Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
eNeuro
eNeuro

Advanced Search

 

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT
PreviousNext
Research ArticleMethods/New Tools, Novel Tools and Methods

Extending the Time Domain of Neuronal Silencing with Cryptophyte Anion Channelrhodopsins

Elena G. Govorunova, Oleg A. Sineshchekov, Raheleh Hemmati, Roger Janz, Olivier Morelle, Michael Melkonian, Gane K.-S. Wong and John L. Spudich
eNeuro 27 June 2018, 5 (3) ENEURO.0174-18.2018; https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0174-18.2018
Elena G. Govorunova
1Center for Membrane Biology, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, McGovern Medical School, Houston, TX 77030
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Oleg A. Sineshchekov
1Center for Membrane Biology, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, McGovern Medical School, Houston, TX 77030
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Raheleh Hemmati
2Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, McGovern Medical School, Houston, TX 77030
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Roger Janz
2Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, McGovern Medical School, Houston, TX 77030
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Olivier Morelle
3Institute of Botany, Cologne Biocenter, University of Cologne, Cologne D-50674, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Olivier Morelle
Michael Melkonian
3Institute of Botany, Cologne Biocenter, University of Cologne, Cologne D-50674, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gane K.-S. Wong
4Departments of Biological Sciences and of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2E1, Canada
5Beijing Genomics Institute-Shenzhen, Shenzhen 518083, China
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John L. Spudich
1Center for Membrane Biology, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, McGovern Medical School, Houston, TX 77030
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Screening of ACR homologs. A, The amplitude of photocurrents generated by tested ACR homologs expressed in HEK293 cells in response to the first pulse of continuous light at the wavelength of the maximal sensitivity for each homolog (Table 3) at -60 mV at the amplifier output in standard solutions. The stationary current was measured at the end of a 1-s light pulse. The data are the mean values ± SEM (n = 3–10 cells). The data obtained in each individual cell are shown as empty circles. B, The action spectra of photocurrents generated by RapACR (RsACR_665) and RaACR_687. The data are the mean values ± SEM (n = 4 and n = 8 scans, respectively). C, The kinetics of the photocurrent decay after switching off the continuous light (1-s duration) at -60 mV. D, The dependence of the normalized peak amplitude, inactivation, and half-decay time of RapACR photocurrents recorded in response to 1-s pulses of 520-nm light on the stimulus intensity. The data points are mean ± SEM (n = 5 cells). E, The dependence of the peak amplitude (red) and half-decay time (blue) of RapACR photocurrents on the holding voltage corrected for the liquid junction potential. Filled symbols, solid lines, measurements using standard HEK293 solutions (Table 1); empty downward triangles, dashed line, measurements using neuronal solutions (Table 2). The data points are mean ± SEM (n = 6 cells). F, The shifts of the reversal potential on partial replacement of Cl– with Asp- in the bath. The data are the mean values ± SEM (n = 3 and n = 5 cells for RapACR and RaACR_687, respectively).

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    RapACR expression does not change morphologic and physiologic parameters of neurons. A, Immunofluorescent images of neurons transduced with RapACR_EYFP fusion (top row) or control (non-transduced) neurons (bottom row) and stained with antibodies against EYFP (green channel), MAP2 (microtubule associated protein 2) as the dendrite marker (red channel), and SV2 (synaptic vesicle protein 2) as the synapse marker (blue channel). Scale bar, 20 µm. B, C, The number of dendrites per neuron and synapses per dendritic length of 20 µm, respectively. The data points are mean ± SEM (n = 10 and n = 7 cells for RapACR and control, respectively). D, E, The resting potential (abbreviated as rest. pot. on the y-axis in panel D) and rheobase in the dark. The data points are mean ± SEM (n = 9 and n = 13 cells for RapACR and control, respectively, tested 8–14 d after transduction). Statistical significance was tested by the Mann–Whitney test.

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    RapACR is more efficient for neuronal silencing than the second-generation engineered Cl–-conducting channelrhodopsin iC++. A, B, Photoinhibition of spiking in a neuron expressing RapACR at two different light intensities. Spiking was induced by depolarization of the membrane by prolonged current injection as shown at the bottom. The time course of illumination is shown as green bars on top. C, A representative voltage trace recorded from a neuron expressing RapACR and stimulated with a train of 1-ms pulses of 2.5 nA delivered at 25 Hz. Passive response of the membrane (recorded under complete inhibition of spiking with light) was digitally subtracted. The time course of illumination is shown as a green bar. D, The dependence of neuronal inhibition on the light intensity for RapACR and iC++ photoactivated at different wavelengths. The data points are mean ± SEM (n = 15 and n = 14 neurons for RapACR and iC++, respectively) approximated with a logistic function; fitting parameters are listed in Table 4. E, Voltage traces recorded from a neuron transduced with RapACR and stimulated with a depolarizing current ramp (0–2 nA, 1 s; bottom trace) injected 500 ms after the onset of illumination (red) or in the dark (black). The blue arrow shows the photoinduced rheobase shift (RS). F, The dependence of the rheobase shift on the light intensity in neurons transduced with RapACR or iC++. The current ramp was from 0 to 2 nA in 1 s. The blue arrow shows the difference in the light sensitivity between the two tested channels. The data points are mean ± SEM (n = 9 and n = 6 neurons for RapACR and iC++, respectively).

  • Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4.

    Using RapACR improves temporal resolution of neuronal silencing. A, B, Representative series of overlaid voltage traces recorded from neurons expressing RapACR or GtACR2, respectively, illuminated for 500 ms (the end of the light pulse is shown as a colored bar on top) at 520 or 470 nm, respectively, and stimulated with injection of a pair of 1-ms current pulses, the first of which was applied at the end of illumination, and the second of which, at an incrementally increased time after switching off the light (the injection protocols are schematically drawn at bottom; for GtACR2, only the first six protocols are shown). Passive response of the membrane (recorded under complete inhibition of spiking with light) was digitally subtracted. C, D, The time course of recovery of spiking after illumination measured as shown in panels A, B for cells that could be inhibited with 1% light intensity. The data points are the mean values ± SEM (n = 10 and n = 8 neurons for RapACR and GtACR2, respectively). E, The dependence of the time of 50% recovery of spiking on the light intensity calculated from the same cells as in C, D; *p < 0.001 (pairwise comparison of RapACR and GtACR2 data at each intensity by the Mann–Whitney test). Data obtained in each individual neuron are shown as empty circles.

  • Figure 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5.

    Characterization of the fast RapACR_T111C and RaACR_687_T107C mutants. A, A ClustalW alignment of the 3d transmembrane helix around the Cys-128 position (CrChR2 numbering) from indicated ACRs. The Thr residues found in this position are highlighted red, Cys residues, yellow. B, Normalized photocurrent decay after 1-s illumination recorded from wild-type RapACR (black, solid) and RaACR_687 (black, dashed), and the corresponding T111C (red, solid) and T107C (red, dashed) mutants. C, The dependence of the half-decay time of RapACR_T111C photocurrent on the holding voltage corrected for the liquid junction potential. The data points are the mean ± SEM (n = 4 cells). D, Peak photocurrent amplitude at -60 mV. The wild-type data are from Figure 1A, the data for RapACR_T111C are the mean values ± SEM (n = 8 cells). Statistical significance was tested by the Mann–Whitney test. The values obtained in individual cells are shown as open circles.

  • Figure 6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 6.

    Characterization of the GtACR1_C102X mutants and the use of GtACR1_C102A as a bistable photochromic silencing tool. A, Normalized photocurrent traces recorded at -60 mV in HEK293 cells. B, The half-time of the slow decay phase. The data are mean ± SEM (n = 4–12 cells; for exact numbers, see Table 5); *p < 0.05, **p = 0.01; Kruskal–Wallis test with Bonferroni correction. C, The amplitudes of stationary photocurrents in HEK293 cells at -60 mV after 200-s illumination. The wavelengths were 515 and 505 nm for GtACR1 and GtACR1_C102A, respectively. The data are mean ± SEM (n = 13 and n = 12 cells, respectively); *p < 0.001; Mann–Whitney test; see Table 6 for full statistics. D, The dependence of electrical charge transferred across the membrane during 100-s illumination at -60 mV. The data are mean ± SEM (n = 5 and n = 6 cells for GtACR1 and GtACR1_C102A, respectively). The fitting parameters are listed in Table 4. E, Opening and partial closing of GtACR1_C102A with light at -60 mV. F, The action spectra of GtACR1_C102A opening and closing. The data points are mean ± SEM (n = 8 scans). G, Bidirectional optical control of neuronal spiking with GtACR1_C102A. Passive response of the membrane (recorded under complete inhibition of spiking with light) was digitally subtracted. In panels B–D, also the data obtained in each individual cell are shown as empty circles.

  • Figure 7.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 7.

    Biophysical characteristics of slow ACR mutants. A–D, Normalized photocurrent decay after 1-s illumination recorded from wild-type ACRs (black) and their respective mutants in which the residue homologous to Cys-102 (GtAR1 numbering) was mutated to Ala (red). E, F, Photocurrent half-decay times (E) and peak photocurrent amplitudes (F) measured in wild-type ACRs and their indicated mutants. The data points are mean ± SEM (n = 5–12 cells; for exact numbers, see in Table 5).

  • Figure 8.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 8.

