Rab10 inactivation promotes AMPAR insertion and spine enlargement during long-term potentiation

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Wang et al. created a series of specific FLIM-FRET sensors to measure the activity of different Rab proteins in small cellular compartments. They apply the new sensors to monitor Rab activity in dendritic spines during induction of LTP. They find sustained (30 min) inactivation of Rab10 and transient (5 min) activation of Rab4 after glutamate uncaging in zero Mg. NMDAR function and CaMKII activation are required for these effects. Knockdown of Rab4 reduced spine volume change while knockdown of Rab10 boosted it and enhanced functional LTP (in KO mice). To test Rab effects on AMPA receptor exocytosis, the authors performed FRAP of fluorescently labeled GluA1 subunits in the plasma membrane. Within 2-3 min, new AMPARs appear on the surface via exocytosis. This process is accelerated by Rab10 knock-down and slowed by Rab4 knock-down. The authors conclude that CaMKII promotes AMPAR exocytosis by i) activating Rab4, the exocytosis driver and ii) inhibiting Rab10, possibly involved in AMPAR degradation.

Strengths:

The work is a technical tour de force, adding fundamental insights to our understanding of the crucial functions of different Rab proteins in promoting/preventing synaptic plasticity. The complexity of compartmentalized Ras signaling is poorly understood and this study makes substantial inroads. The new sensors are thoroughly characterized, seem to work very well, and will be quite useful for the neuroscience community and beyond (e.g. cancer research). The use of FLIM for read-out is compelling for precise activity measurements in rapidly expanding compartments (i.e., spines during LTP).

Weaknesses:

The interpretation of the FRAP experiments (Figure 5, Ext. Data Figure 13) is not straightforward as spine volume and surface area greatly expand during uncaging. I appreciate the correction for the added spine membrane shown in Extended Data Figure 14i, but shouldn't this be a correction factor (multiplication) derived from the volume increase instead of a subtraction?

Also, experiments were not conducted or analyzed blind, risking bias in the selection/exclusion of experiments for analysis. This reduces my confidence in the results.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Wang et al. developed a set of optical sensors to monitor Rab protein activity. Their investigation into Rab activity in dendritic spines during structural long-term plasticity (sLTP) revealed sustained Rab10 inactivation (>30min) and transient Rab4 activation (~5 min). Through pharmacological and genetic manipulation to constitutively activate or inhibit Rab proteins, they found that Rab10 negatively regulates sLTP and AMPA receptor insertion, while Rab4 positively influences sLTP but only in the transient phase. The optical sensors provide new tools for studying Rab activity in cells and neurobiology. However, a full understanding of the timing of Rab activity will require a detailed characterization of sensor kinetics.

Strengths:

(1) Introduction of a series of novel sensors that can address numerous questions in Rab biology.

(2) Multiple methods to manipulate Rab proteins to reveal the roles of Rab10 and rab4 in LTP.

(3) Discovery of Rab4 activation and Rab10 inhibition with different kinetics during sLTP, correlating with their functional roles in the transient (Rab4) and both transient and sustained (Rab10) phases of sLTP.

Weaknesses:

(1) Lack of characterization of sensor kinetics, making it difficult to determine if the observed Rab kinetics during sLTP were due to sensor behavior or actual Rab activity.

(2) It is crucial to assess whether the overexpression of Rab proteins as reporters, affects Rab activity and cellular structure and physiology (e.g. spine number and size).

(3) The paper does not explain the apparently different results between NMDA receptor activation and glutamate uncaging. NMDA receptor activation increased Rab10 activity, while glutamate uncaging decreased it. NMDA receptor activation resulted in sustained Rab4 activation, whereas glutamate uncaging caused only brief activation of about 5 minutes. A potential explanation, ideally supported by data, is needed.

(4) There is a discrepancy between spine phenotype and sLTP potential with Rab10 perturbation. Rab10 perturbation affected spine density but not size, suggesting a role in spinogenesis rather than sLTP. However, glutamate uncaging affected sLTP, and spinogenesis was not examined. Explaining the discrepancy between spine size and sLTP potential is necessary. Exploring spinogenesis with glutamate uncaging would strengthen these results. Additionally, Figure 4j shows no change in synaptic transmission with Rab10 knockout, despite an increase in spine density. An explanation, ideally supported by data, is needed for the unchanged fEPSP slope despite an increase in spine density.

(5) Spine volume was imaged using acceptor fluorophores (mCherry, or mCherry/Venus) at 920nm, where the two-photon cross-section of mCherry is minimal. 920nm was also used to excite the donor fluorophore, hence the spine volume measurement based on total red channel fluorescence is the sum of minimal mCherry fluorescence from direct 920nm excitation, bleed-through from the green channel, and FRET. This confounded measurement requires correction and clarification.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This study examines the roles of Rab10 and Rab4 proteins in structural long-term potentiation (sLTP) and AMPA receptor (AMPAR) trafficking in hippocampal dendritic spines using various different methods and organotypic slice cultures as the biological model.

The paper shows that Rab10 inactivation enhances AMPAR insertion and dendritic spine head volume increase during sLTP, while Rab4 supports the initial stages of these processes. The key contribution of this study is identifying Rab10 inactivation as a previously unknown facilitator of AMPAR insertion and spine growth, acting as a brake on sLTP when active. Rab4 and Rab10 seem to be playing opposing roles, suggesting a somewhat coordinated mechanism that precisely controls synaptic potentiation, with Rab4 facilitating early changes and Rab10 restricting the extent and timing of synaptic strengthening.

Strengths:

The study combines multiple techniques such as FRET/FLIM imaging, pharmacology, genetic manipulations, and electrophysiology to dissect the roles of Rab10 and Rab4 in sLTP. The authors developed highly sensitive FRET/FLIM-based sensors to monitor Rab protein activity in single dendritic spines. This allowed them to study the spatiotemporal dynamics of Rab10 and Rab4 activity during glutamate uncaging-induced sLTP. They also developed various controls to ensure the specificity of their observations. For example, they used a false acceptor sensor to verify the specificity of the Rab10 sensor response.

This study reveals previously unknown roles for Rab10 and Rab4 in synaptic plasticity, showing their opposing functions in regulating AMPAR trafficking and spine structural plasticity during LTP.

Weaknesses:

In sLTP, the initial volume of stimulated spines is an important determinant of induced plasticity. To address changes in initial volume and those induced by uncaging, the authors present Extended Data Figure 2. In my view, the methods of fitting, sample selection, or both may pose significant limitations for interpreting the overall results. While the initial spine size distribution for Rab10 experiments spans ~0.1-0.4 fL (with an unusually large single spine at the upper end), Rab4 spine distribution spans a broader range of ~0.1-0.9 fL. If the authors applied initial size-matched data selection or used polynomials rather than linear fitting, panels a, b, e, f, and g might display a different pattern. In that case, clustering analysis based on initial size may be necessary to enable a fair comparison between groups not only for this figure but also for main Figures 2 and 3.

Another limitation is the absence of in vivo validation, as the experiments were performed in organotypic hippocampal slices, which may not fully replicate the complexity of synaptic plasticity in an intact brain, where excitatory and inhibitory processes occur concurrently. High concentrations of MNI-glutamate (4 mM in this study) are known to block GABAergic responses due to its antagonistic effect on GABA-A receptors, thereby precluding the study of inhibitory network activity or connectivity [1], which is already known to be altered in organotypic slice cultures.

[1] https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neural-circuits/articles/10.3389/neuro.04.002.2009/full