PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptHHS Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
 
Curr Opin Neurobiol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 April 1.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC2716433
NIHMSID: NIHMS113542

Molecular mechanisms underlying neural circuit formation

Abstract

The functions of the nervous system are mediated by neural circuits that are formed during development and modulated by experiences. Central to the assembly of neural circuits is the regulation of synaptic connectivity by synaptic molecules and neuronal activity. Extensive studies have focused on identifying molecules involved in synapse formation. Besides factors promoting synaptogenesis, several anti-synaptogenic factors have been discovered. These factors act in concert to ensure the timing and specificity of circuit formation. Moreover, progress has been made in revealing how neuronal activity governs the balance of excitatory and inhibitory synapses. Intriguingly, several transcription factors, as well as activity-dependent transcription of BDNF through promoter IV, have been shown to selectively regulate cortical inhibitory circuits by promoting GABAergic synapse formation.

Introduction

How does an axon (or dendrite) choose among numerous available dendrites (or axons) to form a synapse that not only functions but also lasts for a long time? It is well known that mammalian synapses rarely form at their first encounter. Instead, long-lasting marriage of the pre- and postsynaptic partners is a consequence of a lengthy “dating” process that involves a series of meetings, dancing and touching. Only the right partners eventually wed. The cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying the formation of specific synaptic connections have long been a mystery. Regardless of its complexity, it is generally agreed that the dating of synaptic partners involves two sequential processes. First, the synaptic partners have to click with each other; the presynaptic axon and postsynaptic dendrites need to have the right “physical chemistry”. Second, after initial molecular interactions that ensure the parties have the right matches, an activity-dependent process kicks in. The synaptic partners engage in serious talks. However, the synaptic dating does not need to be one-to-one. In fact, there are often competitions. The relationship gets refined and strengthened if the pre- and postsynaptic partners talk (fire) in synchrony, whereas those who can't speak harmoniously (fire asynchronously) are eliminated. Armed with knowledge cumulated over the last decade in related fields as well as advances in tools and technologies, recent studies have begun to reveal the secret of how stable and specific synaptic connections are formed. In this review, we will first discuss a set of new studies that reveal how early axon-dendritic interactions help to find synaptic partners in the right categories. We will then highlight recent progress in identifying synaptogenic and anti-synaptogenic factors that strengthen the appropriate connections, as well as how neuronal activity controls the expression of genes that shape and coordinate the formation and stability of neuronal circuits.

Initial selection of synaptic partners – role of local filopodial Ca2+

Using two-photon time-lapse imaging of fluorescence-labeled pre- and postsynaptic partners, motion pictures have been made to describe the initial “dating” process [1,2]. Surprisingly, dendritic filopodia, the precursor of dendritic spines, seem to know which axonal targets are suitable for a long-term relationship after initial contacts. In slice cultures of hippocampus in which postsynaptic CA3 pyramidal cells were labeled by a red dye, Lohmann and Bonhoeffer observed that filopodia grow, retract, and search for appropriate positions along the axons to make contacts. The lifetimes for most of the contacts are very short (a little more than a minute), and only a few contacts eventually become stable synapses on glutamatergic axons. Remarkably, although dendritic filopodia frequently contacted GABAergic axons (labeled with the GABAergic marker, GAD65-GFP), such contacts never form stable synapses [1]. Conversely, protrusions from labeled GABAergic axons also make transient contacts with dendritic shaft, but they are never transformed into long-lasting, stable contacts. Unlike glutamatergic synapses, new GABAergic synapses were formed exclusively by the creation of new boutons at pre-existing axon-dendrite crossings without the involvement of any dendritic or axonal protrusions [2]. While specific molecules that prohibit the bonding between GABAergic axons and dendritic spines remain to be identified, several lines of evidence suggest that local Ca2+ transients in dendritic filopodia play a critical role: 1) the frequency of Ca2+ transients increases after filopodia-axon contacts are made; 2) the increase in local Ca2+ is more pronounced at stable contacts than at short-lived contacts; 3) the Ca2+ change is not observed in filopodia contacting GABAergic axons [1]. Since this Ca2+ transient was independent of glutamatergic transmission [1], contact initiated nonsynaptic signaling, perhaps through cell adhesion molecules (CAMs), might contribute to the initial selection of appropriate synaptic partners.

