In synaptic terminals, complexin is thought to have inhibitory and activating roles for spontaneous "mini" release and evoked synchronized neurotransmitter release, respectively. We used single vesicle-vesicle microscopy imaging to study the effect of complexin-1 on the on-rate of docking between vesicles that mimic synaptic vesicles and the plasma membrane. We found that complexin-1 enhances the on-rate of docking of synaptic vesicle mimics containing full-length synaptobrevin-2 and full-length synaptotagmin-1 to plasma membrane-mimicking vesicles containing full-length syntaxin-1A and SNAP-25A. This effect requires the C-terminal domain of complexin-1, which binds to the membrane, the presence of PS in the membrane, and the core region of complexin-1, which binds to the SNARE complex.
In synaptic terminals, complexin is thought to have inhibitory and activating roles for spontaneous "mini" release and evoked synchronized neurotransmitter release, respectively. We used single vesicle-vesicle microscopy imaging to study the effect of complexin-1 on the on-rate of docking between vesicles that mimic synaptic vesicles and the plasma membrane. We found that complexin-1 enhances the on-rate of docking of synaptic vesicle mimics containing full-length synaptobrevin-2 and full-length synaptotagmin-1 to plasma membrane-mimicking vesicles containing full-length syntaxin-1A and SNAP-25A. This effect requires the C-terminal domain of complexin-1, which binds to the membrane, the presence of PS in the membrane, and the core region of complexin-1, which binds to the SNARE complex.
Ca2+-triggered, synchronized
fusion of synaptic vesicles to the presynaptic plasma membrane underlies
interneuronal communication. Proteins including neuronal soluble N-ethylmaleimide sensitive factor attachment protein receptors
(SNAREs), the Ca2+ sensor synaptotagmin-1, SM proteins,
and complexin are critical for this process.[1] Complexin is a small soluble protein (134 residues) that is mainly
found in the presynaptic terminal. It binds to the SNARE complex and
has both activating and inhibiting functions for fast synchronous
release and spontaneous “mini” release.[2,3] Moreover, overexpression of complexin in PC12[4] and chromaffin[5] cells or expression
as a fusion protein to synaptobrevin[6] substantially
diminished neurotransmitter release, suggesting an inhibitory role
of complexin. In contrast, knockout of complexin isoforms from hippocampal
neurons selectively impaired the synchronous component of exocytosis[7] indicating a stimulatory role of complexins in
late fusion steps.The N-terminus (residues 1–27) of
complexin-1 is critical
for fast synchronized release, whereas the accessory α-helix
(residues 27–48) plays a role in suppressing spontaneous release
(Figure 1A).[2] A
central region of complexin (residues 48–70) binds to the groove
between the synaptobrevin and syntaxin α-helices in the core
part of the neuronal SNARE complex, which itself is a tight bundle
of four α-helices;[8] this central
region appears to be critical for all functions of complexin. The
C-terminal region (residues 70–134) has a role in synaptic
vesicle priming,[3] but the underlying molecular
mechanism is unclear.
Figure 1
Single
vesicle–vesicle docking assay. (A) Primary sequence
domain diagrams of complexin-1 (Cpx), Cpx4M, and Cpx1–86 with functional annotations. (B) Schematic of our
single vesicle–vesicle assay for measuring the docking probability
between v- and t-vesicles. A saturated layer of DiD labeled t-vesicles
(reconstituted with syntaxin-1A and SNAP-25A) was created by immobilization
on the imaging surface through biotin–neutravidin tethers.
The saturation and homogeneity of the layer of immobilized t-SNARE
vesicles was assessed by (red) laser illumination at 633 nm. Free
DiI labeled v-vesicles (reconstituted with full-length synaptobrevin-2
and synaptotagmin-1) were injected into the system in the presence
or absence of complexin-1 for a defined incubation time period (25
s unless noted otherwise). Green laser illumination at 532 nm imaged
the v-vesicles that were docked to immobilized t-vesicles. The mean
diameter of the vesicles is 45 nm as determined by inspection of cryo-EM
images of the vesicles (Figure S1). This
setup is similar to that of ref (17).
