Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22558441›Full record

ArticlePloS one2012

Analysis of adhesion molecules and basement membrane contributions to synaptic adhesion at the Drosophila embryonic NMJ.

Andre Koper, Annette Schenck, Andreas Prokop

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 40% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. The ECM: To Scaffold, or Not to Scaffold, That Is the Question.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Review
  4. Mucin-TypeFrontiers in neuroanatomy · 2021
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Mechanisms controlling neuromuscular junction stability.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2015
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Andre KoperFaculty of Life Sciences, Wellcome Trust Centre for Cell-Matrix Research, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Annette Schenck
Andreas Prokop
Wellcome Centre for Cell-Matrix Research · GBRadboud University Medical Center · NL

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/E009085/1Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 087742/Z/08/ZWellcome Trust 092403/Z/10/ZWellcome Trust 241995
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Synapse formation and maintenance crucially underlie brain function in health and disease. Both processes are believed to depend on cell adhesion molecules (CAMs). Many different classes of CAMs localise to synapses, including cadherins, protocadherins, neuroligins, neurexins, integrins, and immunoglobulin adhesion proteins, and further contributions come from the extracellular matrix and its receptors. Most of these factors have been scrutinised by loss-of-function analyses in animal models. However, which adhesion factors establish the essential physical links across synaptic clefts and allow the assembly of synaptic machineries at the contact site in vivo is still unclear. To investigate these key questions, we have used the neuromuscular junction (NMJ) of Drosophila embryos as a genetically amenable model synapse. Our ultrastructural analyses of NMJs lacking different classes of CAMs revealed that loss of all neurexins, all classical cadherins or all glutamate receptors, as well as combinations between these or with a Laminin deficiency, failed to reveal structural phenotypes. These results are compatible with a view that these CAMs might have no structural role at this model synapse. However, we consider it far more likely that they operate in a redundant or well buffered context. We propose a model based on a multi-adaptor principle to explain this phenomenon. Furthermore, we report a new CAM-independent adhesion mechanism that involves the basement membranes (BM) covering neuromuscular terminals. Thus, motorneuronal terminals show strong partial detachment of the junction when BM-to-cell surface attachment is impaired by removing Laminin A, or when BMs lose their structural integrity upon loss of type IV collagens. We conclude that BMs are essential to tie embryonic motorneuronal terminals to the muscle surface, lending CAM-independent structural support to their adhesion. Therefore, future developmental studies of these synaptic junctions in Drosophila need to consider the important contribution made by BM-dependent mechanisms, in addition to CAM-dependent adhesion.

Indexed as

AnimalsBasement MembraneBiological TransportCadherinsCell AdhesionCell Adhesion MoleculesCell Adhesion Molecules, NeuronalCell DifferentiationCollagen Type IVDrosophila melanogasterDrosophila ProteinsEmbryo, NonmammalianHeparan Sulfate ProteoglycansMembrane GlycoproteinsMicroscopy, ElectronNeuromuscular JunctionCadherinsCell Adhesion MoleculesCell Adhesion Molecules, NeuronalCollagen Type IVDrosophila ProteinsHeparan Sulfate ProteoglycansMembrane GlycoproteinsnidogenNrx protein, DrosophilaperlecanReceptors, GlutamateReceptors, Laminin

Identifiers

PMID22558441
PMCPMC3340374
OpenAlexW2129584736

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.