Neng-Wei Hu1, Andrew J Nicoll2, Dainan Zhang1, Alexandra J Mably3, Tiernan O'Malley3, Silvia A Purro2, Cassandra Terry2, John Collinge2, Dominic M Walsh3, Michael J Rowan1. 1. Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, and Trinity College Institute of Neuroscience, Biotechnology Building, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland. 2. Medical Research Council Prion Unit and Department of Neurodegenerative Disease, UCL Institute of Neurology, Queen Square, London WC1N 3BG, UK. 3. Laboratory for Neurodegenerative Research, Center for Neurologic Diseases, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Harvard Institute of Medicine, 77 Avenue Louis Pasteur, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA.
Abstract
NMDA-type glutamate receptors (NMDARs) are currently regarded as paramount in the potent and selective disruption of synaptic plasticity by Alzheimer's disease amyloid β-protein (Aβ). Non-NMDAR mechanisms remain relatively unexplored. Here we describe how Aβ facilitates NMDAR-independent long-term depression of synaptic transmission in the hippocampus in vivo. Synthetic Aβ and Aβ in soluble extracts of Alzheimer's disease brain usurp endogenous acetylcholine muscarinic receptor-dependent long-term depression, to enable long-term depression that required metabotropic glutamate-5 receptors (mGlu5Rs). We also find that mGlu5Rs are essential for Aβ-mediated inhibition of NMDAR-dependent long-term potentiation in vivo. Blocking Aβ binding to cellular prion protein with antibodies prevents the facilitation of long-term depression. Our findings uncover an overarching role for Aβ-PrP(C)-mGlu5R interplay in mediating both LTD facilitation and LTP inhibition, encompassing NMDAR-mediated processes that were previously considered primary.
NMDA-type glutamate receptors (NMDARs) are currently regarded as paramount in the potent and selective disruption of synaptic plasticity by Alzheimer's disease amyloid β-protein (Aβ). Non-NMDAR mechanisms remain relatively unexplored. Here we describe how Aβ facilitates NMDAR-independent long-term depression of synaptic transmission in the hippocampus in vivo. Synthetic Aβ and Aβ in soluble extracts of Alzheimer's disease brain usurp endogenous acetylcholine muscarinic receptor-dependent long-term depression, to enable long-term depression that required metabotropic glutamate-5 receptors (mGlu5Rs). We also find that mGlu5Rs are essential for Aβ-mediated inhibition of NMDAR-dependent long-term potentiation in vivo. Blocking Aβ binding to cellular prion protein with antibodies prevents the facilitation of long-term depression. Our findings uncover an overarching role for Aβ-PrP(C)-mGlu5R interplay in mediating both LTD facilitation and LTP inhibition, encompassing NMDAR-mediated processes that were previously considered primary.
Increasing our understanding of how amyloid-β protein (Aβ) causes synaptic dysfunction should provide new means
of therapeutically targeting early Alzheimer’s disease (AD)1. It is now well established that Aβ has rapid, profound and selective disruptive effects on
synaptic plasticity of excitatory synaptic transmission in vulnerable brain regions,
including the hippocampus2. In addition to causing strong
inhibition of long-term potentiation (LTP), Aβ has been reported to enhance long-term depression
(LTD). Most research has focused on the actions of Aβ on forms of LTP and LTD that require NMDA-type
glutamate receptors (NMDARs)3456. Indeed, as NMDAR-dependent
LTP is likely to underlie synaptic memory mechanisms7, the
inhibition of this form of LTP by Aβ is highly congruent with the ability of Aβ to impair learning and memory89. Somewhat similarly, excessive enhancement of LTD that requires
NMDARs can cause memory retrieval deficits1011. Remarkably, the
disruption of NMDAR-dependent synaptic plasticity by Aβ is itself mediated through NMDARs, in particular, those
containing the GluN2B subunit12131415.In contrast, little is known about how Aβ affects forms of synaptic plasticity that do not
require NMDARs. Whereas Aβ
potently inhibits acetylcholine-induced LTP16, NMDAR-independent
LTP induced by strong high-frequency conditioning stimulation (HFS) appears to be
resistant to disturbance by Aβ17 in the hippocampus in
vitro. Recently, Aβ
was reported to enable an NMDAR-independent LTD that was blocked by metabotropic glutamate-5 receptor (mGlu5R) antagonists in hippocampal slices58. Indeed, synaptically evoked activation of mGlu5R or other similar G-protein coupled
receptors including M1 muscarinic
acetylcholine receptors (mAChRs) can induce LTD that does not require NMDARs11181920. Moreover, mAChR-dependent LTD has been proposed to
underlie visual recognition memory in the perirhinal cortex21 and
to provide a neurophysiological basis for preserved memory function in the ageing
hippocampus22. Considering the early vulnerability of
cholinergic pathways and related signalling in AD2324, we
hypothesize that Aβ would
inhibit mAChR-dependent LTD.Remarkably, in vivo exposure to low-dose Aβ facilitated an NMDAR-independent form of LTD but does
not appear to affect mAChR-dependent LTD. This Aβ-facilitated LTD is found to be mGlu5R-dependent. Moreover, Aβ-mediated inhibition of LTP is also
dependent on metabotropic glutamate-5
receptors (mGlu5Rs), indicating a key overarching role of this glutamate receptor
subtype. We also discover that cellular
PrP, a receptor for certain synaptotoxic Aβ assemblies2526, is necessary for Aβ to facilitate LTD. These data are strongly congruent
with recent molecular evidence that Aβ and cellular prion
protein (PrPC) form a complex with mGlu5R at the postsynaptic density27 and thereby disrupt synaptic plasticity.
Results
In vivo induction of mAChR-dependent LTD
In order to study the effects of Aβ on mAChR-dependent LTD in vivo, we
developed a novel induction protocol that makes use of the reported requirement
for high-intensity pulses to ensure robust synaptic ACh release during
low-frequency conditioning stimulation (LFS) in the neocortex28. We found that application of strong LFS, consisting of 900
high-intensity pulses at 1 Hz (LFS-900), in the stratum radiatum of
anaesthetized rats triggered synaptic LTD that (i) was stable for
~3 h (Fig. 1a,b), (ii) was readily
reversible by HFS (Fig. 1a,b) and (iii) was input specific
(Fig. 1c,d).
Figure 1
Low-frequency stimulation induces input-selective and reversible long-term
depression at CA3-to-CA1 synapses in vivo.
(a,b) Application of strong LFS (horizontal bar, LFS-900; 900
pulses at 1 Hz) induced robust and stable LTD. Three hours after
LTD induction, application of high-frequency stimulation (arrow, HFS;
200 Hz) induced potentiation of synaptic transmission such that
LTD was completely reversed. As summarized in (b), the EPSP decreased
to 74.2±3.9%, at 3 h post LFS (3 h),
n=5, P<0.05 compared with pre-LFS baseline (Pre);
one-way ANOVA-Tukey. At 1 h post HFS (4 h) the EPSP
reverted to 99.1±3.7%, n=5, P>0.05 compared
with Pre; P<0.05 compared with LFS). (c,d) In
four animals, two stimulation electrodes (S1, black and S2, purple) were
implanted in different locations in the stratum radiatum to allow
independent activation of the Schaffer collateral-commissural pathway. One
hour after stable baseline recording from both S1 and S2 pathways,
application of LFS-900 to S1 induced LTD in the S1 pathway but not in the S2
pathway. Conversely, 1 h after the first LFS, a second LFS was
applied to S2 pathway that only induced LTD in pathway S2. As summarized in
(d) One hour after application of LFS1, the EPSP in pathway S1
decreased to 67.4±5.6% (P<0.05 compared with Pre;
one-way ANOVA-Tukey) but did not change significantly in the S2 pathway
(103.6±4.5%, P>0.05 compared with Pre;
P<0.05 compared with S1 pathway; t-test). In contrast,
1 h after application of LFS2, the EPSP was significantly reduced
in the S2 pathway (61.1±10.4%, P<0.05 compared with
Pre) but no further change was seen in the S1 pathway (75.4±4.1%,
P>0.05 compared with EPSP amplitude pre-LFS2). Values are
expressed as % mean baseline EPSP amplitude±s.e.m. Insets show
representative EPSP traces at the times indicated. Calibration bars:
vertical, 2 mV; horizontal, 10 ms.
