Abstract
The regulation of synaptic strength forms the basis of learning and memory, and is a key factor in understanding neuropathological processes that lead to cognitive decline and dementia. While the mechanical aspects of neuronal development, particularly during axon growth and guidance, have been extensively studied, relatively little is known about the mechanical aspects of synapse formation and plasticity. It is established that a filamentous actin network with complex spatiotemporal behavior controls the dendritic spine shape and size, which is thought to be crucial for activity-dependent synapse plasticity. Accordingly, a number of actin binding proteins have been identified as regulators of synapse plasticity. On the other hand, a number of cell adhesion molecules (CAMs) are found in synapses, some of which form transsynaptic bonds to align the presynaptic active zone (PAZ) with the postsynaptic density (PSD). Considering that these CAMs are key components of cellular mechanotransduction, two critical questions emerge: (i) are synapses mechanically regulated? and (ii) does disrupting the transsynaptic force balance lead to (or exacerbate) synaptic failure? In this mini review article, I will highlight the mechanical aspects of synaptic structuresāfocusing mainly on cytoskeletal dynamics and CAMsāand discuss potential mechanoregulation of synapses and its relevance to neurodegenerative diseases.
Introduction
Chemical synapses of the central nervous system (CNS) mediate the directional information flow between neurons and form the basis of learning and memory. A precisely-defined synaptic cleft separates the opposing pre- and postsynaptic terminals that are held in place via transsynaptic cell adhesion molecules (CAMs). While presynaptic terminals are specialized in neurotransmitter release, postsynaptic terminals house neurotransmitter receptors and various signaling and scaffolding proteins. Functional diversity of synapses is reflected in structural diversity: most inhibitory synapses form directly on the dendrite shaft, while most excitatory synapses form on dendritic spinesāmorphologically diverse membrane protrusions from the dendrite shaft. Dendritic spines may form enlarged heads with relatively narrow necks, resulting in signaling hubs with restricted electrical and chemical connection to the dendrite shaft. The postsynaptic density (PSD), a dense protein matrix beneath the postsynaptic membrane, forms at the tip of the spine head and orchestrates synaptic functions (Sheng and Kim, 2011). The size and shape of individual spines are regulated in an activity-dependent fashion, supported by a specialized protein synthesis and degradation system (Alvarez-Castelao and Schuman, 2015). Synapses may last from seconds to decades; thus, highly sophisticated regulatory mechanisms are required to effectively control their dynamics, during development and adulthood.
The role of mechanics in neurodevelopment is best characterized at the growth cones (Franze, 2013), highly motile tips of growing axons that integrate mechanical and chemical cues during axon pathfinding (Kerstein et al., 2015). Much less is known about the mechanical aspects of synapse formation and plasticity. This isāpartlyādue to the increased complexity of mature neurons compared to developing axons. Nevertheless, recent studies established that synapse formation and plasticity require unique mechanisms involving the cytoskeleton, molecular motors, CAMs and the extracellular matrix (ECM; Figure 1). Considering that these components are either force-generating or force-bearing, two critical questions emerge: (i) are synapses mechan(ochem)ically regulated? and (ii) does disrupting the transsynaptic force balance lead to (or exacerbate) synaptic failure? In this mini review article, I will highlight the mechanical aspects of synaptic structuresāfocusing mainly on cytoskeletal dynamics and CAMsāand discuss potential mechanoregulation of synapses and its relevance to neurodegenerative diseases.
Figure 1
Dynamic Cytoskeletal Interactions Shape Synapses
The cytoskeleton is an interconnected network of dynamic filaments and regulatory proteins mediating not only the mechanical processes such as shape change and cell motility, but also the global intracellular organization. This is achieved through combining stable, long-range interactions and highly dynamic, short range interactions (Fletcher and Mullins, 2010). Synapses rely on cytoskeletal processes to accomplish specific tasks, from activity-dependent structural change to long-term maintenance of established connections. I will discuss actin, microtubule and neurofilament networks separately, despite the tight coupling between them (Coles and Bradke, 2015).
Dynamic Actin Networks Control Dendritic Spine Shape and Size
Dendritic spines are structurally supported by a filamentous actin (F-actin) framework, which controls the spine shape and organizes the signaling machinery (reviewed in Hotulainen and Hoogenraad, 2010). The F-actin retrograde flow in spines, i.e., from tip to base, is reminiscent of the same in developing axons (Nichol et al., 2016), albeit with shorter filaments and lower flow rates (~50 nm/s; Frost et al., 2010). However, this resemblance is disputed by reports showing that the F-actin flow slows down (from ~35 nm/s to ~20 nm/s) as dendritic filopodia turn into spines (Chazeau et al., 2014), and that the polarization is lost (Tatavarty et al., 2012). Long-term potentiation (LTP) and depression (LTD) induce actin polymerization and depolymerization in spines causing them to enlarge or shrink, respectively (Bosch and Hayashi, 2012). Three distinct pools of F-actin occupy the dendritic spines: a stable core, forming the center and the base, a dynamic shell, extending towards the periphery, and an apical pool associated with the head enlargement during LTP (Honkura et al., 2008). In addition, there are periodic F-actin rings that shape the spine neck (BƤr et al., 2016). The dynamic and stable pools have drastically different turnover rates, i.e., polymer half-life of tens of seconds vs. tens of minutes (Stefen et al., 2016). These differences in F-actin dynamics likely arise from the distinct spatiotemporal organization of various actin-binding proteins (ABPs) in dendritic spines.
Multiple ABPs regulate F-actin in dendritic spines: cortactin and drebrin localize to the stable core, whereas cofilin localizes to the dynamic shell (RĆ”cz and Weinberg, 2013). Cortactin directly interacts with N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors (NMDARs) and Shank scaffold in the PSD, and regulates the branch-inducing Arp2/3 complex (Hering and Sheng, 2003), which is required for spine maturation (Spence et al., 2016). During LTP, the actin severing protein cofilin is rapidly recruited into the spine and forms stable complexes with F-actin (as cofilinās effect paradoxically shifts from severing to stabilizing with increasing stoichiometric ratio), which occupy the base of spines and consolidate their expansion (Bosch et al., 2014). Importantly, cofilin regulates NMDA-dependent synapse remodeling in LTP and LTD (Pontrello et al., 2012). Altogether, these data suggest that actin is the primary structural element in postsynapses.
Microtubules Transiently Invade Dendritic Spines (Not Only) for Cargo Delivery
Microtubules transiently invade mature spines (residing there for a few minutes) and the occurrence and duration of these invasions correlate with neuronal activity (Hu et al., 2008). Transient nature and activity-dependence of microtubule spine invasions suggest that they drive cargo in and out; e.g., kinesin-3 delivers synaptotagmin-IV, an LTP regulator, to spine heads (McVicker et al., 2016). Mitochondria, however, undergo an actomyosin handoff, i.e., switch from microtubule-based to actin-based motor transport, to reach the spine head. Similarly, recycling endosomes containing Ī±-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid receptors (AMPARs) are transported into spines via myosins Va (Correia et al., 2008) and Vb (Wang et al., 2008). During LTP they undergo syntaxin-4-mediated exocytosis such that AMPAR are inserted into the plasma membrane adjacent to the PSD (Kennedy et al., 2010). However, to what extent AMPAR are actively transported and/or diffuse laterally into the spine head is debated (Penn et al., 2017). Apart from retrogradely transporting neurotrophic factors, dendritic kinesin-4 also regulates microtubule dynamics (Ghiretti et al., 2016), and is required for learning and memory (Muhia et al., 2016).
