1. Medicine
  2. Neuroscience
Download icon

What is the true discharge rate and pattern of the striatal projection neurons in Parkinson's disease and Dystonia?

  1. Dan Valsky
  2. Shai Heiman Grosberg
  3. Zvi Israel
  4. Thomas Boraud
  5. Hagai Bergman
  6. Marc Deffains  Is a corresponding author
  1. The Hebrew University - Hadassah Medical School, Israel
  2. Hadassah University Hospital, Israel
  3. University of Bordeaux, France
Research Article
  • Cited 1
  • Views 1,486
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2020;9:e57445 doi: 10.7554/eLife.57445

Abstract

Dopamine and striatal dysfunctions play a key role in the pathophysiology of Parkinson's disease (PD) and Dystonia, but our understanding of the changes in the discharge rate and pattern of striatal projection neurons (SPNs) remains limited. Here, we recorded and examined multi-unit signals from the striatum of PD and dystonic patients undergoing deep brain stimulation surgeries. Contrary to earlier human findings, we found no drastic changes in the spontaneous discharge of the well-isolated and stationary SPNs of the PD patients compared to the dystonic patients or to the normal levels of striatal activity reported in healthy animals. Moreover, cluster analysis using SPN discharge properties did not characterize two well-separated SPN subpopulations, indicating no SPN subpopulation-specific (D1 or D2 SPNs) discharge alterations in the pathological state. Our results imply that small to moderate changes in spontaneous SPN discharge related to PD and Dystonia are likely amplified by basal ganglia downstream structures.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files. Source data files have been provided for Figures 2, 3 and 9.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Dan Valsky

    Department of Medical Neurobiology, The Hebrew University - Hadassah Medical School, Jerusalem, Israel
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Shai Heiman Grosberg

    Department of Medical Neurobiology, The Hebrew University - Hadassah Medical School, Jerusalem, Israel
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Zvi Israel

    Department of Neurosurgery, Hadassah University Hospital, Jerusalem, Israel
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Thomas Boraud

    IMN, University of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Hagai Bergman

    Department of Medical Neurobiology, The Hebrew University - Hadassah Medical School, Jerusalem, Israel
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2402-6673
  6. Marc Deffains

    IMN, University of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France
    For correspondence
    marc.deffains@u-bordeaux.fr
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0734-6541

Funding

European Research Council

  • Hagai Bergman

Rosetrees

  • Hagai Bergman

Israel Science Foundation

  • Hagai Bergman

Israel Authority for Innovation

  • Hagai Bergman

French National Research Agency

  • Marc Deffains

French National Center for Scientific Research

  • Marc Deffains

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

Ethics

Human subjects: All patients met the criteria for DBS and signed a written informed consent for surgery that involved microelectrode recording. This study was authorized and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Hadassah Hospital in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration (reference code: 0168-10-HMO)

Reviewing Editor

  1. Aryn H Gittis, Carnegie Mellon University, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: March 31, 2020
  2. Accepted: August 14, 2020
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: August 19, 2020 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: September 1, 2020 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2020, Valsky 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

  • 1,486
    Page views
  • 204
    Downloads
  • 1
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

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)

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

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

  1. Further reading

Further reading

    1. Medicine
    2. Neuroscience
    Balazs Aczel et al.
    Feature Article Updated

    Any large dataset can be analyzed in a number of ways, and it is possible that the use of different analysis strategies will lead to different results and conclusions. One way to assess whether the results obtained depend on the analysis strategy chosen is to employ multiple analysts and leave each of them free to follow their own approach. Here, we present consensus-based guidance for conducting and reporting such multi-analyst studies, and we discuss how broader adoption of the multi-analyst approach has the potential to strengthen the robustness of results and conclusions obtained from analyses of datasets in basic and applied research.

    1. Medicine
    2. Neuroscience
    Bilge E Öztürk et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Background:

    Adeno-associated virus (AAV)-mediated gene therapies are rapidly advancing to the clinic, and AAV engineering has resulted in vectors with increased ability to deliver therapeutic genes. Although the choice of vector is critical, quantitative comparison of AAVs, especially in large animals, remains challenging.

    Methods:

    Here, we developed an efficient single-cell AAV engineering pipeline (scAAVengr) to simultaneously quantify and rank efficiency of competing AAV vectors across all cell types in the same animal.

    Results:

    To demonstrate proof-of-concept for the scAAVengr workflow, we quantified – with cell-type resolution – the abilities of naturally occurring and newly engineered AAVs to mediate gene expression in primate retina following intravitreal injection. A top performing variant identified using this pipeline, K912, was used to deliver SaCas9 and edit the rhodopsin gene in macaque retina, resulting in editing efficiency similar to infection rates detected by the scAAVengr workflow. scAAVengr was then used to identify top-performing AAV variants in mouse brain, heart, and liver following systemic injection.

    Conclusions:

    These results validate scAAVengr as a powerful method for development of AAV vectors.

    Funding:

    This work was supported by funding from the Ford Foundation, NEI/NIH, Research to Prevent Blindness, Foundation Fighting Blindness, UPMC Immune Transplant and Therapy Center, and the Van Sloun fund for canine genetic research.