Forebrain deletion of the dystonia protein torsinA causes dystonic-like movements and loss of striatal cholinergic neurons

  1. Samuel S Pappas
  2. Katherine Darr
  3. Sandra M Holley
  4. Carlos Cepeda
  5. Omar S Mabrouk
  6. Jenny-Marie T Wong
  7. Tessa M LeWitt
  8. Reema Paudel
  9. Henry Houlden
  10. Robert T Kennedy
  11. Michael S Levine
  12. William T Dauer  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Michigan, United States
  2. University of California, Los Angeles, United States
  3. University College London, United Kingdom

Abstract

Striatal dysfunction plays an important role in dystonia, but the striatal cell types that contribute to abnormal movements are poorly defined. We demonstrate that conditional deletion of the DYT1 dystonia protein torsinA in embryonic progenitors of forebrain cholinergic and GABAergic neurons causes dystonic-like twisting movements that emerge during juvenile CNS maturation. The onset of these movements coincides with selective degeneration of dorsal striatal large cholinergic interneurons (LCI), and surviving LCI exhibit morphological, electrophysiological, and connectivity abnormalities. Consistent with the importance of this LCI pathology, murine dystonic-like movements are reduced significantly with an antimuscarinic agent used clinically, and we identify cholinergic abnormalities in postmortem striatal tissue from DYT1 dystonia patients. These findings demonstrate that dorsal LCI have a unique requirement for torsinA function during striatal maturation, and link abnormalities of these cells to dystonic-like movements in an overtly symptomatic animal model.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Samuel S Pappas

    Department of Neurology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Katherine Darr

    Department of Neurology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Sandra M Holley

    Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research Center, Brain Research Institute, Semel Institute for Neuroscience, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Carlos Cepeda

    Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research Center, Brain Research Institute, Semel Institute for Neuroscience, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Omar S Mabrouk

    Department of Pharmacology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Jenny-Marie T Wong

    Department of Chemistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Tessa M LeWitt

    Department of Neurology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Reema Paudel

    Department of Molecular Neuroscience, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Henry Houlden

    Department of Molecular Neuroscience, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Robert T Kennedy

    Department of Chemistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Michael S Levine

    Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research Center, Brain Research Institute, Semel Institute for Neuroscience, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. William T Dauer

    Department of Neurology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    For correspondence
    dauer@med.umich.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Louis Ptáček, University of California, San Francisco, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All experiments were performed according to the recommendations in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the National Institutes of Health. The University of Michigan Committee on the Use and Care of Animals (UCUCA) approved all experiments involving animals (animal use protocol PRO00004330).

Version history

  1. Received: April 26, 2015
  2. Accepted: June 7, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: June 8, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: June 19, 2015 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2015, Pappas et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 3,497
    views
  • 670
    downloads
  • 89
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Samuel S Pappas
  2. Katherine Darr
  3. Sandra M Holley
  4. Carlos Cepeda
  5. Omar S Mabrouk
  6. Jenny-Marie T Wong
  7. Tessa M LeWitt
  8. Reema Paudel
  9. Henry Houlden
  10. Robert T Kennedy
  11. Michael S Levine
  12. William T Dauer
(2015)
Forebrain deletion of the dystonia protein torsinA causes dystonic-like movements and loss of striatal cholinergic neurons
eLife 4:e08352.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08352

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08352

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Salima Messaoudi, Ada Allam ... Isabelle Caille
    Research Article

    The fragile X syndrome (FXS) represents the most prevalent form of inherited intellectual disability and is the first monogenic cause of autism spectrum disorder. FXS results from the absence of the RNA-binding protein FMRP (fragile X messenger ribonucleoprotein). Neuronal migration is an essential step of brain development allowing displacement of neurons from their germinal niches to their final integration site. The precise role of FMRP in neuronal migration remains largely unexplored. Using live imaging of postnatal rostral migratory stream (RMS) neurons in Fmr1-null mice, we observed that the absence of FMRP leads to delayed neuronal migration and altered trajectory, associated with defects of centrosomal movement. RNA-interference-induced knockdown of Fmr1 shows that these migratory defects are cell-autonomous. Notably, the primary Fmrp mRNA target implicated in these migratory defects is microtubule-associated protein 1B (MAP1B). Knocking down MAP1B expression effectively rescued most of the observed migratory defects. Finally, we elucidate the molecular mechanisms at play by demonstrating that the absence of FMRP induces defects in the cage of microtubules surrounding the nucleus of migrating neurons, which is rescued by MAP1B knockdown. Our findings reveal a novel neurodevelopmental role for FMRP in collaboration with MAP1B, jointly orchestrating neuronal migration by influencing the microtubular cytoskeleton.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Maximilian Nagel, Marco Niestroj ... Marc Spehr
    Research Article

    In most mammals, conspecific chemosensory communication relies on semiochemical release within complex bodily secretions and subsequent stimulus detection by the vomeronasal organ (VNO). Urine, a rich source of ethologically relevant chemosignals, conveys detailed information about sex, social hierarchy, health, and reproductive state, which becomes accessible to a conspecific via vomeronasal sampling. So far, however, numerous aspects of social chemosignaling along the vomeronasal pathway remain unclear. Moreover, since virtually all research on vomeronasal physiology is based on secretions derived from inbred laboratory mice, it remains uncertain whether such stimuli provide a true representation of potentially more relevant cues found in the wild. Here, we combine a robust low-noise VNO activity assay with comparative molecular profiling of sex- and strain-specific mouse urine samples from two inbred laboratory strains as well as from wild mice. With comprehensive molecular portraits of these secretions, VNO activity analysis now enables us to (i) assess whether and, if so, how much sex/strain-selective ‘raw’ chemical information in urine is accessible via vomeronasal sampling; (ii) identify which chemicals exhibit sufficient discriminatory power to signal an animal’s sex, strain, or both; (iii) determine the extent to which wild mouse secretions are unique; and (iv) analyze whether vomeronasal response profiles differ between strains. We report both sex- and, in particular, strain-selective VNO representations of chemical information. Within the urinary ‘secretome’, both volatile compounds and proteins exhibit sufficient discriminative power to provide sex- and strain-specific molecular fingerprints. While total protein amount is substantially enriched in male urine, females secrete a larger variety at overall comparatively low concentrations. Surprisingly, the molecular spectrum of wild mouse urine does not dramatically exceed that of inbred strains. Finally, vomeronasal response profiles differ between C57BL/6 and BALB/c animals, with particularly disparate representations of female semiochemicals.