Loose coupling between Ca 2+ channels and release sensors as a synaptic correlate of higher order brain function

  1. Max Schwarze
  2. Grit Bornschein
  3. Antonia Brunner
  4. Akanksha Arshia
  5. Simone Brachtendorf
  6. Hartmut Schmidt

  • Curated by eLife

    eLife logo

    eLife Assessment

    By using a combination of patch clamp recordings, calcium imaging and computer modeling, the authors analyze the spatial distribution of voltage gated calcium channels at glutamatergic synapses formed between layer 5 pyramidal neurons (L5PNs) and between layer 2/3 and L5PNs in the prefrontal cortex (PFC) and primary somatosensory cortex (S1); they conclude that the calcium channel-vesicle coupling is looser in the PFC compared to S1, although additional experiments are needed to determine how the distinct functional characteristics of these synapses in different brain regions might affect data interpretation. Overall, these findings are important because they have implications for shaping synaptic plasticity and neural circuit function across brain regions. They are solid because they are based on the use of a multi-pronged approach, although the presentation would benefit from stronger integration of the current findings with the existing literature and a more explicit discussion of potential limitations and confounding factors for data interpretation.

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

In the mature neocortex, functionally distinct areas are built by the same archetypes of neurons, but depending on the area, these neurons and their synapses are engaged in very different functions, ranging from lower order processing of sensory information to higher order associations and cognitive functions. We found significant differences in the functional presynaptic nanoarchitectures of the same types of pyramidal neuron synapses, depending on whether they are located in the prefrontal cortex (PFC) or in the primary somatosensory cortex (S1). Synapses in PFC operated with loose microdomain coupling as opposed to tight nanodomain coupling in S1. These differences were associated with significant differences in synaptic timing, efficacy and plasticity between areas. Our data suggest that the mature neocortex uses tuning of synaptic topographies to specialize seemingly identical types of neurons for their required function. They reveal microdomain coupling as a presynaptic structure-function correlate of higher order neocortical functions.

Article activity feed

  1. eLife

    eLife Assessment

    By using a combination of patch clamp recordings, calcium imaging and computer modeling, the authors analyze the spatial distribution of voltage gated calcium channels at glutamatergic synapses formed between layer 5 pyramidal neurons (L5PNs) and between layer 2/3 and L5PNs in the prefrontal cortex (PFC) and primary somatosensory cortex (S1); they conclude that the calcium channel-vesicle coupling is looser in the PFC compared to S1, although additional experiments are needed to determine how the distinct functional characteristics of these synapses in different brain regions might affect data interpretation. Overall, these findings are important because they have implications for shaping synaptic plasticity and neural circuit function across brain regions. They are solid because they are based on the use of a multi-pronged approach, although the presentation would benefit from stronger integration of the current findings with the existing literature and a more explicit discussion of potential limitations and confounding factors for data interpretation.

  2. eLife

    Reviewer #1 (Public review):

    Summary:

    This study asks whether synapses formed by the same broad neuronal class (excitatory pyramidal neurons, PN) adapt their presynaptic organization in a cortex-specific manner, comparing the prefrontal cortex (PFC) with the primary somatosensory cortex (S1). The authors combine sophisticated electrophysiology (paired recordings and extracellular minimal stimulation), pharmacological perturbations of presynaptic Ca²⁺-secretion coupling, bouton Ca²⁺ imaging, and mechanistic modeling. Across two prominent excitatory connections (Layer 5 (L5) PN-L5PN and L2/3-L5PN), they provide convergent evidence that mature PFC synapses operate with looser Ca²⁺ channel-release sensor coupling than their S1 counterparts.

    Overall, the study provides an appealing mechanistic link between synaptic nano/micro-architecture and cortical-area specialization. The idea that PFC synapses retain a more "plasticity-favoring" presynaptic state, while the primary sensory cortex emphasizes reliability and timing precision, is potentially impactful for how we think about circuit computation and plasticity across cortical hierarchies.

