B
R
Fl
BQ1
FHa
b
c
Ad
h
••••
a
ARRAA
KRNBSD
h0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
ARTICLE IN PRESSG ModelBR 9565 1–12
Behavioural Brain Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Behavioural Brain Research
jou rn al hom epage: www.elsev ier .com/ locate /bbr
esearch report
rontal cortex and hippocampus neurotransmitter receptor complexevel parallels spatial memory performance in the radial arm maze
haranidharan Shanmugasundarama, Ajinkya Sasea, András G. Miklosia,ernando J. Sialanaa,d, Saraswathi Subramaniyana, Yogesh D. Ahera, Marion Grögerb,arald Högerc, Keiryn L. Bennettd, Gert Lubeca,∗
Department of Pediatrics, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18, 1090 Vienna, AustriaCore Facility, Medical University of Vienna, Lazarettegasse 14, A-1090 Vienna, AustriaCore Unit of Biomedical Research, Division of Laboratory Animal Science and Genetics, Medical University of Vienna, Brauhausgasse 34, A-2325 Himberg,ustriaCeMM Research Center for Molecular Medicine of the Austrian Academy of Science, Lazarettgasse 14, AKH BT 25.3, A-1090 Vienna, Austria
i g h l i g h t s
GluA1, GluA2 & GluN2A are modulated in frontal cortex in spatial memory training.GluN2B & DAT-ph (Thr53) of hippocampus are involved in spatial memory training.Whereas, GluN1, D1 & nAChR-�7 are modulated both in hippocampus and frontal cortex.D1 and GluN1 receptors can form complex.
r t i c l e i n f o
rticle history:eceived 10 April 2015eceived in revised form 21 April 2015ccepted 23 April 2015vailable online xxx
eywords:adial arm mazeeurotransmitter receptor complexlue native PAGEpatial memory1-GluN1 complex
a b s t r a c t
Several neurotransmitter receptors have been proposed to be involved in memory formation. However,information on receptor complexes (RCs) in the radial arm maze (RAM) is missing. It was therefore the aimof this study to determine major neurotransmitter RCs levels that are modulated by RAM training becausereceptors are known to work in homo-or heteromeric assemblies. Immediate early gene Arc expressionwas determined by immunohistochemistry to show if prefrontal cortices (PFC) and hippocampi wereactivated following RAM training as these regions are known to be mainly implicated in spatial memory.Twelve rats per group, trained and untrained in the twelve arm RAM were used, frontal cortices andhippocampi were taken, RCs in membrane protein were quantified by blue-native PAGE immunoblot-ting. RCs components were characterised by co-immunoprecipitation followed by mass spectrometricalanalysis and by the use of the proximity ligation assay. Arc expression was significantly higher in PFC oftrained as compared to untrained rats whereas it was comparable in hippocampi. Frontal cortical levelsof RCs containing AMPA receptors GluA1, GluA2, NMDA receptors GluN1 and GluN2A, dopamine receptor
D1, acetylcholine nicotinic receptor alpha 7 (nAChR-�7) and hippocampal levels of RCs containing D1,GluN1, GluN2B and nAChR-�7 were increased in the trained group; phosphorylated dopamine trans-porter levels were decreased in the trained group. D1 and GluN1 receptors were shown to be in the samecomplex. Taken together, distinct RCs were paralleling performance in the RAM which is relevant forinterpretation of previous and design of future work on RCs in memory studies.© 2015 Published by Elsevier B.V.
Please cite this article in press as: Shanmugasundaram B, et al. Frontlevel parallels spatial memory performance in the radial arm maze. Beh
Abbreviations: AMPA, �-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid; NMD∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +43 1 40400 3215; fax: +43 1 40400 6065.
E-mail address: [email protected] (G. Lubec).
ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2015.04.043166-4328/© 2015 Published by Elsevier B.V.
al cortex and hippocampus neurotransmitter receptor complexav Brain Res (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2015.04.043
A, N-methyl-D-aspartic acid; PAGE, Polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis.
ING ModelB
2 ioural
1Q2
iaailf(sofaeilec
uaos[ttatpNfiFmt[bihmnnpDdt
siufedhmAtptp
iuqc
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
ARTICLEBR 9565 1–12
B. Shanmugasundaram et al. / Behav
. Introduction
Spatial memory is a very essential cognitive component for both,ndividual and species survival. In rodents spatial memory is widelyssessed in the Morris water maze [1] and in the land-based radialrm maze (RAM) [2]. The involvement of neurotransmitter systemsn cognitive functions can be studied using these different spatialearning tasks [3,4]. In RAM the spatial reference memory (identi-ying the position of rewarded arms) and spatial working memoryremembering which arms were visited earlier in the trial) can beimultaneously assessed [5–7]. The gradual decrease in numberf WM errors along the training period signifies that while per-orming the memory task during a session the animal also learns
strategy to perform the task better in the long run that leads toventual improvement in performance during the course of train-ng [8]. Repeated training in the RAM paradigm implies that theearning strategies are consolidated into long term memory afterach training and consolidation encompasses persistent chemicalhanges in the synapse [9,10].
Several neurotransmitter receptors were identified to be mod-lated during memory formation. Ionotropic glutamate receptorsre required and well-studied in the context of learning and mem-ry. Using genetic manipulation studies it was shown that AMPAubunit knockout animals show deficient spatial WM capabilities11–13] and AMPA activation is necessary for the consolida-ion/retention processes [14]. NMDA receptors are important forriggering learning-related plasticity. It has been suggested that thectivation of the NMDA receptor is required for long-term poten-iation (LTP) in the hippocampus [15]. Both, lesion studies andharmacological manipulations in animal models suggest that theMDA-receptor system is important in the induction of memory
ormation [16]. In the RAM task hippocampal NMDA receptors arenvolved in encoding and retrieval processes of spatial WM [14].urthermore, cholinergic receptor systems are important for spatialemory processes. There is significant work on nicotinic receptors
hat can modulate memory and are critical for memory function17–20]. Metabotropic dopamine receptors are also involved inoth, working memory and long term memory processes: Block-
ng receptor activity by pharmacological and knockout approachesave shown that in rodents the D1 receptor in the PFC plays aajor role in spatial memory whereas D2 receptor blockade had
o effect [21,22]. The dopamine transporter (DAT) that pumps theeurotransmitter dopamine back from the synaptic cleft into there-synapse cytosol also plays a major role in WM; inhibition ofAT by a benztropine analog improves WM performance in a PFC-ependent delayed-alteration task [23]. However, its role in longerm spatial memory is not clearly known.
RAM training involves both, spatial reference memory andpatial working memory [24]. Much of the evidence shows themportance of the hippocampus in mediating foraging behavioursing spatial cues [25,26]. Studies also emphasized a role of pre-rontal cortex (PFC) in spatially based foraging behaviours in mazesspecially in the delayed version of RAM [27]. Impairments onelayed spatial tasks after lesions to either the PFC [28] or theippocampal formation [29] suggest that these two brain regionsay interact when an animal is performing spatial memory tasks.part from its role in foraging behaviour of animals in spatial tasks,
he PFC and hippocampus are also involved in long-term memoryrocesses [30,31]. However, information on what major neuro-ransmitter RCs are modulated during spatial memory formationost training in RAM is missing.
Therefore, the aims of the current study were first to find out
Please cite this article in press as: Shanmugasundaram B, et al. Frontlevel parallels spatial memory performance in the radial arm maze. Beh
f PFC and hippocampus are activated following RAM trainingsing Arc expression analysis. Secondly it was tried to answer theuestion which major neurotransmitter RCs and DAT transporteromplexes rather than isolated subunits are paralleling spatial
PRESS Brain Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
memory performance of the rat in the RAM using working memoryerrors (for working memory) and latencies (for reference memory)as parameter.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Animal housing
Male Sprague Dawley rats, aged between 10 and 14 weeks wereused in this study. All rats were purchased and housed in the CoreUnit of Biomedical Research, Division of Laboratory Animal Sci-ence and Genetics, Medical University of Vienna (Himberg, Austria)and maintained in cages made of makrolon and filled with auto-claved woodchips. An autoclaved standard rodent diet (Altromin®,Germany) and water in bottles was available ad libitum. The roomwas illuminated with artificial light from 5:00 h to 19:00 h at anintensity of about 200 lx positioned in 2 m distance. All behaviourexperiments were performed between 8:00 h and 14:00 h.
