Choquet
| Malinow | Molecular Methods | Quantum Dots | Choquet | AMPAR |
Bats, Groc, Choquet • 2007 • Neuron - PDF
- Quantum Dot
- FRAP
- Live hippocampal neurons
- exchange of AMPAR by lateral diffusion between extrasynaptic and synaptic sites mostly depends on the interaction of Stargazin with PSD-95 and not upon the GluR2 AMPAR subunit C terminus.
- Disruption of interactions between Stargazin and PSD-95 strongly increases AMPAR surface diffusion, preventing AMPAR accumulation at postsynaptic sites.
- AMPARs and Stargazin diffuse as complexes in and out synapses.
Tardin, Cognet, Bats, Lounis, Choquet • 2003 • EMBO - PDF
- Glutamate Effect
- Bath application of 100 uM Glutamate
- Calcium Influx Effect
- induced calcium influx with biccuculine, strychnine, glycine
- to mimic NMDAR stimulation?
- decreased number of mobile AMPARs
- increased (59%) AMPAR membrane expression
- Calcium Blocking Effect
- used BAPTA to block calcium influx
- increased number of mobile AMPARs
- Notes
- Glutamate causes endocytosis of AMPARs, and internal AMPARs are immobile. Therefore it seems like glutamate may be causing a general endocytotic episode at non-synaptic AMPARs, perhaps not even at the synapse that received the glutamate application.
- Newly inserted receptors were found to be initially diffusive and then stabilized at synaptic sites.
- Summary
- they found that bath application of glutamate induces rapid depletion of AMPARs from PSDs increases synaptic diffusion rate, decreases % of completely immobile receptors, increases proportion of receptors in the area surrounding the synapse (juxtasynaptic region). Activation of NMDARs results in increased surface expression of AMPARs -- in the first few minutes there is mainly a decrease in the proportion of immobile synaptic receptors, but after 40 min, both diffusion rates and percentages of immobile synaptic receptors are back to control values and the proportion of juxtasynaptic receptors is decreased. This observation relates to the fate of newly exocytosed AMPARs: using cleavable extracellular tags, it was observed that at early times after exocytosis, new GluR1 containing AMPARs are diffusively distributed along dendrites. This is followed by their lateral translocation and accumulation into synapses (Passafaro et al., 2001). GluR2 subunits were addressed directly at synapses. In our experiments, we followed the movement of native GluR2 containing AMPARs, where the data suggests that at the level of synapses themselves, newly added receptors are initially diffusive and then stabilize over time.
- Methods
- Anti-GluR2 antibodies were labeled with Cy5 or Alexa-647 molecules at low labeling ratio (mean labeling ratio of 0.4 dye per antibody) so that individual antibodies were labeled at most with one fluorophore. A small proportion of surface expressed AMPA receptors containing the GluR2 subunit were selectively labeled in live neurons through short incubations with these antibodies. We could thus image and resolve discrete fluorescence spots with an epifluorescence imaging setup
Czöndör, Mondin, Garcia, Heine, Frischknecht, Choquet, Sibarita, Thoumine • 2012 • PNAS - PDF
Trafficking of AMPA receptors (AMPARs) plays a key role in synaptic transmission. However, a general framework integrating the two major mechanisms regulating AMPAR delivery at postsynapses (i.e., surface diffusion and internal recycling) is lacking. To this aim, we built a model based on numerical trajectories of individual AMPARs, including free diffusion in the extrasynaptic space, confinement in the synapse, and trapping at the postsynaptic density (PSD) through reversible interactions with scaffold proteins. The AMPAR/scaffold kinetic rates were adjusted by comparing computer simulations to single-particle tracking and fluorescence recovery after photobleaching experiments in primary neurons, in different conditions of synapse density and maturation. The model predicts that the steady-state AMPAR number at synapses is bidirectionally controlled by AMPAR/scaffold binding affinity and PSD size. To reveal the impact of recycling processes in basal conditions and upon synaptic potentiation or depression, spatially and temporally defined exocytic and endocytic events were introduced. The model predicts that local recycling of AMPARs close to the PSD, coupled to short-range surface diffusion, provides rapid control of AMPAR number at synapses. In contrast, because of long-range diffusion limitations, extrasynaptic recycling is intrinsically slower and less synapse-specific. Thus, by discriminating the relative contributions of AMPAR diffusion, trapping, and recycling events on spatial and temporal bases, this model provides unique insights on the dynamic regulation of synaptic strength.
Groc L, Heine M, Cognet L, Brickley K, Stephenson FA, Lounis B, Choquet D. • 2004 • Nature Neuroscience
The basis for differences in activity-dependent trafficking of AMPA receptors (AMPARs) and NMDA receptors (NMDARs) remains unclear. Using single-molecule tracking, we found different lateral mobilities for AMPARs and NMDARs: changes in neuronal activity modified AMPAR but not NMDAR mobility, whereas protein kinase C activation modified both. Differences in mobility were mainly detected for extrasynaptic AMPARs, suggesting that receptor diffusion between synaptic and extrasynaptic domains is involved in plasticity processes. PMID: 15208630
Choquet Email
Hi Roberto,
I hope you’re doing well, haven’t seen each other in a while. As far as receptor tracking in slices go, we’ve not progressed much. As you’ve done, we routinely use FRAP of phluorin-tagged receptors to evaluate mobility in slices, and this works well, except for the over-expression issue. As for quantum dot tracking in slices, our own trials have been quite unsuccessful, most QDs being generally too sticky and not diffusing well in tissue. Thus, as for tracking endogenous receptors, I think it’s quite hopeless. I do have seen in a few other labs people using GFP tagged proteins and managing to track them with anti-GFP coated QDs, but I have no direct experience with this approach as if I’m to use a tagged receptor, I prefer then to use FRAP in slice as it’s less prone to artifacts I think. Sorry I can’t help more, sure I’d wish we could do that……
All the best and see you in the near future
Best
Daniel