Alzheimer's disease risk gene BIN1 induces Tau-dependent network hyperexcitability

Abstract

Genome-wide association studies identified the BIN1 locus as a leading modulator of genetic risk in Alzheimer's disease (AD). One limitation in understanding BIN1's contribution to AD is its unknown function in the brain. AD-associated BIN1 variants are generally noncoding and likely change expression. Here, we determined the effects of increasing expression of the major neuronal isoform of human BIN1 in cultured rat hippocampal neurons. Higher BIN1 induced network hyperexcitability on multielectrode arrays, increased frequency of synaptic transmission, and elevated calcium transients, indicating that increasing BIN1 drives greater neuronal activity. In exploring the mechanism of these effects on neuronal physiology, we found that BIN1 interacted with L-type voltage-gated calcium channels (LVGCCs) and that BIN1–LVGCC interactions were modulated by Tau in rat hippocampal neurons and mouse brain. Finally, Tau reduction prevented BIN1-induced network hyperexcitability. These data shed light on BIN1's neuronal function and suggest that it may contribute to Tau-dependent hyperexcitability in AD.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files. Source data files have been provided for Figures 6: high throughput raw electrophysiologic recordings of neuronal activity using Axion Biosciences Maesto are deposited at: https://uab.box.com/s/rdjp74ba7stgb2dfrxgbyj507b94tjhn.Brief Analysis used is described in the methods section, in-depth analysis description is publicly available at: https://www.axionbiosystems.com/products/axis-software.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Yuliya Voskobiynyk

    Neurology, Neurobiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Jonathan R Roth

    Neurology, Neurobiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8978-4507
  3. J Nicholas Cochran

    Neurology, Neurobiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Travis Rush

    Neurology, Neurobiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Nancy VN Carullo

    Neurology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9197-5046
  6. Jacob S Mesina

    Neurology, Neurobiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Mohammad Waqas

    Neurology, Neurobiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Rachael M Vollmer

    Neurology, Neurobiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. Jeremy J Day

    Department of Neurobiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7361-3399
  10. Lori L McMahon

    Cell, Developmental, and Integrative Biology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1104-6584
  11. Erik D Roberson

    Neurology, Neurobiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    For correspondence
    eroberson@uabmc.edu
    Competing interests
    Erik D Roberson, EDR is an owner of intellectual property relating to Tau.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1810-9763

Funding

National Institutes of Health (RF1AG059405)

  • Erik D Roberson

National Institutes of Health (R01NS075487)

  • Erik D Roberson

National Institutes of Health (R01MH114990)

  • Jeremy J Day

National Institutes of Health (T32NS095775)

  • Yuliya Voskobiynyk

National Institutes of Health (T32NS061788)

  • Jonathan R Roth

Alzheimer's Association

  • Erik D Roberson

Weston Brain Institute

  • Jonathan R Roth
  • Travis Rush
  • Erik D Roberson

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 (#20450) of the University of Alabama at Birmingham. The protocol was approved by the Committee on the Ethics of Animal Experiments of the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Reviewing Editor

  1. John D. Fryer, Mayo Clinic, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: March 29, 2020
  2. Accepted: July 12, 2020
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: July 13, 2020 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: July 30, 2020 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2020, Voskobiynyk 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

  • 3,949
    Page views
  • 483
    Downloads
  • 13
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, 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. Yuliya Voskobiynyk
  2. Jonathan R Roth
  3. J Nicholas Cochran
  4. Travis Rush
  5. Nancy VN Carullo
  6. Jacob S Mesina
  7. Mohammad Waqas
  8. Rachael M Vollmer
  9. Jeremy J Day
  10. Lori L McMahon
  11. Erik D Roberson
(2020)
Alzheimer's disease risk gene BIN1 induces Tau-dependent network hyperexcitability
eLife 9:e57354.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.57354
  1. Further reading

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Damien Jullié, Camila Benitez ... Mark von Zastrow
    Research Article Updated

    Opioid tolerance is well-described physiologically but its mechanistic basis remains incompletely understood. An important site of opioid action in vivo is the presynaptic terminal, where opioids inhibit transmitter release. This response characteristically resists desensitization over minutes yet becomes gradually tolerant over hours, and how this is possible remains unknown. Here, we delineate a cellular mechanism underlying this longer-term form of opioid tolerance in cultured rat medium spiny neurons. Our results support a model in which presynaptic tolerance is mediated by a gradual depletion of cognate receptors from the axon surface through iterative rounds of receptor endocytosis and recycling. For the μ-opioid receptor (MOR), we show that the agonist-induced endocytic process which initiates iterative receptor cycling requires GRK2/3-mediated phosphorylation of the receptor’s cytoplasmic tail, and that partial or biased agonist drugs with reduced ability to drive phosphorylation-dependent endocytosis in terminals produce correspondingly less presynaptic tolerance. We then show that the δ-opioid receptor (DOR) conforms to the same general paradigm except that presynaptic endocytosis of DOR, in contrast to MOR, does not require phosphorylation of the receptor’s cytoplasmic tail. Further, we show that DOR recycles less efficiently than MOR in axons and, consistent with this, that DOR tolerance develops more strongly. Together, these results delineate a cellular basis for the development of presynaptic tolerance to opioids and describe a methodology useful for investigating presynaptic neuromodulation more broadly.

    1. Evolutionary Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Antoine Beauchamp, Yohan Yee ... Jason P Lerch
    Research Advance Updated

    The ever-increasing use of mouse models in preclinical neuroscience research calls for an improvement in the methods used to translate findings between mouse and human brains. Previously, we showed that the brains of primates can be compared in a direct quantitative manner using a common reference space built from white matter tractography data (Mars et al., 2018b). Here, we extend the common space approach to evaluate the similarity of mouse and human brain regions using openly accessible brain-wide transcriptomic data sets. We show that mouse-human homologous genes capture broad patterns of neuroanatomical organization, but the resolution of cross-species correspondences can be improved using a novel supervised machine learning approach. Using this method, we demonstrate that sensorimotor subdivisions of the neocortex exhibit greater similarity between species, compared with supramodal subdivisions, and mouse isocortical regions separate into sensorimotor and supramodal clusters based on their similarity to human cortical regions. We also find that mouse and human striatal regions are strongly conserved, with the mouse caudoputamen exhibiting an equal degree of similarity to both the human caudate and putamen.