Choline Promotes Nicotinic Receptor ��4 + ��2 Up-regulation

Neuronal nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChR) composed of α4 + β2 subunits, the high affinity nicotine-binding site in the mammalian brain, up-regulate in response to chronic nicotine exposure. The identities of endogenous mediators of this process are unknown. We find that choline also up-regulates α4 + β2 nAChRs stably expressed by HEK293 cells as measured by increased [³H]epibatidine density. Choline-mediated up-regulation is dose-dependent and corresponds with an increase in β2 subunit protein expression. The choline kinase inhibitor hemicholinium-3 inhibits ∼60% of choline-mediated up-regulation revealing both an HC3-dependent and -independent pathway. Furthermore, choline-mediated up-regulation is not additive with up-regulation agents such as nicotine, but it is additive with weaker promoters of the up-regulation process. When co-applied with the pro-inflammatory cytokine tumor necrosis factor α, choline-mediated up-regulation is increased further through a mechanism that includes an increase in both α4 and β2 protein expression, and this is inhibited by the p38 MAPK inhibitor SB202190. These findings extend the view that up-regulation of α4 + β2 nAChRs is a normal physiological response to altered metabolic and inflammatory conditions.     

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.     

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.     

Characterization of Three ��-Galactoside Phosphorylases from Clostridium phytofermentans: DISCOVERY OF d-GALACTOSYL-��1��4-l-RHAMNOSE PHOSPHORYLASE*

We characterized three d-galactosyl-β1→3-N-acetyl-d-hexosamine phosphorylase (EC 2.4.1.211) homologs from Clostridium phytofermentans (Cphy0577, Cphy1920, and Cphy3030 proteins). Cphy0577 and Cphy3030 proteins exhibited similar activity on galacto-N-biose (GNB; d-Gal-β1→3-d-GalNAc) and lacto-N-biose I (LNB; d-Gal-β1→3-d-GlcNAc), thus indicating that they are d-galactosyl-β1→3-N-acetyl-d-hexosamine phosphorylases, subclassified as GNB/LNB phosphorylase. In contrast, Cphy1920 protein phosphorolyzed neither GNB nor LNB. It showed the highest activity with l-rhamnose as the acceptor in the reverse reaction using α-d-galactose 1-phosphate as the donor. The reaction product was d-galactosyl-β1→4-l-rhamnose. The enzyme also showed activity on l-mannose, l-lyxose, d-glucose, 2-deoxy-d-glucose, and d-galactose in this order. When d-glucose derivatives were used as acceptors, reaction products were β-1,3-galactosides. Kinetic parameters of phosphorolytic activity on d-galactosyl-β1→4-l-rhamnose were k_cat = 45 s⁻¹ and K_m = 7.9 mm, thus indicating that these values are common among other phosphorylases. We propose d-galactosyl-β1→4-l-rhamnose phosphorylase as the name for Cphy1920 protein.Phosphorylases are a group of enzymes involved in formation and cleavage of glycoside linkage together with glycoside hydrolases and glycosyl-nucleotide glycosyltransferases (synthases). Phosphorylases, which reversibly phosphorolyze oligosaccharides to produce monosaccharide 1-phosphate, are generally intracellular enzymes showing strict substrate specificity. Physiologically, such strict substrate specificity is considered to be closely related to the environment containing bacteria possessing them. For example, d-galactosyl-β1→3-N-acetyl-d-hexosamine phosphorylase (GalHexNAcP²; EC 2.4.1.211) from Bifidobacterium longum, an intestinal bacterium, forms part of the pathway metabolizing galacto-N-biose (GNB; d-Gal-β1→3-d-GalNAc) from mucin and lacto-N-biose I (LNB; d-Gal-β1→3-d-GlcNAc) from human milk oligosaccharides, both of which are present in the intestinal environment, with GNB- and LNB-releasing enzymes and GNB/LNB transporter (1–8). Another example is cellobiose phosphorylase from Cellvibrio gilvus, which is a cellulolytic bacterium. Cellobiose phosphorylase forms an important cellulose metabolic pathway with an extracellular cellulase system producing cellobiose (9, 10).The reversible catalytic reaction of phosphorylases is one of the most remarkable features that make them suitable catalysts for practical syntheses of oligosaccharides. An oligosaccharide can be produced from inexpensive material by combining reactions of two phosphorylases, one for phosphorolyzing the material and the other for synthesizing the oligosaccharide, in one pot. Based on this idea, LNB is synthesized on a large (kg) scale using sucrose phosphorylase and GalHexNAcP (11). Practical synthesis methods of trehalose and cellobiose have also been developed (12, 13). However, only 14 kinds of substrate specificities have been reported among phosphorylases (13), thus restricting their use. Therefore, it would be useful to find a phosphorylase with novel activity.GalHexNAcP phosphorolyzes GNB and LNB to produce α-d-galactose 1-phosphate (Gal 1-P) and the corresponding N-acetyl-d-hexosamine. To date, GalHexNAcP is the only phosphorylase known to act on β-galactoside. This enzyme was first found in the cell-free extract of Bifidobacterium bifidum (14) and then in B. longum (1, 15), Clostridium perfringens (16), Propionibacterium acnes (17), and Vibrio vulnificus (18). These studies revealed that GalHexNAcPs were classified into three subgroups based on substrate preference between GNB and LNB. These subgroups are as follows: 1) galacto-N-biose/lacto-N-biose I phosphorylase (GLNBP), showing similar activity on both GNB and LNB (B. longum and B. bifidum); 2) galacto-N-biose phosphorylase (GNBP), preferring GNB to LNB (C. perfringens and P. acnes); and 3) lacto-N-biose I phosphorylase (LNBP), preferring LNB to GNB (V. vulnificus) (18). The ternary structure of GLNBP from B. longum (GLNBP_Bl) has been revealed recently (19). Based on the similarity in ternary structures between GLNBP_Bl and β-galactosidase from Thermus thermophilus, which belongs to glycoside hydrolase family 42 (19, 20), GalHexNAcP homologs are classified as GH112 (glycoside hydrolase family 112), although phosphorylases are glycosyltransferases (21, 22).Clostridium phytofermentans is an anaerobic cellulolytic bacterium. It is found in soil and grows optimally at 37 °C (23). Its whole genome sequence has been revealed (GenBank^TM accession number {"type":"entrez-nucleotide","attrs":{"text":"CP000885","term_id":"160426828","term_text":"CP000885"}}CP000885). The bacterium possesses three GalHexNAcP homologous genes (cphy0577, cphy1920, and cphy3030 genes; GenBank^TM accession numbers are {"type":"entrez-protein","attrs":{"text":"ABX40964.1","term_id":"160427401","term_text":"ABX40964.1"}}ABX40964.1, {"type":"entrez-protein","attrs":{"text":"ABX42289.1","term_id":"160428726","term_text":"ABX42289.1"}}ABX42289.1, and {"type":"entrez-protein","attrs":{"text":"ABX43387.1","term_id":"160429824","term_text":"ABX43387.1"}}ABX43387.1, respectively). C. phytofermentans has the ability to utilize a wide range of plant polysaccharides (23), and substrate specificities of these three gene products (Cphy0577, Cphy1920, and Cphy3030 proteins) are considered to be responsible for this ability. Furthermore, the three proteins have not been clearly categorized as GLNBP, GNBP, or LNBP, based on the phylogenetic tree shown in Fig. 1.Open in a separate windowFIGURE 1.Phylogenetic tree of GalHexNAcP homologs in GH112. Multiple alignment was performed using ClustalW2 (available on the World Wide Web). A phylogenetic tree was constructed using Treeview version 1.6.6. The proteins characterized in this study are represented with boldface letters in boxes with a heavy outline. The other proteins are numbered serially in boxes. Characterized GLNBP, GNBP, and LNBP are represented with boldface black letters on a gray background, boldface white letters on a gray background, and boldface white letters on a black background, respectively. Organisms and GenBank^TM accession numbers of numbered proteins are as follows: 1, CPF0553 (C. perfringens ATCC13124, {"type":"entrez-protein","attrs":{"text":"ABG83511.1","term_id":"110674524","term_text":"ABG83511.1"}}ABG83511.1) (16); 2, CPE0573 (C. perfringens str.13, {"type":"entrez-protein","attrs":{"text":"BAB80279.1","term_id":"18144232","term_text":"BAB80279.1"}}BAB80279.1); 3, CPR0537 (C. perfringens SM101, {"type":"entrez-protein","attrs":{"text":"ABG86710.1","term_id":"110683340","term_text":"ABG86710.1"}}ABG86710.1); 4, LnpA2 (B. bifidum JCM1254, {"type":"entrez-protein","attrs":{"text":"BAE95374.1","term_id":"107597820","term_text":"BAE95374.1"}}BAE95374.1) (14, 15); 5, LnpA1 (B. bifidum JCM1254, {"type":"entrez-protein","attrs":{"text":"BAD80752.1","term_id":"56676017","term_text":"BAD80752.1"}}BAD80752.1) (14, 15); 6, GLNBP_Bl (B. longum subsp. longum JCM 1217, {"type":"entrez-protein","attrs":{"text":"BAD80751.1","term_id":"56676015","term_text":"BAD80751.1"}}BAD80751.1) (1, 16); 7, Blon_2174 (B. longum subsp. infantis ATCC 15697, {"type":"entrez-protein","attrs":{"text":"ACJ53235.1","term_id":"213524488","term_text":"ACJ53235.1"}}ACJ53235.1); 8, BL1641 (B. longum NCC2705, {"type":"entrez-protein","attrs":{"text":"AAN25428.1","term_id":"23326930","term_text":"AAN25428.1"}}AAN25428.1); 9, BLD_1765 (B. longum DJO10A, {"type":"entrez-protein","attrs":{"text":"ACD99210.1","term_id":"189429062","term_text":"ACD99210.1"}}ACD99210.1); 10, GnpA (P. acnes JCM6473, {"type":"entrez-nucleotide","attrs":{"text":"AB468065","term_id":"219807264","term_text":"AB468065"}}AB468065) (17); 11, GnpA (P. acnes JCM6425, {"type":"entrez-nucleotide","attrs":{"text":"AB468066","term_id":"219807262","term_text":"AB468066"}}AB468066) (17); 12, PPA0083 (P. acnes KPA171202, {"type":"entrez-protein","attrs":{"text":"AAT81843.1","term_id":"50839176","term_text":"AAT81843.1"}}AAT81843.1); 13, VV2_1091 (V. vulnificus CMCP6, {"type":"entrez-protein","attrs":{"text":"AAO07997.1","term_id":"27359049","term_text":"AAO07997.1"}}AAO07997.1) (18); 14, VVA1614 (V. vulnificus YJ016, {"type":"entrez-protein","attrs":{"text":"BAC97640.1","term_id":"37201820","term_text":"BAC97640.1"}}BAC97640.1); 15, Oter_1377 (Opitutus terrae PB90-1, {"type":"entrez-protein","attrs":{"text":"ACB74662.1","term_id":"177840410","term_text":"ACB74662.1"}}ACB74662.1); 16, BCQ_1989 (B. cereus Q1, {"type":"entrez-protein","attrs":{"text":"ACM12417.1","term_id":"221239707","term_text":"ACM12417.1"}}ACM12417.1); 17, BCAH187_A2105 (Bacillus cereus AH187, {"type":"entrez-protein","attrs":{"text":"ACJ78918.1","term_id":"217064668","term_text":"ACJ78918.1"}}ACJ78918.1).In this study, we characterized the three proteins. We reported that two of them were GalHexNAcPs and that the other was a β-galactoside phosphorylase showing unique substrate specificity.     

Membrane Partitioning: ��Classical�� and ��Nonclassical�� Hydrophobic Effects

The free energy of transfer of nonpolar solutes from water to lipid bilayers is often dominated by a large negative enthalpy rather than the large positive entropy expected from the hydrophobic effect. This common observation has led to the idea that membrane partitioning is driven by the "nonclassical" hydrophobic effect. We examined this phenomenon by characterizing the partitioning of the well-studied peptide melittin using isothermal titration calorimetry (ITC) and circular dichroism (CD). We studied the temperature dependence of the entropic (-TΔS) and enthalpic (ΔH) components of free energy (ΔG) of partitioning of melittin into lipid membranes made of various mixtures of zwitterionic and anionic lipids. We found significant variations of the entropic and enthalpic components with temperature, lipid composition and vesicle size but only small changes in ΔG (entropy-enthalpy compensation). The heat capacity associated with partitioning had a large negative value of about -0.5 kcal mol(-1) K(-1). This hallmark of the hydrophobic effect was found to be independent of lipid composition. The measured heat capacity values were used to calculate the hydrophobic-effect free energy ΔG (hΦ), which we found to dominate melittin partitioning regardless of lipid composition. In the case of anionic membranes, additional free energy comes from coulombic attraction, which is characterized by a small effective peptide charge due to the lack of additivity of hydrophobic and electrostatic interactions in membrane interfaces [Ladokhin and White J Mol Biol 309:543-552, 2001]. Our results suggest that there is no need for a special effect-the nonclassical hydrophobic effect-to describe partitioning into lipid bilayers.     

Drosophila RecQ4 Has a 3��-5�� DNA Helicase Activity That Is Essential for Viability

Members of the RecQ family of proteins are highly conserved DNA helicases that have important functions in the maintenance of genomic stability. Deficiencies in RecQ4 have been linked to human diseases including Rothmund-Thomson, RAPADILINO, and Baller-Gerold syndromes, all of which are characterized by developmental defects, tumor propensity, and genetic instability. However, there are conflicting results shown in the literature regarding the DNA helicase activity of RecQ4. We report here the expression of Drosophila melanogaster RecQ4 with a baculoviral vector and its purification to near homogeneity. The purified protein has a DNA-dependent ATPase activity and is a 3′-5′ DNA helicase dependent on hydrolysis of ATP. The presence of 5′-adenylyl-β,γ-imidodiphosphate (AMPPNP), a nonhydrolyzable ATP analog, promotes stable complex formation between RecQ4 and single-stranded DNA. Drosophila RecQ4 can also anneal complementary single strands; this activity was reduced in the presence of AMPPNP, possibly because of the stable protein-DNA complex formed under such conditions. A point mutation of the highly conserved lysine residue in the helicase domain, although retaining the wild type level of annealing activity, inactivated ATPase and helicase activities and eliminated stable complex formation. These results suggest that the helicase domain alone is responsible for the DNA unwinding action of the Drosophila enzyme. We generated a null recq4 mutant that is homozygous lethal, which we used to test the genetic function of the helicase-dead mutant in flies. Complementation tests showed that the helicase-dead mutant recq4 transgenes are incapable of rescuing the null mutation, demonstrating that the helicase activity has an essential biological function.     

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).     

De la m��ditation bouddhiste �� la th��rapie cognitive fond��e sur la pleine conscience

For the general public, Buddhist meditation has been a very fashionable subject for several years. It is presented either as a spiritual way to personal fulfilment or as a quick and effective relaxation technique. Otherwise, we have to keep in mind that Buddhist meditation is a lifestyle, born 2,500 years ago, integrated into a complex philosophic, religious, spiritual, and cultural system of thoughts. Moreover, it directly inspired the third cognitive wave of the cognitive and behavioural therapy, from which Mindfulness-Based Cognitive therapy (MBCT) was derived. The MBCT program is intended to prevent relapse/recurrence in major depression and has been the object of clinical trials with the aim of evaluating it using a scientific basis, but other indications are developed.     

Differential Modulation of ��- and ��-Opioid Receptor Agonists by Endogenous RGS4 Protein in SH-SY5Y Cells

Regulator of G-protein signaling (RGS) proteins are a family of molecules that control the duration of G protein signaling. A variety of RGS proteins have been reported to modulate opioid receptor signaling. Here we show that RGS4 is abundantly expressed in human neuroblastoma SH-SY5Y cells that endogenously express μ- and δ-opioid receptors and test the hypothesis that the activity of opioids in these cells is modulated by RGS4. Endogenous RGS4 protein was reduced by ∼90% in SH-SY5Y cells stably expressing short hairpin RNA specifically targeted to RGS4. In these cells, the potency and maximal effect of δ-opioid receptor agonist (SNC80)-mediated inhibition of forskolin-stimulated cAMP accumulation was increased compared with control cells. This effect was reversed by transient transfection of a stable RGS4 mutant (HA-RGS4C2S). Furthermore, MAPK activation by SNC80 was increased in cells with knockdown of RGS4. In contrast, there was no change in the μ-opioid (morphine) response at adenylyl cyclase or MAPK. FLAG-tagged opioid receptors and HA-RGS4C2S were transiently expressed in HEK293T cells, and co-immunoprecipitation experiments showed that the δ-opioid receptor but not the μ-opioid receptor could be precipitated together with the stable RGS4. Using chimeras of the δ- and μ-opioid receptors, the C-tail and third intracellular domain of the δ-opioid receptor were suggested to be the sites of interaction with RGS4. The findings demonstrate a role for endogenous RGS4 protein in modulating δ-opioid receptor signaling in SH-SY5Y cells and provide evidence for a receptor-specific effect of RGS4.μ- and δ-opioid receptors are members of the G protein-coupled receptor family and interact with Gα_i/o proteins (1, 2). This results in signaling to a variety of downstream effectors, including adenylyl cyclase and the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK)² cascade. Signaling of opioid receptors is regulated negatively by regulator of G protein signaling (RGS) proteins (3, 4). These are a family of molecules containing a “RGS consensus” domain that bind to Gα subunits and act as GTPase-accelerating proteins to increase the rate of GTP hydrolysis. This results in a decrease in the lifetime of the active Gα-GTP and free Gβγ subunits and limits signaling to downstream effectors (5–8). The mechanisms by which RGS proteins selectively modulate G protein-mediated receptor signal transduction pathways, especially opioid receptor signaling, are beginning to unfold (9–12). The foundation for the function and selectivity of RGS proteins in regulating opioid signaling lies in their ability to interact with opioid receptors and their cognate G proteins. In general, the selectivity or the preference of an RGS protein for a particular receptor is determined by a variety of factors, including tissue-specific expression and precise interaction with the intracellular domains of receptor proteins, G protein subunits, and effectors as well as other pathway-specific components (13).The effects of RGS proteins on opioid receptor signaling have been examined in several systems. The findings are not always consistent, probably due to the different methodologies used. It has been shown that members of the RZ, R4, and R7 subfamilies (7) of RGS proteins play crucial roles not only in terminating acute opioid agonist action but also in opioid receptor desensitization, internalization, recycling, and degradation (3, 14), thereby affecting opioid tolerance and dependence (15–18). Much work has been performed with RGS4, because it is a smaller RGS protein with a structure consisting of the RGS consensus (box) sequence and a small N terminus (19, 20). It also has a wide distribution in the brain, especially in brain regions important for opioid actions, including the striatum, locus coeruleus, dorsal horn of the spinal cord, and cerebral cortex (21). In vitro RGS4 has been shown to reverse δ-opioid receptor agonist-induced inhibition of cAMP synthesis in membranes prepared from NG108-15 cells (6). Overexpression of RGS4 in HEK293 cells also attenuated morphine-, [d-Ala²,N-Me-Phe⁴,Gly-ol⁵]enkephalin (DAMGO)-, and [d-Pen²,d-Pen⁵]enkephalin (DPDPE)-induced inhibition of adenylyl cyclase (22, 23). Co-expression of RGS4 with GIRK1/GIRK2 channels in Xenopus oocytes reduced the basal K⁺ current and accelerated the deactivation of GIRK channels activated by κ-opioid receptor agonist {"type":"entrez-nucleotide","attrs":{"text":"U69593","term_id":"4205069","term_text":"U69593"}}U69593 (24). Although these previous studies have provided evidence that RGS4 can negatively regulate opioid receptor signaling, they do not confirm a functional role for endogenous RGS4 in endogenous, nontransfected systems.Human neuroblastoma SH-SY5Y cells endogenously express μ- and δ-opioid receptors and a variety of Gα_i/o proteins (25–27). Here we show that RGS4 is abundantly found at both the mRNA and protein levels in these cells. Consequently, we used SH-SY5Y cells to examine the hypothesis that RGS4 negatively modulates opioid receptor signaling under physiological conditions. The endogenously expressed RGS4 level in SH-SY5Y cells was reduced using lentiviral delivery of short hairpin RNA (shRNA) targeting the RGS4 gene. This resulted in changes in δ- but not μ-opioid receptor-mediated signaling to adenylyl cyclase and the MAPK pathway. These findings argue for a selective interaction of RGS4 with the δ-opioid receptor. To test this, we expressed FLAG-tagged μ- and δ-opioid receptors together with a construct for a stable, proteosome-resistant RGS4 protein in HEK293T cells. Co-immunoprecipitation indicated that the δ-opioid but not the μ-opioid receptor was closely associated with RGS4, providing further evidence for a selective interaction between RGS4 and δ-opioid receptor signaling.