G protein-coupled receptors control NMDARs and metaplasticity in the hippocampus

Long-term potentiation (LTP) and long-term depression (LTD) are the major forms of functional synaptic plasticity observed at CA1 synapses of the hippocampus. The balance between LTP and LTD or “metaplasticity” is controlled by G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs) whose signal pathways target the N-methyl-D-asparate (NMDA) subtype of excitatory glutamate receptor. We discuss the protein kinase signal cascades stimulated by Gαq and Gαs coupled GPCRs and describe how control of NMDAR activity shifts the threshold for the induction of LTP.     

Neuromodulators control the polarity of spike-timing-dependent synaptic plasticity

Near coincidental pre- and postsynaptic action potentials induce associative long-term potentiation (LTP) or long-term depression (LTD), depending on the order of their timing. Here, we show that in visual cortex the rules of this spike-timing-dependent plasticity are not rigid, but shaped by neuromodulator receptors coupled to adenylyl cyclase (AC) and phospholipase C (PLC) signaling cascades. Activation of the AC and PLC cascades results in phosphorylation of postsynaptic glutamate receptors at sites that serve as specific "tags" for LTP and LTD. As a consequence, the outcome (i.e., whether LTP or LTD) of a given pattern of pre- and postsynaptic firing depends not only on the order of the timing, but also on the relative activation of neuromodulator receptors coupled to AC and PLC. These findings indicate that cholinergic and adrenergic neuromodulation associated with the behavioral state of the animal can control the gating and the polarity of cortical plasticity.     

A model for long-term potentiation and depression

A computational model of long-term potentiation (LTP) and long-term depression (LTD) in the hippocampus is presented. The model assumes the existence of retrograde signals, is in good agreement with several experimental data on LTP, LTD, and their pharmacological manipulations, and shows how a simple kinetic scheme can capture the essential characteristics of the processes involved in LTP and LTD. We propose that LTP and LTD could be two different but conceptually similar processes, induced by the same class of retrograde signals, and maintained by two distinct mechanisms. An interpretation of a number of experiments in terms of the molecular processes involved in LTP and LTD induction and maintenance, and the roles of a retrograde signal are presented and discussed.     

Directional gating of synaptic plasticity by GPCRs and their distinct downstream signalling pathways

EMBO J 31 4, 805–816 (2012); published online December202011Synaptic plasticity, the activity-dependent modification of synaptic strength, plays a fundamental role in learning and memory as well as in developmental maturation of neuronal circuitry. However, how synaptic plasticity is induced and regulated remains poorly understood. In this issue of The EMBO Journal, Yang and colleagues present sets of exciting data, suggesting that G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) selectively execute distinct signalling pathways to differentially regulate induction thresholds of hippocampal long-term potentiation (LTP) and long-term depression (LTD), thereby governing the direction of synaptic plasticity. These results shed significant light on our current understanding of how bidirectional synaptic plasticity is regulated.Synaptic plasticity has been demonstrated at synapses in various brain regions; the most well-characterized forms are LTP and LTD at hippocampal CA1 glutamatergic synapses (Collingridge et al, 2004). In experimental models, LTP and LTD can be, respectively, induced by high-frequency stimulation (HFS) and low-frequency stimulation (LFS) via activation of the N-methyl-D-aspartic acid (NMDA) subtype ionotropic glutamate receptor (NMDAR). However, how HFS and LFS activate NMDARs and thereby lead to synaptic plasticity remains poorly understood and highly controversial. It is even more unclear how the bidirectional synaptic plasticity is produced and regulated in response to physiological or pathological changes.Functional NMDARs consist primarily of two GluN1 subunits and two GluN2 subunits, with GluN2A and GluN2B subunits being the most common NMDAR subunits found in the cortical and hippocampal regions of the adult brain (Cull-Candy et al, 2001). GluN2A and GluN2B subunits may confer distinct gating and pharmacological properties to NMDARs and couple them to distinct intracellular signalling machineries (Cull-Candy et al, 2001). Moreover, the ratio of these two subpopulations of NMDARs at the glutamatergic synapse is dynamically regulated in an activity-dependent manner (Bellone and Nicoll, 2007; Cho et al, 2009; Xu et al, 2009). Although controversial, GluN2A- and GluN2B-containing NMDARs have been suggested to have differential roles in regulating the direction of synaptic plasticity (Collingridge et al, 2004; Morishita et al, 2007). Among the factors shown to regulate NMDAR function, Src family tyrosine kinases may be the best characterized, with both Src and Fyn able to upregulate NMDAR function, and thus LTP induction (Salter and Kalia, 2004). However, if these kinases modulate NMDAR function in a NMDAR subunit-specific manner remains unknown. To explore this concept, Yang et al (2012) investigated the potential subunit-specific regulation of NMDARs by Src and Fyn using whole-cell patch clamp recording of NMDAR-mediated currents from acutely dissociated CA1 hippocampal neurons or from rat hippocampal slices. They found that intracellular perfusion of recombinant Src or Fyn increased the NMDAR-mediated currents. By applying subunit-preferential antagonists of GluN2A- or GluN2B-containing NMDARs, or by using neurons obtained from GluN2A knockout mice, they discovered that Src and Fyn differentially enhanced currents gated through GluN2A- and GluN2B-containing NMDARs, respectively.Can physiological or pathological factors differentially activate Src or Fyn, thereby exerting subunit-specific regulation of NMDAR function? To answer this question, Yang et al focused their investigation on the role of GPCRs, specifically pituitary adenylate cyclase activating peptide receptor (PAC1R) and dopamine D1 receptor (D1R), both of which have recently been shown to potentiate NMDARs through Src family kinases (Macdonald et al, 2005; Hu et al, 2010). Indeed, they found that activation of PAC1R specifically increased GluN2A-NMDAR-mediated currents without affecting currents gated through GluN2B-NMDARs, and this potentiation was prevented by the Src-specific inhibitory peptide Src(40–58) (Salter and Kalia, 2004). To rule out the contribution of Fyn, the authors developed a novel-specific Fyn inhibitory peptide Fyn(39–57), and demonstrated that it had little effect on PAC1R potentiation. In contrast, activation of D1R potentiated GluN2B- (but not GluN2A-) NMDAR-mediated currents, and this potentiation was specifically eliminated by Fyn(39–57), but not by Src(40–58). The authors further demonstrated that stimulation of PAC1Rs resulted in a selective activation of Src kinase and consequent tyrosine phosphorylation of the GluN2A subunit, whereas activation of D1Rs led to a specific increase in Fyn-mediated tyrosine phosphorylation of the GluN2B subunit. To provide convincing evidence that these subunit-differential modulations are indeed the result of tyrosine phosphorylation of the respective NMDAR subunits, the authors then performed electrophysiological experiments using neurons from two knockin mouse lines GluN2A(Y1325F) and GluN2B(Y1472F), in which the tyrosine phosphorylation residues in native GluN2A and GluN2B subunits were, respectively, replaced with non-phosphorylatable phenylalanine residues. As expected, the authors found that PAC1R-mediated potentiation of NMDA currents was lost in neurons from GluN2A(Y1325F) mice (but maintained in neurons from GluN2B(Y1472F) mice), while D1R-mediated enhancement of NMDA currents was only observed in neurons from GluN2A(Y1325F) mice. Together, as illustrated in Figure 1, the authors have made a very convincing case that PAC1R and D1R, respectively, enhance function of GluN2A- and GluN2B-containing NMDARs by differentially activating Src- and Fyn-mediated phosphorylation of respective NMDAR subunits.Open in a separate windowFigure 1GPCRs regulate the direction of synaptic plasticity via activating distinct signalling pathways. Synaptic NMDA receptors, both GluN2A- and GluN2B-containing, play key roles in the induction of various forms of synaptic plasticity at the hippocampal CA1 glutamatergic synapse. Under the basal level of GluN2A and GluN2B ratio, stimulation with a train of pulses at frequencies from 1 to 100 Hz produces a frequency and plasticity (LTD–LTP) curve, with maximum LTD and LTP being, respectively, induced at 1 and 100 Hz. Activation of PAC1R with its agonist PACAP38 activates Src and thereby results in tyrosine phosphorylation and consequent functional upregulation of GluN2A-containing NMDARs, resulting in an increase in the ratio of functional GluN2A and GluN2B. The increased ratio in turn causes a left shift of frequency and plasticity curve, favouring LTP induction. In contrast, activation of D1R by the receptor agonist {"type":"entrez-protein","attrs":{"text":"SKF81297","term_id":"1156277425","term_text":"SKF81297"}}SKF81297 triggers Fyn-specific tyrosine phosphorylation and functional upregulation of GluN2B, causing a reduction of GluN2A and GluN2B ratio. This decreased ratio results in a right shift of the curve, favouring LTD induction. The ability of GPCRs to differentially activate distinct downstream signalling pathways involved in synaptic plasticity suggests the potential roles of GPCRs in governing the direction of synaptic plasticity.Given the coupling of NMDARs to the induction of synaptic plasticity, it is then reasonable to ask if activation of the two GPCRs can selectively affect the induction of LTP or LTD at CA1 synapses. Yang and colleagues investigated the effects of pharmacological activation of PAC1R and D1R on the induction of LTP and LTD by recording the field excitatory postsynaptic potentials from hippocampal slices. Consistent with differential roles of NMDAR subunits in governing directions of synaptic plasticity, the authors observed that activation of PAC1Rs reduces the induction threshold of LTP, while stimulation of D1Rs favours LTD induction (Figure 1). Facilitation of LTP by PAC1R and LTD by D1R were, respectively, prevented in the brain slices obtained from GluN2A(Y1325F) and GluN2B(Y1472F) knockin mice, supporting the differential involvements of Src-mediated GluN2A phosphorylation and Fyn-mediated GluN2B phosphorylation.Taken together, the authors'' results have demonstrated that activation of PAC1R and D1R can control the direction of synaptic plasticity at the hippocampal CA1 synapse by differentially regulating NMDAR_EPSCs in a subunit-specific fashion (Figure 1). Specifically, PAC1R enhances the function of GluN2A-containing NMDARs by increasing Src phosphorylation of GluN2A subunit at Y1325, whereas D1R upregulates GluN2B-containing NMDARs through increased Fyn phosphorylation of GluN2B at Y1472. Moreover, by regulating the ratio of functional GluN2A- and GluN2B-containing NMDARs, PAC1R and D1R in turn modulate the direction of synaptic plasticity, favouring the production of LTP and LTD, respectively.While consistent with the recently proposed hypothesis that GluN2A and GluN2B may have preferential roles in the induction of hippocampal CA1 LTP and LTD (Collingridge et al, 2004; but see also Morishita et al, 2007), the current study further emphasizes the importance of GluN2A/GluN2B ratios in regulating LTP and LTD thresholds: increased ratio favours LTP, while reduced ratio promotes LTD. However, this seems to contradict some recent studies where the reduction and increase in the GluN2A/GluN2B ratio appeared to, respectively, favour LTP (Cho et al, 2009; Xu et al, 2009) and LTD (Xu et al, 2009). Therefore, the direction of plasticity change is likely modulated not only by the GluN2A/GluN2B ratio, but also by additional factors such as experimental conditions, developmental stages, and brain regions.Under many experimental conditions, LTP and LTD are usually induced by HFS and LFS stimulating protocols, respectively, but it remains essentially unknown how LTP and LTD are physiologically or pathologically generated in animals. To this end, the identification of different GPCRs as the endogenous upstream regulators of NMDA receptor subpopulations, and hence regulators of synaptic plasticity, is the major novelty of Yang and colleagues'' work. Future studies are needed to investigate if and how PAC1R and/or D1R are critically involved in the production of LTP or LTD in animals under physiological or pathological conditions. Given the fact that Src family kinases may be required for LTP induced by HFS in hippocampal slices (Salter and Kalia, 2004), an equally intriguing question would be whether these GPCRs are actually required for LTP/LTD induced by HFS/LFS experimental paradigms. In line with this conjecture, it would be interesting to determine if ligands for various GPCRs co-exist in the glutamatergic presynaptic terminals and, if so, can be differentially co-released with glutamate in a frequency-dependent manner, thereby contributing to either HFS-induced LTP or LFS-induced LTD.The findings by Yang and colleagues establish an exciting mechanistic model by which GPCRs can govern the direction of synaptic plasticity by determining the contributions of GluN2A- and GluN2B-NMDARs through differential tyrosine phosphorylation of respective NMDA receptor subtypes. Additional studies further validating this model under physiological and pathological conditions will greatly improve our understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying synaptic plasticity and cognitive brain functions. In addition, NMDARs, depending on their subunit composition and/or subcellular localization, may also have complex roles in mediating neuronal survival and death (Lai et al, 2011). Considering that neurotoxicity produced by over-activation of NMDARs is widely accepted to be a common mechanism for neuronal loss in a number of acute brain injuries and chronic neurodegenerative diseases, Yang and colleagues'' finding of the differential regulation of NMDAR subunits by different GPCRs could have wider implications beyond synaptic plasticity.     

Molecular constraints on synaptic tagging and maintenance of long-term potentiation: a predictive model

Protein synthesis-dependent, late long-term potentiation (LTP) and depression (LTD) at glutamatergic hippocampal synapses are well characterized examples of long-term synaptic plasticity. Persistent increased activity of protein kinase M ζ (PKMζ) is thought essential for maintaining LTP. Additional spatial and temporal features that govern LTP and LTD induction are embodied in the synaptic tagging and capture (STC) and cross capture hypotheses. Only synapses that have been "tagged" by a stimulus sufficient for LTP and learning can "capture" PKMζ. A model was developed to simulate the dynamics of key molecules required for LTP and LTD. The model concisely represents relationships between tagging, capture, LTD, and LTP maintenance. The model successfully simulated LTP maintained by persistent synaptic PKMζ, STC, LTD, and cross capture, and makes testable predictions concerning the dynamics of PKMζ. The maintenance of LTP, and consequently of at least some forms of long-term memory, is predicted to require continual positive feedback in which PKMζ enhances its own synthesis only at potentiated synapses. This feedback underlies bistability in the activity of PKMζ. Second, cross capture requires the induction of LTD to induce dendritic PKMζ synthesis, although this may require tagging of a nearby synapse for LTP. The model also simulates the effects of PKMζ inhibition, and makes additional predictions for the dynamics of CaM kinases. Experiments testing the above predictions would significantly advance the understanding of memory maintenance.     

Pull-push neuromodulation of LTP and LTD enables bidirectional experience-induced synaptic scaling in visual cortex

Neuromodulatory input, acting on G protein-coupled receptors, is essential for the induction of experience-dependent cortical plasticity. Here we report that G-coupled receptors in layer II/III of visual cortex control the polarity of synaptic plasticity through a pull-push regulation of LTP and LTD. In slices, receptors coupled to Gs promote LTP while suppressing LTD; conversely, receptors coupled to Gq11 promote LTD and suppress LTP. In vivo, the selective stimulation of Gs- or Gq11-coupled receptors brings the cortex into LTP-only or LTD-only states, which allows the potentiation or depression of targeted synapses with visual stimulation. The pull-push regulation of LTP/LTD occurs via direct control of the synaptic plasticity machinery and it is independent of changes in NMDAR activation or neuronal excitability. We propose these simple rules governing the pull-push control of LTP/LTD form a general metaplasticity mechanism that may contribute to neuromodulation of plasticity in other cortical circuits.     

Signaling Pathways Involved in Striatal Synaptic Plasticity are Sensitive to Temporal Pattern and Exhibit Spatial Specificity

The basal ganglia is a brain region critically involved in reinforcement learning and motor control. Synaptic plasticity in the striatum of the basal ganglia is a cellular mechanism implicated in learning and neuronal information processing. Therefore, understanding how different spatio-temporal patterns of synaptic input select for different types of plasticity is key to understanding learning mechanisms. In striatal medium spiny projection neurons (MSPN), both long term potentiation (LTP) and long term depression (LTD) require an elevation in intracellular calcium concentration; however, it is unknown how the post-synaptic neuron discriminates between different patterns of calcium influx. Using computer modeling, we investigate the hypothesis that temporal pattern of stimulation can select for either endocannabinoid production (for LTD) or protein kinase C (PKC) activation (for LTP) in striatal MSPNs. We implement a stochastic model of the post-synaptic signaling pathways in a dendrite with one or more diffusionally coupled spines. The model is validated by comparison to experiments measuring endocannabinoid-dependent depolarization induced suppression of inhibition. Using the validated model, simulations demonstrate that theta burst stimulation, which produces LTP, increases the activation of PKC as compared to 20 Hz stimulation, which produces LTD. The model prediction that PKC activation is required for theta burst LTP is confirmed experimentally. Using the ratio of PKC to endocannabinoid production as an index of plasticity direction, model simulations demonstrate that LTP exhibits spine level spatial specificity, whereas LTD is more diffuse. These results suggest that spatio-temporal control of striatal information processing employs these Gq coupled pathways.     

Interrelated modification of excitatory and inhibitory synaptic connections in the olivary-cerebellar neuronal network

The model of simultaneous interrelated modification in the efficacy of synaptic inputs to different neurons of the olivary-cerebellar network is developed. The model is based on the following features of the network: simultaneous activation of the input layer (granule) cells and the output layer (deep cerebellar nuclei) cells by mossy fibers; simultaneous activation of Purkinje cells and cerebellar cells of the input and output layers by climbing fibers and their collaterals; the existence of local feedback excitatory, inhibitory, and disinhibitory circuits. The rise (decrease) of posttetanic Ca2+ concentration in reference to the level produced by previous stimulation causes the decrease (increase) in cGMP-dependent protein kinase G activity, and increase (decrease) inprotein phosphatase 1 activity. Subsequent dephosphorylation (phosphorylation) of ionotropic receptors results in simultaneous LTD (LTP) of the excitatory input together with the LTP (LTD) of the inhibitory input to the same neuron. The character of interrelated modifications of synapses at different cerebellar levels strongly depends on the olivary cell activity. In the presence (absence) of the signal from the inferior olive LTD (LTP) of the output cerebellar signal can be induced.     

Computational model of the effects of stochastic conditioning on the induction of long-term potentiation and depression

The long-term potentiation (LTP) or long-term depression (LTD) of synaptic strength are currently considered to be the first microscopic steps leading to learning and memory. The great majority of experiments (both in vitro and in vivo) studying the basic mechanisms of LTP and LTD induction use conditioning protocols in which the presynaptic stimuli are delivered at constant frequencies. This is not, however, what is commonly found in vivo, where a highly irregular spiking activity seems to drive most of the neuronal functions. Thus, some important aspects of the induction characteristics of LTP and LTD expressed in vivo might have been overlooked by the experiments. Using a simple schematic model for a synapse we show here that, in fact, the statistical properties of a presynaptic conditioning signal could change the probability to induce LTP and/or LTD, suggesting a new and faster operating mode for a synapse. Received: 3 September 1998 / Accepted in revised form: 14 April 1999     

LTP and LTD: an embarrassment of riches

LTP and LTD, the long-term potentiation and depression of excitatory synaptic transmission, are widespread phenomena expressed at possibly every excitatory synapse in the mammalian brain. It is now clear that "LTP" and "LTD" are not unitary phenomena. Their mechanisms vary depending on the synapses and circuits in which they operate. Here we review those forms of LTP and LTD for which mechanisms have been most firmly established. Examples are provided that show how these mechanisms can contribute to experience-dependent modifications of brain function.     

NMDA Receptor-Dependent Long-Term Potentiation and Long-Term Depression (LTP/LTD)

