SUMMARY
Neurons dynamically regulate their proteome in response to sensory input, a key process underlying experience-dependent plasticity. We characterized the visual experience-dependent nascent proteome in mice within a brief, defined time window after stimulation using an optimized metabolic labeling approach. Visual experience induced cell-type-specific and age-dependent alterations in the nascent proteome, including proteostasis-related proteins. Emerin is the top activity-induced candidate plasticity protein. Activity-induced neuronal Emerin synthesis is rapid and transcription independent. Emerin broadly inhibits protein synthesis, decreasing translation regulators and synaptic proteins. Decreasing Emerin shifted the dendritic spine population from a predominantly mushroom morphology to filopodia and decreased network connectivity. Blocking visual experience-induced Emerin reduced visually evoked electrophysiological responses and impaired behaviorally assessed visual information processing. Our findings support a proteostatic model in which visual experience-induced Emerin provides a feedforward block on further protein synthesis, refining temporal control of activity-induced plasticity proteins and optimizing visual system function.
In brief
Xie et al. optimize an in vivo quantitative BONCAT-DiDBiT pipeline to identify visual experience-dependent neuron cell-type dynamics in the nascent proteome. Emerin, the top activity-induced candidate plasticity protein, acts as a feedforward block on protein synthesis, including synaptic proteins, and is required for visual system functions in vivo.
Graphical Abstract

INTRODUCTION
The essential functions of visual experience (VE)-dependent plasticity for development and function of the visual system are well established, including plasticity at synaptic, neuronal, circuit, and behavioral levels of analysis.1–18 It is also widely appreciated that VE initiates plasticity through transcriptional regulation of specific genes,19–25 so-called candidate plasticity genes. Less well understood is the contribution of VE to regulation of the nascent proteome.
Proteins are the crucial substrates underlying neuronal function and plasticity. Sensory input dramatically influences the cellular proteomic composition, which then implements structural and functional plasticity.22 Multiple layers of post-transcriptional regulation of protein synthesis give rise to spatial and temporal complexity of the proteome following sensory stimulation. These processes, falling under the umbrella of proteostasis, include translational control,26 spatial and temporal buffering of mRNA translation by RNA-binding proteins,27–29 protein trafficking,30,31 and proteosome-dependent degradation.32,33 A screen in Xenopus tadpoles using bio-orthogonal noncanonical amino acid tagging (BONCAT)34 of newly synthesized proteins (NSPs) followed by tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) identified ~85 NSPs that were rapidly regulated by VE, including ribosomal subunits and targets of RNA-binding proteins,35 suggesting that VE engages proteostatic mechanisms. Proteostasis is an essential component of neuronal function and plasticity36–38; however, it is not well understood how proteostasis regulation is recruited by sensory input and how different aspects of proteostasis are temporally coordinated in response to neuronal activity.
We conducted an unbiased quantitative search for VE-induced candidate plasticity proteins (CPPs) in excitatory and inhibitory neurons in critical-period and adult mice. We used metabolic labeling to identify the newly synthesized proteome39 with improved temporal resolution, detection efficiency, and accuracy, allowing cell-type-specific high-confidence detection of more than 2,500 nascent proteins and over 300 CPPs that are significantly regulated by VE. Proteins related to proteostasis are enriched among CPPs, suggesting broad proteostasis participation in experience-dependent plasticity. The CPP Emerin is rapidly synthesized independent of transcription. Increasing and decreasing VE results in corresponding bidirectional changes in Emerin protein expression. VE-induced Emerin broadly inhibits further translation. Decreasing Emerin or blocking VE-induced Emerin synthesis weakens neural circuit connectivity and decreases both visually evoked responses and visual information processing. Based on these unique properties, we suggest that Emerin acts as an activity-regulated rheostat controlling proteostasis across a range of neuronal activity levels and that VE-induced Emerin imposes a feedforward brake on activity-initiated translation, thereby regulating neuronal proteostasis and downstream activity-dependent plasticity.
RESULTS
An optimized proteomic pipeline targeting the acute cell-type-specific nascent proteome
We analyzed rapid experience-dependent changes in the nascent proteome with cell-type resolution using BONCAT to metabolically label NSPs with the noncanonical amino acid azidonorleucine (ANL) and a mouse line expressing mutant methionyl-tRNA synthetase (mMetRSKI/KI) and GFP crossed to cre drivers with cell type specificity (Figure S1A). We used vGatcre and EMX1cre mice to drive mMetRS expression in inhibitory and excitatory cortical neurons, respectively. EMX1cre mice provide consistent and complete coverage of cortical glutamatergic neurons without inhibitory neuron overlap and the opportunity to label cortical glutamatergic pyramidal neurons during neurodevelopmental critical periods.
We optimized the temporal sensitivity of the proteomics pipeline by maximizing ANL labeling efficiency and MS/MS detection sensitivity. Free ANL in the brain reaches a plateau 1–4 h after one intraperitoneal (i.p.) injection and is undetectable after 8 h.40 To identify the in vivo kinetics of ANL protein labeling in the cortex, we collected cortical tissue at 2, 4, 8, 16, and 24 h after i.p. ANL injections and biotinylated ANL-labeled NSPs with biotin-alkyne click chemistry. Biotinylated proteins peaked 8 h after ANL injection (Figure S1B), indicating the optimal time frame to label activity-regulated nascent proteins. Homozygous mMetRSKI/KI improved labeling efficiency ~2-fold compared to their heterozygous littermates in EMXcre40 and vGatcre neurons (Figures S1C and S1D). Experimental and control samples were duplexed using stable heavy or slight isotope-labeled biotin-alkyne to avoid introducing sample variability during processing, thereby increasing assay sensitivity (Figure S1E). These strategies allowed us to shorten the protein labeling window to 8–10 h after ANL delivery without compromising proteome coverage. We used DiDBiT (direct detection of biotin tags) in our MS/MS analysis, which directly identifies the biotin tag on ANL-containing peptides with MS/MS, distinguishing true hits from contaminants and obviating the need to validate hits with antibodies.35,40,41 Together, this BONCAT-DiDBiT-MS/MS pipeline enabled identification of rapid experience-dependent, cell-type-specific changes in the nascent proteome.
VE-induced nascent proteomes reveal that proteostasis is regulated across cell types and ages
To identify VE-dependent neuronal cell-type-specific nascent proteome dynamics, we evaluated both excitatory and inhibitory VE-dependent nascent proteomes using the EMXcre-mMetRSKI/KI and vGatcre-mMetRSKI/KI mice (Figure 1A). We dark-housed critical period (post-natal day 28 [P28]) and adult (P56) mice for 3 days and i.p. injected ANL before 4 h of VE or 4 h in total darkness (DK). We collected the visual cortex 6 h later and prepared samples for BONCAT and DiDBiT (Figure 1A). VE induced robust cFos expression compared to DK (Figures 1A and S3A), consistent with previous studies,14,24 validating this DK/VE paradigm to assess changes in the activity-dependent nascent proteome. We detected 2,489, 1,995, 1,944, and 1,418 biotinylated nascent proteins in P28 excitatory neurons (EX28), P28 inhibitory neurons (IN28), P56 excitatory neurons (EX56), and P56 inhibitory neurons (IN56), respectively, of which 278 (EX28), 231 (IN28), 364 (EX56), and 253 (IN56) proteins were significantly up- or downregulated by VE (Figure 1B; Table S1). These VE-regulated CPPs respond to sensory input and may regulate activity-dependent plasticity, as we have reported previously in the Xenopus visual system.35 CPPs constitute >10% of the total NSPs detected, demonstrating the sensitivity of our pipeline in detecting rapid nascent proteome dynamics. VE significantly increased and decreased CPPs. During the critical period, VE significantly increased 214 CPPs and significantly decreased 64 CPPS in EX28 neurons and significantly increased 140 CPPs and significantly decreased 91 CPPS in IN28 neurons. In mature animals, VE significantly increased 228 CPPs and significantly decreased 136 CPPS in EX56 neurons and significantly increased 200 CPPs and significantly decreased 53 CPPS in IN56 neurons.
Figure 1. Cell-type-specific proteomics analysis characterizes VE-dependent nascent protein dynamics.

(A) Proteomics workflow. EMXcre-mMetRSKI/KI and vGatIcre-mMetRSKI/KI mice at P28 (critical period) and P56 (adult) were dark housed, injected with ANL, and then exposed to VE or dark (DK). Visual cortices were dissected, processed, and analyzed following the BONCAT-DiDBiT-MS/MS pipeline. Images show a P56 primary visual cortex labeled with cFos antibody and DAPI after 3 days of dark housing (left) and 4 h of VE (right).
(B–D) Proteomics datasets.
(B) Volcano plots showing all NSPs identified in each condition. n = 6 biological replicates for each dataset, including both sexes. Colored dots, candidate plasticity proteins (CPPs; p < 0.05, 2-tailed t test, VE vs. DK).
(C) Upset plot showing intersection sizes of CPPs under different experimental conditions.
(D) Correlation of CPPs shared between two conditions with the same age or cell type. R, Pearson correlation coefficient.
(E) Significantly regulated pathways shared by all conditions. IPA activation Z score indicates IPA-predicted pathway activation (red) or inhibition (blue). Gray, prediction not available (STAR Methods).
(F) Emerin immunolabeling in the mouse primary visual cortex. DAPI, nuclear marker. Lamin A/C, inner nuclear membrane marker.
(G) Activity-induced Emerin expression in the visual cortex following PTZ treatment. Left, experimental workflow. Right, western blot quantification of Emerin at 2, 4, 6.5, and 18 h after PTZ injection, normalized to Ponceau. n = 3, one-way ANOVA with Sidak multiple comparisons (all time points vs. 2 h). Lines indicate median and 95% confidence interval (CI).
Scale bars: 15 μm (F) and 100 μm (A).
The majority of CPPs (596/821) are unique to each condition (Figure 1C), suggesting considerable diversity of experience-dependent regulatory mechanisms across cell types and ages. Correlation analysis of the shared CPPs by the same cell type or age showed a mild positive correlation in each comparison (R ϵ [0.24–0.77]) (Figure 1D), suggesting both similarities and differences in CPPs across conditions. We next asked whether VE-dependent regulatory elements were shared by all cell types and ages. Using Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA), we extracted significant VE-regulated pathways under all tested conditions (p < 0.001). Interestingly, apart from metabolic pathways, the majority of pathways in common across conditions concern various aspects of proteostasis regulation, including signal transduction pathways upstream of translation (mTOR signaling pathway and BAG2-mitogen-activated protein kinase signaling pathway), protein translational control (eIF2 signaling pathway and PKR signaling pathway), endoplasmic reticulum (ER) processing of protein (unfolded protein response), and protein degradation pathways (protein ubiquitination pathway and chaperone-mediated autophagy signaling pathway) (Figure 1E; Tables S2, S3, and S4). Pathway analysis using Metascape also revealed broad activity-induced regulation of proteostasis, including shared pathway clusters related to the terms eukaryotic translation initiation (Figure S2A), vesicle-mediated protein transportation (Figure S2B), protein processing in the ER (Figure S2C), and protein localization regulation (Figure S2D; Table S2). Overall, these analyses identified diverse activity-dependent protein-regulatory programs as well as a common theme of proteostasis regulation.
Emerin is an activity-regulated protein
Emerin is the top CPP with the highest VE-induced expression fold change. Emerin is expressed throughout the visual cortex (Figures S3A and S3B) and is induced by VE in excitatory and inhibitory neurons in the adult visual cortex (Figure S3C); however, its function in neurons is unclear. Bioinformatics analysis suggests that Emerin physically interacts with other CPPs in a network regulating protein localization (GO:0008104; Figure S2D). Emerin is a ubiquitously expressed multifunctional protein.42 As a genetic risk factor for Emery-Dreifuss muscular dystrophy, studies on Emerin have focused on skeletal and cardiac myocytes, where it is largely located in the inner nuclear membrane through high-affinity binding with Lamin A43–45 and modulates chromatin structure and transcription factor signaling by interacting with other nuclear proteins.46,47 Emerin also affects nuclear structure by increasing actin polymerization in the nuclear cortical network,48 a function that Emerin may also play in regulating cytosolic actin.43 In neurons and other cells lacking Lamin A, Emerin is located in the nuclear envelope (NE) and the plasma membrane and is enriched in the ER,43,44,49,50 the major cellular compartment regulating protein synthesis and post-translational processing for membrane and secreted proteins. Emerin has distinct functional domains and multiple interaction partners, suggesting that it may have diverse functions depending on its subcellular location.51,52 Emerin immunolabeling in mouse visual cortical sections (Figure 1F) and neuronal cultures (Figures 2B and S3E) shows that Emerin is predominantly located in the cytoplasm in neurons and colocalizes with calreticulin (Figure S3F), indicative of distribution in the ER. Emerin’s distinct neuronal localization pattern and activity-dependent expression prompted us to explore its function in activity-dependent neuronal plasticity.
Figure 2. Emerin is an activity-regulated protein.

(A–E) Time course of activity-induced Emerin expression.
(A) Experimental workflow. DIV12 primary cortical neuronal cultures were treated with bicuculline (BIC) for 1, 3, and 6 h and then fixed and immunolabeled.
(B) Emerin, Lamin A/C, and Map2 immunolabeling.
(C) cFos immunolabeling 1 h after BIC or vehicle treatment.
(D) Representative images of Emerin immunolabeling 1, 3, and 6 h after BIC or vehicle treatment.
(E) Quantification of Emerin labeling. BIC groups are normalized to the corresponding vehicle controls. n = 1,000–1,500 individual neurons from 4 wells of 2 independent culture preparations. Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn’s multiple comparison (BIC vs. vehicle). Dots and lines indicate median and 95% CI.
(F–J) Time course of activity-induced Emerin synthesis.
(F) Experimental workflow. DIV12 neuronal cultures were treated with BIC for 1, 3, 6, and 21 h. AHA was added during the last hour of BIC treatment. Samples were processed with in situ BONCAT-PLA.
(G) Schematic of in situ BONCAT-PLA. Immunolabeling with biotin and Emerin detects newly synthesized Emerin.
(H) Representative images showing DAPI, Map2, PDI, and BONCAT-Emerin-PLA puncta following BIC/vehicle treatment at each time point. (I and J) Quantification of cytoplasmic (I) and nuclear (J) PLA intensity. The nucleus was defined by DAPI labeling. BIC groups were normalized to corresponding vehicle controls. n = 1,500–2,500 individual neurons from 6 wells of 2 independent culture preparations. Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn’s multiple comparison (BIC vs. corresponding vehicle). Dots and lines indicate median and 95% CI. n.s., not significant.
Scale bars: 15 μm (B and H) and 50 μm (C and D).
We first examined how activity regulates Emerin expression. Western blot analysis validated the MS/MS proteomic finding that VE increased Emerin expression in the mouse visual cortex (Figures S3C and S3D). To test whether VE induction generalizes to neuronal activity-dependent regulation, we increased brain activity using i.p. injection of the gamma aminobutyric acid type A (GABAA) receptor antagonist pentylenetetrazol (PTZ) to induce seizure (Table S6). We collected visual cortex tissue 2, 4, 6.5, and 18 h after PTZ treatment and quantified Emerin expression by western blot. PTZ induced a sustained increase in Emerin expression in mice (Figure 1G), indicating that disinhibition-induced neuronal activation upregulated Emerin expression. Similarly, exposing mouse primary neuronal cultures to bicuculline (BIC), another GABAA receptor antagonist, increased Emerin expression as quickly as 1 h after treatment, similar to cFos (Figures 2A and 2C–2E). Treatments with PTZ or bicuculline resulted in elevated Emerin that could be maintained as long as 18 h (Figure 1G, right; Figures 2D and 2E), suggesting that activity-induced Emerin might have prolonged effects on regulating activity-dependent plasticity.
To examine the subcellular localization of activity-induced Emerin, we labeled NSPs by exposing cultures to the non-canonical amino acid azidohomoalanine (AHA) during the last hour of bicuculline treatments and detected newly synthesized Emerin in the nucleus and the extranuclear somatic compartment using in situ BONCAT and a proximity ligation assay (in situ BONCAT-PLA) (Figures 2F and 2G). We found a significant accumulation of newly synthesized Emerin puncta in the extranuclear compartment 3, 6, and 21 after bicuculline stimulation (Figures 2H and 2I). Punctum colocalization with the ER marker protein disulfide isomerase (PDI), suggests that activity-induced nascent Emerin is localized to the ER, consistent with its post-translational insertion into the ER membrane.43,44 We did not detect significant changes in Emerin puncta in the nucleus until 21 h after stimulation (Figure 2J). Using highly sensitive single-cell analyses, these results characterize the activity dependence of Emerin expression and suggest that activity-induced Emerin is located at or near the ER.
Acute activity-induced Emerin expression is driven directly by translation
To further probe the mechanism underlying the activity-induced expression of Emerin, we mined published datasets for Emerin at the transcriptome level. Ribosome profiling (RiboSeq) analysis detected a VE-dependent increase in neuronal Emd (the gene encoding Emerin)14; however, single cell RNA sequencing (scRNAseq) analysis did not identify increased Emd in neurons within approximately the same time frame following VE.20 These data suggest that a transcription-independent mechanism regulates Emerin’s activity-dependent induction. To examine this hypothesis, we compared bicuculline-induced Emerin protein (Figures 2D and 2E) and Emd mRNA at the same time points (Figure 3A). Emd mRNA remained unchanged 1 h and 3 h after bicuculline stimulation, when Emerin protein increased significantly. It was only 6 h after stimulation that bicuculline increased Emd mRNA (Figure 3B). A panel of immediate-early genes, including cFos and Npas4 (Figures 3C and 3D), Egr1, and Arc (Figure S4A), showed induction by 1–3 h. Neither Lmna, encoding Emerin’s nuclear binding partner Lamin A/C, nor Actb showed induction (Figure S4B).
Figure 3. Acute activity-induced Emerin expression is driven directly by translation.

(A–D) Time course of activity-induced Emd mRNA expression.
(A) Experimental workflow to assess BIC-induced Emd mRNA at 1, 3, and 6 h using RT-qPCR.
(B–D) mRNA levels of Emd (B) cFos (C), and Npas4 (D) normalized to Gapdh. BIC groups were normalized to vehicle controls. n = 4 individual wells from 2 independent culture preparations. One-way ANOVA test with Sidak multiple comparisons (BIC vs. vehicle). Bars and lines indicate mean and SEM.
(E–G) Actinomycin and anisomycin differentially affect the time course of activity-induced Emerin synthesis.
(E) Experimental workflow to assess effects of actinomycin D or anisomycin on BIC-induced newly synthesized Emerin at 3 and 6 h using in situ BONCAT-PLA.
(F) Representative images of nascent Emerin PLA puncta after BIC/vehicle treatment at each time point following actinomycin D or anisomycin pretreatment. The larger BONCAT-PLA puncta in the BIC samples may reflect clusters of several smaller puncta that are not resolved by imaging.
(G) Quantification of cytoplasmic Emerin PLA intensity. BIC groups were normalized to vehicle controls. n = 1,000–1,500 individual neurons from 6 wells of 2 independent culture preparations. Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn’s multiple comparison (BIC vs. vehicle). Dots and lines indicate median and 95% CI. Scale bar: 15 μm.
(H) Schematic summary showing that rapid activity-induced Emerin protein synthesis is independent of Emd transcription.
To further unravel the transcriptional and translational control of activity-induced Emerin synthesis, we pre-treated neuronal cultures with the transcription inhibitor actinomycin D or the translation inhibitor anisomycin before bicuculline stimulation and measured nuclear and extranuclear nascent Emerin puncta using in situ BONCAT-PLA (Figure 3E). Bicuculline alone increased nascent Emerin puncta in cytoplasmic compartments but not in the nucleus over 3 and 6 h, consistent with data in Figure 2H. Blocking transcription with actinomycin D did not affect the bicuculline-induced cytoplasmic increase in Emerin synthesis after 3 h but blocked this activity-induced increase after 6 h, consistent with our finding that bicuculline-induced Emd mRNA increases at 6 h (Figure 3B). Blocking translation with anisomycin significantly reduced Emerin synthesis at both 3 and 6 h time points (Figures 3F, 3G, and S4C). Interestingly, basal Emerin synthesis dropped dramatically with anisomycin treatment but not with actinomycin D, suggesting that basal Emerin protein synthesis also relies on transcription-independent translation. Together, our data suggest that activity acutely induces translation of an existing pool of Emd mRNA and that activity-dependent Emd transcription starts at later time points (Figure 3H).
Emerin levels bidirectionally affect protein synthesis
To test the functions of activity-induced Emerin, we generated adeno-associated virus (AAV) constructs that (1) knock down Emerin through a cocktail of short hairpin RNAs (shRNAs) that targets the 3′ UTR, coding sequence, and 5′ UTR (a mixture of AAV-U6-shEmd1/2/3, referred to as “KD”), (2) overexpress Emerin-mRuby fusion protein in a cre-dependent manner (AAV-hSyn-FLEx-Emerin-mRuby, referred to as “OE”), and (3) express the corresponding OE/KD controls (AAV-hSyn-FLEx-mRuby and AAV-U6-shScramble) to assess off-target effects (Figures S5A–S5D). We expressed these constructs specifically in excitatory or inhibitory neurons using AAV-CaMKIIα-cre or AAV-vGat-cre, respectively. Interestingly, when testing EmerinOE AAVs, we consistently observed lower expression of co-transduced AAV-EF1α-FLEx-EGFP, while total protein and neuron density remained unaffected (Figures S5E–S5J).
Considering that Emerin localized to the ER (Figure S3F), the site of membrane protein and secretory protein synthesis, we then tested whether Emerin affects protein synthesis. We labeled NSPs in Emerin OE and KD cultures with 1 h AHA treatment and assessed NSPs with BONCAT and western blot (Figure 4A). Emerin KD increased NSPs ~2-fold compared to controls, while Emerin OE in either excitatory or inhibitory neurons decreased NSPs by 50% (Figures 4B and 4C). Emerin KD partially rescued the Emerin upregulation-induced decrease in NSPs (Figures S5K–S5M). We assessed neuron-specific changes in nascent proteins with single-cell resolution using fluorescent noncanonical amino acid tagging (FUNCAT; Figure S1F), visualizing Emerin levels with mRuby intensity in Emerin OE conditions or endogenous Emerin immunolabeling in Emerin KD conditions (Figure 4A). Emerin KD increased the FUNCAT signal, while Emerin OE in either excitatory or inhibitory neurons decreased the FUNCAT signal, similar to the BONCAT results (Figures 4D–4G). Together, these data indicate that Emerin levels bidirectionally regulate neuronal protein synthesis. Comparing neighboring neurons, FUNCAT signal intensity was inversely correlated with Emerin levels, suggesting a cell-autonomous and dose-dependent effect of Emerin expression on neuronal protein synthesis (Figures S5N–S5P).
Figure 4. Emerin bidirectionally regulates protein synthesis, including translation factors and synaptic proteins.

(A–C) BONCAT-western blot (BONCAT-WB) analysis of NSPs with Emerin KD and OE.
(A) Experimental workflow for BONCAT and FUNCAT. DIV12 neuronal cultures were treated with AHA for 1 h, followed by BONCAT-WB or FUNCAT-immunolabeling.
(B) BONCAT-WB biotin signal with Emerin KD (shEmd vs. control shScramble) (left) or OE (Emd-mRuby vs. control mRuby) in excitatory (center) and inhibitory neurons (right).
(C) Biotin intensity (normalized to ponceau). n = 3–4 individual wells from 2 independent culture preparations. Welch’s t test. Lines indicate median and 95% CI.
(D–I) FUNCAT analysis of NSPs with Emerin KD and OE.
(D and E) Representative FUNCAT images (D) and statistical analysis (E) with Emerin KD.
(F and G) Representative FUNCAT images of Emerin OE in excitatory (F) and inhibitory (G) neurons.
(H) FUNCAT in Emerin OE excitatory (left) and inhibitory (right) neurons. FUNCAT intensity was measured in all DAPI+ cells, likely underestimating the magnitude of KD and EO effects.
(I) Emerin KD in vitro. n = 2,000–5,000 neurons from 3 to 6 wells of 2 independent culture preparations. Welch’s t test. Lines indicate median and 95% CI.
(J–N) Emerin expression blocked synthesis of translation factors and synaptic proteins.
(J) BONCAT-DiDBiT-MS/MS experimental workflow.
(K) Volcano plot of all biotinylated proteins in AHA-labeled cultures treated with AAVs expressing mRuby or Emd-mRuby in excitatory neurons. n = 4 biological replicates.
(L–N) Emerin OE significantly regulated proteins include translational factors (L) and synaptic proteins (N). The top 5 significantly enriched pathways suggest decreased synaptic function (M). Magenta, synapse-related pathways.
The scale bar in (G) (50 μm) applies to (D) and (F).
To determine the targets of Emerin’s translational control, we employed our proteomics pipeline to identify changes in the Emerin-induced NSPs labeled over 2.5 h exposure to AHA (Figure 4J). Proteomics analysis identified 634 NSPs, 318 of which were significantly decreased by Emerin OE (Figure 4K; Table S5). Eight translational regulators were decreased, including eIF4a, eIF5a, eEF1a, and eEF2, consistent with the protein synthesis inhibition phenotype seen with increased Emerin expression (Figure 4L). IPA analysis identified synaptogenesis as the top pathway regulated by increased Emerin expression and predicted that increased Emerin negatively regulates this pathway based on the decreased synthesis of 23 synaptic proteins (Figures 4M and 4N). Together, our data suggest that activity-induced Emerin decreases neuronal protein synthesis and predicts that altering Emerin expression leads to a synaptic phenotype.
Emerin regulates synapse density and spine morphology
We evaluated effects of Emerin KD and OE on excitatory and inhibitory synapse density by immunolabeling neuronal cultures with pre- and postsynaptic markers (Figures 5A and 5B, left). Excitatory synaptic density increased with Emerin KD and decreased with Emerin OE (Figures 5D–5H and S7A–S7D), consistent with the IPA prediction from the Emerin OE nascent proteome. Inhibitory synapse density was unaffected by Emerin KD (Figure 5H, top row) and increased with Emerin OE (Figure 5H, center and bottom rows), suggesting that increased Emerin expression has opposite effects on excitatory and inhibitory postsynaptic sites. We observed no change in Emerin expression, neuronal cell density, or synaptic markers across control conditions (Figures S6A–S6I). Presynaptic punctum density, identified by Synaptophysin, vGlut, or vGAT, were not significantly affected by Emerin manipulations (Figures S7A–S7D).
Figure 5. Emerin regulates synapse density and spine morphology.

(A–H) Synaptic density analysis with Emerin KD and OE.
(A and B) Experimental workflow (A). DIV12 neuronal cultures were immunolabeled with synaptic markers (B).
(C) Color-code for data in (E) and (H).
(D) Representative images of Synaptophysin and PSD95 immunolabeling with Emerin KD (2 top rows) and Emerin OE in excitatory (2 center rows) and inhibitory neurons (2 bottom rows).
(E) Quantification of Synaptophysin and PSD95 puncta and their colocalization with Emerin KD (top row), Emerin OE in excitatory (center row), and inhibitory neurons (bottom row).
(F and G) Representative images of Homer1 and Gephyrin with Emerin KD (F) and Emerin OE in excitatory neurons (G). Boxed regions in DAPI images are shown enlarged for Homer1 and Gephyrin.
(H) Quantification of Homer1 and Gephyrin puncta with Emerin KD (top row) and Emerin OE in excitatory (center row) and inhibitory neurons (bottom row).
(E and H) Quantification of postsynaptic components is highlighted in gray. Punctum counts are normalized to neuron numbers, based on DAPI. n = 12 individual wells from 4 independent culture preparations, Mann-Whitney test. Lines indicate median and 95% CI.
(I–N) Spine morphology analysis with Emerin KD.
(I) Representative image of a sparsely labeled neuron expressing EGFP. Blue rectangle, a representative secondary dendrite selected for analysis.
(J) Representative dendritic stretches from Emerin KD and sham KD neurons. Examples of the four spine types quantified are labeled.
(K–N) Counts of all spine types (K), filopodia (L), mushroom (M), and all types excluding filopodia (N). n = 10–11 ~45-mm dendritic stretches, each from one individual neuron. 3 independent culture preparations, Mann-Whitney test. Lines indicate median and 95% CI.
Scale bars: 50 μm (D), 100 μm (I), and 10 μm (J). The scale bars in (G) (50 μm) apply to (F).
To test for changes in spine morphology, we expressed EGFP in neurons and quantified thin, stubby, mushroom, and filopodial spines (Figures 5I and 5J). Total spine density significantly increased with Emerin KD, recapitulating the increase in PSD95 and Homer1 (Figure 5K). Surprisingly, the analysis of individual spine types showed that filopodial spines were the only type that significantly increased in density with Emerin KD, whereas mushroom spine density decreased (Figures 5L and 5M). Thin and stubby spines did not change significantly (Figure S7E). Total spine quantification, excluding filopodia, showed no difference between Emerin KD and the control, indicating that the KD-induced increase in spine density was due to increased filopodial spines (Figure 5N). The increase in filopodial spine density and the decrease in mushroom spine density suggest a net shift of the spine population from strong mushroom spines to weak filopodial spines with Emerin KD and further suggest that activity-induced Emerin upregulation might increase mature mushroom spines, strengthening excitatory synaptic communication. Moreover, the increase in Gephyrin immunolabeling with Emerin OE suggests that activity-induced Emerin might also increase inhibitory synaptic contacts (Figures 5G and S7C). Neuronal morphology didn’t show significant changes following Emerin KD (Figures S7F and S7G). Together, our data suggest that increased Emerin expression regulates the density and morphology of both excitatory and inhibitory postsynaptic elements, potentially enhancing neuronal connectivity and function, as summarized in the schematic (Figure S7H).
Emerin is required for normal visual responses in mice
The data described above suggest that Emerin mediates a feedforward effect of activity on network function. Indeed, recordings of spontaneous calcium transients over 100 second epochs show that Emerin KD decreased spontaneous calcium transients and synchrony of calcium transients across networks of both excitatory and inhibitory neurons (Figures S8A–S8C), whereas Emerin OE increased calcium transients and synchrony (Figures S8D and S8E). These data indicate that Emerin bidirectionally regulates network connectivity in vitro, consistent with its effects on synaptic connections.
To test whether VE-induced Emerin regulates visual system plasticity in vivo, we unilaterally blocked Emerin synthesis in the mouse primary visual cortex with AAV-shEmd (Figures S9A–S9C) and bilaterally measured visual stimulation-evoked local field potentials (VEPs).9 Unilateral AAV-shEmd injections were alternated between left and right hemispheres to exclude hemisphere-specific effects, with AAV-shScramble injected into the contralateral primary visual cortex as a control (Figures 6A and 6B). Emerin KD decreased Emerin expression by 68% in the primary visual cortex compared to the contralateral visual cortex (Figure S9C), indicating that Emerin is actively synthesized in the adult visual cortex. Mice were tested for visual function 4–5 weeks later. Mice were dark adapted for 1 h before recording to prime retinal cells to visual stimulation53 and provided visual stimulation with a light-emiting diode (LED) stroboscope at 1 Hz for 250 iterations (Figures 6C and 6D). Emerin KD reduced visual responses indicated by decreased VEP trough to peak amplitude compared to the AAV-shScramble control in the contralateral cortex (Figures 6E and 6F). Emerin KD also resulted in a small but significant increase in VEP latency (Figure 6G), which might result from synaptic remodeling, such as an increase in weaker filopodial spines with Emerin KD. Emerin KD significantly reduced the number of cFos-positive neurons following 4 h visual stimulation compared to the shScramble-treated control cortex (Figures 6H–6J), providing an independent assessment of Emerin KD in visual system function. Together, these data indicate that Emerin is essential for normal visually evoked responses in mice.
Figure 6. Emerin is required for normal visual responses in mice.

(A–G) Visually-evoked potential (VEP) recordings with Emerin KD.
(A) Experimental workflow of unilateral Emerin KD and bilateral VEPs recording.
(B) Representative coronal brain image showing AAV targeting and coverage. Left hemispheres are marked during sectioning for post hoc data interpretation.
(C) Workflow for pre-recording preparation.
(D) Visual stimulation and data acquisition protocol.
(E) Representative VEP traces when both eyes were covered (left) and with normal visual stimulation (right). Recordings from KD (blue) and control (gray) hemispheres are aligned to the stimulus.
(F) Trough-peak amplitude comparing left vs. right hemispheres (left) and shEmd vs. shScramble treatments (right).
(G) VEP latency comparing left vs. right hemispheres (left) and shEmd vs. shScramble treatments (right). n = 8 mice, paired t test.
(H–J) VE-induced cFos expression with Emerin KD.
(H) Experimental workflow of unilateral Emerin KD and VE paradigm.
(I) Representative image of VE-induced cFos immunolabeling in the primary visual cortex.
(J) cFos+ neurons in shEmd vs. shScramble treatments. n = 5 mice, paired t test.
Emerin is required for visual information processing in mice
We tested whether Emerin is required for visual information processing in mice using the visual cliff test to evaluate depth perception, which involves neuronal integration of binocular information in the primary visual cortex.54 The visual cliff arena provides visual cues at different depths below a transparent platform, segregating the perception of “safe” and “unsafe” zones in the arena (Figure 7A). Mice were injected bilaterally with AAV-shEmd or AAV-shScramble in the visual cortex and subjected to two test sessions in the visual cliff arena 5 and 30 days after surgery (Figure 7B). Location tracking on day 30 showed that control mice avoided the unsafe zone, whereas Emerin KD mice displayed no such avoidance and moved between the safe and unsafe zones more often than controls (Figure 7C). Emerin KD mice spent significantly less time in the safe zone than control mice (Figure 7D) and distributed their time in the safe and unsafe zones according to the areal division of the two zones (Figure 7E). Emerin KD increased distance traveled in the unsafe zone and increased average traveling speed in the safe zone (Figures 7F and 7G), indicating that Emerin KD mice failed to integrate or respond to depth cues, disrupting visual cue-guided behaviors. Comparing time spent in the safe zone on days 5 and 30 showed a decline in performance of KD mice over time, while the behavior of control mice remained constant (Figure 7H). These data indicate that Emerin is required for visual information processing underlying depth perception in mice.
Figure 7. Emerin is required for visual depth perception in mice.

(A) Side view schematic of the visual cliff arena (left) and top view showing the 25/75 distribution of safe and unsafe zones (right).
(B) Experimental workflow of bilateral Emerin knockdown and visual cliff test sessions 5 days and 30 days after AAV injection.
(C) Representative movement tracking of mice within the visual cliff arena using DeepLabCut. The safe zone is highlighted in gray.
(D) Raster plots of time spent in safe (green) and unsafe (orange) zones of the shEmd and shScramble groups.
(E–G) Quantification of behavioral parameters from the day 30 session.
(E) Percent total time spent moving and relative time spent in the safe and unsafe zones.
(F) Distance traveled in the entire arena, safe zone, and unsafe zone.
(G) Average moving speed in the entire arena, safe zone, and unsafe zone. n = 6 mice, Welch’s t test between shEmd and shScramble. Lines indicate median and 95% CI.
(H) Time spent in the safe zone comparing day 5 and day 30 after AAV injection. n = 6 mice, paired t test.
Scale bars: 5 mm (B) and 200 μm (I).
DISCUSSION
Here, we applied a neuronal cell-type-specific BONCAT-DiDBiT-MS/MS proteomics pipeline with increased labeling efficiency, enhancing its temporal resolution. This optimized pipeline enabled us to detect rapid in vivo changes in cell-type-specific expression of 2,883 NSPs within 10 h of onset of VE, including 300 CPPs that may function as immediate-early effector proteins. VE-dependent plasticity has distinct features during the developmental critical period and in the adult and in different neuronal populations,4,6,13 suggesting that diverse molecular programs mediate age- and cell-type-dependent plasticity. We found distinct VE-induced proteomic signatures in EX28, IN28, EX56, and IN56, with less than 30% CPP overlap and moderate CPP correlations across samples, providing a rich resource of candidates for further functional investigation. A bioinformatics search of shared mechanisms across all conditions revealed broad recruitment of proteostasis pathways. Building on the recognized significance of proteostasis in maintaining neuronal and circuit function, our data suggest that this regulation might have an activity-dependent component in a broad range of cellular contexts.
We took an effect size-based, unbiased approach to select Emerin, the top CPP, for functional evaluation. Both the proteomics screen and independent validation in vitro and in vivo demonstrated Emerin’s strong activity-induced synthesis, consistent with detecting Emerin in our previous study of seizure-induced changes in the nascent proteome.40 Furthermore, Emerin is bidirectionally regulated by neuronal activity. Interestingly, acute activity-dependent Emerin synthesis is insensitive to inhibiting transcription, suggesting that this rapid Emerin synthesis relies on translation from an existing Emd mRNA pool and is independent of newly transcribed Emd or other genes. These data suggest that Emerin is an immediate-early effector protein analogous to immediate-early effector genes such as CPG15,55 CPG2,19 Homer1,56 and Arc.57 This independence between Emerin’s activity-induced translation and transcription echoes a growing body of evidence indicating that the complex regulation of proteome content might be achieved by independently targeting post-transcriptional and post-translational mechanisms.58–60
Emerin is an integral membrane protein translated in the cytosol and post-translationally inserted into the ER membrane.43,44 Emd mRNA is a target of many RNA-binding proteins (RBPs), including RMRP,61 Pumilio,62 MOV10, and NXF1.63 Emd mRNA is also predicted to have binding sites for a large pool of RBPs by both sequence-based (RBPmap) and structure-based (POSTAR3) algorithms. RBPs are sensitive to neuronal activity,64 which could regulate activity-dependent, transcription-independent Emerin synthesis.
The majority of Emerin studies have focused on muscle, where it has diverse functions reflecting its subcellular localization.47,65,66 Muscle Emerin is located predominantly in the inner NE based on its high affinity association with Lamin A,43–45 where it regulates signaling, gene expression, and nuclear and chromatin structure.47 In neurons, which lack Lamin A,50 both basal and activity-induced newly synthesized Emerin are concentrated in the extranuclear somatic compartment, likely in the ER, considering Emerin’s biogenesis and colocalization with the ER markers PDI and calreticulin. Emerin may have distinct functions in neurons and muscle cells based on its cell-type specific subcellular localization.
The ER plays essential roles in proteostasis through the regulation of protein synthesis, folding, and trafficking.67–71 ER function in the synthesis and trafficking of transmembrane proteins is particularly salient in neurons,69–71 as exemplified by its role in trafficking glutamate receptors following induction of long-term synaptic plasticity.67,68 Viral expression of Emerin, which mimics activity-induced increased endogenous Emerin expression, robustly decreased protein synthesis, whereas Emerin KD, which may mimic ER stress-induced degradation of Emerin,72 increased protein synthesis in a cell-autonomous manner, indicating that the bidirectional activity-dependent regulation of Emerin has feedforward consequences on bidirectional control of protein synthesis. Given the enrichment of both activity-induced neuronal Emerin and translation-associated machinery in the ER, this bidirectional regulation of protein synthesis may be regulated by ER-associated Emerin. An interactome analysis of Emerin indicates that it associates with numerous ER proteins,52 including eIF2AK3/PERK, an ER kinase and translation inhibitor. Enrichr bioinformatic analysis linked Emerin and its co-expressed network to translation, ribosomes, and mRNA binding (Table S4). Our proteomics analysis under Emerin OE conditions indicated that >60% of the downregulated proteins are membrane proteins. This evidence collectively suggests that Emerin might influence protein synthesis in the ER by affecting translation factors and ribosome complexes; however, pinpointing the exact mechanisms involved requires further experimentation.72–76 Our MS/MS proteomics analysis of the proteins that were down-regulated in response to increased Emerin identified synaptic proteins and translational regulators. This indicates that VE-induced endogenous Emerin orchestrates a downstream wave of activity-induced proteome dynamics through negative regulation of protein synthesis. Our data support an experience-dependent feedforward role for Emerin in temporally gating neuronal plasticity by imposing a brake on activity-induced translation and a temporal switch on proteostasis regulation in response to sensory input.
Many regulators of activity-dependent plasticity mediate the addition or elimination of synapses or affect their structural and functional properties, culminating in circuit-level modifications encoding experience-relevant information.3,4,21 Emerin KD significantly shifted the distribution of spine morphologies in the spine population, increasing weak filopodial spines and decreasing strong mushroom spine density. This suggests that activity-induced Emerin plays a role in maintaining efficient neuronal connectivity by coordinating the elimination of weak connections and the maturation of strong, information-encoding connections. Our proteomics data identified a large group of synaptic proteins whose expression was reduced with increased Emerin expression, suggesting that Emerin’s regulation of synaptic connectivity occurs through its activity-dependent regulation of protein synthesis. Emerin is associated with the ER, which, in addition to its somatic location, is distributed throughout the dendritic arbor, particularly at active synapses,71 where it plays a role trafficking transmembrane proteins.67,70 We observed Emerin immunolabeling and newly synthesized Emerin puncta in neuronal processes, suggesting that Emerin localization in the ER extends into neuronal processes. Activity-induced nascent Emerin may be trafficked into neuronal processes or locally synthesized. This raises the interesting possibility that activity-induced Emerin may regulate synaptic properties locally, consistent with reports that Emerin associates with RBPs, such as Pumilio62 and MOV10,63 which regulate synaptic protein synthesis.73,74 Consistent with this idea, we find that VE-induced CPPs are enriched in RBPs or proteins related to RNA binding77 (Table S4), suggesting that feedforward and feedback mechanisms regulating proteostasis under plasticity-inducing conditions may induce temporal waves of regulatory control over protein translation.
Activity-dependent synaptic plasticity underlying neural network reorganization is often reflected in functional circuit properties10,13 and animal behavior.78,79 Considering Emerin’s body-wide expression throughout life,42 we targeted virally mediated Emerin KD to neurons in the adult mouse visual cortex for in vivo physiological and behavioral analysis. AAV shEmd constructs interfere with translation of Emd mRNA, allowing us to assess the specific effect of induced Emerin on visual system function. Downregulating activity-induced Emerin expression reduced the amplitude of VEPs and impaired depth perception-guided cliff avoidance behavior. These experiments assessing visual system function directly address how activity-induced bidirectional changes in Emerin expression, modeled by overexpression and knockdown, reveal the cellular, circuit, and behavioral implications of the VE-dependent changes in Emerin expression. These data further indicate that activity-dependent Emerin synthesis in neurons is required to maintain strong visual responses to task-relevant visual input and visual information processing to guide behavior.
Quantitative proteomics data indicate that VE significantly increased Emerin in adult excitatory and inhibitory neurons but not in critical period cortex. The inability to detect Emerin as significantly increased compared to other NSPs at P28 is likely because the diversity and heterogeneity of developmentally regulated proteins during the critical period decreases signal to noise in the proteomics analysis. Indeed, this was the logic that guided the experimental design followed by Nedivi et al. (1993) when they screened for VE-dependent increases in transcripts in adult but not critical period rats. The greater heterogeneity of cortical inhibitory neurons compared to pyramidal neurons could also contribute to the detection of more CPPs in EN56 compared to IN56. Our analysis identified more than 100 NSPs that are uniquely identified as significantly regulated in P28 inhibitory or excitatory neurons (Figure 1C), suggesting that critical-period plasticity and adult plasticity are under the regulation of different molecular programs across age and neuronal cell type.
In this study, our unbiased quantitative BONCAT-DiDBiT proteomics pipeline identified over 2,500 cell-type-specific NSPs, including over 300 CPPs, whose synthesis was significantly regulated by VE. Emerin is the top VE-induced CPP. VE-induced Emerin translation is rapid and translation independent. Emerin expression is bidirectionally regulated by VE/DK, resulting in corresponding changes in protein synthesis. Blocking Emerin synthesis weakens neuronal circuit connectivity, decreases visually evoked responses, and interferes with depth perception. The data support a model where VE induces a rapid transcription-independent increase in Emerin that provides a feedforward block on further protein synthesis, gating expression of activity-regulated plasticity proteins and leading to increased synaptic connectivity, enhanced visual responses, and visual information processing that guides behavior. In sum, Emerin acts as activity-regulated rheostat controlling proteostasis across a range of neuronal activity levels by gating protein synthesis.
Limitations of the study
Emx1+ cortical progenitors generate all glutamatergic cortical pyramidal neurons and a minority of cortical astrocytes.80 Proteomic datasets of VE-induced NSPs from EMX1-cre mMetRS mice include deep coverage of NSPs in glutamatergic cortical neurons and sparse representation of astrocyte NSPs.40 We used day in vitro 12 (DIV12) neuronal cultures to evaluate the effect of activity-regulated Emerin on circuit connectivity; however, more mature cultures may reveal stronger activity-induced effects than less mature cultures. Although our data indicate that Emerin is localized in the ER and bidirectionally controls protein synthesis, key open questions include whether Emerin functions in the ER and how it regulates translation.
RESOURCE AVAILABILITY
Lead contact
Requests for further information, resources, and reagents should be directed to Hollis Cline (cline@scripps.edu).
Materials availability
Materials generated in this study are available from the lead contact upon request.
Data and code availability
The proteomics datasets “VE-induced cell type-specific nascent proteomic analysis” and “Emerin overexpression nascent proteomic analysis” are available at ProteomeXchange: PXD050926.
This paper does not report original code.
Any additional information required to reanalyze the data reported in this paper is available from the lead contact upon request.
STAR★METHODS
EXPERIMENTAL MODEL AND STUDY PARTICIPANT DETAILS
Laboratory animals
All animal procedures were conducted with male and female mice according to protocols approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC# 08–0082). Mouse lines EMX1IRES–Cre (EMXCre, JAX 005628), vGatIRES–Cre (vGatCre, JAX 16962) and R26lsl–GFP-mMetRS (JAX 028071) were obtained from Jackson Laboratory. Genotyping was conducted according to protocols published on Jackson Lab websites. To generate homozygous EMXCre/WT-mMetRSKI/KI and vGatCre/WT-mMetRSKI/KI mice, we backcrossed male mMetRSKI/KI to female EMXCre/WT-mMetRSKI/WT, and male vGatCre/WT-mMetRSKI/WT to female mMetRSKI/KI, respectively, to reduce germline recombination as reported previously.81 Germline recombination was further tested with PCR for the backcrossed offspring with primers listed below. This primer pair detects the non-recombined R26 insertion allele LSL-GFP-mMetRS in mouse ear tissue, where the forward primer recognizes the LoxP-STOP-LoxP cassette.
Forward: 5′-ctcatgcgttgggtccac-3’
Reverse: 5′-ccggtggtgcagatgaactt-3’
Primary neuronal cultures from neonatal mice
Primary neurons from male and female C57BL/6 P0 mouse pups were prepared as described below and used at 12 DIV (days in vitro).
METHOD DETAILS
Primary neuronal cultures from neonatal mice
Primary neurons from C57BL/6 P0 mouse pups were cultured with Neurobasal-A media (ThermoFisher, Cat#10888022), supplemented with 2% B27 (ThermoFisher, Cat#17504044), 1% Pen Strep (P/S, ThermoFisher, Cat#15140–122), and 1% GlutaMax (ThermoFisher, Cat#35050061). Complete culture media was pre-warmed to 37°C before use.
P0 mice were euthanized and dissected in 1% P/S-HBSS (HBSS, ThermoFisher, Cat#14175095) to obtain cortical tissue with meninges removed. Cortex tissue was then incubated in digestion buffer (complete culture media with 6% (v/v) papain (Worthington Biochemical, Cat#LS003126) and 750U/μL DNase I (Sigma-Aldrich, Cat# 4716728001)) at 37°C for 20 min, with periodic agitation. Then, digested tissue was sequentially gravity-precipitated in 20% FBS-HBSS (FBS, Peak Serum, Cat#PS-FB3) and then HBSS. Subsequently, precipitated pellets were gently triturated in dissociation buffer (1x HBSS with 14.44 mg/ml MgSO4 (Sigma-Aldrich, Cat#M2643)). Supernatant was then carefully taken and added to 20% FBS in HBSS and centrifuged 3 min at 200 rcf. Supernatant was discarded, and cell pellet resuspended in the complete culture media. Neuron density was measured with Countess cell counter (The Countess 3 FL), and neurons were seeded according to the plate format listed below. Multiwell plates were pre-coated with 0.05 mg/ml poly-D-lysine (MilliporeSigma, Cat#A-003-E) in Borate buffer (1.25g Boric acid, 1.9g Sodium tetraborate in 400mL ddH2O, pH adjusted to 8.5) overnight (O.N.) at 37°C. 1% P/S-HBSS was added to space in between wells to prevent excessive media evaporation. For 96-well plates, wells on the outer rim were not seeded and filled with 1% P/S-HBSS to avoid edge/corner effects.
| Multiwell plate | Experiment | Cat# | Cells seeded/well |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Glass-bottom 96-well culture plate | Imaging | Cellvis LLC, Cat#P96-1.5H-N | 24k |
| Plastic 6-well culture plate | Proteomics/western blot | Greiner, Cat#657160 | 720k |
The cultures were maintained in the complete culture media in a 37°C incubator with 5% CO2. At DIV3, FUdR (5-Fluoro-2′-deoxyuridine, 400x stock solution was made with 2 mg/ml FUdR (8mM) and 50 mg/ml uridine (4mM)) was added to culture media. At DIV4, neurons were transduced with AAVs based on experimental designs. At DIV12, cultured neurons were further treated with labeling, stimulation, or directly harvested for subsequent procedures according to experimental purposes. We estimated the ratio of excitatory to inhibitory neurons in the cultures to be 1–1.5:1 based on analysis using two approaches: 1. We counted the numbers of mRuby+ neurons based on vGAT and CaMKIIa induced Ruby expression. This indicated an excitatory: inhibitory ratio of roughly 1:1. 2. We counted CaMKII+ and vCAT+ neurons based on immunolabeling and this indicated an excitatory: inhibitory ratio of 1.5:1.
Immunohistochemistry
Animals were anesthetized with isoflurane (Covetrus, Cat#11695067772) and perfused with 1x PBS (ThermoFisher, Cat# 70011044) followed by 4% PFA (Electron Microscopy Sciences, Cat#15710-S) in 1x PBS. Brains were dissected and post-fixed in 4% PFA at 4°C O.N. and then switched to 1x PBS. 90μm coronal sections were prepared on a vibratome (Leica VT-1000s). Coronal sections between bregma −2.7mm and −3.64mm were selected for analysis of primary visual cortex. Multiwell dishes containing the sections were wrapped with foil to protect samples from light hereafter, as well as during the whole staining procedure. Sections were stored for up to 4 months at 4°C in 0.5% sodium azide (Sigma-Aldrich, Cat#S2002) in 1x PBS to prevent bacterial growth. All incubation steps hereafter were conducted on a horizontal shaker to provide mild agitation. Sections were incubated in antigen retrieval buffer (100 mM sodium citrate (Sigma-Aldrich, Cat#S-4641), 0.05% Tween 20 (Fisher Bioreagent, Cat#BP337100) in 1x PBS, pH = 6.0) for 5 min at RT, followed by brief boiling, then incubated in antigen retrieval buffer for additional 5 min at RT. Sections were then washed 3 times in 0.01% PBS-Tx (1xPBS with 0.01% Triton X-100 (Sigma-Aldrich, Cat#X100)) for 10 min at RT, followed by permeabilization in 0.05% PBS-Tx100 for 1h at RT. Sections were then blocked in IHC blocking buffer (4% bovine serum albumin (BSA, Fisher Bio-reagent, Cat#BP1600100), 3% normal donkey serum (Jackson Immuno Research Labs, Cat#017–000-121), 0.1% Triton X-100, and 0.5% sodium azide in 1x PBS) for 1h at RT. Subsequently, sections were incubated with primary antibodies diluted in IHC blocking buffer O.N. at 4°C (see concentrations in Table). The next day, sections were washed 3 times with 0.01% PBS-Tx100 for 10 min at RT, followed by incubation with secondary antibodies diluted in IHC blocking buffer for 2h at RT, then washed 3 times with 0.01% PBS-Tx100 for 10 min at RT. Finally, sections were mounted on glass slides (Fisher Scientific, Cat#22–034979) with PVA-DABCO (Sigma-Aldrich, catalog #10981) and sealed with a coverslip (VWR, Cat#16004–312). Processed slides were stored at 4°C within a week until imaging.
Immunocytochemistry
Neuronal cultures in 96-well plates were transferred from the incubator to room temperature (RT). To protect from light, the plates were covered with foil hereafter. Multichannel pipette was used to increase reproducibility of the staining procedure. Pipetting should be as gentle as possible to avoid disturbing the cell layer. Cultures were fixed in 4% PFA in 1x PBS for 20 min at RT, followed by rinsing in 1x PBS. Cultures were then treated with blocking and permeabilization buffer containing 3% BSA and 0.1% Triton X-100 in 1x PBS for 30 min at RT. After this, cultures were then incubated in primary antibodies diluted to the optimal concentration in ICC blocking buffer (3% bovine serum albumin in 1x PBS) at RT for 2h (see concentrations in Table). After a rinse with 1x PBS, cultures were then incubated with the secondary antibodies diluted 1:500 in ICC blocking buffer at RT for 1h. Following a final wash in 1x PBS, the plate was ready for imaging. Immunolabeled cultures can be stored at 4°C within a week before imaging.
| Antibody RRID | WB Conc | ICC Conc | IHC Conc |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Emerin AB_2798996 | 1/2000 | 1/400 | 1/100 |
| Lamin A/C AB_10545756 | 1/2000 | 1/150 | 1/100 |
| Biotin AB_228243 | 1/1000 | 1/300 | / |
| cFos AB_2247211 | 1/200 | 1100 | |
| Map2 AB_2138181 | 1/1000 | ||
| Map2 AB_477256 | 1/1000 | ||
| PDI AB_2156433 | 1/100 | ||
| Synaptophysin AB2864779 | 1/500 | ||
| PSD95 AB_2721262 | 1/100 | ||
| vGlut1 AB_2864787 | 1/250 | ||
| Homer1 AB_10549720 | 1/200 | ||
| vGat AB_2189938 | 1/250 | ||
Western blots
Cultured primary neurons were extensively washed with 1x DPBS and lysed in the dish with RIPA buffer (G-Biosciences, Cat#786–490) and 1x protease inhibitor (ThermoFisher, Cat#A32963). Dissected brain tissue was lysed and homogenized in 1x DPBS with a hand-held tip sonicator (Fisher Scientific, sonic dismembrator model 100). Protein concentration of the homogenate was determined using either BCA protein assay kit (ThermoFisher, Cat#23225) or DC protein assay kit (Bio-Rad, Cat#5000111). Protein extract with ANL or AHA labeling was clicked with biotin-alkyne described above. 6x Laemmli loading buffer (Boston BioProducts, Cat#BP-111R) was added to protein sample to reach 1x final concentration, vortexed and then boiled for 10 min at 100°C.
Western blots were done using MiniPROTEAN electrophoresis cell and compatible gradient precast gels (Bio-Rad, Cat#456–1096), at 120V constant voltage for 40–50 min. Proteins were transferred to nitrocellulose membranes using Trans-Blot Turbo Transfer System (Bio-Rad, Cat#1704150) and the compatible transfer kit (Bio-Rad, Cat#1704158).
Western blot membranes were subsequently stained with ponceau (Sigma-Aldrich, Cat#09189) for 5 min at RT. After scanning the ponceau signal on a scanner, the membrane was blocked with 5% blocking reagent (Bio-Rad, Cat#1706404) in 0.05% TBS-Tw20 for 1 h at RT, then incubated with primary antibodies diluted in WB blocking buffer (2.5% bovine serum albumin in 0.1% TBS-Tx100) O.N. at 4°C (see concentrations in Table). The next day, the membranes were washed 3 times for 10 min with 0.05% TBS-Tw20, followed by incubation with secondary antibodies diluted in WB blocking buffer for 2h at RT. Membranes were washed again in 0.05% TBS-Tw20 3 times for 10 min at RT. Membranes were then incubated with Pierce ECL (ThermoFisher, Cat#32106) for 4 min and developed onto light-sensitive film (Ece Scientific Co, Cat#E3018) for various amounts of time in a darkroom. Western blot data were analyzed in ImageJ using the lane analysis function.
Noncanonical amino acid labeling of newly-synthesized proteins
Bio-orthogonal noncanonical amino acid tagging (BONCAT) metabolically labels the nascent proteome by incorporation of noncanonical amino acids. To identify VE-dependent nascent proteome dynamics in excitatory and inhibitory visual cortical neurons, we dark-housed male and female critical period (P28) and adult (P56) mice for 3 days and delivered ANL by i.p. injection immediately before either 4h of VE or 4h in total darkness (DK). We collected the visual cortex 6h later and prepared samples for BONCAT and DiDBiT (Figure 1A).
in vivo:
In mice, 400mM Azidonorleucine (ANL, Chem Impex, Cat#30456) was prepared with UltraPure H2O (ThermoFisher, Cat#10977–015) and brought to pH = 7 with 10N NaOH (Fisher Scientific, Cat#SS2551). ANL solution was made fresh before treatment and can be kept at 4°C for short-term storage (freeze-thaw sometimes produces hard-to-redissolve precipitation). ANL was administered to mice through i.p. injection at 10 mL/kg using a 31-gauge insulin syringe (Becton Dickinson, Cat#324906) to minimize discomfort. This dosage was tested to be optimal for maximizing proteome labeling without impairing animal health. For ANL i.p. injections prior to the 4h visual experience, injections were performed under red light to eliminate environmental visual input to experimental and control groups. Mice were lightly anesthetized with 2% isoflurane inhalation in an anesthesia box. Mice were then weighed and injected. During this process, mice were anesthetized for less than 3minutes before waking up.
in vitro:
In primary neuronal cultures, 200mM Azidohomoalanine (AHA, Fisher Scientific, Cat#502107772) stock solution was prepared with UltraPure H2O and brought to pH = 7 with 10N NaOH. Before application, 200mM AHA was diluted in complete culture media pre-warmed to 37°C. The final concentration in each well should be 8mM. For Western blot analysis, cultures were treated with AHA for 1h before harvesting the sample. For proteomic analysis, AHA incubation was extended to 2.5h to maximize signal without affecting neuronal health.
Dark housing and visual experience
Mice were reared normally under a 12/12 light-dark cycle before being subjected to this protocol. First, mice were dark housed in a light and sound-proof chamber with ventilation and temperature/humidity control for 72h. Mice then received an i.p. injection of ANL, as described above, under dim red light. The DK group was returned to their cage inside the dark housing chamber until tissue collection. The VE group was placed inside a visual experience arena with transparent walls and running wheels, also inside of the dark-housing chamber. 1h after i.p. ANL injection, 6 video tablets were placed to surround the arena, and played a black-white visual noise video to provide visual stimulation including motion and contrast.82 Freely moving mice were exposed to the visual experience for 4h and then housed in darkness for another 5h. This 5h period in darkness allows the immediate-early wave of visual experience responses to pass in order to capture synthesis and accumulation of newly synthesized effector proteins and maximize signals for proteomic analysis. Tissue collection was then performed under dim red light, where mice were deeply anesthetized with isoflurane and euthanized by cervical dislocation. Brains were then dissected, snap-frozen in isopentane (Millipore Sigma, Cat#270342–2L) incubated on dry ice and stored at −80°C before subsequent processing.
BONCAT
BONCAT was performed as described previously,83 following the click recipe below and scaled proportionally to protein amount. Proteins were homogenized in DPBS and SDS solution was added to reach 0.05% final concentration to help release lipid-associated proteins. The assembled reaction was then thoroughly vortexed and incubated at RT for 1h. An extra vortex step was performed at 30 min. The click reaction sample was stored at −20°C for up to a week before further analysis.
| Stock solution | per reaction | Cat# | Stock solution recipe |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Protein sample | 500ng | / | / |
| 1.7mM TBTA | 30ul | Sigma-Aldrich, Cat#678937 | 50x stock TBTA: 8.85mg TBTA in 200μL DMSO. 1.7mM TBTA: 20μL 50x TBTA +180μL DMSO +800mL tert-butanol. Store at RT |
| 50mM CuSO4 | 8ul | Sigma-Aldrich, Cat#451657 | 7.98 mg/ml in ddH2O. Store aliquot in −20°C |
| 5mM Biotin-PEG4-alkyne or heavy/light-labeled-biotin-alkyne | 8ul | Click Chemistry Tools, Cat#TA105-25. Setareh-7889 or −7884 |
Dissolve 25mg in 10.927mL DMSO. Store aliquot in −20°C |
| 50mM TCEP | 8ul | Sigma-Aldrich, Cat#C4706 | 14.3 mg/ml in ddH2O. Make fresh |
| 1x DPBS | top to 400ul | ThermoFisher, Cat#14190-144 | Dilute from 10x DPBS with ddH2O |
Cell type-specific nascent proteomic analysis with DiDBiT in mouse visual cortical tissue
Mouse primary visual cortex was micro-dissected on ice. Specifically, a 3mm-thick section was made from lamda toward anterior using a mouse coronal brain matrices (Ted Pella, Cat#15050). Visual cortex tissue was then homogenized in 200μL 1x DPBS using a hand-held tip sonicator. Protein concentration was determined using the BCA protein assay kit.
