Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
    • Special Collections
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
    • Editorial Board
    • ECR Advisory Board
    • Journal Staff
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
    • Accessibility
  • SUBSCRIBE

User menu

  • Log out
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Neuroscience
  • Log out
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Neuroscience

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
    • Special Collections
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
    • Editorial Board
    • ECR Advisory Board
    • Journal Staff
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
    • Accessibility
  • SUBSCRIBE
PreviousNext
Journal Club

How Do Synaptic Vesicles “Know” Which Pool They Belong to?

Fabrizia C. Guarnieri
Journal of Neuroscience 1 March 2017, 37 (9) 2276-2278; https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3889-16.2017
Fabrizia C. Guarnieri
Division of Neuroscience, San Raffaele Scientific Institute and Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, 20132 Milan, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Fabrizia C. Guarnieri
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Presynaptic terminals contain hundreds to thousands of synaptic vesicles (SVs), specialized organelles that store neurotransmitter and fuse with the active zone plasma membrane for regulated transmitter release. Despite the fact that in electron micrographs these small clear vesicles appear morphologically similar, SVs are not all functionally identical: some vesicles are clearly more prone to be released than others. According to their recruitment by different patterns of electrical or chemical stimulation, SVs have been classified into three major functional pools: the readily releasable pool, the recycling pool, and the resting pool (Rizzoli and Betz, 2005; Denker and Rizzoli, 2010; Alabi and Tsien, 2012). The readily releasable pool comprises few vesicles that are docked at the plasma membrane and primed for immediate fusion upon stimulation. The recycling pool generally comprises 10%–20% of all vesicles in the terminal and is recruited after the readily releasable pool has been depleted during moderate physiological stimulation. The sum of readily releasable pool and recycling pool is referred to as the total recycling pool, thus including all SVs that can undergo fusion during moderate synaptic activity. The large majority of SVs present in a synapse belongs to the resting pool, which is only recruited upon intense high-frequency stimulation or prolonged low-frequency stimulation (Fernandez-Alfonso and Ryan, 2008; Ikeda and Bekkers, 2009). These three pools have been recognized in virtually all neuronal preparations, from the frog neuromuscular junction to synapses of mammalian hippocampal neurons in culture.

While readily releasable pool vesicles must be docked at the active zone membrane (even though not all docked SVs will be rapidly released upon stimulation) (Denker et al., 2009), recycling pool and resting pool vesicles appear to be largely intermixed and scattered in the presynaptic terminal (Denker and Rizzoli, 2010). This suggests that SVs might be partitioned by unknown molecular tags, likely soluble proteins that transiently associate with the SV membrane, that specify their identity and assign them to one pool or the other. One possible tag is the SV-associated protein synapsin I (SynI).

SynI has been proposed to dynamically organize the resting pool by reversibly tethering SVs to each other and to actin filaments in a phosphorylation-dependent manner (Cesca et al., 2010). Indeed, phosphorylation by protein kinase A (PKA), Ca2+/calmodulin-dependent kinases (CaMKs), mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK), and cyclin-dependent protein kinase 1 (Cdk1) causes SynI detachment from SVs and actin, thus increasing the availability of SVs for fusion (Cesca et al., 2010). Conversely, phosphorylation by Src or Cdk5 increases the ability of SynI to bind SVs and actin, and favors stabilization of SVs in the resting pool (Messa et al., 2010; Verstegen et al., 2014). In Syn knock-out neurons, SVs disperse along axons and become highly mobile (Fornasiero et al., 2012; Orenbuch et al., 2012). However, ultrastructural analysis of presynaptic terminals reveals that SVs are normally interconnected by 30-nm-long filaments, which do not completely disappear upon Syn deletion, indicating that additional players participate in vesicle clustering (Siksou et al., 2007).

Recent work from Cazares et al. (2016) identified the SV-associated protein Tomosyn1 as a modulator of the resting pool. Tomosyn1 was previously shown to inhibit SV priming (a necessary step for vesicle fusion) at the readily releasable pool by interacting with the SNARE proteins syntaxin and SNAP25 and promoting the formation of a nonfusogenic SNARE complex (Hatsuzawa et al., 2003). Cazares et al. (2016) defined a novel role for Tomosyn1, demonstrating that this protein can prevent SV recruitment from the resting pool in the recycling pool for subsequent fusion.