Long-term potentiation and long-term depression (LTP/LTD) can be elicited by activating N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA)-type glutamate receptors, typically by the coincident activity of pre- and postsynaptic neurons. The early phases of expression are mediated by a redistribution of AMPA-type glutamate receptors: More receptors are added to potentiate the synapse or receptors are removed to weaken synapses. With time, structural changes become apparent, which in general require the synthesis of new proteins. The investigation of the molecular and cellular mechanisms underlying these forms of synaptic plasticity has received much attention, because NMDA receptor–dependent LTP and LTD may constitute cellular substrates of learning and memory.Long-term synaptic plasticity is a generic term that applies to a long-lasting experience-dependent change in the efficacy of synaptic transmission. Here we will focus on N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor–dependent synaptic potentiation (LTP) and depression (LTD), two forms of activity-dependent long-term changes in synaptic efficacy that have been extensively studied. Because both LTP and LTD are believed to represent cellular correlates of learning and memory, they have attracted considerable interest. In this article we will focus on the molecular and cellular mechanisms associated with LTP and LTD. As for other forms of long-term synaptic plasticity, a characterization of LTP and LTD involves describing the molecular mechanisms that are required to elicit the change (induction), followed by an investigation of the mechanism of expression (hours) and maintenance (days). The best-characterized form of NMDA receptor (NMDAR)-dependent LTP occurs between CA3 and CA1 pyramidal neurons of the hippocampus (Fig. 1). Throughout the chapter we will mostly refer to this specific form of LTP. At these CA3-CA1 Schaffer collateral synapses, the loci of both induction and expression are situated in the postsynaptic neuron.Open in a separate windowFigure 1.NMDAR-dependent LTD and LTP in the hippocampus. (A) Historical drawing by Ramon y Cajal (1909) of the trisynaptic pathway in the hippocampus. LTP and LTD are induced by activation of NMDARs at synapses between CA3 and CA1 pyramidal neurons (blue and red). In contrast, LTP at mossy fiber synapses onto CA3 neurons (green on blue) is NMDAR-independent. (B) This electron microscopy image shows the densely packed neuropil in the CA1 region of the hippocampus and highlights two asymmetric CA3-CA1 synapses. Note the typical “bouton en passant” configuration of synapse 1 and the prominent spine in synapse 2. The postsynaptic densities (PSDs) are visible. Scale bar, 200 nm. (Image kindly provided by Rafael Luján, Universitad de Castilla-La Mancha.) (C) Bidirectional change in CA3-CA1 synaptic efficacy by LTD and LTP in the same synapses monitored by extracellular field recordings in an acute slice preparation of the hippocampus. Note the contrasting induction protocols (Data from C Lüscher, unpubl.).     

The role of calmodulin as a signal integrator for synaptic plasticity

Excitatory synapses in the brain show several forms of synaptic plasticity, including long-term potentiation (LTP) and long-term depression (LTD), which are initiated by increases in intracellular Ca(2+) that are generated through NMDA (N-methyl-D-aspartate) receptors or voltage-sensitive Ca(2+) channels. LTP depends on the coordinated regulation of an ensemble of enzymes, including Ca(2+)/calmodulin-dependent protein kinase II, adenylyl cyclase 1 and 8, and calcineurin, all of which are stimulated by calmodulin, a Ca(2+)-binding protein. In this review, we discuss the hypothesis that calmodulin is a central integrator of synaptic plasticity and that its unique regulatory properties allow the integration of several forms of signal transduction that are required for LTP and LTD.     

A possible mechanism of the influence of neuromodulators and modifiable inhibition on long-term potentiation and long-term depression of excitatory inputs to main hippocampal neurons

A hypothetic mechanism explaining the influence of various neuromodulators and modifiable disynaptic inhibition on the long-term potentiation and depression (LTP and LTD) of excitatory inputs to granule and pyramidal hippocampal cells is proposed. According to this mechanism, facilitation of the LTD/LTP of excitatory inputs to an inhibitory interneuron caused by the action of a neuromodulator on a receptor bound with Gi/0/(Gs or Gq/11) protein can reduce/augment the GABA release, weaken/intensify the target cell inhibition, and promote the induction of the LTP/LTD of excitatory inputs to this cell. In the absence of the inhibition, the same neuromodulator would promote the LTD/LTP induction in the target cell by activating the same receptor types. The resulting effect of a neuromodulator on a target cell depends on the ratio between the "strengths" of its excitatory and inhibitory inputs, on the presence of receptors of the same or different types at the interneuron and the target cell, and on the neuromodulator concentration due to its different affinity for receptors, interaction with which provide its influence on postsynaptic processes in opposite directions. The consequences of suggested mechanism are in agreement with the known experimental data.     

Synaptic Long-Term Potentiation and Depression in the Rat Medial Vestibular Nuclei Depend on Neural Activation of Estrogenic and Androgenic Signals

Estrogenic and androgenic steroids can be synthesised in the brain and rapidly modulate synaptic transmission and plasticity through direct interaction with membrane receptors for estrogens (ERs) and androgens (ARs). We used whole cell patch clamp recordings in brainstem slices of male rats to explore the influence of ER and AR activation and local synthesis of 17β-estradiol (E2) and 5α-dihydrotestosterone (DHT) on the long-term synaptic changes induced in the neurons of the medial vestibular nucleus (MVN). Long-term depression (LTD) and long-term potentiation (LTP) caused by different patterns of high frequency stimulation (HFS) of the primary vestibular afferents were assayed under the blockade of ARs and ERs or in the presence of inhibitors for enzymes synthesizing DHT (5α-reductase) and E2 (P450-aromatase) from testosterone (T). We found that LTD is mediated by interaction of locally produced androgens with ARs and LTP by interaction of locally synthesized E2 with ERs. In fact, the AR block with flutamide prevented LTD while did not affect LTP, and the blockade of ERs with ICI 182,780 abolished LTP without influencing LTD. Moreover, the block of P450-aromatase with letrozole not only prevented the LTP induction, but inverted LTP into LTD. This LTD is likely due to the local activation of androgens, since it was abolished under blockade of ARs. Conversely, LTD was still induced in the presence of finasteride the inhibitor of 5α-reductase demonstrating that T is able to activate ARs and induce LTD even when DHT is not synthesized. This study demonstrates a key and opposite role of sex neurosteroids in the long-term synaptic changes of the MVN with a specific role of T-DHT for LTD and of E2 for LTP. Moreover, it suggests that different stimulation patterns can lead to LTD or LTP by specifically activating the enzymes involved in the synthesis of androgenic or estrogenic neurosteroids.     

Role of AMPA receptor trafficking in NMDA receptor-dependent synaptic plasticity in the rat lateral amygdala

Stimulated exocytosis and endocytosis of post-synaptic α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid subtype of glutamate receptors (AMPARs) have been proposed as primary mechanisms for the expression of hippocampal CA1 long-term potentiation (LTP) and long-term depression (LTD), respectively. LTP and LTD, the two most well characterized forms of synaptic plasticity, are thought to be important for learning and memory in behaving animals. Both LTP and LTD can also be induced in the lateral amygdala (LA), a critical structure involved in fear conditioning. However, the role of AMPAR trafficking in the expression of either LTP or LTD in this structure remains unclear. In this study, we show that NMDA receptor-dependent LTP and LTD can be reliably induced at the synapses of the auditory thalamic inputs to the LA in brain slices. The expression of LTP was prevented by post-synaptic blockade of vesicle-mediated exocytosis with application of a light chain of Clostridium tetanus neurotoxin and was associated with increased cell-surface AMPAR expression. In contrast, the expression of LTD was prevented by post-synaptic application of a glutamate receptor 2-derived interference peptide, which specifically blocks the stimulated clathrin-dependent endocytosis of AMPARs, and was correlated with a reduction in plasma membrane-surface expression of AMPARs. These results strongly suggest that regulated trafficking of post-synaptic AMPARs is also involved in the expression of LTP and LTD in the LA.     

A Voltage-Based STDP Rule Combined with Fast BCM-Like Metaplasticity Accounts for LTP and Concurrent “Heterosynaptic” LTD in the Dentate Gyrus In Vivo

Long-term potentiation (LTP) and long-term depression (LTD) are widely accepted to be synaptic mechanisms involved in learning and memory. It remains uncertain, however, which particular activity rules are utilized by hippocampal neurons to induce LTP and LTD in behaving animals. Recent experiments in the dentate gyrus of freely moving rats revealed an unexpected pattern of LTP and LTD from high-frequency perforant path stimulation. While 400 Hz theta-burst stimulation (400-TBS) and 400 Hz delta-burst stimulation (400-DBS) elicited substantial LTP of the tetanized medial path input and, concurrently, LTD of the non-tetanized lateral path input, 100 Hz theta-burst stimulation (100-TBS, a normally efficient LTP protocol for in vitro preparations) produced only weak LTP and concurrent LTD. Here we show in a biophysically realistic compartmental granule cell model that this pattern of results can be accounted for by a voltage-based spike-timing-dependent plasticity (STDP) rule combined with a relatively fast Bienenstock-Cooper-Munro (BCM)-like homeostatic metaplasticity rule, all on a background of ongoing spontaneous activity in the input fibers. Our results suggest that, at least for dentate granule cells, the interplay of STDP-BCM plasticity rules and ongoing pre- and postsynaptic background activity determines not only the degree of input-specific LTP elicited by various plasticity-inducing protocols, but also the degree of associated LTD in neighboring non-tetanized inputs, as generated by the ongoing constitutive activity at these synapses.     

Natural patterns of activity and long-term synaptic plasticity

Long-term potentiation (LTP) of synaptic transmission is traditionally elicited by massively synchronous, high-frequency inputs, which rarely occur naturally. Recent in vitro experiments have revealed that both LTP and long-term depression (LTD) can arise by appropriately pairing weak synaptic inputs with action potentials in the postsynaptic cell. This discovery has generated new insights into the conditions under which synaptic modification may occur in pyramidal neurons in vivo. First, it has been shown that the temporal order of the synaptic input and the postsynaptic spike within a narrow temporal window determines whether LTP or LTD is elicited, according to a temporally asymmetric Hebbian learning rule. Second, backpropagating action potentials are able to serve as a global signal for synaptic plasticity in a neuron compared with local associative interactions between synaptic inputs on dendrites. Third, a specific temporal pattern of activity--postsynaptic bursting--accompanies synaptic potentiation in adults.     

Local field potential modeling predicts dense activation in cerebellar granule cells clusters under LTP and LTD control

Local field-potentials (LFPs) are generated by neuronal ensembles and contain information about the activity of single neurons. Here, the LFPs of the cerebellar granular layer and their changes during long-term synaptic plasticity (LTP and LTD) were recorded in response to punctate facial stimulation in the rat in vivo. The LFP comprised a trigeminal (T) and a cortical (C) wave. T and C, which derived from independent granule cell clusters, co-varied during LTP and LTD. To extract information about the underlying cellular activities, the LFP was reconstructed using a repetitive convolution (ReConv) of the extracellular potential generated by a detailed multicompartmental model of the granule cell. The mossy fiber input patterns were determined using a Blind Source Separation (BSS) algorithm. The major component of the LFP was generated by the granule cell spike Na(+) current, which caused a powerful sink in the axon initial segment with the source located in the soma and dendrites. Reproducing the LFP changes observed during LTP and LTD required modifications in both release probability and intrinsic excitability at the mossy fiber-granule cells relay. Synaptic plasticity and Golgi cell feed-forward inhibition proved critical for controlling the percentage of active granule cells, which was 11% in standard conditions but ranged from 3% during LTD to 21% during LTP and raised over 50% when inhibition was reduced. The emerging picture is that of independent (but neighboring) trigeminal and cortical channels, in which synaptic plasticity and feed-forward inhibition effectively regulate the number of discharging granule cells and emitted spikes generating "dense" activity clusters in the cerebellar granular layer.     

Local learning rules: predicted influence of dendritic location on synaptic modification in spike-timing-dependent plasticity

Recent indirect experimental evidence suggests that synaptic plasticity changes along the dendrites of a neuron. Here we present a synaptic plasticity rule which is controlled by the properties of the pre- and postsynaptic signals. Using recorded membrane traces of back-propagating and dendritic spikes we demonstrate that LTP and LTD will depend specifically on the shape of the postsynaptic depolarization at a given dendritic site. We find that asymmetrical spike-timing-dependent plasticity (STDP) can be replaced by temporally symmetrical plasticity within physiologically relevant time windows if the postsynaptic depolarization rises shallow. Presynaptically the rule depends on the NMDA channel characteristic, and the model predicts that an increase in Mg²⁺ will attenuate the STDP curve without changing its shape. Furthermore, the model suggests that the profile of LTD should be governed by the postsynaptic signal while that of LTP mainly depends on the presynaptic signal shape.