| Literature DB >> 22022241 |
Armin Biess1, Eduard Korkotian, David Holcman.
Abstract
The motion of ions, molecules or proteins in dendrites is restricted by cytoplasmic obstacles such as organelles, microtubules and actin network. To account for molecular crowding, we study the effect of diffusion barriers on local calcium spread in a dendrite. We first present a model based on a dimension reduction approach to approximate a three dimensional diffusion in a cylindrical dendrite by a one-dimensional effective diffusion process. By comparing uncaging experiments of an inert dye in a spiny dendrite and in a thin glass tube, we quantify the change in diffusion constants due to molecular crowding as D(cyto)/D(water) = 1/20. We validate our approach by reconstructing the uncaging experiments using Brownian simulations in a realistic 3D model dendrite. Finally, we construct a reduced reaction-diffusion equation to model calcium spread in a dendrite under the presence of additional buffers, pumps and synaptic input. We find that for moderate crowding, calcium dynamics is mainly regulated by the buffer concentration, but not by the cytoplasmic crowding, dendritic spines or synaptic inputs. Following high frequency stimulations, we predict that calcium spread in dendrites is limited to small microdomains of the order of a few microns (<5 μm).Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 22022241 PMCID: PMC3192802 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002182
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Comput Biol ISSN: 1553-734X Impact factor: 4.475
Figure 1Compartmentalized model dendrite with attached spine including buffers and pumps.
The model dendrite is organized as a sequence of periodic compartments of length . The compartments are connected through little openings of radius where molecules can pass to neighboring compartments. (B) Inward and outward fluxes through the small openings of compartment used in the derivation of the effective diffusion equation.
Figure 2(A) Images of the dendritic segments and the glass pipette used in the experiments. The sites of the uncaging spots are indicated. (B) Fluorescein transients in the pipette (black) and in the dendritic medium far away from any attached spine (green) at different distances from the uncaging spot. (C) Fluorescein transients in the dendrite near and far away of any attached dendritic spine are shown in blue and green, respectively. Fluorescein was uncaged at the base of the spine at location . The data are averaged values over several uncaging experiments (). The numerical solutions of the 1D effective diffusion equation are shown as solid lines.
Figure 3Brownian simulations of uncaging experiments.
(A) Model glass pipette (radius and length ). Shown is the initial particle distribution as taken from the experimental data and the sampling volumes (white cylindrical disks) at different locations from the uncaging spot (). (B) Compartmentalized model dendrite (radius and length ). The compartment length and the opening size are derived from the theoretical model ( and ). (C) Compartmentalized model dendrite with attached spine (dendrite geometry as in B with spine neck radius: 0.3 , spine neck length 0.2 , spine head radius 0.4 ). (D) Comparison of 3D Brownian simulations with the uncaging experiments and the results derived from the solutions of the 1D effective diffusion equation. The normalized concentration profiles are shown for the glass tube (A), the dendrite (B) and the dendrite with attached spine (C) at three locations from the uncaging spot ().
Figure 4(A) Calcium diffusion in an aqueous solution contained in a pipette of length . (B) Calcium diffusion in a crowded dendrite with an effective diffusion constant of . A calcium transient of was initiated at . Note that the initial concentration is equal to about 600 particles per and evaluates to about 470 particles per micron for a dendrite with diameter . (C) Same settings than in (A) but with additional buffers (medium buffer concentration) and pumps. (D) Same settings than in (B) but with additional buffers (medium buffer concentration) and pumps. (E) -influx was injected at for 1 s at the location of the NMDAR in the middle of the dendritic segment as shown in the upper and middle panel. The resulting spatiotemporal -profile in the dendrite is shown in the lower panel. (F) Spatiotemporal profiles of in the dendrite for different influx frequencies at the location of the NMDAR. (G) Corresponding calcium spread in the dendrite as measured by the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the calcium signal.
Model parameters.
| Parameter | Value | Reference | |
| Glass tube geometry | |||
| length of glass tube |
| adjusted | |
| glass tube diameter |
| adjusted | |
| Dendrite geometry | |||
| length of dendritic segment |
| adjusted | |
| dendrite diameter |
| (Koch, 1999) | |
| dendritic cross section | 0.785 | adjusted | |
| Crowding | |||
| compartment length |
| adjusted | |
| opening size |
| adjusted | |
| compartment parameter | 0.05 | adjusted | |
|
| |||
| diffusion constant of free |
| (Korkotian et al., 2004) | |
|
|
| (Korkotian et al., 2004) | |
|
| |||
| pump rate for PMCA | 0.27 | (Erler et al., 2004) | |
| pump density for PMCA | 9200/ | (Erler et al., 2004) | |
| half-saturation constant for PMCA |
| (Korkotian et al., 2004) | |
| hill coefficient for PMCA | 1.0 | (Stauffer et al., 1995) | |
| pump rate for NCX | 0.48 | (Erler et al., 2004) | |
| pump density for NCX | 300/ | (Erler et al., 2004) | |
| half-saturation constant for NCX |
| (Fujioka et al., 2000) | |
| hill coefficient for NCX | 1.7 | (Fujioka et al., 2000) | |
| Calmodulin | |||
| total concentration | 10, 25 (default), 100 | (Volfovsky et al., 1999) | |
| forward binding rate for 1st binding | 160 | (Johnson et al., 1996) | |
| backward binding rate for 1st binding | 405 | (Johnson et al., 1996) | |
| forward binding rate for 2st binding | 160 | (Johnson et al., 1996) | |
| backward binding rate for 2st binding | 405 | (Johnson et al., 1996) | |
| forward binding rate for 3st binding | 2.3 | (Johnson et al., 1996) | |
| backward binding rate for 3st binding | 2.4 | (Johnson et al., 1996) | |
| forward binding rate for 4st binding | 2.3 | (Johnson et al., 1996) | |
| backward binding rate for 4st binding | 2.4 | (Johnson et al., 1996) | |
| Calcineurine | |||
| total concentration | 5, 10 (default), 25 | (Volfovsky et al., 1999) | |
| forward binding rate | 50 | (Volfovsky et al., 1999) | |
| backward binding rate | 25 | (Volfovsky et al., 1999) | |
| Calcium dye (Fluo-4) | |||
| total concentration | 2 | (Korkotion et al., 2004) | |
| forward binding rate | 60 | (Korkotion et al., 2004) | |
| backward binding rate | 170 | (Korkotion et al., 2004) | |
| NMDA-R | |||
| current through a single NMDAR | 9 pA | (Pina-Crespo and Gibb, 2002) | |
| fraction of current carried by |
| (Burnashev, 1995) | |
| time constant (decay) | 80 ms | (Zador and Koch, 1994) | |
| time constant (rise) | 3 ms | (Zador and Koch, 1994) | |
| radius of receptor | 0.025 | adjusted | |
| Spines | |||
| spine radius | 0.05–0.16 | (Koch, 1999) |
Parameters used in the stochastic simulation experiments and mean-field calcium dynamics simulations.