A microRNA negative feedback loop downregulates vesicle transport and inhibits fear memory

  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 T 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 T 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

  • 2,952
    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 T 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)
A microRNA negative feedback loop downregulates vesicle transport and inhibits fear memory
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
    Laura Childers, Jieun Park ... Michel Bagnat
    Research Article

    Dietary protein absorption in neonatal mammals and fishes relies on the function of a specialized and conserved population of highly absorptive lysosome-rich enterocytes (LREs). The gut microbiome has been shown to enhance absorption of nutrients, such as lipids, by intestinal epithelial cells. However, whether protein absorption is also affected by the gut microbiome is poorly understood. Here, we investigate connections between protein absorption and microbes in the zebrafish gut. Using live microscopy-based quantitative assays, we find that microbes slow the pace of protein uptake and degradation in LREs. While microbes do not affect the number of absorbing LRE cells, microbes lower the expression of endocytic and protein digestion machinery in LREs. Using transgene-assisted cell isolation and single cell RNA-sequencing, we characterize all intestinal cells that take up dietary protein. We find that microbes affect expression of bacteria-sensing and metabolic pathways in LREs, and that some secretory cell types also take up protein and share components of protein uptake and digestion machinery with LREs. Using custom-formulated diets, we investigated the influence of diet and LRE activity on the gut microbiome. Impaired protein uptake activity in LREs, along with a protein-deficient diet, alters the microbial community and leads to an increased abundance of bacterial genera that have the capacity to reduce protein uptake in LREs. Together, these results reveal that diet-dependent reciprocal interactions between LREs and the gut microbiome regulate protein absorption.

    1. Cell Biology
    Rachel Pudlowski, Lingyi Xu ... Jennifer T Wang
    Research Advance

    Centrioles have a unique, conserved architecture formed by three linked, ‘triplet’, microtubules arranged in ninefold symmetry. The mechanisms by which these triplet microtubules are formed remain unclear but likely involve the noncanonical tubulins delta-tubulin and epsilon-tubulin. Previously, we found that human cells lacking delta-tubulin or epsilon-tubulin form abnormal centrioles, characterized by an absence of triplet microtubules, lack of central core protein POC5, and a futile cycle of centriole formation and disintegration (Wang et al., 2017). Here, we show that human cells lacking either TEDC1 or TEDC2 have similar abnormalities. Using ultrastructure expansion microscopy, we observed that mutant centrioles elongate to the same length as control centrioles in G2 phase and fail to recruit central core scaffold proteins. Remarkably, mutant centrioles also have an expanded proximal region. During mitosis, these mutant centrioles further elongate before fragmenting and disintegrating. All four proteins physically interact and TEDC1 and TEDC2 can form a subcomplex in the absence of the tubulins, supporting an AlphaFold Multimer model of the tetramer. TEDC1 and TEDC2 localize to centrosomes and are mutually dependent on each other and on delta-tubulin and epsilon-tubulin for localization. Our results demonstrate that delta-tubulin, epsilon-tubulin, TEDC1, and TEDC2 function together to promote robust centriole architecture, laying the foundation for future studies on the mechanisms underlying the assembly of triplet microtubules and their interactions with centriole structure.