Cited by 132Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchMemory and Neural MechanismsGenetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders

The C-terminal tails of endogenous GluA1 and GluA2 differentially contribute to hippocampal synaptic plasticity and learning

Open access
Zhou, Zikai, Liu, An, Xia, Shuting, Leung, Celeste, Qi, Junxia, Meng, Yanghong, Xie, Wei, Park, Pojeong +2 more·2018·Nature Neuroscience

Abstract

Long-term potentiation (LTP) and depression (LTD) at glutamatergic synapses are intensively investigated processes for understanding the synaptic basis for learning and memory, but the underlying molecular mechanisms remain poorly understood. We have made three mouse lines where the C-terminal domains (CTDs) of endogenous AMPA receptors (AMPARs), the principal mediators of fast excitatory synaptic transmission, are specifically exchanged. These mice display profound deficits in synaptic plasticity without any effects on basal synaptic transmission. Our study reveals that the CTDs of GluA1 and GluA2, the key subunits of AMPARs, are necessary and sufficient to drive NMDA receptor-dependent LTP and LTD, respectively. In addition, these domains exert differential effects on spatial and contextual learning and memory. These results establish dominant roles of AMPARs in governing bidirectional synaptic and behavioral plasticity in the CNS.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41593-017-0030-z

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Deletion of the CTD of GluA1 yields LTP indistinguishable from neighboring control cells.

    “Experiments in which the CTD of GluA1 is deleted (Refs. 273–275, but see Refs. 276, 277) express LTP that is indistinguishable from that in neighboring control cells.”

    From Synaptic memory and CaMKII (2023) · cites this paper as [276]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhou, Z., Liu, A., Xia, S., Leung, C., Qi, J., Meng, Y., Xie, W., Park, P., Collingridge, G. L., & Jia, Z.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Southeast University (CN)
  • Nantong University (CN)
  • Mount Sinai Hospital (CA)
Corresponding author
  • Collingridge, Graham L.
  • Jia, Zhengping
Venue
Nature Neuroscience
Published
2017-12-11
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
50-62
ISSN
  • 1097-6256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1726
OpenAlex
W2774694784
Cited by
132
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 13
FWCI
7.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Locations
  • Nature Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (publishedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
Keywords
AMPA receptors, GluR1, GluA2, C-terminal domain, long-term potentiation, long-term depression, NMDA receptor, synaptic plasticity, hippocampus, spatial learning, contextual learning, memory, glutamatergic synapses
MeSH terms
Protein Domains, Animals, Glycine, Hippocampus, Learning, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Mice, Transgenic, Neuronal Plasticity, Peptide Fragments, Quinoxalines, Synapses, Tetrodotoxin, Valine, Long-Term Potentiation, Receptors, AMPA, Excitatory Amino Acid Antagonists, Glutamic Acid, Maze Learning, Sodium Channel Blockers, Long-Term Synaptic Depression, Mice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review