    Strengths:

    A major strength is the multi-pronged experimental strategy. The paper first establishes robust, area-dependent differences in synaptic efficacy, reliability, timing, and short-term plasticity (facilitation prevailing in PFC versus depression in S1), using both paired recordings and minimal extracellular stimulation paradigms. The coupling interpretation is then directly supported by differential sensitivity to EGTA (and appropriate positive-control effects of fast chelators). Finally, volume-averaged calcium signals are reported to be similar across areas, arguing against trivial explanations based on gross differences in calcium influx, and the modeling provides a quantitative framework for interpreting the observed chelator effects.

    Weaknesses:

    Limitations are minor and concern interpretation/clarity rather than core results. Some key inferences rely on indirect readouts (chelator sensitivity, fluctuation analysis-derived parameters, bouton-averaged calcium signals), each of which carries assumptions and potential confounds that should be discussed more explicitly. In particular, the repatching paradigm for the paired-recording EGTA experiment, though very impressive, and the limited number of extracellular calcium conditions used for fluctuation analysis (three concentrations), can influence quantitative estimates and the confidence intervals around them.

  3. eLife

    Reviewer #2 (Public review):

    Schwarze et al. investigated whether synaptic efficacy is brain-region specific. To this end, they compared synaptic connections established by layer 5 (L5) neocortical pyramidal cells and between L5 and L2/3 pyramidal cells. In order to identify the mechanism of this brain region specificity, the authors employed several experimental approaches, including paired electrophysiological recordings, extracellular stimulation, low- and high-affinity intracellular calcium chelators (EGTA and BAPTA), multiple probability fluctuation analysis (MPFA), and intracellular measurements of calcium transients as well as computational modelling. The findings of the present study indicate that synaptic connections in the primary somatosensory cortex (S1) are significantly stronger and more reliable than those in the prefrontal cortex (PFC).

    The study is timely, and the topic is of significant interest to the neuroscience community. Despite the extensive research that has been carried out on the neuroanatomy and receptor distribution of different brain regions, comparatively little attention has been paid to differences in synaptic physiology. The authors' approach is characterised by its elegance and comprehensive nature, and the conclusions drawn are compelling. Nevertheless, there are a number of unresolved issues.

    Major points:

    (1) The authors state that data from the S1 cortex were obtained in a previous study. In the context of an explicitly comparative study (PFC vs. S1cortex), it would have been advantageous for the authors to perform a subset of experiments in which both cortices were obtained from a single animal. This is a feasible undertaking, given the spatial separation of the PFC and S1 cortex.

    (2) Figure 1A is somewhat misleading because it could suggest that the authors have performed dual recordings in identified PFC pyramidal cells.

    (3) PFC and S1 cortex in rodents differ markedly in their morphological organisation. For example, in all sensory cortices, layer 4 is very pronounced; however, in the PFC of rodent,s no clear layer 4 can be found. On the other hand, PFC shows a clear separation of layers 2 and 3, which is not visible inthe S1 cortex. Furthermore, PFC pyramidal cells in layers 2, 3, and 5 exhibit significant heterogeneity, diverging considerably from those found in layers 5a and 5b of S1 cortex. Thus, there is no clear correlation between L5 pyramidal cells in the PFC and the S1 cortex. In order to achieve a meaningful comparison of the data obtained in PFC and S1 cortex, it is necessary for the authors to determine whether the record is from similar pyramidal cell populations.

    (3) In addition, PFC pyramidal cells in layer 2, 3 and 5 are highly heterogeneous and differ markedly from those in layer 5a and 5b of S1 cortex. To achieve a meaningful comparison of the data obtained in the PFC and the S1 cortex, the authors need to determine whether the record from similar pyramidal cell populations.

    (4) For the S1 cortex, in rats it has been found that L5 synaptic connection between pairs of L5a pyramidal cells and pairs of L5b pyramidal cells differ markedly with respect to mean EPSP amplitude, latency and coefficient of variation (cv, a surrogate measure for the synaptic release probability) (cf. Markram et al., 1997; Frick et al., 2008). It is therefore likely that PFC and S1 pre- and postsynaptic pyramidal cells are not only morphologically and electrophysiological distinct but also with respect to their synaptic properties. At least, the authors need to discuss these confounding issues and preferentially address them experimentally. For example, it would be helpful to demonstrate that paired recordings were made from the same pyramidal cell types, perhaps by documenting their morphology and/or firing patterns. In addition, they should discuss the marked difference in EPSP amplitude and putative release probability between their data and the earlier studies.

    (5) In order to perform multiple probability fluctuation analysis (MPFA), a parabolic fit with a mere three points is inadequate, particularly because 2 mM and 5 mM Ca2+ are close to the peak of the variance-to-mean parabola, and only 1 mM Ca2+ is on its initial linear part. A more meaningful result would have been obtained with an additional Ca2+ concentration between 1.0 and 2.0 mM, as these are closer to the physiological range. In this context, the authors should have quoted the more recent and more detailed paper by the Silver group (Saviane and Silver, 2006; Lanore and Silver, 2016) and not just the Clements and Silver review paper.

    (6) Methods: The authors should clarify whether their paired recordings from L5 pyramidal cells involved whole-cell recordings from both pre- and postsynaptic neurons. From Figure 1B, it appears as if the presynaptic neurons were not recorded in whole cell mode but rather stimulated in cell-attached mode. This is also reflected in the artefact visible in the current trace recorded in the postsynaptic neuron. The authors should explicitly state their methodological approach and mention how reliable the timing of the presynaptic action potential was under these circumstances. The same holds true for the extracellular stimulation protocol. A significantly more detailed description of the experimental protocol is necessary here.

    (7) Methods: The authors use Student's t-test for data comparison. The authors should verify that the data distribution was indeed normal, e.g. by using a Shapiro-Wilk test. If this is not the case, non-parametric tests should be used.

  4. eLife

    Reviewer #3 (Public review):

    Summary:

    In this manuscript, Max Schwarze and colleagues examined the coupling distance between presynaptic Ca²⁺ channels and the vesicular release sensor at neocortical synapses in mice. They propose that Ca²⁺ channel-release sensor coupling differs across cortical areas, with relatively loose (microdomain) coupling in prefrontal cortex (PFC) and tighter (nanodomain) coupling in primary somatosensory cortex (S1) for comparable pyramidal-neuron synapse types. To test this, they combine paired recordings and minimal stimulation with chelator manipulations (EGTA/BAPTA), mean-variance/MPFA-style analyses, presynaptic Ca²⁺ imaging, and computational modeling. They conclude that presynaptic coupling organization is area-specific in the mature cortex and contributes to regional differences in synaptic timing, reliability, and short-term plasticity.

    Strengths:

    This study tackles an important question and is strengthened by a cohesive body of evidence assembled from multiple complementary approaches. A major asset is the inclusion of high-value datasets, particularly the paired recordings between L5 pyramidal neurons and the systematic assessment of EGTA sensitivity, which provide a solid functional foundation for the authors' central claims. The work is further distinguished by its genuinely multimodal design: combining electrophysiology with presynaptic calcium imaging (and integrating these observations with quantitative analyses and modeling) offers a more mechanistic view of neurotransmitter release than any single method could provide. Overall, the direct, within-framework comparison of presynaptic release-control mechanisms across cortical areas for comparable synapse types is compelling and gives the conclusions a level of robustness and interpretability that is often difficult to achieve in studies of cortical synaptic diversity.