Synaptogenic and anti-synaptogenic factors

After initial contacts, further development of synaptic relationships depends largely on the right molecular chemistry. Neuroligins and Neurexins are possibly the best known trans-synaptic CAMs that connect pre- and postsynaptic cells [3]. Previous in vitro analyses demonstrated that neuroligins and neurexins can reciprocally instruct pre- and postsynaptic specializations, suggesting that these molecules function as bidirectional inducers for synaptogenesis [3]. Surprisingly, however, recent analyses in vivo suggest that neuroligins are not required for initial establishment of synapses, but instead play critical roles in the regulation of functional maturation of excitatory and inhibitory synapses. In wild-type animals, neuroligin 1(NLGN1) is preferentially localized at excitatory synapses whereas neuroligin 2 (NLGN2) is enriched at inhibitory synapses [4,5]. In Nlgn-1 knockout mice, excitatory synapses are still formed but specifically impaired in NMDA receptor signaling, whereas the Nlgn-2 knock-out mice exhibit selective defects in inhibitory synaptic transmission [6]. Conversely, over-expression of Nlgn-1 or Nlgn-2 in neuronal cultures increases excitatory or inhibitory synaptic responses, respectively [6]. Moreover, a point mutation of Nlgn-3 specifically increases inhibitory synaptic transmission, possibly due to a gain-of-function effect [7]. These results together raise the possibility that the balance between NLGN1, 2 and 3 signaling may regulate the excitatory/inhibitory (E/I) ratio and the proper maturation of circuit-specific synaptic junctions, but not the initial formation of synapses.

What molecules may play a more direct role in synaptogenesis? Another well known synaptic receptor-ligand pair is Eph/ephrin, which mediates trans-synaptic signaling in a bidirectional manner [8]. Previous studies on EphB1-3 triple knockout mice showed that the forward signaling, mediated by the binding of presynaptic ephrins to, and the activation of, postsynaptic Eph receptors, is required for spine morphogenesis and postsynaptic differentiation [8]. Recent works in several experimental systems have begun to reveal the importance of ephrin reverse signaling in spine and synapse formation. In Xenopus retinotectal system, the activation of presynaptic ephrinB1 by postsynaptic EphB2, as probed through the infusion of EphB2-Fc fusion protein, enhanced presynaptic glutamate release and the number of retinotectal synapses [9]. EphrinBs are also present in the dendrites of hippocamal neurons; and ephrinBs mediated reverse signaling can trigger spine and synapse formation in postsynaptic neurons [10,11].

Other classes of CAMs that contribute to the specificity in synaptic connectivity have also been identified. Previous studies in Drosophila and C. elegans have shown that Capricious and Syg-1/2, which are expressed in specific synaptic partner cells, mediate synaptic interactions between specific cell pairs [12,13]. While it has been difficult to identify similar molecules in the vertebrate nervous system, significant progress has been made recently towards the understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying target recognition in complex neuronal circuits (Figure 1A). Sidekicks and Dscams, four closely related CAMs belonging to a subfamily of immunoglobulin superfamily, are expressed in different subsets of pre- and postsynaptic partners in chick retina and direct lamina-specific synaptic connectivity [14]. Another immunoglobulin-like protein, Close Homologue of L1 (CHL1), is involved in the guidance of stellate axons towards a specific subcellular region of the target Purkinje cell [15].

Figure 1
Regulation of synaptic specificity by synaptogenic and anti-synaptogenic factors

In addition to synaptogenic factors, anti-synaptogenic factors are important for the specificity of synapse formation (Figure 1B). For example, Wnt4 could act as an anti-synaptogenic signal, preventing the development of the neuromuscular synapse between a motor axon and one of the two target muscle cells in Drosophila [16]. Wnt/Lin-44 in C. elegans determines the subcellular location of synapses by preventing synapse formation in a specific domain of DA9 axons [17]. Unc-6/Netrin regulates DA9 synapse formation in a similar manner [18]. Taken together, Wnt/Lin-44 and Unc-6/Netrin are expressed in different parts of the body and act in concert to restrict synapse formation to a discrete domain of the axon where both molecules are absent. These results indicate that spatial specificity of synapses is regulated not only by attraction from the target but also by exclusion from neighboring cells or local environments. Timing of synaptogenesis can also be controlled by anti-synaptogenic factors. Slit1a, through Robo2 receptor, inhibits arborization and synaptogenesis of retinal ganglion cells in zebrafish. In the absence of Slit-Robo signaling, the arbors form earlier, suggesting that Slit-Robo prevents premature synapse formation [19]. Similarly, polysialic acid (PSA), which is attached to NCAM, prevents precocious maturation of GABAergic synapses in the visual cortex of mammals [20]. Interestingly, some of the aforementioned anti-synaptogenic factors, Wnts and Netrins, are also known to act as pro-synaptogenic factors [21,22]. Thus, these molecules might exert both pro- and anti-synaptogenic effects depending on the context. In the case of Unc-6/Netrin, the difference appears to be regulated by different receptors: Unc-40/DCC mediates synaptogenesis and Unc-5 anti-synaptogenesis [18,22]. An important future challenge is to elucidate the context-dependent signaling pathways that differentiate pro- and anti-synaptogenic response in the cells.

Activity-regulated gene expression and coordinated development of glutamatergic and GABAergic synapses

While genetically pre-specified molecular recognition mechanisms may be important in connecting specific synaptic partners, neural activity-regulated gene expression programs appear to play a key role in orchestrating the assembly of neural circuits, which contain synaptic connections among diverse types of neurons. Genome-wide gene expression analyses have revealed several hundreds of genes whose expressions are acutely regulated by membrane depolarization or neural transmitter release [23]. These genes encode both transcription factors and downstream effectors and regulators of synaptogenesis. Recent studies have highlighted the specific roles of several activity-regulated transcription factors in controlling synapse development. They can regulate the numbers of glutamatergic or GABAergic synapses, and affect E/I balance through activity-dependent positive or negative feedback loops in individual cells or across neuronal circuits (Figure 2).

Figure 2
Activity-regulated gene expression and coordinated development of glutamatergic and GABAergic synapses

For glutamatergic synapses, MeCP2, a transcriptional regulator that binds to methylated DNA, has been shown to promote the number and strength of excitatory synaptic connections. Loss of MeCP2 in mice led to decreased excitatory synaptic responses and developmentally reduced excitatory synapse numbers, while inhibitory synaptic responses were normal [24,25]. Conversely, doubling of MeCP2 expression enhanced excitatory synaptic responses and synapse formation [24]. Since neuronal activity triggers the phosphorylation of MeCP2, which is necessary for MeCP2-mediated induction of target genes and modulation of dendritic growth and spine maturation [26,27], MeCP2 may participate in an activity-dependent positive feedback loop to promote excitatory synaptogenesis. In contrast, the activity-dependent transcription factor MEF2 has been shown to restrict the number of excitatory synapses. Disrupting MEF2 function in vitro or in vivo resulted in an increase, whereas overexpression of MEF2 resulted in a decrease, of excitatory synapses [28,29]. Since increased neuronal activity dephosphorylates MEF2, activates MEF2 mediated transcription of target genes, and suppresses excitatory synapse numbers [29], MEF2 seems to mediate an activity-dependent negative feedback loop to maintain E/I balance by restricting excitatory synapses.

For GABAergic synapses, a recent microarray screen of membrane depolarization activated genes identified a transcription factor, Npas4, whose transcription was rapidly and transiently induced in excitatory neurons following calcium influx [30]. The inhibition of Npas4 specifically downregulated, whereas overexpression of Npas4 upregulated, the number of GABAergic synapses formed on developing excitatory neurons. Therefore, Npas4 may mediate an activity-dependent negative feedback loop to maintain E/I balance by enhancing inhibitory synapses. Another transcription factor, the homeoportein Otx2, regulates the activity-dependent maturation of inhibitory neurons [31]. Remarkably, the effect of Otx2 is non-cell autonomous. Cortical infusion of Otx2 accelerated the maturation of inhibitory cells and the onset of ocular dominance plasticity, whereas conditional knockout of Otx2 in non-inhibitory cells or from the subcortical visual pathways blocked these processes. Otx2 appeared to be synthesized in subcortical sites such as retina and thalamus, then transported into cortical inhibitory neurons in response to visual experience, suggesting a novel circuit-level mechanism by which neural activity can promote the maturation of inhibitory synapses.

The second group of activity-regulated genes encodes molecules that are effectors or regulators of synapses such as Arc, Homer, Cpg15, MHC Class I [32-36]. Of particular interest is the activity-dependent transcription of BDNF through promoter IV. Disruption of Bdnf promoter IV function appears to selectively affect the development of cortical inhibition [37] [38]. A subtle mutation that disrupts the ability of CREB to bind Bdnf promoter IV results in fewer inhibitory synapses in cultured cortical neurons, deficits in miniature IPSCs in cortical slices, and reduced expression of GABAergic markers, but not glutamatergic markers, in the visual cortex [37]. Mice that completely lack promoter IV-driven Bdnf transcription exhibit significant deficits in GABAergic, but not glutamatergic, synaptic transmission, leading to an aberrant spike-timing dependent synaptic potentiation (STDP) in the prefrontal cortex [38]. These results demonstrate the importance of activity-dependent BDNF transcription in the formation of cortical inhibitory circuits, and reveal a selective modulation of GABAergic function by promoter IV-derived BDNF.

Conclusion

Contrary to previous belief, developing neurons exhibit preference to their future synaptic partners, at least grouped by large categories (GABAergic or glutamatergic), during early stages of synaptogenesis. It has become increasingly clear that the formation of appropriate synaptic networks involves both synaptogenic and anti-synaptogenic factors, which control the specificity as well as timing of synaptogenesis. Cumulating evidence also suggests that neuronal activity orchestrates the development of neuronal circuits through activity-regulated genes, particularly transcriptional factors and their downstream effectors, such as BDNF. Distinct factors seem to regulate excitatory and inhibitory synaptic connections. For example, activity-dependent transcription of BDNF appears to selectively promote the development of cortical GABAergic synapses. An important question for the future is to identify molecular mechanisms underlying the formation of specific synapses within a sub-region of the brain (e.g. CA3 of hippocampus) or within the same class of neurons (e.g. synapses formed in CA3 pyramidal neurons by recurrent collaterals versus those by mossy fibers from dentate gyrus). Another major challenge is to elucidate the distinct yet overlapping sets of genes that are regulated under different activity-dependent programs, and unravel the molecular logic underlying the spatial selectivity and temporal coordination of synapse development in neural circuits.

Acknowledgments

Hiroki Taniguchi for comments and Makiko Shinza-Kameda for help in Illustration (Figure 1). Supported by a Grant-in-Aid to A.N. for Scientific Research B and for Scientific Research on Priority Areas-Molecular Brain Science-from the MEXT.

Footnotes

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Contributor Information

Bai Lu, Section on Neural Development & Plasticity, NICHD, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892-3714.

Kuan Hong Wang, Unit on Neural Circuits and Adaptive Behaviors, NIMH, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892-3714.

Akinao Nose, Department of Complexity Science and Engineering, Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Chiba 277-8561, Japan.

References

•1. Lohmann C, Bonhoeffer T. A role for local calcium signaling in rapid synaptic partner selection by dendritic filopodia. Neuron. 2008;59:253–260. [PubMed]
•2. Wierenga CJ, Becker N, Bonhoeffer T. GABAergic synapses are formed without the involvement of dendritic protrusions. Nat Neurosci. 2008 [PubMed]These two studies provided a dynamic view of glutamatergic and GABAergic synapse formation in hippocampal organotipical cultures, revealing distinct subcellular loci of axon-dendritic interactions and a surprisingly rapid onset of Ca2+ signaling for partner selection.
3. Sudhof TC. Neuroligins and neurexins link synaptic function to cognitive disease. Nature. 2008;455:903–911. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
4. Song JY, Ichtchenko K, Sudhof TC, Brose N. Neuroligin 1 is a postsynaptic cell-adhesion molecule of excitatory synapses. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999;96:1100–1105. [PubMed]
5. Varoqueaux F, Jamain S, Brose N. Neuroligin 2 is exclusively localized to inhibitory synapses. Eur J Cell Biol. 2004;83:449–456. [PubMed]
••6. Chubykin AA, Atasoy D, Etherton MR, Brose N, Kavalali ET, Gibson JR, Sudhof TC. Activity-dependent validation of excitatory versus inhibitory synapses by neuroligin-1 versus neuroligin-2. Neuron. 2007;54:919–931. [PMC free article] [PubMed]This study provides in vivo evidence for the role of Neuroligin-1 and Neuroligin-2 in excitatory versus inhibitory synaptic function. Furthermore, activity dependence of the function of Neuroligin-1 and Neuroligin-2 is shown.
•7. Tabuchi K, Blundell J, Etherton MR, Hammer RE, Liu X, Powell CM, Sudhof TC. A neuroligin-3 mutation implicated in autism increases inhibitory synaptic transmission in mice. Science. 2007;318:71–76. [PMC free article] [PubMed]This work shows that a specific mutation of Neuroligin-3, which is found in patients of autism spectrum disorders, but not deletion of the gene, increases inhibitory synaptic transmission in vivo.
8. Klein R. Bidirectional modulation of synaptic functions by Eph/ephrin signaling. Nat Neurosci. 2009;12:15–20. [PubMed]
•9. Lim BK, Matsuda N, Poo MM. Ephrin-B reverse signaling promotes structural and functional synaptic maturation in vivo. Nat Neurosci. 2008;11:160–169. [PubMed]Activation of presynaptic Ephrin-B signaling by perfusion with EphB2-Fc increases the number of retinotectal synapses in Xenopus. It also enhances synaptic function and plasticity.
10. Aoto J, Ting P, Maghsoodi B, Xu N, Henkemeyer M, Chen L. Postsynaptic ephrinB3 promotes shaft glutamatergic synapse formation. J Neurosci. 2007;27:7508–7519. [PubMed]
11. Segura I, Essmann CL, Weinges S, Acker-Palmer A. Grb4 and GIT1 transduce ephrinB reverse signals modulating spine morphogenesis and synapse formation. Nat Neurosci. 2007;10:301–310. [PubMed]
12. Shen K. Molecular mechanisms of target specificity during synapse formation. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2004;14:83–88. [PubMed]
13. Shinza-Kameda M, Takasu E, Sakurai K, Hayashi S, Nose A. Regulation of layer-specific targeting by reciprocal expression of a cell adhesion molecule, capricious. Neuron. 2006;49:205–213. [PubMed]
••14. Yamagata M, Sanes JR. Dscam and Sidekick proteins direct lamina-specific synaptic connections in vertebrate retina. Nature. 2008;451:465–469. [PubMed]The authors used loss-of-function and gain-of-function analyses to demonstrate that Dscams and Sidekicks, four closely related immunoglobulin superfamily CAMs, mediate lamina-specific synaptic targeting in chick retina. These molecules are first examples of vertebrate target recognition molecules whose function is rigorously demonstrated by in vivo analyses.
•15. Ango F, Wu C, Van der Want JJ, Wu P, Schachner M, Huang ZJ. Bergmann glia and the recognition molecule CHL1 organize GABAergic axons and direct innervation of Purkinje cell dendrites. PLoS Biol. 2008;6:e103. [PMC free article] [PubMed]During the targeting of stellate axons to Purkinje cells, CHL1 directs the axons to specific dendritic regions in the target cell. Interestingly, CHL1 is not expressed in the target cell itself but in neighboring Bargmann glia that function as guidepost cells. Determination of target specificity by a signal from nearby guidepost cells is also reported in C. elegans [22].
