| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
1Laboratory of Neurophysiology, Department of Physiology, University of Concepción, Concepción, Chile; 2Department of Anatomy, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio 45435; and 3Center for Aging and Developmental Biology and Department of Pharmacology and Physiology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York 14627
Submitted 11 April 2003; accepted in final form 2 September 2003
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
2
and 1 GlyRs in immature neurons to only 1 GlyRs in mature neurons. Microtubule disruption preferentially affected postsynaptic sites containing 2-containing synaptic receptors. |
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
; Kelly and Cotman 1978; Matus and Taff-Jones 1978), and several bridging proteins have been proposed to link membrane macromolecules to the underlying subsynaptic cytoskeleton within the PSD (reviewed in Sheng and Pak 2000).
Gephyrin, the first protein identified as a synaptic bridging component, is a key constituent of the PSD at inhibitory synapses (Triller et al. 1985, 1987). Gephyrin antisense and knock-out experiments indicated that gephyrin is associated with glycine receptors (GlyRs) and GABAA receptors (GABAARs) in postsynaptic clusters (Essrich et al. 1999; Feng et al. 1998; Kirsch et al. 1993; Kneussel et al. 1999). While it is known that gephyrin strongly binds GlyRs through a peptide domain within the M3-M4 cytoplasmic loop of the GlyR subunit (Meyer et al. 1995), the mechanism of interaction with GABAARs is not understood. In addition, in vitro binding studies suggested possible interactions of gephyrin with the cytoskeleton. Gephyrin binds tubulin and microtubules directly with high affinity and significant cooperativity (Kirsch et al. 1991) and can interact with microfilaments through intermediate actin-binding proteins such as profilin (Mammoto et al. 1998) or regulators of actin filament dynamics like collybistin (Kins et al. 2000). Hence, a commonly proposed model for the structure of glycinergic synapses hypothesizes that gephyrin anchors GlyRs to subsynaptic cytoskeleton (Kirsch 1999; Kneussel and Betz 2000). Tubulin depolymerization would then be expected to disrupt synaptic GlyR clusters.
Morphological studies performed in spinal cord cultures showed that microtubule depolymerization affected the number, structure, and intensity of gephyrin/GlyR postsynaptic clusters (Kirsch and Betz 1995). However, microtubule disruption in hippocampal cultures failed to alter gephyrin/GABAA clusters (Allison et al. 2000) and led to the conclusion that neither microtubules nor cytoplasmic tubulin-dimers play a significant role in the organization of gephyrin-containing inhibitory synapses. The reasons for these conflicting results are unknown.
Using the whole cell patch-clamp technique, we previously reported that the function of synaptic GlyRs, but not extrasynaptic receptors, was changed in cultured spinal cord neurons dialyzed with the microtubule depolymerization agent colchicine (van Zundert et al. 2002). In contrast, the function of synaptic -amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazole propionic acid receptors (AMPARs) and gamma amino butyric acid type A receptors (GABAARs) was unchanged. In this study, we have further analyzed the developmental profile of colchicine action on the function and structure of synaptic GlyR clusters. We found a strong inhibitory effect of colchicine on immature glycinergic synapses, which contain the neonatal 2 receptor. After synaptic maturation, however, mainly the adult 1 GlyR remained in the postsynaptic membrane and colchicine was not effective. GABAARs postsynaptic clusters were unaltered at any developmental stage. Preliminary results were presented in abstract form (van Zundert et al. 2001).
|
|
METHODS |
|---|
|
Mouse (C57BL/J6) spinal cord neurons obtained from five to six embryos (13-14 days) were plated at 300,000 cells/ml into 35-mm tissue culture dishes coated with poly-L-lysine (MW > 350 kDa, Sigma Chemical, St. Louis, MO). The neuronal feeding medium consisted of 90% minimal essential medium (GIBCO, Grand Island, NY), 5% heat-inactivated horse serum (GIBCO), 5% fetal bovine serum (GIBCO), and a mixture of nutrient supplements (Aguayo and Pancetti 1994). Fresh media was replaced every 3 days. Experiments were performed on 5-17 DIV neurons. The microtubule interacting molecules colchicine, 
-lumicolchicine, nocodazole, and taxol (20 µM) were added to the culture media for 3 h or dialyzed into the neurons via the recording patch pipette as previously reported (Kirsch and Betz 1995; Rosenmund and Westbrook 1993; van Zundert et al. 2002).
Electrophysiology
For voltage- and current-clamp recordings in the whole cell configuration, patch electrodes were filled with (in mM) 140 KCl, 10 BAPTA, 10 HEPES (pH 7.4), 4 MgCl2, and 2 ATP-Na2. The external solution contained (in mM) 150 NaCl, 10 KCl, 2.0 CaCl2, 1.0 MgCl2, 10 HEPES (pH 7.4), and 10 glucose. After the whole cell configuration was established, the capacitance of the cell and the series resistance were compensated using the amplifier (>80%). Spontaneous glycinergic miniature postsynaptic currents (mIPSCs) were isolated by the addition of CNQX (2 µM, RBI), bicuculline (2 µM, RBI), TTX (0.1 µM, Sigma), and MgCl2 (2 mM) to the external solution (van Zundert et al. 2002). They were confirmed as glycinergic mIPSCs by a complete blockade with 750 nM strychnine. At 1 and 25 min after establishing the whole cell configuration, the spontaneous events occurring during a 3-min interval were analyzed. The properties of the mean mIPSC amplitude and frequency at 1 min were used as an internal control (van Zundert et al. 2002). By presenting the data as normalized (25 min/1 min), the results obtained with different drug treatments were pooled and analyzed in terms of their statistical differences. The noise was not significantly changed when neurons were dialyzed with any of the cytoskeletal disrupters. Synaptic currents were recorded using Axotape 7.0 software and analyzed off-line (Axon Instruments, Union City, CA). Every identified synaptic event collected during the test intervals displaying an amplitude above the background noise (12-15 pA) was analyzed using MiniAnalysis 5.0 software (Synaptosoft). Data were excluded if the uncompensated series resistance (<8 M
) increased by >15% during the recordings. Unless otherwise noted, all reagents were purchased from Sigma. Analysis of mIPSC properties included peak amplitude, inter-event interval, rise-time, and decay-time constant. The decay-phase of mIPSCs was best fitted with a single exponential curve. To avoid analysis of data points with excess noise at the peak and baseline, the rise and decay-phase were fitted between 10 and 90% of its amplitude.