The microtubule plus end-binding protein EB3 directly interacts with the postsynaptic scaffold protein PSD-95, an event that decreases EB3-microtubule interaction (Sweet et al., 2011), suggesting a functional role for dendritic microtubules in synaptic plasticity. Indeed, spine invasion by EB3-capped microtubules constrains the ABP p140CAP to the PSD and maintains the spine size (Jaworski et al., 2009). Accordingly, during LTD, NMDAR-mediated Ca2+ influx removes EB3 from growing microtubule tips, which causes EB3 accumulation in the dendrite shaft and suppresses microtubule entry into the spine (Kapitein et al., 2011). Interestingly, microtubule spine invasions require a cortactin-dependent increase in the F-actin remodeling at the base of the synapse, but do not require EB3- and drebrin-mediated F-actin-microtubule linkages (SchƤtzle et al., 2018). Altogether, these studies suggest that microtubules indirectly regulate synapses via transporting cargo and regulating the actin cytoskeleton.
NeurofilamentsāAdditional Structural Support for Postsynaptic Density?
Neurofilaments are neuron-specific intermediate filaments associated with axon caliber regulation (Lee and Cleveland, 1996). All four neurofilament subunits found in the CNSāNF-L, NF-M, NF-H and Ī±-internexinālocalize to the synapses (enriched in postsynapses), are distinct from their axonal counterparts, and have no known functions (Yuan et al., 2015). Neurofilamentsābut not F-actin or microtubulesādirectly interact with SAPAP (Hirao et al., 2000), a member of PSD-95/SAPAP/Shank core complex, the major scaffold of the PSD (Zhu et al., 2017). Mice lacking neurofilament subunits have structurally normal brains, but exhibit synapse plasticity and memory deficits, indicating a functional role. In support of this, dopamine D1 receptor (D1R)-induced LTP was modulated by NF-M, which anchors D1R-containing endosomes to build up a reservoir of D1Rs for their rapid recycling to the postsynaptic membrane (Yuan et al., 2015). Curiously, the cytoplasmic tail of NR1 subunit of NMDAR binds neurofilaments and inhibits their assembly (Ehlers et al., 1998), consistent with the findings that synaptic vesicles and endosomes dock onto neurofilament-based scaffolds, and that vesicle recycling requires neurofilaments to interact with microtubule motors (Yuan et al., 2017). While these data suggest that neurofilaments mainly act as postsynaptic scaffolds, further effort is required to decipher the specific synaptic function(s) of their subunits.
Cell Adhesion Molecules Initiate, Specify and Regulate Synapses
CAMs are cell surface molecules that link cells to the ECM and to other cells via homophilic and heterophilic interactions. Synaptic CAMs are defined as CAMs with potential to induce synapses via trans interactions (Frei and Stoeckli, 2014). However, other CAMs also localize to synapses and contribute to synapse formation and plasticity, through transsynaptic recognition and signaling processes, respectively (Dalva et al., 2007). In fact, the subtype of the CAM(s) recruited can determine the synapse type: for example, alternative splicing of postsynaptic neuroligins leads to either inhibitory or excitatory synapses (Chih et al., 2005). CAMs are hierarchically expressed; some are required for core synaptic functions and others for specialized functions. Moreover, āearlyā and ālateā synaptic genes are co-expressed and co-regulated in the same neuron, suggesting that their differential localization and combinatorial use define synapse specificity and network connectivity rules (Fƶldy et al., 2016). Here, I will describe the major CAM families involved; for a complete list of CAMs in synapses, see recent reviews (Jang et al., 2017; Chamma and Thoumine, 2018).
Integrins Regulate Functional and Structural Plasticity of Dendritic Spines
Integrins are heterodimeric transmembrane receptors that link ECM components to the actin cytoskeleton via adaptor proteins, e.g., talin and vinculin, forming a āmolecular clutchā that transmits actomyosin contractile forces to the ECM (Sun et al., 2016). Integrins regulate the spine functional plasticity through controlling receptor trafficking in a subunit-specific manner: Ī±3Ī²1-integrins regulate LTP through modulating NMDAR activity (Chan et al., 2007), whereas Ī±VĪ²3-integrins regulate synaptic strength through stabilizing AMPAR in the membrane (Cingolani et al., 2008). LTP induces long-lasting (~30 min) Rho activity in individual spines that is thought to relay the transient activation of Ca2+/calmodulin-dependent protein kinase II (CaMKII; ~10 s to structural plasticity (Murakoshi et al., 2011). Rho and Rac act at different phases of LTP, mediating the spine neck formation and driving the spine head expansion, respectively (Rex et al., 2009). In fact, while ROCK1 regulates the early phase by forming stable actomyosin bundles that create spine polarity, ROCK2 regulates the late phase by controlling Rac activity and by deactivating cofilin (Newell-Litwa et al., 2015). Rac1 activity, in turn, maintains the globular shape of the spine through regulating the localization and dynamics of the branched F-actin network (Chazeau et al., 2014). Separately, integrins regulate the spine structural plasticity through controlling actin remodeling: the integrin/focal adhesion pathway regulates multiple ABPs, including Arp2/3 complex (Serrels et al., 2007), cortactin (Hotulainen and Hoogenraad, 2010) and cofilin (Heredia et al., 2006). Together, these studies suggest that integrins regulate synapses through multiple, intertwined mechanisms. Moreover, recent proteomic analyses identified new, non-canonical adhesion components with emerging functions in mechanotransduction and receptor trafficking (Humphries et al., 2015). Their potential roles in synapse formation and plasticity are yet to be explored.
Cadherin/Catenin Complexes Are Important Regulators of Synapse Plasticity
Cadherins are Ca2+-dependent transmembrane proteins found at intercellular adherent junctions. Their ectodomains form homo- and occasional heterophilic bonds and their intracellular tails interact with various partnersānotably catenins and vinculinsāto induce downstream signaling. Cadherins can form transsynaptic bonds with different adhesiveness and kinetics, thanks to their large repertoire of homophilic interactions: trans dimers (slip bond), X-dimers (catch bond) and clusters, which combine cis and trans bonds (Leckband and de Rooij, 2014). Cadherin mechanotransduction is highly complex (reviewed in Hoffman and Yap, 2015): on one hand, cadherin-catenin complex directly interacts with F-actin via a two state catch bond (that strengthens under force, as opposed to slip bonds that weaken under force), reinforcing intercellular adhesion (Buckley et al., 2014). On the other hand, force induces a conformational change in Ī±-catenin, revealing cryptic sites for vinculin binding. Activated vinculin not only directly binds to F-actin, but also recruits Ena/VASP family proteins to promote actin assembly, further reinforcing the cadherin-cytoskeleton coupling (le Duc et al., 2010). In the CNS, classical cadherins (e.g., N-cadherin) localize to pre- and postsynapses, and border the presynaptic active zone (PAZ; Uchida et al., 1996). During development, neuron-neuron interactions regulate the activity-dependent dendrite arborization, which is mediated by cadherin/catenin surface levels (Tan et al., 2010). It should be noted that, due to structural differences, N-cadherin and E-cadherin dimers have different disassembly kinetics, where the former depend strongly on Ca2+ binding and cannot form X-dimers (Vunnam and Pedigo, 2012). It is therefore likely that N-cadherin and E-cadherin have distinct mechanical behavior. Similarly, Ī±N-catenin differs from Ī±E-catenin in terms of Ī²-catenin binding kinetics (Pokutta et al., 2014), further suggesting that mechanotransduction mechanisms identified for E-cadherin/Ī±E-catenin may not be applicable to synapses.
Cadherins take part in spine and synapse formation, particularly in excitatory neurons (Seong et al., 2015). In postnatal, excitatory synapses, N-cadherin is required for LTP and spine enlargementābut not LTD or spine density and morphology, suggesting that cadherins selectively regulate synapse plasticity (Bozdagi et al., 2010). Indeed, cadherin accumulation on synaptic membranes is required for stabilizing postsynaptic receptors, e.g., kainate receptors (FiĆØvre et al., 2016) and AMPAR (Mills et al., 2017). Catenins also regulate synapses: upon NMDAR activation, Ī²-catenin is redistributed from the dendrite shaft to the spines (where it binds N-cadherin), leading to synapse enlargement, consistent with its role in learning and memory (Murase et al., 2002). Furthermore, spines compete for surface-bound N-cadherin/Ī²-catenin complexes, which appear to be the key drivers for activity-dependent spine pruning, where Ī²-catenin redistribution determines the fate of individual spines, i.e., stabilizing one while eliminating its neighbors (Bian et al., 2015). Cumulatively, these data suggest that cadherin and its intracellular binding partners are important regulators of synapse plasticity.
Several Other CAM Families Localize to Synapses
Ectodomains of the immunoglobulin superfamily CAM (IgCAM) contain tandem repeats of Ig-like domains, which permit the formation of a variety of trans and cis bonds, leading to molecular zippers (Aricescu and Jones, 2007). Such flexibility is ideal for mechanosignaling, where force-induced conformational change regulates intracellular signaling (Johnson et al., 2007). For example, neural CAM (NCAM)ācritical for neurodevelopment (Maness and Schachner, 2007)āforms at least two types of homophilic bonds differing in force sensitivity and intercellular distance (Wieland et al., 2005). NCAM regulates synapses by crosslinking to NMDAR and CaMKII via a spectrin-based postsynaptic scaffold (Sytnyk et al., 2006). Additionally, NCAM interacts with dynein to tether microtubule plus-ends, an event that enhances synapse stability (Perlson et al., 2013). SynCAM, originally identified as an IgCAM promoting synaptogenesis (Biederer et al., 2002), forms transsynaptic homophilic bonds at spine heads encircling the synaptic cleft (Perez de Arce et al., 2015). Importantly, SynCAM complexes enlarge during LTD, suggesting that they control the cleft diameter.
Presynaptic neurexins interact with postsynaptic neuroligins, which directly bind to and recruit PSD-95āa function regulated through phosphorylation (Giannone et al., 2013; Bemben et al., 2014). The neurexin-neuroligin bond stabilizes the dendritic filopodia during synaptogenesis (Chen et al., 2010), and regulates the synapse specificity in an isoform-dependent manner (Graf et al., 2004; Boucard et al., 2005). In fact, neurexins are heparan sulfate proteoglycans and neuroligin binding to heparan sulfate chains on neurexin is necessary for synapse development (Zhang et al., 2018). In mature synapses, NMDAR activation leads to juxtamembrane cleavage of neuroligin by matrix metalloproteinase 9 (MMP-9) or by ADAM10, which destabilizes neurexins and decreases synaptic strength by altering presynaptic release (Peixoto et al., 2012; Suzuki et al., 2012).
Another CAM type required for synapse specificity is the clustered protocadherin (Kostadinov and Sanes, 2015). Clustered protocadherins form homodimers and antiparallel homophilic trans interactions to regulate dendritic self-avoidance (Nicoludis et al., 2015). Unfortunately, whether CAMs other than integrins and cadherins participate in the mechanotransduction is largely unknown. One exception to this is the ephrin-Eph receptor pair, which bidirectionally regulates synapse formation and maturation in the adult, i.e., ephrins can signal into the Eph-receptor-expressing cell (forward) or into their host cell (reverse; reviewed in Klein, 2009). For example, the dynamics of EphB2 kinase activity at the tip of a dendritic filopodium upon binding to axonal ephrin-B1 determines whether the filopodium retracts or establishes a synapse (Mao et al., 2018). On the other hand, dendritic ephrin-B3 directly interacts with PSD-95 to control its localization and stability, via activity-dependent phosphoregulation (Hruska et al., 2015). Importantly, physically restraining the ephrin-A1 modulates cytoskeletal dynamics by blocking the EphA2 receptor clustering, indicating that ephrin-Eph pair is mechanosensitive (Salaita et al., 2010). Together, these data suggest that mechanotransduction via CAMs may be a general mechanism in synapse regulation, and not unique to integrins and cadherins.
Other Potential Mechanoregulators of Synapse Plasticity: Scaffold Proteins, Mechanosensitive Ion Channels, and the Extracellular Matrix
Apart from major mechanical actors (cytoskeleton, CAMs), synapses contain other mechanically-relevant components. Synaptic scaffolds support the dynamic components of the PAZ and the PSD (Ziv and Fisher-Lavie, 2014) and, since they physically couple CAMs to the underlying cytoskeleton, they potentially bear tensile forces. While non-specifically pulling on a neurite is sufficient to recruit Bassoon presynaptic scaffold into a potential presynapse (Suarez et al., 2013), the mechanosensitivity of scaffold proteins remains unknown. Mechanosensitive ion channels, however, are expressed in neurons (Hu et al., 2015), although most do not localize to synapses. An important exception to this is NMDAR, which may be activated through increased membrane tension (Paoletti and Ascher, 1994) or by cytoskeletal forces acting on its intracellular domain (Singh et al., 2012). The ECM is another potential mechanoregulator of synapses: the composition, structure and stiffness of the ECM (reciprocally) regulate the cellular mechanotransduction (reviewed in Humphrey et al., 2014). Components of the ECM form a perineuronal net that surrounds dendritic spines and extends into the synaptic cleft (Dansie and Ethell, 2011). In the adult brain, chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans stabilize dendritic spine structure and movement, whereas, other glycoproteins (notably, reelin, agrin and tenascins) are important regulators of synapse plasticity (reviewed in Levy et al., 2014). For example, cleavage of agrin (an integrin Ī±vĪ²1 ligand) by neurotrypsin promotes LTP by facilitating new dendritic filopodia (Matsumoto-Miyai et al., 2009). Similarly, cleavage of the hyaluronan receptor CD44 by MMP-9, results in its detachment from the ECM and leads to dendritic spine elongation (Bijata et al., 2017). These data suggest that ECM proteolysis regulates synapses, potentially by modifying their force balance.
Is Synapse Plasticity Mechanically Regulated?
As illustrated above, mechanotransduction takes place during synapse plasticity. It is clear that mechanical processes convey biochemical signals into spine remodeling; however, whether they also convey purely mechanical signals (e.g., forces with a certain magnitude, rate, duration and frequency; Hoffman et al., 2011) to invoke structural change is unknown. In fact, changes in plasma membrane curvature and tension (due to spine remodeling) may be sufficient to induce mechanotransduction (Diz-MuƱoz et al., 2013). Identifying such mechanisms remains a challenge due to the high level of complexity, i.e., synapses involve numerous CAMsāsome of which crosstalk via common effectors (Mui et al., 2016)āand intertwined cytoskeletal networks (Figure 1). Since pulling on a transsynaptic CAM (e.g., cadherin) bond modulates not only its unbinding rate, but also its downstream signaling by revealing cryptic domains (e.g., Ī±-catenin-vinculin interaction), the acting force needs to be tightly controlled, such that intracellular signaling precedes bond breakage.
