Arid1b haploinsufficient mice reveal neuropsychiatric phenotypes and reversible causes of growth impairment

  1. Hao Zhu  Is a corresponding author
  2. Cemre Celen
  3. Jen-Chieh Chuang
  4. Xin Luo
  5. Nadine Nijem
  6. Angela K Walker
  7. Fei Chen
  8. Shuyuan Zhang
  9. Andrew Seungjae Chung
  10. Liem H Nguyen
  11. Ibrahim Nassour
  12. Albert Budhipramono
  13. Xuxu Sun
  14. Levinus A Bok
  15. Meriel McEntagart
  16. Evelien Gevers
  17. Shari G Birnbaum
  18. Amelia J Eisch
  19. Craig M Powell
  20. Woo-Ping Ge
  21. Gijs WE Santen
  22. Maria Chahrour
  1. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, United States
  2. Máxima Medical Center, Netherlands
  3. St George's University Hospitals, NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom
  4. Queen Mary University of London, United Kingdom
  5. University of Pennsylvania, United States
  6. Leiden University Medical Center, Netherlands

Abstract

Sequencing studies have implicated haploinsufficiency of ARID1B, a SWI/SNF chromatin-remodeling subunit, in short stature (1), autism spectrum disorder (2), intellectual disability (3), and corpus callosum agenesis (4). In addition, ARID1B is the most common cause of Coffin-Siris Syndrome, a developmental delay syndrome characterized by some of the above abnormalities (5-7). We generated Arid1b heterozygous mice, which showed social behavior impairment, altered vocalization, anxiety-like behavior, neuroanatomical abnormalities, and growth impairment. In the brain, Arid1b haploinsufficiency resulted in changes in the expression of SWI/SNF-regulated genes implicated in neuropsychiatric disorders. A focus on reversible mechanisms identified insulin-like growth factor (IGF1) deficiency with inadequate compensation by Growth Hormone Releasing Hormone (GHRH) and Growth Hormone (GH), underappreciated findings in ARID1B patients. Therapeutically, GH supplementation was able to correct growth retardation and muscle weakness. This model functionally validates the involvement of ARID1B in human disorders, and allows mechanistic dissection of neurodevelopmental diseases linked to chromatin-remodeling.

Data availability

The following data sets were generated
The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Hao Zhu

    Children's Research Institute, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    For correspondence
    Hao.Zhu@utsouthwestern.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8417-9698
  2. Cemre Celen

    Children's Research Institute, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Jen-Chieh Chuang

    Children's Research Institute, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Xin Luo

    Children's Research Institute, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Nadine Nijem

    Department of Neuroscience, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Angela K Walker

    Department of Neurology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Fei Chen

    Children's Research Institute, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Shuyuan Zhang

    Children's Research Institute, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Andrew Seungjae Chung

    Children's Research Institute, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Liem H Nguyen

    Children's Research Institute, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Ibrahim Nassour

    Children's Research Institute, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Albert Budhipramono

    Children's Research Institute, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Xuxu Sun

    Children's Research Institute, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Levinus A Bok

    Department of Pediatrics, Máxima Medical Center, Veldhoven, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Meriel McEntagart

    Medical Genetics, St George's University Hospitals, NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Evelien Gevers

    William Harvey Research Institute, Barts and the London, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Shari G Birnbaum

    Department of Psychiatry, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Amelia J Eisch

    Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Craig M Powell

    Department of Neurology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Woo-Ping Ge

    Children's Research Institute, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  21. Gijs WE Santen

    Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  22. Maria Chahrour

    Department of Neuroscience, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Funding

Hamon Center for Regenerative Science and Medicine

  • Cemre Celen
  • Xuxu Sun

National Institutes of Health (DA023555)

  • Amelia J Eisch

National Institutes of Health (MH107945)

  • Amelia J Eisch

Postdoctoral Institutional training grant (NIDA T32-DA007290)

  • Angela K Walker

HHMI International Fellowship

  • Liem H Nguyen

Pollack Foundation

  • Hao Zhu

National Institutes of Health (1K08CA157727)

  • Hao Zhu

National Cancer Institute (1R01CA190525)

  • Hao Zhu

Burroughs Wellcome Fund

  • Hao Zhu

CPRIT New Investigator Award (R1209)

  • Hao Zhu

CPRIT Early Translation Grant (DP150077)

  • Hao Zhu

National Institutes of Health (DA023701)

  • Amelia J Eisch

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Joseph G Gleeson, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, The Rockefeller University, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: Revised ethics statement: All animal procedures were based on animal care guidelines approved by the Institutional. Animal Care and Use Committee at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (UTSW). Animal protocol number is 2015-101118. Patient data included in the article is non-identifiable data, and hence does not require approval from the patient/parents.