Immunocytochemistry
Neurons were fixed for 5 (GlyR) or 15 min (GABAAR2) with 4% paraformaldehyde in 0.1 M phosphate buffer (pH 7.4). Fixing time was increased to 30 min for other antibodies. Cultures were permeabilized with a pretreatment of 0.25% Triton X-100 (15 min) to allow better access to intracellular epitopes and then blocked with 10% normal horse serum (NHS) for 30 min to reduce nonspecific staining. Cells were incubated for 1 h with pair combinations of the following primary antibodies: mouse monoclonal antibody (MmAb) against gephyrin (mAb7a; 1:100; Boehringer-Mannheim, Indianapolis, IN), rabbit polyclonal antibody (RpAb) against the 1 and 2 subunit of the GlyR (1:10; Calbiochem, La Jolla, CA), guinea pig polyclonal antibody (GpAb) against the 2 subunit of the GABAAR (1:1,000; kindly provided by Dr. J. M. Fritschy, University of Zurich), MmAb against synaptophysin (1:100; Oncogene, San Diego, CA), RpAb against synaptophysin (1:500; Zymed Laboratories Inc., San Francisco, CA), MmAb against SV2 (1:200; kindly provided by K. M. Buckley, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA), and RpAb against synapsin I (1:1,000; Calbiochem). We tested the following combinations of antibodies: gephyrin/synapsin I, synaptophysin/SV2, synaptophysin/synapsin I, GlyR/gephyrin, GABAAR2/gephyrin, GlyR/SV2, GABAAR2/SV2, and GABAAR2/gephyrin/synapsin I. Immunoreactive (IR) sites were visualized after incubation for 1 h with appropriate secondary antibodies raised in donkey and conjugated to FITC or Cy3 (1:50; Jackson ImmunoResearch Laboratories, West Grove, PA). With every combination, we used a MmAb mixed with a RpAb or GpAb. Presynaptic markers were usually labeled with FITC-conjugated secondary antibodies and postsynaptic gephyrin and GABAAR2 antibodies with Cy3-conjugated antibodies. For the triple immunolocalization, together with the normal GABAAR2/gephyrin double immunolabeling, synapsin I was labeled with a biotin-SI-conjugated RpAb (1:50) and stained with Cy5-conjugated streptavidin (1:250; Jackson ImmunoResearch Laboratories). The cells were coverslipped using Vectashield (Vector Laboratories, Burlingame, CA).
Image visualization and sampling
For quantitative analysis of immunocytochemical data, samples of spinal neurons (10-15 cells from 2 separate experiments of paired control and colchicine-treated cells) were chosen randomly for imaging using confocal microscopy (Olympus Fluoview; 100x oil immersion objective, N.A. 1.35, digitally zoomed 3 times, pixel size = 0.07 µm). Stacks of optical sections separated by 0.5 µm in the z axis were acquired throughout whole cells. Dual color immunofluorescent images were captured in simultaneous two-channel mode. Antibody dilutions were chosen for adequate immunofluorescent intensity to minimize cross-talk between the channels. If even minimal cross-talk between FITC and Cy3 fluorescence was observed (FITC usually labeled the presynaptic marker and resulted in brighter fluorescence), this was abolished by collecting Cy3 fluorescence above 610 nm. The number of synaptic gephyrin and GlyR clusters was determined as the number of clusters apposed/co-localized to punctate synapsin I or SV2 immunoreactivity. Co-localization was studied by superimposing both color channels. For triple immunolocalizations, neurons were imaged using a Leica TCS confocal microscope using multitracking imaging of each channel independently and optical and confocal conditions similar to those previously used and described above.
Analysis of cluster size
In contrast to previous confocal quantitative studies on gephyrin cluster sizes done in tissue sections (Geiman et al. 2000; Lim et al. 1999; Oleskevich et al. 1999; Triller et al. 1990), the majority of synapses in our cultures were positioned on the lateral sides of the cells, and relatively few crossed over the top of neurons. Therefore there were only few examples of gephyrin clusters viewed "en face" where surface areas could be resolved accurately. Hence, we measured cluster lengths. Frequently, individual clusters were imaged in more than one serial optical section. The optical section that contained the largest and brightest immunofluorescence for each individual cluster was selected for measurement. For cluster size measurements, the stacks of confocal optical sections were analyzed using ImagePro software (ver. 4.1; Media Cybernetics, Silver Spring, MD). Individual clusters were detected in single optical sections by thresholding the image from the maximum arbitrary gray level (AGL) pixel intensity (4095) to 25% of this value. These image segmentation parameters allowed us to detect even the fainter clusters while outlining intensely fluorescent clusters inside their diffraction halo. Using this method, individual clusters were automatically segmented and outlined, and their maximum length was measured. For each experiment, imaging conditions were kept constant, and no postcapture modifications were done in images used for quantitative analysis. The data were compiled in Microsoft Excel, analyzed in Statview, and plotted using Origin. Importantly, our measurements of gephyrin cluster size gave similar results to previous studies in spinal cord cultures (Meier et al. 2000; Rosenberg et al. 2001) and spinal cord sections visualized with either confocal microscopy (Oleskevich et al. 1999), conventional fluorescence microscopy, or three-dimensional reconstruction with electron microscopy (Alvarez et al. 1997). For illustration, the neuron was reconstructed from the stack of optical sections, and further figure composition and labeling was done in CorelDraw 3.0, CorelDraw 8.0, or SigmaPlot 4.0.
RT-PCR: Total RNA extraction and cDNA synthesis
To extract total RNA from the spinal cord cultures, cells were lysed with 1 ml Trizol (5 min, 20°C, GIBCO), and 0.2 ml of chloroform was added to each sample. After vigorous shaking, the mixture was centrifuged (12,000g, 15 min, 4°C), and RNA was precipitated by mixing the aqueous phase with isopropyl alcohol (0.5 ml, 10 min, 20°C) and centrifuged at 12,000g (15 min). Finally, the RNA was washed two times with ethyl alcohol (75%) and spun down at 7,500g, dried under the hood (5 min, 20°C), and dissolved in sterile RNAse free H2O. The integrity and purity of each RNA sample was evaluated by agarose gel electrophoresis (1-2%). The RNA concentration was determined by: [RNA] = 40 µg/ml x A260 x Fd, where A260 is the absorbance (260 nm) of the sample and Fd represents the dilution factor. cDNA synthesis employed 12 µl of total RNA, 1 µl of random hexamer primers (50 ng, Promega), 1 µl of 10 mM dNTPs, 4 µl of 5x reaction buffer, 2 µl of DTT (0.1 M), 1 µl of RNAsin (40 U/µl), and 1 µl of RT-Superscript II (200 U). The RT reactions (42°C) were stopped after 1.5 h by cooling to -20°C. cDNA was determined in each case: [cDNA] = 33 µg /ml x A260 x Fd.
