Revealing a novel nociceptive network that links the subthalamic nucleus to pain processing

  1. Arnaud Pautrat
  2. Marta Rolland
  3. Margaux Barthelemy
  4. Christelle Baunez
  5. Valérie Sinniger
  6. Brigitte Piallat
  7. Marc Savasta
  8. Paul G Overton
  9. Olivier David
  10. Veronique Coizet  Is a corresponding author
  1. INSERM, France
  2. Aix-Marseille Université, France
  3. University Grenoble Alpes, France
  4. University of Sheffield, United Kingdom

Abstract

Pain is a prevalent symptom of Parkinson's disease, and is effectively treated by deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus (STN). However, the link between pain and the STN remains unclear. In the present work, we report that STN neurons exhibit complex tonic and phasic responses to noxious stimuli using in vivo electrophysiology in rats. We also show that nociception is altered following lesions of the STN, and characterize the role of the superior colliculus and the parabrachial nucleus in the transmission of nociceptive information to the STN, physiologically from both structures and anatomically in the case of the parabrachial nucleus. We show that STN nociceptive responses are abnormal in a rat model of PD, suggesting their dependence on the integrity of the nigrostriatal dopaminergic system. The STN-linked nociceptive network we reveal is likely to be of considerable clinical importance in neurological diseases involving a dysfunction of the basal ganglia.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files. Matlab scripts used to analyse the data are freely available on the ImaGIN platform website (https://f-tract.eu/software/imagin/).

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Arnaud Pautrat

    U1216, INSERM, Grenoble, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Marta Rolland

    U1216, INSERM, Grenoble, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Margaux Barthelemy

    U1216, INSERM, Grenoble, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Christelle Baunez

    Institut de Neurosciences Timone UMR7289, Aix-Marseille Université, Marseille, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4368-652X
  5. Valérie Sinniger

    Grenoble Institute of Neurosciences, University Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Brigitte Piallat

    U1216, INSERM, Grenoble, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Marc Savasta

    U1216, INSERM, Grenoble, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Paul G Overton

    Department of Psychology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Olivier David

    U1216, INSERM, Grenoble, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Veronique Coizet

    U1216, INSERM, Grenoble, France
    For correspondence
    veronique.coizet@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5192-6610

Funding

Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale

  • Veronique Coizet

ADR Région Rhône Alpes

  • Veronique Coizet

UGA AGIR-POLE

  • Veronique Coizet

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Peggy Mason, University of Chicago, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: In accordance with the policy of Lyon1 University, the Grenoble Institut des Neurosciences (GIN) and the French legislation, experiments were done in compliance with the European Community Council Directive of November 24, 1986 (86/609/EEC). The research was authorized by the Direction Départementale des Services Vétérinaires de l'Isère - Ministère de l'Agriculture et de la Pêche, France (Coizet Véronique, PhD, permit number 381003). Every effort was made to minimize the number of animals used and their suffering during the experimental procedure. All procedures were reviewed and validated by the ""Comité éthique du GIN no 004"" agreed by the research ministry (permits number 309 and 310).

Version history

  1. Received: March 13, 2018
  2. Accepted: August 6, 2018
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: August 28, 2018 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: September 13, 2018 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2018, Pautrat 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

  • 2,763
    views
  • 455
    downloads
  • 29
    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. Arnaud Pautrat
  2. Marta Rolland
  3. Margaux Barthelemy
  4. Christelle Baunez
  5. Valérie Sinniger
  6. Brigitte Piallat
  7. Marc Savasta
  8. Paul G Overton
  9. Olivier David
  10. Veronique Coizet
(2018)
Revealing a novel nociceptive network that links the subthalamic nucleus to pain processing
eLife 7:e36607.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.36607

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.36607

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Nicholas GW Kennedy, Jessica C Lee ... Nathan M Holmes
    Research Article

    How is new information organized in memory? According to latent state theories, this is determined by the level of surprise, or prediction error, generated by the new information: a small prediction error leads to the updating of existing memory, large prediction error leads to encoding of a new memory. We tested this idea using a protocol in which rats were first conditioned to fear a stimulus paired with shock. The stimulus was then gradually extinguished by progressively reducing the shock intensity until the stimulus was presented alone. Consistent with latent state theories, this gradual extinction protocol (small prediction errors) was better than standard extinction (large prediction errors) in producing long-term suppression of fear responses, and the benefit of gradual extinction was due to updating of the conditioning memory with information about extinction. Thus, prediction error determines how new information is organized in memory, and latent state theories adequately describe the ways in which this occurs.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Katarzyna Marta Zoltowska, Utpal Das ... Lucía Chávez-Gutiérrez
    Research Article

    Amyloid β (Aβ) peptides accumulating in the brain are proposed to trigger Alzheimer’s disease (AD). However, molecular cascades underlying their toxicity are poorly defined. Here, we explored a novel hypothesis for Aβ42 toxicity that arises from its proven affinity for γ-secretases. We hypothesized that the reported increases in Aβ42, particularly in the endolysosomal compartment, promote the establishment of a product feedback inhibitory mechanism on γ-secretases, and thereby impair downstream signaling events. We conducted kinetic analyses of γ-secretase activity in cell-free systems in the presence of Aβ, as well as cell-based and ex vivo assays in neuronal cell lines, neurons, and brain synaptosomes to assess the impact of Aβ on γ-secretases. We show that human Aβ42 peptides, but neither murine Aβ42 nor human Aβ17–42 (p3), inhibit γ-secretases and trigger accumulation of unprocessed substrates in neurons, including C-terminal fragments (CTFs) of APP, p75, and pan-cadherin. Moreover, Aβ42 treatment dysregulated cellular homeostasis, as shown by the induction of p75-dependent neuronal death in two distinct cellular systems. Our findings raise the possibility that pathological elevations in Aβ42 contribute to cellular toxicity via the γ-secretase inhibition, and provide a novel conceptual framework to address Aβ toxicity in the context of γ-secretase-dependent homeostatic signaling.