Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Brief Communication
  • Published:

mTORC2, but not mTORC1, is required for hippocampal mGluR-LTD and associated behaviors

Abstract

The mechanistic target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1) has been reported to be necessary for metabotropic glutamate receptor-mediated long-term depression (mGluR-LTD). Here we found that mTORC1-deficient mice exhibit normal hippocampal mGluR-LTD and associated behaviors. Moreover, rapamycin blocks mGluR-LTD in mTORC1-deficient mice. However, both rapamycin and mGluR activation regulate mTOR complex 2 (mTORC2) activity, and mTORC2-deficient mice show impaired mGluR-LTD and associated behaviors. Thus, mTORC2 is a major regulator of mGluR-LTD.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Hippocampal mGluR-LTD is normal in mTORC1-deficient mice, but is sensitive to rapamycin.
Fig. 2: Hippocampal mGluR-LTD is impaired in mTORC2-deficient mice.
Fig. 3: mTORC2, but not mTORC1, is required for hippocampal-mediated mGluR-LTD related behavior.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lüscher, C. & Huber, K. M. Neuron 65, 445–459 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Costa-Mattioli, M. & Monteggia, L. M. Nat. Neurosci. 16, 1537–1543 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Hoeffer, C. A. & Klann, E. Trends Neurosci. 33, 67–75 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Hou, L. & Klann, E. J. Neurosci. 24, 6352–6361 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Auerbach, B. D., Osterweil, E. K. & Bear, M. F. Nature 480, 63–68 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Laplante, M. & Sabatini, D. M. Cell 149, 274–293 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Wullschleger, S., Loewith, R. & Hall, M. N. Cell 124, 471–484 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Palmer, M. J., Irving, A. J., Seabrook, G. R., Jane, D. E. & Collingridge, G. L. Neuropharmacology 36, 1517–1532 (1997).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Benjamin, D., Colombi, M., Moroni, C. & Hall, M. N. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 10, 868–880 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Sarbassov, D. D. et al. Mol. Cell 22, 159–168 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Toschi, A. et al. Mol. Cell. Biol. 29, 1411–1420 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Huang, W. et al. Nat. Neurosci. 16, 441–448 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Goh, J. J. & Manahan-Vaughan, D. Cereb. Cortex 23, 1118–1125 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Goh, J. J. & Manahan-Vaughan, D. Hippocampus 23, 129–138 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Lamming, D. W. et al. Science 335, 1638–1643 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Huber, K. M., Kayser, M. S. & Bear, M. F. Science 288, 1254–1257 (2000).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Di Prisco, G. V. et al. Nat. Neurosci. 17, 1073–1082 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Graber, T. E. et al. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, 16205–16210 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Stoica, L. et al. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108, 3791–3796 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Goorden, S. M. et al. Hum. Mol. Genet. 24, 3390–3398 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Dragatsis, I. & Zeitlin, S. Genesis. 26, 133–135 (2000).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Tsien, J. Z. et al. Cell 87, 1317–1326 (1996).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Zhu, P. J. et al. Cell 147, 1384–1396 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Ronesi, J. A. & Huber, K. M. J. Neurosci. 28, 543–547 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Buffington, S. A. et al. Cell 165, 1762–1775 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank K. Krnjevic, A. Placzek, and members of the Costa-Mattioli lab for comments on the manuscript. This work was supported by funds to M.C.-M. (NIMH 096816 and 112356, NINDS 076708, Department of Defense AR120254, Sammons Enterprises).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

P.J.Z., C.-J.C., J.M., and M.C.-M. designed the experiments and wrote the manuscript; P.J.Z. conducted electrophysiology, behavioral, and immunoblotting experiments and analyzed data. C.-J.C performed behavioral, immunohistochemistry, and immunoblotting experiments and analyzed data. J.M. conducted immunoblotting experiments and analyzed data. L.S. performed immunoblotting experiments and analyzed data.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mauro Costa-Mattioli.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Integrated Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figure 1 mTORC1 activity is undetected in hippocampal CA1 neurons of Raptor fb-KO mice.

Green, immunohistochemistry staining for phosphorylated S6 (p-S6, Ser240/244). Red, immunohistochemistry staining for the neuronal marker NeuN. Experiments were repeated in two different cohorts of animals (two mice per genotype in each cohort) and samples were collected and processed separately.

Supplementary Figure 2 Basal synaptic transmission did not differ between slices from control and Raptor fb-KO mice.

(a) Input-output plots show that fEPSPs as a function of presynaptic fiber volley was unaffected in Raptor fb-KO mice (n = 20) compared to control (n = 24) slices (linear regression; R2 = 0.64 for control and 0.63 for Raptor fb-KO mice. (b) Paired-pulse (PP) facilitation did not differ between control (n = 24) and Raptor fb-KO mice (n = 20), as determined by the plots of PP ratio (fEPSP2/fEPSP1) for various intervals of PP stimulation.

