4.6 Article

Independent Regulation of Basal Neurotransmitter Release Efficacy by Variable Ca2+ Influx and Bouton Size at Small Central Synapses

期刊

PLOS BIOLOGY
卷 10, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001396

关键词

-

资金

  1. Medical Research Council United Kingdom [G0600089]
  2. Brain Research Trust
  3. Wellcome Trust [WT084311]
  4. European Research Council
  5. UCL Bridging Award
  6. Action Medical Research [1725] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. Medical Research Council [G0802158, G0501424, G0900613, G0802216, G116/147, G0600089, G0801316] Funding Source: researchfish
  8. MRC [G0802158, G0900613, G0501424, G116/147, G0802216, G0801316, G0600089] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The efficacy of action potential evoked neurotransmitter release varies widely even among synapses supplied by the same axon, and the number of release-ready vesicles at each synapse is a major determinant of this heterogeneity. Here we identify a second, equally important, mechanism for release heterogeneity at small hippocampal synapses, the inter-synaptic variation of the exocytosis probability of release-ready vesicles. Using concurrent measurements of vesicular pool sizes, vesicular exocytosis rates, and presynaptic Ca2+ dynamics, in the same small hippocampal boutons, we show that the average fusion probability of release-ready vesicles varies among synapses supplied by the same axon with the size of the spike-evoked Ca2+ concentration transient. We further show that synapses with a high vesicular release probability exhibit a lower Ca2+ cooperativity, arguing that this is a direct consequence of increased Ca2+ influx at the active zone. We conclude that variability of neurotransmitter release under basal conditions at small central synapses is accounted for not only by the number of release-ready vesicles, but also by their fusion probabilities, which are set independently of bouton size by variable spike-evoked presynaptic Ca2+ influx.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据