    GtACR1_C102A expression does not change morphologic and physiologic parameters of neurons. A, Immunofluorescent images of neurons transduced with GtACR1_EYFP fusion (odd rows) or control (non-transduced) neurons (even rows) and stained with antibodies against EYFP (green channel), MAP2 (microtubule associated protein 2) as the dendrite marker (red channel), and SV2 (synaptic vesicle protein 2) as the synapse marker (blue channel). Scale bar, 20 µm. B, C, The number of dendrites per neuron and synapses per dendritic length of 20 µm, respectively. The data points are mean ± SEM (n = 17 and n = 24 cells for GtACR1_C102A and control, respectively). D, E, The resting potential (abbreviated as rest. pot. on the y-axis in panel D) and rheobase in the dark. The data points are mean ± SEM (n = 10 and n = 13 cells for GtACR1_C102A and control, respectively, tested 8–14 d after transduction). Statistical significance was tested by the Mann–Whitney test (see full results in Table 6).

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Compositions of pipette and bath solutions and liquid junction potentials in experiments with HEK293 cells

    NaClKClCaCl2MgCl2Na2EGTAHEPESGlucoseNaAsppHLJP
    Pipette standard—1260.52525——7.4—
    Bath standard150—1.81—105—7.44.7
    Bath Asp——1.81—1051507.4-7
    • Asp, aspartate; EGTA, ethylene glycol tetraacetic acid; HEPES, 4-(2-hydroxyethyl)-1-piperazineethanesulfonic acid; LJP, liquid junction potential. All concentrations are in mM.

    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Compositions of pipette and bath solutions and liquid junction potentials in experiments with neurons

    K gluconateKClNaClCaCl2MgCl2HEPESGlucosepHLJP
    Pipette solution135———2——7.216.5
    Bath Tyrode’s solution—21253125307.3—
    • HEPES, 4-(2-hydroxyethyl)-1-piperazineethanesulfonic acid; LJP, liquid junction potential. All concentrations are in mM.

    • View popup
    Table 3.

    Protein name abbreviations, GenBank accession numbers, source organisms, transcript names, and maxima of photocurrents action spectra of ACR homologs tested in this study

    #Protein name abbreviationAccessionOrganismTranscript nameSpectral max. (nm)
    1C1ACR_561MG831198Chroomonas sp. (CCMP2293)CAMNT 0022335561*N/A
    2GcACR_197MG831184Geminigera cryophila (CCMP2564)CAMNT 0021184197*N/A
    3GcACR_201MG831185Geminigera cryophila (CCMP2564)CAMNT 0021188201*N/A
    4HpACR_213MG831186Hanusia phi (CCMP325)CAMNT 0009606213*N/A
    5HaACR_359MG831187Hemiselmis andersenii (CCMP1180)CAMNT 0009587359*N/A
    6HrACR_495MG831188Hemiselmis rufescens (PCC563)CAMNT 0014430495*N/A
    7PsuACR_353MG831189Proteomonas sulcata (CCMP704)CAMNT 0026606353*520
    8RaACR_687MG831190Rhodomonas abbreviata (Caron Lab isolate)CAMNT 0023412687*520
    9RlACR_497MG831191Rhodomonas lens (RHODO)CAMNT 0019250497*520
    10RapACR/RsACR_665MG831192Rhodomonas salina (CCMP1319)CAMNT 0012765665*520
    11R1ACR_653MG831193Rhodomonas sp. (CCMP768)CAMNT 0049478653*470
    12R1ACR_6367MG831194Rhodomonas sp. (CCMP768)CAMNT 0049496367*480
    13R2ACR_041MG831197Rhodomonas sp. (CCAC1630)IAYV-2051041#N/A
    • ↵* Transcripts from the MMETS project.

    • ↵# Transcripts from the 1KP project.

    • View popup
    Table 4.

    Numerical parameters of logistic function fitting to the light sensitivity data

    FigureDatasetx0x0 errorpp errorChi2/DoFR2
    3BRapACR @ 520 nm0.023760.000412.868330.221561.478220.99949
    3BRapACR @ 600 nm0.363750.002293.053850.033680.113460.99996
    3BiC++ @ 488 nm0.339280.023832.07440.272671.570380.99746
    6DGtACR1_C102A0.000470.000021.058930.040732.299110.99822
    6DGtACR10.002990.000211.513840.143250.001010.99251
    N/AGtACR2 @ 470 nm0.029480.001762.003250.2358310.687050.99553
    N/AZipACR @ 520 nm3.21830.317331.472680.2055219.858070.98616
    • View popup
    Table 5.

