4.5 Article

Ultrastructural organization of lamprey reticulospinal synapses in three dimensions

期刊

JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE NEUROLOGY
卷 450, 期 2, 页码 167-182

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cne.10310

关键词

synaptic vesicle; active zone; electron tomography; dense projection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The giant reticulospinal synapse in lamprey provides a unique model to study synaptic vesicle traffic. The axon permits microinjections, and the active zones are often separated from each other, which makes it possible to track vesicle cycling at individual release sites. However, the proportion of reticulospinal synapses with individual active zones (simple synapses) is unknown and a quantitative description of their organization is lacking. Here, we report such data obtained by serial section analysis, intermediate-voltage electron microscopy, and electron tomography. The simple synapse was the most common type (78%). It consisted of one active zone contacting one dendritic process. The remaining synapses were complex, mostly containing one vesicle cluster and two to three active zones synapsing with distinct dendritic shafts. Occasional axosomatic synapses with multiple active zones forming synapses with the same cell were also observed. The vast majority of active zones in all synapse types contained both chemical and electrotonic synaptic specializations. Quantitative analysis of simple synapses showed that the majority had active zones with a diameter of 0.8-1.8 mum. The number of synaptic vesicles and the height of the vesicle cluster in middle sections of serially cut synapses correlated with the active zone length within, but not above, this size range. Electron tomography of simple synapses revealed small filaments between the clustered synaptic vesicles. A single vesicle could be in contact with up to 12 filaments. Another type of filament, also associated with synaptic vesicles, emerged from dense projections. Up to six filaments could be traced from one dense projection.

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

4.5
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