Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32627850›Full record

ArticleThe EMBO journal2020

A comparative analysis of the mobility of 45 proteins in the synaptic bouton.

Sofiia Reshetniak, Jan-Eike Ußling, Eleonora Perego, Burkhard Rammner, Thomas Schikorski, Eugenio F Fornasiero, Sven Truckenbrodt, Sarah Köster, Silvio O Rizzoli

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in The EMBO journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Sofiia ReshetniakInstitute for Neuro- and Sensory Physiology and Biostructural Imaging of Neurodegeneration (BIN) Center, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4847-4144
Jan-Eike UßlingInstitute for Neuro- and Sensory Physiology and Biostructural Imaging of Neurodegeneration (BIN) Center, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Eleonora PeregoInstitute for X-Ray Physics, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Burkhard RammnerInstitute for Neuro- and Sensory Physiology and Biostructural Imaging of Neurodegeneration (BIN) Center, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Thomas SchikorskiDepartment of Neuroscience, Universidad Central del Caribe, Bayamon, PR, USA.
Eugenio F FornasieroInstitute for Neuro- and Sensory Physiology and Biostructural Imaging of Neurodegeneration (BIN) Center, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7643-4962
Sven TruckenbrodtInstitute for Neuro- and Sensory Physiology and Biostructural Imaging of Neurodegeneration (BIN) Center, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Sarah KösterInstitute for X-Ray Physics, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Silvio O RizzoliInstitute for Neuro- and Sensory Physiology and Biostructural Imaging of Neurodegeneration (BIN) Center, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1667-7839
Universitätsmedizin Göttingen · DECentral University of the Caribbean · PRNanoscale Microscopy and Molecular Physiology of the Brain Cluster of Excellence 171 — DFG Research Center 103 · DEUniversity of Göttingen · DE

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft EXC 2067/1-390729940Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft SFB1190/P09Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft SFB 1286/B02Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft SFB 1286/Z02European Research Council ERC-2013-CoG NeuroMolAnatomyGermany's Excellence Strategy
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many proteins involved in synaptic transmission are well known, and their features, as their abundance or spatial distribution, have been analyzed in systematic studies. This has not been the case, however, for their mobility. To solve this, we analyzed the motion of 45 GFP-tagged synaptic proteins expressed in cultured hippocampal neurons, using fluorescence recovery after photobleaching, particle tracking, and modeling. We compared synaptic vesicle proteins, endo- and exocytosis cofactors, cytoskeleton components, and trafficking proteins. We found that movement was influenced by the protein association with synaptic vesicles, especially for membrane proteins. Surprisingly, protein mobility also correlated significantly with parameters as the protein lifetimes, or the nucleotide composition of their mRNAs. We then analyzed protein movement thoroughly, taking into account the spatial characteristics of the system. This resulted in a first visualization of overall protein motion in the synapse, which should enable future modeling studies of synaptic physiology.

Indexed as

Models, NeurologicalSynaptic TransmissionAnimalsHippocampusNerve Tissue ProteinsNeuronsProtein TransportRatsSynaptic VesiclesNerve Tissue Proteinsdiffusionmovementprotein mobilitysynapsevesicle

Identifiers

PMID32627850
PMCPMC7429486
OpenAlexW3039811246

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.