•16. Inaki M, Yoshikawa S, Thomas JB, Aburatani H, Nose A. Wnt4 is a local repulsive cue that determines synaptic target specificity. Curr Biol. 2007;17:1574–1579. [PubMed]During the targeting of two neighboring muscles M12 and M13 in Drosophila, Wnt4 is preferentially expressed in M13. In the absence of Wnt4, motor neurons targeted to M12 form smaller endings on the target cell and instead arborize ectopically on M13, suggesting that Wnt4 determines target specificity by preventing synapse formation on the non-target cell. Frizzled 2 and Derailed-2/Ryk are implicated as receptors that receive Wnt4 signaling in motor neurons.
•17. Klassen MP, Shen K. Wnt signaling positions neuromuscular connectivity by inhibiting synapse formation in C. elegans. Cell. 2007;130:704–716. [PubMed]This study in C. elegans demonstrates that Lin-44/Wnt (secreted by the hypodermal cells in the tail) inhibits synapse formation in a subdomain of the DA9 motor axon by localizing Wnt receptor lin-17/Frizzled (Fz) in this domain. Lin-44/Wnt inhibition is necessary and sufficient for specific localization of presynaptic components along the DA9 axon, indicating its role in spatial regulation of synapses.
••18. Poon VY, Klassen MP, Shen K. UNC-6/netrin and its receptor UNC-5 locally exclude presynaptic components from dendrites. Nature. 2008;455:669–673. [PMC free article] [PubMed]The authors show that, like Lin-44/Wnt, Unc-6/Netrin determines the patterning of presynaptic components along the DA9 axon by local inhibition. The anti-synaptogenic effect of Unc-6/Netrin is mediated by Unc5 receptor expressed in DA9 neurons. Interestingly, Unc-6/netrin was recently shown to promote presynaptic differentiation through another receptor, Unc-40/DCC, in different neurons [22]. Thus, Unc-6/Netrin may exert synaptogenic and anti-synaptogenic effects depending on the receptors in the recipient cells.
19. Campbell DS, Stringham SA, Timm A, Xiao T, Law MY, Baier H, Nonet ML, Chien CB. Slit1a inhibits retinal ganglion cell arborization and synaptogenesis via Robo2-dependent and -independent pathways. Neuron. 2007;55:231–245. [PubMed]
•20. Di Cristo G, Chattopadhyaya B, Kuhlman SJ, Fu Y, Belanger MC, Wu CZ, Rutishauser U, Maffei L, Huang ZJ. Activity-dependent PSA expression regulates inhibitory maturation and onset of critical period plasticity. Nat Neurosci. 2007;10:1569–1577. [PubMed]The authors find in the mouse visual cortex that concentration of PSA is down-regulated shortly after eye opening in an activity-dependent manner. The effects of premature enzymatic removal of PSA suggest that the down-regulation of PSA regulates timing of the maturation of inhibitory synapses and the onset of ocular dominance plasticity.
21. McAllister AK. Dynamic aspects of CNS synapse formation. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2007;30:425–450. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
22. Colon-Ramos DA, Margeta MA, Shen K. Glia promote local synaptogenesis through UNC-6 (netrin) signaling in C. elegans. Science. 2007;318:103–106. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
23. Flavell SW, Greenberg ME. Signaling mechanisms linking neuronal activity to gene expression and plasticity of the nervous system. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2008;31:563–590. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
•24. Chao HT, Zoghbi HY, Rosenmund C. MeCP2 controls excitatory synaptic strength by regulating glutamatergic synapse number. Neuron. 2007;56:58–65. [PMC free article] [PubMed]The authors examined the synaptic properties of individual neurons from mice that either lack or double the expression of MeCP2, and found that MeCP2 is a key-rate limiting factor for glutamatergic synapse formation.
25. Dani VS, Chang Q, Maffei A, Turrigiano GG, Jaenisch R, Nelson SB. Reduced cortical activity due to a shift in the balance between excitation and inhibition in a mouse model of Rett syndrome. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102:12560–12565. [PubMed]