    Weaknesses:

    Several aspects would benefit from clearer explanation, stronger integration with the existing literature, and a more explicit discussion of limitations and potential confounds. Without these additions, some conclusions remain speculative. Throughout the manuscript, the authors also often imply that different measurements reflect the same underlying synapse population. This is unlikely to be strictly true across all experiments and makes it difficult to integrate results from the various approaches into a single, unified set of functional synaptic properties. In addition, some statements-particularly those linking coupling mode to "higher-order neocortical functions"-appear broader than what is directly supported by the experiments and should be tempered or more precisely scoped.

    Below, I list several topics that could help better frame the main findings of the present study and clarify how it relates to previously published work.

    (1) The authors use EGTA sensitivity of EPSCs (together with additional metrics) to argue that S1 and PFC synapses differ in Ca²⁺ channel-release sensor coupling. While this is a plausible interpretation, EGTA effects are not uniquely determined by coupling distance and can also reflect differences in Ca²⁺ entry kinetics, action potential waveform, endogenous buffering/extrusion, or release-sensor/vesicle state. The authors use a constrained modeling approach, but the rationale for the different constraint sets is not fully clear from the current description. It would be helpful to expand and clarify the Methods section to explain how these constraints were defined, justified, and applied (and how alternative constraint choices would affect the results). In this context, the Abstract's broader claim that the study "reveals microdomain coupling as a presynaptic structure-function correlate of higher-order neocortical functions" appears overstated. Given the well-known diversity of cortical synapses even within a single region (e.g., synapses onto different interneuron subclasses or different PN cell types, extracortical sources like thalamus), the authors should clarify the intended scope: is the conclusion meant to apply broadly across synapse classes in S1 and PFC, or only to the specific connection type(s) examined here?

    (2) The chelator logic is sound in principle, but the Discussion should more explicitly acknowledge standard caveats and alternative explanations. The authors partly address this by including presynaptic Ca²⁺ imaging and modeling, yet it would help to explain more clearly how the combination of (i) chelator sensitivity, (ii) presynaptic Ca²⁺ signals, and (iii) model constraints rules out-or substantially reduces the likelihood of-changes in AP waveform, Ca²⁺ influx kinetics, buffering/extrusion, or sensor/vesicle state as the primary drivers. In addition, recent hypotheses emphasizing vesicle priming and/or release-site occupancy as contributors to apparent EGTA sensitivity should be discussed as a complementary or alternative interpretation.

    (3) A substantial portion of the S1 comparison appears to rely on previously published datasets. This should be made unambiguous in the Results and Methods, and it would be helpful to summarize this clearly (e.g., in a table indicating which figures/analyses use new data versus reanalysis of published data). If this information is already present, it should be highlighted more prominently.

    (4) The modeling is informative, but the choice of a specific VGCC-release-site geometry and channel arrangement is not sufficiently justified. The manuscript adopts a particular spatial configuration, yet the rationale for selecting this geometry, rather than other plausible architectures discussed in the literature, is not clearly explained, nor is it meaningfully revisited in the Discussion. The authors should justify why the same organization is assumed across two distinct cortical areas and, ideally, include (or at a minimum discuss) a sensitivity analysis showing how key inferences (e.g., coupling distance and channel number) depend on the assumed geometry.

    (5) The calcium imaging data are valuable, but given the diversity of synapses within each cortical layer, it is not clear that imaged boutons can be confidently assigned to the specific connection types being interrogated electrophysiologically. A substantial fraction of boutons likely corresponds to different postsynaptic targets (including interneurons and distinct pyramidal-cell classes), and this heterogeneity could complicate interpretation. This limitation should be discussed explicitly