cDNA amplification and temporal subunit expression
PCR mixtures (25 µl final) contained 2.5 µl 10x Taq polymerase buffer, 0.5 µl dNTPs mix (10 mM), 0.75 µl MgCl2 (50 mM), 0.75 µl sense (10 µM) and 0.75 µl antisense primers (10 µM), 3 µl cDNA template (50 ng), 16.5 µl H2O, and 0.25 µl Taq polymerase (5 U/µl). A Biorad thermocycler was used with PCR conditions set to 94°C (3 min) for primary denaturation, 30 cycles of amplification (94°C denaturation, 30 s; 45-51°C annealing, 30 s; 72°C elongation, 30 s), and 10 min at 72°C for final elongation. The predicted sizes of 1, 2, and 3 amplicons were 529, 384, and 470 bp, respectively, and the amplicon was 183 bp. The PCR amplified products were resolved by agarose gel electrophoresis (1-2%), photographed (Polaroid films), and digitized (Cannon device) using Adobe Photoshop (4.0). The following primers were used to amplify mouse GlyR subunit cDNA: 1 (sense: 5'-aggcccaacttcaaaggtcc-3'; anti-sense: 5'-ctgtgttgtagtgcttggtgc-3'); 2 (sense: 5'-ggtacaccatgaatgacctg-3'; anti-sense: 5'-ccatccagatgtcaattgcctt-3'); 3 (sense: 5'-gctgacattaacactctcttgtcc-3'; anti-sense: 5'-ccatccagatgtcaattgcctt-3'); (sense: 5'-ggaattcgggatggagacgtcc-3'; anti-sense: 5'-gctctcaagttgcattttgc-3'). The sequence of all the primers used as the amplified fragments (sequence, restriction maps) has been previously described (Kirchhoff et al. 1996). Negative (omitting RNA, template sense primers) and positive (adult and embryonic spinal cord cDNAs) controls were routinely included. At least three independent experiments per condition were considered.
Data analysis
Data are expressed as means ± SE. Statistical comparisons were performed using Student's t-test or ANOVA. Cumulative probability distributions of mIPSC amplitudes were compared with Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. P < 0.05 was considered significant.
|
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
In agreement with a previous study (van Zundert et al. 2002), intracellular dialysis with colchicine decreased glycinergic transmission in young (<12 DIV) cultured spinal neurons. The amplitude of control glycinergic mIPSCs, isolated in the presence of CNQX, bicuculline, and TTX, was rather stable over a recording period of 25 min (Fig. 1A). In contrast, neurons dialyzed with 20 µM colchicine in the patch pipette displayed a large change in the amplitude histogram distribution after 25 min of recording (Fig. 1B, left). This decrease in glycinergic activity resulted in a shift toward smaller current amplitudes as shown in the cumulative probability amplitude distributions (P < 0.001, Fig. 1B, right). Colchicine also significantly reduced mean glycinergic mIPSC amplitude and frequency by 29 ± 4% (P < 0.001) and 69 ± 8% (P < 0.001), respectively.
|
Colchicine-induced reductions of glycinergic mIPSC activity are due to postsynaptic microtubule depolymerization
A summary of the effects produced by different agents acting on microtubules on the normalized mean mIPSC amplitude is shown in Fig. 2A. The amplitude of glycinergic mIPSCs remained highly stable (1.07 ± 0.07 presented as the amplitude ratio 25 min/1 min, from 34.7 ± 7 pA at 1 min) when the neurons were dialyzed with normal internal solution for 25 min (n = 7). On the other hand, dialysis of sister neurons with the microtubule disrupter colchicine (20 µM, n = 10) or nocodazole (20 µM, n = 5) reduced the normalized mIPSC amplitude to 0.71 ± 0.04 (P < 0.001) and 0.88 ± 0.01 (P < 0.05), respectively. When dialyzed with the inactive analog of colchicine, -lumicolchicine (20 µM, n = 5), the amplitude was not significantly changed (0.93 ± 0.09, P > 0.05). Taxol (20 µM, n = 4), a cytotoxin that increases the stabilization of tubulin dimers (Nogales 2000), was unable to change the amplitude of the glycinergic transmission (0.98 ± 0.04, P > 0.05). Dialysis with taxol for even 60 min (data not shown) was unable to affect the glycinergic transmission, and extracellular application of this alkaloid (20 µM; 3 h to the media) did not alter the number and morphology of gephyrin clusters (data not shown; Kirsch and Betz 1995), suggesting that stabilization of actin filaments and actin dynamics did not affect the integrity of postsynaptic gephyrin/GlyRs clusters.
|
2 and 1 GlyR subunits with IC50s of approximately 64 and 324 µM, respectively (Machu 1998). We obtained four lines of experimental evidence indicating that our results with 20 µM intracellular colchicine cannot be explained by this competitive inhibition. First, analysis with extracellular colchicine (1-1,000 µM) showed that the whole cell glycine-activated current (30 µM) was inhibited with very similar affinities in immature and mature neurons (IC50 of 143 ± 28 and 187 ± 13 µM, respectively; P > 0.05, Fig. 2C). Second, internal nocodazole, which was reported to be devoid of antagonistic properties on the GlyR when applied extracellularly (Machu 1998), was still able to reduce the mIPSC amplitude (Fig. 2A). Third, the application of 20 µM external colchicine for 20 min did not affect the average mIPSC amplitude (0.93 ± 0.03, n = 8, P > 0.05, Fig. 2A) or the cumulative probability amplitude distributions (P > 0.05, Fig. 2B). Finally, intracellular GTP (500 µM), a guanine nucleotide with low membrane permeability and known for its capacity to stabilize microtubules (Nogales 2000), blocked the colchicine-induced reduction of glycinergic mIPSCs amplitude (1.0 ± 0.08, n = 4, Fig. 2A). Control experiments showed that GTP had no effect when added alone to the internal solution (0.98 ± 0.04, n = 4, Fig. 2A). Effect of colchicine cannot be explained by a presynaptic site of action
We also analyzed the number of mIPSC events and found that the frequency was decreased when the neurons were dialyzed with either colchicine (0.31 ± 0.08 presented as the frequency ratio 25 min/1 min, P < 0.001) or nocodazole (0.49 ± 0.11, P < 0.05). On the other hand, normal internal solution (0.84 ± 0.15, P > 0.05) or addition of -lumicolchicine (0.85 ± 0.17, P > 0.05) to the patch pipette was unable to significantly alter mIPSC frequency. A decrease in mIPSC frequency can be interpreted as a reduction in the probability of neurotransmitter release (Walmsley et al. 1998). Intracellular dialysis of membrane permeable colchicine could therefore have altered presynaptic cytoskeleton structures associated with neurotransmitter release after diffusion into the presynaptic terminal. However, our results with extracellular colchicine and GTP do not support this idea.
Alternatively, functional autaptic synapses could form under our culture conditions (Bekkers and Stevens 1991), and colchicine action could be partly due to alterations in autaptic transmission. To investigate this possibility, we examined whether the neurons used in our studies showed evidence of glycinergic autaptic transmission. Under the low Cl- gradient used, GlyR activation should be associated with a negative sign current. Figure 2D illustrates the effect of applying an 80-mV depolarizing voltage step into a neuron held at -80 mV. This depolarizing pulse was able to activate a large somatic "unclamped" Na+ inward current (approximately 2 nA) but no autaptic glycinergic postsynaptic current was detected (Fig. 2D). In addition, the frequency of spontaneous glycinergic mIPSCs in the same neuron was unchanged even after a sustained depolarization elicited by a high-frequency (5 Hz) train of depolarizing pulses (Fig. 2D, inset). Additional experiments using current-clamp recordings showed that soma-elicited action potentials were not able to induce strychnine-sensitive autaptic synaptic potentials (Fig. 2E). From the 11 neurons examined, only 1 displayed an autaptic response, suggesting that it is unlikely that the colchicine effect is produced by alterations in autaptic transmission.
The above experiments ruled out the possibility that a presynaptic mechanism was associated to the action of colchicine on the glycinergic mIPSC frequency. Therefore we can argue that colchicine decreased the frequency of mIPSCs by reducing the current amplitude in such a way that a number of synaptic events fall under the threshold of detection (approximately 12 pA). To determine whether a change in mIPSC peak amplitude might account for the decrease in frequency, the mIPSC amplitude was reduced 27 ± 2% (37 ± 4 to 27 ± 2 pA, n = 5) by lowering the Cl- driving force. This closely simulates the colchicine-induced reduction in mIPSC amplitude (shown in Fig. 2A). As found with colchicine, the decrease in mIPSC quantal size was accompanied by a large (54 ± 5%) reduction in frequency, supporting the idea that the reduction in frequency after 25 min of colchicine treatment is best explained by an alteration in current amplitude.
Colchicine treatment decreased the size and intensity of gephyrin/GlyR clusters in immature spinal neurons but not in mature neurons
We next investigated whether the developmentally regulated action of colchicine might be correlated with morphological changes in postsynaptic gephyrin clusters on microtubule disruption (Kirsch and Betz 1995). Immature, intermediate, and mature neurons were treated for 3 h with 20 µM colchicine (Kirsch and Betz 1995; van Zundert et al. 2002). After fixation, gephyrin clusters were immunolabeled with monoclonal antibody 7a, and the size (maximal length), density (luminosity), and numbers of synaptic and extrasynaptic gephyrin clusters were analyzed. Synaptic gephyrin clusters were detected by combining gephyrin-IR with a presynaptic marker (see METHODS). We considered gephyrin clusters synaptic when they were opposite to immunolabeled boutons and extrasynaptic if they were not. We compared synapsin I to other presynaptic markers like synaptophysin or SV2 and found that these three presynaptic markers labeled a similar population of boutons. Synaptophysin and synapsin I showed 78 ± 9% co-localization (n = 4 neurons), whereas synaptophysin and SV2 were co-localized in >90% of the boutons (n = 4 neurons). We found that synapsin I was the brighter marker and labeled a few more varicosities and thus was chosen for further studies. Analysis of synapsin I-IR showed that colchicine treatment was unable to significantly alter the bouton size in both immature (0.93 ± 0.04 µm in control vs. 0.89 ± 0.05 µm in treated) and mature neurons (0.80 ± 0.03 µm in control vs. 0.77 ± 0.04 µm in treated).
Immature control neurons showed gephyrin-IR clusters at the periphery of the neuronal soma and along proximal neurites (Fig. 3A). Not all gephyrin clusters were apposed or co-localized (yellow) with synapsin I (Fig. 3A3), indicating the existence of extrasynaptic gephyrin clusters at this developmental stage. Synapsin I immunoreactivity was very robust in all cultures; however, we cannot completely rule out the possibility that some newly formed synaptic varicosities might contain low synapsin I antigenicity, below our detection threshold. Nevertheless, previous ultrastructural analysis has demonstrated the existence of extrasynaptic gephyrin clusters at early stages of development in spinal cord cultures (Colin et al. 1996). In addition, the proportion of extrasynaptic to synaptic gephyrin clusters are well matched to another study of cultured spinal cord neurons that used a different presynaptic marker (Dumoulin et al. 2000). During development, the number of synaptic gephyrin clusters per cell increased from 14.8 ± 1.6 in immature neurons (n = 14) to 29.3 ± 3.5 in intermediate (n = 14) and 52.1 ± 4.7 in mature neurons (n = 14). The number of extrasynaptic gephyrin clusters per cell decreased from 9.6 ± 2.2 in immature neurons to 4.9 ± 0.9 and 1.9 ± 0.4 in intermediate and mature neurons, respectively. Colchicine treatment did not change the number of synaptic gephyrin clusters per cell at any developmental stage; however, the number of extrasynaptic clusters was reduced to 4.4 ± 1.1 in immature neurons (P < 0.05).
|
|
These results, as well as previous studies (Lim et al. 1999; Oleskevich et al. 1999), suggest a positive correlation between gephyrin/GlyR cluster size and glycinergic mIPSC amplitude. Next, we performed a correlative analysis between the average mean peak amplitude of glycinergic mIPSCs and gephyrin cluster size in control and after colchicine application either by dialysis into the neuron via the patch pipette or to the media for 3 h, similar to the protocol used to obtain the structural data (see Fig. 3). As shown in Fig. 4, C and D, both colchicine treatments gave a high positive correlation which ranged from 0.92 to 0.97. Similar results were found when the quantal amplitude was correlated with the gephyrin cluster intensity (r = 0.88). The results support the conclusion that colchicine action on glycinergic activity is produced by a modification in postsynaptic receptor clusters.
The data in Fig. 3 was obtained using an antibody against gephyrin. Gephyrin immunolabeling constitutes a good method for performing high-resolution morphological analysis of postsynaptic cluster size and structure due to its favorable fixation tolerance and epitope display characteristics (Alvarez et al. 1997; Kirsch and Betz 1995; Triller et al. 1985, 1990). Additional experiments were performed with an antibody that targets GlyR 1/2 subunits, which co-localized with 75 ± 2% of gephyrin clusters (Fig. 5A). Similar to the action on gephyrin clusters, colchicine (3 h to the media) decreased the size of synaptic GlyR clusters in immature neurons (71 ± 6% of control, P < 0.01; Fig. 5, C and D), and the effect became less evident in intermediate neurons (90 ± 7% of control, P > 0.05). Mature neurons were not analyzed because colchicine had no action on either glycinergic mIPSCs or gephyrin cluster size/intensity.
|
; Kneussel et al. 1999), and we found that 48 ± 4% of 2-containing GABAARs clusters co-localized with gephyrin in immature spinal neurons (Fig. 5B). Therefore it is possible that colchicine treatment might also affect the properties of synaptic GABAAR clusters. Contrary to this idea, our results showed that colchicine did not alter the size of synaptic GABAAR2 clusters in immature (108 ± 3% of control) and intermediate (106 ± 3% of control) neurons (Fig. 5E). This lack of effect is in agreement with a previous study from our laboratory that showed that colchicine was unable to alter GABAergic synaptic currents in these spinal neurons (van Zundert et al. 2002).
Immature cultured spinal cord neurons express 2 and 1 GlyRs in their synapses
During the course of our study, we noted that colchicine treatment not only caused a reduction in the amplitude and frequency of glycinergic mIPSCs, but it also accelerated its kinetics in immature neurons (Fig. 6A). Interestingly, the decay-phase of mIPSCs became approximately three times faster with neuronal maturation, and colchicine was no longer able to accelerate these rapid currents (Fig. 6, B and C). For instance, while glycinergic mIPSCs in control immature neurons displayed a mean decay-time constant of 13.1 ± 1.8 ms (n = 6 cells), this value was 8.3 ± 1.1 ms in colchicine-treated neurons (n = 5 cells, P < 0.05). In intermediate (7.9 ± 1.4 ms, n = 5) and mature neurons (4.3 ± 0.4 ms, n = 5 cells), the glycinergic currents displayed a faster decay-time constant and colchicine did not significantly modify these values (Fig. 6, B and C). The mean rise-time of mIPSCs, on the other hand, slightly decreased during maturation (15% from 2.6 ± 0.3, P > 0.05) and was unaffected by colchicine. The properties of developing mIPSCs in spinal neurons are in agreement with those reported in developing brain stem motoneurons (Singer et al. 1998).
|
2 GlyRs (slow) to adult 1 GlyRs (fast) (Ali et al. 2000; Krupp et al. 1994; Singer et al. 1998; Takahashi et al. 1992). Two independent experiments support the idea that these changes are recapitulated in cultured mouse spinal cord neurons. First, using RT-PCR, we found that 1 and -subunit mRNA levels were high at all three developmental stages, while the 2-subunit expression was strongly down-regulated in mature neurons (Fig. 7B). No mRNA for the 3-subunit was detected during any of the three developmental stages. Similar expression patterns were previously described during the development of cultured rat spinal neurons (Bechade et al. 1996) and brain stem motoneurons (Singer et al. 1998). Second, we found that 100 µM picrotoxin, a toxin known to differentially affect 2 (IC50 = 0.3 mM) and 1 (IC50 = 1 mM) GlyRs (Pribilla et al. 1992), significantly decreased the amplitude and decay-time of glycinergic mIPSCs in immature neurons (Fig. 7C), but not in mature neurons (Fig. 7D). Supporting the idea that the -subunit is required to cluster the GlyR in the postsynaptic membrane (Meyer et al. 1995), we found that continuous application of 10 µM picrotoxin, a concentration known to selectively inhibit homomeric (IC50 = 7 µM; Pribilla et al. 1992), was unable to affect glycinergic mIPSCs (data not shown). Taken together, these data suggest the presence of both 2 and 1 GlyRs in the postsynaptic membrane of immature neurons and predominantly 1 receptor in mature synapses.
|
The previous results suggest that colchicine and 100 µM picrotoxin could affect the same population of slow immature 2 GlyRs. Therefore, in the next series of experiments, we analyzed whether glycinergic activity of colchicine treated neurons (3 h in the media; 20 µM) displayed a different sensitivity to picrotoxin. We reasoned that if colchicine provoked the reduction of 2 GlyRs, this would reduce picrotoxin sensitivity of the synaptic currents. The open circles in the graph of Fig. 8A summarize data from five immature control neurons. In the absence of picrotoxin, glycinergic mIPSC amplitudes ranged from 15 to 150 pA (mean, 42 ± 7 pA), and the decay-time constant varied from 2 to 35 ms (mean, 12.5 ± 2.4 ms). Picrotoxin caused a strong reduction in glycinergic events with a large amplitude and slow decay-phase (Fig. 8A, 
). After treatment of sister cultures with colchicine, we found that the average amplitude and decay-time constant of mIPSCs was reduced to 32 ± 4 pA and 7.7 ± 1.4 ms, respectively (Fig. 8B, 
). Interestingly, most glycinergic mIPSCs in these colchicine-treated neurons (n = 4) were resistant to picrotoxin application (Fig. 8B, ).
|
In summary, these results suggest that glycinergic mIPSCs become less sensitive to picrotoxin after colchicine treatment, and support the hypothesis that colchicine predominantly affects neonatal 2 GlyRs, leaving the adult 1 GlyRs unaffected.
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
The data presented here and in a previous report (van Zundert et al. 2002) strongly suggest that colchicine actions on glycinergic currents are due to structural alterations of postsynaptic receptor clusters consequent to microtubule depolymerization. We found no evidence supporting the idea that intracellular dialysis of colchicine in the postsynaptic neurons might affect neurotransmitter release from presynaptic terminals. For instance, although glycinergic transmission was reduced by intracellular dialysis of colchicine, the synaptic transmissions mediated by GABAARs and AMPARs remained largely unmodified (van Zundert et al. 2002). In cultured spinal neurons, GlyRs and GABAARs frequently co-localize in postsynaptic gephyrin-containing clusters opposite to presynaptic boutons containing inhibitory amino acids (Dumoulin et al. 2000). Hence, it is not likely that alterations in neurotransmitter release would affect glycinergic and leave GABAAergic transmission unaffected. In addition, application of extracellular colchicine (20 min) did not reduce the frequency or amplitude of glycinergic mIPSCs. Further evidence supporting a postsynaptic action of colchicine was obtained during this study. First, intracellular application of the microtubule stabilizer GTP completely blocked the colchicine-induced reduction in glycinergic activity. Second, the rare occurrence of autapses in these cultured spinal neurons indicate that the effect of colchicine cannot be explained by depolymerization of vesicle-associated microtubules in presynaptic autaptic terminals. Finally, we found that the reduction in event frequency with colchicine could be well reproduced by changing the Cl- driving force to obtain mIPSCs with smaller amplitudes.
Colchicine has been shown to competitively inhibit 2 and 1 GlyR subunits in Xenopus oocytes with IC50s of approximately 64 and 324 µM, respectively (Machu 1998). Analysis the whole cell glycine-activated current during in vitro development of spinal cord cultures demonstrated that immature and mature neurons display a similar sensitivity to colchicine with IC50s of 143 ± 28 and 187 ± 13 µM, respectively. In addition, extracellular application of 20 µM colchicine had no effect on glycinergic mIPSCs. Taken together, the effects observed with internal dialysis of 20 µM colchicine in immature and mature neurons are best explained by a postsynaptic mechanism consequent to microtubule disruption (see van Zundert et al. 2002).
In addition, our results provide good evidence supporting the idea that microtubules are important to maintain gephyrin/GlyRs clustered in the postsynaptic membrane of immature neurons, since we found that colchicine efficiently reduced the size and luminosity of postsynaptic gephyrin/GlyR clusters. Previous studies (Lim et al. 1999; Oleskevich et al. 1999), in addition to our present data, suggest that the amplitude of glycine-mediated mIPSCs and the size of gephyrin clusters are positively correlated. Colchicine reduced both parameters in immature, but not in mature neurons. In conclusion, the reduction in the amplitude of the glycinergic mIPSCs after microtubule disruption can be best explained by a structural alteration of the postsynaptic density that results in decreased numbers of functional GlyRs in the synapse.
Microtubule disruption preferentially affects immature 2-GlyRs
While the amplitude of the mIPSC appears to reflect the number of postsynaptic receptors, its decay is dictated by the kinetic properties of single channels. For example, in overexpression studies, 1 and 2 subunits assemble homomeric GlyRs with mean open times of 2 and 174 ms, respectively (Takahashi et al. 1992). In parallel with the known subunits switching from 2 to 1 subunits during postnatal development (Becker et al. 1988), patch-clamp analysis in spinal cord slices demonstrated that the open time of native GlyR channels decreased from 40 ms at E20 to 6 ms at P22 (Takahashi et al. 1992). Therefore it is believed that the differences in the decay-phase of glycinergic mIPSCs during development depends on a transition between slow 2 and fast 1 subunits (Krupp et al. 1994; Legendre 2001; Singer et al. 1998; Takahashi et al. 1992). We also found that the time-course of the glycinergic mIPSCs markedly accelerated with maturation of spinal neurons in culture. Analysis of mIPSCs properties showed that immature slow events were more sensitive to picrotoxin than mature faster events. However, our data suggest that immature glycinergic currents are primarily associated to 2 subunits since these slow decay mIPSCs were affected by higher picrotoxin concentrations than those used to inhibit (IC50 = 7 µM) homomeric receptors (Legendre 1997; Pribilla et al. 1992; Tapia and Aguayo 1998; Ye 2000). This conclusion is in agreement with other previous studies in immature spinal neurons showing the presence of a 48 pS channel, typical of heteromeric 2 receptors, and not a >85 pS associated to homomeric receptors (Bormann et al. 1987, 1993; Takahashi and Momiyama 1991; Twyman and Macdonald 1991). Similar to results obtained in newborn brain motoneurons (Singer et al. 1998), our results indicate that immature neurons express GlyRs that are formed by 2 and subunits. During maturation, the mRNA level for the 2-subunit decreased, shifting the balance of mRNA expression toward 1 and -subunits. In addition, analysis of the decay-time constant and the sensitivity to picrotoxin suggests that mature neurons express primarily 1 GlyRs. This finding is in agreement with previous studies (Krupp et al. 1994; Singer et al. 1998; Takahashi et al. 1992).
These data suggest that mature and immature GlyRs are composed of -subunits and that they are linked to underlying postsynaptic microtubules. However, disruption of microtubules in immature neurons selectively affected a population of glycinergic currents displaying slow decay-times, thus leaving faster events unaffected. These results indicate that microtubules regulate the immature 2 GlyR, but not the adult 1 receptor. Two lines of evidence support this idea. First, the picrotoxin-sensitive population of mIPSCs was no longer evident after disruption of microtubules with colchicine, suggesting they represent the same population of receptors. Second, mature neurons with fast 1 GlyRs were insensitive to colchicine.
Based on the current understanding regarding functional and structural properties of synaptic GlyRs, we postulate a model in which immature neurons express both 2 and 1 GlyRs at the postsynaptic membrane, while mature neurons contain mainly 1 GlyRs at the synapse (Fig. 9). Microtubules, via gephyrin, anchor both types of GlyRs in the postsynaptic membrane. On microtubule depolymerization, the molecular complex made up by gephyrin and 2 GlyRs is liberated and diffuses to the extrasynaptic membrane, reducing glycinergic mIPSCs and gephyrin/GlyR cluster size and density. In contrast, colchicine treatment does not affect 1 GlyR/gephyrin clusters in immature and mature neurons (Fig. 9). This can be explained by the linkage of GlyR/gephyrin complexes to microtubules that are stabilized by posttranslational modifications, such as acetylation and/or the binding of molecules such as MAPs (Nogales 2000). In addition, the interaction of GlyRs with subsynaptic microtubules could depend on the type of subunit present in the receptor rather than to differences in cytoskeleton properties. Interestingly, more than 10 potential gephyrin isoforms can be generated by alternative splicing, allowing 1- and 2-GlyRs to associate with gephyrin variants that have distinct affinities for cytoskeletal elements. Thus the developmental dependent change of the GlyR molecular composition could affect the manner in which the receptor interacts with the gephyrin scaffold and subsynaptic microtubules.
|
1 GlyR/gephyrin complexes have accumulated in the synapse during maturation, gephyrin forms stable hexagonal scaffolds in the PSD, which maintain 1 GlyRs anchored at the postsynaptic membrane and independent of microtubules (Fig. 9; see also Kneussel and Betz 2000; Liu et al. 2000). Thus as proposed for the role of actin filaments in excitatory hippocampal synapses (Allison et al. 2000; Zhang and Benson 2001), the state of microtubules could play a role in the development and maintenance of predominantly immature glycinergic synapses, which need to be highly plastic to shape efficient synaptic transmission. In agreement with this idea, electron microscopy studies have not consistently found microtubules within the 20-to 30-nm region beneath adult symmetric (inhibitory) or gephyrin-containing synapses (Alvarez et al. 1997; Peters et al. 1991; Triller et al. 1985, 1987). It is possible that postsynaptic microtubules are not well preserved in routine or immunocytochemical electron microscopy preparations as previously shown for presynaptic microtubules (Gray 1975). Accordingly, some microtubules were shown in close relationship to immature and mature postsynaptic densities (not necessarily inhibitory) in tissue sections or cultures pretreated with taxol, cryosubstitution techniques, or other procedures aimed to stabilize cytoskeletal components (Bird 1989; Ichimura and Hashimoto 1988; LeBeux and Willemot 1975; Westrum and Gray 1977). However, the most convincing ultrastructural evidence available on microtubule presence in the PSD was obtained in neonatal synapses (Westrum and Gray 1977). To our knowledge, no systematic ultrastructural analysis of the spatial relationships between microtubules and the postsynaptic density of inhibitory synapses is available.
In conclusion, this study shows that disruption of microtubules by colchicine reduced both postsynaptic glycinergic currents and the size and density of synaptic gephyrin clusters in immature spinal neurons. Thus this study expands those on regulation of n-methyl-D-aspartic acid receptors (NMDARs), AMPARs, and nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs) by the state of the cytoskeleton (Allison et al. 1998, 2000; Sattler et al. 2000; Shoop et al. 2000). Moreover, our data suggest that microtubule disruption affects immature synapses rather than mature synapses. This property could explain previous controversial findings in which disruption of microtubules altered the number and morphology of gephyrin clusters in 10-12 DIV spinal neurons (Kirsch and Betz 1995), while gephyrin distribution in >21 DIV hippocampal neurons was not affected by microtubule depolymerization (Allison et al. 2000).
|
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
|
2 antibody available and L. J. Aguayo for expert technical assistance. GRANTS
Research support was provided by Fondo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia (FONDECYT) 2000135 and Programa de Mejoramiento de la Calidad y Equidad de la Educación Superior del Ministerio de Educaión UCH9903 to B. van Zundert, FONDECYT 1980106, 1020475, and GIA-DIUC to L. G. Aquayo, FONDECYT 2990063 to J. C. Tapia, the National Science Foundation 9984441 to F. J. Alvarez, and National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Grants NS-24830 and NS-41489 to H. H. Yeh.
|
|
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: L. G. Aguayo, Dept. of Physiology, University of Concepción, P.O. Box 160-C, Concepción, Chile (E-mail: laguayo{at}udec.cl).
|
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
Ali DW, Drapeau P, and Legendre P. Development of spontaneous glycinergic currents in the Mauthner neuron of the zebrafish embryo. J Neurophysiol 84: 1726-1736, 2000.
Allison DW, Chervin AS, Gelfand VI, and Craig AM. Postsynaptic scaffolds of excitatory and inhibitory synapses in hippocampal neurons: maintenance of core components independent of actin filaments and microtubules. J Neurosci 20: 4545-4554, 2000.
Allison DW, Gelfand VI, Spector I, and Craig AM. Role of actin in anchoring postsynaptic receptors in cultured hippocampal neurons: differential attachment of NMDA versus AMPA receptors. J Neurosci 18: 2423-2436, 1998.
Alvarez FJ, Dewey DE, Harrington DA, and Fyffe RE. Cell-type specific organization of glycine receptor clusters in the mammalian spinal cord. J Comp Neurol 379: 150-170, 1997.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Bechade C, Colin I, Kirsch J, Betz H, and Triller A. Expression of glycine receptor alpha subunits and gephyrin in cultured spinal neurons. Eur J Neurosci 8: 429-435, 1996.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Becker D-M, Hich W, and Betz H. Glycine receptor heterogeneity in rat spinal cord during postnatal development. EMBO J 7: 3717-3726, 1988.[Web of Science][Medline]
Bekkers JM and Stevens CF. Excitatory and inhibitory autaptic currents in isolated hippocampal neurons maintained in cell culture. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 88: 7834-7838, 1991.
Bird MM. Microtubules and their relationships with other cytoskeletal components at cholinergic tectal synapses in culture. J Anat 166: 1-6, 1989.[Web of Science][Medline]
Bormann J, Hamill OP, and Sakmann B. Mechanism of anion permeation through channels gated by glycine and gamma-aminobutyric acid in mouse cultured spinal neurones. J Physiol 385: 243-286, 1987.
Bormann J, Rundstrom N, Betz H, and Langosch D. Residues within transmembrane segment M2 determine chloride conductance of glycine receptor homo- and hetero-oligomers. EMBO J 12: 3729-3737, 1993.[Web of Science][Medline]
Colin I, Rostaing P, and Triller A. Gephyrin accumulates at specific plasmalemma loci during neuronal maturation in vitro. J Comp Neurol 374: 467-479, 1996.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Cotman CW, Banker G, Churchill L, and Taylor D. Isolation of postsynaptic densities form rat brain. J Cell Biol 63: 441-455, 1974.
Dumoulin A, Levi S, Riveau B, Gasnier B, and Triller A. Formation of mixed glycine and GABAergic synapses in cultured spinal cord neurons. Eur J Neurosci 12: 3883-3892, 2000.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Essrich C, Lorez M, Benson JA, Fritschy JM, and Luscher B. Postsynaptic clustering of major GABAA receptor subtypes requires the gamma 2 subunit and gephyrin. Nat Neurosci 1: 563-571, 1999.
Feng G, Tintrup H, Kirsch J, Nichol MC, Kuhse J, Betz H, and Sanes JR. Dual requirement for gephyrin in glycine receptor clustering and molybdoenzyme activity. Science 282: 1321-1324, 1998.
Geiman EJ, Knox MC, and Alvarez FJ. Postnatal maturation of gephyrin/glycine receptor clusters on developing Renshaw cells. J Comp Neurol 426: 130-142, 2000.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Gray EG. Presynaptic microtubules and their association with synaptic vesicles. Proc R Soc Lond Biol Sci 190: 367-372, 1975.[Medline]
Ichimura T and Hashimoto PH. Structural components in the synaptic clefts captured by freeze substitution and deep etching of directly frozen cerebellar cortex. J Neurocytol 17: 3-12, 1988.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Kelly PT and Cotman CW. Synaptic proteins. Characterization of tubulin and actin and identification of a distinct postsynaptic density polypeptide. J Cell Biol 79: 173-183, 1978.
Kins S, Betz H, and Kirsch J. Collybistin, a newly identified brain-specific GEF, induces submembrane clustering of gephyrin. Nat Neurosci 3: 22-29, 2000.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Kirchhoff F, Mulhardt C, Pastor A, Becker CM, and Kettenmann H. Expression of glycine receptor subunits in glial cells of the rat spinal cord. J Neurochem 66: 1383-1390, 1996.[Web of Science][Medline]
Kirsch J. Assembly of signaling machinery at the postsynaptic membrane. Curr Opin Neurobiol 9: 329-335, 1999.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Kirsch J and Betz H. The postsynaptic localization of the glycine receptor-associated protein gephyrin is regulated by the cytoskeleton. J Neurosci 15: 4148-4156, 1995.[Abstract]
Kirsch J, Langosch D, Prior P, Littauer UZ, Schmitt B, and Betz H. The 93-kDa glycine receptor-associated protein binds to tubulin. J Biol Chem 266: 22242-22245, 1991.
Kirsch J, Wolters I, Triller A, and Betz H. Gephyrin antisense oligonucleotides prevent glycine receptor clustering in spinal neurons. Nature 366: 745-748, 1993.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kneussel M and Betz H. Clustering of inhibitory neurotransmitter receptors at developing postsynaptic sites: the membrane activation model. Trends Neurosci 23: 429-435, 2000.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Kneussel M, Brandstatter JH, Laube B, Stahl S, Muller U, and Betz H. Loss of postsynaptic GABA(A) receptor clustering in gephyrin-deficient mice. J Neurosci 19: 9289-9297, 1999.
Krupp J, Larmet Y, and Feltz P. Postnatal change of glycinergic IPSC decay in sympathetic preganglionic neurons. Neuroreport 5: 2437-2440, 1994.[Web of Science][Medline]
LeBeux YJ and Willemot J. An ultrastructural study of the microfilaments in rat barin by means of E-PTA staining and heavy meromyosin labeling. II. The synapses. Cell Tissue Res 160: 37-68, 1975.[Web of Science][Medline]
Legendre P. Pharmacological evidence for two types of postsynaptic glycinergic receptors on the Mauthner cell of 52-h-old zebrafish larvae. J Neurophysiol 77: 2400-2415, 1997.
Legendre P. The glycinergic inhibitory synapse. Cell Mol Life Sci 58: 760-793, 2001.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Lim R, Alvarez FJ, and Walmsley B. Quantal size is correlated with receptor cluster area at glycinergic synapses in the rat brainstem. J Physiol 516: 505-512, 1999.
Liu MT, Wuebbens MM, Rajagopalan KV, and Schindelin H. Crystal structure of the gephyrin-related molybdenum cofactor biosynthesis protein MogA from Escherichia coli. J Biol Chem 275: 1814-1822, 2000.
Machu T. Colchicine competitively antagonizes glycine receptors expressed in Xenopus oocytes. Neuropharmacology 37: 391-396, 1998.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Mammoto A, Sasaki T, Asakura T, Hotta I, Imamura H, Takahashi K, Matsuura Y, Shirao T, and Takai Y. Interactions of drebrin and gephyrin with profilin. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 243: 86-89, 1998.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Matus AI and Taff-Jones DH. Morphology and molecular composition of isolated postsynaptic junctional structures. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 203: 135-151, 1978.[Medline]
Meier J, Meunier-Durmort C, Forest C, Triller A, and Vannier C. Formation of glycine receptor clusters and their accumulation at synapses. J Cell Sci 113: 2783-2795, 2000.[Abstract]
Meyer G, Kirsch J, Betz H, and Langosch D. Identification of a gephyrin binding motif on the glycine receptor beta subunit. Neuron 15: 563-572, 1995.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Nogales E. A structural view of microtubule dynamics. Cell Mol Life Sci 56: 133-142, 2000.
Oleskevich S, Alvarez FJ, and Walmsley B. Glycinergic miniature synaptic currents and receptor cluster sizes differ between spinal cord interneurons. J Neurophysiol 82: 312-319, 1999.
Peters A, Palay SL, and Webster H. The Fine Structure of the Nervous System: The Neurons and Supporting Cells. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders, 1991.
Pribilla I, Takagi T, Langosch D, Bormann J, and Betz H. The atypical M2 segment of the beta subunit confers picrotoxinin resistance to inhibitory glycine receptor channels. EMBO J 11: 4305-4311, 1992.[Web of Science][Medline]
Rosenberg M, Meier J, Triller A, and Vannier C. Dynamics of glycine receptor insertion in the neuronal plasma membrane. J Neurosci 21: 5036-5044, 2001.
Rosenmund C and Westbrook GL. Calcium-induced actin depolymerization reduces NMDA channel activity. Neuron 10: 805-814, 1993.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Sattler R, Xiong Z, Lu WY, MacDonald JF, and Tymianski M. Distinct roles of synaptic and extrasynaptic NMDA receptors in excitotoxicity. J Neurosci 20: 22-33, 2000.
Sheng M and Pak DT. Ligand-gated ion channel interactions with cytoskeletal and signaling proteins. Annu Rev Physiol 62: 755-778, 2000.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Shoop RD, Yamada N, and Berg DK. Cytoskeletal links of neuronal acetylcholine receptors containing alpha 7 subunits. J Neurosci 20: 4021-4029, 2000.
Singer JH, Talley EM, Bayliss DA, and Berger AJ. Development of glycinergic synaptic transmission to rat brain stem motoneurons. J Neurophysiol 80: 2608-2620, 1998.
Takahashi T and Momiyama A. Single-channel currents underlying glycinergic inhibitory postsynaptic responses in spinal neurons. Neuron 7: 965-969, 1991.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Takahashi T, Momiyama A, Hirai K, Hishinuma F, and Akagi H. Functional correlation of fetal and adult forms of glycine receptors with developmental changes in inhibitory synaptic receptor channels. Neuron 9: 1155-1161, 1992.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Tapia JC and Aguayo LG. Changes in the properties of developing glycine receptors in cultured mouse spinal neurons. Synapse 28: 185-194, 1998.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Triller A, Cluzeaud F, and Korn H. Gamma-aminobutyric acid-containing terminals can be apposed to glycine receptors at central synapses. J Cell Biol 104: 947-956, 1987.
Triller A, Cluzeaud F, Pfeiffer F, Betz H, and Korn H. Distribution of glycine receptors at central synapses: an immunoelectron microscopy study. J Cell Biol 101: 683-688, 1985.
Triller A, Seitanidou T, Franksson O, and Korn H. Size and shape of glycine receptor clusters in a central neuron exhibit a somato-dendritic gradient. New Biol 2: 637-641, 1990.[Medline]
Twyman RE and Macdonald RL. Kinetic properties of the glycine receptor main- and sub-conductance states of mouse spinal cord neurones in culture. J Physiol 435: 303-331, 1991.
van Zundert B, Alvarez FJ, and Aguayo LG. Colchicine affects the amplitude of glycinergic synaptic currents and the size of glycine receptor clusters in the postsynaptic membrane. Soc Neurosci Abstr 27: 728, 2001.
van Zundert B, Alvarez FJ, Yevenes GE, Cárcamo JG, Vera JC, and Aguayo LG. Glycine receptors involved in synaptic transmission are selectively regulated by the cytoskeleton in mouse spinal neurons. J Neurophysiol 87: 640-644, 2002.
Walmsley B, Alvarez FJ, and Fyffe RE. Diversity of structure and function at mammalian central synapses. Trends Neurosci 21: 81-88, 1998.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Westrum LE and Gray EG. Microtubules associated with postsynaptic thickenings. J Neurocytol 6: 505-518, 1977.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Ye J. Physiology and pharmacology of native glycine receptors in developing rat ventral tegmental area neurons. Brain Res 862: 74-82, 2000.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Zhang W and Benson DL. Stages of synapse development defined by dependence on F-actin. J Neurosci 21: 5169-5181, 2001.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  H. Sun, X.-Q. Hu, M. B. Emerit, J. C. Schoenebeck, C. E. Kimmel, R. W. Peoples, A. Miko, and L. Zhang Modulation of 5-HT3 receptor desensitization by the light chain of microtubule-associated protein 1B expressed in HEK 293 cells J. Physiol., February 1, 2008; 586(3): 751 - 762. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. E. Yevenes, G. Moraga-Cid, L. Guzman, S. Haeger, L. Oliveira, J. Olate, G. Schmalzing, and L. G. Aguayo Molecular Determinants for G Protein beta{gamma} Modulation of Ionotropic Glycine Receptors J. Biol. Chem., December 22, 2006; 281(51): 39300 - 39307. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. Charrier, M.-V. Ehrensperger, M. Dahan, S. Levi, and A. Triller Cytoskeleton Regulation of Glycine Receptor Number at Synapses and Diffusion in the Plasma Membrane. J. Neurosci., August 15, 2006; 26(33): 8502 - 8511. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Hanus, M.-V. Ehrensperger, and A. Triller Activity-dependent movements of postsynaptic scaffolds at inhibitory synapses. J. Neurosci., April 26, 2006; 26(17): 4586 - 4595. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Gonzalez-Forero and F. J. Alvarez Differential Postnatal Maturation of GABAA, Glycine Receptor, and Mixed Synaptic Currents in Renshaw Cells and Ventral Spinal Interneurons J. Neurosci., February 23, 2005; 25(8): 2010 - 2023. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Gonzalez-Forero, A. M. Pastor, E. J. Geiman, B. Benitez-Temino, and F. J. Alvarez Regulation of Gephyrin Cluster Size and Inhibitory Synaptic Currents on Renshaw Cells by Motor Axon Excitatory Inputs J. Neurosci., January 12, 2005; 25(2): 417 - 429. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. A. Weiner, X. Wang, J. C. Tapia, and J. R. Sanes Inaugural Article: Gamma protocadherins are required for synaptic development in the spinal cord PNAS, January 4, 2005; 102(1): 8 - 14. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Visit Other APS Journals Online |
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
) and in the presence of colchicine (
). Top traces are typical averaged control responses obtained in immature (
1) and mature (