Cazares et al. (2016) used primary rat hippocampal neurons deficient in or overexpressing Tomosyn1, and analyzed SV exo-endocytosis after 14–24 d in vitro, taking advantage of the pHluorin assay. This assay relies on the overexpression of a pH-sensitive green fluorescent protein fused with the vesicular glutamate transporter (vGpH) (Miesenbock et al., 1998). At rest, the acidic pH inside SVs quenches vGpH fluorescence, whereas upon electrical stimulation vGpH is exposed to the neutral extracellular space and its fluorescence is revealed. Varying the number of action potentials evoked allows the recruitment and visualization of either the readily releasable pool alone or the total recycling pool. Nonreleasable vesicles (resting pool) can then be visualized by performing ammonium chloride alkalinization at the end of the experiment.

With these methods, Cazares et al. (2016) showed that Tomosyn1 downregulation increased the readily releasable pool size, whereas Tomosyn1 overexpression had the opposite effect, consistent with its role as an inhibitor of SV recruitment into the readily releasable pool. Importantly, the authors also showed that Tomosyn1 knockdown increased the size of the total recycling pool at the expense of the resting pool, thus clearly demonstrating a role for Tomosyn1 in regulating the balance between the total recycling pool and the resting pool. Overexpression of full-length Tomosyn1 or a deletion mutant lacking the SNARE-binding motif resulted in a comparable reduction of total recycling pool size, indicating that the roles of Tomosyn1 at the resting/recycling pool interface and at the readily releasable pool are independent and rely on different protein domains.

As is the case for SynI, Tomosyn1 function might be rapidly modulated by phosphorylation. Cazares et al. (2016) thus addressed the possibility that Tomosyn1 is a target for Cdk5 phosphorylation. Indeed, Cdk5 is known to play a primary role in setting the balance between the resting and total recycling pools (Kim and Ryan, 2010). SynI was proposed to be the main effector of Cdk5 because SynI deletion or the expression of a dephospho-mimetic mutant of SynI phenocopied inhibition of Cdk5 in terms of SV partitioning (Verstegen et al., 2014). Cazares et al. (2016) demonstrated that Tomosyn1 and Cdk5 coimmunoprecipitate in neuronal lysates and that Cdk5 can phosphorylate Tomosyn1 in vitro. They also showed that knockdown of Tomosyn1 and inhibition of Cdk5 activity (either pharmacologically or by overexpressing a dominant-negative Cdk5 mutant) led to comparable increases in total recycling pool size. The inhibition of Cdk5 in Tomosyn1-deficient neurons did not further increase total recycling pool size, suggesting that the two proteins work in the same pathway to regulate the number of SVs in the total recycling pool and resting pool. Further characterization would be needed to univocally demonstrate that Cdk5 phosphorylation is needed for Tomosyn1 to alter the recycling/resting pool balance upon neuronal stimulation. To this aim, Cdk5 phosphorylation sites should be identified and the vGpH assay should be performed in neurons overexpressing Tomosyn1 phospho-mimetic and phospho-depleted mutants.

To identify the molecular context in which Tomosyn1 exerts its functions, Cazares et al. (2016) performed coimmunoprecipitation and proximity-ligation assays. They showed that Tomosyn1 interacts with the GTPase Rab3A, preferentially in its GTP-bound (active) form. SynI is also recruited to this complex, via interaction with Rab3A. Notably, increasing the phosphorylation level, and thus the activity, of Cdk5 significantly increased the formation of the Tomosyn1/Rab3A/SynI complex. Whether increased formation of this complex negatively modulates total recycling pool size remained unaddressed, but this would be an important demonstration of the relevance of this interaction in the regulation of recycling/resting pool balance.

Finally, the authors showed that chronic incubation with the GABAA inhibitor picrotoxin increased Tomosyn1 phosphorylation and that Tomosyn1 knockdown abolished the homeostatic increase in SV release that occurs with chronic inhibition of neuronal activity. This form of synaptic plasticity, known as synaptic scaling, is exploited by neurons to adjust the strength of excitatory synapses to restore normal firing upon chronic perturbation of their activity (Turrigiano, 2008). The presynaptic mechanisms mediating synaptic scaling are largely unknown, but a role for Cdk5 and SynI has been reported (Kim and Ryan, 2010; Verstegen et al., 2014). The contribution of Tomosyn1 to presynaptic scaling is difficult to interpret because Tomosyn1 downregulation per se significantly increased SV recycling, but the idea is intriguing and needs further in-depth analysis.

In conclusion, Cazares et al. (2016) identified the soluble Tomosyn1 protein as a novel regulator of SV partitioning in total recycling and resting pools. This function seems to be regulated by Cdk5 phosphorylation (although the contribution of other kinases cannot be excluded) and to rely on the formation of a ternary complex composed of Tomosyn1, Rab3A, and SynI. A speculative model of how these proteins regulate vesicle pools and influence synaptic strength and scaling is the following: increased activity of Cdk5, which may be driven by a chronic rise in neuronal activity, leads to phosphorylation of Tomosyn1 and SynI; this may stabilize the Tomosyn1/Rab3A/SynI complex on SV membranes, leading to clamping of vesicles in the resting pool. Conversely, chronic inhibition of neuronal activity may lead to decreased Cdk5-dependent phosphorylation, destabilization of the ternary complex, and increased recruitment of SVs in the recycling pool. Identifying other molecules that target SVs to specific functional pools will improve our understanding of the mechanisms regulating neurotransmitter release in physiology and pathology. The work of Cazares et al. (2016) provides a valuable contribution in this direction.

Footnotes

  • Editor's Note: These short reviews of recent JNeurosci articles, written exclusively by students or postdoctoral fellows, summarize the important findings of the paper and provide additional insight and commentary. If the authors of the highlighted article have written a response to the Journal Club, the response can be found by viewing the Journal Club at www.jneurosci.org. For more information on the format, review process, and purpose of Journal Club articles, please see http://jneurosci.org/content/preparing-manuscript#journalclub.

  • I thank Dr. Eugenio F. Fornasiero (ENI, Goettingen, Germany) and Prof. Flavia Valtorta (San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy) for helpful comments on the manuscript.

  • The author declares no competing financial interests.

  • Correspondence should be addressed to Dr. Fabrizia C. Guarnieri, DIBIT 3A2, Ospedale San Raffaele, Via Olgettina 58, 20132 Milan, Italy. guarnieri.fabrizia{at}hsr.it

References

  1. ↵
    1. Alabi AA,
    2. Tsien RW
    (2012) Synaptic vesicle pools and dynamics. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 4:a013680. doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a013680 pmid:22745285
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Cazares VA,
    2. Njus MM,
    3. Manly A,
    4. Saldate JJ,
    5. Subramani A,
    6. Ben-Simon Y,
    7. Sutton MA,
    8. Ashery U,
    9. Stuenkel EL
    (2016) Dynamic partitioning of synaptic vesicle pools by the SNARE-binding protein tomosyn. J Neurosci 36:11208–11222. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1297-16.2016 pmid:27807164
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Cesca F,
    2. Baldelli P,
    3. Valtorta F,
    4. Benfenati F
    (2010) The synapsins: key actors of synapse function and plasticity. Prog Neurobiol 91:313–348. doi:10.1016/j.pneurobio.2010.04.006 pmid:20438797
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Denker A,
    2. Rizzoli SO
    (2010) Synaptic vesicle pools: an update. Front Synaptic Neurosci 2:135. doi:10.3389/fnsyn.2010.00135 pmid:21423521
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Denker A,
    2. Krohnert K,
    3. Rizzoli SO
    (2009) Revisiting synaptic vesicle pool localization in the Drosophila neuromuscular junction. J Physiol 587:2919–2926. doi:10.1113/jphysiol.2009.170985 pmid:19403600
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Fernandez-Alfonso T,
    2. Ryan TA
    (2008) A heterogeneous “resting” pool of synaptic vesicles that is dynamically interchanged across boutons in mammalian CNS synapses. Brain Cell Biol 36:87–100. doi:10.1007/s11068-008-9030-y pmid:18941900
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Fornasiero EF,
    2. Raimondi A,
    3. Guarnieri FC,
    4. Orlando M,
    5. Fesce R,
    6. Benfenati F,
    7. Valtorta F
    (2012) Synapsins contribute to the dynamic spatial organization of synaptic vesicles in an activity-dependent manner. J Neurosci 32:12214–12227. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1554-12.2012 pmid:22933803
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Hatsuzawa K,
    2. Lang T,
    3. Fasshauer D,
    4. Bruns D,
    5. Jahn R
    (2003) The R-SNARE motif of tomosyn forms SNARE core complexes with syntaxin 1 and SNAP-25 and down-regulates exocytosis. J Biol Chem 278:31159–31166. doi:10.1074/jbc.M305500200 pmid:12782620
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Ikeda K,
    2. Bekkers JM
    (2009) Counting the number of releasable synaptic vesicles in a presynaptic terminal. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106:2945–2950. doi:10.1073/pnas.0811017106 pmid:19202060
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Kim SH,
    2. Ryan TA
    (2010) CDK5 serves as a major control point in neurotransmitter release. Neuron 67:797–809. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2010.08.003 pmid:20826311
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Messa M,
    2. Congia S,
    3. Defranchi E,
    4. Valtorta F,
    5. Fassio A,
    6. Onofri F,
    7. Benfenati F
    (2010) Tyrosine phosphorylation of synapsin I by Src regulates synaptic-vesicle trafficking. J Cell Sci 123:2256–2265. doi:10.1242/jcs.068445 pmid:20530578
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Miesenbock G,
    2. De Angelis DA,
    3. Rothman JE
    (1998) Visualizing secretion and synaptic transmission with pH-sensitive green fluorescent proteins. Nature 394:192–195. doi:10.1038/28190 pmid:9671304
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Orenbuch A,
    2. Shalev L,
    3. Marra V,
    4. Sinai I,
    5. Lavy Y,
    6. Kahn J,
    7. Burden JJ,
    8. Staras K,
    9. Gitler D
    (2012) Synapsin selectively controls the mobility of resting pool vesicles at hippocampal terminals. J Neurosci 32:3969–3980. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5058-11.2012 pmid:22442064
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. Rizzoli SO,
    2. Betz WJ
    (2005) Synaptic vesicle pools. Nat Rev Neurosci 6:57–69. doi:10.1038/nrn1583 pmid:15611727
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Siksou L,
    2. Rostaing P,
    3. Lechaire JP,
    4. Boudier T,
    5. Ohtsuka T,
    6. Fejtova A,
    7. Kao HT,
    8. Greengard P,
    9. Gundelfinger ED,
    10. Triller A,
    11. Marty S
    (2007) Three-dimensional architecture of presynaptic terminal cytomatrix. J Neurosci 27:6868–6877. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1773-07.2007 pmid:17596435
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    1. Turrigiano GG
    (2008) The self-tuning neuron: synaptic scaling of excitatory synapses. Cell 135:422–435. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2008.10.008 pmid:18984155
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Verstegen AM,
    2. Tagliatti E,
    3. Lignani G,
    4. Marte A,
    5. Stolero T,
    6. Atias M,
    7. Corradi A,
    8. Valtorta F,
    9. Gitler D,
    10. Onofri F,
    11. Fassio A,
    12. Benfenati F
    (2014) Phosphorylation of synapsin I by cyclin-dependent kinase-5 sets the ratio between the resting and recycling pools of synaptic vesicles at hippocampal synapses. J Neurosci 34:7266–7280. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3973-13.2014 pmid:24849359
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 37 (9)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 37, Issue 9
1 Mar 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Advertising (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Neuroscience 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.
How Do Synaptic Vesicles “Know” Which Pool They Belong to?
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Neuroscience
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Neuroscience.
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
How Do Synaptic Vesicles “Know” Which Pool They Belong to?
Fabrizia C. Guarnieri
Journal of Neuroscience 1 March 2017, 37 (9) 2276-2278; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3889-16.2017

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Request Permissions
Share
How Do Synaptic Vesicles “Know” Which Pool They Belong to?
Fabrizia C. Guarnieri
Journal of Neuroscience 1 March 2017, 37 (9) 2276-2278; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3889-16.2017
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

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

  • Beyond Motor Control: Diffusion MRI Reveals Associations between the Cerebello-VTA Pathway and Socio-affective Behaviors in Humans
  • A Novel APP Knock-In Mouse Model to Study the Protective Effects of the Icelandic Mutation In Vivo
  • Bridging Species Differences in Rule Switching: How Humans and Monkeys Solve the Same Wisconsin Card Sorting Task
Show more Journal Club
  • 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
  • Issue Archive
  • Collections

Information

  • For Authors
  • For Advertisers
  • For the Media
  • For Subscribers

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Notice
  • Contact
  • Accessibility
(JNeurosci logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2025 by the Society for Neuroscience.
JNeurosci Online ISSN: 1529-2401

The ideas and opinions expressed in JNeurosci do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the JNeurosci Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in JNeurosci 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 JNeurosci.