In vitro biophysical studies revealed
stimulatory effects of the
central region and C-terminal regions of complexin in proteoliposome
lipid-mixing experiments[8−10] and inhibitory effects of full-length
complexin in cell-based fusion, proteoliposome lipid-mixing assays,
and synaptotagmin-binding competition experiments.[6,11,12] However, the cell-based fusion assays examined
relatively slow fusion events (minute time scale), and the lipid mixing
experiments examined lipid mixing, rather than content mixing, the
latter correlating with neurotransmitter release. Remarkably, we found
that complexin dramatically increases the number of fast (msec) Ca2+ triggered fusion events between synaptic vesicle and plasma
membrane mimics using a single-vesicle content mixing assay.[13] At the lowest Ca2+ concentration
that we tested (250 μM), the fusion probability increased from
background levels to a substantial burst, in agreement with in vivo
studies of synchronous release in neurons.[2]A “clamping” model of complexin has been proposed,
in which complexin stabilizes the t-SNARE complex in an inhibitory
conformation that blocks full complex formation with synaptobrevin,
until a Ca2+ signal arrives,[11,14,15] although the molecular mechanism of the release of
the block remains unclear.Synaptotagmin-1, a synaptic vesicle
membrane-anchored Ca2+ sensor, plays an essential role
for fast synchronous neurotransmitter
release.[1] The absence of full-length synaptotagmin-1
in many previous in vitro studies (or, instead, the use of the soluble
C2AB domain of synaptotagmin-1) may thus explain the differences between
physiological observations and these particular experiments.[16] Here we studied the effect of complexin-1 on
the on-rate of docking between vesicles that mimic synaptic vesicles,
containing both full-length synaptotagmin-1 and synaptobrevin-2, and
vesicles that mimic the plasma membrane, containing both syntaxin-1A
and SNAP-25A. We found that complexin-1 enhanced the on-rate of docking.
However, this enhancement was critically dependent on the presence
of the membrane-binding C-terminal domain of complexin, in agreement
with recent in vivo data.[3] In the absence
of the C-terminal binding domain, the on-rate of docking was reduced
in the presence of complexin. We note that both properties of complexin
also depend on the interaction between the central region of complexin
and the SNARE complex and on the presence of PS in the membrane.Single
vesicle–vesicle docking assay. (A) Primary sequence
domain diagrams of complexin-1 (Cpx), Cpx4M, and Cpx1–86 with functional annotations. (B) Schematic of our
single vesicle–vesicle assay for measuring the docking probability
between v- and t-vesicles. A saturated layer of DiD labeled t-vesicles
(reconstituted with syntaxin-1A and SNAP-25A) was created by immobilization
on the imaging surface through biotin–neutravidin tethers.
The saturation and homogeneity of the layer of immobilized t-SNARE
vesicles was assessed by (red) laser illumination at 633 nm. Free
DiI labeled v-vesicles (reconstituted with full-length synaptobrevin-2
and synaptotagmin-1) were injected into the system in the presence
or absence of complexin-1 for a defined incubation time period (25
s unless noted otherwise). Green laser illumination at 532 nm imaged
the v-vesicles that were docked to immobilized t-vesicles. The mean
diameter of the vesicles is 45 nm as determined by inspection of cryo-EM
images of the vesicles (Figure S1). This
setup is similar to that of ref (17).We immobilized DiD labeled “t-vesicles” (proteoliposomes
with reconstituted full-length syntaxin-1A and SNAP-25A) on a polyethylene
glycol (PEG) coated imaging surface (Figure 1B). We subsequently injected a solution of DiI labeled “v-vesicles”
(proteoliposomes with reconstituted full-length synaptobrevin-2 and
synaptotagmin-1) in the presence or absence of 10 μM complexin-1
for a defined incubation time period (see online Supporting Information, SI, for details). The v-vesicles mimic
synaptic vesicles, while the t-vesicles mimic the plasma membrane.