Notably, cadherin transsynaptic bonds can be synapse-specific: synapses between hippocampal CA3 and CA1 neurons with high-magnitude LTP require cis dimers of postsynaptic cadherins-6 and -10 to form trans bonds with presynaptic cadherin-9 (Basu et al., 2017). This level of complexity suggests mechanosignaling to take place, considering the differences in the force-dependency of these bonds. Indeed, N-cadherins stabilize filopodial F-actin through counteracting the actomyosin pulling forceāa process associated with the transition of the dendritic filopodia into spines (Chazeau et al., 2015). Remarkably, pulling on N-cadherins at the tips of dendritic filopodiaāvia optical tweezersāresulted in rapid actin accumulation and mushroom-like spine morphology (Chazeau et al., 2015), suggesting that cadherin mechanotransduction alone can trigger synapse remodeling. Nevertheless, to what degree mechanotransduction and signal transduction mechanisms overlap, whether their activation is synchronized, and whether they operate synergistically (e.g., to strengthen synaptic signaling) remain open questions.
Is Synapse Mechanics Relevant to Neurodegenerative Diseases?
Whether synapse mechanics is relevant to neurodegenerative diseases is another open question. Synaptic failure is a key event in most neurodegenerative diseases, particularly in Alzheimerās disease (AD). Accordingly, cytoskeletal proteins, including cofilin (Rahman et al., 2014), drebrin (Gordon-Weeks, 2016) and NF-L (Bacioglu et al., 2016) were implicated in AD pathophysiology. Separately, multiple CAMs, including integrin (Caltagarone et al., 2007), N-cadherin (Andreyeva et al., 2012), NCAM (Leshchynsāka et al., 2015) and neurexin-neuroligin (Brito-Moreira et al., 2017) are involved in amyloid-Ī²-induced synaptotoxicity, a major event in AD. In fact, amyloid precursor protein (APP), whose cleavage products include amyloid-Ī², is a transsynaptic CAM (Ludewig and Korte, 2016). APP regulates the PAZ organization (LaĆek et al., 2016) and the dendritic spine shape (Weyer et al., 2014), and its dimerization is regulated by N-cadherin (Asada-Utsugi et al., 2011). These observations suggest a link between synapse mechanics and synaptic failure in AD, but direct evidence is missing.
Conclusions and Outlook
In this mini review article, I attempted to highlight the mechanically-relevant mechanisms that take part in synapse formation and plasticity. Growing evidence suggests that synapses employ mechanosensitive molecules and mechanical processes; however, direct evidence for the mechanoregulation of synapse behavior is currently lacking. Implementing new technologies for force application or measurement (Kilinc et al., 2015), combined with novel single-molecule or super-resolution approaches (Jin et al., 2018) may help discover such mechanisms. To this end, magnetic tweezers would be an excellent tool to specifically-target CAMs on dendritic filopodia (or axon shafts) and to deliver well-defined forces to identify stretch paradigms leading to spine (or PAZ) formation. Downstream effects of the mechanical input may be monitored live in terms of: (i) cytoskeletal dynamics; (ii) activity of cytoskeleton-associated (e.g., ABPs) or signaling proteins (e.g., CaMKII); and (iii) secondary messengers, such as Ca2+ or cyclic nucleotides (Blasiak et al., 2017). Notably, the frequency of local Ca2+ transients in dendritic filopodia upon initial contact with an excitatory axon determines whether the connection will be lost or stabilized (Lohmann and Bonhoeffer, 2008), suggesting that Ca2+ may be an intermediary to mechanical signaling. Finally, single-molecule tension sensors (Cost et al., 2015) may be used to identify load-bearing proteins in synapses during activity-dependent remodeling, as well as to measure forces acting on these proteins as a function of spine size and shape. A better understanding of synapse mechanoregulation could pave the way for mechanically modulated therapies against synaptic failure.
Statements
Author contributions
DK wrote the manuscript.
Funding
This work was funded by the 2017 Pilot Research Grant from Fondation Vaincre Alzheimer and by the EU Joint Programmeā Neurodegenerative Diseases Research (JPND; 3DMiniBrain).
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Esther Stoeckli, Beatriz Rico, Marina Mikhaylova and Agata Blasiak for critical reading of the manuscript.
Conflict of interest
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
- ABP
actin-binding protein
- AD
Alzheimerās disease
- AMPAR
Ī±-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid receptor
- APP
amyloid precursor protein
- CAM
cell adhesion molecule
- CaMKII
Ca2+/calmodulin-dependent protein kinase
- CNS
central nervous system
- D1R
dopamine D1 receptor
- ECM
extracellular matrix
- F-actin
filamentous actin
- IgCAM
immunoglobulin superfamily cell adhesion molecule
- LDP
long-term depression
- LTP
long-term potentiation
- MMP
matrix metalloproteinase
- NCAM
neural cell adhesion molecule
- NMDAR
N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor
- PAZ
presynaptic active zone
- PSD
postsynaptic density.
Abbreviations
References
1
Alvarez-CastelaoB.SchumanE. M. (2015). The regulation of synaptic protein turnover. J. Biol. Chem.290, 28623ā28630. 10.1074/jbc.R115.657130
2
AndreyevaA.NiewegK.HorstmannK.KlapperS.MĆ¼ller-SchiffmannA.KorthC.et al. (2012). C-terminal fragment of N-cadherin accelerates synapse destabilization by amyloid-Ī². Brain135, 2140ā2154. 10.1093/brain/aws120
3
AricescuA. R.JonesE. Y. (2007). Immunoglobulin superfamily cell adhesion molecules: zippers and signals. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol.19, 543ā550. 10.1016/j.ceb.2007.09.010
4
Asada-UtsugiM.UemuraK.NodaY.KuzuyaA.MaesakoM.AndoK.et al. (2011). N-cadherin enhances APP dimerization at the extracellular domain and modulates AĪ² production. J. Neurochem.119, 354ā363. 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2011.07364.x
5
BaciogluM.MaiaL. F.PreischeO.SchelleJ.ApelA.KaeserS. A.et al. (2016). Neurofilament light chain in blood and CSF as marker of disease progression in mouse models and in neurodegenerative diseases. Neuron91, 56ā66. 10.1016/j.neuron.2016.05.018
6
BƤrJ.KoblerO.van BommelB.MikhaylovaM. (2016). Periodic F-actin structures shape the neck of dendritic spines. Sci. Rep.6:37136. 10.1038/srep37136
7
BasuR.DuanX.TaylorM. R.MartinE. A.MuralidharS.WangY.et al. (2017). Heterophilic type II cadherins are required for high-magnitude synaptic potentiation in the hippocampus. Neuron96, 160.e8ā176.e8. 10.1016/j.neuron.2017.09.009
8
BembenM. A.ShipmanS. L.HiraiT.HerringB. E.LiY.BadgerJ. D.et al. (2014). CaMKII phosphorylation of neuroligin-1 regulates excitatory synapses. Nat. Neurosci.17, 56ā64. 10.1038/nn.3601
9
BianW.-J.MiaoW.-Y.HeS.-J.QiuZ.YuX. (2015). Coordinated spine pruning and maturation mediated by inter-spine competition for cadherin/catenin complexes. Cell162, 808ā822. 10.1016/j.cell.2015.07.018
10
BiedererT.SaraY.MozhayevaM.AtasoyD.LiuX.KavalaliE. T.et al. (2002). SynCAM, a synaptic adhesion molecule that drives synapse assembly. Science297, 1525ā1531. 10.1126/science.1072356
11
BijataM.LabusJ.GusevaD.StawarskiM.ButzlaffM.DzwonekJ.et al. (2017). Synaptic remodeling depends on signaling between serotonin receptors and the extracellular matrix. Cell Rep.19, 1767ā1782. 10.1016/j.celrep.2017.05.023
12
BlasiakA.KilincD.LeeG. U. (2017). Neuronal cell bodies remotely regulate axonal growth response to localized Netrin-1 treatment via second messenger and DCC dynamics. Front. Cell. Neurosci.10:298. 10.3389/fncel.2016.00298
13
BoschM.CastroJ.SaneyoshiT.MatsunoH.SurM.HayashiY. (2014). Structural and molecular remodeling of dendritic spine substructures during long-term potentiation. Neuron82, 444ā459. 10.1016/j.neuron.2014.03.021
14
BoschM.HayashiY. (2012). Structural plasticity of dendritic spines. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol.22, 383ā388. 10.1016/j.conb.2011.09.002
15
BoucardA. A.ChubykinA. A.ComolettiD.TaylorP.SĆ¼dhofT. C. (2005). A splice code for trans-synaptic cell adhesion mediated by binding of neuroligin 1 to Ī±- and Ī²-neurexins. Neuron48, 229ā236. 10.1016/j.neuron.2005.08.026
16
BozdagiO.WangX. B.NikitczukJ. S.AndersonT. R.BlossE. B.RadiceG. L.et al. (2010). Persistence of coordinated long-term potentiation and dendritic spine enlargement at mature hippocampal CA1 synapses requires N-cadherin. J. Neurosci.30, 9984ā9989. 10.1523/jneurosci.1223-10.2010
17
Brito-MoreiraJ.LourencoM. V.OliveiraM. M.RibeiroF. C.LedoJ. H.DinizL. P.et al. (2017). Interaction of amyloid-Ī² (AĪ²) oligomers with neurexin 2Ī± and neuroligin 1 mediates synapse damage and memory loss in mice. J. Biol. Chem.292, 7327ā7337. 10.1074/jbc.M116.761189
18
BuckleyC. D.TanJ.AndersonK. L.HaneinD.VolkmannN.WeisW. I.et al. (2014). Cell adhesion. The minimal cadherin-catenin complex binds to actin filaments under force. Science346:1254211. 10.1126/science.1254211
19
CaltagaroneJ.JingZ.BowserR. (2007). Focal adhesions regulate AĪ² signaling and cell death in Alzheimerās disease. Biochim. Biophys. Acta1772, 438ā445. 10.1016/j.bbadis.2006.11.007
20
ChammaI.ThoumineO. (2018). Dynamics, nanoscale organization, and function of synaptic adhesion molecules. Mol. Cell. Neurosci.91, 95ā107. 10.1016/j.mcn.2018.04.007
21
ChanC. S.LevensonJ. M.MukhopadhyayP. S.ZongL.BradleyA.SweattJ. D.et al. (2007). Ī±3-integrins are required for hippocampal long-term potentiation and working memory. Learn. Mem.14, 606ā615. 10.1101/lm.648607
22
ChazeauA.GarciaM.CzƶndƶrK.PerraisD.TessierB.GiannoneG.et al. (2015). Mechanical coupling between transsynaptic N-cadherin adhesions and actin flow stabilizes dendritic spines. Mol. Biol. Cell26, 859ā873. 10.1091/mbc.e14-06-1086
23
ChazeauA.MehidiA.NairD.GautierJ. J.LeducC.ChammaI.et al. (2014). Nanoscale segregation of actin nucleation and elongation factors determines dendritic spine protrusion. EMBO J.33, 2745ā2764. 10.15252/embj.201488837
24
ChenS. X.TariP. K.SheK.HaasK. (2010). Neurexin-neuroligin cell adhesion complexes contribute to synaptotropic dendritogenesis via growth stabilization mechanisms in vivo. Neuron67, 967ā983. 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.08.016
25
ChihB.EngelmanH.ScheiffeleP. (2005). Control of excitatory and inhibitory synapse formation by neuroligins. Science307, 1324ā1328. 10.1126/science.1107470
26
CingolaniL. A.ThalhammerA.YuL. M.CatalanoM.RamosT.ColicosM. A.et al. (2008). Activity-dependent regulation of synaptic AMPA receptor composition and abundance by Ī²3 integrins. Neuron58, 749ā762. 10.1016/j.neuron.2008.04.011
27
ColesC. H.BradkeF. (2015). Coordinating neuronal actin-microtubule dynamics. Curr. Biol.25, R677āR691. 10.1016/j.cub.2015.06.020
28
CorreiaS. S.BassaniS.BrownT. C.LisĆ©M. F.BackosD. S.El-HusseiniA.et al. (2008). Motor protein-dependent transport of AMPA receptors into spines during long-term potentiation. Nat. Neurosci.11, 457ā466. 10.1038/nn2063
29
CostA. L.RingerP.Chrostek-GrashoffA.GrashoffC. (2015). How to measure molecular forces in cells: a guide to evaluating genetically-encoded FRET-based tension sensors. Cell. Mol. Bioeng.8, 96ā105. 10.1007/s12195-014-0368-1
30
DalvaM. B.McclellandA. C.KayserM. S. (2007). Cell adhesion molecules: signaling functions at the synapse. Nat. Rev. Neurosci.8, 206ā220. 10.1038/nrn2075
31
DansieL. E.EthellI. M. (2011). Casting a net on dendritic spines: the extracellular matrix and its receptors. Dev. Neurobiol.71, 956ā981. 10.1002/dneu.20963
32
Diz-MuƱozA.FletcherD. A.WeinerO. D. (2013). Use the force: membrane tension as an organizer of cell shape and motility. Trends Cell Biol.23, 47ā53. 10.1016/j.tcb.2012.09.006
33
EhlersM. D.FungE. T.OāBrienR. J.HuganirR. L. (1998). Splice variant-specific interaction of the NMDA receptor subunit NR1 with neuronal intermediate filaments. J. Neurosci.18, 720ā730. 10.1523/jneurosci.18-02-00720.1998
34
FiĆØvreS.CartaM.ChammaI.LabrousseV.ThoumineO.MulleC. (2016). Molecular determinants for the strictly compartmentalized expression of kainate receptors in CA3 pyramidal cells. Nat. Commun.7:12738. 10.1038/ncomms12738
35
FletcherD. A.MullinsR. D. (2010). Cell mechanics and the cytoskeleton. Nature463, 485ā492. 10.1038/nature08908
36
FƶldyC.DarmanisS.AotoJ.MalenkaR. C.QuakeS. R.SĆ¼dhofT. C. (2016). Single-cell RNAseq reveals cell adhesion molecule profiles in electrophysiologically defined neurons. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A113, E5222āE5231. 10.1073/pnas.1610155113
37
FranzeK. (2013). The mechanical control of nervous system development. Development140, 3069ā3077. 10.1242/dev.079145
38
FreiJ. A.StoeckliE. T. (2014). SynCAMs extend their functions beyond the synapse. Eur. J. Neurosci.39, 1752ā1760. 10.1111/ejn.12544
39
FrostN. A.ShroffH.KongH.BetzigE.BlanpiedT. A. (2010). Single-molecule discrimination of discrete perisynaptic and distributed sites of actin filament assembly within dendritic spines. Neuron67, 86ā99. 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.05.026
40
GhirettiA. E.ThiesE.TokitoM. K.LinT.OstapE. M.KneusselM.et al. (2016). Activity-dependent regulation of distinct transport and cytoskeletal remodeling functions of the dendritic kinesin KIF21B. Neuron92, 857ā872. 10.1016/j.neuron.2016.10.003
41
GiannoneG.MondinM.Grillo-BoschD.TessierB.Saint-MichelE.CzƶndƶrK.et al. (2013). Neurexin-1Ī² binding to neuroligin-1 triggers the preferential recruitment of PSD-95 versus gephyrin through tyrosine phosphorylation of neuroligin-1. Cell Rep.3, 1996ā2007. 10.1016/j.celrep.2013.05.013
42
Gordon-WeeksP. R. (2016). The role of the drebrin/EB3/Cdk5 pathway in dendritic spine plasticity, implications for Alzheimerās disease. Brain Res. Bull.126, 293ā299. 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2016.06.015
43
GrafE. R.ZhangX.JinS. X.LinhoffM. W.CraigA. M. (2004). Neurexins induce differentiation of GABA and glutamate postsynaptic specializations via neuroligins. Cell119, 1013ā1026. 10.1016/j.cell.2004.11.035
44
HerediaL.HelgueraP.de OlmosS.KedikianG.SolĆ” VigoF.LaferlaF.et al. (2006). Phosphorylation of actin-depolymerizing factor/cofilin by LIM-kinase mediates amyloid Ī²-induced degeneration: a potential mechanism of neuronal dystrophy in Alzheimerās disease. J. Neurosci.26, 6533ā6542. 10.1523/jneurosci.5567-05.2006
45
HeringH.ShengM. (2003). Activity-dependent redistribution and essential role of cortactin in dendritic spine morphogenesis. J. Neurosci.23, 11759ā11769. 10.1523/jneurosci.23-37-11759.2003
46
HiraoK.HataY.DeguchiM.YaoI.OguraM.RokukawaC.et al. (2000). Association of synapse-associated protein 90/postsynaptic density-95-associated protein (SAPAP) with neurofilaments. Genes Cells5, 203ā210. 10.1046/j.1365-2443.2000.00318.x
47
HoffmanB. D.GrashoffC.SchwartzM. A. (2011). Dynamic molecular processes mediate cellular mechanotransduction. Nature475, 316ā323. 10.1038/nature10316
48
HoffmanB. D.YapA. S. (2015). Towards a dynamic understanding of cadherin-based mechanobiology. Trends Cell Biol.25, 803ā814. 10.1016/j.tcb.2015.09.008
49
HonkuraN.MatsuzakiM.NoguchiJ.Ellis-DaviesG. C.KasaiH. (2008). The subspine organization of actin fibers regulates the structure and plasticity of dendritic spines. Neuron57, 719ā729. 10.1016/j.neuron.2008.01.013
50
HotulainenP.HoogenraadC. C. (2010). Actin in dendritic spines: connecting dynamics to function. J. Cell Biol.189, 619ā629. 10.1083/jcb.201003008
51
HruskaM.HendersonN. T.XiaN. L.Le MarchandS. J.DalvaM. B. (2015). Anchoring and synaptic stability of PSD-95 is driven by ephrin-B3. Nat. Neurosci.18, 1594ā1605. 10.1038/nn.4140
52
HuW.AnC.ChenW. J. (2015). Molecular mechanoneurobiology: an emerging angle to explore neural synaptic functions. Biomed Res. Int.2015:486827. 10.1155/2015/486827
53
HuX.ViesselmannC.NamS.MerriamE.DentE. W. (2008). Activity-dependent dynamic microtubule invasion of dendritic spines. J. Neurosci.28, 13094ā13105. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3074-08.2008
54
HumphreyJ. D.DufresneE. R.SchwartzM. A. (2014). Mechanotransduction and extracellular matrix homeostasis. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol.15, 802ā812. 10.1038/nrm3896
55
HumphriesJ. D.PaulN. R.HumphriesM. J.MorganM. R. (2015). Emerging properties of adhesion complexes: what are they and what do they do?Trends Cell Biol.25, 388ā397. 10.1016/j.tcb.2015.02.008
56
JangS.LeeH.KimE. (2017). Synaptic adhesion molecules and excitatory synaptic transmission. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol.45, 45ā50. 10.1016/j.conb.2017.03.005
57
JaworskiJ.KapiteinL. C.GouveiaS. M.DortlandB. R.WulfP. S.GrigorievI.et al. (2009). Dynamic microtubules regulate dendritic spine morphology and synaptic plasticity. Neuron61, 85ā100. 10.1016/j.neuron.2008.11.013
58
JinD.XiP.WangB.ZhangL.EnderleinJ.van OijenA. M. (2018). Nanoparticles for super-resolution microscopy and single-molecule tracking. Nat. Methods15, 415ā423. 10.1038/s41592-018-0012-4
59
JohnsonC. P.TangH. Y.CaragC.SpeicherD. W.DischerD. E. (2007). Forced unfolding of proteins within cells. Science317, 663ā666. 10.1126/science.1139857
60
KapiteinL. C.YauK. W.GouveiaS. M.van der ZwanW. A.WulfP. S.KeijzerN.et al. (2011). NMDA receptor activation suppresses microtubule growth and spine entry. J. Neurosci.31, 8194ā8209. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.6215-10.2011
61
KennedyM. J.DavisonI. G.RobinsonC. G.EhlersM. D. (2010). Syntaxin-4 defines a domain for activity-dependent exocytosis in dendritic spines. Cell141, 524ā535. 10.1016/j.cell.2010.02.042
62
KersteinP. C.NicholR. H.IV.GomezT. M. (2015). Mechanochemical regulation of growth cone motility. Front. Cell. Neurosci.9:244. 10.3389/fncel.2015.00244
63
KilincD.BlasiakA.LeeG. U. (2015). Microtechnologies for studying the role of mechanics in axon growth and guidance. Front. Cell. Neurosci.9:282. 10.3389/fncel.2015.00282
64
KleinR. (2009). Bidirectional modulation of synaptic functions by Eph/ephrin signaling. Nat. Neurosci.12, 15ā20. 10.1038/nn.2231
65
KostadinovD.SanesJ. R. (2015). Protocadherin-dependent dendritic self-avoidance regulates neural connectivity and circuit function. Elife4:e08964. 10.7554/eLife.08964
66
LaĆekM.WeingartenJ.WegnerM.MuellerB. F.RohmerM.BaeumlisbergerD.et al. (2016). APP is a context-sensitive regulator of the hippocampal presynaptic active zone. PLoS Comput. Biol.12:e1004832. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004832
67
le DucQ.ShiQ.BlonkI.SonnenbergA.WangN.LeckbandD.et al. (2010). Vinculin potentiates E-cadherin mechanosensing and is recruited to actin-anchored sites within adherens junctions in a myosin II-dependent manner. J. Cell Biol.189, 1107ā1115. 10.1083/jcb.201001149
68
LeckbandD. E.de RooijJ. (2014). Cadherin adhesion and mechanotransduction. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol.30, 291ā315. 10.1146/annurev-cellbio-100913-013212
69
LeeM. K.ClevelandD. W. (1996). Neuronal intermediate filaments. Annu. Rev. Neurosci.19, 187ā217. 10.1146/annurev.ne.19.030196.001155
70
LeshchynsākaI.LiewH. T.ShepherdC.HallidayG. M.StevensC. H.KeY. D.et al. (2015). AĪ²-dependent reduction of NCAM2-mediated synaptic adhesion contributes to synapse loss in Alzheimerās disease. Nat. Commun.6:8836. 10.1038/ncomms9836
71
LevyA. D.OmarM. H.KoleskeA. J. (2014). Extracellular matrix control of dendritic spine and synapse structure and plasticity in adulthood. Front. Neuroanat.8:116. 10.3389/fnana.2014.00116
72
LohmannC.BonhoefferT. (2008). A role for local calcium signaling in rapid synaptic partner selection by dendritic filopodia. Neuron59, 253ā260. 10.1016/j.neuron.2008.05.025
73
LudewigS.KorteM. (2016). Novel insights into the physiological function of the APP (gene) family and its proteolytic fragments in synaptic plasticity. Front. Mol. Neurosci.9:161. 10.3389/fnmol.2016.00161
74
ManessP. F.SchachnerM. (2007). Neural recognition molecules of the immunoglobulin superfamily: signaling transducers of axon guidance and neuronal migration. Nat. Neurosci.10, 19ā26. 10.1038/nn0207-263b
75
MaoY. T.ZhuJ. X.HanamuraK.IurilliG.DattaS. R.DalvaM. B. (2018). Filopodia conduct target selection in cortical neurons using differences in signal kinetics of a sngle kinase. Neuron98, 767.e8ā782.e8. 10.1016/j.neuron.2018.04.011
76
Matsumoto-MiyaiK.SokolowskaE.ZurlindenA.GeeC. E.LĆ¼scherD.HettwerS.et al. (2009). Coincident pre- and postsynaptic activation induces dendritic filopodia via neurotrypsin-dependent agrin cleavage. Cell136, 1161ā1171. 10.1016/j.cell.2009.02.034
77
McVickerD. P.AweA. M.RichtersK. E.WilsonR. L.CowdreyD. A.HuX.et al. (2016). Transport of a kinesin-cargo pair along microtubules into dendritic spines undergoing synaptic plasticity. Nat. Commun.7:12741. 10.1038/ncomms12741
78
MillsF.GlobaA. K.LiuS.CowanC. M.MobasserM.PhillipsA. G.et al. (2017). Cadherins mediate cocaine-induced synaptic plasticity and behavioral conditioning. Nat. Neurosci.20, 540ā549. 10.1038/nn.4503
79
MuhiaM.ThiesE.LabontĆ©D.GhirettiA. E.GromovaK. V.XomperoF.et al. (2016). The kinesin KIF21B regulates microtubule dynamics and is essential for neuronal morphology, synapse function, and learning and memory. Cell Rep.15, 968ā977. 10.1016/j.celrep.2016.03.086
80
MuiK. L.ChenC. S.AssoianR. K. (2016). The mechanical regulation of integrin-cadherin crosstalk organizes cells, signaling and forces. J. Cell Sci.129, 1093ā1100. 10.1242/jcs.183699
81
MurakoshiH.WangH.YasudaR. (2011). Local, persistent activation of Rho GTPases during plasticity of single dendritic spines. Nature472, 100ā104. 10.1038/nature09823
82
MuraseS.MosserE.SchumanE. M. (2002). Depolarization drives Ī²-Catenin into neuronal spines promoting changes in synaptic structure and function. Neuron35, 91ā105. 10.1016/s0896-6273(02)00764-x
83
Newell-LitwaK. A.BadoualM.AsmussenH.PatelH.WhitmoreL.HorwitzA. R. (2015). ROCK1 and 2 differentially regulate actomyosin organization to drive cell and synaptic polarity. J. Cell Biol.210, 225ā242. 10.1083/jcb.201504046
84
NicholR. H.IV.HagenK. M.LumbardD. C.DentE. W.GĆ³mezT. M. (2016). Guidance of axons by local coupling of retrograde flow to point contact adhesions. J. Neurosci.36, 2267ā2282. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2645-15.2016
85
NicoludisJ. M.LauS. Y.SchƤrfeC. P. I.MarksD. S.WeihofenW. A.GaudetR. (2015). Structure and sequence analyses of clustered protocadherins reveal antiparallel interactions that mediate homophilic specificity. Structure23, 2087ā2098. 10.1016/j.str.2015.09.005
86
PaolettiP.AscherP. (1994). Mechanosensitivity of NMDA receptors in cultured mouse central neurons. Neuron13, 645ā655. 10.1016/0896-6273(94)90032-9
87
PeixotoR. T.KunzP. A.KwonH.MabbA. M.SabatiniB. L.PhilpotB. D.et al. (2012). Transsynaptic signaling by activity-dependent cleavage of neuroligin-1. Neuron76, 396ā409. 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.07.006
88
PennA. C.ZhangC. L.GeorgesF.RoyerL.BreillatC.HosyE.et al. (2017). Hippocampal LTP and contextual learning require surface diffusion of AMPA receptors. Nature549, 384ā388. 10.1038/nature23658
89
Perez de ArceK.SchrodN.MetzbowerS. W. R.AllgeyerE.KongG. K.TangA. H.et al. (2015). Topographic mapping of the synaptic cleft into adhesive nanodomains. Neuron88, 1165ā1172. 10.1016/j.neuron.2015.11.011
90
PerlsonE.HendricksA. G.LazarusJ. E.Ben-YaakovK.GradusT.TokitoM.et al. (2013). Dynein interacts with the neural cell adhesion molecule (NCAM180) to tether dynamic microtubules and maintain synaptic density in cortical neurons. J. Biol. Chem.288, 27812ā27824. 10.1074/jbc.M113.465088
91
PokuttaS.ChoiH.-J.AhlsenG.HansenS. D.WeisW. I. (2014). Structural and thermodynamic characterization of cadherin.Ī²-catenin.Ī±-catenin complex formation. J. Biol. Chem.289, 13589ā13601. 10.1074/jbc.M114.554709
92
PontrelloC. G.SunM. Y.LinA.FiaccoT. A.DefeaK. A.EthellI. M. (2012). Cofilin under control of Ī²-arrestin-2 in NMDA-dependent dendritic spine plasticity, long-term depression (LTD), and learning. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A109, E442āE451. 10.1073/pnas.1118803109
93
RĆ”czB.WeinbergR. J. (2013). Microdomains in forebrain spines: an ultrastructural perspective. Mol. Neurobiol.47, 77ā89. 10.1007/s12035-012-8345-y
94
RahmanT.DaviesD. S.TannenbergR. K.FokS.ShepherdC.DoddP. R.et al. (2014). Cofilin rods and aggregates concur with tau pathology and the development of Alzheimerās disease. J. Alzheimers Dis.42, 1443ā1460. 10.3233/jad-140393
95
RexC. S.ChenL. Y.SharmaA.LiuJ.BabayanA. H.GallC. M.et al. (2009). Different Rho GTPase-dependent signaling pathways initiate sequential steps in the consolidation of long-term potentiation. J. Cell Biol.186, 85ā97. 10.1083/jcb.200901084
96
SalaitaK.NairP. M.PetitR. S.NeveR. M.DasD.GrayJ. W.et al. (2010). Restriction of receptor movement alters cellular response: physical force sensing by EphA2. Science327, 1380ā1385. 10.1126/science.1181729
97
SchƤtzleP.Esteves da SilvaM.TasR. P.KatrukhaE. A.HuH. Y.WierengaC. J.et al. (2018). Activity-dependent actin remodeling at the base of dendritic spines promotes microtubule entry. Curr. Biol.28, 2081.e6ā2093.e6. 10.1016/j.cub.2018.05.004
98
SeongE.YuanL.ArikkathJ. (2015). Cadherins and catenins in dendrite and synapse morphogenesis. Cell Adh. Migr.9, 202ā213. 10.4161/19336918.2014.994919
99
SerrelsB.SerrelsA.BruntonV. G.HoltM.McLeanG. W.GrayC. H.et al. (2007). Focal adhesion kinase controls actin assembly via a FERM-mediated interaction with the Arp2/3 complex. Nat. Cell Biol.9, 1046ā1056. 10.1038/ncb1626
100
ShengM.KimE. (2011). The postsynaptic organization of synapses. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol.3:a005678. 10.1101/cshperspect.a005678
101
SinghP.DoshiS.SpaethlingJ. M.HockenberryA. J.PatelT. P.Geddes-KleinD. M.et al. (2012). N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor mechanosensitivity is governed by C terminus of NR2B subunit. J. Biol. Chem.287, 4348ā4359. 10.1074/jbc.M111.253740
102
SpenceE. F.KanakD. J.CarlsonB. R.SoderlingS. H. (2016). The Arp2/3 complex is essential for distinct stages of spine synapse maturation, including synapse unsilencing. J. Neurosci.36, 9696ā9709. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0876-16.2016
103
StefenH.ChaichimC.PowerJ.FathT. (2016). Regulation of the postsynaptic compartment of excitatory synapses by the actin cytoskeleton in health and its disruption in disease. Neural Plast.2016:2371970. 10.1155/2016/2371970
104
SuarezF.ThostrupP.ColmanD.GrutterP. (2013). Dynamics of presynaptic protein recruitment induced by local presentation of artificial adhesive contacts. Dev. Neurobiol.73, 98ā106. 10.1002/dneu.22037
105
SunZ.GuoS. S.FasslerR. (2016). Integrin-mediated mechanotransduction. J. Cell Biol.215, 445ā456. 10.1083/jcb.201609037
106
SuzukiK.HayashiY.NakaharaS.KumazakiH.ProxJ.HoriuchiK.et al. (2012). Activity-dependent proteolytic cleavage of neuroligin-1. Neuron76, 410ā422. 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.10.003
107
SweetE. S.TsengC. Y.FiresteinB. L. (2011). To branch or not to branch: how PSD-95 regulates dendrites and spines. Bioarchitecture1, 69ā73. 10.4161/bioa.1.2.15469
108
SytnykV.LeshchynsākaI.NikonenkoA. G.SchachnerM. (2006). NCAM promotes assembly and activity-dependent remodeling of the postsynaptic signaling complex. J. Cell Biol.174, 1071ā1085. 10.1083/jcb.200604145
109
TanZ. J.PengY.SongH. L.ZhengJ. J.YuX. (2010). N-cadherin-dependent neuron-neuron interaction is required for the maintenance of activity-induced dendrite growth. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A107, 9873ā9878. 10.1073/pnas.1003480107
110
TatavartyV.DasS.YuJ. (2012). Polarization of actin cytoskeleton is reduced in dendritic protrusions during early spine development in hippocampal neuron. Mol. Biol. Cell23, 3167ā3177. 10.1091/mbc.E12-02-0165
111
UchidaN.HonjoY.JohnsonK. R.WheelockM. J.TakeichiM. (1996). The catenin/cadherin adhesion system is localized in synaptic junctions bordering transmitter release zones. J. Cell Biol.135, 767ā779. 10.1083/jcb.135.3.767
112
VunnamN.PedigoS. (2012). X-interface is not the explanation for the slow disassembly of N-cadherin dimers in the apo state. Protein Sci.21, 1006ā1014. 10.1002/pro.2083
113
WangZ.EdwardsJ. G.RileyN.ProvanceD. W.Jr.KarcherR.LiX. D.et al. (2008). Myosin Vb mobilizes recycling endosomes and AMPA receptors for postsynaptic plasticity. Cell135, 535ā548. 10.1016/j.cell.2008.09.057
114
WeyerS. W.ZagrebelskyM.HerrmannU.HickM.GanssL.GobbertJ.et al. (2014). Comparative analysis of single and combined APP/APLP knockouts reveals reduced spine density in APP-KO mice that is prevented by APPsĪ± expression. Acta Neuropathol. Commun.2:36. 10.1186/2051-5960-2-36
115
WielandJ. A.GewirthA. A.LeckbandD. E. (2005). Single molecule adhesion measurements reveal two homophilic neural cell adhesion molecule bonds with mechanically distinct properties. J. Biol. Chem.280, 41037ā41046. 10.1074/jbc.M503975200
116
YuanA.RaoM. V.VeerannaNixonR. A. (2017). Neurofilaments and neurofilament proteins in health and disease. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol.9:a018309. 10.1101/cshperspect.a018309
117
YuanA.SershenH.VeerannaBasavarajappaB. S.KumarA.HashimA.et al. (2015). Neurofilament subunits are integral components of synapses and modulate neurotransmission and behavior in vivo. Mol. Psychiatry20, 986ā994. 10.1038/mp.2015.45
118
ZhangP.LuH.PeixotoR. T.PinesM. K.GeY.OkuS.et al. (2018). Heparan sulfate organizes neuronal synapses through neurexin partnerships. Cell174, 1450.e23ā1464.e23. 10.1016/j.cell.2018.07.002
119
ZhuJ.ZhouQ.ShangY.LiH.PengM.KeX.et al. (2017). Synaptic targeting and function of SAPAPs mediated by phosphorylation-dependent binding to PSD-95 MAGUKs. Cell Rep.21, 3781ā3793. 10.1016/j.celrep.2017.11.107
120
ZivN. E.Fisher-LavieA. (2014). Presynaptic and postsynaptic scaffolds: dynamics fast and slow. Neuroscientist20, 439ā452. 10.1177/1073858414523321
Summary
Keywords
dendritic spine, cytoskeleton, cell adhesion molecules, motor proteins, mechanotransduction, synaptic scaffold proteins
Citation
Kilinc D (2018) The Emerging Role of Mechanics in Synapse Formation and Plasticity. Front. Cell. Neurosci. 12:483. doi: 10.3389/fncel.2018.00483
Received
01 September 2018
Accepted
27 November 2018
Published
06 December 2018
Volume
12 - 2018
Edited by
Kyle Miller, Michigan State University, United States
Reviewed by
Olivier Thoumine, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), France; Brenton Hoffman, Duke University, United States
Updates
Copyright
Ā© 2018 Kilinc.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Devrim Kilinc devrim.kilinc@pasteur-lille.fr
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.