Human subjects: All animal procedures were based on animal care guidelines approved by the Institutional. Animal Care and Use Committee at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (UTSW). Animal protocol number is 2015-101118. Patient data included in the article is non-identifiable data, and hence does not require approval from the patients.

Version history

  1. Received: February 3, 2017
  2. Accepted: June 24, 2017
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: July 11, 2017 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: July 13, 2017 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record published: July 18, 2017 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2017, Zhu 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

  • 4,782
    views
  • 770
    downloads
  • 75
    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. Hao Zhu
  2. Cemre Celen
  3. Jen-Chieh Chuang
  4. Xin Luo
  5. Nadine Nijem
  6. Angela K Walker
  7. Fei Chen
  8. Shuyuan Zhang
  9. Andrew Seungjae Chung
  10. Liem H Nguyen
  11. Ibrahim Nassour
  12. Albert Budhipramono
  13. Xuxu Sun
  14. Levinus A Bok
  15. Meriel McEntagart
  16. Evelien Gevers
  17. Shari G Birnbaum
  18. Amelia J Eisch
  19. Craig M Powell
  20. Woo-Ping Ge
  21. Gijs WE Santen
  22. Maria Chahrour
(2017)
Arid1b haploinsufficient mice reveal neuropsychiatric phenotypes and reversible causes of growth impairment
eLife 6:e25730.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.25730

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.25730

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Vezha Boboeva, Alberto Pezzotta ... Athena Akrami
    Research Article

    The central tendency bias, or contraction bias, is a phenomenon where the judgment of the magnitude of items held in working memory appears to be biased toward the average of past observations. It is assumed to be an optimal strategy by the brain and commonly thought of as an expression of the brain’s ability to learn the statistical structure of sensory input. On the other hand, recency biases such as serial dependence are also commonly observed and are thought to reflect the content of working memory. Recent results from an auditory delayed comparison task in rats suggest that both biases may be more related than previously thought: when the posterior parietal cortex (PPC) was silenced, both short-term and contraction biases were reduced. By proposing a model of the circuit that may be involved in generating the behavior, we show that a volatile working memory content susceptible to shifting to the past sensory experience – producing short-term sensory history biases – naturally leads to contraction bias. The errors, occurring at the level of individual trials, are sampled from the full distribution of the stimuli and are not due to a gradual shift of the memory toward the sensory distribution’s mean. Our results are consistent with a broad set of behavioral findings and provide predictions of performance across different stimulus distributions and timings, delay intervals, as well as neuronal dynamics in putative working memory areas. Finally, we validate our model by performing a set of human psychophysics experiments of an auditory parametric working memory task.

    1. Neuroscience
    Michael Berger, Michèle Fraatz ... Henrike Scholz
    Research Article

    The brain regulates food intake in response to internal energy demands and food availability. However, can internal energy storage influence the type of memory that is formed? We show that the duration of starvation determines whether Drosophila melanogaster forms appetitive short-term or longer-lasting intermediate memories. The internal glycogen storage in the muscles and adipose tissue influences how intensely sucrose-associated information is stored. Insulin-like signaling in octopaminergic reward neurons integrates internal energy storage into memory formation. Octopamine, in turn, suppresses the formation of long-term memory. Octopamine is not required for short-term memory because octopamine-deficient mutants can form appetitive short-term memory for sucrose and to other nutrients depending on the internal energy status. The reduced positive reinforcing effect of sucrose at high internal glycogen levels, combined with the increased stability of food-related memories due to prolonged periods of starvation, could lead to increased food intake.