    Numbers of independent tests (n values)

    FigureVariantn
    1ARsACR_6658
    RlACR_4974
    RaACR_68710
    R1ACR_6534
    R1ACR_63675
    PsuACR_3533
    6BGtACR112
    GtACR1_C102T13
    GtACR1_C102S7
    GtACR1_C102A3
    7ERaACR_68710
    R2ACR_14212
    RapACR5
    ZipACR8
    RaACR_687_T107A5
    R2ACR_142_C102A6
    RapACR_T111A5
    ZipACR_C119A7
    7FRaACR_687_T107A5
    R2ACR_142_C102A6
    RapACR_T111A7
    ZipACR_C119A7
    • View popup
    Table 6.

    Results of independent-samples Mann–Whitney tests

    FigureVariantTotalMann–Whitney UWilcoxon WTest statisticSEStandard test statisticAsymptotic Significance (two-sided test)Exact Significance (two-sided test; p value)
    4E0.2 (0.3)1880.000116.00080.00010.8653.6820.0000.000
    0.7 (0.8)1880.000116.00080.00011.1793.5780.0000.000
    2.3 (2.7)1880.000116.00080.00011.0503.6200.0000.000
    7.3 (8.5)1880.000116.00080.00010.9783.6440.0000.000
    5D1617.00053.00017.0009.522-1.5750.1150.130
    6C25152.000230.000152.00018.3854.0250.0000.000
    2B1720.00048.00020.00010.190-1.4720.1410.161
    C1729.00057.00029.00010.197-0.5880.5560.601
    D2243.500134.50043.50014.941-1.0040.3150.324
    E2274.500165.50074.50014.9711.0690.2850.292
    8B41186.500339.500186.50037.2470.4700.6380.668
    C41212.000365.000212.00037.6490.2120.8320.870
    D2357.000148.00057.00016.069-0.4980.6190.648
    E2367.000158.00067.00016.1250.1240.9010.927
    • View popup
    Table 7.

    Results of independent-samples Kruskal–Wallis test with Bonferroni correction

    FigureVariantTest statisticsSEStandardized test statisticsSignificance
    6BC102T vs Wild type-12.5004.102-3.0470.002
    C102S vs Wild type-13.5003.637-3.7120.000
    C102A vs Wild type-18.5004.936-3.7480.000
Back to top

In this issue

eneuro: 5 (3)
eNeuro
Vol. 5, Issue 3
May/June 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for sharing this eNeuro article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Extending the Time Domain of Neuronal Silencing with Cryptophyte Anion Channelrhodopsins
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from eNeuro
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in eNeuro.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Extending the Time Domain of Neuronal Silencing with Cryptophyte Anion Channelrhodopsins
Elena G. Govorunova, Oleg A. Sineshchekov, Raheleh Hemmati, Roger Janz, Olivier Morelle, Michael Melkonian, Gane K.-S. Wong, John L. Spudich
eNeuro 27 June 2018, 5 (3) ENEURO.0174-18.2018; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0174-18.2018

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
Extending the Time Domain of Neuronal Silencing with Cryptophyte Anion Channelrhodopsins
Elena G. Govorunova, Oleg A. Sineshchekov, Raheleh Hemmati, Roger Janz, Olivier Morelle, Michael Melkonian, Gane K.-S. Wong, John L. Spudich
eNeuro 27 June 2018, 5 (3) ENEURO.0174-18.2018; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0174-18.2018
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Visual Abstract
    • Abstract
    • Significance Statement
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
    • Synthesis
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • channelrhodopsins
  • chloride ion channels
  • neuronal inhibition
  • optogenetics

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

Methods/New Tools

  • Superficial Bound of the Depth Limit of Two-Photon Imaging in Mouse Brain
  • A Toolbox of Criteria for Distinguishing Cajal–Retzius Cells from Other Neuronal Types in the Postnatal Mouse Hippocampus
  • Assessment of Spontaneous Neuronal Activity In Vitro Using Multi-Well Multi-Electrode Arrays: Implications for Assay Development
Show more Methods/New Tools

Novel Tools and Methods

  • The Odor Delivery Optimization Research System (ODORS): An Open-Source Olfactometer for Behavioral Assessments in Tethered and Untethered Rodents
  • Development of a Modified Weight-Drop Apparatus for Closed-Skull, Repetitive Mild Traumatic Brain Injuries in a Mouse Model
  • Combination of Averaged Bregma-Interaural and Electrophysiology-Guided Technique Improves Subthalamic Nucleus Targeting Accuracy in Rats
Show more Novel Tools and Methods

Subjects

  • Novel Tools and Methods
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Follow SFN on BlueSky
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Issue Archive
  • Blog
  • Browse by Topic

Information

  • For Authors
  • For the Media

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Notice
  • Contact
  • Feedback
(eNeuro logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2026 by the Society for Neuroscience.
eNeuro eISSN: 2373-2822

The ideas and opinions expressed in eNeuro do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the eNeuro Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in eNeuro should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in eNeuro.