LKB1 coordinates neurite remodeling to drive synapse layer emergence in the outer retina

  1. Courtney A Burger
  2. Jonathan Alevy
  3. Anna K Casasent
  4. Danye Jiang
  5. Nicholas E Albrecht
  6. Justine H Liang
  7. Arlene A Hirano
  8. Nicholas Brecha
  9. Melanie A Samuel  Is a corresponding author
  1. Baylor College of Medicine, United States
  2. David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, United States

Abstract

Structural changes in pre and postsynaptic neurons that accompany synapse formation often temporally and spatially overlap. Thus, it has been difficult to resolve which processes drive patterned connectivity. To overcome this, we use the laminated outer murine retina. We identify the serine/threonine kinase LKB1 as a key driver of synapse layer emergence. The absence of LKB1 in the retina caused a marked mislocalization and delay in synapse layer formation. In parallel, LKB1 modulated postsynaptic horizontal cell refinement and presynaptic photoreceptor axon growth. Mislocalized horizontal cell processes contacted aberrant cone axons in LKB1 mutants. These defects coincided with altered synapse protein organization, and horizontal cell neurites were misdirected to ectopic synapse protein regions. Together, these data suggest that LKB1 instructs the timing and location of connectivity in the outer retina via coordinate regulation of pre and postsynaptic neuron structure and the localization of synapse-associated proteins.

Data availability

Source data analysis code have been provided from Figures 1-4.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Courtney A Burger

    Department of Neuroscience, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Jonathan Alevy

    Department of Neuroscience, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Anna K Casasent

    Department of Neuroscience, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Danye Jiang

    Department of Neuroscience, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Nicholas E Albrecht

    Department of Neurosciencew, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Justine H Liang

    Department of Neuroscience, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Arlene A Hirano

    Department of Neurobiology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, 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:" 0000-0001-8842-3582
  8. Nicholas Brecha

    Department of Neurobiology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Melanie A Samuel

    Department of Neuroscience, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    For correspondence
    msamuel@bcm.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4804-2491

Funding

National Institute on Aging (1R56AG061808-01)

  • Melanie A Samuel

National Eye Institute (R01 EY030458-01)

  • Melanie A Samuel

Ted Nash Foundation

  • Melanie A Samuel

Brain Reserach Foundation

  • Melanie A Samuel

National Eye Institute (DP2EY027984-02)

  • Melanie A Samuel

National Eye Institute (T32EY007001)

  • Courtney A Burger

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (T32GM088129)

  • Nicholas E Albrecht

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Gary L Westbrook, Oregon Health and Science University, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: Experiments were carried out in male and female mice in accordance with the recommendations in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the NIH under protocols approved by the BCM Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (AN6785). Every effort was made to minimize animal suffering.

Version history

  1. Received: March 25, 2020
  2. Accepted: April 11, 2020
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: May 7, 2020 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: May 19, 2020 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2020, Burger 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

  • 1,600
    Page views
  • 254
    Downloads
  • 6
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: PubMed Central, Crossref, Scopus.

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. Courtney A Burger
  2. Jonathan Alevy
  3. Anna K Casasent
  4. Danye Jiang
  5. Nicholas E Albrecht
  6. Justine H Liang
  7. Arlene A Hirano
  8. Nicholas Brecha
  9. Melanie A Samuel
(2020)
LKB1 coordinates neurite remodeling to drive synapse layer emergence in the outer retina
eLife 9:e56931.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.56931

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.56931

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Kiwamu Kudo, Kamalini G Ranasinghe ... Srikantan S Nagarajan
    Research Article

    Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is characterized by the accumulation of amyloid-β and misfolded tau proteins causing synaptic dysfunction, and progressive neurodegeneration and cognitive decline. Altered neural oscillations have been consistently demonstrated in AD. However, the trajectories of abnormal neural oscillations in AD progression and their relationship to neurodegeneration and cognitive decline are unknown. Here, we deployed robust event-based sequencing models (EBMs) to investigate the trajectories of long-range and local neural synchrony across AD stages, estimated from resting-state magnetoencephalography. The increases in neural synchrony in the delta-theta band and the decreases in the alpha and beta bands showed progressive changes throughout the stages of the EBM. Decreases in alpha and beta band synchrony preceded both neurodegeneration and cognitive decline, indicating that frequency-specific neuronal synchrony abnormalities are early manifestations of AD pathophysiology. The long-range synchrony effects were greater than the local synchrony, indicating a greater sensitivity of connectivity metrics involving multiple regions of the brain. These results demonstrate the evolution of functional neuronal deficits along the sequence of AD progression.

    1. Medicine
    2. Neuroscience
    Luisa Fassi, Shachar Hochman ... Roi Cohen Kadosh
    Research Article

    In recent years, there has been debate about the effectiveness of treatments from different fields, such as neurostimulation, neurofeedback, brain training, and pharmacotherapy. This debate has been fuelled by contradictory and nuanced experimental findings. Notably, the effectiveness of a given treatment is commonly evaluated by comparing the effect of the active treatment versus the placebo on human health and/or behaviour. However, this approach neglects the individual’s subjective experience of the type of treatment she or he received in establishing treatment efficacy. Here, we show that individual differences in subjective treatment - the thought of receiving the active or placebo condition during an experiment - can explain variability in outcomes better than the actual treatment. We analysed four independent datasets (N = 387 participants), including clinical patients and healthy adults from different age groups who were exposed to different neurostimulation treatments (transcranial magnetic stimulation: Studies 1 and 2; transcranial direct current stimulation: Studies 3 and 4). Our findings show that the inclusion of subjective treatment can provide a better model fit either alone or in interaction with objective treatment (defined as the condition to which participants are assigned in the experiment). These results demonstrate the significant contribution of subjective experience in explaining the variability of clinical, cognitive, and behavioural outcomes. We advocate for existing and future studies in clinical and non-clinical research to start accounting for participants’ subjective beliefs and their interplay with objective treatment when assessing the efficacy of treatments. This approach will be crucial in providing a more accurate estimation of the treatment effect and its source, allowing the development of effective and reproducible interventions.