A dual role for Cav1.4 Ca2+ channels in the molecular and structural organization of the rod photoreceptor synapse

  1. J Wesley Maddox
  2. Kate L Randall
  3. Ravi P Yadav
  4. Brittany Williams
  5. Jussara Hagen
  6. Paul J Derr
  7. Vasily Kerov
  8. Luca Della Santina
  9. Sheila A Baker
  10. Nikolai Artemyev
  11. Mrinalini Hoon
  12. Amy Lee  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Iowa, United States
  2. University of Wisconsin, Madison, United States
  3. University of California, San Francisco, United States
  4. University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, United States

Abstract

Synapses are fundamental information processing units that rely on voltage-gated Ca2+ (Cav) channels to trigger Ca2+-dependent neurotransmitter release. Cav channels also play Ca2+-independent roles in other biological contexts, but whether they do so in axon terminals is unknown. Here, we addressed this unknown with respect to the requirement for Cav1.4 L-type channels for the formation of rod photoreceptor synapses in the retina. Using a mouse strain expressing a non-conducting mutant form of Cav1.4, we report that the Cav1.4 protein, but not its Ca2+ conductance, is required for the molecular assembly of rod synapses; however, Cav1.4 Ca2+ signals are needed for the appropriate recruitment of postsynaptic partners. Our results support a model in which presynaptic Cav channels serve both as organizers of synaptic building blocks and as sources of Ca2+ ions in building the first synapse of the visual pathway and perhaps more broadly in the nervous system.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files

Article and author information

Author details

  1. J Wesley Maddox

    Molecular Physiology and Biophysics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Kate L Randall

    Molecular Physiology and Biophysics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Ravi P Yadav

    Molecular Physiology and Biophysics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Brittany Williams

    Molecular Physiology and Biophysics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Jussara Hagen

    Molecular Physiology and Biophysics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Paul J Derr

    Neuroscience, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Madison, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Vasily Kerov

    Molecular Physiology and Biophysics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Luca Della Santina

    Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Sheila A Baker

    Biochemistry, University of Iowa, Iowa City, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Nikolai Artemyev

    Molecular Physiology, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Mrinalini Hoon

    Department of Neuroscience, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Madison, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Amy Lee

    Molecular Physiology and Biophysics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, United States
    For correspondence
    amy-lee@uiowa.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8021-0443

Funding

National Eye Institute (EY 026817)

  • Amy Lee

McPherson Eye Research Institute

  • Mrinalini Hoon

Research to Prevent Blindness

  • Mrinalini Hoon

National Eye Institute (EY 029953)

  • J Wesley Maddox

National Eye Institute (EY 026477)

  • Brittany Williams

National Eye Institute (EY010843,EY012682)

  • Nikolai Artemyev

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 (#7121262-025) of the University of Iowa. The protocol was approved by the Office of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of the University of Iowa (A3021-01).

Copyright

© 2020, Maddox 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

  • 2,263
    views
  • 368
    downloads
  • 31
    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. J Wesley Maddox
  2. Kate L Randall
  3. Ravi P Yadav
  4. Brittany Williams
  5. Jussara Hagen
  6. Paul J Derr
  7. Vasily Kerov
  8. Luca Della Santina
  9. Sheila A Baker
  10. Nikolai Artemyev
  11. Mrinalini Hoon
  12. Amy Lee
(2020)
A dual role for Cav1.4 Ca2+ channels in the molecular and structural organization of the rod photoreceptor synapse
eLife 9:e62184.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.62184

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.62184

Further reading

    1. Genetics and Genomics
    2. Neuroscience
    Timothy J Abreo, Emma C Thompson ... Edward C Cooper
    Research Article

    KCNQ2 variants in children with neurodevelopmental impairment are difficult to assess due to their heterogeneity and unclear pathogenic mechanisms. We describe a child with neonatal-onset epilepsy, developmental impairment of intermediate severity, and KCNQ2 G256W heterozygosity. Analyzing prior KCNQ2 channel cryoelectron microscopy models revealed G256 as a node of an arch-shaped non-covalent bond network linking S5, the pore turret, and the ion path. Co-expression with G256W dominantly suppressed conduction by wild-type subunits in heterologous cells. Ezogabine partly reversed this suppression. Kcnq2G256W/+ mice have epilepsy leading to premature deaths. Hippocampal CA1 pyramidal cells from G256W/+ brain slices showed hyperexcitability. G256W/+ pyramidal cell KCNQ2 and KCNQ3 immunolabeling was significantly shifted from axon initial segments to neuronal somata. Despite normal mRNA levels, G256W/+ mouse KCNQ2 protein levels were reduced by about 50%. Our findings indicate that G256W pathogenicity results from multiplicative effects, including reductions in intrinsic conduction, subcellular targeting, and protein stability. These studies provide evidence for an unexpected and novel role for the KCNQ2 pore turret and introduce a valid animal model of KCNQ2 encephalopathy. Our results, spanning structure to behavior, may be broadly applicable because the majority of KCNQ2 encephalopathy patients share variants near the selectivity filter.

    1. Neuroscience
    Livio Oboti, Federico Pedraja ... Rüdiger Krahe
    Research Article

    Since the pioneering work by Moeller, Szabo, and Bullock, weakly electric fish have served as a valuable model for investigating spatial and social cognitive abilities in a vertebrate taxon usually less accessible than mammals or other terrestrial vertebrates. These fish, through their electric organ, generate low-intensity electric fields to navigate and interact with conspecifics, even in complete darkness. The brown ghost knifefish is appealing as a study subject due to a rich electric ‘vocabulary’, made by individually variable and sex-specific electric signals. These are mainly characterized by brief frequency modulations of the oscillating dipole moment continuously generated by their electric organ, and are known as chirps. Different types of chirps are believed to convey specific and behaviorally salient information, serving as behavioral readouts for different internal states during behavioral observations. Despite the success of this model in neuroethology over the past seven decades, the code to decipher their electric communication remains unknown. To this aim, in this study we re-evaluate the correlations between signals and behavior offering an alternative, and possibly complementary, explanation for why these freshwater bottom dwellers emit electric chirps. By uncovering correlations among chirping, electric field geometry, and detectability in enriched environments, we present evidence for a previously unexplored role of chirps as specialized self-directed signals, enhancing conspecific electrolocation during social encounters.