Down syndrome (DS) is a developmental disorder with structural, functional, molecular, and genetic alterations that show a dynamic onset and severity (Antonarakis et al., 2020; de Moraes et al., 2008; Grieco et al., 2015; Keeling et al., 1997; LaCombe and Roper, 2020; Llambrich et al., 2022a; McCarron et al., 2017; Steingass et al., 2011). The alterations associated with DS simultaneously affect multiple systems that are likely interrelated over development, with changes in one system modulating the others (Llambrich et al., 2022b). Many studies have provided evidence of these developmental alterations and have demonstrated the ability of dietary supplements such as epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG) or green tea extracts enriched in EGCG (GTE-EGCG) to modulate these systems separately (Catuara-Solarz et al., 2016; de la Torre et al., 2016; Goodlett et al., 2020; Guedj et al., 2009; Llambrich et al., 2022b; Rondal, 2020; Stagni et al., 2015; Starbuck et al., 2021). However, a holistic evaluation of the simultaneous effects of trisomy and GTE-EGCG in those intertwined systems is missing. The variety in experimental setups and readouts obtained in different preclinical studies hinders the comparison and integration of results and, as a result, evidence is usually contradictory, reporting both positive and negative treatment effects. This lack of consistency can lead to biased interpretations about the etiology of the disorder and the potential effect of pharmacological treatments.

Much of this DS research was based on the Ts65Dn mouse model (Davisson et al., 1990; Reeves et al., 1995), as it was one of the first preclinical models available for DS and has been widely used for experimental testing. These mice carry a segment with approximately 120 genes homologous to Hsa21 (starting upstream of Mrpl39 to the telomeric end of Mmu16), translocated to a small centromeric part of Mmu17 (Duchon et al., 2011; Herault et al., 2017; Reinholdt et al., 2011). Ts65Dn mice are trisomic for about two-thirds of the genes orthologous to Hsa21, but also carry genes originating from the Mmu17 that are not related with DS, including about 46 protein-coding genes, 35 nonprotein-coding genes and 35 pseudogenes (Muñiz Moreno et al., 2020). These genetic alterations do not fully represent DS’s aneuploidy and other mouse and rat models have been developed recently that more faithfully represent the trisomic nature of DS (Kazuki et al., 2020; Kazuki et al., 2022). However, in this study, we used the Ts65Dn mouse model because it recapitulates the main skeletal, brain, cognitive, brain metabolite, and genetic alterations associated with DS (Blazek et al., 2011; Costa et al., 2010; Dierssen et al., 2002; Escorihuela et al., 1998; Gupta et al., 2016; Huang et al., 2000; Llambrich et al., 2022b; Même et al., 2014; Starbuck et al., 2021); and the effects of GTE-EGCG pharmacological modulation have been extensively evaluated using this mouse model (Catuara-Solarz et al., 2016; Goodlett et al., 2020; Jamal et al., 2022; Llambrich et al., 2022b; McElyea et al., 2016; Stagni et al., 2016; Starbuck et al., 2021; Stringer et al., 2017).

At the structural level, people with DS show skeletal and brain alterations that progress through ontogeny (Antonarakis et al., 2020; de Moraes et al., 2008; Fischer-Brandies et al., 1986; Keeling et al., 1997; LaCombe and Roper, 2020; Pearlson et al., 1998; Starbuck et al., 2021). Children with DS have a decreased buildup of bone mass and a low bone turnover rate, resulting in more osteoclast than osteoblast activity, smaller bone area, lower bone mineral density (BMD), and an increased risk of osteoporosis at adulthood (Carfì et al., 2017; Keeling et al., 1997; LaCombe and Roper, 2020). Individuals with DS also present midfacial hypoplasia and flattened nasal bridge along with skull malformations resulting in a shorter, wider, and rounder skull (Blazek et al., 2011; LaCombe and Roper, 2020; Richtsmeier et al., 2000; Suri et al., 2010; Thomas and Roper, 2021). Previous studies have shown the potential of GTE-EGCG to modulate craniofacial and postcranial morphology, as well as the microarchitecture and BMD of the long bones, showing positive, negative or no treatment effects (Abeysekera et al., 2016; Blazek et al., 2015a; Jamal et al., 2022; Llambrich et al., 2022a; McElyea et al., 2016; Starbuck et al., 2021; Stringer et al., 2017). We previously detected dose-, time-, and anatomical structure-dependent effects in a study using the same mouse model and the same treatment regime with two different GTE-EGCG doses (Llambrich et al., 2022a). A dose of 100 mg/kg/day of GTE-EGCG exacerbated facial dysmorphologies (Starbuck et al., 2021), modified the skeletal dysmorphologies associated with DS without rescuing the bones shape (Llambrich et al., 2022a), and altered the integration between the skull and the brain (Llambrich et al., 2022b). However, a lower dose of 30 mg/kg/day significantly reduced the facial dysmorphologies (Starbuck et al., 2021) but did not show additional rescuing effects in other skeletal traits (Llambrich et al., 2022a).

In DS, the craniofacial size and shape alterations are accompanied with structural brain alterations. People with DS show a reduced overall brain volume from birth, with disproportionately smaller hippocampus and cerebellum, and larger ventricles (Hamner et al., 2018; Movsas et al., 2016; Patkee et al., 2020; Pinter et al., 2001; Rodrigues et al., 2019; Smigielska-Kuzia et al., 2011). Evidence for the effects of GTE-EGCG on brain anatomy is limited. Our own previous study showed that administration of 100 mg/kg/day of GTE-EGCG altered the brain shape of Ts65Dn mice at adulthood (Llambrich et al., 2022b), while another study administering green tea polyphenols corresponding to 0.6–1 mg EGCG per day in YACtg152F7 mice showed reduced thalamic-hypothalamic volume and reduced overall brain weight and volume (Guedj et al., 2009).

The structural brain alterations in DS are associated with cognitive disabilities, causing functional disability (Guidi et al., 2011; Rodrigues et al., 2019; Stagni et al., 2016). People with DS show relative impairment in executive function, short-term memory, working memory, and explicit long-term memory (Grieco et al., 2015; Lott and Dierssen, 2010; McCarron et al., 2017; Real de Asua et al., 2015; Steingass et al., 2011; Zis and Strydom, 2018); together with a neurodevelopmental delay in the acquisition of both gross and fine motor skills during childhood (Beqaj et al., 2017; Ferreira-Vasques and Lamônica, 2015; Frank and Esbensen, 2015; Kim et al., 2017; Malak et al., 2015). Regarding cognition, the therapeutic results of green tea extracts are also contradictory. A study administering 60 mg/kg GTE-EGCG to 3- to 4-month-old mBACtgDyrk1a and Ts65Dn mice for 4 weeks rescued working memory (Souchet et al., 2015), and interventional studies in humans with DS have shown the ability of (GTE-)EGCG to improve memory recognition, working memory, inhibitory control, and adaptive behavior (de la Torre et al., 2016; De la Torre et al., 2014). However, other studies found no effect or negative effects of (GTE-)EGCG on cognition. In children aged 6–12 years, a randomized phase Ib clinical trial administering 10 mg/kg/day of EGCG for 6 months combined with a dietary supplement did not improve cognition and functionality (Cieuta-Walti et al., 2022). In mice, GTE-EGCG at a dose of 30 mg/kg/day had no effect on visuospatial learning and memory, and even resulted in reduced swimming speed in the Morris water maze and increased thigmotaxic behavior in 5- to 6-month-old Ts65Dn mice (Catuara-Solarz et al., 2015).

Several studies have shown that the cognitive functional alterations observed in DS are related with changes at a molecular level on the concentration of hippocampal metabolites, as people with DS show increased myo-inositol levels when compared to euploid population, and people with DS and dementia show reduced levels of N-acetylaspartate (NAA) when compared to people with DS without dementia (Beacher et al., 2005; Lamar et al., 2011). These findings warrant further investigation into the potential role of hippocampal metabolites in cognitive function, particularly given that few studies to date have investigated the effects of trisomy on the concentration of the main metabolites in the hippocampus of Ts65Dn mice (Huang et al., 2000; Même et al., 2014; Santin et al., 2014) and there is currently no evidence on the effects of (GTE-)EGCG treatment.

Finally, all these structural, functional, and molecular alterations are the result of a complex genetic imbalance involving the triplicated genes in chromosome 21 and the interactions of many genes across the genome (Olson et al., 2004). Indeed, skeletal malformations can be associated with the dysregulation of genes such as Regulator of Calcineurin 1 (RCAN1), Superoxide Dismutase 1 (SOD1), Engrailed Homeobox 2 (EN2), ETS Proto-Oncogene 2 (ETS2), Sonic Hedgehog (SHH), Dual-Specificity Tyrosine-(Y)-Phosphorylation Regulated Kinase 1 A (DYRK1A), SRY-Box Transcription Factor 9 (SOX9), and Orthodenticle Homeobox 2 (OTX2) (Arron et al., 2006; Billingsley et al., 2013; McElyea et al., 2016; Roper et al., 2009; Thomas and Roper, 2021; Weisfeld-Adams et al., 2016), while cognitive impairment and altered brain development may be associated with RCAN1, SOD1, Oligodendrocyte Transcription Factor 1 (OLIG1), Oligodendrocyte Transcription Factor2 (OLIG2), SIM BHLH Transcription Factor 2 (SIM2), Down Syndrome Cell Adhesion Molecule (DSCAM), DYRK1A, Down Syndrome Critical Region 1 (DSCR1), Synaptojanin 1 (SYNJ1) and Potassium Inwardly Rectifying Channel Subfamily J Member 6 (KCNJ6) (Chang et al., 2003; Hoeffer et al., 2007; Kazemi et al., 2016; Kleschevnikov et al., 2017; Lana-Elola et al., 2011; Stagni and Bartesaghi, 2022; Stagni et al., 2018). From these genes, DYRK1A, a gene involved in both skeletal and neuronal development that is overexpressed by trisomy of chromosome 21 (Blazek et al., 2015a; Dierssen and de Lagrán, 2006), has been proposed as a target gene for therapy (Atas-Ozcan et al., 2021; Becker et al., 2014; Dierssen and de Lagrán, 2006; García-Cerro et al., 2014; Jarhad et al., 2018; Ji et al., 2015; Lee et al., 2009; Rondal, 2020). The potential of EGCG to modulate gene expression in the Ts65Dn mouse model for DS has limited evidence, with one study administering 200 mg/kg EGCG on embryonic days 7 and 8 twice daily showing decreases in Protein patched homolog 1 (Ptch) and Ets2 RNA expression and significant increases in Rcan1 and Shh RNA expression in the first pharyngeal arch of Ts65Dn mice at embryonic day (E) 9.5 (McElyea et al., 2016).

