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 ArticleResearch Article: New Research, Neuronal Excitability

Proportional Downscaling of Glutamatergic Release Sites by the General Anesthetic Propofol at Drosophila Motor Nerve Terminals

Shanker Karunanithi, Drew Cylinder, Deniz Ertekin, Oressia H. Zalucki, Leo Marin, Nickolas A. Lavidis, Harold L. Atwood and Bruno van Swinderen
eNeuro 4 February 2020, 7 (1) ENEURO.0422-19.2020; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0422-19.2020
Shanker Karunanithi
1Queensland Brain Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane 4072, Queensland, Australia
2School of Medical Sciences, The University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, New South Wales, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Drew Cylinder
1Queensland Brain Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane 4072, Queensland, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Deniz Ertekin
1Queensland Brain Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane 4072, Queensland, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Oressia H. Zalucki
3School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane 4072, Queensland, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Oressia H. Zalucki
Leo Marin
4Department of Physiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario K1P 1J1, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nickolas A. Lavidis
3School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane 4072, Queensland, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Harold L. Atwood
4Department of Physiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario K1P 1J1, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bruno van Swinderen
1Queensland Brain Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane 4072, Queensland, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Bruno van Swinderen
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

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

    Propofol decreases glutamate release similarly from different synapse types. A, Left, Schema of Drosophila larval NMJ preparation. The black structure is the brain, rectangles are muscle segments. Middle, Muscle 6 motor nerve terminals labeled with HRP to identify neurons and nc82 to identify active zones. 1s and 1b boutons are indicated. Scale bar, 4 μm. Right, Diagram illustrating the configuration for focal macropatch recording from single 1s and 1b boutons at the fly larval NMJ. B, Example traces of EJCs and mEJCs (inset) recorded from 1s and 1b boutons in the CS strain. C, Chemical structures of propofol (1,6-diisopropylphenol) and its nonanesthetic analog, 2,4-diisopropylphenol. D, Normalized QC in drug-treated preparations (3 μm) for both bouton types. Parameters were normalized to their respective averages in non-drug-treated controls (dashed line). Raw data are presented in Extended Data Figure 1-1. *p < 0.05; Student’s t test. Graphs show individual data points (animals), and error bars show the average ± SEM. E, Cumulative plot of quanta released per stimulus, for both bouton types and both drugs.

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

    The upper limit for n is set by the number of T-bars. A, Schema of release sites at a synapse. Active release sites (*) contribute to the average release p. B, Electron micrographs (EMs) of a 1s (top) and a 1b (bottom) bouton, with T-bars (synapses) indicated with arrowheads. C, Average number (±SEM) of release sites for 1s and 1b boutons, determined from the T-bar counts from the EM data. See Materials and Methods, and Extended Data Figure 2-1 for other examples. D, [Ca2+]e was raised from 1.0 to 1.5 mm in focal macropatch recordings in CS larvae. Right, Sample recordings from single 1s and 1b boutons revealed increases in the amplitudes of EJCs and mEJCs at both bouton types under higher calcium concentrations. E, Average EJC (±SEM) for 1s and 1b recordings. F, Average mEJC (±SEM) for 1s and 1b recordings. G, As [Ca2+]e was raised, calculations of QCs revealed no increase in 1s QC, whereas there was an increase in 1b QC. H, I, There were no increases in p (H) or in n (I) at 1s boutons, whereas there were increases in both p (H) and n (I) at 1b boutons, contributing to the increase in 1b QC (G). J, We observed that at 1s boutons, all the release sites were already activated at 1.0 mm [Ca2+]e, with no additional increase being observed when [Ca2+]e was further raised. At 1b boutons, not all of the release sites were activated at 1.0 mm [Ca2+]e, whereas they were all activated when [Ca2+]e was further raised. K, We generated a graph to test whether values of n approached the number of T-bars per bouton as [Ca2+]e was raised, by normalizing n (Fig. 2I) to the number of T-bars per bouton (Fig. 2C). The dashed line at 1.0 is representative of when n equates to the number of T-bars per bouton. These results indicate that n is limited by the number of T-bars per bouton type. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; Student’s t test. 1.0 mm [Ca2+]e data are the same as in Figure 1, shown here for comparison. Graphs show individual data points (animals), and all error bars are ±SEM.