•26. Zhou Z, Hong EJ, Cohen S, Zhao WN, Ho HY, Schmidt L, Chen WG, Lin Y, Savner E, Griffith EC, et al. Brain-specific phosphorylation of MeCP2 regulates activity-dependent Bdnf transcription, dendritic growth, and spine maturation. Neuron. 2006;52:255–269. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
•27. Chen WG, Chang Q, Lin Y, Meissner A, West AE, Griffith EC, Jaenisch R, Greenberg ME. Derepression of BDNF transcription involves calcium-dependent phosphorylation of MeCP2. Science. 2003;302:885–889. [PubMed]In these two studies, methylated DNA binding protein MeCP2 was shown regulated by neural activity. This regulation is mediated by a calcium dependent phorsphorylation of MeCP2.
•28. Barbosa AC, Kim MS, Ertunc M, Adachi M, Nelson ED, McAnally J, Richardson JA, Kavalali ET, Monteggia LM, Bassel-Duby R, et al. MEF2C, a transcription factor that facilitates learning and memory by negative regulation of synapse numbers and function. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;105:9391–9396. [PubMed]
•29. Flavell SW, Cowan CW, Kim TK, Greer PL, Lin Y, Paradis S, Griffith EC, Hu LS, Chen C, Greenberg ME. Activity-dependent regulation of MEF2 transcription factors suppresses excitatory synapse number. Science. 2006;311:1008–1011. [PubMed]In these two studies, MEF2 transcription factors were shown activated by neural activity and act to suppress excitatory synapses in vitro and in vivo, suggesting a negative feedback mechanism to achieve E/I balance.
••30. Lin Y, Bloodgood BL, Hauser JL, Lapan AD, Koon AC, Kim TK, Hu LS, Malik AN, Greenberg ME. Activity-dependent regulation of inhibitory synapse development by Npas4. Nature. 2008;455:1198–1204. [PMC free article] [PubMed]Through a microarray-based screen of membrane depolarization regulated genes, the authors identified a transcription factor that specifically regulates the formation of inhibitory synapses.
••31. Sugiyama S, Di Nardo AA, Aizawa S, Matsuo I, Volovitch M, Prochiantz A, Hensch TK. Experience-dependent transfer of Otx2 homeoprotein into the visual cortex activates postnatal plasticity. Cell. 2008;134:508–520. [PubMed]The authors demonstrate a role for Otx2 homeoprotein to regulate the maturation of inhibitory neurons in visual cortex. Surprisingly, Otx2 is not made in the inhibitory neurons, but transferred into those cells from subcortical visual pathways in an experience-dependent manner.
32. Chowdhury S, Shepherd JD, Okuno H, Lyford G, Petralia RS, Plath N, Kuhl D, Huganir RL, Worley PF. Arc/Arg3.1 interacts with the endocytic machinery to regulate AMPA receptor trafficking. Neuron. 2006;52:445–459. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
33. Wang KH, Majewska A, Schummers J, Farley B, Hu C, Sur M, Tonegawa S. In vivo two-photon imaging reveals a role of arc in enhancing orientation specificity in visual cortex. Cell. 2006;126:389–402. [PubMed]
34. Goddard CA, Butts DA, Shatz CJ. Regulation of CNS synapses by neuronal MHC class I. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007(104):6828–6833. [PubMed]
35. Sala C, Futai K, Yamamoto K, Worley PF, Hayashi Y, Sheng M. Inhibition of dendritic spine morphogenesis and synaptic transmission by activity-inducible protein Homer1a. J Neurosci. 2003;23:6327–6337. [PubMed]
36. Nedivi E, Wu GY, Cline HT. Promotion of dendritic growth by CPG15, an activity-induced signaling molecule. Science. 1998;281:1863–1866. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
••37. Hong EJ, McCord AE, Greenberg ME. A biological function for the neuronal activity-dependent component of Bdnf transcription in the development of cortical inhibition. Neuron. 2008;60:610–624. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
••38. Sakata K, Woo NH, Martinowich K, Greene JS, Schloesser R, Shen L, Lu B. Critical role of promoter-IV-driven Bdnf transcription in GABAergic transmission and synaptic plasticity in the prefrontal cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. In press. [PubMed]These two studies used slightly different konckin techniques to disrupt the promoter-IV-driven BDNF transcription in mice. Both show that activity-dependent BDNF transcription through promoter IV is important for the development and function of GABAergic synapses in the cortex.