All procedures were carried out according to the guidelinesof the Ethics committee, Medical University of Vienna, and U.K.Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, 1986 and associated guide-lines, the European Communities Council Directive of 24 November1986 (86/609/EEC) and were approved by the Federal Ministryof Education, Science and Culture, Austria (BMWF-66.009/0267-II/3b/2012). All efforts were made to minimize animal sufferingand to reduce the number of animals used.
2.2. Radial arm maze
For biochemical analysis twelve rats per group (trained anduntrained) and for Arc expression profiling seven rats per groupwere used. Rats were trained in the twelve arm radial maze. Thesetup is made of black plastic and kept at an elevation of 80 cmabove the floor in a room with visual cues placed distally on allsides. The central platform has a diameter of 50 cm and twelve arms(12 cm × 60 cm) which projects radially outward. A plastic cylinderis used to restrict the movement of rats to the centre before startof the training. The lifting of the cylinder is controlled by a pulleysystem from far end of the room. Food is placed in the arm 1 cmfrom the distal end. Out of twelve arms, eight arms were baitedduring the training and four remained un-baited. The amount offood provided was restricted for five days prior to the experimentto reduce the body weight to 85% to maintain a lean, healthy bodyand also to motivate the rats for foraging behaviour during train-ing. The rats were handled for 30 min/day during these five daysfor adaptation to the experimenter. Water was provided ad libitumduring the whole training.
Before the start of the actual training, rats were given habitu-ation session for two days 5 min each in which some food pelletswere placed scattered all over the maze and rats were allowed toexplore the maze and let consume the food. During the trainingsession, the arms were baited for each rat only once at the begin-ning of each session to assess WM, while the other four arms wereleft un-baited to test reference memory. The pattern of baited andun-baited arms was consistent throughout testing for each rat butdiffered among rats. Each trial began by placing the rat in the cen-tral platform, after 10 s the cylinder was slowly lifted. A sessionlasts eight minutes or until all eight baited arms were entered. Sec-ond time and thereafter entry into a baited arm was counted as aWM error, whereas any entry into an un-baited arm was noted as areference memory error. The rats were given one training sessions
al cortex and hippocampus neurotransmitter receptor complexav Brain Res (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2015.04.043
per day over a period of ten days.Untrained controls were placed in the maze to run the same
amount of time as their trained counterparts. Animals wereexposed to the same spatial cues, but without reward, therefore
156
157
158
159
ING ModelB
ioural
ra
2
2
2i3aplBtimttTNnWf
2
rfsf(UerTpitfflcs(iwG
2
mmakmtdJiwbBsp3b
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
ARTICLEBR 9565 1–12
B. Shanmugasundaram et al. / Behav
ats did not develop an association between the extra-maze cuesnd the reward.
.3. Histochemical studies
.3.1. Animal perfusion and brain fixationFor Arc immunofluorescence staining, rats were anesthetized
h after the last session of training on day ten with 0.3 ml/kgntraperitoneal injection of sodium penthorbital (Release00 mg/ml, WDT-Wirtschaftsgenossenschaft deutscher Tier-erzte eG) and perfused intracardially with ice-cold PBS (0.1 Mhosphate buffered saline, pH 7.2) containing 0.2% heparin fol-
owed by 4% paraformaldehyde (PFA) at a pH of 7.4 in 0.1 M PBS.rain samples were postfixed in 4% PFA for 24 h at 4 ◦C and thenransferred into 30% sucrose solution (in 0.1 M PBS) for 72 h. Formmunofluorescence fixed brains were embedded with Tissue-Tek
edia (OCT compound, Sakura Finetek Europe, The Netherlands)hen frozen at -20 ◦C and sectioned at 50 �m with a cryostat. Forhe Proximity Ligation Assay fixed brains were embedded withissue-Tek media (OCT compound, Sakura Finetek Europe, Theetherlands) then immersed in isopentane cooled with liquiditrogen and sectioned at 30 �m with a cryostat (Leica CM 3050S,etzlar, Germany). Sections were stored in PBS sodium azide until
urther used.
.3.2. Immunofluorescence stainingFree-floating immunofluorescence staining was performed on
at PFC and hippocampus coronal sections. Samples were washedor 10 min in 0.1 M PBS, then blocked with 10% normal donkeyerum in 0.3% Triton X-100 PBS for 30 min at room temperatureollowed by incubation with anti-Arc rabbit polyclonal antibodyArc/Arg3.1, 1:200, Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Santa Cruz, SA,SA) for 24 h at 4 ◦C. After washing in PBS two times for 5 minach, sections were incubated with secondary antibody (anti-abbit IgG labelled Alexa Fluor 555, 1:1000 dilution, Cell Signalingechnology, Boston, MA, USA) for 1 h in the dark at room tem-erature. Slices were subsequently washed two times 5 min each
n PBS, counterstained by incubation with DAPI (1:1000 dilu-ion, 4′,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole, Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA)or 10 min followed by washing for 5 min then mounted withuorescence mounting medium (DAKO, Glostrup, Denmark) andoverslipped. Images were acquired with Zeiss Observer.Z1 micro-cope (Carl Zeiss GmbH, Jena, Germany) equipped with TissueFAXSTissue Gnostics GmbH, Vienna, Austria) at 20x magnification keep-ng all acquisition settings even through all samples. Arc expression
as analysed and quantified with TissueQuest software (Tissuenostics GmbH, Vienna, Austria).
.3.3. In-situ proximity ligation assay (PLA)The PLA was performed according to the protocol given by the
anufacturer (O-LINK Bioscience, Uppsala, Sweden) with slightodifications. Free floating brain slices were blocked for 30 min
t room temperature using blocking buffer supplied with the PLAit. After blocking brain slices were incubated with diluted mouseonoclonal antibody against the N-methyl D-aspartate recep-
or 1 (GluN1, 1:100, Abcam, Cambridge, UK) and polyclonal antiopamine D1 receptor primary antibodies (1:100, Alomone Labs,
erusalem, Israel) for 48 h at 4 ◦C on a rocking platform. Follow-ng incubation with primary antibodies slices were washed with
ashing buffer A (O-LINK Bioscience, Uppsala, Sweden) then incu-ated with rabbit PLUS and mouse MINUS probes (1:40, O-LINKioscience, Uppsala, Sweden) for 2 h at 37 ◦C with gentle orbital
Please cite this article in press as: Shanmugasundaram B, et al. Frontlevel parallels spatial memory performance in the radial arm maze. Beh
haking. Ligation was performed according to the manufacturer’srotocol with the exception of a 45 min incubation time instead of0 min mentioned. DNA polymerase was diluted 1:20 and incu-ated for 120 min at 37 ◦C. The rest of the amplification steps
PRESS Brain Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx 3
remained unchanged. After amplification slices were washed with1x then 0.01x wash buffer B prepared according to the recipe sup-plied in the kit manual. Finally brain slices were transferred toglass slides, mounted with Duolink in Situ Mounting Medium withDAPI (O-LINK Bioscience, Uppsala, Sweden). Images were acquiredwith a Zeiss LSM 700 confocal laser scanning microscope (Carl ZeissGmbH, Jena, Germany) at 20x magnification keeping all acquisitionsettings even through all samples [32,33].
2.4. Biochemical studies
Frontal cortices (FC) and hippocampi was quickly dissected(following a micro dissection procedure described in the book“Neuroproteomics”, chapter “Dissection of Rodent Brain Regions”[34]) from rat brain six hours after the last session of RAM train-ing on day ten by deeply anaesthetizing the animal with CO2 andanimals were killed by neck dislocation. The tissue was stored at−80 ◦C for biochemical analysis.
2.4.1. Crude synaptosome preparationAll procedures were carried out at 4 ◦C. FC and hippocampal tis-
sues were homogenized in ice-cold homogenization buffer [10 mMHEPES, pH 7.5, 300 mM sucrose, one complete protease inhibitortablet (Roche Molecular Biochemicals, Mannheim, Germany) per50 ml] by Ultra-Turrax (IKA, Staufen, Germany). The homogenatewas centrifuged for 10 min at 1000 × g and the pellet was dis-carded. The supernatant was centrifuged at 50,000 × g for 30 minin an ultracentrifuge (Beckman Coulter Optima-L-90 K). The pelletwas re-suspended in washing buffer (homogenization buffer with-out sucrose), kept on ice for 1 h and centrifuged at 50,000 × g for30 min to obtain membrane fraction of crude synaptosome extractas pellet.