*P<0.05.
Consistent with the essential requirement for activation of cholinergic
mechanisms in the induction of this form of LTD, LFS-900 failed to induce LTD of
synaptic transmission after pretreatment with the mAChR antagonist scopolamine (Fig.
2a,b). In contrast, the LTD was not dependent on the activation of
nicotinic AChRs, the magnitude of LTD being unaffected by injection of the
nicotinic AChR antagonist mecamylamine before LFS-900 (Fig.
2a,b). Consistent with a role for the M1 subtype of mAChR in LTD induction19,
the M1-selective antagonist
pirenzepine significantly
reduced the magnitude of LTD (Fig. 2c,d). mAChR activation
did not appear to be required for LTD maintenance/expression, as injection of
scopolamine after the
conditioning stimulation, using the same dose that completely prevented LTD
induction, did not significantly affect the magnitude of LTD (Fig. 2e,f). Further evidence that physiological release of ACh is a
key factor in LTD induction in vivo was the ability of an agent that
enhances the effects of endogenously released ACh, the acetylcholinesterase inhibitor
donepezil, to lower the
threshold of LTD induction. Thus, we found that a relatively weak LFS
conditioning protocol, consisting of 300 high-intensity pulses at
1 Hz (LFS-300) that was at or just below the threshold to induce
significant LTD in vehicle-pretreated animals, triggered a large and robust LTD
that was stable for at least 3 h in animals pretreated with
donepezil (Fig. 2g,h). Moreover, as described below, the induction of this
in vivo synaptically evoked mAChR-dependent LTD did not require the
activation of NMDA or
mGlu5Rs.
Figure 2
Muscarinic receptor-dependence of LTD in vivo.
(a,b) Systemic injection of scopolamine
(0.2 mg kg−1, i.p.), a
muscarinic acetylcholine receptor antagonist, completely prevented
LFS-induced LTD, whereas application of the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor
antagonist mecamylamine
(5 mg kg−1, i.p.) did
not affect LTD induction. Open triangle, i.p.; hash, intracerebroventricular
(i.c.v.). As summarized in (b) the EPSP decreased significantly to
72.0±4.4% in the vehicle control group and the mecamylamine group
(67.1±4.9%, n=4, P<0.05 compared with Pre,
P>0.05 compared with vehicle) but not in the scopolamine group
(96.5±6.4%, n=6, P>0.05 compared with Pre,
P<0.05 compared with vehicle); paired t and one-way
ANOVA-Tukey. (c,d) LFS-900-induced LTD was also significantly
reduced by treatment with the M1-selective mAChR antagonist pirenzepine (triangle,
50 nmol in 5 μl). As summarized in
(d), the EPSP decreased to 67.5±4.5% and 90.4±2.1%,
n=4, in vehicle- and pirenzepine-injected animals, respectively
(P<0.05 compared with Pre and between groups; t-test).
(e,f) Application of LFS-900 before the injection of
scopolamine
(triangle, 0.2 mg kg−1,
i.p.) induced robust LTD (71.7±7.2%, n=6,
P<0.05 compared with Pre; paired t).
(g,h) The acetylcholinesterase inhibitor donepezil lowered the threshold to
induce LTD. (g) The application of weak LFS (bar, LFS-300; 300
high-intensity pulses at 1 Hz) induced a transient synaptic
depression in vehicle-injected animals (triangle), whereas the same protocol
triggered a robust and stable LTD after acute injection of donepezil
(1 mg kg−1,
subcutaneously). (h) Veh: 101.8±6.3%; donepezil: 70.5±7.1% at
3 h after LFS. *P<0.05, t-test, n=4
per group. Values are mean±s.e.m. Calibration bars: vertical,
2 mV; horizontal, 10 ms.
Because Aβ can
interfere with mAChR-related signalling29, we went on to
examine the ability of Aβ to disrupt this form of LTD.
Aβ enhances an
mAChR-independent form of LTD
We investigated the effects of Aβ on synaptically evoked mAChR-dependent LTD
in vivo by the injection of Aβ into the lateral cerebral ventricle via a
cannula. Initially, we used a soluble synthetic Aβ1–42
preparation that had been centrifuged to remove any fibril aggregates. We chose
a dose (160 pmol) of soluble Aβ1–42 that did not
affect baseline synaptic transmission but strongly inhibited NMDAR-dependent
LTP, as described below and previously30. To our surprise,
in animals pre-injected with soluble Aβ1–42 the application
of LFS-900 triggered an LTD that was more stable than the control LTD induced in
the absence of Aβ.
Thus, LTD induced in the presence of Aβ was stable during the 5-h recording period,
whereas control LTD decayed significantly between 3 and 5 h post LFS
(Fig. 3a,b). Although we had hypothesized that
mAChR-dependent LTD would be inhibited by Aβ, we wondered whether this Aβ-facilitated LTD required
mAChRs. We therefore pretreated the rats with scopolamine before Aβ. In contrast to control LTD, which was
completely abrogated by the mAChR antagonist (Fig. 2a,b),
the time course and magnitude of LTD was only partly reduced by scopolamine in Aβ-treated animals (Fig. 3a,b). These findings indicate that Aβ had enabled an additional
LTD that was more stable and independent of mAChRs while at the same time
leaving a residual mAChR-dependent LTD relatively unscathed.
Figure 3
Intracerebroventricular injection of Aβ enables an additional LTD that is muscarinic
receptor-independent.
(a) Intracerebroventricular (hash) injection of 160 pmol
soluble Aβ1–42
(5 μl of a 32-μM solution) 30 min
before the application of LFS-900 did not affect the early phase
(<2 h post LFS) but facilitated the late phase
(3–5 h post LFS) of LFS-induced LTD. Systemic
administration of scopolamine with the dose (open triangle;
0.2 mg kg−1, i.p.) that
completely prevented LFS-induced LTD (see Fig. 2a,b)
partly attenuated LFS-induced LTD in Aβ-treated animals. As summarized in
(b), LFS-900 induced LTD measuring 68.5±4.3% in controls
(n=7, P<0.05 compared with Pre), 50.0±7.4%
in Aβ-pretreated rats (n=6,
P<0.05 compared with Pre, P<0.05 compared with
vehicle) and 72.3±4.0% in the scopolamine+Aβ group (n=6, P<0.05
compared with Pre, P<0.05 compared with the Aβ-treated group); paired
t and one-way ANOVA-Tukey. Values are mean±s.e.m.
Calibration: vertical, 2 mV; horizontal, 10 ms.
We wondered whether this Aβ-facilitated additional, mAChR-independent, LTD
was due to the ability of Aβ to lower the threshold for LTD induction in
vivo. We therefore used the weak LFS conditioning protocol (LFS-300). In
addition to our standard soluble Aβ1–42 preparation we
also tested a preparation of soluble Aβ1–42 enriched with
protofibrils (Fig. 4). We combined the results obtained
with the two synthetic Aβ1–42 preparations
because there was no quantitative difference in their effects on LTD. The
application of weak LFS-300 induced a large and robust LTD that was stable for
at least 3 h in animals injected with Aβ1–42
(Fig. 5a,b), but not vehicle or a control, reverse
sequence peptide Aβ42–1 (Fig. 5a,b). This dose (160 pmol) of Aβ1–42
did not affect baseline synaptic transmission (Fig. 5a,b)
and consistent with a relatively selective action of Aβ on the mechanisms
underlying LTD induction, the same dose applied after the LFS-300 conditioning
stimulation failed to facilitate LTD (Fig. 5c,d).
Moreover, the LTD induced by weak LFS-300 in the presence of Aβ, like the additional LTD
induced by the strong LFS-900 protocol, was also mAChR-independent, not being
blocked by scopolamine
pretreatment (Fig. 5e,f).
Figure 4
Characterization of protofibril Aβ1–42
preparation.
Characterization of Aβ1–42 protofibrils
by electron microscopy (EM), SEC and quasi-elastic light scattering (QELS)
confirm these preparations contain predominantly protofibrillar assemblies
of 10–100 nm in length with molecular weights of
105–107 and hydrodynamic radii
of 8–50 nm. Scale bar, 50 nm.
Figure 5
Aβ facilitates
the induction of muscarinic receptor-independent LTD by weak low-frequency
stimulation.
(a,b) The application of weak LFS (bar, LFS-300; 300
high-intensity pulses at 1 Hz) triggered a robust and stable LTD
after acute i.c.v. injection (hash) of 160 pmol Aβ1–42 but not vehicle
or the reverse peptide Aβ42–1
(Aβ
reverse). This dose of Aβ1–42 did not
affect baseline synaptic transmission in the absence of LFS-300
(Aβ no
LFS). Data for soluble and protofibril Aβ are combined and some animals had an
additional separate i.c.v. injection of 5 μl vehicle
15 min before Aβ. As summarized in (b) at
3 h the EPSP measured 93.3±3.6% in controls (n=8,
P>0.05 compared with Pre; paired t),
69.9±3.8% in Aβ-injected rats (n=10,
P<0.05 compared with Pre and vehicle group; paired t
and one-way ANOVA-Tukey) and 97.3±4.3% in reverse peptide
(n=4, P>0.05 compared with Pre). Injection of
Aβ1–42
(160 pmol, i.c.v.) did not affect baseline synaptic transmission
(102.6±1.6% at 3 h, n=7, P>0.05
compared with Pre). (c,d) Aβ1–42, when
administered 15 min after LFS-300 did not facilitate LTD. As
summarized in (d) the EPSP was not significantly decreased at
3 h post LFS-300 (92.2 ±8.3%, n=5,
P>0.05 compared with Pre; paired t).
(e,f) In animals pretreated with scopolamine at the dose (open
triangle; 0.2 mg kg−1, i.p.)
that completely blocked LFS-induced LTD (see Fig.
2a,b), application of LFS-300 30 min after i.c.v.
injection of vehicle did not induce LTD, whereas application of LFS-300
30 min after i.c.v. injection of soluble Aβ1–42 induced a robust
and stable LTD. As summarized in (f), at 3 h the EPSP
measured 102.2±6.6% in the scopolamine+vehicle group (n=4,
P>0.05 compared with Pre; paired t) and
71.2±5.8% in the scopolamine+Aβ group (n=6, P<0.05
compared with Pre or scopolamine+vehicle group; t-tests). Values are
mean±s.e.m. Calibration: vertical, 2 mV; horizontal,
10 ms.
Although synthetic Aβ
is most commonly used in studies of synaptic plasticity disruption, it is
important to determine whether similar effects are caused by natural
Aβ. The presence
of water-soluble SDS-stable
Aβ dimer in
post-mortem brain extracts is highly correlated with ante-mortem dementia
status31 and such Aβ can inhibit LTP and promote LTD in
vitro58. It is therefore of great interest to
assess whether AD brain-derived Aβ can also facilitate LTD induction in
vivo. Consequently, we tested the ability of Aβ in water-soluble extracts
of two different AD brains to mimic the ability of synthetic Aβ1–42
to lower the threshold for LTD induction in vivo. As can be seen from the
western blot of one of the AD brain extracts (Fig. 6a),
Aβ runs on SDS
gel predominantly as either monomer or dimer. These water-soluble SDS-stable species include a wide
distribution of assemblies when analysed by size exclusion chromatography (SEC),
ranging from monomer to ≥70 kDa (ref. 8). Similar to synthetic Aβ, the injection of Aβ-containing AD brain
soluble extract enabled the induction of robust and stable LTD by LFS-300 (Fig. 6b,c). Importantly, immunodepletion of Aβ from the AD brain sample
abrogated its ability to enable LTD induction. This finding indicates that
soluble Aβ is
responsible for the lowering of the LTD induction threshold by the AD brain
extract. Which SDS-stable
Aβ assembly is
responsible for the facilitation of LTD by AD TBS brain extract remains to be
determined.
Figure 6
Aβ in AD brain
TBS soluble extract facilitates LTD in vivo.
(a) The TBS extract of AD2 was examined by immunoprecipitation/western
blot as described in the Methods. The second and third lanes of the WB show
duplicate samples of the buffer-exchanged AD2 extract that contained
Aβ monomer
(M) and SDS-stable
Aβ dimers
(D). The first lane shows that the immunodepleted sample had been
effectively depleted of all detectable Aβ. Known amounts of synthetic Aβ1–42 were
electrophoresed on the same gel to allow estimation of Aβ content in the test
samples
(~8.8 ng ml−1
and 5.6 ng ml−1
Aβ monomer and
dimer, respectively). Molecular weight standards are indicated on the left
and are given in kDa. Cross-reactive immunoglobulin-derived proteins that
were detected when TBS buffer was immunoprecipitated are indicated (NS).
(b,c) Similar to soluble synthetic Aβ1–42, acute i.c.v.
injection of unmanipulated TBS extract of AD brain (AD,
5 μl) also enabled the induction of robust and
persistent LTD by the weak LFS-300 protocol. In contrast, the same extract
of AD brain that had been immunodepleted of Aβ using a polyclonal
anti-Aβ
antibody (ID) did not enable the induction of LTD by LFS-300. Triangle:
Vehicle; hash: AD or ID. As summarized in (c) at 3 h the
EPSP measured 67.8±4.8% in the AD group (n=8,
P<0.05 compared with Pre; paired t) and
93.8±6.3% in the ID group (n=5, P>0.05
compared with Pre; P<0.05 compared with AD group;
t-test). Values are mean±s.e.m. Calibration: vertical,
2 mV; horizontal, 10 ms.
Aβ-facilitated LTD is NMDAR-independent
Because Aβ has been
reported to promote NMDAR-dependent LTD56, we postulated
that activation of NMDARs in the presence of Aβ may bypass the need for mAChRs in the induction
of LTD in vivo. Contrary to our prediction, the NMDAR antagonist
CPP, at a dose
(10 mg kg−1, intraperitoneal
(i.p.)) that completely blocks HFS-induced LTP32, did not
affect the induction of LTD by LFS-300 in the presence of soluble Aβ1–42
(Fig. 7a,b). As CPP is a competitive antagonist and NMDARs containing
GluN2B subunits are
particularly implicated in Aβ-mediated synaptic plasticity disruption12131415, we also tested the GluN2B-selective negative allosteric
modulator Ro 25-6981 (ref.
33)33. Using a dose
(6 mg kg−1, i.p.) that
prevents Aβ-mediated inhibition of LTP12,
Ro 25–6981 had
no effect on the facilitation of LTD by Aβ (Fig. 7c,d). We concluded
that like control LTD induced by LFS-900 (Fig. 7e,f),
Aβ-facilitated
LTD induced by LFS-300 is NMDAR-independent.
Figure 7
NMDAR antagonists do not affect LTD but prevent LTD reversal.
(a,b) LFS-300 (bar) after Aβ1–42 (i.c.v.,
hash) triggered LTD that was reversed by HFS. The competitive antagonist
CPP (open triangle;
10 mg kg−1, i.p.) did
not affect Aβ-facilitated LTD but prevented de-depression.
(b) Thus LTD at 1.5 h measured 75.9±4.0%
(n=5) and 66.5±5.8% (n=7) in the
vehicle+Aβ
group and CPP+Aβ group, respectively (P<0.05
compared with Pre, one-way ANOVA-Tukey, P>0.05 between groups;
two-way ANOVA followed by unpaired t). The EPSP measured
102.7±5.1% in the vehicle+Aβ group (at 3 h,
P>0.05 compared with Pre and P<0.05 compared
with 1.5 h post LFS) and 73.3±7.6% in the CPP+Aβ group
(P>0.05 compared 1.5 h post LFS,
P<0.05 compared with the vehicle+Aβ group).
(c,d) Injection of Ro
25-6981 (open triangle;
6 mg kg−1, i.p.), a
negative allosteric modulator of GluN2B-containing NMDARs, did not prevent Aβ1–42
(hash)-facilitated LTD (75.5±6.3% at 3 h, n=5,
P<0.05 compared with Pre, P>0.05 compared
with 68.6±4.0% in the vehicle+Aβ injection group; t-tests).
(e,f) Control LTD, induced by LFS-900 (bar) was also
reversed by HFS (arrow). CPP failed to significantly affect control LTD, but
blocked de-depression. (f) Thus, LFS-900 induced LTD in controls
(71.1±5.3% at 1.5 h, n=6, P<0.05
compared with Pre; one-way ANOVA-Tukey) and CPP-injected rats
(59.9±8.0%, n=5, P<0.05 compared with Pre,
P>0.05 compared with vehicle; two-way ANOVA followed by
unpaired t). The EPSP measured 92.9±5.8% at
90 min in controls (P>0.05 compared with Pre) and
68.0±8.0% in the CPP group (P>0.05 compared with
1.5 h post LFS, P<0.05 compared with vehicle).
Values are mean±s.e.m. Calibration: vertical, 2 mV;
horizontal, 10 ms.
HFS-induced de-depression of LTD is NMDAR-dependent
In the light of the contrasting findings regarding the involvement of NMDARs in
the disruptive effects of Aβ on LFS-induced LTD (present study) and
HFS-induced LTP12131415, we also examined the effect
of Aβ on another
form of synaptic plasticity, HFS-induced de-depression. De-depression is the
persistent reversal of LTD by conditioning stimulation and is believed to be an
essential component of bidirectional synaptic plasticity3435. Although the induction of control LTD did not require activation of
NMDARs, the reversal of this LTD by HFS in vivo was NMDAR-dependent.
Thus, whereas the NMDAR antagonist CPP did not affect control LTD induced by LFS-900, it
completely prevented the reversal of this mAChR-dependent LTD by HFS
conditioning stimulation (Fig. 7e,f). To our surprise,
HFS-induced de-depression was not prevented by Aβ. Thus, HFS rapidly and
persistently reversed Aβ-facilitated LTD (Fig.
7a,b). Moreover, HFS-induced de-depression of Aβ-facilitated LTD, like the
persistent reversal of control LTD, was NMDAR-dependent, being abrogated in
animals pretreated with CPP
(Fig. 7a,b). This indicates that HFS-induced
NMDAR-dependent de-depression is resistant to Aβ, unlike HFS-induced
NMDAR-dependent LTP, as described previously34 and below.
This lack of effect of Aβ on NMDAR-dependent de-depression, taken
together with the inability of NMDAR antagonists to prevent the facilitation of
LTD by Aβ,
underlines the potential importance of non-NMDAR mechanisms in mediating the
synaptic plasticity disrupting effects of Aβ
in vivo.
Aβ-facilitated LTD is mGlu5R-dependent
Apart from NMDARs, metabotropic glutamate receptors, in particular the
mGlu5R subtype, have been
implicated in the synaptic plasticity disrupting actions of Aβ
in vitro5836. Bearing in mind the apparently
differential roles of NMDARs in the effects of Aβ on different forms of
synaptic plasticity, next we assessed the involvement of mGlu5R in both Aβ-mediated inhibition of LTP
as well as Aβ-facilitated LTD in vivo. Remarkably,
systemic administration of the selective mGlu5R antagonist (negative allosteric modulator)
MTEP prevented both of
these disruptive actions of Aβ without affecting either control LTP or control
LTD. Thus, in animals administered with MTEP before intracerebroventricular (i.c.v.). injection of
either synthetic or AD brain-derived Aβ the application of LFS-300 failed to induce LTD
(Fig. 8a–d). Importantly, the same dose of
MTEP had no effect on
control LTD induced by LFS-900 (Fig. 8e,f), indicating
that whereas Aβ-facilitated LTD is mGlu5R-dependent, this was not the case
for the control mAChR-dependent LTD. Somewhat similarly, whereas Aβ1–42
strongly inhibited LTP in vehicle-pretreated animals, an identical HFS-triggered
robust LTP in animals injected with MTEP followed by Aβ (Fig. 8g,h). These
findings strongly indicate that Aβ enables LTD induction in vivo with an
essential role of mGlu5,
bypassing a requirement for activation of muscarinic ACh receptors. Moreover as
MTEP prevented
Aβ’s
effects on both LTP and LTD, mGlu5Rs appear to be more pivotal to the synaptic plasticity
disrupting actions of Aβ than NMDARs.
Figure 8
mGlu5R-dependence of
Aβ-mediated
disruption of both LTD and LTP but not control LTD or control LTP.
(a,b) Systemic administration of the selective mGlu5R antagonist MTEP (open triangle;
3 mg kg−1, i.p.)
completely prevented the induction of LTD by LFS-300 (bar) in animals
injected i.c.v. with soluble Aβ1–42 (hash)
(68.6±4.0% in the vehicle+Aβ group, n=5, P<0.05
compared with Pre, and compared with 98.4±7.6% in the MTEP+Aβ group, n=5,
P>0.05 compared with Pre; t-tests).
(c,d) Similarly, MTEP completely prevented the induction of LTD in
animals injected with Aβ-containing AD brain extract. As summarized
in (d) the EPSP measured 76.2±3.6% in the vehicle+AD group,
n=4, (P<0.05 compared with Pre, and compared with
97.4 ±5.6% in the MTEP+AD group, n=4, P>0.05 compared
with Pre; t-tests). (e,f) In contrast, the same dose of
MTEP that prevented
Aβ-facilitated LTD failed to significantly affect
control LTD induced by LFS-900 (72.0±4.4% in the vehicle+vehicle
group, n=11, P<0.05 compared with Pre, and
P>0.05 compared with 80.6±7.2% in the MTEP+vehicle group, n=5,
P<0.05 compared with Pre; t-tests).
(g,h) i.c.v. injection of soluble Aβ1–42 (hash), at the
dose that facilitated LTD, blocked LTP completely at 3 h post
HFS. Although systemic administration of MTEP
(3 mg kg−1) did not
affect HFS-induced control LTP, it prevented Aβ-mediated impairment of
LTP. As summarized in (h), HFS induced significant
(P<0.05 compared with Pre; paired t) LTP in the vehicle
control group (132.7±4.0%, n=5), MTEP+vehicle group
(131.5±5.2%, n=4) and MTEP+Aβ group (120.6±3.4%, n=8),
but not in the vehicle+Aβ group (96.2±4.7%, n=5),
which was significantly different from the other groups (one-way
ANOVA-Tukey). Values are mean±s.e.m. Calibration: vertical,
2 mV; horizontal, 10 ms.
Cellular prion protein
mediates Aβ-facilitated LTD
The question arises as to whether or not the facilitation of LTD by Aβ shares other common
mechanisms with LTP inhibition by Aβ. Aβ oligomers can bind very potently and
selectively to cellular prion
protein especially in a region that encompassed the
amino-acid sequence 95–105, and thereby mediate inhibition of LTP by
synthetic Aβ1–42 (ref. 25). The disease relevance of this finding is
underscored by the PrPC-dependence of the inhibition of LTP by
Aβ
oligomer-containing soluble extract of AD brain37. We
examined the role of PrPC in mediating the facilitation of LTD by
AD brain Aβ and
synthetic Aβ1–42 using monoclonal
antibodies to PrPC. We started with the previously
characterized anti-PrPC antibody 6D11, with an epitope that
falls within the amino-acid 93–109 sequence, thereby preventing
Aβ1–42 oligomer binding and
inhibition of LTP25. Pretreatment with 6D11 completely
prevented the facilitation of LTD by Aβ-containing soluble AD brain extract (Fig. 9a,b). In order to further explore the role of
PrPC, we
compared the effect of two other high-affinity anti- PrPC antibodies (Fig. 9c,d). ICSM18, an antibody directed to helix-1 of
PrPC, is
known to inhibit Aβ
binding to PrPC and to prevent the LTP disrupting effect
of AD brain extracts37. ICSM41 is an antibody to the
structured region of PrPC with an undefined epitope that does not
map to the Aβ-binding region3839. Although
ICSM41 binds with similar high affinity to recombinant PrPC as ICSM18
(IC50: 0.41±0.04 and 0.3±0.1 nM,
respectively, n=9, mean±s.e.m.), unlike ICSM18, ICSM41 did not
prevent Aβ1–42 protofibril
binding to PrPC (Fig. 10b,c).
Consistent with the differential ability of these two antibodies to prevent
Aβ1–42 binding to
PrPC,
ICSM18 abrogated the facilitation of LTD by soluble AD brain extract, whereas
the same dose of ICSM41 had no effect (Fig. 9c,d). These
findings provide strong evidence that PrPC is required for the enablement of
LTD by the most disease relevant form of soluble Aβ, Aβ from AD brain. We also
tested the ability of ICSM18 to prevent the facilitation of LTD by synthetic
Aβ1–42. Aβ from water-soluble
extracts of AD brain contain a mixture of high- and low-molecular weight
components8, some of which bind to PrPC with high
affinity4041. In the case of synthetic Aβ, protofibrillar assemblies
bind most avidly to PrPC (ref. 26)
(see also Fig. 10a). We tested an eightfold lower dose of
ICSM18 in this study because we found that ICSM18 bound to N2A cells, which
express glycosylated mature PrPC, with an approximately eightfold
higher affinity than ICSM41 (XC50 4±1 and
33±7 nM, respectively) (Fig. 10d). We
found that this dose of ICSM18 completely abrogated the facilitation of LTD by
protofibril Aβ1–42 (Fig. 9e,f). On the basis of the present and our previous37 findings, PrPC appears to be a key site of binding
and action for Aβ-mediated disruption of both NMDAR-dependent and
independent synaptic plasticity in vivo.
Figure 9
Cellular prion protein is
necessary for the facilitation of LTD by Aβ.
(a,b) Injection of 6D11 (triangle; 20 μg
in 10 μl, i.c.v.), an antibody directed to the main
binding site of Aβ on PrPC, 15 min before the
injection of soluble Aβ-containing AD brain extract (hash)
prevented the facilitation of LTD (interleaved experiments with vehicle+AD,
from Fig. 5). As summarized in (b) at
3 h post LFS the EPSP measured 100.5±7.5%, n=5,
in the 6D11+AD group (P>0.05 compared with Pre;
P<0.05 compared with the vehicle+AD group; t-test).
(c,d) Whereas ICSM18 (30 μg)
prevented the facilitation of LTD by AD brain extract, the same dose of
ICSM41 was ineffective. As summarized in (d) the EPSP measured
93.1±2.9%, n=6, in the ICSM18+AD group (P>0.05
compared with Pre and P<0.05 compared with 68.0±4.2%,
n=4, in the ICSM41+AD group; t-test). (e,f)
ICSM18 (3.75 μg) also prevented the facilitation of LTD
by protofibril Aβ1–42. As
summarized in (f) the EPSP measured 98.1±3.7% at
3 h post LFS in the ICSM18+Aβ1–42 group
(P>0.05 compared with Pre, n=4; and
P<0.05 compared with 73.2±4.5%, n=4, in the
vehicle+Aβ1–42 group;
t-test). Values are mean±s.e.m. Insets show
representative EPSP traces at the times indicated. Calibration: vertical,
2 mV; horizontal, 10 ms.
Figure 10
Characterization of the interactions between Aβ and PrPC and
anti-PrPC
antibodies.
(a) Both Aβ1–42 and
biotinylated Aβ1–42 protofibrils
bind recombinant PrPC at low nanomolar concentrations
(n=3±s.e.m.). (b,c) Unlike ICSM18, ICSM41
did not prevent Aβ1–42 protofibril
binding to PrPC (b, n=3; c,
n=9, mean±s.e.m.). *P<0.05 compared to
control IgG (BRIC222), Kruskal–Wallis one-way ANOVA with
Dunn’s multiple comparison test. (d) FACS analysis
revealed that ICSM18 bound to N2A cells, which express glycosylated mature
PrPC,
with an approximately eightfold higher affinity than ICSM41 (XC50
4±1 nM and 33±7 nM, respectively,
n=4, mean±s.e.m.).
Discussion
We describe here for the first time the in vivo induction by synaptic
stimulation of an mAChR-dependent homosynaptic LTD. The induction of mAChR-dependent
LTD does not require NMDA or
mGlu5R activation. Moreover,
both chemically synthesized and human brain-derived Aβ enhanced synaptically induced
LTD in vivo. Remarkably, in Aβ-treated animals the additional LTD does not require
mAChRs, leaving mAChR-dependent LTD relatively intact. However, like mAChR-dependent
LTD, the Aβ-facilitated
LTD is NMDAR-independent. We found evidence that mGlu5R activation usurps the requirement for mAChRs to enable
LTD induction via a process dependent on PrPC. Furthermore, Aβ-mediated inhibition of LTP
also requires mGlu5R and
PrPC, placing
Aβ–PrPC–mGlu5R interactions central to the synaptic
plasticity disrupting actions of Aβ
in vivo.LTD that requires mAChR activation has been proposed to be essential for certain
forms of learning21, and the preservation of mAChR-dependent
hippocampal LTD as animals age may be critical for maintaining cognitive
performance22. The apparent dearth of studies of
mAChR-dependent LTD in vivo may be owing to difficulties in optimizing
suitable synaptic stimulation protocols. The present approach utilizes the insights
gained from investigations of mAChR-dependent LTD in slices of cerebral cortex28. Currently used in vitro synaptic stimulation protocols
to induce mAChR-dependent LTD at CA3-to-CA1 synapses have been reported to induce an
LTD that is at least partly inhibited by mAChR antagonists19.
The present finding that synaptic conditioning stimulation can induce LTD that is
completely blocked by scopolamine
provides strong evidence that mAChR-dependent LTD that lasts for over 5 h
can be induced by endogenously released ACh in vivo and therefore supports
its proposed role in synaptic information storage.Because previous reports had indicated that in vitro, Aβ strongly impairs
mAChR-mediated signalling29 that may underlie mAChR-dependent
LTD in the cerebral cortex28, we predicted that mAChR-dependent
LTD in the hippocampus would be inhibited by Aβ
in vivo. To our surprise, Aβ enabled additional LTD while at the same time
leaving a scopolamine sensitive
component of LTD relatively unscathed. It was apparent that Aβ usurped mAChR-dependent LTD by
lowering the synaptic stimulation threshold to induce another form of LTD that was
mAChR-independent. The mechanisms of the additional LTD, however, appear to be at
least partly shared with mAChR-dependent LTD, as the initial phase of the control
LTD was partly occluded by the Aβ-enabled LTD.Particularly surprising was the apparent lack of involvement of NMDARs in the
facilitation of LTD by Aβ, especially in view of the presumed essential role
of NMDARs in the relatively selective binding of Aβ oligomers to synapses42.
Moreover, antagonists of GluN2B
subunits prevent Aβ-mediated facilitation of NMDAR-dependent LTD56 and inhibition of NMDAR-dependent LTP12131415. These findings have led to the elucidation of a
key role of GluN2B subunits in
mediating the synaptic plasticity disrupting actions of Aβ and have been extended to
include many other deleterious effects of Aβ4043. However, based on the
present results, targeting GluN2B
is unlikely to prove to be an effective therapeutic strategy on its own and
underlines the need to also explore non-NMDAR mechanisms.Further undermining the putative primacy of NMDARs in the synaptic actions of
Aβ was the finding
that Aβ did not
significantly affect NMDAR-dependent de-depression. This is all the more remarkable
considering that Aβ
strongly inhibited NMDAR-dependent LTP at these same synapses using the same HFS
induction protocol. Previous research has found that the persistent reversal of LTD
by conditioning stimulation requires the recruitment of different signalling
pathways to those usually necessary for LTP induction4445.
Thus the lack of inhibition of NMDAR-dependent de-depression at these synapses
indicates that the inhibition of LTP by Aβ is not due to the dependence of LTP on NMDARs.
Furthermore, the present findings indicate that pharmacological inhibition of NMDARs
may prevent potentially physiological reversal of LTD and leave any deleterious
effects of Aβ-facilitated NMDAR-independent LTD unopposed.The present findings underscore a much more central role for the mGlu5R in mediating the synaptic plasticity
disrupting effects of Aβ and suggest that the lowering of the threshold for
LTD and inhibition of LTP are two sides of one coin. Our finding that Aβ-facilitated LTD, like
Aβ-mediated
inhibition of LTP, is blocked by antibodies that prevent Aβ binding to PrPC provides an explanation
for the pivotal role of mGlu5Rs.
Previous research46 has revealed that Aβ acts as an extracellular
scaffold to promote the inappropriate synaptic mobilization and activation of
mGlu5R on cultured neurons.
The membrane binding of Aβ is prevented by both anti-mGlu5R and anti-PrPC antibodies in a
non-additive manner46, consistent with the key role of
PrPC in the
binding of the Aβ
oligomer to plasmalemma25. The aberrant clustering of
mGlu5R at synapses by
Aβ by binding to
PrPC may
trigger disruptive signalling activity that can enable LTD and inhibit LTP
induction. Very recently direct evidence that PrPC mediates multiple effects of
Aβ oligomers,
including dendritic spine loss in cultured neurons, by a direct physical linkage of
PrPC with
mGlu5Rs at or near the
postsynaptic membrane was reported27. If the formation of
Aβ–PrPC–mGlu5R complexes is primary, then the
requirement for NMDARs that contain GluN2B subunits in the inhibition of LTP by Aβ is likely to be a downstream
consequence. Indeed, mGlu5Rs
provide a transduction link in the Aβ–PrPC complex-mediated transmembrane coupling
to NR2B subunits via activation
of the tyrosine kinase Fyn274047. In addition to Fyn, an Aβ–PrPC–mGlu5R-mediated dysregulation of
intracellular Ca2+, eukaryotic
elongation factor 2 and Arc27 may contribute to synaptic plasticity
disruption11 by Aβ
in vivo.Overall, the present research provides strong evidence that an Aβ–PrPC–mGlu5R triad is critical for synaptic
plasticity disruption, enabling an NMDAR-independent LTD to usurp mAChR-dependent
LTD and inhibit NMDAR-dependent LTP. Selectively targeting this Aβ–PrPC–mGlu5R triad offers many possible means of
preventing dysfunction of critical brain plasticity mechanisms in early AD.
Methods
Animals and surgery
Adult (250–350 g, 8–11 weeks old) male Wistar
rats (BioResources Unit, Trinity College, Dublin) were used in all experiments.
The animals were housed under a 12-h light-dark cycle at room temperature
(19–22 °C). Before the surgery, animals were
anesthetized with urethane
(1.5–1.6 g kg−1,
i.p.). Lignocaine
(10 mg, 1% adrenaline, subcutaneously) was injected over the area of
the skull, where electrodes and screws were to be implanted. The body
temperature of the rats was maintained at
37–38 °C with a feedback-controlled heating
blanket. The animal care and experimental protocol were approved by the
Department of Health, Republic of Ireland.
Cannula implantation
In order to inject drugs or Aβ into the brain, a stainless-steel cannula (22
gauge, 0.7 mm outer diameter) was implanted above the right lateral
ventricle (1 mm lateral to the midline and 4 mm below the
surface of the dura). i.c.v. injection was made via an internal cannula (28
gauge, 0.36 mm outer diameter). The solutions were injected in a
5 μl volume over a 3-min period or
10 μl volume over a 6-min period. Verification of the
placement of cannula was performed post mortem by checking the spread of ink dye
after i.c.v. injection.
Electrode implantation
Monopolar recording electrodes were constructed from Teflon-coated tungsten wires
(75 μm inner core diameter, 112 μm
external diameter) and twisted bipolar stimulating electrodes were constructed
from Teflon-coated tungsten wires (50 μm inner core
diameter, 75 μm external diameter) separately12. Field excitatory postsynaptic potentials (EPSPs) were
recorded from the stratum radiatum in the CA1 area of the right hippocampus in
response to stimulation of the ipsilateral Schaffer collateral-commissural
pathway. Electrode implantation sites were identified using stereotaxic
coordinates relative to bregma, with the recording site located
3.4 mm posterior to bregma and 2.5 mm lateral to midline,
and stimulating site 4.2 mm posterior to bregma and 3.8 mm
lateral to midline. In some animals, another stimulating electrode was implanted
at a site located 2.5 mm posterior to bregma and 2.2 mm
lateral to the midline. The final placement of electrodes was optimized by using
electrophysiological criteria and confirmed via post-mortem analysis.
Electrophysiology
Test EPSPs were evoked by a single square-wave pulse (0.2 ms duration)
at a frequency of 0.033 Hz and an intensity that triggered a 50%
maximum EPSP response. LTD was induced using 1 Hz LFS consisting of
900 pulses (0.2 ms duration). During the LFS the intensity was raised
to trigger EPSPs of 95% maximum amplitude. A relatively weak LFS protocol, used
to study the Aβ-mediated facilitation of LTD, consisted of 300
pulses (0.2 ms duration) at 1 Hz, with an intensity that
evoked 95% maximum amplitude. LTP was induced using 200 Hz HFS
consisting of one set of 10 trains of 20 pulses (inter-train interval of
2 s). The stimulation intensity was raised to trigger EPSPs of 75%
maximum during the HFS. None of the conditioning stimulation protocols elicited
any detectible abnormal changes in background EEG, which was recorded from the
hippocampus throughout the experiments.
Compounds and antibodies
Scopolamine (Sigma),
mecamylamine (Sigma),
(R,S)-3-(2-carboxypiperazin-4-yl)propyl-1-phosphonic acid
(CPP, Ascent
Scientific, Weston-Super-Mare, UK) and 3-((2-methyl-1,3-thiazol-4-yl)ethynyl)pyridine
hydrochloride (MTEP hydrochloride, Ascent
Scientific) were prepared in distilled water and diluted with saline to the
required concentration. Pirenzepine (Ascent Scientific) was prepared in distilled
water. (αR,βS)-α-(4-hydroxyphenyl)-β-methyl-4-(phenylmethyl)-1-piperidinepropanol
hydrochloride (Ro
25–6981, Sigma) was dissolved in DMSO (dimethylsulphoxide) and diluted in
saline. The following monoclonal antibodies, prepared in phosphate-buffered
saline (PBS), were used in this study: 6D11 (Covance, # SIG-39810); ICSM18,
ICSM41 and BRIC222 (D-Gen, UK, # ICSM18, ICSM41 and BRIC222)).
Synthetic Aβ
We made two main different preparations of synthetic Aβ, soluble and protofibril
Aβ1–42. Our standard,
soluble Aβ1–42 (Bachem or
Biopolymer Laboratory, UCLA Medical School) was prepared as a stock solution of
64 μM in mild alkali (0.1% ammonium hydroxide) in milliQ water (Millipore
Corporation, Ireland) to avoid isoelectric precipitation and then
centrifuged at 100,000 g for 3 h to remove any
fibril aggregates. An aliquot of the supernatant was taken to estimate peptide
concentration using the micro BCA protein
assay (Thermo-Fisher Scientific Life Science
Research Products, Rockford, IL) and the remaining supernatant was
stored at −80 °C until required. Whereas the test
dose (160 pmol) of soluble Aβ1–42 did not affect
baseline transmission in the absence of LFS (see Results), double this dose
(320 pmol, i.c.v.) caused a small (~15%) decrease in
baseline at 3 h.Differentially aggregated protofibril Aβ1–42 and biotinylated
Aβ1–42 were synthesized, and
purified by Dr James I. Elliott at Yale University (New Haven, CT). Peptide
(~10–20 mg) was weighed into a screw-cap 50-ml
Sterilin tube, dissolved in anhydrous DMSO with gentle mixing for 2 min to produce a
5-mM solution and then diluted to 100 μM in phenol
red-free Ham’s F12 medium (Caisson Labs) and vortexed for 15 s. Samples
were aggregated without shaking for 48 h, transferred to a 2-ml
eppendorf tube, centrifuged at 16,100 g for 20 min
to remove any large preformed aggregates and the upper 90% for each solution
collected, aliquoted, snap frozen in liquid N2 and stored at
−80 °C. Samples were then tested for the presence
of large protofibrillar assemblies, known to bind avidly to PrP and cause PrP-dependent toxicity26. Aβ1–42 protofibrils used
for electrophysiology were further dialysed against 2 × 5 l
of PBS in an 8000 MWCO semi-permeable membrane to ensure all DMSO and cell media were exchanged
before freezing and characterization.
Electron microscopy
Five microlitre of peptide solution was applied to glow-discharged carbon-coated
copper grids and left to bind for 60 s. Excess solution was removed
using grade 4 Whatman filter paper. Samples were negatively stained with 2%
uranyl acetate for
30 s, blotted then allowed to air dry. Images were acquired on an FEI
Tecnai T10 electron microscope operating at 100 kV and recorded on a
1k × 1k charged couple device camera (Gatan) at a typical
magnification of 34,000 with a pixel size of 5.03 Å.
SEC and multi-angle light scattering
Aliquots (0.33 ml) of Aβ1–42 protofibrils were
injected onto a Superdex 200 10/30 column
(GE Healthcare) and eluted with PBS at a flow
rate of 0.5 ml min−1 using an
Agilent
HPLC and peptide elution monitored by
absorbance at 275 nm. Light scattering was performed using a Wyatt DAWN HELEOS II multi-angle light scattering module with Aβ concentrations calculated
using the refractive index.
TBS extract of human brain
AD brain 1 was obtained and used in accordance with the UCD Human Research Ethics
Committee guidelines (under approval LS-E-10-10-Walsh). AD brain 2 was obtained
and used in accordance with the Partner's Institutional Review Board (Walsh BWH
2011). In both cases informed consent was obtained from subjects. Samples of
temporal cortex were obtained from 2 AD cases referred to as AD1 and AD2. AD1
was from an 85-year-old male with dementia and fulminant amyloid and tangle
pathology (Braak stage=4) and was provided by Drs Dykoski and Cleary of
Minneapolis VA Health Care System, and potently inhibits LTP48. AD2 was from an 81-year-old female who died with severe AD and was
kindly provided by Dr Cindy Lemere of Brigham and Women’s Hospital.
Frozen cortex (0.9 g) was allowed to thaw on ice, chopped into small
pieces and homogenized in 4.5 ml of ice-cold 20 mM
Tris–HCl, pH
7.4, containing 150 mM NaCl with 25 strokes of a Dounce homogenizer (Fisher,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada)3148. Water-soluble Aβ was separated from
membrane-bound and plaque Aβ by centrifugation at 91,000 g
and 4 °C in a TLA 55
rotor (Beckman Coulter, Fullerton, CA,
USA) for 78 min. To eliminate bioactive small molecules the
supernatant was exchanged into ammonium
acetate. Thereafter, extracts were divided into two parts:
one aliquot was immunodepleted of Aβ by three rounds of 12-h incubations with our
anti-Aβ
antibody, AW8 (ref. 31)31, and protein A at
4 °C. The second portion was not manipulated in any way and
is simply referred to as AD. Aliquots of samples were stored at
−80 °C or used to assess Aβ content with a sensitive
immunoprecipitation/western blot procedure. Our rabbit polyclonal antibody, AW8,
was used (at a dilution of 1:80) for immunoprecipitation and a combination of
the anti-Aβ40 and
Aβ42 monoclonal
antibodies, 2G3 and 21F12 (each at
1 μg ml−1) for
western blot. Aβ
concentration was estimated by reference to known quantities of synthetic
Aβ1–42. Antibodies 2G3 and
21F12 were kindly provided by Drs P. Seubert and D. Schenk (Elan
Pharmaceuticals).
Aβ-binding
DELFIA
Aβ binding to our
recombinant PrPC (refs 26,
37) was determined by an enzyme-linked
immunosorbent assay (ELISA)-based protocol detected by the dissociation-enhanced
lanthanide fluorescent immunoassay (DELFIA). Fifty microlitres of
1 μM human huPrP23–231 (10 mM
sodium carbonate, pH 9.6)
was bound to medium binding 96-well white
plates (Greiner) with shaking at
400 r.p.m. for 1 h at 37 °C, washed
with 3 × 300 μl of PBS (0.05% Tween-20), blocked
with 300 μl Superblock (Thermo Scientific) with shaking at
400 r.p.m. at 37 °C for 1 h and washed
with 3 × 300 μl of PBS (0.05% Tween-20). Fifty
microlitres of Aβ1–42 protofibrils were
incubated in PBS (0.05% Tween-20, 0.1% BSA) for 1 h at
25 °C with shaking at 400 r.p.m. and washed with
3 × 300 μl of PBS (0.1% Tween-20). Aβ was detected using
50 μl of
1 μg ml−1 6E10
(Covance, # SIG-39320) in DELFIA assay
buffer (PerkinElmer) for 1 h
at 25 °C with shaking at 400 r.p.m., washed with
3 × 300 μl of PBS (0.05% Tween-20) and incubated
for 1 h at 25 °C with shaking at
400 r.p.m. with
300 ng ml−1 of DELFIA Eu-N1
anti-mouse antibody in DELFIA assay buffer (PerkinElmer, # 4002-0010), washed
with 3 × 300 μl of PBS (0.05% Tween-20) before
enhancing with 100 μl of DELFIA Enhancement Solution
(PerkinElmer)49. Biotinylated Aβ1–42
protofibrils were detected using a 1:2,000 dilution of DELFIA Eu-N1 streptavidin
(PerkinElmer, # 1244-360), washed with 3 × 300 μl
of PBS (0.05% Tween-20) before enhancing with 100 μl of
DELFIA Enhancement Solution (PerkinElmer, # 4001-0010). Plates were scanned for
time-resolved fluorescence intensity of the europium probe
(λex=320 nm,
λem=615 nm) using a PerkinElmer EnVision plate reader. Apparent
XC50 values were calculated using a four-parameter
XC50 curve with the maximum plateau signal for a given series
used to define full occupancy.