At the end of the incubation period (25 s, unless mentioned otherwise),
unbound v-vesicles and complexin-1 molecules were removed by buffer
exchange (SI and Figure S2). Using green
laser illumination, we then counted the average number of DiI-labeled
v-vesicles per imaging area (50 × 100 μm2) that
remained bound to t-vesicles. Since our protocol produces a homogeneous
and saturated surface-layer of immobilized t-vesicles, the number
of fluorescent spots arising from DiI labeled v-vesicles is proportional
to the probability that a v-vesicle docks to a surface-tethered t-vesicle
during the incubation period,[18] and it
is proportional to the duration of the incubation period since the
off-rate is rather slow. By design, this experiment measures a non-equilibrium
property that depends on the kinetics of the interaction between v-
and t-vesicles. Below saturating conditions, the docking probability
within the incubation time period is approximately related to the
on-rate of docking between free v-vesicles and immobilized t-vesicles.
The number of vesicles that dock to a saturated surface within a defined
time period has been measured in previous single-particle experiments.[19,20]Figure S3 illustrates the kinetic character
of our measurement by using two different incubation time periods
(see further discussion below).As previously noted, we included
full-length synaptotagmin-1, in
contrast to previous liposome-based studies that examined the effect
of complexin in the presence of SNAREs only. Remarkably, in our experiments
complexin-1 significantly increased the docking probability by ∼60%
rather than reducing it (Figure 2A). We next
tested if the enhancement in docking probability by complexin-1 depends
on the interaction with the SNARE complex. We employed the “4M”
mutant (R48A, R59A, K69A, and Y70A) of complexin-1, Cpx4M, that significantly weakens the interaction with the SNARE complex.[2] The v-vesicle docking on-rate in the presence
of the Cpx4M mutant was statistically identical to the
case without complexin-1 (Figure 2A). Thus,
the enhancement of docking by complexin-1 in the presence of both
SNAREs and synaptotagmin-1 depends on this particular interaction
with the neuronal SNARE complex.
Figure 2
The C-terminus of complexin-1 is critical for
enhancing the docking
on-rate between v- and t-vesicles in the presence of full-length neuronal
SNAREs and synaptotagmin-1. (A) The number of docked v-vesicles for
complexin-1 as well as its mutants, using the protocol described in Figure S2 and SI with
a 25 s incubation period. (B) As a control, we preincubated the system
with 20 μM of the soluble fragment of synaptobrevin-2, residues
1–96, blocking syntaxin-1A/SNAP-25A binary complex and preventing trans-SNARE complex formation between t- and v-vesicles.
Error bars are SEM from 10 random imaging locations in the same sample
channel.
As a further control, the SNARE
dependence of the effects for wild-type
complexin and its mutants was tested by preincubating the immobilized
v-vesicles with a large excess (20 μM) of the soluble synaptobrevin-2
fragment (residues 1–96) (Figure 2B).
In all cases, the pre-incubation of t-vesicles with the synaptobrevin
fragment diminished docking of v-vesicles in the absence or presence
of complexin as well as its mutants. This result can be explained
by the sequestration of all t-SNARE complexes by the soluble synaptobrevin
fragment, preventing trans-SNARE complex formation
and, hence, vesicle docking.The C-terminus of complexin-1 is critical for
enhancing the docking
on-rate between v- and t-vesicles in the presence of full-length neuronal
SNAREs and synaptotagmin-1. (A) The number of docked v-vesicles for
complexin-1 as well as its mutants, using the protocol described in Figure S2 and SI with
a 25 s incubation period. (B) As a control, we preincubated the system
with 20 μM of the soluble fragment of synaptobrevin-2, residues
1–96, blocking syntaxin-1A/SNAP-25A binary complex and preventing trans-SNARE complex formation between t- and v-vesicles.
