Super-resolution imaging of synaptic and extra-synaptic AMPA receptors with different-sized fluorescent probes

  1. Sang Hak Lee
  2. Chaoyi Jin
  3. En Cai
  4. Pinghua Ge
  5. Yuji Ishitsuka
  6. Kai Wen Teng
  7. Andre A de Thomaz
  8. Duncan L Nall
  9. Murat Baday
  10. Okunola Jeyifous
  11. Daniel Demonte
  12. Christopher M Dundas
  13. Sheldon Park
  14. Jary Y Delgado
  15. William N Green
  16. Paul R Selvin  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, United States
  2. University of California, San Francisco, United States
  3. University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, United States
  4. University of Campinas, Brazil
  5. University of Chicago, United States
  6. State University of New York, United States
  7. University of Texas, United States

Abstract

Previous studies tracking AMPA receptor (AMPAR) diffusion at synapses observed a large mobile extrasynaptic AMPAR pool. Using super-resolution microscopy, we examined how fluorophore size and photostability affected AMPAR trafficking outside of, and within, post-synaptic densities (PSDs) from rats. Organic fluorescent dyes (≈4 nm), quantum dots, either small (≈10 nm diameter; sQDs) or big (>20 nm; bQDs), were coupled to AMPARs via different-sized linkers. We find that >90% of AMPARs labeled with fluorescent dyes or sQDs were diffusing in confined nanodomains in PSDs, which were stable for 15 minutes or longer. Less than 10% of sQD-AMPARs were extrasynaptic and highly mobile. In contrast, 5–10% of bQD-AMPARs were in PSDs and 90-95% were extrasynaptic as previously observed. Contrary to the hypothesis that AMPAR entry is limited by the occupancy of open PSD "slots", our findings suggest that AMPARs rapidly enter stable "nanodomains" in PSDs with lifetime ≥15 minutes, and do not accumulate in extrasynaptic membranes.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Sang Hak Lee

    Department of Physics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Chaoyi Jin

    Department of Physics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. En Cai

    University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Pinghua Ge

    Department of Physics, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, Urbana, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Yuji Ishitsuka

    Department of Physics, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, Urbana, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Kai Wen Teng

    Department of Physics, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, Urbana, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Andre A de Thomaz

    Institute of Physics Gleb Wataghin"", University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Duncan L Nall

    Department of Physics, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, Urbana, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Murat Baday

    Department of Physics, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, Urbana, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Okunola Jeyifous

    Department of Neurobiology, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Daniel Demonte

    Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, State University of New York, Buffalo, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Christopher M Dundas

    Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Texas, Austin, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Sheldon Park

    Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, State University of New York, Buffalo, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Jary Y Delgado

    Department of Neurobiology, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. William N Green

    Department of Neurobiology, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2167-1391
  16. Paul R Selvin

    Department of Physics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, United States
    For correspondence
    selvin@illinois.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3658-4218

Funding

National Institutes of Health (NIH NS090903)

  • William N Green
  • Paul R Selvin

National Science Foundation (PHY-1430124)

  • Paul R Selvin

National Science Foundation (CBET-1264051)

  • Sheldon Park

National Institutes of Health (NIH NS100019)

  • William N Green
  • Paul R Selvin

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: Primary hippocampal cultures were prepared from E18 rats according to UIUC guidelines. All rats were handled according to approved institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) protocols (#15254) of UIUC.

Copyright

© 2017, Lee et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 7,292
    views
  • 1,224
    downloads
  • 59
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Sang Hak Lee
  2. Chaoyi Jin
  3. En Cai
  4. Pinghua Ge
  5. Yuji Ishitsuka
  6. Kai Wen Teng
  7. Andre A de Thomaz
  8. Duncan L Nall
  9. Murat Baday
  10. Okunola Jeyifous
  11. Daniel Demonte
  12. Christopher M Dundas
  13. Sheldon Park
  14. Jary Y Delgado
  15. William N Green
  16. Paul R Selvin
(2017)
Super-resolution imaging of synaptic and extra-synaptic AMPA receptors with different-sized fluorescent probes
eLife 6:e27744.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.27744

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.27744

Further reading

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Jinsai Shang, Douglas J Kojetin
    Research Advance

    Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARγ) is a nuclear receptor transcription factor that regulates gene expression programs in response to ligand binding. Endogenous and synthetic ligands, including covalent antagonist inhibitors GW9662 and T0070907, are thought to compete for the orthosteric pocket in the ligand-binding domain (LBD). However, we previously showed that synthetic PPARγ ligands can cooperatively cobind with and reposition a bound endogenous orthosteric ligand to an alternate site, synergistically regulating PPARγ structure and function (Shang et al., 2018). Here, we reveal the structural mechanism of cobinding between a synthetic covalent antagonist inhibitor with other synthetic ligands. Biochemical and NMR data show that covalent inhibitors weaken—but do not prevent—the binding of other ligands via an allosteric mechanism, rather than direct ligand clashing, by shifting the LBD ensemble toward a transcriptionally repressive conformation, which structurally clashes with orthosteric ligand binding. Crystal structures reveal different cobinding mechanisms including alternate site binding to unexpectedly adopting an orthosteric binding mode by altering the covalent inhibitor binding pose. Our findings highlight the significant flexibility of the PPARγ orthosteric pocket, its ability to accommodate multiple ligands, and demonstrate that GW9662 and T0070907 should not be used as chemical tools to inhibit ligand binding to PPARγ.