2008.11.015) Copyright © 2009 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 5 Expression of β-Catenin∗ Reduces Surface AMPA Receptor Puncta Size and Density while Expression of N(intra) Reverses the Effects of K+ (A) Representative images of neurons transfected or treated with GFP, β-cat∗, K+, K+ + N(intra) or N(intra). GFP, surface AMPA receptors, bassoon channels shown individually and the colocalization of bassoon (red) and surface AMPA receptors (green) shown as merge. (B) Normalized surface AMPA receptor puncta area for GFP (100 ± 2.06 arbitrary units), β-cat∗ (92.97 ± 1.40, p < 0.01), K+ (90.12 ± 2.15, p = 0.001), K+ + N(intra) (96.74 ± 2.01, p = 0.26 versus GFP, p < 0.05 versus K+) and N(intra) (98.26 ± 2.06, p = 0.56). (C) Normalized synaptic surface AMPA receptor puncta area for GFP (100 ± 2.45), β-cat∗ (89.58 ± 1.97, p = 0.001), K+ (87.01 ± 3.97, p = 0.001), K+ + N(intra) (96.31 ± 2.54, p = 0.30 versus GFP, p < 0.05 versus K), N(intra) (95.67 ± 2.31, p = 0.22). (D) Average number of total surface AMPA receptor puncta per 10 μm of dendrite for GFP alone (13.15 ± 0.80), β-cat∗ (10.33 ± 0.77, p = 0.01), K+ (8.56 ± 0.91, p < 0.0005), K+ + N(intra) (12.98 ± 1.19, p = 0.91 versus GFP, p < 0.005 versus K+), N(intra) (13.71 ± 0.97, p = 0.66). (E) Average number of synaptic surface AMPA receptor puncta per 10 μm of dendrite for GFP alone (7.42 ± 0.50), β-cat∗ (5.10 ± 0.34, p < 0.0005), K+ (5.03 ± 0.53, p = 0.001), K+ + N(intra) (7.27 ± 0.63, p = 0.86 versus GFP, p < 0.01 versus K+), N(intra) (7.63 ± 0.53, p = 0.77). (F) Average number of PSD 95 puncta per 10 μm of dendrite for GFP (17.07 ± 1.71), β-cat∗ (19.86 ± 1.64, p = 0.24), K+ (17.49 ± 1.76, p = 0.87), K+ + N(intra) (18.39 ± 1.38, p = 0.55), N(intra) (19.10 ± 1.83, p = 0.42). (G) Average number of synaptic PSD 95 puncta colocalizing with active zone marker Piccolo per 10 μm of dendrite for GFP (10.40 ± 1.11), β-cat∗ (12.59 ± 1.10, p = 0.17), K+ (10.02 ± 1.04, p = 0.81), K+ + N(intra) (10.59 ± 0.90, p = 0.89), N(intra) (11.44 ± 1.13, p = 0.52). (H) Average number of Piccolo puncta per 10 μm of dendrite for GFP (14.64 ± 0.71), β-cat∗ (16.39 ± 0.87, p = 0.13), K+ (13.67 ± 0.80, p = 0.38), K+ + N(intra) (13.05 ± 0.59, p = 0.09), N(intra) (16.06 ± 0.80, p = 0.19). (I) Average number of synaptic Piccolo puncta (colocalizing with PSD 95) per 10 μm of dendrite for GFP (9.50 ± 0.96), β-cat∗ (11.86 ± 0.98, p = 0.09), K+ (8.93 ± 0.91, p = 0.67), K+ + N(intra) (8.99 ± 0.72, p = 0.67), N(intra) (10.62 ± 0.99, p = 0.42). ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗∗∗p < 0.001; error bars represent SEM. Neuron 2009 61, 71-84DOI: (10.1016/j.neuron.2008.11.015) Copyright © 2009 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 6 β-Catenin∗ Expression and High K+ Treatment Increase NMDAR/AMPAR Ratio (A) Example traces of average AMPAR EPSCs (−70 mV) and NMDAR + AMPAR EPSCs (+40 mV) from neurons transfected or treated with GFP, high K+, or β-catenin∗. Measurements for each type of current are taken at times as indicated and described in Experimental Procedures, scale bars are 100 pA and 20 ms. (B) Average NMDAR EPSC amplitudes for GFP (41.83 ± 6.51 pA), high K+ (56.75 ± 8.61 pA, p = 0.21), β-cat∗ (71.30 ± 9.88 pA, p = 0.01). (C) Average AMPAR EPSC amplitudes for GFP (342.68 ± 62.19 pA), high K+ (282.43 ± 54.20 pA, p = 0.14), β-cat∗ (262.56 ± 42.01 pA, p = 0.47). (D) Average NMDAR/AMPAR ratio for GFP (0.19 ± 0.02), high K+ (0.27 ± 0.03, p < 0.05), β-cat∗ (0.32 ± 0.04, p = 0.005). ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01; error bars represent SEM. Neuron 2009 61, 71-84DOI: (10.1016/j.neuron.2008.11.015) Copyright © 2009 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 7 Treatment with TTX Significantly Increases mEPSC Amplitudes in Neurons Transfected with β-Catenin∗ without Affecting Their Dendritic Morphology (A) Representative images of neurons transfected with GFP alone, with GFP + β-cat∗, and with GFP +β-cat∗ and treated with TTX. (B) Graph showing TDBL in neurons transfected with GFP (2054.64 ± 133.21 μm), β-cat∗ (2580.87 ± 141.98 μm, p = 0.01), β-cat∗ + TTX (2728.74 ± 195.81 μm, p < 0.01 versus GFP, p = 0.55 versus β-cat∗). (C) Representative mEPSC recordings and average mEPSC waveforms for each condition; the scale bars are 20 pA and 500 ms and 5 pA and 10 ms, respectively. (D) Average mEPSC amplitudes from neurons transfected or treated with GFP (12.64 ± 0.47 pA), TTX (14.63 ± 0.60 pA, p = 0.01), TTX + K+ (14.41 ± 0.80 pA, p < 0.05 versus GFP, p = 0.79 versus TTX), or TTX + β-cat∗ (14.79 ± 0.79 pA, p < 0.05 versus GFP, p = 0.88 versus TTX). (E–G) Cumulative distributions of mEPSC amplitudes, each manipulation (dark gray) plotted against GFP (light gray). (E) TTX versus GFP, p < 0.01. (F) TTX + K+ versus GFP, p = 0.01. (G) TTX + β-cat∗ versus GFP, p < 0.005. ∗p < 0.05, error bars represent SEM. Neuron 2009 61, 71-84DOI: (10.1016/j.neuron.2008.11.015) Copyright © 2009 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions