 |
Part 9 of our 11-part Eibsee conference series. See also Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, and complete PDF.
Cell culture studies notwithstanding, in the brain, the presynaptic terminals of neurons are thought to be a main source of Aβ, and a controversy is simmering in the field about exactly how it gets there. One view, advanced by Larry Goldstein at University of California, San Diego, proposes that some is generated in transport vesicles traveling down the axon to the nerve terminal. In a nutshell, this research suggests that APP anchors cargo vesicles to the motor protein kinesin, either directly or via linker proteins in a complex, and that one and the same vesicle tends to contain all necessary components of APP γ cleavage. Axonal transport blockages would drive up Aβ generation because the components would dwell together in the vesicles longer (see Stokin and Goldstein, 2006; Stokin et al., 2005; Kamal et al., 2001; Alzforum axonal transport discussion). A collaboration of scientists from several groups has been unable to reproduce some of the data, leaving the issue open (see Lazarov et al., 2005; Zheng comment there, and Goldstein reply).
At the Eibsee, two speakers reported that they tested Goldstein’s hypothesis with various cell-based approaches but found no support for it. Stefan Kins, at Heidelberg University, Germany, was a coauthor of Lazarov et al., 2005, and has since run further experiments. In the paper, the authors had suggested that a reported interaction between APP’s cytoplasmic tail and the light chain of kinesin might be nonspecific. At the conference, Kins added that he searched for APP/kinesin complexes with coimmunoprecipitation of mouse brain lysates to examine the idea that APP might interact indirectly with kinesin through a cytoplasmic linker, but detected no such complexes. These approaches still leave open the possibility of an indirect association between APP and kinesin mediated through scaffolding proteins such as JIP. JIP1 has been suggested to couple APP-containing vesicles to kinesin motors (see, e.g., Matsuda et al., 2003), and could conceivably do so through its interaction with the NPTY internalization motif on APP’s cytoplasmic tail. To test this directly, Kins used siRNA to knock down JIP1 in cultures of cortical primary neurons, and found that the neurons transported most of their APP from the ER out to neurites regardless of how much JIP1 they had available. JIP might link a small pool of APP to kinesin, but for the bulk of APP the kinesin linker remains elusive, Kins said. Its linker need not even interact with its cytoplasmic tail, as an APP mutant lacking that piece still traveled out to neurites unperturbed.
Finally, Kins noted that APP, APLP1, and APLP2 are transported to different sections of the cell membrane. APLP1 resides primarily in dendritic, postsynaptic membranes, and APLP2 in presynaptic areas and growth cones, where each forms dimers with APP (Soba et al., 2006). For this reason, Kins suggested that each family member may travel in its own type of vesicle, using a different linker protein to a different subset of kinesin motor, and that this helps direct their specific route of transport.
Claire Goldsbury, who works with Eva-Maria Mandelkow at the Max-Planck Unit for Structural Molecular Biology in Hamburg, approached the issue from a different angle. She is interested in the relationship between tau and APP in axonal transport. Goldsbury tested the proposal that APP/BACE/γ-secretase travel in the same vesicles and are cleaved en route. First, she asked whether blocking APP transport in cultured neurons would increase Aβ production. She cultured rat primary neurons, transfected them with a Swedish APP-YFP construct, imaged the neurons, and measured how much Aβ they contained and secreted. As expected based on prior work from Mandelkow’s group, Goldsbury saw that overexpressing tau gummed up the microtubules and blocked the transport of APP from the nucleus out to the neuron’s tips. As planned, this lengthened the time APP vesicles spent in transit, yet Aβ levels never increased, indicating the APP does not get cleaved in transit. This was shown directly by double-labeling APP at both ends with YFP and CFP and watching the ratio of colors during vesicle movement. The ration did not change, indicating that APP molecules remained intact (Goldsbury et al., Traffic, 2006, in press).
Next, Goldsbury reported that vesicles containing APP and BACE move quite differently in culture. APP vesicles move swiftly down the neuron’s processes, whereas BACE vesicles tended to “dawdle,” moving forward a bit, then back, and taking lots of stationary breaks in between. Cotransfection of both APP (labeled yellow) and BACE (labeled red) showed little overlap in vesicles. At the Keystone conference earlier this year, Mandelkow already reported that APP and BACE reside in different vesicles (see ARF conference story).—Gabrielle Strobel.
|
 |
 |
 |
Comments on Related News |
 |
  |
| |
Related News: Trisomy Trouble: Neurotrophin Signaling Defective in Down Syndrome
Comment by: Lino Tessarollo
|
 |
 |
Submitted 11 July 2006
|
Posted 11 July 2006
|
 |
 |
I think this study by Salehi and colleagues complements our work. If anything, the two studies combined stress once again the relevance of neurotrophin supply/signaling in supporting neuronal survival and function. What I find intriguing is that the two papers describe different mechanisms by which alterations in neurotrophin signaling can cause neuronal cell death, depending on the specific brain cell type affected. For example, Salehi et al. report that disrupted retrograde transport of NGF to the basal forebrain cholinergic neurons (BFCNs) causes degeneration of these neurons (I would like to note that BDNF is not a major signaling molecule in this neuronal cell population, which is why Salehi et al. find that the retrograde transport of BDNF and NT3 is below the limits of detection with the methodology used in their study). We find that an impairment of TrkB signaling causes cell death in cortical and hippocampal neurons, two cell populations that are responsive to BDNF and in which TrkB receptor isoforms alterations have been already described in Alzheimer disease (AD). As...
Read more
I think this study by Salehi and colleagues complements our work. If anything, the two studies combined stress once again the relevance of neurotrophin supply/signaling in supporting neuronal survival and function. What I find intriguing is that the two papers describe different mechanisms by which alterations in neurotrophin signaling can cause neuronal cell death, depending on the specific brain cell type affected. For example, Salehi et al. report that disrupted retrograde transport of NGF to the basal forebrain cholinergic neurons (BFCNs) causes degeneration of these neurons (I would like to note that BDNF is not a major signaling molecule in this neuronal cell population, which is why Salehi et al. find that the retrograde transport of BDNF and NT3 is below the limits of detection with the methodology used in their study). We find that an impairment of TrkB signaling causes cell death in cortical and hippocampal neurons, two cell populations that are responsive to BDNF and in which TrkB receptor isoforms alterations have been already described in Alzheimer disease (AD). As you know, all cell populations described in the two studies (BFCNs, cortical and hippocampal neurons) are affected in AD. Thus, these papers suggest that different cell populations in the brain may be affected by different genetic insults, and alternative mechanisms should be taken into account when considering therapies. View all comments by Lino Tessarollo
|
 |

|
| |
Related News: Trisomy Trouble: Neurotrophin Signaling Defective in Down Syndrome
Comment by: Bai Lu
|
 |
 |
Submitted 11 July 2006
|
Posted 11 July 2006
|
 |
 |
NGF has a potent effect on cholinergic neurons in the basal forebrain, which are prone to degeneration in AD. The idea that NGF dysfunction is involved in AD has been around for some time, but it has never been taken seriously because of the prominence of the “Aβ” hypothesis. Now Mobley and colleagues show that APP acts to reduce the retrograde transport of NGF in these cholinergic neurons, a process that might be important for their survival. The significance of the work by Mobley et al. is that they provide a mechanistic link between APP and NGF signaling in the basal forebrain neurons, therefore putting NGF back into the center stage of the AD field. The immediate task now is to test whether this works in an AD model.
The functional role of TrkB.T1, which is highly expressed in the brain, has been puzzling for some time now. One idea is that T1 has no function by itself, but prevents locally secreted BDNF from diffusion to distant places, and therefore ensures its local action. Another idea is that T1 can actually signal in glial cells in an unconventional way, but...
Read more
NGF has a potent effect on cholinergic neurons in the basal forebrain, which are prone to degeneration in AD. The idea that NGF dysfunction is involved in AD has been around for some time, but it has never been taken seriously because of the prominence of the “Aβ” hypothesis. Now Mobley and colleagues show that APP acts to reduce the retrograde transport of NGF in these cholinergic neurons, a process that might be important for their survival. The significance of the work by Mobley et al. is that they provide a mechanistic link between APP and NGF signaling in the basal forebrain neurons, therefore putting NGF back into the center stage of the AD field. The immediate task now is to test whether this works in an AD model.
The functional role of TrkB.T1, which is highly expressed in the brain, has been puzzling for some time now. One idea is that T1 has no function by itself, but prevents locally secreted BDNF from diffusion to distant places, and therefore ensures its local action. Another idea is that T1 can actually signal in glial cells in an unconventional way, but this idea is largely based on cell culture work, and there is no evidence that this works in vivo. The work of Tessarollo et al. sheds new light on the function of T1, using in vivo genetic approaches. They show that restoration of the physiological level of T1 by gene targeting rescues neuronal death in trisomy 16 mouse. Interestingly, T1 appears to affect selectively the Akt pathway, which is critical for neuronal survival. Given that the main function of BDNF in the brain is for synaptic plasticity rather than neuronal survival, this work offers a unique opportunity to study differential functions of BDNF in the brain.
View all comments by Bai Lu
|
 |

|
| |
Related News: Trisomy Trouble: Neurotrophin Signaling Defective in Down Syndrome
Comment by: Volkmar Lessmann
|
 |
 |
Submitted 14 July 2006
|
Posted 14 July 2006
|
 |
 |
Yano and colleagues managed to proceed one step further in elucidating synaptic actions of neurotrophins. Although it was well established for quite some time that BDNF exerts presynaptic effects on the availability of presynaptic glutamate vesicles for synaptic transmission, the molecular determinants of this action were far from being understood. This paper now highlights new downstream signaling partners in the presynaptic actions of BDNF.
The observation, in the early 1990s, that BDNF can enhance presynaptic functions of excitatory synapses (Lohof et al., 1993; Lessmann et al., 1994) was followed shortly thereafter by the discovery of an essential role of BDNF in Schaffer collateral LTP (Korte et al., 1995; Patterson et al., 1996). Also, in 1996, Figurov and colleagues (1996) found that one of the important presynaptic actions of BDNF is to avoid transmitter vesicle depletion upon repetitive activity of juvenile synapses, although this presynaptic BDNF effect cannot account for the impaired LTP in adult animals. It took another four years to learn, from the data by...
Read more
Yano and colleagues managed to proceed one step further in elucidating synaptic actions of neurotrophins. Although it was well established for quite some time that BDNF exerts presynaptic effects on the availability of presynaptic glutamate vesicles for synaptic transmission, the molecular determinants of this action were far from being understood. This paper now highlights new downstream signaling partners in the presynaptic actions of BDNF.
The observation, in the early 1990s, that BDNF can enhance presynaptic functions of excitatory synapses (Lohof et al., 1993; Lessmann et al., 1994) was followed shortly thereafter by the discovery of an essential role of BDNF in Schaffer collateral LTP (Korte et al., 1995; Patterson et al., 1996). Also, in 1996, Figurov and colleagues (1996) found that one of the important presynaptic actions of BDNF is to avoid transmitter vesicle depletion upon repetitive activity of juvenile synapses, although this presynaptic BDNF effect cannot account for the impaired LTP in adult animals. It took another four years to learn, from the data by Jovanovic et al. (2000), that the effect of BDNF on availability of glutamate vesicles is mediated via synapsin 1, which is kind of a “chassis” for the transport of glutamate vesicles along actin filaments, to facilitate their “in time” arrival at the presynaptic active zone.
With their most recent paper, Yano and coworkers now provide evidence that the actin-dependent motor protein Myo6 is linked via the adapter protein GIPC-1 to the transport of glutamate vesicles into the terminal. Important as this finding is, it raises—as new data usually do—a number of new issues concerning the molecular players involved in the presynaptic actions of BDNF, such as the following:
1. What is the molecular impact of BDNF/TrkB signaling on the functions of GIPC-1 and Myo6,
and is there a direct link to synapsin 1 function in vesicle transport?
2. Since the basal presynaptic phenotype of the Myo6-/- and the GIPC-1-/- mice seems to be rather robust, acute knockdown of these proteins via siRNA in normally developed hippocampal neurons would further strengthen a direct and specific functional link of these proteins to the presynaptic modulation by BDNF.
3. Given the also very prominent postsynaptic expression of Myo6 and GIPC-1 (and TrkB can be postsynaptic, too), the routes of postsynaptic actions of these downstream signaling molecules would be exciting to investigate. This is especially true, given that CA1-LTP is prominently expressed at postsynaptic locations (Malinow, 2003) and that Myo6 is involved in postsynaptic AMPA receptor shuttling, which mediates this form of LTP.
4. The absence of any effects of Myo6 or GIPC knockouts, respectively, on LTP in adult animals raises questions about whether the LTP protocol was sensitive for pre- and postsynaptic BDNF signaling, or whether compensatory mechanisms were at work in these animals and might be responsible for bypassing BDNF signaling in postsynaptic LTP in these animals in adulthood.
5. Finally, given the modulation of dopamine release via BDNF signaling (Blochl et al., 1996), it is tempting to speculate that BDNF, via the Myo6-GIPC-1 signaling, could also participate in the pathophysiology of Huntington and Parkinson diseases, known to originate from low dopamine release in the striatum. And even more exciting, Myo6 and GIPC could also participate in the trafficking of BDNF vesicles, which are known to depend on kinesin- and especially dynein-dependent motors in axons and dendrites (Gauthier et al., 2004).
Of course, asking all these questions is much easier than finding the answers, and it is inherent to the paper by the Chao lab that we are now able to ask even more precise new questions regarding these topics.
References: Blochl A, Sirrenberg C. Neurotrophins stimulate the release of dopamine from rat mesencephalic neurons via Trk and p75Lntr receptors.
J Biol Chem. 1996 Aug 30;271(35):21100-7.
Abstract
Figurov A, Pozzo-Miller LD, Olafsson P, Wang T, Lu B. Regulation of synaptic responses to high-frequency stimulation and LTP by neurotrophins in the hippocampus.
Nature. 1996 Jun 20;381(6584):706-9.
Abstract
Gauthier LR, Charrin BC, Borrell-Pages M, Dompierre JP, Rangone H, Cordelieres FP, De Mey J, MacDonald ME, Lessmann V, Humbert S, Saudou F. Huntingtin controls neurotrophic support and survival of neurons by enhancing BDNF vesicular transport along microtubules.
Cell. 2004 Jul 9;118(1):127-38.
Abstract
Jovanovic JN, Czernik AJ, Fienberg AA, Greengard P, Sihra TS. Synapsins as mediators of BDNF-enhanced neurotransmitter release.
Nat Neurosci. 2000 Apr;3(4):323-9.
Abstract
Korte M, Carroll P, Wolf E, Brem G, Thoenen H, Bonhoeffer T. Hippocampal long-term potentiation is impaired in mice lacking brain-derived neurotrophic factor. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1995 Sep 12;92(19):8856-60. Abstract
Lessmann V, Gottmann K, Heumann R. BDNF and NT-4/5 enhance glutamatergic synaptic transmission in cultured hippocampal neurones.
Neuroreport. 1994 Dec 30;6(1):21-5.
Abstract
Lohof AM, Ip NY, Poo MM. Potentiation of developing neuromuscular synapses by the neurotrophins NT-3 and BDNF.
Nature. 1993 May 27;363(6427):350-3.
Abstract
Malinow R. AMPA receptor trafficking and long-term potentiation.
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2003 Apr 29;358(1432):707-14. Review.
Abstract
Patterson SL, Abel T, Deuel TA, Martin KC, Rose JC, Kandel ER. Recombinant BDNF rescues deficits in basal synaptic transmission and hippocampal LTP in BDNF knockout mice.
Neuron. 1996 Jun;16(6):1137-45.
Abstract
View all comments by Volkmar Lessmann
|
 |
 |
 |
| |
Submit a Comment on this News Article |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|