Excitatory and inhibitory receptors utilize distinct post- and trans-synaptic mechanisms in vivo

  1. Taisuke Miyazaki
  2. Megumi Morimoto-Tomita
  3. Coralie Berthoux
  4. Kotaro Konno
  5. Yoav Noam
  6. Tokiwa Yamasaki
  7. Matthijs Verhage
  8. Pablo E Castillo
  9. Masahiko Watanabe
  10. Susumu Tomita  Is a corresponding author
  1. Hokkaido University, Japan
  2. Yale University, United States
  3. Albert Einstein College of Medicine, United States
  4. Amsterdam University Medical Center, Netherlands

Abstract

Ionotropic neurotransmitter receptors at postsynapses mediate fast synaptic transmission upon binding of the neurotransmitter. Post- and trans-synaptic mechanisms through cytosolic, membrane, and secreted proteins have been proposed to localize neurotransmitter receptors at postsynapses. However, it remains unknown which mechanism is crucial to maintain neurotransmitter receptors at postsynapses. In this study, we ablated excitatory or inhibitory neurons in adult mouse brains in a cell-autonomous manner. Unexpectedly, we found that excitatory AMPA receptors remain at the postsynaptic density upon ablation of excitatory presynaptic terminals. In contrast, inhibitory GABAA receptors required inhibitory presynaptic terminals for their postsynaptic localization. Consistent with this finding, ectopic expression at excitatory presynapses of neurexin 3alpha, a putative trans-synaptic interactor with the native GABAA receptor complex, could recruit GABAA receptors to contacted postsynaptic sites. These results establish distinct mechanisms for the maintenance of excitatory and inhibitory postsynaptic receptors in the mature mammalian brain.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting file. Source Data files showing all raw values for each figure and the original images of uncropped blots for Figure 6B have been provided.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Taisuke Miyazaki

    Anatomy, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Megumi Morimoto-Tomita

    Cellular and Molecular Physiology, Neuroscience, Yale University, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Coralie Berthoux

    Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Kotaro Konno

    Department of Anatomy, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Yoav Noam

    Cellular and Molecular Physiology, Neuroscience, Yale University, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Tokiwa Yamasaki

    Cellular and Molecular Physiology, Neuroscience, Yale University, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Matthijs Verhage

    Department of Clinical Genetics, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Pablo E Castillo

    Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9834-1801
  9. Masahiko Watanabe

    Department of Anatomy, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5037-7138
  10. Susumu Tomita

    Cellular and Molecular Physiology, Neuroscience, Yale University, New Haven, United States
    For correspondence
    susumu.tomita@yale.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8344-259X

Funding

NIH Office of the Director (MH115705)

  • Susumu Tomita

NIH Office of the Director (MH077939)

  • Susumu Tomita

Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (MEXT 17K08485)

  • Taisuke Miyazaki

Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (MEXT 18K06813)

  • Taisuke Miyazaki

NIH Office of the Director (F32NS093952)

  • Yoav Noam

NIH Office of the Director (NS113600)

  • Pablo E Castillo

NIH Office of the Director (MH125772)

  • Pablo E Castillo

NIH Office of the Director (MH125772)

  • Pablo E Castillo

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Eunjoon Kim, Institute for Basic Science, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Republic of Korea

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All animal handling was in accordance with protocols approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) of Yale University (Animal Welfare Assurance# A3230-01, Animal protocol number 2021-11029), the Albert Einstein College of Medicine (Animal Welfare Assurance# A3312-011, Animal protocol number 00001043) and Hokkaido University, Japan (Approval number, #19-0111). Animal care and housing were provided by the Yale Animal Resource Center (YARC), in compliance with the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1996).

Version history

  1. Received: June 3, 2020
  2. Accepted: September 19, 2021
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: October 18, 2021 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: October 27, 2021 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2021, Miyazaki 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

  • 2,464
    views
  • 382
    downloads
  • 7
    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. Taisuke Miyazaki
  2. Megumi Morimoto-Tomita
  3. Coralie Berthoux
  4. Kotaro Konno
  5. Yoav Noam
  6. Tokiwa Yamasaki
  7. Matthijs Verhage
  8. Pablo E Castillo
  9. Masahiko Watanabe
  10. Susumu Tomita
(2021)
Excitatory and inhibitory receptors utilize distinct post- and trans-synaptic mechanisms in vivo
eLife 10:e59613.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.59613

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.59613

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Alina Tetereva, Narun Pat
    Research Article

    One well-known biomarker candidate that supposedly helps capture fluid cognition is Brain Age, or a predicted value based on machine-learning models built to predict chronological age from brain MRI. To formally evaluate the utility of Brain Age for capturing fluid cognition, we built 26 age-prediction models for Brain Age based on different combinations of MRI modalities, using the Human Connectome Project in Aging (n=504, 36–100 years old). First, based on commonality analyses, we found a large overlap between Brain Age and chronological age: Brain Age could uniquely add only around 1.6% in explaining variation in fluid cognition over and above chronological age. Second, the age-prediction models that performed better at predicting chronological age did NOT necessarily create better Brain Age for capturing fluid cognition over and above chronological age. Instead, better-performing age-prediction models created Brain Age that overlapped larger with chronological age, up to around 29% out of 32%, in explaining fluid cognition. Third, Brain Age missed around 11% of the total variation in fluid cognition that could have been explained by the brain variation. That is, directly predicting fluid cognition from brain MRI data (instead of relying on Brain Age and chronological age) could lead to around a 1/3-time improvement of the total variation explained. Accordingly, we demonstrated the limited utility of Brain Age as a biomarker for fluid cognition and made some suggestions to ensure the utility of Brain Age in explaining fluid cognition and other phenotypes of interest.

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Jonathan AC Menzies, André Maia Chagas ... Claudio R Alonso
    Research Article

    Movement is a key feature of animal systems, yet its embryonic origins are not fully understood. Here, we investigate the genetic basis underlying the embryonic onset of movement in Drosophila focusing on the role played by small non-coding RNAs (microRNAs, miRNAs). To this end, we first develop a quantitative behavioural pipeline capable of tracking embryonic movement in large populations of fly embryos, and using this system, discover that the Drosophila miRNA miR-2b-1 plays a role in the emergence of movement. Through the combination of spectral analysis of embryonic motor patterns, cell sorting and RNA in situs, genetic reconstitution tests, and neural optical imaging we define that miR-2b-1 influences the emergence of embryonic movement by exerting actions in the developing nervous system. Furthermore, through the combination of bioinformatics coupled to genetic manipulation of miRNA expression and phenocopy tests we identify a previously uncharacterised (but evolutionarily conserved) chloride channel encoding gene – which we term Movement Modulator (Motor) – as a genetic target that mechanistically links miR-2b-1 to the onset of movement. Cell-specific genetic reconstitution of miR-2b-1 expression in a null miRNA mutant background, followed by behavioural assays and target gene analyses, suggest that miR-2b-1 affects the emergence of movement through effects in sensory elements of the embryonic circuitry, rather than in the motor domain. Our work thus reports the first miRNA system capable of regulating embryonic movement, suggesting that other miRNAs are likely to play a role in this key developmental process in Drosophila as well as in other species.