The flying Wallendas of the synapse

Is anything similar to the flying Wallendas ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Flying_Wallendas) going on in the synapse? The first electron micrographs of the synaptic cleft back in the day showed a clear space about 400 Angstroms (40 nanoMeters) thick.  Well we now know that there are tons of proteins occupying this space — a copy of a previous post

The bouillabaisse of the synaptic cleft

appears after the **** at the end of this post.  It shows just how many proteins occupy that clear space. Could a presynaptic protein directly bond to a postsynaptic protein across the cleft (perhaps with the help of a third or fourth Wallenda protein between the two?  A nice review [ Neuron vol. 96 pp. 680 – 696 ’17b ] http://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(17)30935-2 sets out what is known.

We know that neurexins (presynaptic) bind to neuroligins (postsynaptic) across the cleft.  This is the best studied pair, and most of the earlier post discusses what is known about them.

Figure 1c p. 682 is particularly fascinating as it shows that there are many more molecules which shake hands across the cleft.  Even more interesting is the fact that just where they are relative to the center/periphery of  the synapses isn’t shown for the neurexin/neuroligin pair and the LAR/Strk pair (e.g. one of the best studied pairs) because apparently this isn’t known.   The ephrins/ephrin pair and the syncam pair are in the center, while N-cadherin is shown at the edge.

One of the crucial elements of the post-synaptic membrane, the AMPAR receptor for glutamic protrudes its amino terminal domain 1/3 of the way across the cleft (assuming it is 40 nanoMeters thick).

Postsynaptic receptors are said to be clustered in nanoDomains 80 – 100 nanoMeters in diameter, Similarly, presynaptic RIM nanoClusters are the same size and are said to be aligned with postSynaptic nanoClusters of PSD95 as measured by 3D-STORM, the current most cutting edge technique we have for visualizing these things [ Nature vol. 536 pp. 210 – 214 ’17 ].

So, all in all, the paper is fascinating and shows how much more there is to know.

Unfortunately the paper contains one statement which raises my chemical hackles;  “A consistent prediction across models is that the glutamate concentration profile reaches a very high peak (over 1 milliMolar), but only for a brief time period (100 milliSeconds) and over a small distance (100 nanoMeters).” Glutamate is the major excitatory neurotransmitter in brain and is what binds to AMPAR.

Models are lovely, but how many molecules of glutamic acid are they talking about?  It’s easy (but tedious) to figure this out.

We know the volume they are talking about: a cylinder 100 nanoMeters in diameter and 40 nanoMeters tall (the width of the synaptic cleft).   So it contains pi * 100 * 40 = 12,566 cubic nanometers –round this down to 10^4 cubic nanoMeters. A liter is a cube .1 meters (10 centimeters) on a side. So 10 centimeters is 10^8 nanoMeters, meaning that a liter contains (10^8)^3 = 10^24 cubic nanoMeters.

A 1 molar solution of anything contains 6 * 10^23 molecules per liter (Avogadro’s number), so a 1 milliMolar solution (of glutamate in this case) contains 6 * 10^20 molecules/liter or  6 * 10^-4 molecules per cubic nanoMeter. Multiply this by the volume of the cylinder and you get a grand total of 6 molecules of glutamic acid in the cylinder.

If I’ve done the calculations correctly (and I think I have), “a very high peak (over 1 milliMolar)” is basically scientific garbage, the concept of concentration being stretched far beyond its range of meaningful applicability.

I’d love to stand corrected if my calculations are incorrect. Just make a comment.

 

*****

The bouillabaisse of the synaptic cleft

The synaptic cleft is so small ( under 400 Angstroms — 40 nanoMeters ) that it can’t be seen with the light microscope ( the smallest wavelength of visible light 3,900 Angstroms — 390 nanoMeters).  This led to a bruising battle between Cajal and Golgi a just over a century ago over whether the brain was actually made of cells.  Even though Golgi’s work led to the delineation of single neurons he thought the brain was a continuous network.  They both won the Nobel in 1906.

Semifast forward to the mid 60s when I was in medical school.  We finally had the electron microscope, so we could see synapses. They showed up as a small CLEAR spaces (e.g. electrons passed through it easily leaving it white) between neurons.  Neurotransmitters were being discovered at the same time and the synapse was to be the analogy to vacuum tubes, which could pass electricity in just one direction (yes, the transistor although invented hadn’t been used to make anything resembling a computer — the Intel 4004 wasn’t until the 70s).  Of course now we know that information flows back and forth across the synapse, with endocannabinoids (e. g. natural marihuana) being the major retrograde neurotransmitter.

Since there didn’t seem to be anything in the synaptic cleft, neurotransmitters were thought to freely diffuse across it to being to receptors on the other (postsynaptic) side e.g. a free fly zone.

Fast forward to the present to a marvelous (and grueling to read because of the complexity of the subject not the way it’s written) review of just what is in the synaptic cleft [ Cell vol. 171 pp. 745 – 769 ’17 ] http://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(17)31246-1 (It is likely behind a paywall).  There are over 120 references, and rather than being just a catalogue, the single author Thomas Sudhof extensively discusseswhich experimental work is to be believed (not that Sudhof  is saying the work is fraudulent, but that it can’t be used to extrapolate to the living human brain).  The review is a staggering piece of work for one individual.

The stuff in the synaptic cleft is so diverse, and so intimately involved with itself and the membranes on either side what what is needed for comprehension is not a chemist but a sociologist.  Probably most of the molecules to be discussed are present in such small numbers that the law of mass action doesn’t apply, nor do binding constants which rely on large numbers of ligands and receptors. Not only that, but the binding constants haven’t been been determined for many of the players.

Now for some anatomic detail and numbers.  It is remarkably hard to find just how far laterally the synaptic cleft extends.  Molecular Biology of the Cell ed. 5 p. 1149 has a fairly typical picture with a size marker and it looks to be about 2 microns (20,000 Angstroms, 2,000 nanoMeters) — that’s 314,159,265 square Angstroms (3.14 square microns).  So let’s assume each protein takes up a square 50 Angstroms on a side (2,500 square Angstroms).  That’s room for 125,600 proteins on each side assuming extremely dense packing.  However the density of acetyl choline receptors at the neuromuscular junction is 8,700/square micron, a packing also thought to be extremely dense which would give only 26,100 such proteins in a similarly distributed CNS synapse. So the numbers are at least in the right ball park (meaning they’re within an order of magnitude e.g. within a power of 10) of being correct.

What’s the point?

When you see how many different proteins and different varieties of the same protein reside in the cleft, the numbers for  each individual element is likely to be small, meaning that you can’t use statistical mechanics but must use sociology instead.

The review focuses on the neurExins (I capitalize the E  to help me remember that they are prEsynaptic).  Why?  Because they are the best studied of all the players.  What a piece of work they are.  Humans have 3 genes for them. One of the 3 contains 1,477 amino acids, spread over 1,112,187 basepairs (1.1 megaBases) along with 74 exons.  This means that just over 1/10 of a percent of the gene is actually coding for for the amino acids making it up.  I think it takes energy for RNA polymerase II to stitch the ribonucleotides into the 1.1 megabase pre-mRNA, but I couldn’t (quickly) find out how much per ribonucleotide.  It seems quite wasteful of energy, unless there is some other function to the process which we haven’t figured out yet.

Most of the molecule resides in the synaptic cleft.  There are 6 LNS domains with 3 interspersed EGFlike repeats, a cysteine loop domain, a transmembrane region and a cytoplasmic sequence of 55 amino acids. There are 6 sites for alternative splicing, and because there are two promoters for each of the 3 genes, there is a shorter form (beta neurexin) with less extracellular stuff than the long form (alpha-neurexin).  When all is said and done there are over 1,000 possible variants of the 3 genes.

Unlike olfactory neurons which only express one or two of the nearly 1,000 olfactory receptors, neurons express mutiple isoforms of each, increasing the complexity.

The LNS regions of the neurexins are like immunoglobulins and fill at 60 x 60 x 60 Angstrom box.  Since the synaptic cleft is at most 400 Angstroms long, the alpha -neurexins (if extended) reach all the way across.

Here the neurexins bind to the neuroligins which are always postsynaptic — sorry no mnemonic.  They are simpler in structure, but they are the product of 4 genes, and only about 40 isoforms (due to alternative splicing) are possible. Neuroligns 1, 3 and 4 are found at excitatory synapses, neuroligin 2 is found at inhibitory synapses.  The intracleft part of the neuroligins resembles an important enzyme (acetylcholinesterase) but which is catalytically inactive.  This is where the neurexins.

This is complex enough, but Sudhof notes that the neurexins are hubs interacting with multiple classes of post-synaptic molecules, in addition to the neuroligins — dystroglycan, GABA[A] receptors, calsystenins, latrophilins (of which there are 4).   There are at least 50 post-synaptic cell adhesion molecules — “Few are well understood, although many are described.”

The neurexins have 3 major sites where other things bind, and all sites may be occupied at once.  Just to give you a taste of he complexity involved (before I go on to  larger issues).

The second LNS domain (LNS2)is found only in the alpha-neurexins, and binds to neuroexophilin (of which there are 4) and dystroglycan .

The 6th LNS domain (LNS6) binds to neuroligins, LRRTMs, GABA[A] receptors, cerebellins and latrophilins (of which there are 4)_

The juxtamembrane sequence of the neurexins binds to CA10, CA11 and C1ql.

The cerebellins (of which there are 4) bind to all the neurexins (of a particular splice variety) and interestingly to some postsynaptic glutamic acid receptors.  So there is a direct chain across the synapse from neurexin to cerebellin to ion channel (GLuD1, GLuD2).

There is far more to the review. But here is something I didn’t see there.  People have talked about proton wires — sites on proteins that allow protons to jump from one site to another, and move much faster than they would if they had to bump into everything in solution.  Remember that molecules are moving quite rapidly — water is moving at 590 meters a second at room temperature. Since the synaptic cleft is 40 nanoMeters (40 x 10^-9 meters, it should take only 40 * 10^-9 meters/ 590 meters/second   60 trillionths of a second (60 picoSeconds) to cross, assuming the synapse is a free fly zone — but it isn’t as the review exhaustively shows.

It it possible that the various neurotransmitters at the synapse (glutamic acid, gamma amino butyric acid, etc) bind to the various proteins crossing the cleft to get their target in the postsynaptic membrane (e.g. neurotransmitter wires).  I didn’t see any mention of neurotransmitter binding to  the various proteins in the review.  This may actually be an original idea.

I’d like to put more numbers on many of these things, but they are devilishly hard to find.  Both the neuroligins and neurexins are said to have stalks pushing them out from the membrane, but I can’t find how many amino acids they contain.  It can’t find how much energy it takes to copy the 1.1 megabase neurexin gene in to mRNA (or even how much energy it takes to add one ribonucleotide to an existing mRNA chain).

Another point– proteins have a finite lifetime.  How are they replenished?  We know that there is some synaptic protein synthesis — does the cell body send packages of mRNAs to the synapse to be translated there.  There are at least 50 different proteins mentioned in the review, and don’t forget the thousands of possible isoforms, each of which requires a separate mRNA.

Old Chinese saying — the mountains are high and the emperor is far away. Protein synthesis at the synaptic cleft is probably local.  How what gets made and when is an entirely different problem.

A large part of the review concerns mutations in all these proteins associated with neurologic disease (particularly autism).  This whole area has a long and checkered history.  A high degree of cynicism is needed before believing that any of these mutations are causative.  As a neurologist dealing with epilepsy I saw the whole idea of ion channel mutations causing epilepsy crash and burn — here’s a link — https://luysii.wordpress.com/2011/07/17/we’ve-found-the-mutation-causing-your-disease-not-so-fast-says-this-paper/

Once again, hats off to Dr. Sudhof for what must have been a tremendous amount of work

Advertisements

Been busy

I haven’t posted for a while because I’ve been writing a letter to PNAS concerning my idea that chronic fatigue syndrome symptoms are a manifestation of an excess of senescent cells pumping out all sorts of inflammatory proteins into the systemic circulation.  The way to prove or disprove the idea is to measure p15^INK4a in circulating white cells.  The letter is now written and my wife is attempting to put it into English.  For details about the idea please see https://luysii.wordpress.com/2017/09/04/is-the-era-of-precision-medicine-for-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-at-hand/.  Wish me luck that the letter is accepted.

Why drug discovery is hard #29 — a very old player doing a very new thing

We all know what RNA does don’t we?  It binds to other RNAs and to DNA.  Sure lots of new forms of RNA have been found: microRNAs, competitive endogenous RNA (ceRNA), long nonCoding (for protein) RNA (lncRNA), piwiRNAs, small interfering RNAs (siRNAs), . .. The list appears endless.  But the basic mechanism of action of RNA in the cell is binding to some other polynucleotide (RNA or DNA) and affecting its function.

Not so fast.  A new paper http://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6366/1051 describes  lncRNA-ACOD1, a cellular RNA induced by a variety of viruses.  lncRNA-ACOD1 binds to an enzyme enhancing its catalytic efficiency.  Now that’s new.  Certainly RNAs and proteins bind to each other in the ribosome, and in RNAase P, but here the proteins serve to structure the RNA so it can carry out its catalytic function, not the other way around.

The enzyme bound is called GOT2 (Glutamic Oxaloacetic Transaminase 2).  Much interesting cellular biochemistry is discussed in the paper which I’ll skip, except to say that the virus uses the hyped up GOT2 to repurpose the cell’s metabolic machinery for its own evil ends.

lncRNA-ACOD1 has 3 exons and a polyAdenine tail.  There are two transcript variants containing  2,330 and 2,259 nucleotides.  There are only 100 copies/cell.  lncRNA-ACOD1 nucleotides #165 – #390 bind to amino acids #54 – #68 of GOT2.

So what are the other 2000 or so nucleotides of lncRNA-ACOD1 doing?   The phenomenon of RNA binding to protein is quite likely to be more widespread.  Both the GOT2 interacting motif and the interacting sequence of lncRNA-ACOD1 are well conserved across species of hosts and viruses.

Although viruses co-opt lncRNA-ACOD1, it is normally expressed in the heart as is GOT2 with no viral infection at all.  So we have likely stumbled onto an entirely new method of cellular metabolic control, AND a whole new set of players and interactions for drugs to act on (if they aren’t already doing this unknown to us).

This is series member #29 of why drug development is hard, most of which concentrated on the fact that we don’t know all the players.  lncRNA-ACOD1 is different — RNA is a player we’ve known for a very long time  but it appears to be playing a game entirely new to us.

It is also good to see cutting edge research like this coming out of China.  Hopefully it will stand up, but enough questionable stuff has come from them that every Chinese paper is under a cloud.

This is why I love reading the current literature.  You never know what you’re going to find.  It’s like opening presents.

A few Thanksgiving thank you’s

As CEO of a very large organization, it’s time to thank those unsung divisions that make it all possible.  Fellow CEOs should take note and act appropriately regardless of the year it’s been for them.

First: thanks to the guys in shipping and receiving.  Kinesin moves the stuff out and Dynein brings it back home.  Think of how far they have to go.  The head office sits in area 4 of the cerebral cortex and K & D have to travel about 3 feet down to the motorneurons in the first sacral segment of the spinal cord controlling the gastrocnemius and soleus, so the boss can press the pedal on his piano when he wants. Like all good truckers, they travel on the highway.  But instead of rolling they jump.  The highway is pretty lumpy being made of 13 rows of tubulin dimers.

Now chemists are very detail oriented and think in terms of Angstroms (10^-10 meters) about the size of a hydrogen atom. As CEO and typical of cell biologists, I have to think in terms of the big picture, so I think in terms of nanoMeters (10^-9 meters).  Each tubulin dimer is 80 nanoMeters long, and K & D essentially jump from one to the other in 80 nanoMeter steps.  Now the boss is shrinking as he gets older, but my brothers working for players in the NBA have to go more than a meter to contract the gastrocnemius and soleus (among other muscles) to help their bosses jump.  So split the distance and call the distance they have to go one Meter.  How many jumps do Kinesin and Dynein have to make to get there? Just 10^9/80 — call it 10,000,000. The boys also have to jump from one microtubule to another, as the longest microtubule in our division is at most 100 microns (.1 milliMeter).  So even in the best of cases they have to make at least 10,000 transfers between microtubules.  It’s a miracle they get the job done at all.

To put this in perspective, consider a tractor trailer (not a truck — the part with the motor is the tractor, and the part pulled is the trailer — the distinction can be important, just like the difference between rifle and gun as anyone who’s been through basic training knows quite well).  Say the trailer is 48 feet long, and let that be comparable to the 80 nanoMeters K and D have to jump. That’s 10,000,000 jumps of 48 feet or 90,909 miles.  It’s amazing they get the job done.

Second: Thanks to probably the smallest member of the team.  The electron.  Its brain has to be tiny, yet it has mastered quantum mechanics because it knows how to tunnel through a potential barrier.   In order to produce the fuel for K and D it has to tunnel some 20 Angstroms from the di-copper center (CuA) to heme a in cytochrome C oxidase (COX).  Is the electron conscious? Who knows?  I don’t tell it what to do.   Now COX is just a part of one of our larger divisions, the power plant (the mitochondrion).

Third: The power plant.  Amazing to think that it was once (a billion years or more ago) a free living bacterium.  Somehow back in the mists of time one of our predecessors captured it.  The power plant produces gas (ATP) for the motors to work.  It’s really rather remarkable when you think of it.   Instead of carrying a tank of ATP, kinesin and dynein literally swim in the stuff, picking it up from the surroundings as they move down the microtubule.  Amazingly the entire division doesn’t burn up, but just uses the ATP when and where needed.  No spontaneous combustion.

There are some other unsung divisions to talk about (I haven’t forgotten you ladies in the steno pool, and your incredible accuracy — 1 mistake per 100,000,000 letters [ Science vol. 328 pp. 636 – 639 ’10 ]).  But that’s for next time.

To think that our organization arose by chance, working by finding a slightly better solution to problems it face boggles this CEO’s mind (but that’s the current faith — so good to see such faith in an increasingly secular world).

The bouillabaisse of the synaptic cleft

The synaptic cleft is so small ( under 400 Angstroms — 40 nanoMeters ) that it can’t be seen with the light microscope ( the smallest wavelength of visible light 3,900 Angstroms — 390 nanoMeters).  This led to a bruising battle between Cajal and Golgi a just over a century ago over whether the brain was actually made of cells.  Even though Golgi’s work led to the delineation of single neurons he thought the brain was a continuous network.  They both won the Nobel in 1906.

Semifast forward to the mid 60s when I was in medical school.  We finally had the electron microscope, so we could see synapses. They showed up as a small CLEAR spaces (e.g. electrons passed through it easily leaving it white) between neurons.  Neurotransmitters were being discovered at the same time and the synapse was to be the analogy to vacuum tubes, which could pass electricity in just one direction (yes, the transistor although invented hadn’t been used to make anything resembling a computer — the Intel 4004 wasn’t until the 70s).  Of course now we know that information flows back and forth across the synapse, with endocannabinoids (e. g. natural marihuana) being the major retrograde neurotransmitter.

Since there didn’t seem to be anything in the synaptic cleft, neurotransmitters were thought to freely diffuse across it to being to receptors on the other (postsynaptic) side e.g. a free fly zone.

Fast forward to the present to a marvelous (and grueling to read because of the complexity of the subject not the way it’s written) review of just what is in the synaptic cleft [ Cell vol. 171 pp. 745 – 769 ’17 ] http://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(17)31246-1 (It is likely behind a paywall).  There are over 120 references, and rather than being just a catalogue, the single author Thomas Sudhof extensively discusseswhich experimental work is to be believed (not that Sudhof  is saying the work is fraudulent, but that it can’t be used to extrapolate to the living human brain).  The review is a staggering piece of work for one individual.

The stuff in the synaptic cleft is so diverse, and so intimately involved with itself and the membranes on either side what what is needed for comprehension is not a chemist but a sociologist.  Probably most of the molecules to be discussed are present in such small numbers that the law of mass action doesn’t apply, nor do binding constants which rely on large numbers of ligands and receptors. Not only that, but the binding constants haven’t been been determined for many of the players.

Now for some anatomic detail and numbers.  It is remarkably hard to find just how far laterally the synaptic cleft extends.  Molecular Biology of the Cell ed. 5 p. 1149 has a fairly typical picture with a size marker and it looks to be about 2 microns (20,000 Angstroms, 2,000 nanoMeters) — that’s 314,159,265 square Angstroms (3.14 square microns).  So let’s assume each protein takes up a square 50 Angstroms on a side (2,500 square Angstroms).  That’s room for 125,600 proteins on each side assuming extremely dense packing.  However the density of acetyl choline receptors at the neuromuscular junction is 8,700/square micron, a packing also thought to be extremely dense which would give only 26,100 such proteins in a similarly distributed CNS synapse. So the numbers are at least in the right ball park (meaning they’re within an order of magnitude e.g. within a power of 10) of being correct.

What’s the point?

When you see how many different proteins and different varieties of the same protein reside in the cleft, the numbers for  each individual element is likely to be small, meaning that you can’t use statistical mechanics but must use sociology instead.

The review focuses on the neurExins (I capitalize the E  to help me remember that they are prEsynaptic).  Why?  Because they are the best studied of all the players.  What a piece of work they are.  Humans have 3 genes for them. One of the 3 contains 1,477 amino acids, spread over 1,112,187 basepairs (1.1 megaBases) along with 74 exons.  This means that just over 1/10 of a percent of the gene is actually coding for for the amino acids making it up.  I think it takes energy for RNA polymerase II to stitch the ribonucleotides into the 1.1 megabase pre-mRNA, but I couldn’t (quickly) find out how much per ribonucleotide.  It seems quite wasteful of energy, unless there is some other function to the process which we haven’t figured out yet.

Most of the molecule resides in the synaptic cleft.  There are 6 LNS domains with 3 interspersed EGFlike repeats, a cysteine loop domain, a transmembrane region and a cytoplasmic sequence of 55 amino acids. There are 6 sites for alternative splicing, and because there are two promoters for each of the 3 genes, there is a shorter form (beta neurexin) with less extracellular stuff than the long form (alpha-neurexin).  When all is said and done there are over 1,000 possible variants of the 3 genes.

Unlike olfactory neurons which only express one or two of the nearly 1,000 olfactory receptors, neurons express mutiple isoforms of each, increasing the complexity.

The LNS regions of the neurexins are like immunoglobulins and fill at 60 x 60 x 60 Angstrom box.  Since the synaptic cleft is at most 400 Angstroms long, the alpha -neurexins (if extended) reach all the way across.

Here the neurexins bind to the neuroligins which are always postsynaptic — sorry no mnemonic.  They are simpler in structure, but they are the product of 4 genes, and only about 40 isoforms (due to alternative splicing) are possible. Neuroligns 1, 3 and 4 are found at excitatory synapses, neuroligin 2 is found at inhibitory synapses.  The intracleft part of the neuroligins resembles an important enzyme (acetylcholinesterase) but which is catalytically inactive.  This is where the neurexins.

This is complex enough, but Sudhof notes that the neurexins are hubs interacting with multiple classes of post-synaptic molecules, in addition to the neuroligins — dystroglycan, GABA[A] receptors, calsystenins, latrophilins (of which there are 4).   There are at least 50 post-synaptic cell adhesion molecules — “Few are well understood, although many are described.”

The neurexins have 3 major sites where other things bind, and all sites may be occupied at once.  Just to give you a taste of he complexity involved (before I go on to  larger issues).

The second LNS domain (LNS2)is found only in the alpha-neurexins, and binds to neuroexophilin (of which there are 4) and dystroglycan .

The 6th LNS domain (LNS6) binds to neuroligins, LRRTMs, GABA[A] receptors, cerebellins and latrophilins (of which there are 4)_

The juxtamembrane sequence of the neurexins binds to CA10, CA11 and C1ql.

The cerebellins (of which there are 4) bind to all the neurexins (of a particular splice variety) and interestingly to some postsynaptic glutamic acid receptors.  So there is a direct chain across the synapse from neurexin to cerebellin to ion channel (GLuD1, GLuD2).

There is far more to the review. But here is something I didn’t see there.  People have talked about proton wires — sites on proteins that allow protons to jump from one site to another, and move much faster than they would if they had to bump into everything in solution.  Remember that molecules are moving quite rapidly — water is moving at 590 meters a second at room temperature. Since the synaptic cleft is 40 nanoMeters (40 x 10^-9 meters, it should take only 40 * 10^-9 meters/ 590 meters/second   60 trillionths of a second (60 picoSeconds) to cross, assuming the synapse is a free fly zone — but it isn’t as the review exhaustively shows.

It it possible that the various neurotransmitters at the synapse (glutamic acid, gamma amino butyric acid, etc) bind to the various proteins crossing the cleft to get their target in the postsynaptic membrane (e.g. neurotransmitter wires).  I didn’t see any mention of neurotransmitter binding to  the various proteins in the review.  This may actually be an original idea.

I’d like to put more numbers on many of these things, but they are devilishly hard to find.  Both the neuroligins and neurexins are said to have stalks pushing them out from the membrane, but I can’t find how many amino acids they contain.  It can’t find how much energy it takes to copy the 1.1 megabase neurexin gene in to mRNA (or even how much energy it takes to add one ribonucleotide to an existing mRNA chain).

Another point– proteins have a finite lifetime.  How are they replenished?  We know that there is some synaptic protein synthesis — does the cell body send packages of mRNAs to the synapse to be translated there.  There are at least 50 different proteins mentioned in the review, and don’t forget the thousands of possible isoforms, each of which requires a separate mRNA.

Old Chinese saying — the mountains are high and the emperor is far away. Protein synthesis at the synaptic cleft is probably local.  How what gets made and when is an entirely different problem.

A large part of the review concerns mutations in all these proteins associated with neurologic disease (particularly autism).  This whole area has a long and checkered history.  A high degree of cynicism is needed before believing that any of these mutations are causative.  As a neurologist dealing with epilepsy I saw the whole idea of ion channel mutations causing epilepsy crash and burn — here’s a link — https://luysii.wordpress.com/2011/07/17/we’ve-found-the-mutation-causing-your-disease-not-so-fast-says-this-paper/

Once again, hats off to Dr. Sudhof for what must have been a tremendous amount of work

Antibodies without antibodies

If you knew exactly how an important class of antibodies interacted with its target, could you design a (relatively) small molecule to act the same way.  These people did, and the work has very exciting implications for infectious disease [ Science vol. 358 pp. 450 – 451, 496 – 502 ’17 ].

The influenza virus is a very slippery target.  Its genome is made of RNA, and copying it is quite error prone, so that mutants are formed all the time.  That’s why the vaccines of yesteryear are useless today.   However there are things called broadly neutralizing antibodies which work against many strains of the virus.  It attacks a vulnerable site on the hemagglutinin protein (HA) of the virus.  It is in the stem of the virus, and binding of the antibody here prevents the conformational change required for the virus to escape the endosome, a fact interesting in itself in that it implies that it only works after the virus enters the cell, although the authors do not explicitly state this.

Study of one broadly neutralizing antibody showed that binding to the site was mediated by a single hypervariable loop.  So the authors worked with a cyclic peptide mimicking the loop.  This has several advantages, in particular the fact that the entropic work of forcing a floppy protein chain into the binding conformation is already done before the peptide meets its target.

The final cyclic peptide contained 11 amino acids, of which 5 weren’t natural. It neutralized pandemic H1 and avaian H5 influenza A strains at nanoMolar concentration.

It’s important that crystal structures of the broadly neutralizing antibody binding to HA were available — this requires atomic level resolution.  I’m not sure cryoEM is there yet.

Time for a funny

Members of the Massachusetts Caucus of Women Legislators are calling for additional steps to combat sexual harassment on Beacon Hill  — including mandatory training.  For those from other states, Beacon Hill is the site of the Massachusetts legislature in Boston.

One irate lawmaker complained that mandatory training was a waste of hard-earned taxpayer dollars as he was already quite adept at it.

The current composition of the legislature is 123 Democratic 34 Republican 1 Independent 2 Vacancies.

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/10/female_lawmakers_call_for_mand.html

How a first rate mathematician thinks

For someone studying math on their own far from academe, the Math Stack Exhange is a blessing.  There must be people who look at it all day, answering questions as they arise, presumably accumulating some sort of points (either real points or virtue points).  Usually answers to my questions are answered by these people within a day (often hours).  But not this one.

“It is clear to me that a surface of constant negative Gaussian curvature satisfies the hyperbolic axiom (more than one ‘straight’ line not meeting a given ‘straight’ line). Hartshorne (Geometry: Euclid and Beyond p. 374) defines the hyperbolic plane as the Hilbert plane + the hyperbolic axiom.

I’d like a proof that this axiomatic definition of the hyperbolic plane implies a surface of constant negative Gaussian curvature. ”

Clearly a highly technical question.  So why bore you with this?  Because no answer was quickly forthcoming, I asked one of my math professor friends about it.  His response is informal, to the point, and more importantly, shows how a first rate mathematician thinks and explains things.  I assure you that this guy is a big name in mathematics — full prof for years and years, author of several award winning math books etc. etc.  He’s also a very normal appearing and acting individual, and a very nice guy.  So here goes.

” Proving that the axiomatic definition of hyperbolic geometry implies constant negative curvature can be done but requires a lot of work. The first thing you have to do is prove that given any two points p and q in the hyperbolic plane, there is an isometry that takes p to q. By a basic theorem of Gauss, this implies that the Gaussian curvature K is the same at p and q. Hence K is constant. Then the Gauss-Bonnet Theorem says that if you have a geodesic triangle T with angles A, B, C, you have

A+B+C = pi + integral of K over T = pi + K area(T)

since K is constant. This implies K area(T) = A+B+C-pi < 0 by a basic result in hyperbolic geometry. Hence K must be negative, so we have constant negative curvature.

To get real numbers into the HIlbert plane H, you need to impose "rulers" on the lines of H. The idea is that you pick one line L in H and mark two points on it. The axioms then give a bijection from L to the real numbers R that takes the two points to 0 and 1, and then every line in H gets a similar bijection which gives a "ruler" for each line. This allows you to assign lengths to all line segments, which gives a metric. With more work, you get a setup that allows you to get a Riemannian metric on H, hence a curvature, and the lines in H become geodesics in this metric since they minimize distance. All of this takes a LOT of work.

It is a lot easier to build a model that satisfies the axioms. Since the axioms are categorical (all models are isomorphic), you can prove theorems in the model. Doing axiomatic proofs in geometry can be grueling if you insist on justifying every step by an axiom or previous result. When I teach geometry, I try to treat the axioms with a light touch."

I responded to this

"Thanks a lot. It certainly explains why I couldn’t figure this out on my own. An isometry of the hyperbolic plane implies the existence a metric on it. Where does the metric come from? In my reading the formula for the metric seems very ad hoc. "

He got back saying —

"Pick two points on a line and call one 0 and the other 1. By ruler and compass, you can then mark off points on the line that correspond to all rational numbers. But Hilbert also has an axiom of completeness, which gives a bijection between the line and the set of real numbers.

The crucial thing about the isometry group of the plane is that it transitive in the sense of group actions, so that if something happens at one point, then the same thing happens at any other point.

The method explained in my previous email gives a metric on the plane which seems a bit ad-hoc. But one can prove that any two metrics constructed this way are positive real number multiples of each other. "

We don’t understand amyloid very well

I must admit I was feeling pretty snarky about our understanding of amyloid and Alzheimer’s after the structure of Abeta42 was published.  In particular the structure explained why the alanine 42–> threonine 42 mutation was protective against Alzheimer’s disease while the alanine 42 –> valine 42 mutation increases the risk.  That’s all explained in the last post — https://luysii.wordpress.com/2017/10/12/abeta42-at-last/ — but a copy will appear at the end.

In that post I breathlessly hoped for the structure of aBeta40 which is known to be less toxic to neurons.  Well it’s here and it shows how little we understand about what does and what doesn’t form amyloid.  The structure appears in a paper about the amyloid formed by another protein (FUS) to be described later — Cell 171, 615–627, October 19, 2017 — figure 7 p. 624.

Now all Abeta40 lacks are the last 2 amino acids of Abeta42 — isoleucine at 41 and alanine at 42.  So solve the Schrodinger equation for it, and stack it up so it forms amyloid, or use your favorite molecular dynamics or other modeling tool.  Take a guess what it looks like.

Abeta42 is a dimer, a beta40 is a trimer, even though the first 40 amino acids of both are identical.

It gets worse. FUS (FUsed in Sarcoma) is a 526 amino acid protein which binds to RNA and is mostly found in the nucleus.  Neurologists are interested in it because over 50 mutations in have been found in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD).   FUS contains a low complexity domain (LCD) of 214 amino acids, 80% of which are one of 4 amino acids (glycine, serine, glutamine and tyrosine).  At high protein concentrations this domain of FUS forms long unbundled fibrils with the characteristic crossBeta structure of amyloid.  Only 57/214 of the LCD amino acids are part of the structured core of the amyloid — the rest are disordered.

Even worse the amino acids forming the amyloid core (#39 -#95) are NOT predicted by a variety of computational methods predicting amyloid formation (Agrescan, FISH, FOLDamyloid, Metamyl, PASTA 2.0).  The percentages of gly, ser, gln and tyr in the core forming region are pretty much the same as in the whole protein.  The core forming region has no repeats longer than 4 amino acids.

The same figure 7 has the structure of the amyloid formed by alpha-synuclein, which accumulates in the Lewy bodies of Parkinson’s disease.  It just has one peptide per layer of amyloid.

When you really understand something you can predict things, not just describe them as they are revealed.

 

Abeta42 at last

It’s easy to see why cryoEM got the latest chemistry Nobel.  It is telling us so much.  Particularly fascinating to me as a retired neurologist is the structure of the Abeta42 fibril reported in last Friday’s Science (vol. 358 pp. 116 – 119 ’17).

Caveats first.  The materials were prepared using an aqueous solution at low pH containing an organic cosolvent — so how physiologic could the structure actually be?  It probably is physiologic as the neurotoxicity of the fibrils to neurons in culture was the same as fibrils grown at neutral pH.  This still isn’t the same as fibrils grown in the messy concentrated chemical soup known as the cytoplasm.  Tending to confirm their findings is the fact that NMR and Xray diffraction on the crystals produced the same result.

The fibrils were unbranched and microns long (implying at least 2,000 layers of the beta sheets to be described).  The beta sheets stack in parallel and in register giving the classic crossBeta sheet structure.  They were made of two protofilaments winding around each other.  Each protofilament contains all 42 amino acids of Abeta42 and all of them form a completely flat beta sheet structure.

Feast your eyes on figure 2 p. 117.  In addition to showing the two beta sheets of the two protofilaments, it shows how they bind to each other.  Aspartic acid #1 of one sheet binds to lysine #28 of the other.  Otherwise the interface is quite hydrophobic.  Alanine2 of one sheet binds to alanine42 of the other, valine39 of one sheet binds to valine 39 of the other.  Most importantly isoLeucine 41 of one sheet binds to glycine38 of the other.

This is important since the difference between the less toxic Abeta40 and the toxic Abeta 42 are two hydrophobic amino acids Isoleucine 41 and Alanine 42.  This makes for a tighter, longer, more hydrophobic interface between the protofilaments stabilizing them.

That’s just a guess.  I can’t wait for work on Abeta40 to be reported at this resolution.

A few other points.  The beta sheet of each protomer is quite planar, but the planes of the two protomers are tilted by 10 degrees accounting for the helicity of the fibril. The fibril is a rhombus whose longest edge is about 70 Angstroms.

Even better the structure explains a mutation which is protective against Alzheimer’s.  This remains the strongest evidence (to me at least) that Abeta peptides are significantly involved in Alzheimer’s disease, therapeutic failures based on this idea notwithstanding.  The mutation is a change of alanine2 to threonine which can’t possibly snuggle up hydrophobically to isoleucine nearly as well as alanine did. This should significantly weaken the link between the two protofilaments and make fibril formation more difficult.

The Abeta structure of the paper also explains another mutation. This one increases the risk of Alzheimer’s disease (like many others which have been discovered).  It involves the same amino acid (alanine2) but this time it is changed to the morehydrophobic valine, probably resulting in a stronger hydrophobic interaction with isoLeucine41 (assuming that valine’s greater bulk doesn’t get in the way sterically).

Wonderful stuff to think and speculate about, now that we actually have some solid data to chew on.

Collusion !

 

With apologies to West Side Story (and Maria)

Collusion!

I’ve just found a thing called collusion

And suddenly that game

will never be the same

To me

Collusion !

I’ve just found the source of collusion

And suddenly I’ve found

How wonderful a source can be

Collusion !

Say it loud and there’s Hillary running

Say it soft to the media, it’s stunning

Collusion

I’ll never stop saying collusion

Collusion

The most beautiful sound I ever heard

WASHINGTON — The presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee paid for research that was included in a dossier made public in January that contained salacious claims about connections between Donald J. Trump, his associates and Russia.

A spokesperson for a law firm said on Tuesday that it had hired Washington-based researchers last year to gather damaging information about Mr. Trump on numerous subjects — including possible ties to Russia — on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the D.N.C.

The revelation, which emerged from a letter filed in court on Tuesday, is likely to fuel new partisan attacks over federal and congressional investigations into Russia’s attempts to disrupt last year’s election and whether any of Mr. Trump’s associates assisted in the effort.

Here’s a link to the whole article — https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/24/us/politics/clinton-dnc-russia-dossier.html