MuSK Expressed in the Brain Mediates Cholinergic Responses, Synaptic Plasticity, and Memory Formation
ABSTRACT Muscle-specific tyrosine kinase receptor (MuSK) has been believed to be mainly expressed and functional in muscle, in which it mediates the formation of neuromuscular junctions. Here we show that MuSK is expressed in the brain, particularly in neurons, as well as in non-neuronal tissues. We also provide evidence that MuSK expression in the hippocampus is required for memory consolidation, because temporally restricted knockdown after training impairs memory retention. Hippocampal disruption of MuSK also prevents the learning-dependent induction of both cAMP response element binding protein (CREB) phosphorylation and CCAAT enhancer binding protein beta (C/EBPbeta) expression, suggesting that the role of MuSK during memory consolidation critically involves the CREB-C/EBP pathway. Furthermore, we found that MuSK also plays an important role in mediating hippocampal oscillatory activity in the theta frequency as well as in the induction and maintenance of long-term potentiation, two synaptic responses that correlate with memory formation. We conclude that MuSK plays an important role in brain functions, including memory formation. Therefore, its expression and role are broader than what was believed previously.
SourceAvailable from: Murat Durakoglugil[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Apolipoprotein E (ApoE) genotype is the strongest predictor of Alzheimer's Disease (AD) risk. ApoE is a cholesterol transport protein that binds to members of the Low-Density Lipoprotein (LDL) Receptor family, which includes LDL Receptor Related Protein 4 (Lrp4). Lrp4, together with one of its ligands Agrin and its co-receptors Muscle Specific Kinase (MuSK) and Amyloid Precursor Protein (APP), regulates neuromuscular junction (NMJ) formation. All four proteins are also expressed in the adult brain, and APP, MuSK, and Agrin are required for normal synapse function in the CNS. Here, we show that Lrp4 is also required for normal hippocampal plasticity. In contrast to the closely related Lrp8/Apoer2, the intracellular domain of Lrp4 does not appear to be necessary for normal expression and maintenance of long-term potentiation at central synapses or for the formation and maintenance of peripheral NMJs. However, it does play a role in limb development.PLoS ONE 02/2015; 10(2):e0116701. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0116701 · 3.53 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs) bind to a subset of growth factors on the surface of cells and elicit responses with broad roles in developmental and postnatal cellular processes. Receptors in this subclass consist of an extracellular ligand-binding domain, a single transmembrane domain, and an intracellular domain harboring a catalytic tyrosine kinase and regulatory sequences that are phosphorylated either by the receptor itself or by various interacting proteins. Once activated, RTKs bind signaling molecules and recruit effector proteins to mediate downstream cellular responses through various intracellular signaling pathways. In this chapter, we highlight the role of a subset of RTK families in regulating the activity of neural crest cells (NCCs) and the development of their derivatives in mammalian systems. NCCs are migratory, multipotent cells that can be subdivided into four axial populations, cranial, cardiac, vagal, and trunk. These cells migrate throughout the vertebrate embryo along defined pathways and give rise to unique cell types and structures. Interestingly, individual RTK families often have specific functions in a subpopulation of NCCs that contribute to the diversity of these cells and their derivatives in the mammalian embryo. We additionally discuss current methods used to investigate RTK signaling, including genetic, biochemical, large-scale proteomic, and biosensor approaches, which can be applied to study intracellular signaling pathways active downstream of this receptor subclass during NCC development. © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.Current Topics in Developmental Biology 01/2015; 111:135-82. DOI:10.1016/bs.ctdb.2014.11.005 · 4.21 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Long-term potentiation (LTP) remains the most widely accepted model for learning and memory. In accordance with this belief, the temporal differentiation of LTP into early and late phases is accepted as reflecting the differentiation of short-term and long-term memory. Moreover, during the past 30 years, protein synthesis inhibitors have been used to separate the early, protein synthesis-independent (E-LTP) phase and the late, protein synthesis-dependent (L-LTP) phase. However, the role of these proteins has not been formally identified. Additionally, several reports failed to show an effect of protein synthesis inhibitors on LTP. In this review, a detailed analysis of extensive behavioral and electrophysiological data reveals that the presumed correspondence of LTP temporal phases to memory phases is neither experimentally nor theoretically consistent. Moreover, an overview of the time courses of E-LTP in hippocampal slices reveals a wide variability ranging from <1 h to more than 5 h. The existence of all these conflictual findings should lead to a new vision of LTP. We believe that the E-LTP vs. L-LTP distinction, established with protein synthesis inhibitor studies, reflects a false dichotomy. We suggest that the duration of LTP and its dependency on protein synthesis are related to the availability of a set of proteins at synapses and not to the de novo synthesis of plasticity-related proteins. This availability is determined by protein turnover kinetics, which is regulated by previous and ongoing electrical activities and by energy store availability.Reviews in the neurosciences 05/2015; DOI:10.1515/revneuro-2014-0072 · 3.31 Impact Factor