Error bars are SEM from 10 random imaging locations in the same sample
channel.Since docked v-vesicles remain
associated with the immobilized
t-vesicles during the short imaging period,[18] the observed docking probability in our experiments should be proportional
to the on-rate of the association reaction. Since this probability
would be independent of the duration of the incubation period, one
would expect that the docking probability ratios between different
conditions to be independent of the incubation period as well. Indeed,
for a shorter incubation period, the ratio between two particular
conditions is close to that of the longer period (Figure S3). Moreover, as shown in Figure
S4A, the relative docking probability pattern was also independent
of the v-vesicle concentration. As an additional control, the docking
probability ratios are approximately independent of the v-vesicle
concentration (Figure S4A). Moreover, the
majority of docked v-vesicles are involved in single v-/t-vesicle
pairs as assessed by fluorescence intensity profiles (Figure S4B).We next tested if the enhancement
of the docking probability by
complexin-1 depends on its C-terminus. Surprisingly, the C-terminally
truncated construct of complexin-1, Cpx1–86, reduced
the docking on-rate (Figure 2A). Similarly,
in the absence of full-length synaptotagmin-1, Cpx1–86, also reduced the docking probability (Figure 3). Moreover, using a liposome flotation assay, we found that the
C-terminus is critical for binding of complexin-1 to synthetic membranes
with a lipid composition similar to that of synaptic vesicles (Figure 4). Finally, the presence of phosphatidylserine (PS)
in the v-vesicle membrane is essential for the docking enhancement
by complexin (Figure 5). This result is consistent
with a previous finding that PS is a binding partner to complexin.[21]
Figure 3
Effect of complexin-1 on the docking on-rate in the absence
of
synaptotagmin-1. The diagram on the left side shows the experimental
setup (identical to the setup shown in Figure 1B, except that v-vesicles only contain synaptobrevin). The bar graph
on the right side shows the number of v-vesicles that are docked to
immobilized t-vesicles within a 25 s incubation period in the absence
and presence of wild-type complexin-1 or presence of the C-terminally
truncated mutant Cpx1–86. Error bars are SEM from
15 random imaging locations in the same sample channel.
Figure 4
The C-terminus of complexin-1 is essential for membrane
binding.
Wild-type complexin-1 or the C-terminally truncated complexin mutant
Cpx1–86 was incubated with protein free vesicles
with a lipid composition similar to that of v-vesicles, as described
in the SI, Experimental Methods. After
centrifugation, membranes were pelleted, and the supernatants (S)
and membrane-containing pellet (P) fractions were analyzed using SDS-PAGE
followed by Western blotting with an anti-Cpx-1 antibody. Wild-type
complexin-1 (Cpx) was associated with the membrane fraction, whereas
the C-terminally truncated complexin mutant Cpx1–86 was not detectable.
Figure 5
The presence of the anionic phospholipid PS in the v-vesicle membrane
is important for complexin’s function. Experiments were performed
in the presence of neuronal SNAREs and synaptotagmin-1 as described
in Figure 1. (A) The exact same lipid composition
for t- and v-vesicles were used as in previous experiments (SI, Materials and Methods). (B) Identical conditions
as in A were used except without PS in the v-vesicle lipid composition.
In the absence of PS, complexin did not enhance the docking on-rate.
The corresponding intensity distributions of the observed fluorescent
spots are shown in Figure S5, illustrating
that mostly single v-/t-vesicle pairs are observed under the conditions
of this experiment.
Effect of complexin-1 on the docking on-rate in the absence
of
synaptotagmin-1. The diagram on the left side shows the experimental
setup (identical to the setup shown in Figure 1B, except that v-vesicles only contain synaptobrevin). The bar graph
on the right side shows the number of v-vesicles that are docked to
immobilized t-vesicles within a 25 s incubation period in the absence
and presence of wild-type complexin-1 or presence of the C-terminally
truncated mutant Cpx1–86. Error bars are SEM from
15 random imaging locations in the same sample channel.Previous studies based on an ensemble in
vitro lipid mixing assay proposed a potential fusion promoting
role of
the C-terminus of complexin-1,[9,10] which contrasts a recent in vivo study suggesting that C-terminus is important for
vesicle docking, but not fusion.[3] Here,
we report a critical role of the complexin C-terminus for enhancing
the on-rate of docking between vesicles that mimic synaptic vesicle
and the plasma membrane, consistent with the in vivo results. How can one resolve this apparent contradiction between
previous in vitro bulk lipid-mixing experiments and
our single-vesicle results? Fluorescence correlation spectroscopy
(FCS) lipid-mixing experiments revealed that the rate-limiting step
of an ensemble in vitro lipid mixing assay is the
docking step itself rather than the fusion reaction.[22] Thus, a factor that promotes vesicle docking would also
enhance subsequent lipid mixing and fusion events, rather than affecting
the fusion kinetics itself.[17,22] Single-vesicle assays
are capable of discriminating between effects related to docking,
hemifusion, and complete fusion, so they are not subject to the limitations
of certain bulk lipid-mixing experiments.Our single-vesicle
results suggest that the C-terminus of complexin
plays a key role in enhancing the docking on-rate of synaptic vesicles.
