β2-subunit alternative splicing stabilizes Cav2.3 Ca2+ channel activity during continuous midbrain dopamine neuron-like activity

Abstract

In dopaminergic (DA) substantia nigra (SN) neurons Cav2.3 R-type Ca2+-currents contribute to somatodendritic Ca2+-oscillations. This activity may contribute to the selective degeneration of these neurons in Parkinson's disease (PD) since Cav2.3-knockout is neuroprotective in a PD mouse model. Here we show that in tsA-201-cells the membrane-anchored β2-splice variants β2a and β2e are required to stabilize Cav2.3 gating properties allowing sustained Cav2.3 availability during simulated pacemaking and enhanced Ca2+-currents during bursts. We confirmed the expression of β2a- and β2e-subunit transcripts in the mouse SN and in identified SN DA neurons. Patch-clamp recordings of mouse DA midbrain neurons in culture and SN DA neurons in brain slices revealed SNX-482-sensitive R-type Ca2+-currents with voltage-dependent gating properties that suggest modulation by β2a- and/or β2e-subunits. Thus, β-subunit alternative splicing may prevent a fraction of Cav2.3 channels from inactivation in continuously active, highly vulnerable SN DA neurons, thereby also supporting Ca2+ signals contributing to the (patho)physiological role of Cav2.3 channels in PD.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files. Raw data have been provided for mean population data shown in Figures and Tables.

The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Anita Siller

    Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Nadja T Hofer

    Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Giulia Tomagra

    Department of Drug Science, University of Torino, Torino, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Nicole Wiederspohn

    Institute of Applied Physiology, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Simon Hess

    Institute for Zoology, Biocenter, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Julia Benkert

    Institute of Applied Physiology, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Aisylu Gaifullina

    Institute of Applied Physiology, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Desiree Spaich

    Institute of Applied Physiology, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Johanna Duda

    Institute of Applied Physiology, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Christina Poetschke

    Institute of Applied Physiology, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Kristina Vilusic

    Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Eva Maria Fritz

    Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Toni Schneider

    Institute of Neurophysiology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Peter Kloppenburg

    Institute for Zoology, Biocenter, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4554-404X
  15. Birgit Liss

    Institute of Applied Physiology, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Valentina Carabelli

    Department of Drug Science, University of Torino, Torino, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Emilio Carbone

    Department of Drug Science, University of Torino, Torino, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2239-6280
  18. Nadine Jasmin Ortner

    Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
    For correspondence
    nadine.ortner@uibk.ac.at
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Jörg Striessnig

    Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
    For correspondence
    joerg.striessnig@uibk.ac.at
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9406-7120

Funding

Austrian Science Fund (P27809,P35722,CavX-DOC 30 doc.fund)

  • Jörg Striessnig

Tyrolean Science Fund (UNI-0404/2345)

  • Nadine Jasmin Ortner

Italian Miur (2015FNWP34)

  • Emilio Carbone

Compagnia di San Paolo (CSTO165284)

  • Emilio Carbone

Austrian Science Fund (P35087)

  • Nadine Jasmin Ortner

Hamburg Institute for Advanced Study (Research Fellowship)

  • Birgit Liss

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Henry M Colecraft, Columbia University, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All animal experiments and procedures were performed in strict accordance with the European Community's Council Directive 2010/63/UE and approved by the Italian Ministry of Health and the Local Organism responsible for animal welfare at the University of Torino (authorization DGSAF 0011710-P-26/07/2017) and the local authorities at the University of Ulm (Regierungspräsidium Tübingen, Ref: 35/9185.81-3; Reg. Nr. o.147) and University of Cologne (LANUV NRW, Recklinghausen, Germany (84-02.05.20.12.254).

Version history

  1. Preprint posted: February 10, 2021 (view preprint)
  2. Received: February 11, 2021
  3. Accepted: July 4, 2022
  4. Accepted Manuscript published: July 6, 2022 (version 1)
  5. Accepted Manuscript updated: July 8, 2022 (version 2)
  6. Version of Record published: July 22, 2022 (version 3)
  7. Version of Record updated: July 27, 2022 (version 4)

Copyright

© 2022, Siller 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

  • 1,099
    views
  • 317
    downloads
  • 10
    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. Anita Siller
  2. Nadja T Hofer
  3. Giulia Tomagra
  4. Nicole Wiederspohn
  5. Simon Hess
  6. Julia Benkert
  7. Aisylu Gaifullina
  8. Desiree Spaich
  9. Johanna Duda
  10. Christina Poetschke
  11. Kristina Vilusic
  12. Eva Maria Fritz
  13. Toni Schneider
  14. Peter Kloppenburg
  15. Birgit Liss
  16. Valentina Carabelli
  17. Emilio Carbone
  18. Nadine Jasmin Ortner
  19. Jörg Striessnig
(2022)
β2-subunit alternative splicing stabilizes Cav2.3 Ca2+ channel activity during continuous midbrain dopamine neuron-like activity
eLife 11:e67464.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.67464

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.67464

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.

    1. Neuroscience
    Michael Berger, Michèle Fraatz ... Henrike Scholz
    Research Article

    The brain regulates food intake in response to internal energy demands and food availability. However, can internal energy storage influence the type of memory that is formed? We show that the duration of starvation determines whether Drosophila melanogaster forms appetitive short-term or longer-lasting intermediate memories. The internal glycogen storage in the muscles and adipose tissue influences how intensely sucrose-associated information is stored. Insulin-like signaling in octopaminergic reward neurons integrates internal energy storage into memory formation. Octopamine, in turn, suppresses the formation of long-term memory. Octopamine is not required for short-term memory because octopamine-deficient mutants can form appetitive short-term memory for sucrose and to other nutrients depending on the internal energy status. The reduced positive reinforcing effect of sucrose at high internal glycogen levels, combined with the increased stability of food-related memories due to prolonged periods of starvation, could lead to increased food intake.