2.4.2. Receptor protein extractionAll procedures were carried out at 4 ◦C. An extraction buffer con-
taining 1.5 M 6-aminocaproic acid, 300 mM Bis–Tris, pH 7.0 and1% n-Dodecyl �-d-maltoside (DDM) was added to the membranepellets and incubated for 1 h by gently vortexing every 10 min.Following solubilisation, samples were centrifuged at 15,000 × gfor 60 min. The pellet was discarded. The protein concentrationof the supernatant was estimated using the BCA protein assay kit(Pierce, Rockford, IL, USA). Extracted proteins were then aliquotedand stored at −80 ◦C until used.
2.4.3. Blue native polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (BN PAGE)and BN PAGE western blot procedure
Equal amount of proteins (30 �g) from trained and untrainedsamples were loaded in the wells and the RCs were separated on5–13% of blue native PAGE gels and the western blot procedurewas carried out using the procedure described previously [35]. Thedetails of antibodies used are given in the supplementary dataTable 1. Immunoreactive bands were quantified by the softwareImage J (NIH). Coomassie blue R-350 stained membranes were usedas loading control and normalized with the western blot densito-metric values [36,37]
2.4.4. Co-immunoprecipitationThe FC crude synaptosome membrane fraction pellet prepared
as described previously was suspended in lysis buffer containing1% DDM, 150 mM NaCl, 1 mM EDTA, 50 mM Tris–HCl (pH 8.0),10 mM NaF, 10 mM Na3VO4, 10 mM Na4O7P2 and protease inhibitorcocktail (Roche, Mannheim, Germany) on a rotation shaker 1 h
al cortex and hippocampus neurotransmitter receptor complexav Brain Res (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2015.04.043
at 4 ◦C. After centrifugation at 15,000 × g, at 4 ◦C for 20 min, thesupernatant was incubated with affinity-purified goat anti-bodyagainst NMDA receptor subunit GluN1 (GluN1; NMDA�1; sc-1467,Santa Cruz Biotechnology) and dopamine receptor subunit D1
278
279
280
281
ARTICLE IN PRESSG ModelBBR 9565 1–12
4 B. Shanmugasundaram et al. / Behavioural Brain Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Table 1Showing BN PAGE western blot mean densitometry values (arbitrary units) after normalization and statistical t-test p-values of the individual receptor complexes.
Receptor subunits (apparentmol. wt. in BN PAGE)
FC Hippocampus
mean ± SD p value mean ± SD p value
Trained Untrained Trained Untrained
Glu A1 (∼700 kDa) 1.179 ± 0.186 0.809 ± 0.233 0.0003 1.018 ± 0.239 0.887 ± 0.337 0.2874Glu A2 (∼700 kDa) 0.991 ± 0.101 0.778 ± 0.128 0.0002 1.727 ± 0.299 1.569 ± 0.556 0.3681Glu A2 (∼550 kDa) 0.624 ± 0.492 0.495 ± 0.212 0.4189 – – –Glu A3 (∼700 kDa) 6.059± 1.826 5.242 ± 1.770 0.2783 1.427 ± 0.592 1.424 ± 0.524 0.9886Glu A3 (∼550 kDa) 1.773 ± 0.754 1.383 ± 0.736 0.2136 2.946 ± 1.663 1.968 ± 0.851 0.1008Glu A4 (∼700 kDa) 1.649 ± 0.638 1.697 ± 0.326 0.8219 3.962 ± 1.569 4.800 ± 1.168 0.1532Glu A4 (∼550 kDa) 0.652 ± 0.215 0.786 ± 0.368 0.2926 – – –Glu N1 (∼480 kDa) 0.698 ± 0.159 0.510 ± 0.331 0.0949 4.369 ± 1.508 2.839 ± 0.695 0.0059Glu N1 (∼300 kDa) 0.949 ± 0.595 0.461 ± 0.337 0.0241 – – –Glu N2A (∼700 kDa) 0.910 ± 0.291 0.444 ± 0.137 0.0001 0.736 ± 0.220 0.647 ± 0.244 0.3585Glu N2A (∼500 kDa) – – – 1.141 ± 0.236 1.173 ± 0.363 0.8152Glu N2B (∼700 kDa) – – – 1.237 ± 0.925 0.751 ± 0.303 0.1066Glu N2B (∼500 kDa) 0.682 ± 0.197 0.611 ± 0.132 0.3110 0.930 ± 0.240 0.615 ± 0.143 0.0010nAChR-�7 (∼700 kDa) 1.515 ± 0.331 1.016 ± 0.304 0.0009 0.893 ± 0.272 0.503 ± 0.130 0.0004nAChR-�7 (∼480 kDa) – – – 1.125 ± 0.330 0.554 ± 0.182 0.0001D1 (∼480 kDa) 0.544 ± 0.157 0.431 ± 0.104 0.0510 2.989 ± 0.687 1.893 ± 0.649 0.0006D1 (∼300 kDa) 0.984 ± 0.323 0.647 ± 0.242 0.0090 – – –D2 (∼480 kDa) 0.930 ± 0.287 1.055 ± 0.457 0.4532 – – –D2 (∼300 kDa) 2.541 ± 1.151 2.303 ± 1.106 0.6195 1.460 ± 0.595 1.323 ± 0.323 0.4934DAT (∼500 kDa) 1.344 ± 0.356 1.275 ± 0.473 0.6932 0.530 ± 0.274 0.776 ± 0.413 0.1018
(apabtmPaeda(d1g
2
ts5b3two(a5b4tbwtrr
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
DAT (∼300 kDa) 1.772 ± 0.555 1.898 ± 0.576
DAT-ph (∼500 kDa) 3.915 ± 1.157 3.561 ± 0.670
DAT-ph (∼300 kDa) 2.098 ± 0.634 2.101 ± 0.894
D1DR Antibody, sc-14001; Santa Cruz Biotechnology) in two sep-rate reactions overnight at 4 ◦C and subsequently incubated withrotein-G agarose beads (GE Healthcare, Uppsala, Sweden) for 4 ht 4 ◦C with gentle rotation. After five times of washing with lysisuffer, proteins bound were denatured with sample buffer con-aining 125 mM Tris (pH 6.8), 4% SDS, 20% glycerol, 10% beta-
ercaptoethanol, 0.02% bromophenol blue at 95 ◦C for 3 min. SDS-AGE was performed using 5% stacking and 8% separating gel withn initial current of 50 V for 1 h and then 150 V for 1 h [38]. West-rn blotting was carried out following the procedure as previouslyescribed [39] except the details of the antibodies used in this workre as follows. Membrane blotted with primary antibody anti D1Anti-Dopamine Receptor D1 antibody, ab78021, abcam) 1:1000ilution and anti GluN1 (Anti-NMDAR1 antibody ab134308, abcam):2000 dilution and the secondary antibody used was HRP conju-ated Goat Anti-Mouse IgG H&L (ab97040, abcam) 1:5000 dilution.
.4.5. In-gel digestion of proteinsProtein bands from silver-stained SDS-PAGE gels that were iden-
ified by the corresponding antibodies against the D1 and GluN1ubunits were put into a 1.5 mL tube. Gel pieces were washed with0 mM ammonium bicarbonate and then two times with washinguffer (50% 100 mM ammonium bicarbonate/50% acetonitrile) for0 min each with vortexing. 100 �L of 100% acetonitrile was addedo the tube and the mixture was incubated for 10 min. Gel piecesere dried completely using a SpeedVac concentrator. Reduction
f cysteine residues was carried out with a 10 mM dithiothreitolDTT) solution in 100 mM ammonium bicarbonate pH 8.6 for 60 mint 56 ◦C. After discarding the DTT solution, the same volume of a5 mM iodoacetamide (IAA) solution in 100 mM ammonium bicar-onate buffer pH 8.6 was added and incubated in darkness for5 min at 25 ◦C to alkylate the cysteine residues. The IAA solu-ion was replaced by washing buffer (50% 100 mM ammoniumicarbonate/50% acetonitrile) and washed twice for 15 min each
Please cite this article in press as: Shanmugasundaram B, et al. Frontlevel parallels spatial memory performance in the radial arm maze. Beh
ith vortexing. Gel pieces were washed and dried in 100% ace-onitrile followed by dryness in SpeedVac. Dried gel pieces weree-swollen with 12.5 ng/�L trypsin (Promega, Germany) solutioneconstituted with 25 mM ammonium bicarbonate. Gel pieces were
0.5888 – – –0.3714 0.407 ± 0.201 0.606 ± 0.169 0.01610.9940 0.804 ± 0.376 0.952 ± 0.291 0.2956
incubated for 16 h at 37 ◦C. The supernatant was transferred tonew 0.5 mL tubes, and peptides were extracted with 50 �L of 0.5%formic acid/20% acetonitrile for 20 min in a sonication bath. Thisstep was repeated two times. Samples in extraction buffer werepooled in 0.5 mL tubes and evaporated in a SpeedVac concentrator.The peptides were reconstituted in 5% formic acid and analysed byLC-MS/MS [35].