Most recently, a study from Rizo’s group showed that the C-terminus
of complexin is important for resisting synaptotagmin replacement.[23]The C-terminus of complexin-1 is essential for membrane
binding.
Wild-type complexin-1 or the C-terminally truncated complexin mutant
Cpx1–86 was incubated with protein free vesicles
with a lipid composition similar to that of v-vesicles, as described
in the SI, Experimental Methods. After
centrifugation, membranes were pelleted, and the supernatants (S)
and membrane-containing pellet (P) fractions were analyzed using SDS-PAGE
followed by Western blotting with an anti-Cpx-1 antibody. Wild-type
complexin-1 (Cpx) was associated with the membrane fraction, whereas
the C-terminally truncated complexin mutant Cpx1–86 was not detectable.The presence of the anionic phospholipid PS in the v-vesicle membrane
is important for complexin’s function. Experiments were performed
in the presence of neuronal SNAREs and synaptotagmin-1 as described
in Figure 1. (A) The exact same lipid composition
for t- and v-vesicles were used as in previous experiments (SI, Materials and Methods). (B) Identical conditions
as in A were used except without PS in the v-vesicle lipid composition.
In the absence of PS, complexin did not enhance the docking on-rate.
The corresponding intensity distributions of the observed fluorescent
spots are shown in Figure S5, illustrating
that mostly single v-/t-vesicle pairs are observed under the conditions
of this experiment.A large body of work
has focused on the SNARE-interacting part
of complexin-1, the accessory helix, and the N-terminal region for
roles in synchronizing fast release and suppressing spontaneous release.[11,14,15] Together with previous studies,[3,9,10,21,24] an important functional role of C-terminal
membrane-binding region of complexin has been uncovered and warrants
further study to decipher the underlying molecular mechanism.At variance with many previous in vitro studies,
we included both full-length neuronal SNAREs and synaptotagmin-1 in
order to provide better mimics of both synaptic vesicles and the plasma
membrane. Compared to the soluble C2AB fragment of synaptotagmin-1,
membrane-anchoring of full-length synaptotagmin-1 works in a different
manner for efficient Ca2+-triggering.[25] We thus recommend that future studies of Ca2+-triggered fusion should always, at minimum, include both full-length
synaptotagmin-1 and complexin-1, in addition to neuronal SNAREs, as
was already done in recent studies.[13,26−28]
Authors: Jörg Malsam; Daniel Parisotto; Tanmay A M Bharat; Andrea Scheutzow; Jean Michel Krause; John A G Briggs; Thomas H Söllner Journal: EMBO J Date: 2012-06-15 Impact factor: 11.598
Authors: Claudio G Giraudo; Alejandro Garcia-Diaz; William S Eng; Yuhang Chen; Wayne A Hendrickson; Thomas J Melia; James E Rothman Journal: Science Date: 2009-01-23 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Jiajie Diao; Jacqueline Burré; Sandro Vivona; Daniel J Cipriano; Manu Sharma; Minjoung Kyoung; Thomas C Südhof; Axel T Brunger Journal: Elife Date: 2013-04-30 Impact factor: 8.140
Authors: Jihong Gong; Ying Lai; Xiaohong Li; Mengxian Wang; Jeremy Leitz; Yachong Hu; Yunxiang Zhang; Ucheor B Choi; Daniel Cipriano; Richard A Pfuetzner; Thomas C Südhof; Xiaofei Yang; Axel T Brunger; Jiajie Diao Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2016-11-07 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Ying Lai; Ucheor B Choi; Yunxiang Zhang; Minglei Zhao; Richard A Pfuetzner; Austin L Wang; Jiajie Diao; Axel T Brunger Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2016-07-21 Impact factor: 11.205