Visual cortices were dissected and pooled from 5 mice treated under the same condition to accumulate 10mg protein as starting material for subsequent preparation of each MS sample. The following protocol was adapted from DiDBiT and other protocols.41,83 Specifically, VE and DK samples were separately clicked with heavy-isotope biotin-alkyne or light-isotope biotin-alkyne, respectively. These two types of biotin-alkyne yield the same click reaction efficiency and do not produce biases, as tested in previous work. Then equal amounts of VE and DK click reaction were mixed, precipitated with methanol-chloroform method, where methanol, chloroform and ddH2O were sequentially added to sample with volume of sample: methanol: chloroform: ddH2O = 1:3:1:3. The mixture was vortexed and centrifuged at 15,000 rcf. Protein precipitates were then resuspended with 8M Urea (MilliporeSigma, Cat#51456) dissolved in 100mM Tris-HCl (pH = 8.5). Resuspension was then reduced and alkylated and diluted 4x with 100mM Tris-HCl (pH = 8.5). Then TrypZean (MilliporeSigma, Cat#T3568–10mg) was added to protein sample at a 1:20 ratio and incubated on a thermomixer at 37°C. The digested sample was centrifuged at 15,000 rcf for 10 min at RT. The supernatant was removed and incubated with 200μL DPBS-washed Neutravidin beads (ThermoFisher, Cat#29200) on a thermomixer for 2h at 22°C. Stringent wash steps were followed as described in the published protocol, with an extra 2M Urea wash right after affinity binding. Bound peptides were eluted with acidic elution buffer (800μL acetonitrile, 197μL UltraPure H2O, 2μL formic acid and 1μL trifluoroacetic acid). Eluate was then vacuum-dried with SpeedVac (ThermoFisher, Model#DNA120–115) until all solvent evaporated.
Dried peptides were then resuspended in buffer A (5% acetonitrile, 95% UltraPure H2O and 0.1% formic acid), then analyzed on a Fusion Lumos Orbitrap tribrid mass spectrometer (ThermoFisher). The digest was injected directly onto a 25 cm, 100 μm ID column packed with BEH 1.7 μm C18 resin (Waters). Samples were separated at a flow rate of 400 nL/min on a nLC 1000 (ThermoFisher). Buffer A and B were 0.1% formic acid in 5% and 80% acetonitrile, respectively. A gradient of 1–25% buffer B over 120 min, an increase to 40% buffer B over 40 min, an increase to 90% buffer B over 10 min and held at 90% buffer B for a final 10 min was used for 180 min total run time. The column was re-equilibrated with 20 μL of buffer A prior to the injection of sample. Peptides were eluted directly from the tip of the column and nano-sprayed directly into the mass spectrometer, by application of 2.5 kV voltage at the back of the column. The mass spectrometer was operated in a data-dependent mode. Full MS scans were collected in the Orbitrap at 120K resolution with a mass range of 400–1500 m/z and an AGC target of 4e5. The cycle time was set to 3s, and within this 3s the most abundant ions per scan were selected for CID MS/MS in the ion trap with an AGC target of 2e4 and minimum intensity of 5000. Maximum fill times were set to 50 ms and 100 ms for MS and MS/MS scans respectively. Quadrupole isolation at 1.6 m/z was used, monoisotopic precursor selection was enabled, and dynamic exclusion was used with exclusion duration of 5 s. Proteomics data quantification and statistical analysis were performed on Integrated Proteomics Pipeline (IP2) (Bruker Scientific, http://www.bruker.com).
Nascent proteomic analysis with DiDBiT in cultured neurons
AHA-labeled cultured neurons were extensively washed with 1x DPBS before lysed in dish with 10% RIPA buffer (diluted in 1x DPBS to reduce the amount of detergent so not to interfere with click chemistry) and 1x protease inhibitor. A cell scraper was used to maximize the sample recovery. Protein concentration was determined with the DC protein assay, and protein samples treated under the same condition were pooled to get 2mg protein starting material for subsequent preparation of one biological replicate. Sample preparation and LC-MS/MS protocol are the same as in vivo ANL-labeled samples.
FUNCAT in cultured neurons
FUNCAT protocols for in vitro and in vivo samples were adopted from previously published guidelines84 with a few modifications. Specifically, cultured neurons in 96-well plates were transferred from the incubator to RT. From this point on, the plate was wrapped in foil to protect it from light. Cultures were fixed with FUNCAT fix buffer (1mM MgCl2 (Sigma-Aldrich, Cat#M8266), 0.1mM CaCl2 (Sigma-Aldrich, Cat#C3881), 4% PFA, 4% sucrose (Sigma-Aldrich, Cat#G5400) in 1x PBS) for 20 min at RT, then permeabilized with 0.5% DPBS-Tx100 for 15 min at RT, followed by blocking with 0.1% Triton X-100 in B-Block (10% normal horse serum (Jackson Immuno Research Labs, Cat#008–000-121), 5% sucrose and 2% BSA in 1x PBS, pH = 7.4) for 1h at RT. Cultures were then washed with 0.1% DPBS-Tx100 for 15 min at RT. After washing, cultures were incubated in FUNCAT mix O.N. at RT, which was prepared with 2.4μL 85mM TBTA, 50mM TCEP, 2μL 2mM fluor-alkyne (AlexaFluor647-Alkyne (ThermoFisher, Cat#A10278) or AlexaFluor488-Alkyne (ThermoFisher, Cat#A10267)) and 4μL 50mM CuSO4 mixed in 1mL fresh 1x DPBS. FUNCAT mix was filtered with a 5mL syringe and 0.22 μm syringe filter (MilliporeSigma, Cat#SLGPR33RS) to remove precipitates, if any. In each 96-well, enough FUNCAT mix was added to fill up the entire well, and the plate was sealed off with adhesive plastic film (Bio-Rad, Cat#MSB1001), and incubated inverted while covered with foil. This prevented adhesion of click reagent aggregates and significantly reduced background aggregates to almost none in our experience. The next day, the film was peeled off and the culture was further washed with 0.1% DPBS-Tx100 for 10 min at RT and the regular ICC protocol was used to label necessary markers before being imaged.
Pentylenetetrazol, bicuculline, actinomycin-D and anisomycin treatments
In adult mice, 50 mg/kg PTZ (dissolved in 1x PBS) or PBS control was i.p. injected to induce seizure. PTZ solution was made fresh before use. Mice were monitored for 30 min after injection to rate seizure level according to the Racine-Pinel-Rovner seizure behavioral scale (Table S6). Only mice reaching stage 6 or 7 were included in the following analysis. Stage 8 usually quickly transitioned to death, therefore was not included in this study. In total, about 80% of mice injected with PTZ fit the criteria and were included in this study.
For primary neuronal cultures, 10mM bicuculline (Bicuculline Methiodine, Tocris, Cat# 2503), 200x stock solution was prepared by dissolving powder into ddH2O. The stock solution was stored as aliquots in −20°C. When treating neuronal cultures, an appropriate amount of 200x bicuculline stock was mixed with pre-warmed culture media and then added to each well, to reach final concentration of 50 μM in culture. ddH2O was used as control for this experiment.
For primary neuronal cultures, 2.5mM actinomycin-D (Sigma Aldrich, Cat#A1410) 100x stock solution and anisomycin (Tocris, Cat#22862–76-6) 1250x stock solution were prepared by dissolving into DMSO (Fisher Scientific, Cat#BP231–100). Stock solutions were stored as aliquots in −20°C. When treating neuronal cultures, appropriate amount of stock solution was mixed with pre-warmed culture media and then added to each well, to reach final concentration of 25μM of actinomycin-D or 40μM of anisomycin in culture. DMSO was used as control for this experiment.
Reverse transcription qPCR
To perform RT-qPCR on cultured neurons, culture media was removed, and cells were collected with TRIzol reagent (Invitrogen, Cat#15596026), with a cell scraper. RNA microprep kit (Zymo Research, Cat#R1050) was used to extract total RNA from the neuron sample in each well, following the protocol specified by the kit. RNA concentration was measured with nanodrop, and the same amount of RNA was taken from each sample for reverse transcription. cDNA was synthesized using the SuperScript IV reverse transcriptase kit (Invitrogen, Cat#18090010) with random hexamers. qPCR was performed with 2 ng/μL cDNA as template, SYBR green master mix (Bio-Rad, Cat#1725121), primers for genes listed below and the Bio-Rad CFX384 qPCR system (Bio-Rad, Cat#1855484). Primers for immediate-early genes were obtained from previously published sequences.85Others were provided by IDT PrimerTime qPCR primer assays services.
| Gene | Forward primer | Reverse primer |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Gapdh | 5’-aatggtgaaggtcggtgtg-3’ | 5’-aatggtgaaggtcggtgtg-3’ |
| Actb | 5’-gattactgctctggctcctag-3’ | 5’-gactcatcgtactcctgcttg-3’ |
| Emd | 5’-atgctgataccttccatcacc-3’ | 5’-gtgtgcgatgctctggtag-3’ |
| Fos | 5’-gggacagcctttcctactacc-3’ | 5’-agatctgcgcaaaagtcctg-3’ |
| Arc | 5’-ggtgagctgaagccacaaat-3’ | 5’-ttcactggtatgaatcactgctg-3’ |
| Egr1 | 5’-cctatgagcacctgaccaca-3’ | 5’-agcggccagtataggtgatg-3’ |
| Npas4 | 5’-ttcacagctgaggggaagtt-3’ | 5’-tgttgaatcgacaacggaaa-3’ |
In situ BONCAT-PLA in vitro
PLA was performed to detect biotinylated newly-synthesized Emerin. Specifically, in situ BONCAT was performed following the in vitro FUNCAT protocol, substituting the 2μL 2mM fluor-alkyne with 0.8μL 5mM biotin-alkyne in the FUNCAT mix. The same inverted incubation method was also applied here. After in situ BONCAT, PLA was immediately performed using Duolink Proximity Ligation Assay kit (Sigma Aldrich) according to the manufacturer’s protocol. Briefly, cultures were blocked with ICC blocking buffer, and then incubated with primary antibodies, goat-anti-biotin and rabbit-anti-Emerin, diluted in ICC blocking buffer, following the ICC protocol of these two steps. Then, the culture was washed with PLA wash buffer A twice for 5 min at RT, then incubated with PLA probe diluted 1:5 in PLA antibody diluent (Anti-Goat-PLUS (DUO92003) and Anti-Rabbit-MINUS (DUO92005) probes) for 1h in a 37°C humidified oven. Following probe incubation, the culture was rinsed with PLA buffer A twice for 5 min at RT. Ligation and amplification with far-red detection reagent (DUO92013) were then performed strictly following the manufacturer’s protocol. After the final rinse with 0.01x PLA wash buffer B, the culture was quickly fixed with 4% PFA in PBS for 15 min at RT to crosslink and secure the PLA complex, and to quickly denature all the reagents used prior to this step. Then, the culture was further subjected to regular ICC protocol to label necessary markers before being imaged.
Molecular cloning
All plasmids used in this study have an AAV compatible backbone and were subsequently packaged into AAV. A template plasmid AAV-U6-MCS1-hSyn-FLEx-MCS2-mRuby-MCS3 was generated to build shRNA and fusion protein overexpression vectors. Digestion of the multiple cloning site (MCS) was performed using restriction enzyme from NEB Bio-Lab. Three shRNA sequences specifically targeting mouse Emerin mRNA were chosen from The Broad Institute RNAi Consortium shRNA library, with 1 against 3′UTR (TRCN0000240585) and 2 against CDS (TRCN0000216203 and TRCN0000240584). A scrambled shRNA sequence was used as control shRNA. DNA oligoes were designed to have sticky ends compatible with MCS1, annealed, phosphorylated and inserted into template vector through T4 ligation (NEB Bio-Lab, Cat#M0202M). For the Emerin-mRuby fusion protein overexpression vector, the Emerin coding sequence was PCR amplified from a cDNA library reverse-transcribed from mouse primary neuronal culture RNA extract (a gift from the Maximov lab). PCR primers were designed according to the mRNA sequence from NCBI Reference Sequence Database (NM_007927.3). Amplified cDNA was validated through gel electrophoresis and sequencing, then purified and inserted into MCS2 or MCS3 of the template plasmid using the In-Fusion assembly mix (Takara, Cat#638948). The template plasmid was used directly as the overexpression control. Both C terminus and N terminus mRuby fusion plasmids were created this way. Ligation/assembly was used to transform NEB Stable competent E. coli (NEB Bio-Lab, Cat#C3040H), spread on carbenicillin (Gibco, Cat#10177012) LB-agar plates. Single colonies were picked, miniprepped and sequenced. Clones with the correct insertion were picked based on the sequencing data, and then subsequently tested with HEK cell transfection. Both C terminus and N terminus tagged fusion proteins showed ER and nucleus membrane localization, similar to the endogenous Emerin localization pattern stained with antibody in mRuby-only control transfected HEK cell. The C terminus fusion protein was expressed at a higher level than the N terminus fusion protein in HEK cells. Therefore, the C terminus fusion plasmid was used for AAV packaging and future experiments. shEmd triple-transfection in HEK cells overexpressing mouse Emerin showed efficient mouse Emerin knockdown, compared to sham transfected as well as shScramble transfected. AAV-CaMKIIα-Cre was modified from AAV-CaMKIIα-EGFP-Cre from Addgene (Addgene #105551) by removing the EGFP sequence. AAV-vGat-Cre was made by replacing the promotor in AAV-CaMKIIα-Cre with the vGat promotor from hU6-gRNA-vGat-dCas9-EGFP described before.86 AAV-hSyn-FLEx-jGCaMP7s was obtained from Addgene (Addgene #104491).
AAV production
AAV packaging was performed as previously described.87 First, plasmids to be packaged were maxi-prepped (Zymo Research, Cat#D4203) according to the protocol described by the kit. AAV-293 HEK cells (Agilent, Cat#240073) were used and cultured in 15cm culture dishes with 5% FBS-DMEM (ThermoFisher, Cat#11995065) supplemented with 1% NEAA (ThermoFisher, Cat#11140–050), 1% Sodium pyruvate (ThermoFisher, Cat#11360–070), 1% GlutaMax and 1% P/S. Briefly, HEK cells were triple-transfected with pHelper, pAAV.DJ and the expression vector using PEI (Polysciences, Cat#23966–1). Culture media was collected 72h and 120h after transfection. Cells are scrapped and collected at the 120h time point. Viral particles are precipitated from media with PEG. The media pellet and the cell pellet were digested separately using salt activated enzyme and then combined after completion. Ultrahigh-speed centrifugation was used to purify viral particles in a sucrose density gradient using Optiprep. The purified virus was then subjected to 4 rounds of DPBS buffer exchange in Amicon filter tubes and concentrated to the desired volume during the final buffer exchange. AAVs were titered using the qPCR protocol described in Challis et al., 2019. From 5 15cm culture dishes, we usually recovered virus with a titer around 1013 vg/ml in 400–600μL final volume. The virus was then aliquoted and stored in −80°C, or 4°C after thawing. For primary culture experiments, AAV-GCaMP7s and AAV-shRNA were added to primary culture at a dosage of 5×107vg per 96 well, and cre-delivering AAVs were added at a dosage of 2.5×107vg per 96 well. Emerin OE AAVs and the corresponding control were added at 1.25×107vg per 96 well, with 1.25×107vg cre-delivering AAVs. In other well plate formats, virus dosage was adjusted proportionally to the surface area. This dosage allowed sufficient fluorescent signal for imaging and good OE and KD level for Emerin in our experiments, while maintaining culture health. For stereotaxic injections, viruses were used at a concentration of 1×1012vg/ml.
Calcium imaging
For calcium imaging in vitro, DIV4 primary mouse neurons were transduced with AAV-hSyn-FLEx-GCaMP7s and either AAV-CaMKIIα-cre or AAV-vGat-Cre. AAVs reach steady expression 7 days after transduction. Neuronal cultures were imaged on DIV12. Calcium transients were imaged using the ImageExpress HT.ai confocal high-content imaging system (IXM, Molecular Devices). Glass bottom 96 well plates were placed in the imaging system with environmental control (37C, humidified gas constituted by 5% CO2, 21% O2 and rest with N2) throughout the entire imaging period. A 10x Plan Apo 0.45NA objective was used with a confocal 50μm slit setting. Laser power is set at 2% and each frame is exposed for 50ms, equal to 20Hz sampling rate. Each well was imaged sequentially in 4 non-overlapping FOV, with each FOV was imaged for 2min. The area imaged in total accounts for 25.45% of the well area. Single z-plane single-channel t-series.TIF files were analyzed using Suite2P.88 Default settings were used for ROI registration and spike detection. ROI detection was manually inspected for each movie file as a quality control. For each movie file, the total deconvoluted spike counts and averaged spike amplitude were calculated for each ROI using Python and Numpy package. Data visualization and statistics were performed using Prism GraphPad.
Stereotaxic injection in visual cortex
To deliver AAV stereotaxically into the binocular region of adult mouse visual cortex, mice were anesthetized with 5% isoflurane inside an anesthesia induction chamber and then head-fixed on stereotaxic frame (Kopf instruments, model-942 with digital display) with 1.5–2% isoflurane constantly delivered through a nose cone throughout the procedure. 0.25 mg/ml Flunixin (supplied by TSRI department of animal resources) was i.p. injected at 10 mL/kg and 0.3 mg/ml buprenorphine (Covetrus, Cat#055175) was i.m. injected at 2 mL/kg prior to surgery procedures for analgesic purposes. The hair was removed, and the exposed skin was sterilized with Povidone-Iodine as well as 75% ethanol. A midline incision was made to expose the skull above the visual cortex. A NanoFil 10μL syringe (WPI, Cat#NANOFIL) with 33-gauge beveled NanoFil needle (WPI, Cat#NF33BV-2) was loaded with AAV, motorized with an electrical micropump (WPI, Cat#UMP3T-2) to control the amount of liquid dispensed and navigated to visual cortex through the digital coordinates display. bregma was used as set to (0, 0, 0) reference. Coordinates for the binocular region of primary visual cortex are AP = −3.3, ML = +/− 2.8, and the needle was advanced along the dorsal-ventral axis with 2 stops at DV = −1.1 and −1.5 for virus injection. A small opening was made in the skull with a microdrill (RWD, Cat#78001) above the site selected for injection. The syringe was advanced slowly to the first injection site. At each DV stop, 600nL of AAV was dispensed at 80 nL/min. The syringe remained at each injection site for another 10min to increase local AAV diffusion. After injection and retraction of the needle, the skin was sutured (Healthcare Products, Cat#ETHJ392H), and the closure was further reinforced with Vetbond. Mice continued to receive the same analgesics regime for 3 days and were monitored for health daily. Animals were used for experiments after 4–5 weeks.
Visually-evoked potential surgery and recording
For VEP recording experiments, we used the Data Acquisition and Analysis MP150 System (BIOPAC Systems, Inc.) to aid in implanting the electrode and for VEP recording. AAV was delivered through the stereotaxic injection protocol as described above. After AAV was injected, 2 slightly larger openings were drilled at coordinates AP = −3.5, ML = +/− 3.2 to implant the recording electrodes bilaterally into the binocular regions of visual cortex, as described previously.10 2 additional openings were drilled at coordinates AP = +1, ML = +/−1 for bilaterally implanting reference electrodes in the prefrontal cortex. The electrodes consist of an insulated stainless-steel wire (0.005″ diameter, 3 mm length, 005SW-30S, PlasticsOne Inc.). The insulation was burned to remove 2 mm of coating from one end of the wire and then it was inserted into a male pin (A-M systems, Protech International Inc) and crimped (AFM8 crimping tool, Bloomfield Hills, Mich). The insulation at the other end of the wire was burned to remove 0.5 mm of coating with the help of a magnifying glass and a ruler. The male pin was connected to a female miniature pin (0.032″×0.4″0.005″ diameter, 3 mm length, 005SW-30S, PlasticsOne Inc.), crimped to a standard touchproof connector to interfacing to 100C-series Biopotential amplifiers (Biopac Inc). The average active electrode impedance was 5.2 ± 2.42 kΩ (mean ± SD, Grass Electrode Impedance Meter, Model EZM3A, Quincy, MA).
Two reference electrodes were implanted first, slowly inserted 0.25mm under the dura, and secured in place with dental cement (Stoeling, Cat#100229–622). Two recording electrodes were implanted next, one by one. During the implantation, the recording electrode was held on a stereotaxic arm and connected to the MP150 amplifier system with real-time recording with AcqKnowledge data acquisition software. The corresponding reference electrode was connected during this process to test the circuit. As the recording electrode was lowered into the brain, the noise level significantly dropped when it touched the dura, and from this point, the recording electrode was further advanced for 250μm to reach layer 2/3 of visual cortex. The recording electrodes were then cemented to the skull with dental cement. Then, a 3-pronged head bar (design kindly shared by the Komiyama lab, UCSD) was cemented to the skull, providing head restraint during the VEP recording with a mini-clamp designed to fit the 3-pronged head bar. Mice were post-operatively cared for in the same way as the stereotaxic injection protocol.
4 weeks after implanting the electrodes, VEP recording was performed under dim red light at 4–6p.m. period with the mice dark-adapted for 1h prior to each session. Mice were anesthetized with 10 mg/ml xylazine (AnaSed, Cat#59399–110-20) i.p. injected at 3 mL/kg and 10 mg/ml pentobarbital (Pisa agropecuaria, PISAPENTAL) i.m. injected at 3 mL/kg. Mice were placed in the head-restraint mini-clamp and positioned with their eyes 20cm in front of a LED stroboscope (Monarch instruments, Nova-pro 300) controlled by the MP150 system to flash at 1Hz of 0.05 cd s/m2 white light. 250 flashes were delivered binocularly while simultaneously recording visually evoked response from both hemispheres. The signal was amplified 10,000 (PM150 system, Biopac Inc), bandpass filtered (1–35 Hz) and digitized at 20000 Hz with 12 bits resolution. Responses were averaged across 250 iterations within 1 session. 2 sets of 2 amplifiers were used to measure each hemisphere and then switched between the 2 hemispheres and recorded again to exclude potential instrument bias. 4 traces were obtained for each visual cortex response and averaged to quantify response amplitude and latency.
Visual cliff test and video analysis
The visual cliff apparatus is a home-made acrylic plexiglass box as depicted in Figure 7, placed inside a dark room with dim red light. The top part is a 60 cm × 60 cm × 60cm plexiglass box enclosing a flat transparent floor with black and white checkerboard pattern at 100% contrast attached to the underside of one quadrant of the floor (the safe zone). White paper was taped around the outside to block irrelevant visual cues. The bottom part of the apparatus is 60 cm × 60 cm × 50cm in size, with the same black-white checkerboard pattern covering the 4 walls and the floor. A Logitech Brio 4K webcam was held right over the top of the arena walls recording at 30 frames per second. A light source was placed next to the webcam to provide lighting for the test area.
With this setup, the texture of the safe zone and the remainder of the transparent floor on the top part is homogeneous to the mice, and the proximal visual cues inside the safe zone can be distinguished from the distant visual cues on the lower floor of the unsafe zones. Our visual cliff test, slightly different from the conventional visual cliff setup, is constituted by 25% of safe zone and 75% unsafe zone, as opposed to the traditional 50–50 division. This setup doubles the chances of crossing the edge from safe to unsafe zones (2 edges as opposed to 1 edge in 50–50 division), which seemed to help animals recognize the differences between the safe and unsafe zones sooner and decide to stay in the safe zone faster if their depth perception was intact. All visual cliff tests were performed at 1–3p.m. Prior to tests, mice were acclimated in the testing room for 1h. During the test, a mouse was placed in the center of the safe zone, and then allowed to explore freely for a 2min period. Apparent safe zone preference was detected within this 2min period, and this preference didn’t change when tested a second time 4 weeks later. The plexiglass surface of the top part (the walls and the floor) was thoroughly cleaned with disinfecting and deodorizing spray (PeroxiGard, AHP, Cat#74559–4) in between trials. Videos were post-processed with Capcut movie processing software to remove the frames involving the experimenters. Then, mice movements and arena landmarks were labeled and traced using DeepLabCut Resnet50 machine learning network following previously published guidance.89 Python-based DLCAnalyzer was modified and applied to define safe/unsafe zones, calculate speed/time/distance and generate zone visit reports.90
IXM high-content imaging, image processing and analysis
Neuronal cultures in glass-bottom 96 well plates (processed according to the ICC, FUNCAT or in situ BONCAT-PLA protocols) were imaged using the HT.ai confocal high-content imaging system (Molecular Devices). The imaging was set up using either the 20x Apo LWD (NA 0.95) or the 40x Apo LWD (NA 1.15) water immersion objectives, with 4 available channels including DAPI, FITC, TRITC and Cy5. 16–36 non-overlapping FOV were imaged per well. All datasets were manually inspected for out-of-focus images or images including well edges as quality control. Images were pre-processed using ImageJ in a batch mode before Cell Profiler analysis.91 Then, customized Cell Profiler pipelines were written and applied to each dataset based on the experimental designs. In general, a pipeline includes illumination correction, primary ROI identification with threshold and watershed, relating objects, image/object-based measurements, ROI overlay output, and data exportation in database format. Databased files were further read by DB browser software and per-image and/or per-object information was exported to.csv format for statistics.
In greater detail: The images were acquired on an HT.ai confocal high-content imaging system (Molecular Devices) under the full 16-bit range with the use of the saturation assistance to avoid saturated pixels. Image data were analyzed using ImageJ as described below: (1) To analyze cell body signals in Figures 2D, 2H, 3F, 4D–4F and 5SJ, the DAPI channel was thresholded, and size-filtered to generate a mask for individual neuron measurements. The channel that we were quantifying (Emerin, BONCAT-PLA, FUNCAT or EGFP signals) was not subjected to post-imaging processing. (2) To analyze puncta signals in Figures 5 and S6, the DAPI channel was thresholded, watershed and size-filtered to count neurons in the field-of-view and the puncta signals (synaptic makers) are thresholded to remove background, watershed and size-filtered to facilitate puncta counting. Parameters for each post-processing steps were chosen and tested on 20 images per condition to ensure sufficient background removal and avoid signal loss/saturation. Once chosen, the same set of parameters were applied to all images in the same channel of different conditions in the entire dataset. (3) To analyze full field signals in Figures 6I and S8A, images were not subjected to post-imaging processing, however representative images were further processed for demonstration purposes. The min and max intensities were adjusted to the full dynamic range, and the same min/max values were applied to all images in the same channel of that dataset.
We established an automated method to identify and count neurons or dead cells with condensed nuclei, using DAPI labeling and size filters. To count neurons, we used MAP2 immunolabeling as a reference to evaluate the performance of DAPI-based cell identification and counting. A stringent minimum and maximum size range for the DAPI labeled nuclei allows exclusive identification of MAP2+ cells (i.e., neurons) and excludes dead cells, with small bright condensed nuclei. This strategy minimized manual or investigator bias and generated more consistent data across samples. To quantify immunocytochemistry signals in neuronal cell bodies, each neuronal cell body, determined using size-filtered expanded DAPI object, was used as the ROIs to measure signal intensity in the channel-of-interest. The size threshold was chosen empirically to exclusively retain neuronal nuclei and manually validated using MAP2 immunolabeling. To count fluorescently labeled puncta, intensity-based filters were chosen and evaluated manually to ensure sufficient background removal and minimize signal loss and were applied to all images in the same channel across different conditions. Puncta were segmented using watershed and counted. Neurons were identified as size-filtered DAPI objects, counted and used to normalize puncta count to determine puncta density per neuron. While allowing synaptic marker density comparison between treatment and control, synaptic density counts underestimate the true synapse numbers in our cultures, based on spine density as shown in Figures 5I–5K (avg. 0.2 spine/μm).
Nikon confocal imaging and analysis
Mouse brain sections were imaged on a Nikon A1 confocal microscope with either the 10× Plan Apo objective (NA 0.45), the 20× Plan Apo objective (NA 0.7) or the 40× Plan Fluor oil immersion objective (NA 1.3). cFos expression was analyzed through manual cell counting assisted with ImageJ cell counter plugin.
Bioinformatics
Bioinformatic analyses were performed using the QIAGEN IPA (QIAGEN Inc.),92 Metascape database93 and STRING PPI network analysis.94 For IPA, core analysis was performed using p-value (0.05 cutoff) and log2 expression ratio as data input. The same datasets were submitted to Metascape for parallel analysis. Pathway components identified by Metascape were then input to the STRING database to generate PPI networks with orphan nodes removed. For the IPA analysis shown in Figure 1E, p values are indicated by the size of each dot in this plot, while colors indicate the ‘IPA Activation Z score’. The enrichment p value of each pathway only plays a partial role in calculating the activation Z score by the IPA software. This value considers two main factors: (1) the direction of regulation, ‘up’ or ‘down’, of the genes/proteins in this pathway according to the user-submitted datasets and (2) the literature-derived direction of the gene-to-pathway effect, which is either ‘increasing’ or ‘decreasing’. When clear literature data are not available on the directionality of how a gene/protein regulates a pathway, the subsequent activation prediction will return ‘not available’ (gray). This doesn’t invalidate this pathway’s enrichment, and therefore it’s included.
QUANTIFICATION AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Statistics
Statistic tests were selected according to the experimental design and types of data and performed using Prism GraphPad unless otherwise stated, as indicated in the figure legends. Normally distributed datasets were analyzed used parametric statistical tests while non-normal datsets were analyzed using non-parametric tests with adjustments for multiple comparisons as necessary. The following tests and corrections were used: two-tailed t tests, Welsh’s t test, paired t test, Pearson correlation coefficient (R), one-way ANOVA with Sidak correction for multiple comparisons, Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn’s correction for multiple comparisons, Mann-Whitney test. Proteomics data quantification and statistical analysis were performed on Integrated Proteomics Pipeline (IP2) (Bruker Scientific, http://www.bruker.com). The statistical significance of the differential expression of all proteins was determined using a two-tailed t test of the corresponding peptide quantification ratios between the two conditions with p < 0.05 set as the cutoff for statistical significance. False discovery rate (FDR)-adjusted p values were calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction. The statistical tests, plot types, N values, and data representation are specified in the figure legends. In some plots, confidence intervals or error bars are obscured by the median or the mean. Normalization was noted in the y axis label or figure legends. Data were analyzed blind to experimental condition.
