Uncovering the electrical synapse proteome in retinal neurons via in vivo proximity labeling

  1. Stephan Tetenborg  Is a corresponding author
  2. Eyad Shihabeddin
  3. Elizebeth Olive Akansha Manoj Kumar
  4. Crystal L Sigulinsky
  5. Karin Dedek
  6. Ya-Ping Lin
  7. Fabio A Echeverry
  8. Hannah Hoff
  9. Alberto E Pereda
  10. Bryan W Jones
  11. Christophe P Ribelayga
  12. Klaus Ebnet
  13. Ken Matsuura
  14. John O'Brien  Is a corresponding author
  1. College of Optometry, University of Houston, United States
  2. Moran Eye Center/Ophthalmology, University of Utah, United States
  3. Animal Navigation/ Neurosensorics, Institute for Biology and Environmental Sciences, University of Oldenburg, Germany
  4. Research Center Neurosensory Science, University of Oldenburg, Germany
  5. Dominick P. Purpura Department of Neuroscience, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, United States
  6. Institute-Associated Research Group: Cell Adhesion and Cell Polarity, Institute of Medical Biochemistry, ZMBE, University of Münster, Germany
  7. Cell Signal Unit, Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology, Japan

Peer review process

Version of Record: This is the final version of the article.

Read more about eLife's peer review process.

Editors

Senior Editor
  1. Lu Chen
  2. Stanford University, United States
Reviewing Editor
  1. Xin Duan
  2. University of California, San Francisco, United States

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This study aims to identify the proteins that compose the electrical synapse, which are much less understood than those of the chemical synapse. Identifying these proteins is important to understand how synaptogenesis and conductance are regulated in these synapses.

Using a proteomics approach, the authors identified more than 50 new proteins and used immunoprecipitation and immunostaining to validate their interaction of localization. One new protein, a scaffolding protein (Sipa1l3), shows particularly strong evidence of being an integral component of the electrical synapse. The function of Sipa1l3 remains to be determined.

Another strength is the use of two different model organisms (zebrafish and mice) to determine which components are conserved across species. This approach also expands the utility of this work to benefit researchers working with both species.

The methodology is robust and there is compelling evidence supporting the findings.

Comments on revisions:

I thank the authors for responding to the comments. No further recommendations.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.105935.4.sa1

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This study by Tetenborg S et al. identifies proteins that are physically closely associated with gap junctions in retinal neurons of mice and zebrafish using BioID, a technique that labels and isolates proteins in proximal to a protein of interest. These proteins include scaffold proteins, adhesion molecules, chemical synapse proteins, components of the endocytic machinery, and cytoskeleton-associated proteins. Using a combination of genetic tools and meticulously executed immunostaining, the authors further verified the colocalizations of some of the identified proteins with connexin-positive gap junctions. The findings in this study highlight the complexity of gap junctions. Electrical synapses are abundant in the nervous system, yet their regulatory mechanisms are far less understood than those of chemical synapses. This work will provide valuable information for future studies aiming to elucidate the regulatory mechanisms essential for the function of neural circuits.

Strengths:

A key strength of this work is the identification of novel gap junction-associated proteins in AII amacrine cells and photoreceptors using BioID in combination with various genetic tools. The well-studied functions of gap junctions in these neurons will facilitate future research into the functions of the identified proteins in regulating electrical synapses.

Comments on revisions:

The authors have addressed my concerns in the revised manuscript.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.105935.4.sa2

Author response

The following is the authors’ response to the previous reviews

Reviewer 1

The authors should clarify the statement regarding the expression in horizontal cells (lines 170-172). In line 170, it is stated that GFP was observed in horizontal cells. Since GFP is fused to Cx36, the observation of GFP in horizontal cells would suggest the expression of Cx36-GFP.

We believe that there appears to be a misunderstanding. GFP is observed in horizontal cells, because the test AAV construct, which consists of the HKamac promoter and a downstream GFP sequence, was used to validate the promoter specificity in wildtype animals. This was just a test to confirm that HKamac is indeed active in AII amacrine cells as previously described by Khabou et al. 2023. This construct was not used for the large scale BioID screen. For these experiments, V5-dGBP-Turbo was expressed under the control of the HKamac promoter as illustrated in Figure 2A.

Fig 7: the legend is missing the descriptions for panels A-C.

We apologize for this mistake. We have missed the label “(A-C)” and added it to the legend.

Supplemental files are not referenced in the manuscript.

We have added a reference for these files in line 221-226.

Reviewer 2

Supplementary Files 1 and 2 are presented as two replicates of the zebrafish proteomic datasets, but they appear to be identical.

This appears to be a misunderstanding. These two replicates contain slightly different hits, although the most abundant candidates are identical.

Reviewer 3

Thank you for the positive comments

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.105935.4.sa3

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Stephan Tetenborg
  2. Eyad Shihabeddin
  3. Elizebeth Olive Akansha Manoj Kumar
  4. Crystal L Sigulinsky
  5. Karin Dedek
  6. Ya-Ping Lin
  7. Fabio A Echeverry
  8. Hannah Hoff
  9. Alberto E Pereda
  10. Bryan W Jones
  11. Christophe P Ribelayga
  12. Klaus Ebnet
  13. Ken Matsuura
  14. John O'Brien
(2026)
Uncovering the electrical synapse proteome in retinal neurons via in vivo proximity labeling
eLife 14:RP105935.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.105935.4

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.105935