@article {69579,
	title = {Plasticity-induced actin polymerization in the dendritic shaft regulates intracellular AMPA receptor trafficking.},
	journal = {Elife},
	volume = {13},
	year = {2024},
	month = {2024 Aug 15},
	abstract = {<p>AMPA-type receptors (AMPARs) are rapidly inserted into synapses undergoing plasticity to increase synaptic transmission, but it is not fully understood if and how AMPAR-containing vesicles are selectively trafficked to these synapses. Here, we developed a strategy to label AMPAR GluA1 subunits expressed from their endogenous loci in cultured rat hippocampal neurons and characterized the motion of GluA1-containing vesicles using single-particle tracking and mathematical modeling. We find that GluA1-containing vesicles are confined and concentrated near sites of stimulation-induced structural plasticity. We show that confinement is mediated by actin polymerization, which hinders the active transport of GluA1-containing vesicles along the length of the dendritic shaft by modulating the rheological properties of the cytoplasm. Actin polymerization also facilitates myosin-mediated transport of GluA1-containing vesicles to exocytic sites. We conclude that neurons utilize F-actin to increase vesicular GluA1 reservoirs and promote exocytosis proximal to the sites of synaptic activity.</p>
},
	keywords = {Actins, Animals, Cells, Cultured, Dendrites, Exocytosis, Hippocampus, Neuronal Plasticity, Neurons, Polymerization, Protein Transport, Rats, Receptors, AMPA},
	issn = {2050-084X},
	doi = {10.7554/eLife.80622},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.80622},
	author = {Wong, Victor C and Houlihan, Patrick R and Liu, Hui and Walpita, Deepika and DeSantis, Michael C and Liu, Zhe and O{\textquoteright}Shea, Erin K}
}
@article {67987,
	title = {When light meets biology - how the specimen affects quantitative microscopy.},
	journal = {Journal of Cell Science},
	volume = {135},
	year = {2022},
	month = {2022 Mar 15},
	abstract = {<p>Fluorescence microscopy images should not be treated as perfect representations of biology. Many factors within the biospecimen itself can drastically affect quantitative microscopy data. Whereas some sample-specific considerations, such as photobleaching and autofluorescence, are more commonly discussed, a holistic discussion of sample-related issues (which includes less-routine topics such as quenching, scattering and biological anisotropy) is required to appropriately guide life scientists through the subtleties inherent to bioimaging. Here, we consider how the interplay between light and a sample can cause common experimental pitfalls and unanticipated errors when drawing biological conclusions. Although some of these discrepancies can be minimized or controlled for, others require more pragmatic considerations when interpreting image data. Ultimately, the power lies in the hands of the experimenter. The goal of this Review is therefore to survey how biological samples can skew quantification and interpretation of microscopy data. Furthermore, we offer a perspective on how to manage many of these potential pitfalls.</p>
},
	issn = {1477-9137},
	doi = {10.1242/jcs.259656},
	author = {Reiche, Michael A and Aaron, Jesse S and Boehm, Ulrike and DeSantis, Michael C and Hobson, Chad M and Khuon, Satya and Lee, Rachel M and Chew, Teng-Leong}
}
