Chapter 2 Synapse Formation in Developing Neural Circuits
Introduction
The history of synapse biology starts at the end of the eighteenth century, with the studies of Luigi Galvani and his descriptions of “animal electricity.” In these classical studies, Galvani observed that he could induce the contraction of limb muscles when he inserted a metal hook into the medulla of the frog and attached the other end to an iron railing. These observations marked the first experimental demonstrations of synaptic transmission (Cowan and Kandel, 2001).
Most of the subsequent synaptic studies in the nineteenth century and earlier half of the twentieth century also focused around the functionality of synapses, or synaptic transmission. It is therefore befitting that the actual term “synapse” was not coined by a neuroanatomist, but by a physiologist named Charles Sherrington. Sherrington coined the term “synapse” to refer to the special connections from one nerve cell to another that facilitated the transmission of nervous impulses (Cowan and Kandel, 2001).
While physiologists and neuropharmacologists were functionally defining the concept of synapses, neuroanatomists tangled in a bitter debate on their existence. The main reason for this debate was that during the nineteenth century and earlier part of the twentieth century, nobody could visualize cell membranes and establish conclusively the existence of synapses. However, in spite of these technological limitations, some insightful neurobiologists garnered enough experimental evidence to propose the anatomical existence of synapses.
Most of these early observations came from a specialized synapse: the neuromuscular junction (NMJ). Because of its size, morphology and functional readouts, NMJs informed then, as they do now, most of our knowledge on synaptic biology. Taking advantage of this system, physiologist Willy Kühne and anatomist Wilhelm Krause independently hypothesized the existence of synapses at the site of contact between nerve cells and muscles (Cowan and Kandel, 2001).
The question of the existence of interneuronal synapses was much harder to settle. Synapses in the central nervous system are much smaller than NMJs, in closed apposition to one another and packed at very high densities. This made their visualization with the methods used during nineteenth century downright impossible and triggered the postulation of the “reticular theory”: the idea that the nervous system lacked functional separation of nerve cells and was syncytial, rather than synaptic, in nature (Cowan and Kandel, 2001, Westfall, 1996).
The theory turned out, of course, to be wrong. Although this was not conclusively shown until the advent of electron microscopy in the 1950s, the first evidence that neurons were discrete units came from developmental, pathological, and anatomical observations in the nineteenth century. Most notable among these early studies are Santiago Ramón y Cajal's. By using a method derived by Golgi, which stains only 1% of the cells, Cajal was able to visualize the morphology of individual cells in the context of the nervous system. His detailed characterization of neurons not only provided critical evidence for the neuron doctrine, but also stated the “Principios de la Especificidad de la Conexión”: the idea that nerve cells connect to each other in a specific fashion to form precise networks (Cowan and Kandel, 2001).
Although it would take another half a century for cell biologists to visualize synapses, Cajal's observations and insights at the turn of the nineteenth century provided the conceptual basis that has driven most of the neurodevelopmental questions since then. Over a century after Cajal's initial descriptions, we are still untangling the complex morass that is the central nervous system and tackling the questions staged by his landmark observations: How are the numerous cell types in the nervous system specified? What directs neurites to connect to each other? What are the cellular and molecular factors that underlie the “Principles of connection specificity”?
During the last century however, and thanks in great part to technical advances in cell biology, the field has made great progress in its understanding of the synaptic structure as it relates to synaptic function. Most notably, electron microscopy allowed the visualization of synapses for the first time in the 1950s. This work, spearheaded by George Palade and Keith Porter, provided unequivocal evidence for the neuron doctrine and the existence of synapses, and identified the different types of synapses and their structural components (Cowan and Kandel, 2001, De Camilli et al., 2001).
There are two general categories of synapses: electrical synapses and chemical synapses. Physiologists and neuropharmacologists functionally defined these two categories of synapses well before they were visualized by cell biologists (Cowan and Kandel, 2001). But the cell biological work that proceeded from the physiological studies demonstrated that these two functional categories corresponded to completely different structures. Electrical synapses are gap junctions that allow bidirectional propagation of signals, including electrical stimuli. They allow the fastest mode of electrical propagation across cells, and are now known to be important in synchronizing neural activity across networks (De Camilli et al., 2001). These gap junctions will not be further discussed in this chapter.
Chemical synapses allow communication between discontinuous neurons via the highly regulated secretion of chemical intermediate signals. Unlike electrical synapses, chemical synapses are polarized junctions that allow the flow of information in just a single direction. Because of their highly regulated and directional transfer of information, chemical synapses have been the focus of most of the synaptic biology studies, and as such will remain the focus of our chapter.
Although there is great morphological and molecular variability among chemical synapses, all chemical synapses share common structural and functional features (De Camilli et al., 2001). They consist of two asymmetrically juxtaposed components linking two separate cells: a presynaptic specialization and a postsynaptic region. The presynaptic specializations are specialized regions in the presynaptic cell with an abundance of neurotransmitter‐filled synaptic vesicles. Presynaptic specializations also contain the active zone structures that facilitate vesicle fusion and the release of neurotransmitter content to the intersynaptic space, called the synaptic cleft. The postsynaptic region is an area of the postsynaptic cell with a high concentration of neurotransmitter receptors, channels, and downstream signaling molecules. The neurotransmitters released by the presynaptic specializations are sensed by the receptors at the postsynaptic site, activating downstream signaling molecules, opening channels, and propagating the nervous impulse to the postsynaptic partner. These general features of the presynaptic and postsynaptic specializations are shared by all classes of synaptic structures.
The synaptic structure as described above is also very well conserved across evolution. Sea anemones and hydra (Phylum Cnidaria) have the most primitive nervous system, which consists of a diffuse network of neurons. These nerve nets, however, are connected via chemical and electrical synapses that are fully capable of transmitting and regulating information flow (Anderson and Spencer, 1989, Peteya, 1973, Westfall, 1996). Close inspection of these synaptic structures reveal that Cnidarian synapses have similar structural components as those of higher organisms, with defined presynaptic and postsynaptic specializations in close juxtaposition (Anderson and Spencer, 1989, Peteya, 1973, Westfall, 1996).
The presence of a conserved synaptic structure in these primitive nervous systems reveals that synapses are as ancient as the nervous system itself. This evolutionary conservation of the synaptic structure also underscores the importance of these specialized cell junctions in interneuronal communication and the functioning of the neural networks (Anderson and Spencer, 1989, Peteya, 1973, Westfall, 1996).
Interestingly, a recent study suggests that the evolution of the synaptic molecular machine might even precede the evolution of the nervous system (Sakarya et al., 2007). Although sponges (Phylum Porifera) are the only metazoans without a nervous system, it was found that sponges express a nearly complete set of postsynaptic protein homologues that are hypothesized to assemble into synaptic‐like scaffolds. Although sponges do not have neurons, these postsynaptic‐like structures are hypothesized to act as chemosensory structures capable of responding to environmental cues (Sakarya et al., 2007).
Other molecular components of the presynaptic machine, such as the synaptic vesicle cycle regulators, also predate the existence of the nervous system and are very well conserved across evolution (Sudhof, 2004). It is provocative that these macromolecular machines, presumable “building blocks” of the synapse, might be found even in the absence of a nervous system itself, an observation that underscores the importance and conservation of these signaling complexes throughout evolution (Sakarya et al., 2007).
Molecular and genetic studies in model invertebrate and vertebrate animals have also supported the notion that the ultrastructural conservation of synapses corresponds to a conservation at the molecular level. For instance, in the simple nervous system of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans, which consists of only 302 neurons, the number of neurotransmitters and receptors required for the proper functioning of its ∼5000 synapses approaches in complexity those used by the hundreds of trillions of synapses in the vertebrate nervous system (Rand and Nonet, 1997).
This suggests that throughout evolution, the increased capacity of information processing and storage observed in higher organisms is not the result of marked changes in the complexity of the synaptic structure. We speculate that this complexity results from an increasingly sophisticated neural framework in way of the abundance and organization of neural networks. Where, when, and how synapses form during development play critical roles on the wiring and function of neural networks. Although the neural network organization varies vastly across animals, the biological basis of synapses is shared from the simplest networks of Cnidaria to the complex neuropils of the human brain.
Section snippets
Synaptogenesis During Development
The organization of where, when, and how synapses are formed plays an instrumental role in directing the connectivity of circuits and organizing the neuroarchitecture that enables information processing, storage, and ultimately behaviors. As such, the developmental questions postulated by Cajal in his “Principles of connection specificity” are of great importance to our understanding of the assembly and function of the nervous system. What are the molecular and cellular factors that direct the
Building a Synapse
The process of guidance and target recognition is followed by synapse formation. How synapses are assembled is a formidable developmental question in its own right. As discussed previously, synapses need to form onto the right partner, at the right density, and at a specific subcellular location with respect to the dendrites. Moreover, the assembly of presynaptic sites also needs to match the postsynaptic densities in terms of localization and identity of the neurotransmitter and postsynaptic
Perspective
Correct circuit formation requires an intricate orchestration of multiple developmental events including cell migration, axon guidance, dendritic growth, target selection, and synaptogenesis (Juttner and Rathjen, 2005, Salie et al., 2005, Waites et al., 2005). These events are integrated to enable correct synapse formation between neuronal partners. The developmental innervation of synaptic partners results in hundreds of trillions of precisely wired synaptic connections. Since the human genome
Acknowledgments
I thank M. Hammarlund, S. Margolis, M. Margeta, and G. Maro for thoughtful comments concerning this chapter. I particularly thank K. Shen for helpful discussions, generous advice, and thoughtful comments on the chapter. I also thank J. Blagburn, V. Poon, and F. Ango for contributing images. I apologize to those whose work I did not cite here due to oversight or space constrains. During the preparation of this chapter, I was supported by NIH grant 4R00NS057931‐03.
References (68)
- et al.
Wishful thinking encodes a BMP type II receptor that regulates synaptic growth in Drosophila
Neuron
(2002) - et al.
Cell‐cell interactions in synaptogenesis
Curr. Opin. Neurobiol.
(2006) - et al.
Ankyrin‐based subcellular gradient of neurofascin, an immunoglobulin family protein, directs GABAergic innervation at purkinje axon initial segment
Cell
(2004) - et al.
EphB receptors interact with NMDA receptors and regulate excitatory synapse formation
Cell
(2000) - et al.
A preformed complex of postsynaptic proteins is involved in excitatory synapse development
Neuron
(2006) - et al.
The BMP ligand Gbb gates the expression of synaptic homeostasis independent of synaptic growth control
Neuron
(2007) - et al.
Wnt4 is a local repulsive cue that determines synaptic target specificity
Curr. Biol.
(2007) - et al.
Guidance and induction of branch formation in developing axons by target‐derived diffusible factors
Curr. Opin. Neurobiol.
(1995) Is synaptic homeostasis just wishful thinking?
Neuron
(2002)- et al.
Wnt signaling positions neuromuscular connectivity by inhibiting synapse formation in C. elegans
Cell
(2007)
The presynaptic release apparatus is functional in the absence of dendritic contact and highly mobile within isolated axons
Neuron
Assembly of the postsynaptic membrane at the neuromuscular junction: Paradigm lost
Curr. Opin. Neurobiol.
Double‐stranded RNA interference shows that Engrailed controls the synaptic specificity of identified sensory neurons
Curr. Biol.
Genetic analysis of Netrin genes in Drosophila: Netrins guide CNS commissural axons and peripheral motor axons
Neuron
Area patterning of the mammalian cortex
Neuron
Mechanisms of axon guidance in the developing nervous system
Curr. Top. Dev. Biol.
Patterning molecules; multitasking in the nervous system
Neuron
The immunoglobulin superfamily protein SYG‐1 determines the location of specific synapses in C. elegans
Cell
Synaptic specificity is generated by the synaptic guidepost protein SYG‐2 and its receptor, SYG‐1
Cell
The microRNA miR‐1 regulates a MEF‐2‐dependent retrograde signal at neuromuscular junctions
Cell
Synaptic adhesion molecules
Curr. Opin. Cell. Biol.
Sidekicks: Synaptic adhesion molecules that promote lamina‐specific connectivity in the retina
Cell
The two isoforms of the Caenorhabditis elegans leukocyte‐common antigen related receptor tyrosine phosphatase PTP‐3 function independently in axon guidance and synapse formation
J. Neurosci.
UNC‐6/Netrin induces neuronal asymmetry and defines the site of axon formation
Nat. Neurosci.
The importance of cnidarian synapses for neurobiology
J. Neurobiol.
Bergmann glia and the recognition molecule CHL1 organize GABAergic axons and direct innervation of Purkinje cell dendrites
PLoS Biol.
Molecules, maps and synapse specificity
Nat. Rev. Neurosci.
Control of central synaptic specificity in insect sensory neurons
Annu. Rev. Neurosci.
“Painting” the target: How local molecular cues define synaptic relationships
Bioessays
Glia promote local synaptogenesis through UNC‐6 (netrin) signaling in C. elegans
Science
A brief history of synapses and synaptic transmittion
Synapse formation and maturation
Cell adhesion molecules: Signalling functions at the synapse
Nat. Rev. Neurosci.
Wnts acting through canonical and noncanonical signaling pathways exert opposite effects on hippocampal synapse formation
Neural Develop.
Cited by (86)
Effects of Josephson junction synapse on coupled Morris-Lecar neurons
2024, Physics Letters, Section A: General, Atomic and Solid State PhysicsMicroRNA-218 regulates neuronal radial migration and morphogenesis by targeting Satb2 in developing neocortex
2023, Biochemical and Biophysical Research CommunicationsMolecular mechanisms of axo-axonic innervation
2021, Current Opinion in NeurobiologyRole of actin cytoskeleton in the organization and function of ionotropic glutamate receptors
2021, Current Research in Structural BiologyGlia Promote Synaptogenesis through an IQGAP PES-7 in C. elegans
2020, Cell ReportsCitation Excerpt :Our results so far support a model in which, in response to VCSC glial signaling, CDC-42 and PES-7 promote synaptic formation at the correct zone 2 position in WT animals during postembryonic development stages and at the ectopic zone 1 position in cima-1(wy84) mutants, most likely through assembling F-actin (Figure 7I). Glia play critical roles in synaptogenesis in both vertebrates and invertebrates (Bosworth and Allen, 2017; Colón-Ramos, 2009; Muthukumar et al., 2014). In C. elegans, the astrocyte-like VCSC glia secrete netrin to guide axonal growth and promote synaptogenesis during embryogenesis (Colón-Ramos et al., 2007).
Genetic analysis of synaptogenesis
2020, Synapse Development and Maturation: Comprehensive Developmental Neuroscience