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.

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).

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

  • 3,685
    views
  • 689
    downloads
  • 98
    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
    2. Physics of Living Systems
    Moritz Schloetter, Georg U Maret, Christoph J Kleineidam
    Research Article

    Neurons generate and propagate electrical pulses called action potentials which annihilate on arrival at the axon terminal. We measure the extracellular electric field generated by propagating and annihilating action potentials and find that on annihilation, action potentials expel a local discharge. The discharge at the axon terminal generates an inhomogeneous electric field that immediately influences target neurons and thus provokes ephaptic coupling. Our measurements are quantitatively verified by a powerful analytical model which reveals excitation and inhibition in target neurons, depending on position and morphology of the source-target arrangement. Our model is in full agreement with experimental findings on ephaptic coupling at the well-studied Basket cell-Purkinje cell synapse. It is able to predict ephaptic coupling for any other synaptic geometry as illustrated by a few examples.

    1. Neuroscience
    Sven Ohl, Martin Rolfs
    Research Article

    Detecting causal relations structures our perception of events in the world. Here, we determined for visual interactions whether generalized (i.e. feature-invariant) or specialized (i.e. feature-selective) visual routines underlie the perception of causality. To this end, we applied a visual adaptation protocol to assess the adaptability of specific features in classical launching events of simple geometric shapes. We asked observers to report whether they observed a launch or a pass in ambiguous test events (i.e. the overlap between two discs varied from trial to trial). After prolonged exposure to causal launch events (the adaptor) defined by a particular set of features (i.e. a particular motion direction, motion speed, or feature conjunction), observers were less likely to see causal launches in subsequent ambiguous test events than before adaptation. Crucially, adaptation was contingent on the causal impression in launches as demonstrated by a lack of adaptation in non-causal control events. We assessed whether this negative aftereffect transfers to test events with a new set of feature values that were not presented during adaptation. Processing in specialized (as opposed to generalized) visual routines predicts that the transfer of visual adaptation depends on the feature similarity of the adaptor and the test event. We show that the negative aftereffects do not transfer to unadapted launch directions but do transfer to launch events of different speeds. Finally, we used colored discs to assign distinct feature-based identities to the launching and the launched stimulus. We found that the adaptation transferred across colors if the test event had the same motion direction as the adaptor. In summary, visual adaptation allowed us to carve out a visual feature space underlying the perception of causality and revealed specialized visual routines that are tuned to a launch’s motion direction.