Cerebellar associative sensory learning defects in five mouse autism models

  1. Alexander D Kloth
  2. Aleksandra Badura
  3. Amy Li
  4. Adriana Cherskov
  5. Sara G Connolly
  6. Andrea Giovannucci
  7. M Ali Bangash
  8. Giorgio Grasselli
  9. Olga Peñagarikano
  10. Claire Piochon
  11. Peter T Tsai
  12. Daniel H Geschwind
  13. Christian Hansel
  14. Mustafa Sahin
  15. Toru Takumi
  16. Paul F Worley
  17. Samuel S H Wang  Is a corresponding author
  1. Princeton University, United States
  2. Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, United States
  3. University of Chicago, United States
  4. University of California, Los Angeles, United States
  5. Harvard Medical School, United States
  6. RIKEN Brain Science Institute, Japan

Abstract

Sensory integration difficulties have been reported in autism, but their underlying brain-circuit mechanisms are underexplored. Using five autism-related mouse models, Shank3+/ΔC, Mecp2R308/Y, Cntnap2-/-, L7-Tsc1 (L7/Pcp2Cre::Tsc1flox/+) and patDp(15q11-13)/+, we report specific perturbations in delay eyeblink conditioning, a form of associative sensory learning requiring cerebellar plasticity. By distinguishing perturbations in the probability and characteristics of learned responses, we found that probability was reduced in Cntnap2-/-, patDp(15q11-13)/+, and L7/Pcp2Cre::Tsc1flox/+, all associated with Purkinje-cell/deep-nuclear gene expression, along with Shank3+/ΔC. Amplitudes were smaller in L7/Pcp2Cre::Tsc1flox/+ as well as Shank3+/ΔC and Mecp2R308/Y, which are associated with granule-cell pathway expression. Shank3+/ΔC and Mecp2R308/Y also showed aberrant response timing and reduced Purkinje-cell dendritic spine density. Overall, our observations are potentially accounted for by defects in instructed learning in the olivocerebellar loop and response representation in the granule cell pathway. Our findings indicate that defects in associative temporal binding of sensory events are widespread in autism mouse models.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Alexander D Kloth

    Department of Molecular Biology and Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Aleksandra Badura

    Department of Molecular Biology and Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Amy Li

    Department of Molecular Biology and Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Adriana Cherskov

    Department of Molecular Biology and Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Sara G Connolly

    Department of Molecular Biology and Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Andrea Giovannucci

    Department of Molecular Biology and Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. M Ali Bangash

    Department of Neuroscience, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Giorgio Grasselli

    Department of Neurobiology, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Olga Peñagarikano

    Department of Neurology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Claire Piochon

    Department of Neurobiology, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Peter T Tsai

    The F.M. Kirby Neurobiology Center, Department of Neurology, Children's Hospital Boston, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Daniel H Geschwind

    Department of Neurology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Christian Hansel

    Department of Neurobiology, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Mustafa Sahin

    The F.M. Kirby Neurobiology Center, Department of Neurology, Children's Hospital Boston, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Toru Takumi

    RIKEN Brain Science Institute, Wako, Japan
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Paul F Worley

    Department of Neuroscience, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Samuel S H Wang

    Department of Molecular Biology and Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    For correspondence
    sswang@princeton.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All experiments were performed according to protocols (#1943-13) approved by the Princeton University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. All surgery was performed under isoflurane anesthesia, and every effort was made to minimize suffering.

Copyright

© 2015, Kloth 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

  • 5,052
    views
  • 1,397
    downloads
  • 123
    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. Alexander D Kloth
  2. Aleksandra Badura
  3. Amy Li
  4. Adriana Cherskov
  5. Sara G Connolly
  6. Andrea Giovannucci
  7. M Ali Bangash
  8. Giorgio Grasselli
  9. Olga Peñagarikano
  10. Claire Piochon
  11. Peter T Tsai
  12. Daniel H Geschwind
  13. Christian Hansel
  14. Mustafa Sahin
  15. Toru Takumi
  16. Paul F Worley
  17. Samuel S H Wang
(2015)
Cerebellar associative sensory learning defects in five mouse autism models
eLife 4:e06085.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.06085

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.06085

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Friedrich Schuessler, Francesca Mastrogiuseppe ... Omri Barak
    Research Article

    The relation between neural activity and behaviorally relevant variables is at the heart of neuroscience research. When strong, this relation is termed a neural representation. There is increasing evidence, however, for partial dissociations between activity in an area and relevant external variables. While many explanations have been proposed, a theoretical framework for the relationship between external and internal variables is lacking. Here, we utilize recurrent neural networks (RNNs) to explore the question of when and how neural dynamics and the network’s output are related from a geometrical point of view. We find that training RNNs can lead to two dynamical regimes: dynamics can either be aligned with the directions that generate output variables, or oblique to them. We show that the choice of readout weight magnitude before training can serve as a control knob between the regimes, similar to recent findings in feedforward networks. These regimes are functionally distinct. Oblique networks are more heterogeneous and suppress noise in their output directions. They are furthermore more robust to perturbations along the output directions. Crucially, the oblique regime is specific to recurrent (but not feedforward) networks, arising from dynamical stability considerations. Finally, we show that tendencies toward the aligned or the oblique regime can be dissociated in neural recordings. Altogether, our results open a new perspective for interpreting neural activity by relating network dynamics and their output.

    1. Neuroscience
    Sudhanvan Iyer, Kathryn Maxson Jones ... Mary A Majumder
    Review Article

    In this paper, we provide an overview and analysis of the BRAIN Initiative data-sharing ecosystem. First, we compare and contrast the characteristics of the seven BRAIN Initiative data archives germane to data sharing and reuse, namely data submission and access procedures and aspects of interoperability. Second, we discuss challenges, benefits, and future opportunities, focusing on issues largely specific to sharing human data and drawing on N = 34 interviews with diverse stakeholders. The BRAIN Initiative-funded archive ecosystem faces interoperability and data stewardship challenges, such as achieving and maintaining interoperability of data and archives and harmonizing research participants’ informed consents for tiers of access for human data across multiple archives. Yet, a benefit of this distributed archive ecosystem is the ability of more specialized archives to adapt to the needs of particular research communities. Finally, the multiple archives offer ample raw material for network evolution in response to the needs of neuroscientists over time. Our first objective in this paper is to provide a guide to the BRAIN Initiative data-sharing ecosystem for readers interested in sharing and reusing neuroscience data. Second, our analysis supports the development of empirically informed policy and practice aimed at making neuroscience data more findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable.