Proteins involved in the trafficking and functional synaptic expression of AMPA and KA receptors

Participation of Glutamatergic Ionotropic Receptors in Excitotoxicity: The Neuroprotective Role of Prolactin

Glutamate (Glu) is known as the main excitatory neurotransmitter in the central nervous system. It can trigger a series of processes ranging from synaptic plasticity to neurophysiological regulation. To carry out its functions, Glu acts via interaction with its cognate receptors, which are ligand-dependent. Glutamatergic receptors include ionotropic and metabotropic categories. The first allows the passage of ions through the postsynaptic membrane, while the metabotropic subtype activates signaling cascades through second messengers. It is well known that an excess of extracellular Glu concentration induces overstimulation of ionotropic glutamatergic receptors (iGluRs), causing the excitotoxicity phenomenon that leads to neuronal damage and cell death. Excitotoxicity plays a crucial role in different brain pathologies such as brain strokes, epilepsy and neurodegenerative disorders. However, until now, there are no effective neuroprotective compounds to prevent or rescue neurons from excitotoxicity. Thus, the continuous elucidation of the molecular mechanisms underlying excitotoxicity in order to prevent damage or neuronal death is necessary. Therefore, the aim of this review was to summarize the current knowledge regarding iGluRs, while describing their structures and molecular mechanisms of action, including their role in excitotoxicity, as well as the current strategies to reduce excitotoxic damage. Particularly, strategies mediated by prolactin, a somatotropin family-related hormone that displays a significant neuroprotective effect against both Glu and kainic acid-induced excitotoxicity in the hippocampus, are described. Finally, the role of prolactin as a possible molecule in the treatment of excitotoxicity in neurological diseases is discussed.

In-depth analysis of the synaptic plasma membrane proteome of small hippocampal slices using an integrated approach

Comprehensive knowledge of the synaptic plasma membrane (SPM) proteome of a distinct brain region in a defined pathological state would greatly advance the understanding of the underlying biology of synaptic plasticity. The development of innovative approaches for studying the SPM proteome of small brain tissues is highly desired. This study presents a suitable protocol that integrates biotinylation-based affinity capture of cell surface-exposed proteins, isolation of synaptosomes, and biochemical extraction of SPM proteins from biotinylated hippocampal slices. The effectiveness of this integrated method was initially confirmed using immunoblot analysis of synaptic markers. Subsequently, we used highly sensitive mass spectrometry and streamlined bioinformatics to analyze the obtained SPM protein-enriched fraction. Our workflow positively identified 241 SPM proteins comprising 85 previously reported classical proteins from the pre- and/or post-synaptic membrane and 156 nonclassical proteins that localized to both the plasma membrane and synapse, and have not been previously reported as SPM proteins. Further analyses revealed considerable similarities in the physicochemical and functional properties of these proteins. Analysis of the interaction network using STRING indicated that the two groups showed a relatively strong functional correlation. Using MCODE analysis, we observed that 65 nonclassical SPM proteins formed 12 highly interconnected clusters with 47 classical SPM proteins, suggesting that they were the more likely SPM candidates. Taken together, the results of this study provide an integrated tool for analyzing the SPM proteome of small brain tissues, as well as a dataset of putative novel SPM proteins to improve the understanding of hippocampal synaptic plasticity.

Cross-talk and regulation between glutamate and GABAB receptors

Brain function depends on co-ordinated transmission of signals from both excitatory and inhibitory neurotransmitters acting upon target neurons. NMDA, AMPA and mGluR receptors are the major subclasses of glutamate receptors that are involved in excitatory transmission at synapses, mechanisms of activity dependent synaptic plasticity, brain development and many neurological diseases. In addition to canonical role of regulating presynaptic release and activating postsynaptic potassium channels, GABA_B receptors also regulate glutamate receptors. There is increasing evidence that metabotropic GABA_B receptors are now known to play an important role in modulating the excitability of circuits throughout the brain by directly influencing different types of postsynaptic glutamate receptors. Specifically, GABA_B receptors affect the expression, activity and signaling of glutamate receptors under physiological and pathological conditions. Conversely, NMDA receptor activity differentially regulates GABA_B receptor subunit expression, signaling and function. In this review I will describe how GABA_B receptor activity influence glutamate receptor function and vice versa. Such a modulation has widespread implications for the control of neurotransmission, calcium-dependent neuronal function, pain pathways and in various psychiatric and neurodegenerative diseases.

Metabotropic glutamate receptors in the trafficking of ionotropic glutamate and GABA(A) receptors at central synapses

The trafficking of ionotropic glutamate (AMPA, NMDA and kainate) and GABA(A) receptors in and out of, or laterally along, the postsynaptic membrane has recently emerged as an important mechanism in the regulation of synaptic function, both under physiological and pathological conditions, such as information processing, learning and memory formation, neuronal development, and neurodegenerative diseases. Non-ionotropic glutamate receptors, primarily group I metabotropic glutamate receptors (mGluRs), co-exist with the postsynaptic ionotropic glutamate and GABA(A) receptors. The ability of mGluRs to regulate postsynaptic phosphorylation and Ca(2+) concentration, as well as their interactions with postsynaptic scaffolding/signaling proteins, makes them well suited to influence the trafficking of ionotropic glutamate and GABA(A) receptors. Recent studies have provided insights into how mGluRs may impose such an influence at central synapses, and thus how they may affect synaptic signaling and the maintenance of long-term synaptic plasticity. In this review we will discuss some of the recent progress in this area: i) long-term synaptic plasticity and the involvement of mGluRs; ii) ionotropic glutamate receptor trafficking and long-term synaptic plasticity; iii) the involvement of postsynaptic group I mGluRs in regulating ionotropic glutamate receptor trafficking; iv) involvement of postsynaptic group I mGluRs in regulating GABA(A) receptor trafficking; v) and the trafficking of postsynaptic group I mGluRs themselves.

Ultrastructural localisation and differential agonist-induced regulation of AMPA and kainate receptors present at the presynaptic active zone and postsynaptic density

Activity-dependent changes in ionotropic glutamate receptors at the postsynaptic membrane are well established and this regulation plays a central role in the expression of synaptic plasticity. However, very little is known about the distributions and regulation of ionotropic receptors at presynaptic sites. To determine if presynaptic receptors are subject to similar regulatory processes we investigated the localisation and modulation of AMPA (GluR1, GluR2, GluR3) and kainate (GluR6/7, KA2) receptor subunits by ultrasynaptic separation and immunoblot analysis of rat brain synaptosomes. All of the subunits were enriched in the postsynaptic fraction but were also present in the presynaptic and non-synaptic synaptosome fractions. AMPA stimulation resulted in a marked decrease in postsynaptic GluR2 and GluR3 subunits, but an increase in GluR6/7. Conversely, GluR2 and GluR3 increased in the presynaptic fraction whereas GluR6/7 decreased. There were no significant changes in any of the compartments for GluR1. NMDA treatment decreased postsynaptic GluR1, GluR2 and GluR6/7 but increased presynaptic levels of these subunits. NMDA treatment did not evoke changes in GluR3 localisation. Our results demonstrate that presynaptic and postsynaptic subunits are regulated in opposite directions by AMPA and NMDA stimulation.

The 4.1 protein coracle mediates subunit-selective anchoring of Drosophila glutamate receptors to the postsynaptic actin cytoskeleton

Glutamatergic Drosophila neuromuscular junctions contain two spatially, biophysically, and pharmacologically distinct subtypes of postsynaptic glutamate receptor (GluR). These receptor subtypes appear to be molecularly identical except that A receptors contain the subunit GluRIIA (but not GluRIIB), and B receptors contain the subunit GluRIIB (but not GluRIIA). A- and B-type receptors are coexpressed in the same cells, in which they form homotypic clusters. During development, A- and B-type receptors can be differentially regulated. The mechanisms that allow differential segregation and regulation of A- and B-type receptors are unknown. Presumably, A- and B-type receptors are differentially anchored to the membrane cytoskeleton, but essentially nothing is known about how Drosophila glutamate receptors are localized or anchored. We identified coracle, a homolog of mammalian brain 4.1 proteins, in yeast two-hybrid and genetic screens for proteins that interact with and localize Drosophila glutamate receptors. Coracle interacts with the C terminus of GluRIIA but not GluRIIB. To test whether coracle is required for glutamate receptor localization, we immunocytochemically and electrophysiologically examined receptors in coracle mutants. In coracle mutants, synaptic A-type receptors are lost, but there is no detectable change in B-type receptor function or localization. Pharmacological disruption of postsynaptic actin phenocopies the coracle mutants, suggesting that A-type receptors are anchored to the actin cytoskeleton via coracle, whereas B-type receptors are anchored at the synapse by another (yet unknown) mechanism.

Genes involved in Drosophila glutamate receptor expression and localization

Background

A clear picture of the mechanisms controlling glutamate receptor expression, localization, and stability remains elusive, possibly due to an incomplete understanding of the proteins involved. We screened transposon mutants generated by the ongoing Drosophila Gene Disruption Project in an effort to identify the different types of genes required for glutamate receptor cluster development.

Results

To enrich for non-silent insertions with severe disruptions in glutamate receptor clustering, we identified and focused on homozygous lethal mutants in a collection of 2185 BG and KG transposon mutants generated by the BDGP Gene Disruption Project. 202 lethal mutant lines were individually dissected to expose glutamatergic neuromuscular junctions, stained using antibodies that recognize neuronal membrane and the glutamate receptor subunit GluRIIA, and viewed using laser-scanning confocal microscopy. We identified 57 mutants with qualitative differences in GluRIIA expression and/or localization. 84% of mutants showed loss of receptors and/or clusters; 16% of mutants showed an increase in receptors. Insertion loci encode a variety of protein types, including cytoskeleton proteins and regulators, kinases, phosphatases, ubiquitin ligases, mucins, cell adhesion proteins, transporters, proteins controlling gene expression and protein translation, and proteins of unknown/novel function. Expression pattern analyses and complementation tests, however, suggest that any single mutant – even if a mutant gene is uniquely tagged – must be interpreted with caution until the mutation is validated genetically and phenotypically.

Conclusion

Our study identified 57 transposon mutants with qualitative differences in glutamate receptor expression and localization. Despite transposon tagging of every insertion locus, extensive validation is needed before one can have confidence in the role of any individual gene. Alternatively, one can focus on the types of genes identified, rather than the identities of individual genes. This genomic approach, which circumvents many technical caveats in favor of a wider perspective, suggests that glutamate receptor cluster formation involves many cellular processes, including: 1) cell adhesion and signaling, 2) extensive and relatively specific regulation of gene expression and RNA, 3) the actin and microtubule cytoskeletons, and 4) many novel/unexplored processes, such as those involving mucin/polycystin-like proteins and proteins of unknown function.

Discs-large (DLG) is clustered by presynaptic innervation and regulates postsynaptic glutamate receptor subunit composition in Drosophila

BACKGROUND

Drosophila discs-large (DLG) is the sole representative of a large class of mammalian MAGUKs, including human DLG, SAP 97, SAP102, and PSD-95. MAGUKs are thought to be critical for postsynaptic assembly at glutamatergic synapses. However, glutamate receptor cluster formation has never been examined in Drosophila DLG mutants. The fly neuromuscular junction (NMJ) is a genetically-malleable model glutamatergic synapse widely used to address questions regarding the molecular mechanisms of synapse formation and growth. Here, we use immunohistochemistry, confocal microscopy, and electrophysiology to examine whether fly NMJ glutamate receptor clusters form normally in DLG mutants. We also address the question of how DLG itself is localized to the synapse by testing whether presynaptic innervation is required for postsynaptic DLG clustering, and whether DLG localization requires the presence of postsynaptic glutamate receptors.

RESULTS

There are thought to be two classes of glutamate receptors in the Drosophila NMJ: 1) receptors that contain the subunit GluRIIA, and 2) receptors that contain the subunit GluRIIB. In DLG mutants, antibody staining for the glutamate receptor subunit GluRIIA is normal, but antibody staining for the glutamate receptor subunit GluRIIB is significantly reduced. Electrophysiological analysis shows an overall loss of functional postsynaptic glutamate receptors, along with changes in receptor biophysical properties that are consistent with a selective loss of GluRIIB from the synapse. In uninnervated postsynaptic muscles, neither glutamate receptors nor DLG cluster at synapses. DLG clusters normally in the complete absence of glutamate receptors.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that DLG controls glutamate receptor subunit composition by selectively stabilizing GluRIIB-containing receptors at the synapse. We also show that DLG, like glutamate receptors, is localized only after the presynaptic neuron contacts the postsynaptic cell. We hypothesize that glutamate receptors and DLG cluster in response to parallel signals from the presynaptic neuron, after which DLG regulates subunit composition by stabilizing (probably indirectly) receptors that contain the GluRIIB subunit. The mechanism(s) stabilizing GluRIIA-containing receptors remains unknown.

Kainate receptor trafficking: physiological roles and molecular mechanisms

Recently, there has been intense interest in the mechanisms regulating the trafficking and synaptic targeting of kainate receptors in neurons. This topic is still in its infancy when compared with studies of trafficking of other ionotropic glutamate receptors; however, it is already clear that mechanisms exist for subunit- and splice variant-specific trafficking of kainate receptors. There is also enormous diversity of kainate receptor targeting, with the best-studied neurons in this regard being hippocampal CA3 pyramidal neurons and CA1 GABAergic interneurons. This review summarizes the current state of knowledge on this topic, focusing on the molecular mechanisms of kainate receptor trafficking and the potential for these mechanisms to regulate neuronal kainate receptor function.