Cell Adhesion, the Backbone of the Synapse: ��Vertebrate�� and ��Invertebrate�� Perspectives

Synapses are asymmetric intercellular junctions that mediate neuronal communication. The number, type, and connectivity patterns of synapses determine the formation, maintenance, and function of neural circuitries. The complexity and specificity of synaptogenesis relies upon modulation of adhesive properties, which regulate contact initiation, synapse formation, maturation, and functional plasticity. Disruption of adhesion may result in structural and functional imbalance that may lead to neurodevelopmental diseases, such as autism, or neurodegeneration, such as Alzheimer''s disease. Therefore, understanding the roles of different adhesion protein families in synapse formation is crucial for unraveling the biology of neuronal circuit formation, as well as the pathogenesis of some brain disorders. The present review summarizes some of the knowledge that has been acquired in vertebrate and invertebrate genetic model organisms.Synapses are asymmetric, intercellular junctions that are the basic structural units of neuronal transmission. The correct development of synaptic specializations and the establishment of appropriate connectivity patterns are crucial for the assembly of functional neuronal circuits. Improper synapse formation and function may cause neurodevelopmental disorders, such as mental retardation (MsR) and autism spectrum disorders (ASD) (McAllister 2007; Sudhof 2008), and likely play a role in neurodegenerative disorders, such as Alzheimer''s disease (AD) (Haass and Selkoe 2007).At chemical synapses (reviewed in Sudhof 2004; Zhai and Bellen 2004; Waites et al. 2005; McAllister 2007; Jin and Garner 2008), the presynaptic compartment contains synaptic vesicles (SV), organized in functionally distinct subcellular pools. A subset of SVs docks to the presynaptic membrane around protein-dense release sites, named active zones (AZ). Upon the arrival of an action potential at the terminal, the docked and “primed” SVs fuse with the plasma membrane and release neurotransmitter molecules into the synaptic cleft. Depending on the type of synapse (i.e., excitatory vs. inhibitory synapses), neurotransmitters ultimately activate an appropriate set of postsynaptic receptors that are accurately apposed to the AZ.Synapse formation occurs in several steps (Fig. 1) (reviewed in Eaton and Davis 2003; Goda and Davis 2003; Waites et al. 2005; Garner et al. 2006; Gerrow and El-Husseini 2006; McAllister 2007). Spatiotemporal signals guide axons through heterogeneous cellular environments to contact appropriate postsynaptic targets. At their destination, axonal growth cones initiate synaptogenesis through adhesive interactions with target cells. In the mammalian central nervous system (CNS), immature postsynaptic dendritic spines initially protrude as thin, actin-rich filopodia on the surface of dendrites. Similarly, at the Drosophila neuromuscular junction (NMJ), myopodia develop from the muscles (Ritzenthaler et al. 2000). The stabilization of intercellular contacts and their elaboration into mature, functional synapses involves cytoskeletal arrangements and recruitment of pre- and postsynaptic components to contact sites in spines and boutons. Conversely, retraction of contacts results in synaptic elimination. Both stabilization and retraction sculpt a functional neuronal circuitry.Open in a separate windowFigure 1.(A–C) Different stages of synapse formation. (A) Target selection, (B) Synapse assembly, (C) Synapse maturation and stabilization. (D–F) The role of cell adhesion molecules in synapse formation is exemplified by the paradigm of N-cadherin and catenins in regulation of the morphology and strength of dendritic spine heads. (D) At an early stage the dendritic spines are elongated from motile structures “seeking” their synaptic partners. (E) The contacts between the presynaptic and postsynaptic compartments are stabilized by recruitment of additional cell adhesion molecules. Adhesional interactions activate downstream pathways that remodel the cytoskeleton and organize pre- and postsynaptic apparatuses. (F) Cell adhesion complexes, stabilized by increased synaptic activity, promote the expansion of the dendritic spine head and the maturation/ stabilization of the synapse. Retraction and expansion is dependent on synaptic plasticity.In addition to the plastic nature of synapse formation, the vast heterogeneity of synapses (in terms of target selection, morphology, and type of neurotransmitter released) greatly enhances the complexity of synaptogenesis (reviewed in Craig and Boudin 2001; Craig et al. 2006; Gerrow and El-Husseini 2006). The complexity and specificity of synaptogenesis relies upon the modulation of adhesion between the pre- and postsynaptic components (reviewed in Craig et al. 2006; Gerrow and El-Husseini 2006; Piechotta et al. 2006; Dalva et al. 2007; Shapiro et al. 2007; Yamada and Nelson 2007; Gottmann 2008). Cell adhesive interactions enable cell–cell recognition via extracellular domains and also mediate intracellular signaling cascades that affect synapse morphology and organize scaffolding complexes. Thus, cell adhesion molecules (CAMs) coordinate multiple synaptogenic steps.However, in vitro and in vivo studies of vertebrate CAMs are often at odds with each other. Indeed, there are no examples of mutants for synaptic CAMs that exhibit prominent defects in synapse formation. This apparent “resilience” of synapses is probably caused by functional redundancy or compensatory effects among different CAMs (Piechotta et al. 2006). Hence, studies using simpler organisms less riddled by redundancy, such as Caenorhabditis elegans and Drosophila, have aided in our understanding of the role that these molecules play in organizing synapses.In this survey, we discuss the roles of the best characterized CAM families of proteins involved in synaptogenesis. Our focus is to highlight the complex principles that govern the molecular basis of synapse formation and function from a comparative perspective. We will present results from cell culture studies as well as in vivo analyses in vertebrate systems and refer to invertebrate studies, mainly performed in Drosophila and C. elegans, when they have provided important insights into the role of particular CAM protein families. However, we do not discuss secreted factors, for which we refer the reader to numerous excellent reviews (as for example Washbourne et al. 2004; Salinas 2005; Piechotta et al. 2006; Shapiro et al. 2006; Dalva 2007; Yamada and Nelson 2007; Biederer and Stagi 2008; Salinas and Zou 2008).     

Prostaglandin E2 Stimulates the Production of Amyloid-�� Peptides through Internalization of the EP4 Receptor

Amyloid-β (Aβ) peptides, generated by the proteolysis of β-amyloid precursor protein by β- and γ-secretases, play an important role in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer disease. Inflammation is also important. We recently reported that prostaglandin E₂ (PGE₂), a strong inducer of inflammation, stimulates the production of Aβ through EP₂ and EP₄ receptors, and here we have examined the molecular mechanism. Activation of EP₂ and EP₄ receptors is coupled to an increase in cellular cAMP levels and activation of protein kinase A (PKA). We found that inhibitors of adenylate cyclase and PKA suppress EP₂, but not EP₄, receptor-mediated stimulation of the Aβ production. In contrast, inhibitors of endocytosis suppressed EP₄, but not EP₂, receptor-mediated stimulation. Activation of γ-secretase was observed with the activation of EP₄ receptors but not EP₂ receptors. PGE₂-dependent internalization of the EP₄ receptor was observed, and cells expressing a mutant EP₄ receptor lacking the internalization activity did not exhibit PGE₂-stimulated production of Aβ. A physical interaction between the EP₄ receptor and PS-1, a catalytic subunit of γ-secretases, was revealed by immunoprecipitation assays. PGE₂-induced internalization of PS-1 and co-localization of EP₄, PS-1, and Rab7 (a marker of late endosomes and lysosomes) was observed. Co-localization of PS-1 and Rab7 was also observed in the brain of wild-type mice but not of EP₄ receptor null mice. These results suggest that PGE₂-stimulated production of Aβ involves EP₄ receptor-mediated endocytosis of PS-1 followed by activation of the γ-secretase, as well as EP₂ receptor-dependent activation of adenylate cyclase and PKA, both of which are important in the inflammation-mediated progression of Alzheimer disease.Alzheimer disease (AD)² is the most common neurodegenerative disorder of the central nervous system and the leading cause of adult onset dementia. AD is characterized pathologically by the accumulation of tangles and senile plaques. Senile plaques are composed of the amyloid-β (Aβ) peptides Aβ40 and Aβ42 (1, 2). To generate Aβ, β-amyloid precursor protein (APP) is first cleaved by β-secretase and then by γ-secretase. Cleavage of APP by α-secretase produces non-amyloidogenic peptides (3, 4). The γ-secretase is an aspartyl protease complex composed of four core components, including presenilin (PS) 1 and PS2 (5). Early onset familial AD is linked to three genes, APP, PS1, and PS2 (5, 6), strongly suggesting that γ-secretase-dependent production of Aβ is a key factor in the pathogenesis of AD. Therefore, cellular factors that affect the γ-secretase-dependent production of Aβ may be good targets for the development of drugs to prevent and treat AD.Both APP and PS-1 are transmembrane proteins, and their intracellular localization is controlled by secretory and endocytic pathways. These proteins are modified in the endoplasmic reticulum and trafficked to the cell surface through the trans-Golgi network (TGN). Then, they are internalized again and trafficked to early endosomes. Next, they are trafficked to late endosomes and lysosomes (LEL), which are recycling endosomes that are targeted to the cell surface or the TGN (7–11). The production of Aβ seems to occur in a broad range of cellular compartments including the cell surface, TGN, and endosomes (12). Abnormalities of secretory and endocytic pathways have been observed in the brains of AD patients (9, 13). Importantly, factors that control these vesicle transport systems affect the production of Aβ. For example, overproduction of Rab5, a factor essential for traffic of vesicles to early endosomes, has been shown to stimulate the production of Aβ (14), and SorL1 has been shown to reduce the production of Aβ by stimulating the traffic of APP in early endosomes to the TGN (15, 16).It has been suggested that inflammation is important in the pathogenesis of AD; chronic inflammation has been observed in the brains of AD patients, and trauma to the brain and ischemia, both of which can activate inflammation, are major risk factors for AD (17–19). Cyclooxygenase (COX) is essential for the synthesis of prostaglandin E₂ (PGE₂), a potent inducer of inflammation and has two subtypes, COX-1 and COX-2. COX-1 is expressed constitutively, whereas expression of COX-2 is induced under inflammatory conditions and is responsible for the progression of inflammation (20–22). The following evidences of the involvement of PGE₂ (and COX-2) in the progression of AD suggest that they are good targets for the development of AD drugs: (i) Elevated levels of PGE₂ and overexpression of COX-2 have been observed in the brains of AD patients (23–25); (ii) the extent of COX-2 expression correlates with the amount of Aβ and the degree of progression of AD pathogenesis (26); (iii) transgenic mice constitutively overexpressing COX-2 show aging-dependent neural apoptosis and memory dysfunction (27); (iv) prolonged use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, inhibitors of COX, delays the onset and reduces the risk of AD (28); (v) PGE₂ stimulates the production of reactive oxygen species in microglia cells, resulting in activation of β-secretase (29).We recently reported that PGE₂ stimulates the production of Aβ in human embryonic kidney (HEK) 293 and human neuroblastoma (SH-SY5Y) cells that stably express a form of APP with two mutations (K651N/M652L) (APPsw) that elevate cellular and secreted levels of Aβ (30). Similar results were reported by another group (31). Using agonists and antagonists specific for each of the four PGE₂ receptors (EP₁, EP₂, EP₃, and EP₄), we found that EP₄ receptors alone and also both EP₂ and EP₄ receptors are involved in PGE₂-stimulated production of Aβ in HEK293 or SH-SY5Y cells, respectively (30). Furthermore, experiments with transgenic mice suggest that EP₂ and EP₄ receptors are involved in the production of Aβ in vivo (30). Based on these results, we propose that antagonists of the EP₂ and/or EP₄ receptors may be therapeutically beneficial for the treatment of AD. Understanding the mechanism governing EP₂ and EP₄ receptor-mediated stimulation of production of Aβ by PGE₂ will be important for such drug development.Activation of EP₂ and EP₄ receptors causes activation of adenylate cyclase and an increase in the cellular level of cAMP (32). We have shown that an EP₄ receptor agonist or both EP₂ and EP₄ receptor agonists increase the cellular level of cAMP in HEK293 or SH-SY5Y cells, respectively, and that a cAMP analogue, 8-(4-chlorophenylthio)-cAMP (pCPT-cAMP), increases the level of Aβ in HEK293 cells (30). These findings suggest that the cellular level of cAMP is important for PGE₂-stimulated production of Aβ. An increase in the cellular level of cAMP is known to activate protein kinase A (PKA), which is important for cAMP-regulated intracellular signal transduction (33). However, an inhibitor of PKA, N-[2-(p-bromocinnamylamino)ethyl]-5-isoquinoline-sulfonamide (H-89), does not block PGE₂-stimulated production of Aβ in HEK293 cells (30). Other cAMP-regulated signal transduction factors, such as phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase and Epac (exchange protein directly activated by cAMP), were also shown not to be involved in PGE₂-stimulated production of Aβ in HEK293 cells (30). Thus, the mechanism whereby the activation of EP₂ and EP₄ receptors stimulates the production of Aβ has remained unknown. In this study, by using inhibitors of adenylate cyclase and PKA, we found that activation of the EP₂ receptor stimulates production of Aβ through activation of adenylate cyclase and PKA. We also propose that activation of the EP₄ receptor causes its co-internalization with PS-1 (γ-secretase) into endosomes and that this co-internalization is important for EP₄ receptor-mediated stimulation of Aβ production by PGE₂ through the activation of γ-secretase.     

Molecular Cloning of Pigeon UDP-galactose:��-d-Galactoside ��1,4-Galactosyltransferase and UDP-galactose:��-d-Galactoside ��1,4-Galactosyltransferase, Two Novel Enzymes Catalyzing the Formation of Gal��1�C4Gal��1�C4Gal��1�C4GlcNAc Sequence

We previously found that pigeon IgG possesses unique N-glycan structures that contain the Galα1–4Galβ1–4Galβ1–4GlcNAc sequence at their nonreducing termini. This sequence is most likely produced by putative α1,4- and β1,4-galactosyltransferases (GalTs), which are responsible for the biosynthesis of the Galα1–4Gal and Galβ1–4Gal sequences on the N-glycans, respectively. Because no such glycan structures have been found in mammalian glycoproteins, the biosynthetic enzymes that produce these glycans are likely to have distinct substrate specificities from the known mammalian GalTs. To study these enzymes, we cloned the pigeon liver cDNAs encoding α4GalT and β4GalT by expression cloning and characterized these enzymes using the recombinant proteins. The deduced amino acid sequence of pigeon α4GalT has 58.2% identity to human α4GalT and 68.0 and 66.6% identity to putative α4GalTs from chicken and zebra finch, respectively. Unlike human and putative chicken α4GalTs, which possess globotriosylceramide synthase activity, pigeon α4GalT preferred to catalyze formation of the Galα1–4Gal sequence on glycoproteins. In contrast, the sequence of pigeon β4GalT revealed a type II transmembrane protein consisting of 438 amino acid residues, with no significant homology to the glycosyltransferases so far identified from mammals and chicken. However, hypothetical proteins from zebra finch (78.8% identity), frogs (58.9–60.4%), zebrafish (37.1–43.0%), and spotted green pufferfish (43.3%) were similar to pigeon β4GalT, suggesting that the pigeon β4GalT gene was inherited from the common ancestors of these vertebrates. The sequence analysis revealed that pigeon β4GalT and its homologs form a new family of glycosyltransferases.     

Investigations of �� Initiator Protein-mediated Interaction between Replication Origins �� and �� of the Plasmid R6K

A typical plasmid replicon of Escherichia coli, such as ori γ of R6K, contains tandem iterons (iterated initiator protein binding sites), an AT-rich region that melts upon initiator-iteron interaction, two binding sites for the bacterial initiator protein DnaA, and a binding site for the DNA-bending protein IHF. R6K also contains two structurally atypical origins called α and β that are located on either side of γ and contain a single and a half-iteron, respectively. Individually, these sites do not bind to initiator protein π but access it by DNA looping-mediated interaction with the seven π-bound γ iterons. The π protein exists in 2 interconvertible forms: inert dimers and active monomers. Initiator dimers generally function as negative regulators of replication by promoting iteron pairing (“handcuffing”) between pairs of replicons that turn off both origins. Contrary to this existing paradigm, here we show that both the dimeric and the monomeric π are necessary for ori α-driven plasmid maintenance. Furthermore, efficient looping interaction between α and γ or between 2 γ iterons in vitro also required both forms of π. Why does α-γ iteron pairing promote α activation rather than repression? We show that a weak, transitory α-γ interaction at the iteron pairs was essential for α-driven plasmid maintenance. Swapping the α iteron with one of γ without changing the original sequence context that caused enhanced looping in vitro caused a significant inhibition of α-mediated plasmid maintenance. Therefore, the affinity of α iteron for π-bound γ and not the sequence context determined whether the origin was activated or repressed.     

Molecular Basis of the Recognition of Nephronectin by Integrin ��8��1

Integrin α8β1 interacts with a variety of Arg-Gly-Asp (RGD)-containing ligands in the extracellular matrix. Here, we examined the binding activities of α8β1 integrin toward a panel of RGD-containing ligands. Integrin α8β1 bound specifically to nephronectin with an apparent dissociation constant of 0.28 ± 0.01 nm, but showed only marginal affinities for fibronectin and other RGD-containing ligands. The high-affinity binding to α8β1 integrin was fully reproduced with a recombinant nephronectin fragment derived from the RGD-containing central “linker” segment. A series of deletion mutants of the recombinant fragment identified the LFEIFEIER sequence on the C-terminal side of the RGD motif as an auxiliary site required for high-affinity binding to α8β1 integrin. Alanine scanning mutagenesis within the LFEIFEIER sequence defined the EIE sequence as a critical motif ensuring the high-affinity integrin-ligand interaction. Although a synthetic LFEIFEIER peptide failed to inhibit the binding of α8β1 integrin to nephronectin, a longer peptide containing both the RGD motif and the LFEIFEIER sequence was strongly inhibitory, and was ∼2,000-fold more potent than a peptide containing only the RGD motif. Furthermore, trans-complementation assays using recombinant fragments containing either the RGD motif or LFEIFEIER sequence revealed a clear synergism in the binding to α8β1 integrin. Taken together, these results indicate that the specific high-affinity binding of nephronectin to α8β1 integrin is achieved by bipartite interaction of the integrin with the RGD motif and LFEIFEIER sequence, with the latter serving as a synergy site that greatly potentiates the RGD-driven integrin-ligand interaction but has only marginal activity to secure the interaction by itself.Integrins are a family of adhesion receptors that interact with a variety of extracellular ligands, typically cell-adhesive proteins in the extracellular matrix (ECM).² They play mandatory roles in embryonic development and the maintenance of tissue architectures by providing essential links between cells and the ECM (1). Integrins are composed of two non-covalently associated subunits, termed α and β. In mammals, 18 α and 8 β subunits have been identified, and combinations of these subunits give rise to at least 24 distinct integrin heterodimers. Based on their ligand-binding specificities, ECM-binding integrins are classified into three groups, namely laminin-, collagen- and RGD-binding integrins (2, 3), of which the RGD-binding integrins have been most extensively investigated. The RGD-binding integrins include α5β1, α8β1, αIIbβ3, and αV-containing integrins, and have been shown to interact with a variety of ECM ligands, such as fibronectin and vitronectin, with distinct binding specificities.The α8 integrin subunit was originally identified in chick nerves (4). Integrin α8β1 is expressed in the metanephric mesenchyme and plays a crucial role in epithelial-mesenchymal interactions during the early stages of kidney morphogenesis. Disruption of the α8 gene in mice was found to be associated with severe defects in kidney morphogenesis (5) and stereocilia development (6). To date, α8β1 integrin has been shown to bind to fibronectin, vitronectin, osteopontin, latency-associated peptide of transforming growth factor-β1, tenascin-W, and nephronectin (also named POEM) (7–13), among which nephronectin is believed to be an α8β1 integrin ligand involved in kidney development (10).Nephronectin is one of the basement membrane proteins whose expression and localization patterns are restricted in a tissue-specific and developmentally regulated manner (10, 11). Nephronectin consists of five epidermal growth factor-like repeats, a linker segment containing the RGD cell-adhesive motif (designated RGD-linker) and a meprin-A5 protein-receptor protein-tyrosine phosphatase μ (MAM) domain (see Fig. 3A). Although the physiological functions of nephronectin remain only poorly understood, it is thought to play a role in epithelial-mesenchymal interactions through binding to α8β1 integrin, thereby transmitting signals from the epithelium to the mesenchyme across the basement membrane (10). Recently, mice deficient in nephronectin expression were produced by homologous recombination (14). These nephronectin-deficient mice frequently displayed kidney agenesis, a phenotype reminiscent of α8 integrin knock-out mice (14), despite the fact that other RGD-containing ligands, including fibronectin and osteopontin, were expressed in the embryonic kidneys (9, 15). The failure of the other RGD-containing ligands to compensate for the deficiency of nephronectin in the developing kidneys suggests that nephronectin is an indispensable α8β1 ligand that plays a mandatory role in epithelial-mesenchymal interactions during kidney development.Open in a separate windowFIGURE 3.Binding activities of α8β1 integrin to nephronectin and its fragments. A, schematic diagrams of full-length nephronectin (NN) and its fragments. RGD-linker and RGD-linker (GST), the central RGD-containing linker segments expressed in mammalian and bacterial expression systems, respectively; PRGDV, a short RGD-containing peptide modeled after nephronectin and expressed as a GST fusion protein (see Fig. 4A for the peptide sequence). The arrowheads indicate the positions of the RGD motif. B, purified recombinant proteins were analyzed by SDS-PAGE in 7–15% gradient (left and center panels) and 12% (right panels) gels, followed by Coomassie Brilliant Blue (CBB) staining, immunoblotting with an anti-FLAG mAb, or lectin blotting with PNA. The quantities of proteins loaded were: 0.5 μg (for Coomassie Brilliant Blue staining) and 0.1 μg (for blotting with anti-FLAG and PNA) in the left and center panels;1 μg in the right panel. C, recombinant proteins (10 nm) were coated on microtiter plates and assessed for their binding activities toward α8β1 integrin (10 nm) in the presence of 1 mm Mn²⁺. The backgrounds were subtracted as described in the legend to Fig. 2. The results represent the mean ± S.D. of triplicate determinations. D, titration curves of α8β1 integrin bound to full-length nephronectin (NN, closed squares), the RGD-linker segments expressed in 293F cells (RGD-linker, closed triangles) and E. coli (RGD-linker (GST), open triangles), the MAM domain (MAM, closed diamonds), and the PRGDV peptide expressed as a GST fusion protein in E. coli (PRGDV (GST), open circles). The assays were performed as described in the legend to Fig. 2B. The results represent the means of duplicate determinations.Although ligand recognition by RGD-binding integrins is primarily determined by the RGD motif in the ligands, it is the residues outside the RGD motif that define the binding specificities and affinities toward individual integrins (16, 17). For example, α5β1 integrin specifically binds to fibronectin among the many RGD-containing ligands, and requires not only the RGD motif in the 10th type III repeat but also the so-called “synergy site” within the preceding 9th type III repeat for fibronectin recognition (18). Recently, DiCara et al. (19) demonstrated that the high-affinity binding of αVβ6 integrin to its natural ligands, e.g. foot-and-mouth disease virus, requires the RGD motif immediately followed by a Leu-Xaa-Xaa-Leu/Ile sequence, which forms a helix to align the two conserved hydrophobic residues along the length of the helix. Given the presence of many naturally occurring RGD-containing ligands, it is conceivable that the specificities of the RGD-binding integrins are dictated by the sequences flanking the RGD motif or those in neighboring domains that come into close proximity with the RGD motif in the intact ligand proteins. However, the preferences of α8β1 integrin for RGD-containing ligands and how it secures its high-affinity binding toward its preferred ligands remain unknown.In the present study, we investigated the binding specificities of α8β1 integrin toward a panel of RGD-containing cell-adhesive proteins. Our data reveal that nephronectin is a preferred ligand for α8β1 integrin, and that a LFEIFEIER sequence on the C-terminal side of its RGD motif serves as a synergy site to ensure the specific high-affinity binding of nephronectin to α8β1 integrin.     

Presynaptic Targeting of ��4��2 Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors Is Regulated by Neurexin-1��

The mechanisms involved in the targeting of neuronal nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (AChRs), critical for their functional organization at neuronal synapses, are not well understood. We have identified a novel functional association between α4β2 AChRs and the presynaptic cell adhesion molecule, neurexin-1β. In non-neuronal tsA 201 cells, recombinant neurexin-1β and mature α4β2 AChRs form complexes. α4β2 AChRs and neurexin-1β also coimmunoprecipitate from rat brain lysates. When exogenous α4β2 AChRs and neurexin-1β are coexpressed in hippocampal neurons, they are robustly targeted to hemi-synapses formed between these neurons and cocultured tsA 201 cells expressing neuroligin-1, a postsynaptic binding partner of neurexin-1β. The extent of synaptic targeting is significantly reduced in similar experiments using a mutant neurexin-1β lacking the extracellular domain. Additionally, when α4β2 AChRs, α7 AChRs, and neurexin-1β are coexpressed in the same neuron, only the α4β2 AChR colocalizes with neurexin-1β at presynaptic terminals. Collectively, these data suggest that neurexin-1β targets α4β2 AChRs to presynaptic terminals, which mature by trans-synaptic interactions between neurexins and neuroligins. Interestingly, human neurexin-1 gene dysfunctions have been implicated in nicotine dependence and in autism spectrum disorders. Our results provide novel insights as to possible mechanisms by which dysfunctional neurexins, through downstream effects on α4β2 AChRs, may contribute to the etiology of these neurological disorders.The clustering of ion channels or receptors and precise targeting to pre- and postsynaptic specializations in neurons is critical to efficiently regulate synaptic transmission. Within the central nervous system, neuronal nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (AChRs)⁵ regulate the release of neurotransmitters at presynaptic sites (1) and mediate fast synaptic transmission at postsynaptic sites of neurons (2). These receptors are part of a family of acetylcholine-gated ion channels that are assembled from various combinations of α2–α10 and β2–β4 subunits (3). AChRs participate in the regulation of locomotion, affect, reward, analgesia, anxiety, learning, and attention (4, 5).The α4β2 subtype is the most abundant AChR receptor expressed in the brain. Multiple lines of evidence support a major role for α4β2 AChRs in nicotine addiction. α4β2 AChRs show high affinity for nicotine (6) and are located on the dopaminergic projections of ventral tegmental area neurons to the medium spiny neurons of the nucleus accumbens (7, 8). Furthermore, β2 AChR subunit knock-out mice lose their sensitivity to nicotine in passive avoidance tasks (9) and show attenuated self-administration of nicotine (10). α4 AChR subunit knock-out mice also exhibit a loss of tonic control of striatal basal dopamine release (11). Finally, experiments with knock-in mice expressing α4β2 AChRs hypersensitive to nicotine demonstrate that α4β2 AChRs indeed mediate the essential features of nicotine addiction including reward, tolerance, and sensitization (12). High resolution ultrastructural studies show that α4 subunit-containing AChRs are clustered at dopaminergic axonal terminals (13), and a sequence motif has been identified within the α4 AChR subunit cytoplasmic domain that is essential for receptor trafficking to axons (14). However, the mechanisms underlying the targeting and clustering of α4β2 AChRs to presynaptic sites in neurons remain elusive.Recently, bi-directional interactions between neurexins and neuroligins have been shown to promote synapse assembly and maturation by fostering pre- and postsynaptic differentiation (reviewed in Refs. 15–17). The neurexins are encoded by three genes corresponding to neurexins I–III (18, 19), each encoding longer α-neurexins and shorter β-neurexins, because of differential promoter use. Neurexins recruit N- and P/Q-type calcium channels via scaffolding proteins, including calmodulin-associated serine/threonine kinase (20), to active zones of presynaptic terminals (21, 22). Recently, α-neurexins were shown to specifically induce GABAergic postsynaptic differentiation (23). Neuroligins, postsynaptic binding partners of neurexins, cluster N-methyl-d-aspartate receptors and GABA_A receptors by recruiting the scaffolding proteins PSD-95 (post-synaptic density 95) and gephyrin, respectively (24, 25). Interestingly, neurexins and neuroligins also modulate the postsynaptic clustering of α3-containing AChRs in chick ciliary ganglia (26, 27). In this study, using multiple experimental strategies, we provide evidence for the formation of complexes between neurexin-1β and α4β2 AChRs and a role for neurexin in the targeting of α4β2 AChRs to presynaptic terminals of neurons.     

��Shotgun DNA synthesis�� for the high-throughput construction of large DNA molecules

We developed a highly scalable ‘shotgun’ DNA synthesis technology by utilizing microchip oligonucleotides, shotgun assembly and next-generation sequencing technology. A pool of microchip oligonucleotides targeting a penicillin biosynthetic gene cluster were assembled into numerous random fragments, and tagged with 20 bp degenerate barcode primer pairs. An optimal set of error-free fragments were identified by high-throughput DNA sequencing, selectively amplified using the barcode sequences, and successfully assembled into the target gene cluster.