Imaging neuropeptide release at synapses with a genetically engineered reporter

  1. Keke Ding
  2. Yifu Han
  3. Taylor W Seid
  4. Christopher Buser
  5. Tomomi Karigo
  6. Shishuo Zhang
  7. Dion K Dickman
  8. David J Anderson  Is a corresponding author
  1. California Institute of Technology, United States
  2. University of Southern California, United States
  3. Oak Crest Institute of Science, United States

Abstract

Research on neuropeptide function has advanced rapidly, yet there is still no spatio-temporally resolved method to measure the release of neuropeptides in vivo. Here we introduce Neuropeptide Release Reporters (NPRRs): novel genetically-encoded sensors with high temporal resolution and genetic specificity. Using the Drosophila larval neuromuscular junction (NMJ) as a model, we provide evidence that NPRRs recapitulate the trafficking and packaging of native neuropeptides, and report stimulation-evoked neuropeptide release events as real-time changes in fluorescence intensity, with sub-second temporal resolution.

Data availability

Source data of EM for Figure 1 and 3. Codes used for Figure 2 and 3.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Keke Ding

    Division of Biology and Biological Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5261-4843
  2. Yifu Han

    Department of Neurobiology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Taylor W Seid

    Division of Biology and Biological Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Christopher Buser

    Oak Crest Institute of Science, Monrovia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4379-3878
  5. Tomomi Karigo

    Division of Biology and Biological Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Shishuo Zhang

    Division of Biology and Biological Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Dion K Dickman

    Department of Neurobiology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1884-284X
  8. David J Anderson

    Division of Biology and Biological Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, United States
    For correspondence
    wuwei@caltech.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6175-3872

Funding

National Institutes of Health (R21EY026432)

  • David J Anderson

National Institutes of Health (R01DA031389)

  • David J Anderson

National Institutes of Health (NS091546)

  • Dion K Dickman

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Leslie C Griffith, Brandeis University, United States

Version history

  1. Received: February 27, 2019
  2. Accepted: June 25, 2019
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: June 26, 2019 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: July 4, 2019 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record updated: December 11, 2019 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2019, Ding 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

  • 9,441
    views
  • 1,398
    downloads
  • 27
    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. Keke Ding
  2. Yifu Han
  3. Taylor W Seid
  4. Christopher Buser
  5. Tomomi Karigo
  6. Shishuo Zhang
  7. Dion K Dickman
  8. David J Anderson
(2019)
Imaging neuropeptide release at synapses with a genetically engineered reporter
eLife 8:e46421.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.46421

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.46421

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Vezha Boboeva, Alberto Pezzotta ... Athena Akrami
    Research Article

    The central tendency bias, or contraction bias, is a phenomenon where the judgment of the magnitude of items held in working memory appears to be biased toward the average of past observations. It is assumed to be an optimal strategy by the brain and commonly thought of as an expression of the brain’s ability to learn the statistical structure of sensory input. On the other hand, recency biases such as serial dependence are also commonly observed and are thought to reflect the content of working memory. Recent results from an auditory delayed comparison task in rats suggest that both biases may be more related than previously thought: when the posterior parietal cortex (PPC) was silenced, both short-term and contraction biases were reduced. By proposing a model of the circuit that may be involved in generating the behavior, we show that a volatile working memory content susceptible to shifting to the past sensory experience – producing short-term sensory history biases – naturally leads to contraction bias. The errors, occurring at the level of individual trials, are sampled from the full distribution of the stimuli and are not due to a gradual shift of the memory toward the sensory distribution’s mean. Our results are consistent with a broad set of behavioral findings and provide predictions of performance across different stimulus distributions and timings, delay intervals, as well as neuronal dynamics in putative working memory areas. Finally, we validate our model by performing a set of human psychophysics experiments of an auditory parametric working memory task.