Super-resolution imaging of synaptic and extra-synaptic AMPA receptors with different-sized fluorescent probes

  1. Sang Hak Lee
  2. Chaoyi Jin
  3. En Cai
  4. Pinghua Ge
  5. Yuji Ishitsuka
  6. Kai Wen Teng
  7. Andre A de Thomaz
  8. Duncan L Nall
  9. Murat Baday
  10. Okunola Jeyifous
  11. Daniel Demonte
  12. Christopher M Dundas
  13. Sheldon Park
  14. Jary Y Delgado
  15. William N Green
  16. Paul R Selvin  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, United States
  2. University of California, San Francisco, United States
  3. University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, United States
  4. University of Campinas, Brazil
  5. University of Chicago, United States
  6. State University of New York, United States
  7. University of Texas, United States

Abstract

Previous studies tracking AMPA receptor (AMPAR) diffusion at synapses observed a large mobile extrasynaptic AMPAR pool. Using super-resolution microscopy, we examined how fluorophore size and photostability affected AMPAR trafficking outside of, and within, post-synaptic densities (PSDs) from rats. Organic fluorescent dyes (≈4 nm), quantum dots, either small (≈10 nm diameter; sQDs) or big (>20 nm; bQDs), were coupled to AMPARs via different-sized linkers. We find that >90% of AMPARs labeled with fluorescent dyes or sQDs were diffusing in confined nanodomains in PSDs, which were stable for 15 minutes or longer. Less than 10% of sQD-AMPARs were extrasynaptic and highly mobile. In contrast, 5–10% of bQD-AMPARs were in PSDs and 90-95% were extrasynaptic as previously observed. Contrary to the hypothesis that AMPAR entry is limited by the occupancy of open PSD "slots", our findings suggest that AMPARs rapidly enter stable "nanodomains" in PSDs with lifetime ≥15 minutes, and do not accumulate in extrasynaptic membranes.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Sang Hak Lee

    Department of Physics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Chaoyi Jin

    Department of Physics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. En Cai

    University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Pinghua Ge

    Department of Physics, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, Urbana, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Yuji Ishitsuka

    Department of Physics, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, Urbana, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Kai Wen Teng

    Department of Physics, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, Urbana, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Andre A de Thomaz

    Institute of Physics Gleb Wataghin"", University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Duncan L Nall

    Department of Physics, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, Urbana, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Murat Baday

    Department of Physics, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, Urbana, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Okunola Jeyifous

    Department of Neurobiology, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Daniel Demonte

    Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, State University of New York, Buffalo, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Christopher M Dundas

    Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Texas, Austin, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Sheldon Park

    Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, State University of New York, Buffalo, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Jary Y Delgado

    Department of Neurobiology, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. William N Green

    Department of Neurobiology, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2167-1391
  16. Paul R Selvin

    Department of Physics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, United States
    For correspondence
    selvin@illinois.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3658-4218

Funding

National Institutes of Health (NIH NS090903)

  • William N Green
  • Paul R Selvin

National Science Foundation (PHY-1430124)

  • Paul R Selvin

National Science Foundation (CBET-1264051)

  • Sheldon Park

National Institutes of Health (NIH NS100019)

  • William N Green
  • Paul R Selvin

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

Ethics

Animal experimentation: Primary hippocampal cultures were prepared from E18 rats according to UIUC guidelines. All rats were handled according to approved institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) protocols (#15254) of UIUC.

Copyright

© 2017, Lee 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

  • 7,388
    views
  • 1,237
    downloads
  • 61
    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. Sang Hak Lee
  2. Chaoyi Jin
  3. En Cai
  4. Pinghua Ge
  5. Yuji Ishitsuka
  6. Kai Wen Teng
  7. Andre A de Thomaz
  8. Duncan L Nall
  9. Murat Baday
  10. Okunola Jeyifous
  11. Daniel Demonte
  12. Christopher M Dundas
  13. Sheldon Park
  14. Jary Y Delgado
  15. William N Green
  16. Paul R Selvin
(2017)
Super-resolution imaging of synaptic and extra-synaptic AMPA receptors with different-sized fluorescent probes
eLife 6:e27744.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.27744

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.27744

Further reading

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Christopher T Schafer, Raymond F Pauszek III ... David P Millar
    Research Article

    The canonical chemokine receptor CXCR4 and atypical receptor ACKR3 both respond to CXCL12 but induce different effector responses to regulate cell migration. While CXCR4 couples to G proteins and directly promotes cell migration, ACKR3 is G-protein-independent and scavenges CXCL12 to regulate extracellular chemokine levels and maintain CXCR4 responsiveness, thereby indirectly influencing migration. The receptors also have distinct activation requirements. CXCR4 only responds to wild-type CXCL12 and is sensitive to mutation of the chemokine. By contrast, ACKR3 recruits GPCR kinases (GRKs) and β-arrestins and promiscuously responds to CXCL12, CXCL12 variants, other peptides and proteins, and is relatively insensitive to mutation. To investigate the role of conformational dynamics in the distinct pharmacological behaviors of CXCR4 and ACKR3, we employed single-molecule FRET to track discrete conformational states of the receptors in real-time. The data revealed that apo-CXCR4 preferentially populates a high-FRET inactive state, while apo-ACKR3 shows little conformational preference and high transition probabilities among multiple inactive, intermediate and active conformations, consistent with its propensity for activation. Multiple active-like ACKR3 conformations are populated in response to agonists, compared to the single CXCR4 active-state. This and the markedly different conformational landscapes of the receptors suggest that activation of ACKR3 may be achieved by a broader distribution of conformational states than CXCR4. Much of the conformational heterogeneity of ACKR3 is linked to a single residue that differs between ACKR3 and CXCR4. The dynamic properties of ACKR3 may underly its inability to form productive interactions with G proteins that would drive canonical GPCR signaling.