Supplementary Figure 3 High, but not low, concentrations of rapamycin blocks mGluR-LTD in control slices.

(a-b) Low concentrations of rapamycin (a, vehicle n = 7, 20 nM rapamycin n = 8, t13= 1.592, P= 0.739; b, 200 nM rapamycin n = 8, vs vehicle t13= 0.289, P= 1.0) had no effect on mGluR-LTD (rapamycin 20 nM vs 200 nM t13= 1.348, P= 1.0). (c) mGluR-LTD is sensitive to high concentration rapamycin (1 μM rapamycin n = 8, vs vehicle t13= 5.102, P< 0.001; rapamycin 20 nM vs rapamycin 1 μM, t14= 3.633, P= 0.007; rapamycin 200 nM vs rapamycin 1 μM, t14= 4.981, P< 0.001) (d-e) Western blot show that compared to vehicle treated slices, all concentrations of rapamycin reduce mTORC1 activity (p-S6) in control slices (20 nM rapamycin n = 7, vehicle n = 7, t12= 5.843, P< 0.001; 200 nM rapamycin n = 7, vehicle n = 7, t12= 13.262, P< 0.001; 1 μM rapamycin n = 6, vehicle n = 6, t10= 10.116, P< 0.001). All data are presented as mean ± SEM. The statistics were based on two-sided Student’s t-test. Images of western blots were cropped to show only representative samples. Full-length blots can be found in supplementary Figure 8.

Supplementary Figure 4 High concentration of rapamycin (1 μM) had no effect on basal synaptic transmission.

Rapamycin (1 μM) did not affect fEPSPs as a function of presynaptic fiber volley (a), linear regression R2 = 0.643 for vehicle (n = 20) and 0.641 for rapamycin-treated (n = 16) slice or (b) paired-pulse (PP) facilitation. Data points are presented as mean ± SEM in (b).

Supplementary Figure 5 mTORC2 was activated by DHPG treatment and blocked by high concentration of rapamycin (1 μM).

(a-b) In control hippocampal slices, DHPG (100 μM, 10 min) triggers mTORC2 activity, as determined by increased phosphorylation of Akt at Ser-473 (n = 8 per group, P < 0.001, Mann-Whitney rank sum test). (c-d) In hippocampal slices, mTORC2 is sensitive to high (1 μM, n = 6 per group, t10= 3.480, P= 0.006), but not low (20 nM, vehicle n = 7, rapamycin n = 7, t12= 0.699, P= 0.498, or 200 nM, n = 7 per group, t12= 0.570, P= 0.579), concentrations of rapamycin). Bar graph shows mean ± SEM of each group. The statistics were based on two-sided Student’s t-test. Images of western blots were cropped to show only representative samples. Full-length blots can be found in supplementary Figure 8.

Supplementary Figure 6 Normal locomotor and exploratory behavior in mTORC2-deficient mice.

(a-b) Control (n = 13) and Rictor fb-KO mice (n = 10) travelled similar distances during spatial recognition training (a, t21 = -1.307, P = 0.205) and re-exposure t22 = -0.687, P = 0.449) and spent similar time exploring identical objects during object recognition training (b, control n = 12, Left vs. Right, t22 = 0.988, P = 0.334; Rictor fb-KO mice n = 11, Left vs. Right, t20 = -0.847, P = 0.407). Box plots show the minimum, maximum, median, 25th, and 75th percentile of the groups. The mean values are indicated in thick lines. The statistics were based on two-sided Student’s t-test.

Supplementary Figure 7 Rapamycin (10 mg/kg) inhibits both spatial and object place learning.

(a) During re-exposure, rapamycin-treated mice (n = 10) spent significantly more time exploring the objects than vehicle-treated mice (n = 10, t18 = -5.089, P < 0.001). (b) Vehicle (n = 10) and rapamycin-treated (n = 10) mice travelled similar distances during spatial recognition training (t18 = 0.760, P = 0.457) and re-exposure (t18 = -1.589, P = 0.129). (c) Object recognition is impaired in rapamycin-treated mice (n = 9), since they show significantly less preference for novel objects compared to vehicle group (n = 9; t16 = 4.530, P < 0.001). (d) Rapamycin-treated and vehicle-treated mice spent similar time exploring identical objects during object recognition training (vehicle n = 9, Left vs. Right t16 = 1.167, P = 0.125; Rapamycin n = 9, Left vs. Right t16 = 1.060, P = 0.323). Box plots show the minimums, maximums, median, 25th, and 75th percentile of the groups. The mean values are indicated in thick lines. The statistics were based on two-sided Student’s t-test.

Supplementary Figure 8

Images of full-length blots presented in main and supplementary figures.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhu, P.J., Chen, CJ., Mays, J. et al. mTORC2, but not mTORC1, is required for hippocampal mGluR-LTD and associated behaviors. Nat Neurosci 21, 799–802 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-018-0156-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-018-0156-7

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing