A Direct Comparison of Different Measures for the Strength of Electrical Synapses.
coupling coefficient
electrical coupling
electrical synapse
electrical synapse plasticity
gap junction conductance
Journal
Frontiers in cellular neuroscience
ISSN: 1662-5102
Titre abrégé: Front Cell Neurosci
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101477935
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
23
11
2018
accepted:
25
01
2019
entrez:
28
2
2019
pubmed:
28
2
2019
medline:
28
2
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
During the last decades it became increasingly evident that electrical synapses are capable of activity-dependent plasticity. However, measuring the actual strength of electrical transmission remains difficult. Usually changes in coupling strength can only be inferred indirectly from measures such as the coupling coefficient and the coupling conductance. Because these are affected by both junctional and non-junctional conductance, plastic changes can potentially be due to both components. Furthermore, these techniques also require the blocking of chemical transmission, so that processes that involve crosstalk between chemical and electrical synapses will be suppressed. To directly examine the magnitude of errors that can occur, we use dual whole-cell current- and voltage-clamp recordings from the soma of the pair of easily accessible, electrically coupled Retzius cells in the leech to simultaneously determine coupling coefficients, coupling conductances and directly measured gap junctional currents. We present the first direct and comparative analysis of gap junction conductance using all three methods and analyze how each method would characterize the response of gap junctions to serotonin. The traditional coupling coefficients showed severe deficits in assessing the symmetry and strength of electrical synapses. These were reduced when coupling conductances were determined and were absent in the direct method. Additionally, both coupling coefficient and coupling conductance caused large and systematic errors in assessing the size and time course of the serotonin-induced changes of gap junctional currents. Most importantly, both measurements can easily be misinterpreted as implying long-term gap junctional plasticity, although the direct measurements confirm its absence. We thus show directly that coupling coefficients and coupling conductances can severely confound plastic changes in membrane and junctional conductance. Wherever possible, voltage clamp measurements should be chosen to accurately characterize the timing and strength of plasticity of electrical synapses. However, we also demonstrate that coupling coefficients can still yield a qualitatively correct picture when amended by independent measurements of the course of membrane resistance during the experiments.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30809130
doi: 10.3389/fncel.2019.00043
pmc: PMC6379294
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
43Références
Am J Physiol. 1999 Apr;276(4):C980-7
pubmed: 10199830
Cell Calcium. 2002 Mar;31(3):137-49
pubmed: 12027387
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Apr 15;100(8):4849-54
pubmed: 12668761
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1992 Dec 15;89(24):12088-92
pubmed: 1334556
J Neurophysiol. 1962 Nov;25:721-31
pubmed: 13951916
Biophys J. 2004 Jan;86(1 Pt 1):646-55
pubmed: 14695308
Neuron. 2004 Feb 19;41(4):495-511
pubmed: 14980200
Science. 2005 Dec 16;310(5755):1809-13
pubmed: 16357260
Curr Biol. 2007 Aug 7;17(15):1334-9
pubmed: 17658257
Nat Neurosci. 2008 Jul;11(7):790-8
pubmed: 18552844
Nature. 1990 Dec 6;348(6301):542-5
pubmed: 2174130
Science. 2011 Oct 21;334(6054):389-93
pubmed: 22021860
Front Cell Neurosci. 2012 Jan 23;5:31
pubmed: 22319469
Biochim Biophys Acta. 2013 Jan;1828(1):134-46
pubmed: 22659675
Brain Res. 2012 Dec 3;1487:140-9
pubmed: 22771703
Curr Biol. 2013 Dec 2;23(23):R1026-31
pubmed: 24309273
Brain Res. 2014 Mar 6;1550:9-17
pubmed: 24440632
Neuron. 2014 Mar 19;81(6):1290-1296
pubmed: 24656251
Neuron. 2014 Mar 19;81(6):1375-1388
pubmed: 24656255
Neuron. 2014 Mar 19;81(6):1389-1400
pubmed: 24656256
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1989 Oct;86(19):7639-43
pubmed: 2477845
J Physiol. 1989 Jul;414:351-75
pubmed: 2558170
J Neurosci. 2015 May 13;35(19):7616-25
pubmed: 25972185
J Physiol. 2016 May 15;594(10):2579-92
pubmed: 26864476
Neuron. 2016 Jun 1;90(5):1043-56
pubmed: 27133465
BMC Cell Biol. 2016 May 24;17 Suppl 1:14
pubmed: 27230776
BMC Cell Biol. 2016 May 24;17 Suppl 1:13
pubmed: 27230893
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1987 Oct;84(20):7319-23
pubmed: 2823257
Nat Commun. 2017 Mar 20;8:14818
pubmed: 28317880
J Physiol. 2017 Jul 1;595(13):4417-4430
pubmed: 28369952
PLoS Comput Biol. 2017 Apr 6;13(4):e1005464
pubmed: 28384220
Neuron. 2018 Jan 3;97(1):75-82.e3
pubmed: 29249288
Sci Rep. 2018 Aug 22;8(1):12579
pubmed: 30135467
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1985 May;82(9):3025-9
pubmed: 3857632
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1966 Jul 14;137(2):509-39
pubmed: 5229812
J Neurosci. 1984 Oct;4(10):2477-88
pubmed: 6092564
J Exp Biol. 1980 Aug;87:23-43
pubmed: 7420016
J Neurosci. 1994 Mar;14(3 Pt 2):1812-9
pubmed: 8126573
J Comp Physiol A. 1993;172(6):715-32
pubmed: 8350285