2.4.6. LC-MS/MS analysisNano-LC-ESI-MS/MS was performed on a linear trap quadrupole
(LTQ) Orbitrap Velos (Thermoscientific, Walthan, MA, USA) cou-pled to an Agilent 1200 HPLC nanoflow system comprised of adual pump with one precolumn and one analytical column (Agi-lent Biotechnologies, Palo Alto, CA, USA) (Bennett et al., 2011).Data were acquired using Xcalibur version 2.1.0. HPLC solventswere as follows: solvent A consisted of 0.4% formic acid in waterand solvent B consisted of 0.4% formic acid in 70% methanol and20% isopropanol. From a thermostated microautosampler, 8 �Lof the peptide mixture were automatically loaded onto a trapcolumn (Zorbax 300SB-C18 5 �m, 5 × 0.3 mm, Agilent Biotechnolo-gies) with a binary pump at a flow rate of 45 �L/min using 0.1%TFA for loading and washing the precolumn. After washing, thepeptides were eluted by back-flushing onto a 16 cm fused silicaanalytical column with an inner diameter of 50 �m packed with aC18 reversed phase material (ReproSil-Pur 120 C18-AQ, 3 �m, Dr.Maisch GmbH, Ammerbuch-Entringen, Germany). Peptides wereeluted from the analytical column with a 27 min gradient rangingfrom 3 to 30% solvent B, followed by a 25 min gradient from 30 to70% solvent B and, finally, a 7 min gradient from 70 to 100% solventB at a constant flow rate of 100 nL/min. The analyses were per-formed in a data-dependent acquisition mode using a top 15 CIDmethod. Dynamic exclusion for selected ions was 60s. A single lockmass at m/z 445.120024 was employed. Maximal ion accumulationtime allowed in MS and MSn mode was 500 and 50ms, respectively.
al cortex and hippocampus neurotransmitter receptor complexav Brain Res (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2015.04.043
Automatic gain control was used to prevent overfilling of the iontrap and was set to 106 ions and 5000 ions for a full Fourier trans-form mass spectrometry scan and MSn, respectively. Peptides weredetected in MS mode at a resolution of 60,000 (at m/z 400).
352
353
354
355
ARTICLE IN PRESSG ModelBBR 9565 1–12
B. Shanmugasundaram et al. / Behavioural Brain Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx 5
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
num
ber o
f WM
E
training sessio ns (days)
*
0
2
4
6
8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
num
ber o
f RM
E
training sessio ns (days)
a b
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
late
ncy
(sec
)
training sessio ns (days)
*
c
F – latd in RMd n in th
AuaUstiacsaFpr
3
3
mmTtudWsi
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
ig. 1. a – Working memory error (WME), b – reference memory error (RME) and cay-8, 9 and 10 compared to day-1 (*P < 0.001, F = 4.949). Slightly decreasing trenday-3 onwards compared to day-1 (*P < 0.0001, F = 13.23). Mean and SEM are show
Proteins were identified using Proteome Discoverer version 1.4. spectral peptide peak list was extracted from the raw files andsing both, Mascot and SequestHT, the peak list was matchedgainst a rat protein database (9,595 protein sequence entries fromniProtKB/Swiss-Prot downloaded on March 2013). The MSMS ion
earch parameters were as follows: one missed cleavage site, massolerances of 10 ppm and 0.6 Da for the precursor and fragmentons. Dynamic modifications were: methionine oxidation, serinend threonine phosphorylation. Static modifications were cysteinearbamidomethylation. Matched peptides were filtered as follows:ignificant threshold below 0.05 for Mascot and 0.1 for SEQUEST,nd a 1% false discovery rate cut-off after target decoy search.iltered peptides from the two search engines were merged androtein identifications requiring at least two unique peptides wereeported.
. Results
.1. Radial arm maze
The total number of working memory errors (WME), referenceemory errors (RME) and latency to finish a trial made by the ani-als with respect to the training sessions were shown in Fig. 1.
rained rats showed significant reduction of latency to finish arial and WME over the course of training. Data were analysedsing repeated measurements ANOVA. WME became statistically
Please cite this article in press as: Shanmugasundaram B, et al. Frontlevel parallels spatial memory performance in the radial arm maze. Beh
ifferent from day-8 onwards (F = 4.949, p < 0.0001), on day-10ME were about threefold lower than on day-1. There was a
lightly decreasing trend for RME however, not statistically signif-cant. Latency to finish a trial showed a decreasing trend and was
ency to finish a trial of RAM behaviour test. WMEs were significantly decreased onE curve was not statistically significant. Latency was significantly decreased frome graph. The data were analysed using repeated measurements ANOVA.
significantly different from day-3 onwards compared to day-1(F = 13.23, p < 0.0001).
3.2. Arc expression analysis in PFC and hippocampus
Immunohistochemical analysis (Fig. 2) showed that the imme-diate early gene Arc in PFC was expressed significantly higherin trained animals when compared to the untrained animals. Intrained animals the bright pink spots representing arc expressionin different regions of PFC, ACd (dorsal anterior cingulate area), FR2(frontal cortex area 2), IL (infralimbic area) and PL (prelimbic area)were significantly more abundant, compared with unpaired Stu-dent’s t-test (p < 0.05). The sub-regions of PFC were identified usingthe reference [40]. In hippocampal regions there was no statisticaldifference in Arc expression between trained and untrained groups(data not shown).
3.3. BN PAGE western blot quantification of membrane receptorcomplexes
The RCs were quantified using BN PAGE western blotting. InFC the RCs containing subunits GluA1 at around 700 kDa, GluA2(∼700 kDa), D1 (∼300 kDa), GluN1 (∼300 kDa), GluN2A (∼700 kDa)and nAChR-�7 (∼700 kDa) were significantly increased in thetrained group. In hippocampus RCs containing GluN1 (∼480 kDa),GluN2B (∼500 kDa), D1 (∼480 kDa), and nAChR-�7 (∼700 &
al cortex and hippocampus neurotransmitter receptor complexav Brain Res (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2015.04.043
∼480 kDa) were significantly increased in trained groups whencompared to untrained rats. In hippocampi the phosphorylated,activated form of DAT (DAT-ph) (∼500 kDa) showed lower arbi-trary units of optical density in the trained group as compared by
405
406
407
408
ARTICLE IN PRESSG ModelBBR 9565 1–12
6 B. Shanmugasundaram et al. / Behavioural Brain Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Fig. 2. Expression analysis of IEG Arc protein in PFC region of trained and untrained rats by Immunohistochemistry. The bright pink spots in the image represent the expresseda orsal
a d mors hown
uiTml
3
fcFr
3b
aGea
cToplv
i
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
rc protein. The image also shows the different regions of PFC. Abbreviations: ACd, drea. Scale-bar in the image represents 500 �m. Arc protein is significantly expresseignificance of difference in unpaired Student’s t-test (*P < 0.05). Mean and SD are s
npaired Student’s t-test. No change in the electrophoretic mobil-ty of the RCs between trained and untrained groups was observed.he mean densitometric values of BN PAGE western blot after nor-alization and statistical t-test p-values of the individual RCs are
isted in the Table 1 (Figs. 3 and 4).
.4. Proximity ligation assay of D1 and GluN1 receptors
Fig. 5 shows the PLA data of D1 and GluN1 receptors in dif-erent regions of rat PFC were presented with red dots indicatingo-localization and proximity of D1 and GluN1 receptors in ACd,R2, IL and PL regions which in turn proposes that D1 and GluN1eceptor subunits may be complex components of the same RCs.
.5. Co-immunoprecipitation of D1 and GluN1 receptor followedy mass spectrometrical identification of receptor complexes
Co-immunoprecipitation was carried out with an immobilizedntibody against D1 as well as an immobilized antibody againstluN1. Western blot analysis shown in Fig. 6 confirmed the pres-nce of both, D1 and GluN1 receptors in both elutions, i.e. thentibody against D1 detected GluN1 and vice versa.
Mass spectrometrical analysis (MS) shows that the immunopre-ipitate using an antibody against D1 contained the GluN1 subunit.otal sequence coverage indicated in Table 2 indicates unambigu-us MS identification of these receptor subunits. The individualeptides obtained from proteolytic cleavage followed by MS are
Please cite this article in press as: Shanmugasundaram B, et al. Frontlevel parallels spatial memory performance in the radial arm maze. Beh
isted in supplementary Table 2. Representative spectra are pro-ided in supplementary Fig. 1.
This finding suggests that the D1 and GluN1 receptors can existn the same complex.
anterior cingulate area; FR2, frontal cortex area 2; IL, infralimbic area; PL, prelimbice in trained group when compared to the untrained rats. Asterisks indicate level of
in the graph.
4. Discussion
Herein, following RAM training in rats, the neuronal activity inPFC and hippocampus were identified using Arc expression analysisand levels of major neurotransmitter RCs in these regions werecompared between trained and untrained animals.
Behavioural results reveal that the animals had learned the taskshowing gradually decreasing latency to finish a session statisti-cally significant from day-3 onwards compared to the first day.Appetite is the motivation for the foraging behaviour of mildlystarving rats in RAM. Animals identify the spatial location of thearm containing food pellets using available distal cues [41]. In orderto retrieve the food efficiently with minimal efforts when a baitedarm is visited for food, the rat has to avoid re-entry. This learn-ing strategy involves working memory and the gradual decreaseof WME over the training days signifies that the learning strate-gies are consolidated to long term memory after each training day[10]. Thus, since the proteomic analysis has been done at the end oftraining, changes in levels of neurotransmitter RCs may be associ-ated with the persistent chemical changes of the neuronal synapsesas a result of RAM training.
Activity regulated cytoskeleton associated protein (Arc) is oneof the Immediate Early Genes (IEG), expressed in the brain regionswhen there is neuronal activation [42–44]. Therefore, IEG expres-sion has been widely used as a marker to identify brain regionsthat are activated in response to learning [45–47]. Own resultsshow that Arc is expressed significantly higher in the trained groupin areas of PFC, ACd, FR2, IL and PL, suggesting that all of these
al cortex and hippocampus neurotransmitter receptor complexav Brain Res (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2015.04.043
areas are activated following RAM training, whereas the hippocam-pal regions do not show any difference in Arc expression betweentrained and untrained groups. The PFC is known for its involve-ment in guiding the animal for goal-directed behaviour and the
463
464
465
466
ARTICLE IN PRESSG ModelBBR 9565 1–12
B. Shanmugasundaram et al. / Behavioural Brain Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx 7
F luA2w ce in
m
hpbsiRIamitmcgwsmtrtt
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
ig. 3. BN PAGE western quantification of receptor complexes in FC tissue. GluA1, Ghen compared to untrained rats. Asterisks indicate level of significance of differenean and SD error bars.
ippocampus is critical for spatial navigation and spatial memoryrocessing. These two structures interact through complex circuitsased on the functional demand and their coordination is neces-ary for optimal performance [48–50]. From the current study its understood that both, hippocampus and PFC are required in theAM paradigm. Inhibition of the activity-dependent expression of
EGs causes impairment of short term memory consolidation [51]nd therefore plays a critical role in the formation of long termemory [52,53]. This implies that Arc is more likely expressed
n brain regions that are involved in memory consolidation. Fromhis perspective, elevated levels of Arc expression in trained ani-
als in PFC signifies that PFC neurons are subjected to memoryonsolidation after the last session, because the learning strate-ies are consolidated as the latency to complete the task decreasesith training. Based upon Arc expression results herein, it may be
uggested that the memory consolidation process in RAM trainingay involve only PFC and not hippocampus. It is known, however,
Please cite this article in press as: Shanmugasundaram B, et al. Frontlevel parallels spatial memory performance in the radial arm maze. Beh
hat the hippocampus is essential for acquisition, consolidation andetention of spatial and non-spatial memories [50,54,55]. Own con-rasting result in the hippocampus may propose that after repeatedraining in the RAM, hippocampal neurons do not undergo any
, GluN1, GluN2A, D1, and nAChR-�7 were significantly increased in trained groupsunpaired Student’s t-test (*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, #P < 0.005). The bar graph shows the
memory consolidation and therefore do not express Arc but proba-bly the hippocampus has been involved in the beginning of training,although the statement has to be reconsidered as significant RCslevel changes were observed.
Previous reports have been already addressing the involvementof neurotransmitter RCs rather than individual receptor subunits inspatial memory formation [37,56–58] but work on the RAM has notbeen published so far to the best of our knowledge. Determinationof RCs is relevant as receptor function is carried out as homo-orheteromeric assemblies of receptors.
Glutamate, the major excitatory neurotransmitter exerts itsaction by binding to glutamate receptors. Ionotropic glutamatereceptors are made up of different types of subunits and basedon the subunit composition the biochemical and electrophysio-logical properties of the RCs vary [59]. Specific AMPA receptorsubunits are delivered to synaptic sites following learning and con-tributes to experience-dependent synaptic strengthening [60,61].
al cortex and hippocampus neurotransmitter receptor complexav Brain Res (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2015.04.043
AMPA receptors play a vital role in WM mechanisms [62]: GluA1subunit deletion in the whole brain results in strong spatial WMdeficits [63]. The molecular mechanism of AMPA receptor subunitfunction in spatial WM is not clearly understood but it has been
505
506
507
508
ARTICLE IN PRESSG ModelBBR 9565 1–12
8 B. Shanmugasundaram et al. / Behavioural Brain Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
F plex
t ecreasS SD er
pttirktsittTsutc
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
ig. 4. BN PAGE western quantification of receptor complexes in hippocampus. Comrained groups when compared to untrained rats whereas the DAT-ph levels were dtudent’s t-test (*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, #P < 0.005). The bar graph shows the mean and
ostulated that it includes the activation of AMPA receptors con-aining the GluA1 subunit [63] and consequently during plasticityhe GluA1/GluA2 containing RCs are added to synapses and dur-ng long term memory formation GluA2/GluA3-containing AMPAeceptors constitutively replace synaptic AMPA receptors whileeeping the synaptic strength constant [64,65]. There is evidencehat GluA1-mediated AMPA receptor signalling is essential forpatial memory tasks, particularly in hippocampus [61,66]. It isntriguing that no differences between hippocampal AMPA recep-or containing RCs levels were observed and this finding is of impor-ance to elucidate different memory mechanisms in hippocampus.hese data emphasize the importance of NMDA receptors in acqui-
Please cite this article in press as: Shanmugasundaram B, et al. Frontlevel parallels spatial memory performance in the radial arm maze. Beh
ition of spatial memory processes. Since on the last day the rats stillndergo training, NMDA receptor subunits may be modulated afterhe last session. Own results show that in FC GluN2A and GluN1ontaining complexes were increased whereas in hippocampus
containing GluN1, GluN2B, D1, and nAChR-�7 levels were significantly increased ined in trained group. Asterisks indicate level of significance of difference in unpairedror bars.
NR2B and GluN1 containing complexes were elevated in trainedanimals, pointing to different mechanism in hippocampus and FCin NMDA-mediated signalling in performance in the RAM. Pharma-cological manipulation studies in an experimental animal modelsuggest that the NMDA-receptor system may be important in theacquisition of memory, but not for the maintenance [16], hencethe changes in NMDA receptor subunits in the current study couldbe due to the effect of the last training session.nAChR-�7 contain-ing RCs levels were significantly higher in the synaptic membranefraction in trained groups. This result is in agreement with a recentbehavioural study indicating that acetylcholine alpha 7-containingRCs are modulated during memory retrieval in mice tested in the
al cortex and hippocampus neurotransmitter receptor complexav Brain Res (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2015.04.043
multiple-T-maze [67]. Depletion of acetylcholine in dorsolateralPFC markedly impaired WM [17] whereas selective stimulation ofthe neuronal nAChR-�7 receptor improved spatial WM in nonhu-man primates [68] and in rodents [69].
