Pro-death NMDA receptor signaling is promoted by the GluN2B C-terminus independently of DAPK1

  1. Jamie McQueen
  2. Tomas J Ryan
  3. Sean McKay
  4. Katie FM Marwick
  5. Paul E Baxter
  6. Sarah M Carpanini
  7. Thomas M Wishart
  8. Thomas H Gillingwater
  9. Jean C Manson
  10. David JA Wyllie
  11. Seth GN Grant
  12. Barry McColl  Is a corresponding author
  13. Noboru Komiyama
  14. Giles E Hardingham  Is a corresponding author
  1. Edinburgh Medical School, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom
  2. Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
  3. University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom
  4. The Roslin Institute, United Kingdom
  5. Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, United Kingdom

Abstract

Aberrant NMDA receptor (NMDAR) activity contributes to several neurological disorders, but direct antagonism is poorly tolerated therapeutically. The GluN2B cytoplasmic C-terminal domain (CTD) represents an alternative therapeutic target since it potentiates excitotoxic signaling. The key GluN2B CTD-centred event in excitotoxicity is proposed to involve its phosphorylation at Ser-1303 by DAPK1, that is blocked by a neuroprotective cell-permeable peptide mimetic of the region. Contrary to this model, we find that excitotoxicity can proceed without increased Ser-1303 phosphorylation, and is unaffected by DAPK1 deficiency in vitro or following ischemia in vivo. Pharmacological analysis of the aforementioned neuroprotective peptide revealed that it acts in a sequence-independent manner as an open-channel NMDAR antagonist at or near the Mg2+ site, due to its high net positive charge. Thus, GluN2B-driven excitotoxic signaling can proceed independently of DAPK1 or altered Ser-1303 phosphorylation.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Jamie McQueen

    UK Dementia Research Institute, Edinburgh Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Tomas J Ryan

    School of Biochemistry and Immunology, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Sean McKay

    Centre for Discovery Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Katie FM Marwick

    Centre for Discovery Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Paul E Baxter

    UK Dementia Research Institute, Edinburgh Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Sarah M Carpanini

    The Roslin Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Thomas M Wishart

    University of Edinburgh, The Roslin Institute, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Thomas H Gillingwater

    UK Dementia Research Institute, Edinburgh Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Jean C Manson

    The Roslin Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. David JA Wyllie

    UK Dementia Research Institute, Edinburgh Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4957-6049
  11. Seth GN Grant

    Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8732-8735
  12. Barry McColl

    UK Dementia Research Institute, Edinburgh Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    Barry.McColl@roslin.ed.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0521-9656
  13. Noboru Komiyama

    Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Giles E Hardingham

    UK Dementia Research Institute, Edinburgh Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    Giles.Hardingham@ed.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7629-5314

Funding

Wellcome (WT088156)

  • Giles E Hardingham

Medical Research Council (MRC_G0902044)

  • Jamie McQueen
  • Sean McKay
  • Paul E Baxter
  • Giles E Hardingham

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Moses V Chao, New York University Langone Medical Center, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All experiments using live animals were conducted under the authority of UK Home Office project and personal licences and adhered to regulations specified in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act (1986) and Directive 2010/63/EU and were approved by both The Roslin Institute's and the University of Edinburgh's Animal Welfare and Ethics Committees. Experimental design, analysis and reporting followed the ARRIVE guidelines (https://www.nc3rs.org.uk/arrive-guidelines) where possible. Animal experimentation: Animals used in this study were treated in accordance with UK Animal Scientific Procedures Act (1986) . The relevant Home Office project licences are P1351480E and 60/4407, and the use of genetically modified organisms approved by local committee reference SBMS 13_007.

Version history

  1. Received: April 22, 2016
  2. Accepted: July 17, 2017
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: July 21, 2017 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: July 26, 2017 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record published: August 4, 2017 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2017, McQueen et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 2,425
    views
  • 433
    downloads
  • 45
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

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. Jamie McQueen
  2. Tomas J Ryan
  3. Sean McKay
  4. Katie FM Marwick
  5. Paul E Baxter
  6. Sarah M Carpanini
  7. Thomas M Wishart
  8. Thomas H Gillingwater
  9. Jean C Manson
  10. David JA Wyllie
  11. Seth GN Grant
  12. Barry McColl
  13. Noboru Komiyama
  14. Giles E Hardingham
(2017)
Pro-death NMDA receptor signaling is promoted by the GluN2B C-terminus independently of DAPK1
eLife 6:e17161.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.17161

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.17161

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Jack W Lindsey, Elias B Issa
    Research Article

    Object classification has been proposed as a principal objective of the primate ventral visual stream and has been used as an optimization target for deep neural network models (DNNs) of the visual system. However, visual brain areas represent many different types of information, and optimizing for classification of object identity alone does not constrain how other information may be encoded in visual representations. Information about different scene parameters may be discarded altogether (‘invariance’), represented in non-interfering subspaces of population activity (‘factorization’) or encoded in an entangled fashion. In this work, we provide evidence that factorization is a normative principle of biological visual representations. In the monkey ventral visual hierarchy, we found that factorization of object pose and background information from object identity increased in higher-level regions and strongly contributed to improving object identity decoding performance. We then conducted a large-scale analysis of factorization of individual scene parameters – lighting, background, camera viewpoint, and object pose – in a diverse library of DNN models of the visual system. Models which best matched neural, fMRI, and behavioral data from both monkeys and humans across 12 datasets tended to be those which factorized scene parameters most strongly. Notably, invariance to these parameters was not as consistently associated with matches to neural and behavioral data, suggesting that maintaining non-class information in factorized activity subspaces is often preferred to dropping it altogether. Thus, we propose that factorization of visual scene information is a widely used strategy in brains and DNN models thereof.

    1. Neuroscience
    Zhaoran Zhang, Huijun Wang ... Kunlin Wei
    Research Article

    The sensorimotor system can recalibrate itself without our conscious awareness, a type of procedural learning whose computational mechanism remains undefined. Recent findings on implicit motor adaptation, such as over-learning from small perturbations and fast saturation for increasing perturbation size, challenge existing theories based on sensory errors. We argue that perceptual error, arising from the optimal combination of movement-related cues, is the primary driver of implicit adaptation. Central to our theory is the increasing sensory uncertainty of visual cues with increasing perturbations, which was validated through perceptual psychophysics (Experiment 1). Our theory predicts the learning dynamics of implicit adaptation across a spectrum of perturbation sizes on a trial-by-trial basis (Experiment 2). It explains proprioception changes and their relation to visual perturbation (Experiment 3). By modulating visual uncertainty in perturbation, we induced unique adaptation responses in line with our model predictions (Experiment 4). Overall, our perceptual error framework outperforms existing models based on sensory errors, suggesting that perceptual error in locating one’s effector, supported by Bayesian cue integration, underpins the sensorimotor system’s implicit adaptation.