    (6) In unitary connections, the authors assess EGTA effects alongside other functional parameters (strength, delay, short-term plasticity), which is a major strength. However, for L2/3 to L5 connections, it appears that EGTA sensitivity was tested primarily using extracellular stimulation. Given anatomical and circuit differences between PFC and S1, extracellular stimulation may recruit different synapse populations across regions, potentially confounding regional comparisons of EGTA sensitivity. This limitation should be acknowledged explicitly. While I am not requesting technically demanding L2/3↔L5 paired recordings in S1, the possibility that different synapse identities are being sampled should be treated as a meaningful source of uncertainty. The Discussion would also benefit from placing the magnitude of EGTA effects in the context of prior "loose coupling" literature, where comparatively large EGTA effects have been reported in some systems. In addition, the reported difference between adult PFC EGTA effects and S1 inhibition appears small (on the order of <10%) and should be interpreted cautiously, especially given that PFC and S1 mature on different timelines and P21-P26 is unlikely to reflect a mature PFC circuit state. The adult cohort (P90-P100) is therefore important, but the age mismatch complicates PFC-S1 comparisons; ideally, S1 should be assessed at matched ages, or this limitation should be discussed explicitly. Finally, for statistical robustness, in panel D of Figure 2, were the comparisons corrected for multiple testing to control Type I error?

    (7) Alterations in initial release probability are often associated with changes in short-term plasticity. In the present manuscript, the authors report similar initial release probability at PFC and S1 synapses, yet observe differences in short-term plasticity profiles. The mechanistic basis for this apparent dissociation is not addressed and should be discussed explicitly, including potential explanations.

    (8) There are multiple instances where the text appears to cite non-existent or misnumbered figure panels (e.g., references to "Figure 4G-I / 4J" when the relevant material appears elsewhere). These should be corrected throughout, as they currently reduce readability and confidence.

    (9) The Methods describe P21-P26 animals, whereas the Results include older cohorts (e.g., P90-P100) and additional regions (e.g., mPFC). The Methods should be updated so that all cohorts and regions analyzed in the Results are fully described.

  5. eLife

    Author response:

    We will extend and clarify the text of the paper according to the suggestions of the reviewers. In particular we will extend the description and discussion of the calcium chelator approach, re-patching and multiple probability fluctuation analysis. We will also include in the Results section that volume-averaged calcium signals were measured and extend the description about measurement of the resting calcium and variability between boutons. Literature will be included and discussed as suggested.

    In order to avoid any misunderstandings, we will also make it clearer that recordings from

    L5PN – L5PN synapses in S1 were published in our preceding papers (Bornschein et al., 2019a, b), but that these data were partially reanalyzed for the comparison with recordings from L5PN – L5PN synapses in PFC (this paper). We will also emphasize that the recordings from L2/3 to L5PN synapses in S1 and PFC were made directly in the present study. We will include a supplementary table, which explicitly shows for each figure which data are from Bornschein et al. (2019a, b) and which data were obtained in the present study.

    We will consider all points of the reviewers and the recommendations of the editors in detail in the revised manuscript and/or our pointwise response.

    We recognized one factual error in the public reviews:

    Reviewer 2, point 7: “Methods: The authors use Student's t-test for data comparison. The authors should verify that the data distribution was indeed normal, e.g. by using a Shapiro-Wilk test. If this is not the case, non-parametric tests should be used.”

    A detailed description of the statistics, including test for normality, is given in the Methods section. In particular we wrote in the Methods: “Normality was tested using the Shapiro-Wilk Test. (…) To compare pre- and post-treatment data the paired t-test or the Wilcoxon signed rank test (WSR) was used, depending on the distribution of the data. (…)”

    To further emphasize that the data was tested for normal distribution, we have also extended the description of the statistical tests in the figure legends.

    Bornschein G, Brachtendorf S, Schmidt H (2019a) Developmental increase of neocortical presynaptic efficacy via maturation of vesicle replenishment. Front Synaptic Neurosci 11:36.

    Bornschein G, Eilers J, Schmidt H (2019b) Neocortical high probability release sites are formed by distinct Ca2+ channel-to-release sensor topographies during development. Cell Rep 28:1410-1418 e1414.

  6. Version published to 10.64898/2025.12.15.694355 on bioRxiv