MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Stabilization of Spine Synaptopodin by mGluR1 Is Required for mGluR-LTD

2022· article· en· W4220895085 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institutes of HealthNational Cancer InstituteNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchIntellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research Center
KeywordsDendritic spineSPINE (molecular biology)Excitatory postsynaptic potentialDendritic filopodiaMetabotropic glutamate receptorPostsynaptic potentialSynaptopodinAMPA receptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dendritic spines, actin-rich protrusions forming the postsynaptic sites of excitatory synapses, undergo activity-dependent molecular and structural remodeling. Activation of Group 1 metabotropic glutamate receptors (mGluR1 and mGluR5) by synaptic or pharmacological stimulation, induces LTD, but whether this is accompanied with spine elimination remains unresolved. A subset of telencephalic mushroom spines contains the spine apparatus (SA), an enigmatic organelle composed of stacks of smooth endoplasmic reticulum, whose formation depends on the expression of the actin-bundling protein Synaptopodin. Allocation of Synaptopodin to spines appears governed by cell-intrinsic mechanisms as the relative frequency of spines harboring Synaptopodin is conserved in vivo and in vitro . Here we show that expression of Synaptopodin/SA in spines is required for induction of mGluR-LTD at Schaffer collateral-CA1 synapses of male mice. Post-mGluR-LTD, mushroom spines lacking Synaptopodin/SA are selectively lost, whereas spines harboring it are preserved. This process, dependent on activation of mGluR1 but not mGluR5, is conserved in mature mouse neurons and rat neurons of both sexes. Mechanistically, we find that mGluR1 supports physical retention of Synaptopodin within excitatory spine synapses during LTD while triggering lysosome-dependent degradation of the protein residing in dendritic shafts. Together, these results reveal a cellular mechanism, dependent on mGluR1, which enables selective preservation of stronger spines containing Synaptopodin/SA while eliminating weaker ones and potentially countering spurious strengthening by de novo recruitment of Synaptopodin. Overall, our results identify spines with Synaptopodin/SA as the locus of mGluR-LTD and underscore the importance of the molecular microanatomy of spines in synaptic plasticity. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Long-term changes in functional synaptic strength are associated with modification of synaptic connectivity through stabilization or elimination of dendritic spines, the postsynaptic locus of excitatory synapses. How heterogeneous spine microanatomy instructs spine remodeling after long-term synaptic depression (LTD) remains unclear. Metabotropic glutamate receptors mGluR1 and mGluR5 induce a form of LTD critical to circuit function in physiological and disease conditions. Our results identify spines containing the protein Synaptopodin, which enables local assembly of a spine apparatus, as the locus of expression of mGluR-LTD and demonstrate a specific role of mGluR1 in promoting selective loss after mGluR-LTD of mature dendritic spines lacking Synaptopodin/spine apparatus. These findings highlight the fundamental contribution of spine microanatomy in selectively enabling functional and structural plasticity.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neuroscience→Same topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research→French-language works237,207→