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

    Propofol decreases the number of active release sites at synapses. A, Estimated number of active release sites (n; see Materials and Methods) in 1s and 1b boutons, for control and drug-treated conditions, in CS animals. B, Estimated release probability (p, see “Materials and Methods”) in 1s and 1b boutons, for control and drug-treated conditions, in CS animals. C, Data from A and B, normalized to non-drug-treated controls (dashed line). Graphs in A–C are averages ± SEM; individual data points (animals) are shown. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.05, Student’s t test. D, Quantal content plotted against n, from all 1s and 1b recordings in control and drug conditions. E, Rank-ordered plot of n for drug versus control conditions. Dashed line indicates no effect of drug on n. F, Rank-ordered plot of p for drug versus control conditions. Dashed line indicates no effect of drug on p.

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

    Syntaxin1A manipulations confer resistance to propofol by preserving or increasing the number of active release sites. A, Schematic representing the wild-type syntaxin1A protein, an HA-tagged truncated syntaxin1A construct (HA-Syx-227), and an HA-tagged full-length syntaxin1A construct (HA-Syx-FL). H3, SNARE interaction domain; TM, transmembrane domain. B, Coexpression of the truncated and full-length constructs in Drosophila shown by Western blot: endogenous wild-type syntaxin1A (green), HA-Syx-227, and HA-Syx-FL (red). C, Immunolabeling of larval boutons in HA-Syx-227 and HA-Syx-FL: left column, synaptic marker, nc82 (green); middle column, HA-labeling of coexpressed syntaxin1A (red, magnification of a single bouton is inset, showing localization of the coexpressed truncated syntaxin1A protein); right column, merge of nc82 and HA labels. Scale bar, 4 μm. D, Average number of active zones (±SEM) in Elav > HA-Syx-227 (N = 6) and Elav > HA-Syx-FL animals (N = 7) compared with Elav/+ controls (N = 6), for 1s and 1b boutons. E, Example boutons (labeled with HRP) and puncta (labeled with nc82) for the same strains as in D. F, QC, p and n for the two bouton types in Elav > HA-Syx-227, normalized to Elav/+ (dashed line; Extended Data Fig. 4-1). G, QC, p and n for the two bouton types in Elav > HA-Syx-227 + propofol, normalized to Elav/+ (dashed line; Extended Data Fig. 4-2). H, QC, p and n for the two bouton types in Elav > HA-Syx-227 + propofol, normalized to HA-Syx-227 without propofol (dashed line; Extended Data Fig. 4-3). I, QC, p and n (±SEM) for the two bouton types in Elav > HA-Syx-FL, normalized to Elav/+ (dashed line; Extended Data Fig. 4-4). J, Average number (±SEM) of estimated active release sites (n) in Elav > HA-Syx-FL animals, for 1b and 1s boutons. K, Average estimated release probability (p ± SEM) in Elav > HA-Syx-FL animals, for 1b and 1s boutons. L, QC, p and n (± SEM) for the two bouton types in Elav > HA-Syx-FL + propofol, normalized to Elav/+ (dashed line; Extended Data Fig. 4-5). M, QC, p and n (± SEM) for the two bouton types in Elav > HA-Syx-FL + propofol, normalized to HA-Syx-FL without propofol (dashed line; Extended Data Fig. 4-6). Individual data points in F–M are animals. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001, #p < 0.0001, Student’s t test. N, Summary schema of the opposing effects of syntaxin1A overexpression and propofol on the number of active release sites (n). Physiologic maxima for 1b boutons is indicated. Darker shading below arrows represents the proportional decrease in n, under propofol exposure.

Extended Data

  • Figures
  • Figure 1-1

    A–C, Raw data of EJC amplitude (A), mEJC amplitude (B), and QC (C) used to generate the normalized data in Figure 1D. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; #p < 0.0001; Student’s t test. D, 1b and 1s mEJC frequencies recorded from single boutons in control and in drug-treated preparations. E, An exemplary mEJC trace (red) showing the measure of rise time and the single exponential fit to the decay phase (black) from which the decay constant is derived. F, G, mEJC rise time (F) and decay constant (G). Significant differences are shown: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; Student’s t test. Graphs show individual data points and error bars show average ± SEM. Download Figure 1-1, EPS file.

  • Figure 2-1

    Example electron micrographs of 1s and 1b boutons, with close-ups of active zones. 1s and 1b boutons are distinguished by the number of active zones (T-bars, arrowheads), although this can be highly variable. Other distinguishing features are larger vesicle sizes in 1s boutons and more subsynaptic reticulum structures in 1b boutons. Download Figure 2-1, EPS file.

  • Figure 4-1

    A–E, Raw data of EJC amplitude (A), mEJC amplitude (B), QC (C), p (D), and n (E), used to generate the normalized data in Figure 3F. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; #p < 0.0001; Student’s t test. Graphs show individual data points and the error bars show average ± SEM. Download Figure 4-1, EPS file.

  • Figure 4-2

    A–E, Raw data of EJC amplitude (A), mEJC amplitude (B), QC (C), p (D), and n (E), used to generate the normalized data in Figure 3G. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; #p < 0.0001; Student’s t test. Graphs show individual data points and the error bars show average ± SEM. Elav/+ data are the same as in Extended Data Figure 4-1. Download Figure 4-2, EPS file.

  • Figure 4-3

    A–E, Raw data of EJC amplitude (A), mEJC amplitude (B), QC (C), p (D), and n (E), used to generate the normalized data in Figure 3H. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; #p < 0.0001; Student’s t test. Graphs show individual data points and the error bars show average ± SEM. Elav>HA-Syx-227 data are the same as in Extended Data Figure 4-1. Elav>HA-Syx-227 (+Propofol) data are the same as in Extended Data Figure 4-2. Download Figure 4-3, EPS file.

  • Figure 4-4

    A–C, Raw data of EJC amplitude (A), mEJC amplitude (B), and QC (C) used to generate the normalized data in Figure 3I. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; #p < 0.0001; Student’s t test. Graphs show individual data points and the error bars show average ± SEM. Elav/+ data are the same as in Extended Data Figures 4-1 and 4-2. Download Figure 4-4, EPS file.

  • Figure 4-5

    A–E, Raw data of EJC amplitude (A), mEJC amplitude (B), QC (C), p (D), and n (E), used to generate the normalized data in Figure 3L. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; #p < 0.0001; Student’s t test. Graphs show individual data points and the error bars show average ± SEM. Elav/+ data are the same as in Extended Data Figure 4-4 and Figure 4, J and K. Download Figure 4-5, EPS file.

  • Figure 4-6

    A–E, Raw data of EJC amplitude (A), mEJC amplitude (B), QC (C), p (D), and n (E), used to generate the normalized data in Figure 3M. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; #p < 0.0001; Student’s t test. Graphs show individual data points, and the error bars show the average ± SEM. Elav > HA-Syx-FL data are the same as in Extended Data Figure 4-4, and Elav > HA-Syx-FL (+Propofol) data are the same as in Extended Data Figure 4-5. Download Figure 4-6, EPS file.

Back to top

In this issue

eneuro: 7 (1)
eNeuro
Vol. 7, Issue 1
January/February 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Ed Board (PDF)
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.
Proportional Downscaling of Glutamatergic Release Sites by the General Anesthetic Propofol at Drosophila Motor Nerve Terminals
(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
Proportional Downscaling of Glutamatergic Release Sites by the General Anesthetic Propofol at Drosophila Motor Nerve Terminals
Shanker Karunanithi, Drew Cylinder, Deniz Ertekin, Oressia H. Zalucki, Leo Marin, Nickolas A. Lavidis, Harold L. Atwood, Bruno van Swinderen
eNeuro 4 February 2020, 7 (1) ENEURO.0422-19.2020; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0422-19.2020

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
Proportional Downscaling of Glutamatergic Release Sites by the General Anesthetic Propofol at Drosophila Motor Nerve Terminals
Shanker Karunanithi, Drew Cylinder, Deniz Ertekin, Oressia H. Zalucki, Leo Marin, Nickolas A. Lavidis, Harold L. Atwood, Bruno van Swinderen
eNeuro 4 February 2020, 7 (1) ENEURO.0422-19.2020; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0422-19.2020
Reddit logo 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
    • Author Response
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • Drosophila melanogaster
  • electrophysiology
  • general anesthesia
  • neuromuscular junction
  • neurotransmission
  • syntaxin1A

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

Research Article: New Research

  • Origin of Discrete and Continuous Dark Noise in Rod Photoreceptors
  • Repeated Exposure to High-THC Cannabis Smoke during Gestation Alters Sex Ratio, Behavior, and Amygdala Gene Expression of Sprague Dawley Rat Offspring
  • A Network Model of the Modulation of γ Oscillations by NMDA Receptors in Cerebral Cortex
Show more Research Article: New Research

Neuronal Excitability

  • Modeling synaptic integration of bursty and beta oscillatory inputs in ventromedial motor thalamic neurons in normal and parkinsonian states
  • Action at a Distance: Theoretical Mechanisms of Cross-Dendritic Heterosynaptic Modification
  • Functional dissection of ipsilateral and contralateral neural activity propagation using voltage-sensitive dye imaging in mouse prefrontal cortex
Show more Neuronal Excitability

Subjects

  • Neuronal Excitability

  • Home
  • Alerts
  • 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 Policy
  • Contact
  • Feedback
(eNeuro logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2023 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.