537
538
539
540
Please cite this article in press as: Shanmugasundaram B, et al. Frontal cortex and hippocampus neurotransmitter receptor complexlevel parallels spatial memory performance in the radial arm maze. Behav Brain Res (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2015.04.043
ARTICLE IN PRESSG ModelBBR 9565 1–12
B. Shanmugasundaram et al. / Behavioural Brain Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx 9
Fig. 5. “In Situ” Proximity ligation assay for detection of co-localized D1 and GluN1 receptors in rat PFC. Representative images showing the D1-GluN1 receptor complex withDAPI counterstained nuclei. Red dots as shown by the arrow indicates the co-localization of D1 and GluN1 receptor. Abbreviations: ACd, dorsal anterior cingulate area; FR2,frontal cortex area 2; IL, infralimbic area; PL, prelimbic area. Negative control is done in parallel with no primary antibody added. Scale-bar in the figure represents 10 �m.
ARTICLE IN PRESSG ModelBBR 9565 1–12
10 B. Shanmugasundaram et al. / Behavioural Brain Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Table 2Data of mass spectrometrical identification of GluN1 co-immunoprecipitated with D1.
Uniprot accession number Enzyme digestion Gene name �coverage �# Unique Peptides �# Peptides �# PSMs
G3V933D(1A) dopamine receptor
Trypsin Drd1 23.99 8 8 197
P35439-5Glutamate receptor ionotropic,NMDA 1
Trypsin Grin1
Fig. 6. Western blot showing the detection of D1 and GluN1 receptor subunitsimmunoprecipitated with Anti-D1 and Anti-GluN1 antibody. This shows the D1 andGs
wsLaiiicasDraf
atamtbsoso(Dtrp[mUcscuc
ing in the rat. J Neurosci Methods 1984;11:47–60.
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
luN1 remains in a complex and are co-immuno precipitated. Cntrl is the total crudeynaptosome membrane fraction protein prepared from rat’s FC tissue.
The involvement of the dopaminergic system in memory isell-studied in hippocampus. The dopamine receptor subtype D1
timulates the onset of protein synthesis-dependent late phase ofTP in the hippocampus [70] and facilitates the persistent stor-ge of hippocampus-dependent memories [71]. Apart from its rolen long-term memory formation, the dopaminergic system is alsonvolved in WM processes. The D1 subtype within the PFC has beenmplicated in normal functioning of WM and its alterations canause WM impairments like schizotypal personality disorder [72]nd schizophrenia [73]. D1 receptor blockade using antagonistshowed dose- and delay-dependent impairments in WM whereas2 receptor blockade had no effect [74]. In the current study it is
evealed that levels of a D1 containing complex in the trained groupre higher and D2 containing RCs levels were unchanged in both,rontal cortex and hippocampus.
Complexes containing D1 and GluN1 were co-migrating atround 300 kDa on BN-PAGE which indicates, that these recep-ors could exist in the same complex. It is well known that D1nd NMDA receptors have profound importance in cognition (likeemory and executive functions) and in synaptic plasticity and
here is evidence that D1 and glutamate receptors can co-exist inrain regions. Sarantis et al. examined the effects of the in-vitrotimulation of D1 and D2 receptors on the phosphorylation statef NMDA and AMPA receptor subunits in rat PFC and hippocampushowing that D1 receptor activation elicits a significant increasef the phosphorylation state of NMDA (GluN1, GluN2B) and AMPAGluA1) receptor subunits [75]. In another study it was shown that1 and NR1 receptors interact through protein-protein interac-
ions in single pyramidal neurons and inter-neurons in the adultat PFC [76]. D1 and NMDA (GluN1, GluN2B) receptors form a com-lex through the carboxyl tails and can be co-immunoprecipitated77]. In electrophysiological studies it was demonstrated that D1
odulates NMDA currents in hippocampal neuron cultures [77].sing PLA herein it was observed that all regions in PFC showedo-localisation of D1 and GluN1 receptor subunits. Since the PLA
Please cite this article in press as: Shanmugasundaram B, et al. Frontlevel parallels spatial memory performance in the radial arm maze. Beh
hows proximity and does not confirm physical interactions, theomplex formation between D1 and GluN1 was further examinedsing co-immunoprecipitation experiments that revealed that D1o-eluted with an antibody against GluN1 and vice versa, moreover,
5.76 5 5 5
mass spectrometrical analysis of the immunoprecipitate using anantibody against D1 identified the presence of GluN1. Nai andco-workers explored the effects of the D1–GluN1 interaction onNMDA receptor-dependent LTP and WM reporting that uncou-pling the D1–GluN1 interaction led to impaired WM and decreasedGluN1–CaMKII association and CaMKII activity in rat hippocampus[78].
The DAT is a presynaptic membrane-spanning protein knownto mediate dopamine re-uptake. Reuptake inhibition has beenalready used for cognitive enhancement in the treatment of ADHD.Schmeichel et al. observed improved performance in rats using aPFC-dependent delayed-alternation task of spatial working mem-ory by the administration of a well-characterized benztropineanalog, AHN 2-005 [23]. However, not much is known about itsinvolvement in long term memory formation. Own results showthat levels of DAT containing complexes were comparable betweentrained and untrained animals in frontal cortex and hippocampuswhereas levels of complexes containing the phosphorylated activeform of DAT (phosphorylated at amino acid position Thr53) werelower in trained animals in hippocampus but not in FC.
The presence and modulation of a high molecular weight com-plex containing the activated form of DAT in spatial memoryperformance in the current work points to the probable involve-ment of a large transporter complex that remains to be furthercharacterised by subsequent studies.
Taken together, RCs changes paralleling spatial memory withreference and working memory components in the PFC as well asin hippocampus at the end of the RAM testing were revealed, con-firming the participation of both regions in spatial and workingmemory mechanisms. Moreover, a complex was shown to containD1 and GluN1 and a complex containing phosphorylated, i.e. acti-vated DAT in FC was decreased in rats trained in the RAM probablyindicating a role for dopamine reuptake in memory formation. Thiswork may be relevant for the interpretation of previous work on sig-naling and design of future studies on neurotransmitter receptorsand dopamine transport in spatial memory.
Acknowledgements
The skilful technical assistance of Sabine Rauscher from theimaging core facility is highly appreciated. We acknowledge com-ments from Prof. Dr. Volker Korz, Univ. Vienna. We appreciate thefinancial assistance from the Medical University of Vienna to carryout this work.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, inthe online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2015.04.043
References
[1] Morris R. Developments of a water-maze procedure for studying spatial learn-
al cortex and hippocampus neurotransmitter receptor complexav Brain Res (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2015.04.043
[2] David S, Olton, Robert J, Samuelson. Remembrance of places passed: spatialmemory in rats. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 1976;2:97–116.
[3] Levin ED. Psychopharmacological effects in the radial-arm maze. NeurosciBiobehav Rev 1988;12:169–75.
628
629
630
631
ING ModelB
ioural
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
ARTICLEBR 9565 1–12
B. Shanmugasundaram et al. / Behav
[4] Butelman ER. The effect of NMDA antagonists in the radial arm maze task withan interposed delay. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1990;35:533–6.
[5] Buresová O, Bures J. Radial maze as a tool for assessing the effect of drugs onthe working memory of rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1982;77:268–71.
[6] Levin ED, Timofeeva OA, Yang L, Petro A, Ryde IT, Wrench N, et al. Earlypostnatal parathion exposure in rats causes sex-selective cognitive impair-ment and neurotransmitter defects which emerge in aging. Behav Brain Res2010;208:319–27, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2009.11.007.
[7] Spritzer MD, Daviau ED, Coneeny MK, Engelman SM, Prince WT,Rodriguez-Wisdom KN. Effects of testosterone on spatial learn-ing and memory in adult male rats. Horm Behav 2011;59:484–96,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2011.01.009.
[8] McNamara DS, Scott JL. Working memory capacity and strategy use. Mem Cog-nit 2001;29:10–7.
[9] Mizumori SJ, Rosenzweig MR, Bennett EL. Long-term working memoryin the rat: effects of hippocampally applied anisomycin. Behav Neurosci1985;99:220–32.
10] Mizumori SJ, Channon V, Rosenzweig MR, Bennett EL. Short- and long-termcomponents of working memory in the rat. Behav Neurosci 1987;101:782–9.
11] Zamanillo D, Sprengel R, Hvalby O, Jensen V, Burnashev N, Rozov A, et al. Impor-tance of AMPA receptors for hippocampal synaptic plasticity but not for spatiallearning. Science 1999;284:1805–11.
12] Reisel D, Bannerman DM, Schmitt WB, Deacon RMJ, Flint J, Borchardt T,et al. Spatial memory dissociations in mice lacking GluR1. Nat Neurosci2002;5:868–73, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nn910.
13] Sanderson DJ, Good MA, Seeburg PH, Sprengel R, Rawlins JNP,Bannerman DM. The role of the GluR-A (GluR1) AMPA receptor sub-unit in learning and memory. Prog Brain Res 2008;169:159–78,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6123(07)00009-X.
14] Yoshihara T, Ichitani Y. Hippocampal N-methyl-d-aspartatereceptor-mediatedencoding and retrieval processes in spatial working memory: Delay-interposed radial maze performance in rats. Neuroscience 2004;129:1–10,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2004.07.030.
15] Izquierdo I. Pharmacological evidence for a role of long-term potentiation inmemory. FASEB J Off Publ Fed Am Soc Exp Biol 1994;8:1139–45.
16] Izquierdo I. Role of NMDA receptors in memory. Trends Pharmacol Sci1991;12:128–9.
17] Croxson PL, Kyriazis DA, Baxter MG. Cholinergic modulation of a spe-cific memory function of prefrontal cortex. Nat Neurosci 2011;14:1510–2,http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nn.2971.
18] Hidaka N, Suemaru K, Kato Y, Araki H. Involvement of �4�2 nico-tinic acetylcholine receptors in working memory impairment induced byrepeated electroconvulsive seizures in rats. Epilepsy Res 2013;104:181–5,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2012.09.017.
19] Yang Y, Paspalas CD, Jin LE, Picciotto MR, Arnsten AFT, Wang M.Nicotinic �7 receptors enhance NMDA cognitive circuits in dorsolat-eral prefrontal cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2013;110:12078–83,http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1307849110.
20] Deiana S, Platt B, Riedel G. The cholinergic system and spatial learning. BehavBrain Res 2011;221:389–411, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2010.11.036.
21] Xing B, Guo J, Meng X, Wei S, Li S. The dopamine D1 but not D3receptor plays a fundamental role in spatial working memory and BDNFexpression in prefrontal cortex of mice. Behav Brain Res 2012;235:36–41,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2012.06.035.
22] Wan P, Wang S, Zhang Y, Lv J, Jin QH. Involvement of dopamine D1 receptorsof the hippocampal dentate gyrus in spatial learning and memory deficits in arat model of vascular dementia. Pharmazie 2014;69:709–10.
23] Schmeichel BE, Zemlan FP, Berridge CW. A selective dopamine reuptakeinhibitor improves prefrontal cortex-dependent cognitive function: poten-tial relevance to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Neuropharmacology2013;64:321–8, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropharm.2012.07.005.
24] Olton DS, Collison C, Werz MA. Spatial memory and radial arm maze per-formance of rats. Learn Motiv 1977;8:289–314, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0023-9690(77)90054-6.
25] Olton DS, Paras BC. Spatial memory and hippocampal function. Neuropsycholo-gia 1979;17:669–82, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(79)90042-3.
26] Jarrard LE. On the role of the hippocampus in learning and memory in the rat.Behav Neural Biol 1993;60:9–26.
27] Seamans JK, Floresco SB, Phillips AG. Functional differences between theprelimbic and anterior cingulate regions of the rat prefrontal cortex. BehavNeurosci 1995;109:1063–73.
28] Kesner RP. Retrospective and prospective coding of information: role of themedial prefrontal cortex. Exp Brain Res 1989;74:163–7.
29] Dunnett SB. Role of prefrontal cortex and striatal output systems in short-term memory deficits associated with ageing, basal forebrain lesions, andcholinergic-rich grafts. Can J Psychol 1990;44:210–32.
30] Blumenfeld RS, Ranganath C. Prefrontal cortex and long-term memoryencoding: an integrative review of findings from neuropsychology andneuroimaging. Neuroscientist 2007;13:280–91, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
Please cite this article in press as: Shanmugasundaram B, et al. Frontlevel parallels spatial memory performance in the radial arm maze. Beh
1073858407299290.31] Ramírez-Amaya V, Balderas I, Sandoval J, Escobar ML, Bermúdez-Rattoni F. Spa-
tial long-term memory is related to mossy fiber synaptogenesis. J Neurosci OffJ Soc Neurosci 2001;21:7340–8.
[
[
PRESS Brain Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx 11
32] Trifilieff P, Rives M-L, Urizar E, Piskorowski RA, Vishwasrao HD, Castrillon J,et al. Detection of antigen interactions ex vivo by proximity ligation assay:endogenous dopamine D2-adenosine A2A receptor complexes in the striatum.BioTechniques 2011;51:111–8, http://dx.doi.org/10.2144/000113719.
33] Balasuriya D, Stewart AP, Edwardson JM. The �-1 receptor interacts directlywith GluN1 but not GluN2A in the GluN1/GluN2A NMDA receptor. J Neurosci2013;33:18219–24, http://dx.doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI. 3360-13.2013.
34] Sabine S. Dissection of rodent brain regions. In: Neuroproteomics. HumanaPress; 2011. p. 13–26.
35] Kang S-U, Fuchs K, Sieghart W, Pollak A, Csaszar E, Lubec G. Gel-basedmass spectrometric analysis of a strongly hydrophobic GABAA-receptor sub-unit containing four transmembrane domains. Nat Protoc 2009;4:1093–102,http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2009.92.
36] Welinder C, Ekblad L. Coomassie staining as loading control in Westernblot analysis. J Proteome Res 2011;10:1416–9, http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/pr1011476.
37] Sase S, Khan D, Sialana F, Höger H, Russo-Schlaff N, Lubec G. Modafinil improvesperformance in the multiple T-Maze and modifies GluR1, GluR2, D2 and NR1receptor complex levels in the C57BL/6J mouse. Amino Acids 2012;43:2285–92,http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00726-012-1306-y.
38] Falsafi SK, Deli A, Höger H, Pollak A, Lubec G. Scopolamine administra-tion modulates muscarinic, nicotinic and NMDA receptor systems. PloS One2012;7:e32082, http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032082.
39] Ganesan MK, Jovanovic M, Secerov B, Ignjatovic M, Bilban M, And-jus P, et al. Radiation protection from whole-body gamma irradiation(6.7 Gy): behavioural effects and brain protein-level changes by an aminoth-iol compound GL2011 in the Wistar rat. Amino Acids 2014;46:1681–96,http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00726-014-1728-9.
40] Heidbreder CA, Groenewegen HJ. The medial prefrontal cortex in the rat: evi-dence for a dorso-ventral distinction based upon functional and anatomicalcharacteristics. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2003;27:555–79, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2003.09.003.
41] Mazmanian DS, Roberts WA. Spatial memory in rats under restrictedviewing conditions. Learn Motiv 1983;14:123–39, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0023-9690(83)90001-2.
42] Abraham WC, Mason SE, Demmer J, Williams JM, Richardson CL, Tate WP, et al.Correlations between immediate early gene induction and the persistence oflong-term potentiation. Neuroscience 1993;56:717–27.
43] Guzowski JF, McNaughton BL, Barnes CA, Worley PF. Environment-specificexpression of the immediate-early gene Arc in hippocampal neuronal ensem-bles. Nat Neurosci 1999;2:1120–4, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/16046.
44] Montag-Sallaz M, Welzl H, Kuhl D, Montag D, Schachner M. Novelty-inducedincreased expression of immediate-early genes c-fos and arg 3.1 in the mousebrain. J Neurobiol 1999;38:234–46.
45] Zhang Y, Fukushima H, Kida S. Induction and requirement of gene expres-sion in the anterior cingulate cortex and medial prefrontal cortex forthe consolidation of inhibitory avoidance memory. Mol Brain 2011;4:4,http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1756-6606-4-4.
46] Link W, Konietzko U, Kauselmann G, Krug M, Schwanke B, Frey U, et al. Soma-todendritic expression of an immediate early gene is regulated by synapticactivity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1995;92:5734–8.
47] Lyford GL, Yamagata K, Kaufmann WE, Barnes CA, Sanders LK, CopelandNG, et al. Arc, a growth factor and activity-regulated gene, encodes a novelcytoskeleton-associated protein that is enriched in neuronal dendrites. Neuron1995;14:433–45.
48] Hasselmo ME. A model of prefrontal cortical mechanisms for goal-directedbehavior. J Cogn Neurosci 2005;17:1115–29, http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/0898929054475190.
49] Miller EK, Cohen JD. An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex func-tion. Annu Rev Neurosci 2001;24:167–202, http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.167.
50] Vertes RP. Interactions among the medial prefrontal cortex, hippocam-pus and midline thalamus in emotional and cognitive processing in therat. Neuroscience 2006;142:1–20, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2006.06.027.
51] Guzowski JF, Lyford GL, Stevenson GD, Houston FP, McGaugh JL, WorleyPF, et al. Inhibition of activity-dependent arc protein expression in the rathippocampus impairs the maintenance of long-term potentiation and theconsolidation of long-term memory. J Neurosci Off J Soc Neurosci 2000;20:3993–4001.
52] Robertson HA. Immediate-early genes, neuronal plasticity, and memory.Biochem Cell Biol Biochim Biol Cell 1992;70:729–37.
53] Kaczmarek L. Molecular biology of vertebrate learning: is c-fos a newbeginning? J Neurosci Res 1993;34:377–81, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jnr.490340402.
54] Vnek N, Rothblat LA. The hippocampus and long-term object memory in therat. J Neurosci Off J Soc Neurosci 1996;16:2780–7.
al cortex and hippocampus neurotransmitter receptor complexav Brain Res (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2015.04.043
55] Jarrard LE. Selective hippocampal lesions and behavior: effects of kainicacid lesions on performance of place and cue tasks. Behav Neurosci1983;97:873–89.
56] Keihan Falsafi S, Ghafari M, Pollak A, Höger H, Lubec G. Hippocampal AMPA-type receptor complexes containing GluR3 and GluR4 are paralleling training
792
793
794
795
796
ING ModelB
1 ioural
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
ARTICLEBR 9565 1–12
2 B. Shanmugasundaram et al. / Behav
in the Multiple T-Maze. Neurochem Int 2012;60:425–30, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuint.2012.01.005.
57] Ghafari M, Falsafi SK, Hoeger H, Lubec G. Hippocampal levels of GluR1and GluR2 complexes are modulated by training in the multiple T-Mazein C57BL/6J mice. Brain Struct Funct 2012;217:353–62, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00429-011-0335-8.
58] Saroja SR, Kim E-J, Shanmugasundaram B, Höger H, Lubec G. Hip-pocampal monoamine receptor complex levels linked to spatial mem-ory decline in the aging C57BL/6J. Behav Brain Res 2014;264:1–8,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2014.01.042.
59] Collingridge GL, Olsen RW, Peters J, Spedding M. A nomenclature for ligand-gated ion channels. Neuropharmacology 2009;56:2–5, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropharm.2008.06.063.
60] Mitsushima D, Ishihara K, Sano A, Kessels HW, Takahashi T. Contextuallearning requires synaptic AMPA receptor delivery in the hippocam-pus. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2011;108:12503–8, http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1104558108.
61] Rumpel S, LeDoux J, Zador A, Malinow R. Postsynaptic receptor traf-ficking underlying a form of associative learning. Science 2005;308:83–8,http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1103944.
62] Bannerman DM. Fractionating spatial memory with glutamate recep-tor subunit-knockout mice. Biochem Soc Trans 2009;37:1323–7,http://dx.doi.org/10.1042/BST0371323.
63] Freudenberg F, Marx V, Seeburg PH, Sprengel R, Celikel T. Circuit mechanisms ofGluA1-dependent spatial working memory. Hippocampus 2013;23:1359–66,http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hipo.22184.
64] Joels G, Lamprecht R. Interaction between N-ethylmaleimide-sensitive factorand GluR2 is essential for fear memory formation in lateral amygdala. J Neurosci2010;30:15981–6, http://dx.doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI. 1872-10.2010.
65] Shi S, Hayashi Y, Esteban JA, Malinow R. Subunit-specific rules governingAMPA receptor trafficking to synapses in hippocampal pyramidal neurons. Cell2001;105:331–43.
66] Malinow R, Malenka RC. AMPA receptor trafficking and synaptic plastic-ity. Annu Rev Neurosci 2002;25:103–26, http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.
Please cite this article in press as: Shanmugasundaram B, et al. Frontlevel parallels spatial memory performance in the radial arm maze. Beh
neuro.25.112701.142758.67] Subramaniyan S, Heo S, Patil S, Li L, Hoger H, Pollak A, et al. A hippocam-
pal nicotinic acetylcholine alpha 7-containing receptor complex is linked tomemory retrieval in the multiple-T-maze in C57BL/6j mice. Behav Brain Res2014;270:137–45, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2014.05.012.
[
PRESS Brain Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
68] Castner SA, Smagin GN, Piser TM, Wang Y, Smith JS, Christian EP, et al.Immediate and sustained improvements in working memory after selec-tive stimulation of �7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. Biol Psychiatry2011;69:12–8, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2010.08.006.
69] Boess FG, De Vry J, Erb C, Flessner T, Hendrix M, Luithle J, et al. The novel alpha7nicotinic acetylcholine receptor agonist N-[(3R)-1-azabicyclo[2.2.2]oct-3-yl]-7-[2-(methoxy)phenyl]-1-benzofuran-2-carboxamide improves working andrecognition memory in rodents. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2007;321:716–25,http://dx.doi.org/10.1124/jpet.106.118976.
70] Huang Y-Y, Kandel ER. Age-related enhancement of a protein synthesis-dependent late phase of LTP induced by low frequency paired-pulsestimulation in hippocampus. Learn Mem Cold Spring Harb N 2006;13:298–306,http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/lm.166906.
71] Rossato JI, Bevilaqua LRM, Izquierdo I, Medina JH, Cammarota M. Dopaminecontrols persistence of long-term memory storage. Science 2009;325:1017–20,http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1172545.
72] Thompson JL, Rosell DR, Slifstein M, Girgis RR, Xu X, Ehrlich Y, et al. Pre-frontal dopamine D1 receptors and working memory in schizotypal personalitydisorder: a PET study with [(11)C]NNC112. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2014,http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00213-014-3566-6.
73] Kebir O, Tabbane K. Working memory in schizophrenia: a review. L’Encéphale2008;34:289–98, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.encep.2006.12.008.
74] Aultman JM, Moghaddam B. Distinct contributions of glutamate and dopaminereceptors to temporal aspects of rodent working memory using a clinicallyrelevant task. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2001;153:353–64.
75] Sarantis K, Matsokis N, Angelatou F. Synergistic interactions of dopamineD1 and glutamate NMDA receptors in rat hippocampus and prefrontalcortex: Involvement of ERK1/2 signaling. Neuroscience 2009;163:1135–45,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2009.07.056.
76] Kruse MS, Prémont J, Krebs M-O, Jay TM. Interaction of dopamine D1 withNMDA NR1 receptors in rat prefrontal cortex. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol2009;19:296–304, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.euroneuro.2008.12.006.
77] Lee FJS, Xue S, Pei L, Vukusic B, Chéry N, Wang Y, et al. Dualregulation of NMDA receptor functions by direct protein-proteininteractions with the dopamine D1 receptor. Cell 2002;111:219–30,
al cortex and hippocampus neurotransmitter receptor complexav Brain Res (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2015.04.043
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0092-8674(02)00962-5.78] Nai Q, Li S, Wang S-H, Liu J, Lee FJS, Frankland PW, et al. Uncoupling the D1-
N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor complex promotes NMDA-dependentlong-term potentiation and working memory. Biol Psychiatry 2010;67:246–54,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2009.08.011.
870
871
872
873
874
Top Related