Anti-PrP antibody
binding DELFIA
Fifty microlitres of 150 nM of our
huPrP23–2312637
(10 mM sodium
carbonate, pH 9.6) was bound to high-binding 96-well white
plates (Greiner) with shaking at 400 r.p.m. for 1 h at
37 °C, washed with 3 × 300 μl
of PBS (0.05% Tween-20), blocked with 300 μl Superblock
(Thermo Scientific) with shaking at 400 r.p.m. at
37 °C for 1 h and washed with 3 ×
300 μl of PBS (0.05% Tween-20). Fifty microlitres of ICSM18
or ICSM41 (concentration-response curve, D-Gen, # ICSM18 and ICSM41) were
incubated in DELFIA assay buffer (PerkinElmer) for 1 h at
25 °C with shaking at 400 r.p.m. and washed with
3 × 300 μl of PBS (0.1% Tween-20). ICSM antibodies
were detected by 50 μl of
100 ng ml−1 of DELFIA Eu-N1
anti-mouse antibody (PerkinElmer, # AD0207) in DELFIA assay buffer
(PerkinElmer), washed with 3 × 300 μl of PBS
(0.05% Tween-20) before enhancing with 100 μl of DELFIA
Enhancement Solution (PerkinElmer)49.
Anti-PrP
antibody-mediated Aβ-inhibition DELFIA
Fifty microlitres of 1 μM human huPrP23–231
(10 mM sodium
carbonate, pH 9.6) was bound to medium-binding 96-well white
plates (Greiner) with shaking at 400 r.p.m. for 1 h at
37 °C, washed with 3 × 300 μl
of PBS (0.05% Tween-20), blocked with 300 μl Superblock
(Thermo Scientific) with shaking at 400 r.p.m. at
37 °C for 1 h and washed with 3 ×
300 μl of PBS (0.05% Tween-20). Fifty microlitres of ICSM18
or ICSM41 (1 μg ml−1)
were incubated in PBS (0.05% Tween-20, 0.1% BSA) for 1 h at
25 °C with shaking at 400 r.p.m. and washed with
3 × 300 μl of PBS (0.1% Tween-20). Biotinylated
Aβ1–42 protofibrils were
incubated in PBS (0.05% Tween-20, 0.1% BSA) for 30 min at
25 °C with shaking at 400 r.p.m. and washed with
3 × 300 μl of PBS (0.1% Tween-20). Aβ was detected using a
1:2,000 dilution of DELFIA Eu-N1 streptavidin (PerkinElmer), washed with 3
× 300 μl of PBS (0.05% Tween-20) before enhancing
with 100 μl of DELFIA Enhancement Solution
(PerkinElmer).
FACS
N2a cells (mouse neuroblastoma, ATCC) were harvested and washed with PBS, blocked with
FcγRIIb/CD16-2
(1 μg ml−1,
#18867, Santa Cruz) for 30 min at
4 °C. Cells were incubated with different concentrations of
ICSM18 or ICSM41 antibodies (concentration response from
0.05–75 μg ml−1)
for 45 min at 4 °C. Subsequently, rinsed cells
were stained with Alexa488- or FITC-conjugated anti-mouse antibodies
(2 μg ml−1, #
A-11001 and # F 2761, respectively, Invitrogen), fixed in 2% PFA for
10 min at 22 °C, stained with DAPI and kept at
4 °C until analysis. Samples were analysed on a CyAn ADP
High Performance Flow Cytometer equipped with a 488 nm argon
laser.
Data analysis
The magnitude of LTD is expressed as the percentage of pre-LFS baseline EPSP
amplitude (±s.e.m.). The sample size was chosen based on our knowledge
of what is appropriate for in vivo electrophysiology to determine whether
synaptic plasticity is induced or affected by Aβ or other
interventions361012. No data were excluded, and
control experiments were interleaved randomly throughout. Two-tailed paired
Student’s t-tests (paired t) or one-way ANOVA with
Tukey’s multiple comparison test (one-way ANOVA-Tukey) were used to
evaluate LTD within groups, and two-way ANOVAor unpaired Student’s
t-tests (unpaired t) were used to compare between groups.
Kruskal–Wallis one-way ANOVA with Dunn’s multiple
comparison test was used to compare the effects of antibodies on Aβ binding to recombinant
PrPC. A
P<0.05 was considered as statistically significant.
Author contributions
N.-W.H. and M.J.R. conceived the study; N.-W.H., A.J.N., D.M.W. and M.J.R. designed
the research; N.-W.H. and D.Z. performed and analysed electrophysiology experiments;
A.J.N. prepared the differentially aggregated Aβ and characterized it and the ICSM antibodies A.J.M.
isolated and characterized human brain extracts; T.O’M. characterized the
standard soluble Aβ1–42 preparation; S.A.P.
performed FACS experiments; C.T. performed EM analysis; N.-W.H., A.J.N., J.C.,
D.M.W. and M.J.R. wrote the paper.
Additional information
How to cite this article: Hu, N.-W. et al.
mGlu5 receptors and cellular prion protein mediate
amyloid-β-facilitated synaptic long-term depression in
vivo. Nat. Commun. 5:3374 doi: 10.1038/ncomms4374 (2014).
Authors: Jihoon Jo; Gi Hoon Son; Bryony L Winters; Myung Jong Kim; Daniel J Whitcomb; Bryony A Dickinson; Youn-Bok Lee; Kensuke Futai; Mascia Amici; Morgan Sheng; Graham L Collingridge; Kwangwook Cho Journal: Nat Neurosci Date: 2010-09-19 Impact factor: 24.884
Authors: Marianne Renner; Pascale N Lacor; Pauline T Velasco; Jian Xu; Anis Contractor; William L Klein; Antoine Triller Journal: Neuron Date: 2010-06-10 Impact factor: 17.173
Authors: James P Cleary; Dominic M Walsh; Jacki J Hofmeister; Ganesh M Shankar; Michael A Kuskowski; Dennis J Selkoe; Karen H Ashe Journal: Nat Neurosci Date: 2004-12-19 Impact factor: 24.884
Authors: Tak Pan Wong; John G Howland; Julie M Robillard; Yuan Ge; Wayne Yu; Andrea K Titterness; Karen Brebner; Lidong Liu; Joanne Weinberg; Brian R Christie; Anthony G Phillips; Yu Tian Wang Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2007-06-25 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Angela Arsova; Thor C Møller; Line Vedel; Jakob Lerche Hansen; Simon R Foster; Karen J Gregory; Hans Bräuner-Osborne Journal: Mol Pharmacol Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 4.436
Authors: Yona Levites; Brian O'Nuallain; Rama Devudu Puligedda; Tomas Ondrejcak; Sharad P Adekar; Cindy Chen; Pedro E Cruz; Awilda M Rosario; Sallie Macy; Alexandra J Mably; Dominic M Walsh; Ruben Vidal; Alan Solomon; Daniel Brown; Michael J Rowan; Todd E Golde; Scott K Dessain Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2015-04-22 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Mikhail A Kostylev; Marcus D Tuttle; Suho Lee; Lauren E Klein; Hideyuki Takahashi; Timothy O Cox; Erik C Gunther; Kurt W Zilm; Stephen M Strittmatter Journal: Mol Cell Date: 2018-10-25 Impact factor: 17.970
Authors: Tomas Ondrejcak; Igor Klyubin; Grant T Corbett; Graham Fraser; Wei Hong; Alexandra J Mably; Matthew Gardener; Jayne Hammersley; Michael S Perkinton; Andrew Billinton; Dominic M Walsh; Michael J Rowan Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2018-10-24 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Christian R Marks; Brian C Shonesy; Xiaohan Wang; Jason R Stephenson; Colleen M Niswender; Roger J Colbran Journal: Mol Pharmacol Date: 2018-10-03 Impact factor: 4.436
Authors: Flavio H Beraldo; Valeriy G Ostapchenko; Fabiana A Caetano; Andre L S Guimaraes; Giulia D S Ferretti; Nathalie Daude; Lisa Bertram; Katiane O P C Nogueira; Jerson L Silva; David Westaway; Neil R Cashman; Vilma R Martins; Vania F Prado; Marco A M Prado Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2016-08-25 Impact factor: 5.157