Inhibition of memory by a microRNA negative feedback loop that downregulates SNARE-mediated vesicle transport

  1. Rebecca S Mathew
  2. Antonis Tatarakis
  3. Andrii Rudenko
  4. Erin M Johnson-Venkatesh
  5. Yawei J Yang
  6. Elisabeth A Murphy
  7. Travis P Todd
  8. Scott P Schepers
  9. Nertila Siuti
  10. Anthony J Martorell
  11. William A Falls
  12. Sayamwong E Hammack
  13. Christopher A Walsh
  14. Li-Huei Tsai
  15. Hisashi Umemori
  16. Mark E Bouton
  17. Danesh Moazed  Is a corresponding author
  1. Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Harvard Medical School, United States
  2. The City College of the City University of New York, United States
  3. Harvard Medical School, United States
  4. Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Boston Children's Hospital, United States
  5. University of Vermont, United States
  6. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, United States

Abstract

The SNARE-mediated vesicular transport pathway plays major roles in synaptic remodeling associated with formation of long-term memories, but the mechanisms that regulate this pathway during memory acquisition are not fully understood. Here we identify miRNAs that are up-regulated in the rodent hippocampus upon contextual fear-conditioning and identify the vesicular transport and synaptogenesis pathways as the major targets of the fear-induced miRNAs. We demonstrate that miR-153, a member of this group, inhibits the expression of key components of the vesicular transport machinery, and down-regulates Glutamate receptor A1 trafficking and neurotransmitter release. MiR-153 expression is specifically induced during LTP induction in hippocampal slices and its knockdown in the hippocampus of adult mice results in enhanced fear memory. Our results suggest that miR-153, and possibly other fear-induced miRNAs, act as components of a negative feedback loop that blocks neuronal hyperactivity at least partly through the inhibition of the vesicular transport pathway.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Rebecca S Mathew

    Department of Cell Biology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Antonis Tatarakis

    Department of Cell Biology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Andrii Rudenko

    Department of Biology, The City College of the City University of New York, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Erin M Johnson-Venkatesh

    Department of Neurology, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Yawei J Yang

    Division of Genetics, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Elisabeth A Murphy

    Division of Genetics, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Travis P Todd

    Department of Psychology, University of Vermont, Burlington, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Scott P Schepers

    Department of Psychology, University of Vermont, Burlington, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8051-7541
  9. Nertila Siuti

    Department of Cell Biology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Anthony J Martorell

    The Picower Institute for Learning and Memory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. William A Falls

    Department of Psychology, University of Vermont, Burlington, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Sayamwong E Hammack

    Department of Psychology, University of Vermont, Burlington, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Christopher A Walsh

    Division of Genetics, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Li-Huei Tsai

    The Picower Institute for Learning and Memory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Hisashi Umemori

    Department of Neurology, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7198-2062
  16. Mark E Bouton

    Department of Psychology, University of Vermont, Burlington, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Danesh Moazed

    Department of Cell Biology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    For correspondence
    danesh@hms.harvard.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0321-6221

Funding

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

  • Danesh Moazed

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

  • Christopher A Walsh

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

Ethics

Animal experimentation: This study was performed in strict accordance with the recommendations in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the National Institutes of Health. All of the animals were handled according to approved institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) protocols of Harvard Medical School. The protocol was approved by the Committee on the Ethics of Animal Experiments of Harvard Medical School. All surgery was performed under sodium pentobarbital anesthesia, and every effort was made to minimize suffering.

Copyright

© 2016, Mathew 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

  • 2,950
    views
  • 739
    downloads
  • 32
    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. Rebecca S Mathew
  2. Antonis Tatarakis
  3. Andrii Rudenko
  4. Erin M Johnson-Venkatesh
  5. Yawei J Yang
  6. Elisabeth A Murphy
  7. Travis P Todd
  8. Scott P Schepers
  9. Nertila Siuti
  10. Anthony J Martorell
  11. William A Falls
  12. Sayamwong E Hammack
  13. Christopher A Walsh
  14. Li-Huei Tsai
  15. Hisashi Umemori
  16. Mark E Bouton
  17. Danesh Moazed
(2016)
Inhibition of memory by a microRNA negative feedback loop that downregulates SNARE-mediated vesicle transport
eLife 5:e22467.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.22467

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.22467

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Adam D Longhurst, Kyle Wang ... David P Toczyski
    Tools and Resources

    Progression through the G1 phase of the cell cycle is the most highly regulated step in cellular division. We employed a chemogenetic approach to discover novel cellular networks that regulate cell cycle progression. This approach uncovered functional clusters of genes that altered sensitivity of cells to inhibitors of the G1/S transition. Mutation of components of the Polycomb Repressor Complex 2 rescued proliferation inhibition caused by the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib, but not to inhibitors of S phase or mitosis. In addition to its core catalytic subunits, mutation of the PRC2.1 accessory protein MTF2, but not the PRC2.2 protein JARID2, rendered cells resistant to palbociclib treatment. We found that PRC2.1 (MTF2), but not PRC2.2 (JARID2), was critical for promoting H3K27me3 deposition at CpG islands genome-wide and in promoters. This included the CpG islands in the promoter of the CDK4/6 cyclins CCND1 and CCND2, and loss of MTF2 lead to upregulation of both CCND1 and CCND2. Our results demonstrate a role for PRC2.1, but not PRC2.2, in antagonizing G1 progression in a diversity of cell linages, including chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), breast cancer, and immortalized cell lines.

    1. Cell Biology
    Tomoharu Kanie, Roy Ng ... Peter K Jackson
    Research Article

    The primary cilium is a microtubule-based organelle that cycles through assembly and disassembly. In many cell types, formation of the cilium is initiated by recruitment of ciliary vesicles to the distal appendage of the mother centriole. However, the distal appendage mechanism that directly captures ciliary vesicles is yet to be identified. In an accompanying paper, we show that the distal appendage protein, CEP89, is important for the ciliary vesicle recruitment, but not for other steps of cilium formation (Tomoharu Kanie, Love, Fisher, Gustavsson, & Jackson, 2023). The lack of a membrane binding motif in CEP89 suggests that it may indirectly recruit ciliary vesicles via another binding partner. Here, we identify Neuronal Calcium Sensor-1 (NCS1) as a stoichiometric interactor of CEP89. NCS1 localizes to the position between CEP89 and a ciliary vesicle marker, RAB34, at the distal appendage. This localization was completely abolished in CEP89 knockouts, suggesting that CEP89 recruits NCS1 to the distal appendage. Similarly to CEP89 knockouts, ciliary vesicle recruitment as well as subsequent cilium formation was perturbed in NCS1 knockout cells. The ability of NCS1 to recruit the ciliary vesicle is dependent on its myristoylation motif and NCS1 knockout cells expressing a myristoylation defective mutant failed to rescue the vesicle recruitment defect despite localizing properly to the centriole. In sum, our analysis reveals the first known mechanism for how the distal appendage recruits the ciliary vesicles.