Supplementary Material
KEY RESOURCES TABLE.
| REAGENT or RESOURCE | SOURCE | IDENTIFIER |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Antibodies | ||
|
| ||
| Rabbit anti-Emerin monoclonal primary antibody | Cell signaling #30853S | RRID: AB_2798996 |
| Mouse anti-Lamin A/C monoclonal primary antibody | Cell signaling #4777S | RRID: AB_10545756 |
| Goat anti-biotin polyclonal primary antibody | Invitrogen #31852 | RRID: AB_228243 |
| Rabbit anti-cFos monoclonal primary antibody | Cell signaling #2250S | RRID: AB_2247211 |
| Guinea pig anti-Map2 polyclonal primary antibody | Synaptic System #188004 | RRID: AB_2138181 |
| Mouse anti-Map2 monoclonal primary antibody | Sigma-Aldrich #M9942 | RRID: AB_477256 |
| Rabbit anti-PDI monoclonal primary antibody | Cell signaling #3501 | RRID: AB_2156433 |
| Rabbit anti-Synaptophysin monoclonal primary antibody | Synaptic System #101008 | RRID: AB_2864779 |
| Mouse anti-PSD95 monoclonal primary antibody | Cell signaling #36233 | RRID: AB_2721262 |
| Rabbit anti-vGlut1 monoclonal primary antibody | Synaptic System #135308 | RRID: AB_2864787 |
| Guinea pig anti-Homer1 polyclonal primary antibody | Synaptic System #160004 | RRID: AB_10549720 |
| Rabbit anti-vGat polyclonal primary antibody | Synaptic System #131013 | RRID: AB_2189938 |
| Mouse anti-Gephyrin monoclonal primary antibody | Synaptic System #147021 | RRID: AB_2232546 |
|
| ||
| Bacterial and virus strains | ||
|
| ||
| NEB Stable competent E. coli | NEB Bio-Lab | Cat#C3040H |
| AAV.dj capsid | Gift from Maximov lab | / |
|
| ||
| Chemicals, peptides, and recombinant proteins | ||
|
| ||
| L-azidonorleucine | Chem Impex | Cat#30456 |
| L-azidohomoalanine | Fisher Scientific | Cat#502107772 |
| Bicuculline Methiodine | Tocris | Cat# 2503 |
| Actinomycin-D | Sigma Aldrich | Cat#A1410 |
| Anisomycin | Tocris | Cat#22862-76-6 |
| Paraformaldehyde | Electron Microscopy Sciences | Cat#15710-S |
| TBTA | Sigma-Aldrich | Cat#678937 |
| CuSO4 | Sigma-Aldrich | Cat#451657 |
| Biotin-PEG4-alkyne | Click Chemistry Tools | Cat#TA105-25 |
| Heavy isotope-labeled-biotin-alkyne | Setareh | Cat#7889 |
| Light isotope-labeled-biotin-alkyne | Setareh | Cat#7884 |
| TCEP | Sigma-Aldrich | Cat#C4706 |
|
| ||
| Critical commercial assays | ||
|
| ||
| BCA protein assay | ThermoFisher | Cat#23225 |
| Duolink proximity ligation assay | Sigma Aldrich | Duolink |
| Western blot | Bio-Rad | MiniPROTEAN |
|
| ||
| Deposited data | ||
|
| ||
| VE-induced cell type-specific nascent proteomic analysis | ProteomeXchange | Accession # PXD050926 |
| Emerin overexpression nascent proteomic analysis | ProteomeXchange | Accession # PXD050926 |
|
| ||
| Experimental models: Organisms/strains | ||
|
| ||
| EMX1Cre mice | Jackson laboratory | JAX 005628 |
| vGatCre mice | Jackson laboratory | JAX 16962 |
| R26lsl–GFP-mMetRS mice | Jackson laboratory | JAX 028071 |
| C57BL/6 mice | Scripps Research breeding colony | / |
|
| ||
| Oligonucleotides | ||
|
| ||
| mMetRS LoxP-STOP-LoxP forward primer | Integrated DNA technologies | ctcatgcgttgggtccac |
| mMetRS LoxP-STOP-LoxP reverse primer | Integrated DNA technologies | ccggtggtgcagatgaactt |
| Gapdh mRNA forward primer | Integrated DNA technologies | aatggtgaaggtcggtgtg |
| Gapdh mRNA reverse primer | Integrated DNA technologies | aatggtgaaggtcggtgtg |
| Actb mRNA forward primer | Integrated DNA technologies | gattactgctctggctcctag |
| Actb mRNA reverse primer | Integrated DNA technologies | gactcatcgtactcctgcttg |
| Emd mRNA forward primer | Integrated DNA technologies | atgctgataccttccatcacc |
| Emd mRNA reverse primer | Integrated DNA technologies | gtgtgcgatgctctggtag |
| Fos mRNA forward primer | Integrated DNA technologies | gggacagcctttcctactacc |
| Fos mRNA reverse primer | Integrated DNA technologies | agatctgcgcaaaagtcctg |
| Arc mRNA forward primer | Integrated DNA technologies | ggtgagctgaagccacaaat |
| Arc mRNA reverse primer | Integrated DNA technologies | ttcactggtatgaatcactgctg |
| Egr1 mRNA forward primer | Integrated DNA technologies | cctatgagcacctgaccaca |
| Egr1 mRNA reverse primer | Integrated DNA technologies | agcggccagtataggtgatg |
| Npas4 mRNA forward primer | Integrated DNA technologies | ttcacagctgaggggaagtt |
| Npas4 mRNA reverse primer | Integrated DNA technologies | tgttgaatcgacaacggaaa |
| shEmd #1 | The RNAi Consortium | TRCN0000240585 |
| shEmd #2 | The RNAi Consortium | TRCN0000216203 |
| shEmd #3 | The RNAi Consortium | TRCN0000240584 |
|
| ||
| Recombinant DNA | ||
|
| ||
| pAAV-CaMKIIα-EGFP-Cre | Addgene | Addgene #105551 |
| pAAV-hSyn-FLEx-jGCaMP7s | Addgene | Addgene #104491 |
|
| ||
| Software and algorithms | ||
|
| ||
| Ingenuity Pathway Analysis | QIAGEN | / |
| STRING | https://string-db.org/ | / |
| Metascape | https://metascape.org/ | / |
| Enrichr | https://maayanlab.doud/Enrichr/ | |
| Cell Profiler | Broad Institute | / |
| ImageJ | / | / |
| Prism GraphPad | / | / |
| Integrated Proteomics Pipeline (IP2) | http://www.bruker.com | / |
Highlights.
Quantitative BONCAT-DiDBiT identifies cell-type vision-dependent nascent proteomes
Emerin synthesis is post-transcriptionally regulated by activity
Emerin acts as activity-regulated proteostasis rheostat gating protein synthesis
Emerin levels affect circuit connectivity, VEPs, and visual information processing
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Cline lab members and alumni for their input, Dr. Cris Niell for discussions and the visual stimulation code and Dr. Larry Gerace for discussions. We thank the Scripps Research Department of Animal Resources for mouse colony management and technical support and the Dorris Neuroscience Microscopy Core, especially Dr. Shakib Omari and Dr. Kathryn Spencer, for technical support with confocal microscopy. We thank our colleagues in the Dorris Neuroscience Center, especially the Ye lab, the Maximov lab, and the Lippi lab, for sharing reagents, equipment, and knowledge, and Erin McAuliff and Xuanyu Dong for cloning and genotyping, respectively. This work is supported by National Institutes of Health grants EY031597 (to H.T.C.), AG075862 (to H.T.C. and J.R.Y.), GM103533 and MH067880 (to J.R.Y.), and AG 067331 and AG 069206 (to M.P.), the Hahn Family Foundation (to H.T.C.), the Helen Dorris Foundation (to Y.X.), and the UCSD Academic Internship Program (E.A. and Y.D.).
Footnotes
DECLARATION OF INTERESTS
The authors declare no competing interests.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Supplemental information can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2025.115439.
REFERENCES
- 1.Hubel DH, Wiesel TN, and Levay S (1977). Plasticity of ocular dominance columns in monkey striate cortex. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 278, 377–409. 10.1098/rstb.1977.0050. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Crair MC, Gillespie DC, and Stryker MP (1998). The Role of Visual Experience in the Development of Columns in Cat Visual Cortex. Science 279, 566–570. 10.1126/science.279.5350.566. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Hooks BM, and Chen C (2020). Circuitry Underlying Experience-Dependent Plasticity in the Mouse Visual System. Neuron 106, 21–36. 10.1016/j.neuron.2020.01.031. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Seabrook TA, Burbridge TJ, Crair MC, and Huberman AD (2017). Architecture, Function, and Assembly of the Mouse Visual System. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 40, 499–538. 10.1146/annurev-neuro-071714-033842. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Levelt CN, and Hübener M (2012). Critical-Period Plasticity in the Visual Cortex. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 35, 309–330. 10.1146/annurev-neuro-061010-113813. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Karmarkar UR, and Dan Y (2006). Experience-Dependent Plasticity in Adult Visual Cortex. Neuron 52, 577–585. 10.1016/j.neuron.2006.11.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Gilbert CD, and Li W (2012). Adult visual cortical plasticity. Neuron 75, 250–264. 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.06.030. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Antonini A, and Stryker MP (1993). Rapid Remodeling of Axonal Arbors in the Visual Cortex. Science 260, 1819–1821. 10.1126/science.8511592. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Cooke SF, and Bear MF (2010). Visual experience induces long-term potentiation in the primary visual cortex. J. Neurosci. 30, 16304–16313. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4333-10.2010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Hayden DJ, Finnie PSB, Thomazeau A, Li AY, Cooke SF, and Bear MF (2023). Electrophysiological Signatures of Visual Recognition Memory across All Layers of Mouse V1. J. Neurosci. 43, 7307–7321. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0090-23.2023. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Fu M, and Zuo Y (2011). Experience-dependent structural plasticity in the cortex. Trends Neurosci. 34, 177–187. 10.1016/j.tins.2011.02.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Hensch TK (2005). Critical period plasticity in local cortical circuits. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 6, 877–888. 10.1038/nrn1787. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Maffei A, Nataraj K, Nelson SB, and Turrigiano GG (2006). Potentiation of cortical inhibition by visual deprivation. Nature 443, 81–84. 10.1038/nature05079. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Mardinly AR, Spiegel I, Patrizi A, Centofante E, Bazinet JE, Tzeng CP, Mandel-Brehm C, Harmin DA, Adesnik H, Fagiolini M, and Greenberg ME (2016). Sensory experience regulates cortical inhibition by inducing IGF1 in VIP neurons. Nature 531, 371–375. 10.1038/nature17187. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Morishita H, Miwa JM, Heintz N, and Hensch TK (2010). Lynx1, a Cholinergic Brake, Limits Plasticity in Adult Visual Cortex. Science 330, 1238–1240. 10.1126/science.1195320. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Trachtenberg JT (2015). Competition, inhibition, and critical periods of cortical plasticity. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 35, 44–48. 10.1016/j.conb.2015.06.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Katz LC, and Shatz CJ (1996). Synaptic activity and the construction of cortical circuits. Science 274, 1133–1138. 10.1126/science.274.5290.1133. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Stellwagen D, and Shatz CJ (2002). An instructive role for retinal waves in the development of retinogeniculate connectivity. Neuron 33, 357–367. 10.1016/s0896-6273(02)00577-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Loebrich S, Benoit MR, Konopka JA, Cottrell JR, Gibson J, and Nedivi E (2016). CPG2 Recruits Endophilin B2 to the Cytoskeleton for Activity-Dependent Endocytosis of Synaptic Glutamate Receptors. Curr. Biol. 26, 296–308. 10.1016/j.cub.2015.11.071. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Hrvatin S, Hochbaum DR, Nagy MA, Cicconet M, Robertson K, Cheadle L, Zilionis R, Ratner A, Borges-Monroy R, Klein AM, et al. (2018). Single-cell analysis of experience-dependent transcriptomic states in the mouse visual cortex. Nat. Neurosci. 21, 120–129. 10.1038/s41593-017-0029-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Tropea D, Kreiman G, Lyckman A, Mukherjee S, Yu H, Horng S, and Sur M (2006). Gene expression changes and molecular pathways mediating activity-dependent plasticity in visual cortex. Nat. Neurosci. 9, 660–668. 10.1038/nn1689. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Flavell SW, and Greenberg ME (2008). Signaling mechanisms linking neuronal activity to gene expression and plasticity of the nervous system. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 31, 563–590. 10.1146/annurev.neuro.31.060407.125631. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Leslie JH, and Nedivi E (2011). Activity-regulated genes as mediators of neural circuit plasticity. Prog. Neurobiol. 94, 223–237. 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2011.05.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Nedivi E, Fieldust S, Theill LE, and Hevron D (1996). A set of genes expressed in response to light in the adult cerebral cortex and regulated during development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93, 2048–2053. 10.1073/pnas.93.5.2048. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Nedivi E, Hevroni D, Naot D, Israeli D, and Citri Y (1993). Numerous candidate plasticity-related genes revealed by differential cDNA cloning. Nature 363, 718–722. 10.1038/363718a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Klann E, and Dever TE (2004). Biochemical mechanisms for translational regulation in synaptic plasticity. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 5, 931–942. 10.1038/nrn1557. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Bestman JE, and Cline HT (2008). The RNA binding protein CPEB regulates dendrite morphogenesis and neuronal circuit assembly in vivo. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105, 20494–20499. 10.1073/pnas.0806296105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Sidorov MS, Auerbach BD, and Bear MF (2013). Fragile X mental retardation protein and synaptic plasticity. Mol. Brain 6, 15. 10.1186/1756-6606-6-15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Steward O, and Schuman EM (2001). Protein synthesis at synaptic sites on dendrites. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 24, 299–325. 10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.299. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Toh Uzgil, B., Lin P, and Nuraly T; Kelsey (2012). Activity-Dependent Transport of the Transcriptional Coactivator CRTC1 from Synapse to Nucleus. Cell 150, 207–221. 10.1016/j.cell.2012.05.027. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Birdsall V, Kirwan K, Zhu M, Imoto Y, Wilson SM, Watanabe S, and Waites CL (2022). Axonal transport of Hrs is activity dependent and facilitates synaptic vesicle protein degradation. Life Sci. Alliance 5, e202000745. 10.26508/lsa.202000745. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Tai H-C, and Schuman EM (2008). Ubiquitin, the proteasome and protein degradation in neuronal function and dysfunction. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 9, 826–838. 10.1038/nrn2499. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.He H-Y, Ahsan A, Bera R, McLain N, Faulkner R, Ramachandran KV, Margolis SS, and Cline HT (2023). Neuronal membrane proteasomes regulate neuronal circuit activity in vivo and are required for learning-induced behavioral plasticity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 120, e2216537120. 10.1073/pnas.2216537120. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Dieterich DC, Link AJ, Graumann J, Tirrell DA, and Schuman EM(2006). Selective identification of newly synthesized proteins in mammalian cells using bioorthogonal noncanonical amino acid tagging (BONCAT). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103, 9482–9487. 10.1073/pnas.0601637103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Liu HH, McClatchy DB, Schiapparelli L, Shen W, Yates JR, and Cline HT (2018). Role of the visual experience-dependent nascent proteome in neuronal plasticity. Elife 7, e33420. 10.7554/eLife.33420. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Giandomenico SL, Alvarez-Castelao B, and Schuman EM (2022). Proteostatic regulation in neuronal compartments. Trends Neurosci. 45, 41–52. 10.1016/j.tins.2021.08.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Hetz C (2021). Adapting the proteostasis capacity to sustain brain health-span. Cell 184, 1545–1560. 10.1016/j.cell.2021.02.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Tseng CS, Chao YW, Liu YH, Huang YS, and Chao HW (2023). Dysregulated proteostasis network in neuronal diseases. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 11, 1075215. 10.3389/fcell.2023.1075215. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Alvarez-Castelao B, Schanzenbächer CT, Hanus C, Glock C, Tom Dieck S, Dörrbaum AR, Bartnik I, Nassim-Assir B, Ciirdaeva E, Mueller A, et al. (2017). Cell-type-specific metabolic labeling of nascent proteomes in vivo. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 1196–1201. 10.1038/nbt.4016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Schiapparelli LM, Xie Y, Sharma P, McClatchy DB, Ma Y, Yates JR, Maximov A, and Cline HT (2022). Activity-Induced Cortical Glutamatergic Neuron Nascent Proteins. J. Neurosci. 42, 7900–7920. 10.1523/jneurosci.0707-22.2022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Schiapparelli LM, McClatchy DB, Liu H-H, Sharma P, Yates JR, and Cline HT (2014). Direct Detection of Biotinylated Proteins by Mass Spectrometry. J. Proteome Res. 13, 3966–3978. 10.1021/pr5002862. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Uhlén M, Fagerberg L, Hallström BM, Lindskog C, Oksvold P, Mardinoglu A, Sivertsson Å, Kampf C, Sjöstedt E, Asplund A, et al. (2015). Tissue-based map of the human proteome. Science 347, 1260419. 10.1126/science.1260419. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Östlund C, Ellenberg J, Hallberg E, Lippincott-Schwartz J, and Worman HJ (1999). Intracellular trafficking of emerin, the Emery-Dreifuss muscular dystrophy protein. J. Cell Sci. 112, 1709–1719. 10.1242/jcs.112.11.1709. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Ostlund C, Sullivan T, Stewart CL, and Worman HJ (2006). Dependence of diffusional mobility of integral inner nuclear membrane proteins on A-type lamins. Biochemistry 45, 1374–1382. 10.1021/bi052156n. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Ellis JA, Craxton M, Yates JR, and Kendrick-Jones J (1998). Aberrant intracellular targeting and cell cycle-dependent phosphorylation of emerin contribute to the Emery-Dreifuss muscular dystrophy phenotype. J. Cell Sci. 111, 781–792. 10.1242/jcs.111.6.781. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Sullivan T, Escalante-Alcalde D, Bhatt H, Anver M, Bhat N, Nagashima K, Stewart CL, and Burke B (1999). Loss of A-type lamin expression compromises nuclear envelope integrity leading to muscular dystrophy. J. Cell Biol. 147, 913–920. 10.1083/jcb.147.5.913. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Koch AJ, and Holaska JM (2014). Emerin in health and disease. Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 29, 95–106. 10.1016/j.semcdb.2013.12.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Holaska JM, Kowalski AK, and Wilson KL (2004). Emerin caps the pointed end of actin filaments: evidence for an actin cortical network at the nuclear inner membrane. PLoS Biol. 2, E231. 10.1371/journal.pbio.0020231. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Vaughan A, Alvarez-Reyes M, Bridger JM, Broers JL, Ramaekers FC, Wehnert M, Morris GE, Whitfield WGF, and Hutchison CJ (2001). Both emerin and lamin C depend on lamin A for localization at the nuclear envelope. J. Cell Sci. 114, 2577–2590. 10.1242/jcs.114.14.2577. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Jung HJ, Lee JM, Yang SH, Young SG, and Fong LG (2013). Nuclear lamins in the brain - new insights into function and regulation. Mol. Neurobiol. 47, 290–301. 10.1007/s12035-012-8350-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Huber MD, Guan T, and Gerace L (2009). Overlapping functions of nuclear envelope proteins NET25 (Lem2) and emerin in regulation of extracellular signal-regulated kinase signaling in myoblast differentiation. Mol. Cell Biol. 29, 5718–5728. 10.1128/MCB.00270-09. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Cheng L-C, Zhang X, Abhinav K, Nguyen JA, Baboo S, Martinez-Bartolomé S, Branon TC, Ting AY, Loose E, Yates JR, and Gerace L (2022). Shared and Distinctive Neighborhoods of Emerin and Lamin B Receptor Revealed by Proximity Labeling and Quantitative Proteomics. J. Proteome Res. 21, 2197–2210. 10.1021/acs.jproteome.2c00281. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Ridder WH, and Nusinowitz S (2006). The visual evoked potential in the mouse—Origins and response characteristics. Vision Res. 46, 902–913. 10.1016/j.visres.2005.09.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Parker AJ (2007). Binocular depth perception and the cerebral cortex. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 8, 379–391. 10.1038/nrn2131. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Nedivi E, Wu GY, and Cline HT (1998). Promotion of dendritic growth by CPG15, an activity-induced signaling molecule. Science 281, 1863–1866. 10.1126/science.281.5384.1863. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Tu JC, Xiao B, Yuan JP, Lanahan AA, Leoffert K, Li M, Linden DJ, and Worley PF (1998). Homer Binds a Novel Proline-Rich Motif and Links Group 1 Metabotropic Glutamate Receptors with IP3 Receptors. Neuron 21, 717–726. 10.1016/S0896-6273(00)80589-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Lyford GL, Yamagata K, Kaufmann WE, Barnes CA, Sanders LK, Copeland NG, Gilbert DJ, Jenkins NA, Lanahan AA, and Worley PF (1995). Arc, a growth factor and activity-regulated gene, encodes a novel cytoskeleton-associated protein that is enriched in neuronal dendrites. Neuron 14, 433–445. 10.1016/0896-6273(95)90299-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Bai B, Wang X, Li Y, Chen P-C, Yu K, Dey KK, Yarbro JM, Han X, Lutz BM, Rao S, et al. (2020). Deep Multilayer Brain Proteomics Identifies Molecular Networks in Alzheimer’s Disease Progression. Neuron 105, 975–991.e7. 10.1016/j.neuron.2019.12.015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Johnson ECB, Carter EK, Dammer EB, Duong DM, Gerasimov ES, Liu Y, Liu J, Betarbet R, Ping L, Yin L, et al. (2022). Large-scale deep multi-layer analysis of Alzheimer’s disease brain reveals strong proteomic disease-related changes not observed at the RNA level. Nat. Neurosci. 25, 213–225. 10.1038/s41593-021-00999-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Gunawardana Y, and Niranjan M (2013). Bridging the gap between transcriptome and proteome measurements identifies post-translationally regulated genes. Bioinformatics 29, 3060–3066. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt537. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Ascano M, Mukherjee N, Bandaru P, Miller JB, Nusbaum JD, Corcoran DL, Langlois C, Munschauer M, Dewell S, Hafner M, et al. (2012). FMRP targets distinct mRNA sequence elements to regulate protein expression. Nature 492, 382–386. 10.1038/nature11737. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Yamada T, Imamachi N, Imamura K, Taniue K, Kawamura T, Suzuki Y, Nagahama M, and Akimitsu N (2020). Systematic Analysis of Targets of Pumilio-Mediated mRNA Decay Reveals that PUM1 Repression by DNA Damage Activates Translesion Synthesis. Cell Rep. 31, 107542. 10.1016/j.celrep.2020.107542. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Castello A, Fischer B, Eichelbaum K, Horos R, Beckmann BM, Strein C, Davey NE, Humphreys DT, Preiss T, Steinmetz LM, et al. (2012). Insights into RNA biology from an atlas of mammalian mRNA-binding proteins. Cell 149, 1393–1406. 10.1016/j.cell.2012.04.031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Prashad S, and Gopal PP (2021). RNA-binding proteins in neurological development and disease. RNA Biol. 18, 972–987. 10.1080/15476286.2020.1809186. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Cartegni L, di Barletta MR, Barresi R, Squarzoni S, Sabatelli P, Maraldi N, Mora M, Di Blasi C, Cornelio F, Merlini L, et al. (1997). Heart-specific localization of emerin: new insights into Emery-Dreifuss muscular dystrophy. Hum. Mol. Genet. 6, 2257–2264. 10.1093/hmg/6.13.2257. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Wheeler MA, Warley A, Roberts RG, Ehler E, and Ellis JA (2010). Identification of an emerin-beta-catenin complex in the heart important for intercalated disc architecture and beta-catenin localisation. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 67, 781–796. 10.1007/s00018-009-0219-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Chatterjee S, Bahl E, Mukherjee U, Walsh EN, Shetty MS, Yan AL, Vanrobaeys Y, Lederman JD, Giese KP, Michaelson J, and Abel T (2022). Endoplasmic reticulum chaperone genes encode effectors of long-term memory. Sci. Adv. 8, eabm6063. 10.1126/sciadv.abm6063. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68.Pick JE, and Ziff EB (2018). Regulation of AMPA receptor trafficking and exit from the endoplasmic reticulum. Mol. Cell. Neurosci. 91, 3–9. 10.1016/j.mcn.2018.03.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69.Martinez G, Khatiwada S, Costa-Mattioli M, and Hetz C (2018). ER Proteostasis Control of Neuronal Physiology and Synaptic Function. Trends Neurosci. 41, 610–624. 10.1016/j.tins.2018.05.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70.Wang T, Hanus C, Cui T, Helton T, Bourne J, Watson D, Harris KM, and Ehlers MD (2012). Local zones of endoplasmic reticulum complexity confine cargo in neuronal dendrites. Cell 148, 309–321. 10.1016/j.cell.2011.11.056. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71.Perez-Alvarez A, Yin S, Schulze C, Hammer JA, Wagner W, and Oertner TG (2020). Endoplasmic reticulum visits highly active spines and prevents runaway potentiation of synapses. Nat. Commun. 11, 5083. 10.1038/s41467-020-18889-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72.Buchwalter A, Schulte R, Tsai H, Capitanio J, and Hetzer M (2019). Selective clearance of the inner nuclear membrane protein emerin by vesicular transport during ER stress. Elife 8, e49796. 10.7554/eLife.49796. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73.Chen G, Li W, Zhang QS, Regulski M, Sinha N, Barditch J, Tully T, Krainer AR, Zhang MQ, and Dubnau J (2008). Identification of synaptic targets of Drosophila pumilio. PLoS Comput. Biol. 4, e1000026. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000026. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74.Kute PM, Ramakrishna S, Neelagandan N, Chattarji S, and Muddashetty RS (2019). NMDAR mediated translation at the synapse is regulated by MOV10 and FMRP. Mol. Brain 12, 65. 10.1186/s13041-019-0473-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75.Cenni V, Squarzoni S, Loi M, Mattioli E, Lattanzi G, and Capanni C (2020). Emerin Phosphorylation during the Early Phase of the Oxidative Stress Response Influences Emerin-BAF Interaction and BAF Nuclear Localization. Cells 9, 1415. 10.3390/cells9061415. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76.Du Z, Zhu T, Lin M, Bao Y, Qiao J, Lv G, Xie Y, Li Q, Quan J, Xu C, et al. (2022). A novel mutation in human EMD gene and mitochondrial dysfunction in emerin knockdown cardiomyocytes. J. Cell Mol. Med. 26, 5054–5066. 10.1111/jcmm.17532. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77.Caudron-Herger M, Jansen RE, Wassmer E, and Diederichs S (2021). RBP2GO: a comprehensive pan-species database on RNA-binding proteins, their interactions and functions. Nucleic Acids Res. 49, D425–D436. 10.1093/nar/gkaa1040. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78.McKee SP, Levi DM, and Movshon JA (2003). The pattern of visual deficits in amblyopia. J. Vis. 3, 380–405. 10.1167/3.5.5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79.Procacci NM, Allen KM, Robb GE, Ijekah R, Lynam H, and Hoy JL (2020). Context-dependent modulation of natural approach behaviour in mice. Proc. Biol. Sci. 287, 20201189. 10.1098/rspb.2020.1189. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80.Gorski JA, Talley T, Qiu M, Puelles L, Rubenstein JLR, and Jones KR (2002). Cortical excitatory neurons and glia, but not GABAergic neurons, are produced in the Emx1-expressing lineage. J. Neurosci. 22, 6309–6314. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.22-15-06309.2002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81.Luo L, Ambrozkiewicz MC, Benseler F, Chen C, Dumontier E, Falkner S, Furlanis E, Gomez AM, Hoshina N, Huang WH, et al. (2020). Optimizing Nervous System-Specific Gene Targeting with Cre Driver Lines: Prevalence of Germline Recombination and Influencing Factors. Neuron 106, 37–65.e5. 10.1016/j.neuron.2020.01.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82.Wekselblatt JB, Flister ED, Piscopo DM, and Niell CM (2016). Large-scale imaging of cortical dynamics during sensory perception and behavior. J. Neurophysiol. 115, 2852–2866. 10.1152/jn.01056.2015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83.Ma Y, McClatchy DB, Barkallah S, Wood WW, and Yates JR (2018). Quantitative analysis of newly synthesized proteins. Nat. Protoc. 13, 1744–1762. 10.1038/s41596-018-0012-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84.Tom Dieck S, Müller A, Nehring A, Hinz FI, Bartnik I, Schuman EM, and Dieterich DC (2012). Metabolic Labeling with Noncanonical Amino Acids and Visualization by Chemoselective Fluorescent Tagging. Curr. Protoc. Cell Biol. 7, 7.11.1–7.11.29. 10.1002/0471143030.cb0711s56. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85.Zhu Y, Huang M, Bushong E, Phan S, Uytiepo M, Beutter E, Boemer D, Tsui K, Ellisman M, and Maximov A (2019). Class IIa HDACs regulate learning and memory through dynamic experience-dependent repression of transcription. Nat. Commun. 10, 3469. 10.1038/s41467-019-11409-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86.Zheng Y, Shen W, Zhang J, Yang B, Liu Y-N, Qi H, Yu X, Lu S-Y, Chen Y, Xu Y-Z, et al. (2018). CRISPR interference-based specific and efficient gene inactivation in the brain. Nat. Neurosci. 21, 447–454. 10.1038/s41593-018-0077-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87.Challis RC, Ravindra Kumar S, Chan KY, Challis C, Beadle K, Jang MJ, Kim HM, Rajendran PS, Tompkins JD, Shivkumar K, et al. (2019). Systemic AAV vectors for widespread and targeted gene delivery in rodents. Nat. Protoc. 14, 379–414. 10.1038/s41596-018-0097-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88.Pachitariu M, Stringer C, Schröder S, Dipoppa M, Rossi LF, Carandini M, and Harris KD (2016). Suite2p: beyond 10,000 neurons with standard two-photon microscopy. Preprint at bioRxiv 888, 888. 10.1101/061507. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 89.Mathis A, Mamidanna P, Cury KM, Abe T, Murthy VN, Mathis MW, and Bethge M (2018). DeepLabCut: markerless pose estimation of user-defined body parts with deep learning. Nat. Neurosci. 21, 1281–1289. 10.1038/s41593-018-0209-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90.Sturman O, von Ziegler L, Schläppi C, Akyol F, Privitera M, Slominski D, Grimm C, Thieren L, Zerbi V, Grewe B, and Bohacek J (2020). Deep learning-based behavioral analysis reaches human accuracy and is capable of outperforming commercial solutions. Neuropsychopharmacology 45, 1942–1952. 10.1038/s41386-020-0776-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 91.Stirling DR, Swain-Bowden MJ, Lucas AM, Carpenter AE, Cimini BA, and Goodman A (2021). CellProfiler 4: improvements in speed, utility and usability. BMC Bioinf. 22, 433. 10.1186/s12859-021-04344-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 92.Krämer A, Green J, Pollard J Jr., and Tugendreich S (2014). Causal analysis approaches in Ingenuity Pathway Analysis. Bioinformatics 30, 523–530. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt703. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 93.Zhou Y, Zhou B, Pache L, Chang M, Khodabakhshi AH, Tanaseichuk O, Benner C, and Chanda SK (2019). Metascape provides a biologist-oriented resource for the analysis of systems-level datasets. Nat. Commun. 10, 1523. 10.1038/s41467-019-09234-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 94.Szklarczyk D, Kirsch R, Koutrouli M, Nastou K, Mehryary F, Hachilif R, Gable AL, Fang T, Doncheva NT, Pyysalo S, et al. (2023). The STRING database in 2023: protein-protein association networks and functional enrichment analyses for any sequenced genome of interest. Nucleic Acids Res. 51, D638–D646. 10.1093/nar/gkac1000. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
The proteomics datasets “VE-induced cell type-specific nascent proteomic analysis” and “Emerin overexpression nascent proteomic analysis” are available at ProteomeXchange: PXD050926.
This paper does not report original code.
Any additional information required to reanalyze the data reported in this paper is available from the lead contact upon request.
