v-SNARE transmembrane domains function as catalysts for vesicle fusion

  1. Madhurima Dhara
  2. Antonio Yarzagaray
  3. Mazen Makke
  4. Barbara Schindeldecker
  5. Yvonne Schwarz
  6. Ahmed Shaaban
  7. Satyan Sharma
  8. Rainer A Böckmann
  9. Manfred Lindau
  10. Ralf Mohrmann
  11. Dieter Bruns  Is a corresponding author
  1. Saarland University, Germany
  2. Max-Planck-Institute for Biophysical Chemistry, Germany
  3. Friedrich-Alexander University, Germany

Abstract

Vesicle fusion is mediated by assembly of SNARE proteins between opposing membranes, but it is unknown whether transmembrane domains (TMDs) of SNARE proteins serve mechanistic functions that go beyond passive anchoring of the force-generating SNAREpin to the fusing membranes. Here, we show that conformational flexibility of synaptobrevin-2 TMD is essential for efficient Ca2+-triggered exocytosis and actively promotes membrane fusion as well as fusion pore expansion. Specifically, introduction of helix-stabilizing leucine residues within the TMD region spanning the vesicle's outer leaflet strongly impairs exocytosis and decelerates fusion pore dilation. In contrast, increasing the number of helix-destabilizing, ß-branched valine or isoleucine residues within the TMD restores normal secretion but accelerates fusion pore expansion beyond the rate found for the wildtype protein. These observations provide evidence that the synaptobrevin-2 TMD catalyzes the fusion process by its structural flexibility, actively setting the pace of fusion pore expansion.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Madhurima Dhara

    Institute for Physiology, Saarland University, Homburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Antonio Yarzagaray

    Institute for Physiology, Saarland University, Homburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Mazen Makke

    Institute for Physiology, Saarland University, Homburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Barbara Schindeldecker

    Institute for Physiology, Saarland University, Homburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Yvonne Schwarz

    Institute for Physiology, Saarland University, Homburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Ahmed Shaaban

    Zentrum für Human- und Molekularbiologie, Saarland University, Homburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Satyan Sharma

    Group Nanoscale Cell Biology, Max-Planck-Institute for Biophysical Chemistry, Göttingen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Rainer A Böckmann

    Computational Biology, Friedrich-Alexander University, Erlangen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Manfred Lindau

    Group Nanoscale Cell Biology, Max-Planck-Institute for Biophysical Chemistry, Göttingen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Ralf Mohrmann

    Zentrum für Human- und Molekularbiologie, Saarland University, Homburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Dieter Bruns

    Institute for Physiology, Saarland University, Homburg, Germany
    For correspondence
    dieter.bruns@uks.eu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Copyright

© 2016, Dhara 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

  • 4,184
    views
  • 686
    downloads
  • 54
    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. Madhurima Dhara
  2. Antonio Yarzagaray
  3. Mazen Makke
  4. Barbara Schindeldecker
  5. Yvonne Schwarz
  6. Ahmed Shaaban
  7. Satyan Sharma
  8. Rainer A Böckmann
  9. Manfred Lindau
  10. Ralf Mohrmann
  11. Dieter Bruns
(2016)
v-SNARE transmembrane domains function as catalysts for vesicle fusion
eLife 5:e17571.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.17571

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.17571

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Silas E Busch, Christian Hansel
    Research Article

    Purkinje cell (PC) dendrites are optimized to integrate the vast cerebellar input array and drive the sole cortical output. PCs are classically seen as stereotypical computational units, yet mouse PCs are morphologically diverse and those with multi-branched structure can receive non-canonical climbing fiber (CF) multi-innervation that confers independent compartment-specific signaling. While otherwise uncharacterized, human PCs are universally multi-branched. Do they exceed allometry to achieve enhanced integrative capacities relative to mouse PCs? To answer this, we used several comparative histology techniques in adult human and mouse to analyze cellular morphology, parallel fiber (PF) and CF input arrangement, and regional PC demographics. Human PCs are substantially larger than previously described; they exceed allometric constraint by cortical thickness and are the largest neuron in the brain with 6–7 cm total dendritic length. Unlike mouse, human PC dendrites ramify horizontally to form a multi-compartment motif that we show can receive multiple CFs. Human spines are denser (6.9 vs 4.9 spines/μm), larger (~0.36 vs 0.29 μm), and include an unreported ‘spine cluster’ structure—features that may be congruent with enhanced PF association and amplification as human-specific adaptations. By extrapolation, human PCs may receive 500,000 to 1 million synaptic inputs compared with 30–40,000 in mouse. Collectively, human PC morphology and input arrangement is quantitatively and qualitatively distinct from rodent. Multi-branched PCs are more prevalent in posterior and lateral cerebellum, co-varying with functional boundaries, supporting the hypothesis that this morphological motif permits expanded input multiplexing and may subserve task-dependent needs for input association.

    1. Neuroscience
    Phillip P Witkowski, Lindsay JH Rondot ... Erie Boorman
    Research Article

    Adaptive behavior in complex environments critically relies on the ability to appropriately link specific choices or actions to their outcomes. However, the neural mechanisms that support the ability to credit only those past choices believed to have caused the observed outcomes remain unclear. Here, we leverage multivariate pattern analyses of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data and an adaptive learning task to shed light on the underlying neural mechanisms of such specific credit assignment. We find that the lateral orbitofrontal cortex (lOFC) and hippocampus (HC) code for the causal choice identity when credit needs to be assigned for choices that are separated from outcomes by a long delay, even when this delayed transition is punctuated by interim decisions. Further, we show when interim decisions must be made, learning is additionally supported by lateral frontopolar cortex (lFPC). Our results indicate that lFPC holds previous causal choices in a ‘pending’ state until a relevant outcome is observed, and the fidelity of these representations predicts the fidelity of subsequent causal choice representations in lOFC and HC during credit assignment. Together, these results highlight the importance of the timely reinstatement of specific causes in lOFC and HC in learning choice-outcome relationships when delays and choices intervene, a critical component of real-world learning and decision making.