Since a holistic evaluation of these systems is missing, we designed a longitudinal experimental setup to follow the simultaneous development of structural, functional, molecular, and genetic alterations in the Ts65Dn mouse model. In this study, we conducted a multi-modal in vivo imaging study using micro computed tomography (µCT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) to investigate the integrated development of craniofacial shape, BMD, brain volumes, and hippocampal metabolites in wildtype and Ts65Dn mice. Additionally, we evaluated the changes in body weight and performed a battery of neurodevelopmental and adult cognitive tests to assess cognitive function from birth to adulthood throughout development. At endpoint, we also evaluated tibia microarchitecture from ex vivo µCT scans and used RNAseq to analyze cerebellar gene expression in the same mice at 8 months old (Figure 1). Furthermore, we evaluated the pleiotropic effects of prenatal chronic GTE-EGCG treatment and explored the effects of treatment discontinuation on these systems, providing the first controlled longitudinal study assessing the simultaneous effects of treatment across different systems.

Figure 1

Download asset Open asset

Our longitudinal experimental setup allowed us to investigate the pleiotropic effects of trisomy, GTE-EGCG treatment and treatment discontinuation at the structural, functional, molecular, and genetic levels in the Ts65Dn DS mouse model (Figure 1). We compared wildtype (WT) and Ts65Dn (TS) untreated mice to evaluate trisomy effects, and WT and TS treated mice to evaluate treatment effects.

Structural characterization

Structurally, we investigated the longitudinal effects of trisomy, treatment, and treatment discontinuation on body weight, skeletal system, and adult brain volume (Figure 2).

Figure 2 with 2 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

Body weight

First, we investigated mouse body growth by monitoring body weight over development. TS untreated mice tended to present lower body weights than WT untreated mice over development from birth to adulthood, but these genotype differences did not reach significance at any developmental stage (Figure 2A; P_BW1=0.7630; P_BW2=0.3688; P_BW3=0.1094).

Chronic GTE-EGCG treatment, which started prenatally and was maintained until 5 months, significantly reduced the body growth of TS treated mice from PD1 to PD17 (Figure 2A at BW₁) in comparison with WT untreated (p<0.0001), WT treated (p<0.0001), and TS untreated mice (p<0.0001). At adulthood before treatment discontinuation (Figure 2A at BW₂), these differences were maintained, but only reached significance when compared to WT untreated (p=0.0322) and WT treated mice (p=0.0103). After three months of treatment discontinuation, both WT and TS treated mice showed a mild increase in body weight, making TS treated mice not significantly different from WT untreated (Figure 2A; P_BW3=0.9284), and causing WT treated mice to be significantly different from WT untreated (Figure 2A; P_BW3=0.0259).

Skeletal development

Since people with DS show craniofacial abnormalities, reduced BMD, and altered bone microarchitecture (Carfì et al., 2017; Kao et al., 1992; LaCombe and Roper, 2020; Thomas and Roper, 2021; Vicente et al., 2020), we investigated the effects of genotype, treatment, and treatment discontinuation in these systems by performing in vivo µCT scans throughout development and ex vivo µCT scans at endpoint as indicated in Figure 1.

Craniofacial morphology

We first performed geometric morphometric analyses on the craniofacial 3D models obtained from in vivo µCT scans to investigate craniofacial shape throughout development. The results confirmed our previous findings (Llambrich et al., 2022a; Llambrich et al., 2022b), showing that TS untreated mice presented a significantly different craniofacial shape than WT untreated mice at µCT₁ (p<0.0001) and µCT₂ (p=0.0011) (Supplementary file 2a). In this study, we further detected that the craniofacial differences induced by genotype persisted until adulthood (Figure 2B and P_µCT3=0.0009; Figure 2C and P_µCT4=0.0055).

Prenatal chronic GTE-EGCG treatment only showed a significant effect in the craniofacial shape at PD3, where both WT and TS treated mice were different from their untreated counterparts (P_WT=0.0418; P_TS=0.0005). However, the treatment never rescued the craniofacial shape in TS treated mice, as these mice were significantly different from WT untreated mice at all stages (Figure 2B and C; Supplementary file 2a). Discontinuing the treatment for three months did not induce any effects (Figure 2C), maintaining the craniofacial dysmorphologies already observed at µCT₃ (Figure 2B).

Bone mineral density

The BMD of the humerus was estimated throughout development from the in vivo µCT scans. Although we observed that TS untreated mice tended to present lower BMD than WT untreated mice over development and adulthood, the differences did not reach significance at any developmental stage (Figure 2D, Supplementary file 2b).

Prenatal GTE-EGCG chronic treatment significantly modified the developmental trajectory of humerus BMD in WT and TS treated mice (P_WT <0.0001; P_TS=0.0023), but never rescued the trisomic phenotype, as TS treated mice remained different from WT untreated (p<0.0001). At PD3, WT and TS treated mice showed similar levels of BMD as compared to untreated mice (Figure 2D at µCT₁) but tended to show lower BMD at PD29 (Figure 2D at µCT₂). This tendency for reduced BMD was rescued at adulthood (Figure 2D at µCT₃), but after 3 months of treatment discontinuation, both WT and TS treated groups showed a decline in BMD (Figure 2D at µCT₄), which caused WT and TS treated mice to be different than WT untreated control mice (P_WT=0.0001; P_TS=0.0002), suggesting a rebound effect following treatment retrieval.

Tibia development and microarchitecture

Finally, we complemented our structural skeletal analysis by evaluating the length and microarchitecture of the tibia from ex vivo µCT scans at endpoint, as indicated in Figure 1.

To obtain a global view of the genotype and treatment effects, we performed a linear discriminant analysis (LDA) combining the results of all tibia microarchitecture tests into a single analysis that maximized the differences among groups of mice (Figure 2E). The LDA showed limited overlap between groups, as mice separated by treatment along the first axis, and by genotype along the second axis. These results suggested genotype differences and treatment effects that did not rescue the trisomic phenotype (Figure 2E). The multivariate pairwise comparisons after one-way PERMANOVA using Mahalanobis distances detected significant differences between all groups of mice except between WT untreated and TS untreated mice (Supplementary file 2c), confirming the treatment effects in both genotypes.

To explore the overall differences detected by the LDA in finer detail, we grouped the results of the tibia microarchitecture tests according to the structural domain they evaluated (cortical bone strength, cortical bone size, and trabecular bone), and repeated the multivariate pairwise comparisons (Supplementary file 2c). Even though we did not detect any significant difference between WT untreated and TS untreated mice in any structural domain (Supplementary file 2c), TS untreated mice tended to show specific reductions in cortical thickness, polar moment of inertia, cross-sectional area, and bone area (Figure 2—figure supplement 1 C,E,F,G); and the univariate pairwise comparison tests revealed significant differences in the tibia length (Figure 2—figure supplement 1A; p=0.0170) and periosteal perimeter (Figure 2—figure supplement 1I; p=0.0154).

After GTE-EGCG chronic treatment and discontinuation, WT treated mice were not significantly different than WT untreated mice for any specific structural domain (Supplementary file 2c), but the univariate pairwise tests indicated significantly reduced tibia length (Figure 2—figure supplement 1A; p=0.0006) and cortical porosity (Figure 2—figure supplement 1D; p=0.0120), together with increased cortical BMD (Figure 2—figure supplement 1B; p=0.0120). TS treated mice were significantly different than TS untreated mice for the cortical bone strength and cortical bone size domains (Supplementary file 2c), showing significantly more mineralized (Figure 2—figure supplement 1B; p=0.0039), thicker (Figure 2—figure supplement 1C; p=0.0400), and less porous (Figure 2—figure supplement 1D; p=0.0005) cortical bone. However, they appeared different from WT untreated mice in both cortical domains (Supplementary file 2c) as well as in the cortical BMD (Figure 2—figure supplement 1B; p=0.0097) and cortical porosity tests (Figure 2—figure supplement 1D; p=0.0107). These results could be explained either by adverse effects of the treatment during development that were persistent after discontinuation, or by a negative effect following treatment withdrawal.

Functional characterization

After evaluating the effects of trisomy and chronic prenatal GTE-EGCG treatment and its discontinuation at a structural level, we investigated its simultaneous effects at a functional level. We performed a battery of cognitive tests to evaluate early neurodevelopment and adult cognition before and after treatment discontinuation (Figure 3), at the timepoints specified in Figure 1.

Figure 3 with 3 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

Neurodevelopment

We first evaluated early brain function and neurodevelopment over the first weeks after birth by performing a battery of neurodevelopmental tests from PD1 until PD18 (Figure 3A). The LDA with the results from all neurodevelopmental tests combined showed that the treatment was the main differentiating factor among groups of mice, as Axis 1 separated treated and untreated mice (Figure 3A). Despite some overlap, Axis 2 separated WT and TS mice. These results suggested mild genotype differences and treatment effects that did not rescue the trisomic phenotype (Figure 3A). The multivariate pairwise comparisons after one-way PERMANOVA using Mahalanobis distances (Supplementary file 2f) detected significant differences between TS untreated and WT untreated mice (p=0.0001), and between TS treated mice and both TS untreated (p=0.0001) and WT untreated mice (p=0.0001), confirming these findings.

When the neurodevelopmental tests were grouped into functional domains (developmental landmarks, neuromotor tests and reflexes) (Supplementary file 2f), the multivariate pairwise comparisons only indicated significant differences between WT untreated and TS untreated mice for the reflexes (p=0.0423). TS untreated mice tended to be delayed in most individual tests (Figure 3—figure supplement 1), and the univariate pairwise comparison tests confirmed significant delays in the acquisition rate of the vertical climbing (Figure 3—figure supplement 1E; p=0.0256) and tactile response (Figure 3—figure supplement 1I; p=0.0064), together with the average day of acquisition of the surface righting response (Figure 3—figure supplement 1C; p=0.0320). However, we also observed that TS untreated mice tended to be anticipated in the vibrissae placing, blast response, and Preyer reflex (Figure 3—figure supplement 1 J,M,N), even though these results did not reach significance.

Prenatal chronic treatment with GTE-EGCG caused TS treated mice to be significantly different than TS untreated mice for the domains neuromotor tests and reflexes, and WT treated mice to be different from WT untreated mice for the domain reflexes (Supplementary file 2f). The univariate tests indicated that treatment significantly modulated the average day of acquisition and acquisition rate of multiple neurodevelopmental tests in both WT and TS treated mice, causing either a delay or an anticipation in most tests (Figure 3—figure supplement 1). However, the treatment never rescued the trisomic phenotype, as TS treated mice remained significantly different than WT untreated mice for the three functional domains and most of the individual tests (Supplementary file 2f) (Figure 3—figure supplement 1).

Finally, we investigated the mothers’ behavior during 24 hr at PD8 to evaluate maternal care and observed that, despite being trisomic, all Ts65Dn mothers performed similarly and there was no large intra-group variation for any of the behaviors analyzed, confirming that maternal care did not influence the results of the neurodevelopmental tests (Figure 3—figure supplement 2). Furthermore, no significant differences were detected between treated and untreated mothers in any readout (Figure 3—figure supplement 2), confirming that the GTE-EGCG treatment did not modulate maternal care.

Adult cognition

Then, we evaluated adult cognitive performance by means of open field (OF), elevated plus maze (EPM), sociability/preference for social novelty (SPSN), novel object recognition (NOR) and passive avoidance (PA) testing at two timepoints, Cog.₁ and Cog.₂, before and after treatment discontinuation (Figure 3B and C), as specified in Figure 1.

The LDA with the results from all tests combined showed minor overlap between groups at both Cog.₁ and Cog.₂ (Figure 3B and C), with WT untreated mice occupying the negative extreme of Axis 1, WT treated and TS untreated mice presenting an intermediate position, and TS treated mice falling on the positive extreme of Axis 1, opposite to WT untreated mice (Figure 3B and C). These results suggested genotype differences between WT and TS untreated mice that were confirmed as significant by the multivariate pairwise comparisons after one-way PERMANOVA at Cog.₁ (Supplementary file 2g; p=0.0125) but not at Cog.₂ (Supplementary file 2h; p=0.4596).

When the cognitive tests were grouped into cognitive domains (anxiety, arousal, and memory), the multivariate pairwise comparisons only detected a significant difference between WT untreated and TS untreated mice for the arousal tests at Cog.₁ (p=0.0028) (Supplementary file 2g and h). Indeed, TS untreated mice showed a tendency to cover longer distances at higher speed in all arousal tests when compared with WT untreated mice (Figure 3—figure supplement 3 E-J). These differences reached significance for the distance and speed during OF, as well as for the distance and speed during NOR at Cog.₁ (Figure 3—figure supplement 3 E,F,I,J, top). TS untreated mice also tended to show increased exploratory and risk-taking behavior, as they usually presented a tendency of increased time spent in the center of the arena during habituation for NOR at Cog.₁ (Figure 3—figure supplement 3C, top), increased percentage of time spent in the open arm during EPM at Cog.₁ (Figure 3—figure supplement 3D, top), increased time in the center during OF at Cog.₂ (Figure 3—figure supplement 3A, bottom), and reduced time to enter the dark chamber during the training session of PA at Cog.₁ (Figure 3—figure supplement 3M, top), although these differences did not reach statistical significance. Finally, TS untreated mice showed impaired memory robustness and formation at the latest stage, with significantly less preference for the novel object during NOR when compared with WT untreated mice (Figure 3—figure supplement 3K, bottom; p=0.0257), and a tendency for reduced latency to enter the dark chamber during training and testing sessions for PA at Cog.₂ (Figure 3—figure supplement 3 M,N, bottom).

Regarding treatment effects, the results from the LDA at Cog.₁ suggested that the prenatal chronic treatment induced changes in both WT and TS treated mice (Figure 3B) that exacerbated the differences in TS treated mice and induced cognitive changes in WT treated mice that resulted in a cognitive performance similar to TS untreated mice (Figure 3B). Indeed, WT treated mice were significantly different than WT untreated mice when all cognitive tests were considered together as well as for the anxiety and arousal domains (Supplementary file 2g). In the case of TS treated mice, the multivariate pairwise comparisons revealed significant differences with WT untreated mice when considering all groups together as well as for the anxiety and arousal domains (Supplementary file 2g), confirming the lack of rescuing treatment effects. Both WT and TS treated mice showed significantly increased time in the center during NOR, and increased time in the open arm during EPM at Cog.₁ when compared with WT untreated mice (Figure 3—figure supplement 3 C,D, top), indicating increased exploratory and risk-taking behavior. Similarly, both WT and TS treated mice showed increased locomotor activity, as they covered significantly more distance at more speed than WT untreated mice for the distance and speed during OF, as well as the distance and speed during NOR at Cog.₁ (Figure 3—figure supplement 3 E,F,I,J, top). However, in the memory tests (Figure 3—figure supplement 3 K-N), the pairwise comparison tests revealed only a significant difference between TS untreated and TS treated mice for the preference for subject 2 (S2) at Cog.₁, where treated mice had greater preference for the novel stranger (Figure 3—figure supplement 3L, top; p=0.0137).

After treatment discontinuation at Cog.₂, the LDA (Figure 3C) presented a similar pattern as the LDA at Cog.₁ (Figure 3B), suggesting that discontinuing the treatment for one month did not substantially change the cognitive patterns induced after chronic GTE-EGCG treatment. However, new significant differences emerged between WT untreated and both WT treated and TS treated mice when evaluating the memory domain (Supplementary file 2h), suggesting that the treatment discontinuation altered the memory of both WT and TS mice. Furthermore, TS treated mice remained significantly different than WT untreated mice for all tests combined and all cognitive domains (Supplementary file 2h), confirming that the effects of treatment discontinuation did not rescue the trisomic cognitive phenotype. Indeed, significant differences between WT untreated and TS treated mice remained for the percentage of time spent in the open arm during EPM at Cog.₂ (Figure 3—figure supplement 3D, bottom; p=0.0476), and new significant differences emerged between WT untreated mice and both WT treated and TS treated mice for the time spent in the center and in the periphery during OF (Figure 3—figure supplement 3A, B, bottom), indicating that treated mice still presented a more explorative and risk-taking behavior. A similar trend was observed for the arousal tests, as even though no significant differences were detected between TS treated and TS untreated mice (Figure 3—figure supplement 3E-J, bottom), both treated groups showed hyperactivity as the univariate pairwise comparison tests confirmed significant differences between TS treated mice and WT untreated mice for all arousal tests (Figure 3—figure supplement 3E-J, bottom); and significant differences were detected between WT treated and WT untreated mice for the distance and speed during SPSN and the distance and speed during NOR (Figure 3—figure supplement 3G-J, bottom). In the memory tests, TS treated mice were significantly different than TS untreated (p=0.0046) but not than WT untreated mice for the preference for the novel object during NOR (Figure 3—figure supplement 3K, bottom; p=0.3566), which could suggest a beneficial treatment effect. Contrary to the other behavioral tests, the results for PA testing at Cog.₂ are influenced by the testing at Cog.₁ as mice may present a robust contextual fear memory trace created during the testing at Cog.₁, preventing them from entering the dark chamber even in the training phase of the test at Cog.₂. Indeed, WT untreated mice did not enter the dark box during training at Cog.₂, while both WT and TS treated mice showed a reduced tendency to enter the dark chamber which reached significance when comparing TS treated mice with WT untreated mice (Figure 3—figure supplement 3M, bottom; p<0.0001), indicating less robust contextual memory retention. After re-exposure to the fear conditioning in the training phase of PA at Cog.₂, all WT mice avoided the dark chamber while a few TS treated mice still showed a reduced tendency to enter the dark chamber (Figure 3—figure supplement 3N, bottom), reflecting altered memory robustness.

Molecular and genetic characterization

Finally, to complement the structural and functional evaluation and to obtain a complete holistic characterization of the alterations associated with DS, we performed in vivo MRS and ex vivo RNAseq at the timepoints specified in Figure 1 to investigate changes in hippocampal region metabolite concentration and cerebellar gene expression respectively (Figure 4).

Figure 4 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

Hippocampal region metabolites

We performed in vivo MRS on a voxel placed in the hippocampal region at two timepoints, MRS₁ and MRS₂, as specified in Figure 1.

We first analyzed global differences in the metabolite spectra by performing an LDA containing the relative integrals of 10 spectral regions between 0.0 ppm and 4.3 ppm (Figure 4, Figure 4—figure supplement 1 and Supplementary file 1b). The LDA at MRS₁ separated WT untreated and TS untreated mice across Axis 1 (Figure 4A), and the multivariate pairwise comparisons after one-way PERMANOVA using Mahalanobis distances confirmed significant genotype differences (Supplementary file 2i; p=0.0136). After treatment discontinuation at MRS₂, the LDA showed milder genotype separation (Figure 4B) and the multivariate pairwise comparisons did not detect any significant difference between WT untreated and TS untreated mice (Supplementary file 2j; p=0.5790), confirming these findings.

When evaluating the concentrations of specific main metabolites like N-acetylaspartate (NAA), creatine +phosphocreatine (Cr +PCr), choline +phosphocholine + glycerophosphocoline (tCho), myo-inositol (myo-Inos) and taurine (Tau) (Figure 4—figure supplement 1), TS untreated mice tended to show lower levels of NAA and tCho at MRS₁ when compared with WT untreated mice (Figure 4—figure supplement 1 A,C), but the univariate pairwise comparison tests only revealed a significant increase in the concentration of Cr +PCr (Figure 4—figure supplement 1B, top; p=0.0235). At MRS₂, the same pattern was observed but the significant differences between WT untreated and TS untreated mice disappeared (Figure 4—figure supplement 1, bottom).

Regarding treatment effects, the LDA at MRS₁ separated treated and untreated mice across Axis 2 (Figure 4A), suggesting treatment effects that did not rescue the trisomic phenotype. The multivariate pairwise comparisons after one-way PERMANOVA (Supplementary file 2i) showed significant differences between TS treated and both WT untreated (p=0.0496) and TS untreated mice (p=0.0361), confirming these findings. When evaluating the specific concentrations of NAA, Cr +PCr, tCho, myo-Inos and Tau, both WT treated and TS treated mice tended to show increased levels of Cr +PCr, which reached significance when comparing TS treated mice with WT untreated mice (Figure 4—figure supplement 1B, top; p=0.0317). Conversely, both WT and TS treated mice tended to show reduced levels of myo-inositol and tCho (Figure 4—figure supplement 1D, top), causing TS treated mice to have significantly reduced tCho when compared with WT untreated mice (Figure 4—figure supplement 1C, top; p=0.0296).

After treatment discontinuation at MRS₂, the LDA showed milder treatment separation across Axis 2 (Figure 4B) and the multivariate pairwise comparisons did not detect any significant difference between TS untreated and TS treated mice (Supplementary file 2j; p=0.2111). However, the differences between TS treated and WT untreated mice remained significant (p=0.0347), indicating that discontinuing the treatment for 3 months did not rescue the trisomic phenotype. When evaluating the specific concentrations of NAA, Cr +PCr, tCho, myo-Inos and Tau, the same pattern was observed and the significant differences between TS treated and WT untreated mice disappeared (Figure 4—figure supplement 1, bottom). However, significant differences emerged between WT untreated mice and WT treated mice for the concentration of tCho and myo-inositol (Figure 4—figure supplement 1 C,D, bottom; P_tCho=0.0479, P_myo-inositol=0.0261).

Gene expression

Finally, since people with DS show impaired motor skills (Quinzi et al., 2022), we investigated the effects of genotype and chronic treatment after three months of treatment discontinuation in the cerebellar gene expression by performing RNAseq at endpoint (8 M).

We first performed a PCA using the normalized expression of the 125 genes that are triplicated in the Ts65Dn mouse model and included in our dataset. The PCA showed major overlap between all groups, even though TS treated mice showed a larger range of variation (Figure 4C). This result suggested that the differences in gene expression of the triplicated genes were minimal and that GTE-EGCG prenatal chronic treatment and three months of discontinuation did not induce major permanent effects when considering all triplicated genes. The multivariate pairwise comparison tests after one-way PERMANOVA using Euclidean distances did not detect any significant difference between groups, confirming these findings (Supplementary file 2k).

Finally, we analyzed the differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between each pair of experimental groups across the entire transcriptome (Supplementary file 3). When analyzing the entire transcriptome, we only detected 24 DEGs between WT untreated and TS untreated mice even when applying a loose p-adjusted value of 0.1, indicating small differences in cerebellar gene expression (Supplementary file 3). Interestingly, we detected 12 DEGs between WT untreated and TS treated mice, and only 9 of these genes were also found to be differentially expressed between WT untreated and TS untreated mice, which could indicate mild treatment effects in TS mice (Supplementary file 3). However, we did not detect any DEGs between TS untreated and TS treated mice, and only five DEGs were detected between WT untreated and WT treated mice, indicating that either the prenatal chronic GTE-EGCG treatment did not largely modulate gene expression or that the treatment had transient effects that were mostly not detected after three months of treatment discontinuation and were not rescuing the trisomic phenotype (Supplementary file 3).

We investigated for the first time the simultaneous pleiotropic effects of trisomy and a chronic prenatal and postnatal treatment with GTE-EGCG on several organ systems and levels throughout development in the Ts65Dn mouse model for DS. Our longitudinal and holistic approach overcomes a main limitation of previous research, in which systems were analyzed independently at single time points using different experimental setups and delivered disparate and contradictory results that could not be generalized. Here, we followed the simultaneous development of structural, functional, molecular, and genetic systems on Ts65Dn mice and provided comparable results of genotype and prenatal chronic GTE-EGCG treatment effects before and after treatment discontinuation.

The data supporting the findings of this study are available in Dryad at https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.1rn8pk11r.

1. 1. Llambrich S
   2. Tielemans B
   3. Saliën E
   4. Atzori M
   5. Wouters K
   6. Bulck Van
   7. Platt M
   8. Vanherp L
   9. Gallego Fernandez N
   10. Grau de la Fuente L
   11. Poptani H
   12. Verlinden L
   13. Himmelreich U
   14. Croitor A
   15. Attanasio C
   16. Callaerts-Vegh Z
   17. Gsell W
   18. Martínez-Abadías N
   19. Vande Velde G

   (2024) Dryad Digital Repository

   Pleiotropic effects of trisomy and pharmacologic modulation on structural, functional, molecular, and genetic systems in a Down syndrome mouse model.

   https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.1rn8pk11r

1. 1. Abeysekera I
   2. Thomas J
   3. Georgiadis TM
   4. Berman AG
   5. Hammond MA
   6. Dria KJ
   7. Wallace JM
   8. Roper RJ

   (2016) Differential effects of Epigallocatechin-3-gallate containing supplements on correcting skeletal defects in a Down syndrome mouse model

   Molecular Nutrition & Food Research 60:717–726.

   https://doi.org/10.1002/mnfr.201500781

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Aït Yahya-Graison E
   2. Aubert J
   3. Dauphinot L
   4. Rivals I
   5. Prieur M
   6. Golfier G
   7. Rossier J
   8. Personnaz L
   9. Creau N
   10. Bléhaut H
   11. Robin S
   12. Delabar JM
   13. Potier MC

   (2007) Classification of human chromosome 21 gene-expression variations in Down syndrome: impact on disease phenotypes

   American Journal of Human Genetics 81:475–491.

   https://doi.org/10.1086/520000

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Aldridge K
   2. Reeves RH
   3. Olson LE
   4. Richtsmeier JT

   (2007) Differential effects of trisomy on brain shape and volume in related aneuploid mouse models

   American Journal of Medical Genetics. Part A 143A:1060–1070.

   https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.31721

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Anders S
   2. Pyl PT
   3. Huber W

   (2015) HTSeq--a Python framework to work with high-throughput sequencing data

   Bioinformatics 31:166–169.

   https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btu638

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. Software

   1. Andrews S

   (2010) FASTQC. A quality control tool for high throughput sequence data, version GPL v3

   Bioinformatics.

   https://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc/
6. 1. Antonarakis SE
   2. Lyle R
   3. Dermitzakis ET
   4. Reymond A
   5. Deutsch S

   (2004) Chromosome 21 and down syndrome: from genomics to pathophysiology

   Nature Reviews. Genetics 5:725–738.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg1448

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Antonarakis SE
   2. Skotko BG
   3. Rafii MS
   4. Strydom A
   5. Pape SE
   6. Bianchi DW
   7. Sherman SL
   8. Reeves RH

   (2020) Down syndrome

   Nature Reviews. Disease Primers 6:9.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/s41572-019-0143-7

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. Book

   1. Aronesty E

   (2011)

   Ea-Utils: Command-Line Tools for Processing Biological Sequencing Data

   Durham, NC: Ea-utils.

   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Arron JR
   2. Winslow MM
   3. Polleri A
   4. Chang C-P
   5. Wu H
   6. Gao X
   7. Neilson JR
   8. Chen L
   9. Heit JJ
   10. Kim SK
   11. Yamasaki N
   12. Miyakawa T
   13. Francke U
   14. Graef IA
   15. Crabtree GR

   (2006) NFAT dysregulation by increased dosage of DSCR1 and DYRK1A on chromosome 21

   Nature 441:595–600.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04678

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Atas-Ozcan H
    2. Brault V
    3. Duchon A
    4. Herault Y

    (2021) Dyrk1a from gene function in development and physiology to dosage correction across life span in down syndrome

    Genes 12:1833.

    https://doi.org/10.3390/genes12111833

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Aylward EH
    2. Habbak R
    3. Warren AC
    4. Pulsifer MB
    5. Barta PE
    6. Jerram M
    7. Pearlson GD

    (1997) Cerebellar volume in adults with Down syndrome

    Archives of Neurology 54:209–212.

    https://doi.org/10.1001/archneur.1997.00550140077016

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Aziz NM
    2. Guedj F
    3. Pennings JLA
    4. Olmos-Serrano JL
    5. Siegel A
    6. Haydar TF
    7. Bianchi DW

    (2018) Lifespan analysis of brain development, gene expression and behavioral phenotypes in the Ts1Cje, Ts65Dn and Dp(16)1/Yey mouse models of Down syndrome

    Disease Models & Mechanisms 11:dmm031013.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/dmm.031013

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Beacher F
    2. Simmons A
    3. Daly E
    4. Prasher V
    5. Adams C
    6. Margallo-Lana ML
    7. Morris R
    8. Lovestone S
    9. Murphy K
    10. Murphy DGM

    (2005) Hippocampal myo-inositol and cognitive ability in adults with Down syndrome: an in vivo proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy study

    Archives of General Psychiatry 62:1360–1365.

    https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.62.12.1360

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Becker W
    2. Soppa U
    3. Tejedor FJ

    (2014) DYRK1A: a potential drug target for multiple Down syndrome neuropathologies

    CNS & Neurological Disorders Drug Targets 13:26–33.

    https://doi.org/10.2174/18715273113126660186

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Beqaj S
    2. Jusaj N
    3. Živković V

    (2017) Attainment of gross motor milestones in children with Down syndrome in Kosovo - developmental perspective

    Medicinski Glasnik 14:189–198.

    https://doi.org/10.17392/917-17

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Billingsley CN
    2. Allen JR
    3. Baumann DD
    4. Deitz SL
    5. Blazek JD
    6. Newbauer A
    7. Darrah A
    8. Long BC
    9. Young B
    10. Clement M
    11. Doerge RW
    12. Roper RJ

    (2013) Non-trisomic homeobox gene expression during craniofacial development in the Ts65Dn mouse model of Down syndrome

    American Journal of Medical Genetics. Part A 161A:1866–1874.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.36006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Blazek JD
    2. Gaddy A
    3. Meyer R
    4. Roper RJ
    5. Li J

    (2011) Disruption of bone development and homeostasis by trisomy in Ts65Dn Down syndrome mice

    Bone 48:275–280.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2010.09.028

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Blazek JD
    2. Abeysekera I
    3. Li J
    4. Roper RJ

    (2015a) Rescue of the abnormal skeletal phenotype in Ts65Dn Down syndrome mice using genetic and therapeutic modulation of trisomic Dyrk1a

    Human Molecular Genetics 24:5687–5696.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddv284

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Blazek JD
    2. Malik AM
    3. Tischbein M
    4. Arbones ML
    5. Moore CS
    6. Roper RJ

    (2015b) Abnormal mineralization of the Ts65Dn Down syndrome mouse appendicular skeleton begins during embryonic development in a Dyrk1a-independent manner

    Mechanisms of Development 136:133–142.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mod.2014.12.004

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Boogaart A
    2. Ormondt D
    3. Pijnappel WWF
    4. Beer R
    5. Ala Korpel M

    (1994)

    Removal of the residual water resonance from 1H magnetic resonance spectra

    Mathematics of Signal Processing 3:175–195.

    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Caputo C
    2. Wood E
    3. Jabbour L

    (2016) Impact of fetal alcohol exposure on body systems: A systematic review

    Birth Defects Research. Part C, Embryo Today 108:174–180.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/bdrc.21129

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Carfì A
    2. Liperoti R
    3. Fusco D
    4. Giovannini S
    5. Brandi V
    6. Vetrano DL
    7. Meloni E
    8. Mascia D
    9. Villani ER
    10. Manes Gravina E
    11. Bernabei R
    12. Onder G

    (2017) Bone mineral density in adults with Down syndrome

    Osteoporosis International 28:2929–2934.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-017-4133-x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Catuara-Solarz S
    2. Espinosa-Carrasco J
    3. Erb I
    4. Langohr K
    5. Notredame C
    6. Gonzalez JR
    7. Dierssen M

    (2015) Principal component analysis of the effects of environmental enrichment and (-)-epigallocatechin-3-gallate on age-associated learning deficits in a mouse model of down syndrome

    Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience 9:330.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00330

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Catuara-Solarz S
    2. Espinosa-Carrasco J
    3. Erb I
    4. Langohr K
    5. Gonzalez JR
    6. Notredame C
    7. Dierssen M

    (2016) Combined treatment with environmental enrichment and (-)-epigallocatechin-3-gallate ameliorates learning deficits and hippocampal alterations in a mouse model of down syndrome

    eNeuro 3:ENEURO.0103-16.2016.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0103-16.2016

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Chang KT
    2. Shi YJ
    3. Min KT

    (2003) The Drosophila homolog of Down’s syndrome critical region 1 gene regulates learning: implications for mental retardation

    PNAS 100:15794–15799.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2536696100

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Chang P
    2. Bush D
    3. Schorge S
    4. Good M
    5. Canonica T
    6. Shing N
    7. Noy S
    8. Wiseman FK
    9. Burgess N
    10. Tybulewicz VLJ
    11. Walker MC
    12. Fisher EMC

    (2020) Altered hippocampal-prefrontal neural dynamics in mouse models of down syndrome

    Cell Reports 30:1152–1163.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2019.12.065

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Chrast R
    2. Scott HS
    3. Papasavvas MP
    4. Rossier C
    5. Antonarakis ES
    6. Barras C
    7. Davisson MT
    8. Schmidt C
    9. Estivill X
    10. Dierssen M
    11. Pritchard M
    12. Antonarakis SE

    (2000) The mouse brain transcriptome by SAGE: differences in gene expression between P30 brains of the partial trisomy 16 mouse model of Down syndrome (Ts65Dn) and normals

    Genome Research 10:2006–2021.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.10.12.2006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Chu KO
    2. Wang CC
    3. Chu CY
    4. Chan KP
    5. Rogers MS
    6. Choy KW
    7. Pang CP

    (2006) Pharmacokinetic studies of green tea catechins in maternal plasma and fetuses in rats

    Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 95:1372–1381.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/jps.20594

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Chu KO
    2. Wang CC
    3. Chu CY
    4. Choy KW
    5. Pang CP
    6. Rogers MS

    (2007) Uptake and distribution of catechins in fetal organs following in utero exposure in rats

    Human Reproduction 22:280–287.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/del353

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Cieuta-Walti C
    2. Cuenca-Royo A
    3. Langohr K
    4. Rakic C
    5. López-Vílchez MÁ
    6. Lirio J
    7. González-Lamuño Leguina D
    8. González TB
    9. García JG
    10. Roure MR
    11. Aldea-Perona A
    12. Forcano L
    13. Gomis-Gonzalez M
    14. Cés SV
    15. Lacaille F
    16. Ravel A
    17. Mircher C
    18. Walti H
    19. Janel N
    20. Dairou J
    21. Lévy M
    22. Durand S
    23. Dierssen M
    24. Sacco S
    25. de la T Fornell R
    26. PERSEUS Study Group

    (2022) Safety and preliminary efficacy on cognitive performance and adaptive functionality of epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG) in children with Down syndrome A randomized phase Ib clinical trial (PERSEUS study)

    Genetics in Medicine 24:2004–2013.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gim.2022.06.011

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Costa ACS
    2. Stasko MR
    3. Schmidt C
    4. Davisson MT

    (2010) Behavioral validation of the Ts65Dn mouse model for Down syndrome of a genetic background free of the retinal degeneration mutation Pde6b(rd1)

    Behavioural Brain Research 206:52–62.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2009.08.034

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Coussons-Read ME
    2. Crnic LS

    (1996) Behavioral assessment of the Ts65Dn mouse, a model for Down syndrome: altered behavior in the elevated plus maze and open field

    Behavior Genetics 26:7–13.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02361154

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Davisson MT
    2. Schmidt C
    3. Akeson EC

    (1990)

    Segmental trisomy of murine chromosome 16: a new model system for studying Down syndrome

    Progress in Clinical and Biological Research 360:263–280.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. De la Torre R
    2. De Sola S
    3. Pons M
    4. Duchon A
    5. de Lagran MM
    6. Farré M
    7. Fitó M
    8. Benejam B
    9. Langohr K
    10. Rodriguez J
    11. Pujadas M
    12. Bizot JC
    13. Cuenca A
    14. Janel N
    15. Catuara S
    16. Covas MI
    17. Blehaut H
    18. Herault Y
    19. Delabar JM
    20. Dierssen M

    (2014) Epigallocatechin-3-gallate, a DYRK1A inhibitor, rescues cognitive deficits in Down syndrome mouse models and in humans

    Molecular Nutrition & Food Research 58:278–288.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/mnfr.201300325

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. de la Torre R
    2. de Sola S
    3. Hernandez G
    4. Farré M
    5. Pujol J
    6. Rodriguez J
    7. Espadaler JM
    8. Langohr K
    9. Cuenca-Royo A
    10. Principe A
    11. Xicota L
    12. Janel N
    13. Catuara-Solarz S
    14. Sanchez-Benavides G
    15. Bléhaut H
    16. Dueñas-Espín I
    17. Del Hoyo L
    18. Benejam B
    19. Blanco-Hinojo L
    20. Videla S
    21. Fitó M
    22. Delabar JM
    23. Dierssen M
    24. TESDAD study group

    (2016) Safety and efficacy of cognitive training plus epigallocatechin-3-gallate in young adults with Down’s syndrome (TESDAD): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial

    The Lancet. Neurology 15:801–810.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(16)30034-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. de Moraes MEL
    2. Tanaka JLO
    3. de Moraes LC
    4. Filho EM
    5. de Melo Castilho JC

    (2008) Skeletal age of individuals with Down syndrome

    Special Care in Dentistry 28:101–106.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-4505.2008.00020.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. De Toma I
    2. Sierra C
    3. Dierssen M

    (2021) Meta-analysis of transcriptomic data reveals clusters of consistently deregulated gene and disease ontologies in Down syndrome

    PLOS Computational Biology 17:e1009317.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009317

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Dierssen M
    2. Fotaki V
    3. Martínez de Lagrán M
    4. Gratacós M
    5. Arbonés M
    6. Fillat C
    7. Estivill X

    (2002) Neurobehavioral development of two mouse lines commonly used in transgenic studies

    Pharmacology, Biochemistry, and Behavior 73:19–25.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0091-3057(02)00792-x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Dierssen M
    2. de Lagrán MM

    (2006) DYRK1A (dual-specificity tyrosine-phosphorylated and -regulated kinase 1A): a gene with dosage effect during development and neurogenesis

    TheScientificWorldJournal 6:1911–1922.

    https://doi.org/10.1100/tsw.2006.319

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. Book

    1. Dryden IL
    2. Mardia KV

    (1998)

    Statistical Shape Analysis

    Wiley.

    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Duchon A
    2. Raveau M
    3. Chevalier C
    4. Nalesso V
    5. Sharp AJ
    6. Herault Y

    (2011) Identification of the translocation breakpoints in the Ts65Dn and Ts1Cje mouse lines: relevance for modeling Down syndrome

    Mammalian Genome 22:674–684.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00335-011-9356-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Duchon A
    2. Del Mar Muniz Moreno M
    3. Martin Lorenzo S
    4. Silva de Souza MP
    5. Chevalier C
    6. Nalesso V
    7. Meziane H
    8. Loureiro de Sousa P
    9. Noblet V
    10. Armspach J-P
    11. Brault V
    12. Herault Y

    (2021) Multi-influential genetic interactions alter behaviour and cognition through six main biological cascades in Down syndrome mouse models

    Human Molecular Genetics 30:771–788.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddab012

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Escorihuela RM
    2. Fernández-Teruel A
    3. Vallina IF
    4. Baamonde C
    5. Lumbreras MA
    6. Dierssen M
    7. Tobeña A
    8. Flórez J

    (1995) A behavioral assessment of Ts65Dn mice: A putative Down syndrome model

    Neuroscience Letters 199:143–146.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3940(95)12052-6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Escorihuela RM
    2. Vallina IF
    3. Martínez-Cué C
    4. Baamonde C
    5. Dierssen M
    6. Tobeña A
    7. Flórez J
    8. Fernández-Teruel A

    (1998) Impaired short- and long-term memory in Ts65Dn mice, a model for Down syndrome

    Neuroscience Letters 247:171–174.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-3940(98)00317-6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Fedorov A
    2. Beichel R
    3. Kalpathy-Cramer J
    4. Finet J
    5. Fillion-Robin J-C
    6. Pujol S
    7. Bauer C
    8. Jennings D
    9. Fennessy F
    10. Sonka M
    11. Buatti J
    12. Aylward S
    13. Miller JV
    14. Pieper S
    15. Kikinis R

    (2012) 3D Slicer as an image computing platform for the Quantitative Imaging Network

    Magnetic Resonance Imaging 30:1323–1341.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2012.05.001

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Fernandes MBL
    2. Maximino LP
    3. Perosa GB
    4. Abramides DVM
    5. Passos-Bueno MR
    6. Yacubian-Fernandes A

    (2016) Apert and Crouzon syndromes-Cognitive development, brain abnormalities, and molecular aspects

    American Journal of Medical Genetics. Part A 170:1532–1537.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.37640

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Ferreira-Vasques AT
    2. Lamônica DAC

    (2015) Motor, linguistic, personal and social aspects of children with Down syndrome

    Journal of Applied Oral Science 23:424–430.

    https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-775720150102

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Fischer-Brandies H
    2. Schmid RG
    3. Fischer-Brandies E

    (1986) Craniofacial development in patients with Down’s syndrome from birth to 14 years of age

    European Journal of Orthodontics 8:35–42.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/8.1.35

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Frank K
    2. Esbensen AJ

    (2015) Fine motor and self-care milestones for individuals with Down syndrome using a Retrospective Chart Review

    Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 59:719–729.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.12176

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. García-Cerro S
    2. Martínez P
    3. Vidal V
    4. Corrales A
    5. Flórez J
    6. Vidal R
    7. Rueda N
    8. Arbonés ML
    9. Martínez-Cué C

    (2014) Overexpression of Dyrk1A is implicated in several cognitive, electrophysiological and neuromorphological alterations found in a mouse model of Down syndrome

    PLOS ONE 9:e106572.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106572

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Goodlett CR
    2. Stringer M
    3. LaCombe J
    4. Patel R
    5. Wallace JM
    6. Roper RJ

    (2020) Evaluation of the therapeutic potential of Epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG) via oral gavage in young adult Down syndrome mice

    Scientific Reports 10:10426.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-67133-z

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Grieco J
    2. Pulsifer M
    3. Seligsohn K
    4. Skotko B
    5. Schwartz A

    (2015) Down syndrome: Cognitive and behavioral functioning across the lifespan

    American Journal of Medical Genetics. Part C, Seminars in Medical Genetics 169:135–149.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.c.31439

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Griffey RH
    2. P. Flamig D

    (1990) VAPOR for solvent-suppressed, short-echo, volume-localized proton spectroscopy

    Journal of Magnetic Resonance 88:161–166.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2364(90)90120-X

    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Guedj F
    2. Sébrié C
    3. Rivals I
    4. Ledru A
    5. Paly E
    6. Bizot JC
    7. Smith D
    8. Rubin E
    9. Gillet B
    10. Arbones M
    11. Delabar JM

    (2009) Green tea polyphenols rescue of brain defects induced by overexpression of DYRK1A

    PLOS ONE 4:e4606.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004606

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Guidi S
    2. Ciani E
    3. Bonasoni P
    4. Santini D
    5. Bartesaghi R

    (2011) Widespread proliferation impairment and hypocellularity in the cerebellum of fetuses with down syndrome

    Brain Pathology 21:361–373.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3639.2010.00459.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Gupta M
    2. Dhanasekaran AR
    3. Gardiner KJ

    (2016) Mouse models of Down syndrome: gene content and consequences

    Mammalian Genome 27:538–555.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00335-016-9661-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Hallgrimsson B
    2. Percival CJ
    3. Green R
    4. Young NM
    5. Mio W
    6. Marcucio R

    (2015) Morphometrics, 3d imaging, and craniofacial development

    Current Topics in Developmental Biology 115:561–597.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.ctdb.2015.09.003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Hammer O
    2. Harper D
    3. Ryan P

    (2001)

    PAST: paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis

    Palaeontologia Electronica 4:1–9.

    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Hamner T
    2. Udhnani MD
    3. Osipowicz KZ
    4. Lee NR

    (2018) Pediatric brain development in down syndrome: a field in its infancy

    Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society 24:966–976.

    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617718000206

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Heinen M
    2. Hettich MM
    3. Ryan DP
    4. Schnell S
    5. Paesler K
    6. Ehninger D

    (2012) Adult-onset fluoxetine treatment does not improve behavioral impairments and may have adverse effects on the Ts65Dn mouse model of Down syndrome

    Neural Plasticity 2012:467251.

    https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/467251

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Herault Y
    2. Delabar JM
    3. Fisher EMC
    4. Tybulewicz VLJ
    5. Yu E
    6. Brault V

    (2017) Rodent models in Down syndrome research: impact and future opportunities

    Disease Models & Mechanisms 10:1165–1186.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/dmm.029728

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Hoeffer CA
    2. Dey A
    3. Sachan N
    4. Wong H
    5. Patterson RJ
    6. Shelton JM
    7. Richardson JA
    8. Klann E
    9. Rothermel BA

    (2007) The Down syndrome critical region protein RCAN1 regulates long-term potentiation and memory via inhibition of phosphatase signaling

    The Journal of Neuroscience 27:13161–13172.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3974-07.2007

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Holtzman DM
    2. Santucci D
    3. Kilbridge J
    4. Chua-Couzens J
    5. Fontana DJ
    6. Daniels SE
    7. Johnson RM
    8. Chen K
    9. Sun Y
    10. Carlson E
    11. Alleva E
    12. Epstein CJ
    13. Mobley WC

    (1996) Developmental abnormalities and age-related neurodegeneration in a mouse model of Down syndrome

    PNAS 93:13333–13338.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.93.23.13333

    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Huang W
    2. Galdzicki Z
    3. van Gelderen P
    4. Balbo A
    5. Chikhale EG
    6. Schapiro MB
    7. Rapoport SI

    (2000) Brain myo-inositol level is elevated in Ts65Dn mouse and reduced after lithium treatment

    Neuroreport 11:445–448.

    https://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-200002280-00004

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Huang H-T
    2. Cheng T-L
    3. Lin S-Y
    4. Ho C-J
    5. Chyu JY
    6. Yang R-S
    7. Chen C-H
    8. Shen C-L

    (2020) Osteoprotective roles of green tea catechins

    Antioxidants 9:1136.

    https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox9111136

    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Insausti AM
    2. Megías M
    3. Crespo D
    4. Cruz-Orive LM
    5. Dierssen M
    6. Vallina IF
    7. Insausti R
    8. Flórez J

    (1998) Hippocampal volume and neuronal number in Ts65Dn mice: a murine model of Down syndrome

    Neuroscience Letters 253:175–178.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-3940(98)00641-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Ishihara K
    2. Amano K
    3. Takaki E
    4. Shimohata A
    5. Sago H
    6. Epstein CJ
    7. Yamakawa K

    (2010) Enlarged brain ventricles and impaired neurogenesis in the Ts1Cje and Ts2Cje mouse models of Down syndrome

    Cerebral Cortex 20:1131–1143.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhp176

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Jamal R
    2. LaCombe J
    3. Patel R
    4. Blackwell M
    5. Thomas JR
    6. Sloan K
    7. Wallace JM
    8. Roper RJ

    (2022) Increased dosage and treatment time of Epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG) negatively affects skeletal parameters in normal mice and Down syndrome mouse models

    PLOS ONE 17:e0264254.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264254

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. James Rohlf F
    2. Marcus LF

    (1993) A revolution morphometrics

    Trends in Ecology & Evolution 8:129–132.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(93)90024-J

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Jarhad DB
    2. Mashelkar KK
    3. Kim HR
    4. Noh M
    5. Jeong LS

    (2018) Dual-specificity tyrosine phosphorylation-regulated kinase 1a (dyrk1a) inhibitors as potential therapeutics

    Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 61:9791–9810.

    https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jmedchem.8b00185

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Ji J
    2. Lee H
    3. Argiropoulos B
    4. Dorrani N
    5. Mann J
    6. Martinez-Agosto JA
    7. Gomez-Ospina N
    8. Gallant N
    9. Bernstein JA
    10. Hudgins L
    11. Slattery L
    12. Isidor B
    13. Le Caignec C
    14. David A
    15. Obersztyn E
    16. Wiśniowiecka-Kowalnik B
    17. Fox M
    18. Deignan JL
    19. Vilain E
    20. Hendricks E
    21. Horton Harr M
    22. Noon SE
    23. Jackson JR
    24. Wilkens A
    25. Mirzaa G
    26. Salamon N
    27. Abramson J
    28. Zackai EH
    29. Krantz I
    30. Innes AM
    31. Nelson SF
    32. Grody WW
    33. Quintero-Rivera F

    (2015) DYRK1A haploinsufficiency causes a new recognizable syndrome with microcephaly, intellectual disability, speech impairment, and distinct facies

    European Journal of Human Genetics 23:1473–1481.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2015.71

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Kao CH
    2. Chen CC
    3. Wang SJ
    4. Yeh SH

    (1992)

    Bone mineral density in children with Down’s syndrome detected by dual photon absorptiometry

    Nuclear Medicine Communications 13:773–775.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Kazemi M
    2. Salehi M
    3. Kheirollahi M

    (2016)

    Down syndrome: current status, challenges and future perspectives

    International Journal of Molecular and Cellular Medicine 5:125–133.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Kazuki Y
    2. Gao FJ
    3. Li Y
    4. Moyer AJ
    5. Devenney B
    6. Hiramatsu K
    7. Miyagawa-Tomita S
    8. Abe S
    9. Kazuki K
    10. Kajitani N
    11. Uno N
    12. Takehara S
    13. Takiguchi M
    14. Yamakawa M
    15. Hasegawa A
    16. Shimizu R
    17. Matsukura S
    18. Noda N
    19. Ogonuki N
    20. Inoue K
    21. Matoba S
    22. Ogura A
    23. Florea LD
    24. Savonenko A
    25. Xiao M
    26. Wu D
    27. Batista DA
    28. Yang J
    29. Qiu Z
    30. Singh N
    31. Richtsmeier JT
    32. Takeuchi T
    33. Oshimura M
    34. Reeves RH

    (2020) A non-mosaic transchromosomic mouse model of down syndrome carrying the long arm of human chromosome 21

    eLife 9:e56223.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.56223

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
75. 1. Kazuki Y
    2. Gao FJ
    3. Yamakawa M
    4. Hirabayashi M
    5. Kazuki K
    6. Kajitani N
    7. Miyagawa-Tomita S
    8. Abe S
    9. Sanbo M
    10. Hara H
    11. Kuniishi H
    12. Ichisaka S
    13. Hata Y
    14. Koshima M
    15. Takayama H
    16. Takehara S
    17. Nakayama Y
    18. Hiratsuka M
    19. Iida Y
    20. Matsukura S
    21. Noda N
    22. Li Y
    23. Moyer AJ
    24. Cheng B
    25. Singh N
    26. Richtsmeier JT
    27. Oshimura M
    28. Reeves RH

    (2022) A transchromosomic rat model with human chromosome 21 shows robust Down syndrome features

    American Journal of Human Genetics 109:328–344.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2021.12.015

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
76. 1. Keeling JW
    2. Hansen BF
    3. Kjaer I

    (1997)

    Pattern of malformations in the axial skeleton in human trisomy 21 fetuses

    American Journal of Medical Genetics 68:466–471.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
77. 1. Kim HI
    2. Kim SW
    3. Kim J
    4. Jeon HR
    5. Jung DW

    (2017) Motor and cognitive developmental profiles in children with down syndrome

    Annals of Rehabilitation Medicine 41:97–103.

    https://doi.org/10.5535/arm.2017.41.1.97

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
78. 1. Kim D
    2. Paggi JM
    3. Park C
    4. Bennett C
    5. Salzberg SL

    (2019) Graph-based genome alignment and genotyping with HISAT2 and HISAT-genotype

    Nature Biotechnology 37:907–915.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0201-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
79. 1. Kleschevnikov AM
    2. Yu J
    3. Kim J
    4. Lysenko LV
    5. Zeng Z
    6. Yu YE
    7. Mobley WC

    (2017) Evidence that increased Kcnj6 gene dose is necessary for deficits in behavior and dentate gyrus synaptic plasticity in the Ts65Dn mouse model of Down syndrome

    Neurobiology of Disease 103:1–10.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbd.2017.03.009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
80. 1. Klingenberg CP

    (2010) Evolution and development of shape: integrating quantitative approaches

    Nature Reviews. Genetics 11:623–635.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2829

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
81. 1. Klingenberg CP

    (2011) MorphoJ: an integrated software package for geometric morphometrics

    Molecular Ecology Resources 11:353–357.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2010.02924.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
82. 1. LaCombe JM
    2. Roper RJ

    (2020) Skeletal dynamics of down syndrome: a developing perspective

    Bone 133:115215.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2019.115215

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
83. 1. Lamar M
    2. Foy CML
    3. Beacher F
    4. Daly E
    5. Poppe M
    6. Archer N
    7. Prasher V
    8. Murphy KC
    9. Morris RG
    10. Simmons A
    11. Lovestone S
    12. Murphy DGM

    (2011) Down syndrome with and without dementia: an in vivo proton Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy study with implications for Alzheimer’s disease

    NeuroImage 57:63–68.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.03.073

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
84. 1. Lana-Elola E
    2. Watson-Scales SD
    3. Fisher EMC
    4. Tybulewicz VLJ

    (2011) Down syndrome: searching for the genetic culprits

    Disease Models & Mechanisms 4:586–595.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/dmm.008078

    • Google Scholar
85. 1. Lee Y
    2. Ha J
    3. Kim HJ
    4. Kim YS
    5. Chang EJ
    6. Song WJ
    7. Kim HH

    (2009) Negative feedback Inhibition of NFATc1 by DYRK1A regulates bone homeostasis

    The Journal of Biological Chemistry 284:33343–33351.

    https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M109.042234

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
86. 1. Letourneau A
    2. Santoni FA
    3. Bonilla X
    4. Sailani MR
    5. Gonzalez D
    6. Kind J
    7. Chevalier C
    8. Thurman R
    9. Sandstrom RS
    10. Hibaoui Y
    11. Garieri M
    12. Popadin K
    13. Falconnet E
    14. Gagnebin M
    15. Gehrig C
    16. Vannier A
    17. Guipponi M
    18. Farinelli L
    19. Robyr D
    20. Migliavacca E
    21. Borel C
    22. Deutsch S
    23. Feki A
    24. Stamatoyannopoulos JA
    25. Herault Y
    26. van Steensel B
    27. Guigo R
    28. Antonarakis SE

    (2014) Domains of genome-wide gene expression dysregulation in Down’s syndrome

    Nature 508:345–350.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13200

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
87. 1. Li H
    2. Handsaker B
    3. Wysoker A
    4. Fennell T
    5. Ruan J
    6. Homer N
    7. Marth G
    8. Abecasis G
    9. Durbin R
    10. 1000 Genome Project Data Processing Subgroup

    (2009) The sequence alignment/map format and samtools

    Bioinformatics 25:2078–2079.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp352

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
88. 1. Lin A-L
    2. Powell D
    3. Caban-Holt A
    4. Jicha G
    5. Robertson W
    6. Gold BT
    7. Davis R
    8. Abner E
    9. Wilcock DM
    10. Schmitt FA
    11. Head E

    (2016) (1)H-MRS metabolites in adults with down syndrome: effects of dementia

    NeuroImage. Clinical 11:728–735.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2016.06.001

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
89. 1. Llambrich S
    2. González-Colom R
    3. Wouters J
    4. Roldán J
    5. Salassa S
    6. Wouters K
    7. Van Bulck V
    8. Sharpe J
    9. Callaerts-Vegh Z
    10. Vande Velde G
    11. Martínez-Abadías N

    (2022a) Green tea catechins modulate skeletal development with effects dependent on dose, time, and structure in a down syndrome mouse model

    Nutrients 14:4167.

    https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14194167

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
90. 1. Llambrich S
    2. González R
    3. Albaigès J
    4. Wouters J
    5. Marain F
    6. Himmelreich U
    7. Sharpe J
    8. Dierssen M
    9. Gsell W
    10. Martínez-Abadías N
    11. Vande Velde G

    (2022b) Multimodal in vivo imaging of the integrated postnatal development of brain and skull and its co-modulation with neurodevelopment in a down syndrome mouse model

    Frontiers in Medicine 9:815739.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.815739

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
91. 1. Locatelli C
    2. Onnivello S
    3. Antonaros F
    4. Feliciello A
    5. Filoni S
    6. Rossi S
    7. Pulina F
    8. Marcolin C
    9. Vianello R
    10. Toffalini E
    11. Ramacieri G
    12. Martelli A
    13. Procaccini G
    14. Sperti G
    15. Caracausi M
    16. Pelleri MC
    17. Vitale L
    18. Pirazzoli GL
    19. Strippoli P
    20. Cocchi G
    21. Piovesan A
    22. Lanfranchi S

    (2021) Is the age of developmental milestones a predictor for future development in down syndrome?

    Brain Sciences 11:655.

    https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11050655

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
92. 1. Lott IT
    2. Dierssen M

    (2010) Cognitive deficits and associated neurological complications in individuals with Down’s syndrome

    The Lancet. Neurology 9:623–633.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(10)70112-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
93. 1. Love MI
    2. Huber W
    3. Anders S

    (2014) Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2

    Genome Biology 15:550.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-014-0550-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
94. 1. Lyle R
    2. Gehrig C
    3. Neergaard-Henrichsen C
    4. Deutsch S
    5. Antonarakis SE

    (2004) Gene expression from the aneuploid chromosome in a trisomy mouse model of down syndrome

    Genome Research 14:1268–1274.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.2090904

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
95. 1. Malak R
    2. Kostiukow A
    3. Krawczyk-Wasielewska A
    4. Mojs E
    5. Samborski W

    (2015) Delays in motor development in children with down syndrome

    Medical Science Monitor 21:1904–1910.

    https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.893377

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
96. 1. McCarron M
    2. McCallion P
    3. Reilly E
    4. Dunne P
    5. Carroll R
    6. Mulryan N

    (2017) A prospective 20-year longitudinal follow-up of dementia in persons with Down syndrome

    Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 61:843–852.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.12390

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
97. 1. McElyea SD
    2. Starbuck JM
    3. Tumbleson-Brink DM
    4. Harrington E
    5. Blazek JD
    6. Ghoneima A
    7. Kula K
    8. Roper RJ

    (2016) Influence of prenatal EGCG treatment and Dyrk1a dosage reduction on craniofacial features associated with Down syndrome

    Human Molecular Genetics 25:4856–4869.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddw309

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
98. 1. Même S
    2. Joudiou N
    3. Yousfi N
    4. Szeremeta F
    5. Lopes-Pereira P
    6. Beloeil J
    7. Herault Y
    8. Même W

    (2014) In vivo 9.4t mri and 1h mrs for evaluation of brain structural and metabolic changes in the ts65dn mouse model for down syndrome

    World Journal of Neuroscience 4:152–163.

    https://doi.org/10.4236/wjns.2014.42018

    • Google Scholar
99. 1. Monteagudo A

    (2020) Holoprosencephaly

    American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 223:B13–B16.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2020.08.178

    • Google Scholar
100. 1. Motulsky HJ
     2. Brown RE

     (2006) Detecting outliers when fitting data with nonlinear regression - a new method based on robust nonlinear regression and the false discovery rate

     BMC Bioinformatics 7:123.

     https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-7-123

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
101. 1. Movsas TZ
     2. Spitzer AR
     3. Gewolb IH

     (2016) Ventriculomegaly in very-low-birthweight infants with Down syndrome

     Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 58:1167–1171.

     https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.13191

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
102. 1. Muñiz Moreno MDM
     2. Brault V
     3. Birling M-C
     4. Pavlovic G
     5. Herault Y

     (2020) Modeling down syndrome in animals from the early stage to the 4.0 models and next

     Progress in Brain Research 251:91–143.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2019.08.001

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
103. 1. Noll C
     2. Kandiah J
     3. Moroy G
     4. Gu Y
     5. Dairou J
     6. Janel N

     (2022) Catechins as a potential dietary supplementation in prevention of comorbidities linked with down syndrome

     Nutrients 14:2039.

     https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14102039

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
104. 1. Nopoulos P
     2. Langbehn DR
     3. Canady J
     4. Magnotta V
     5. Richman L

     (2007) Abnormal brain structure in children with isolated clefts of the lip or palate

     Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 161:753.

     https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.161.8.753

     • Google Scholar
105. 1. Olmos-Serrano JL
     2. Tyler WA
     3. Cabral HJ
     4. Haydar TF

     (2016a) Longitudinal measures of cognition in the Ts65Dn mouse: Refining windows and defining modalities for therapeutic intervention in Down syndrome

     Experimental Neurology 279:40–56.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.expneurol.2016.02.005

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
106. 1. Olmos-Serrano JL
     2. Kang HJ
     3. Tyler WA
     4. Silbereis JC
     5. Cheng F
     6. Zhu Y
     7. Pletikos M
     8. Jankovic-Rapan L
     9. Cramer NP
     10. Galdzicki Z
     11. Goodliffe J
     12. Peters A
     13. Sethares C
     14. Delalle I
     15. Golden JA
     16. Haydar TF
     17. Sestan N

     (2016b) Down syndrome developmental brain transcriptome reveals defective oligodendrocyte differentiation and myelination

     Neuron 89:1208–1222.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2016.01.042

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
107. 1. Olson LE
     2. Richtsmeier JT
     3. Leszl J
     4. Reeves RH

     (2004) A chromosome 21 critical region does not cause specific Down syndrome phenotypes

     Science 306:687–690.

     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1098992

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
108. 1. Pallast N
     2. Diedenhofen M
     3. Blaschke S
     4. Wieters F
     5. Wiedermann D
     6. Hoehn M
     7. Fink GR
     8. Aswendt M

     (2019) Processing pipeline for atlas-based imaging data analysis of structural and functional mouse brain MRI (AIDAmri)

     Frontiers in Neuroinformatics 13:42.

     https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2019.00042

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
109. 1. Patkee PA
     2. Baburamani AA
     3. Kyriakopoulou V
     4. Davidson A
     5. Avini E
     6. Dimitrova R
     7. Allsop J
     8. Hughes E
     9. Kangas J
     10. McAlonan G
     11. Rutherford MA

     (2020) Early alterations in cortical and cerebellar regional brain growth in Down Syndrome: An in vivo fetal and neonatal MRI assessment

     NeuroImage. Clinical 25:102139.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2019.102139

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
110. 1. Pearlson GD
     2. Breiter SN
     3. Aylward EH
     4. Warren AC
     5. Grygorcewicz M
     6. Frangou S
     7. Barta PE
     8. Pulsifer MB

     (1998)

     MRI brain changes in subjects with Down syndrome with and without dementia

     Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 40:326–334.

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
111. 1. Pinter JD
     2. Eliez S
     3. Schmitt JE
     4. Capone GT
     5. Reiss AL

     (2001) Neuroanatomy of Down’s syndrome: a high-resolution MRI study

     The American Journal of Psychiatry 158:1659–1665.

     https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.158.10.1659

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
112. 1. Pirozzi F
     2. Nelson B
     3. Mirzaa G

     (2018) From microcephaly to megalencephaly: determinants of brain size

     Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience 20:267–282.

     https://doi.org/10.31887/DCNS.2018.20.4/gmirzaa

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
113. 1. Quinzi F
     2. Vannozzi G
     3. Camomilla V
     4. Piacentini MF
     5. Boca F
     6. Bortels E
     7. Kathrein E
     8. Magyar A
     9. Verdone F
     10. Sbriccoli P

     (2022) Motor competence in individuals with down syndrome: is an improvement still possible in adulthood?

     International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19:2157.

     https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19042157

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
114. 1. Ratiney H
     2. Coenradie Y
     3. Cavassila S
     4. van Ormondt D
     5. Graveron-Demilly D

     (2004) Time-domain quantitation of 1H short echo-time signals: background accommodation

     Magma 16:284–296.

     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10334-004-0037-9

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
115. 1. Raveau M
     2. Nakahari T
     3. Asada S
     4. Ishihara K
     5. Amano K
     6. Shimohata A
     7. Sago H
     8. Yamakawa K

     (2017) Brain ventriculomegaly in Down syndrome mice is caused by Pcp4 dose-dependent cilia dysfunction

     Human Molecular Genetics 26:923–931.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddx007

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
116. 1. Real de Asua D
     2. Quero M
     3. Moldenhauer F
     4. Suarez C

     (2015) Clinical profile and main comorbidities of Spanish adults with Down syndrome

     European Journal of Internal Medicine 26:385–391.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2015.05.003

     • Google Scholar
117. 1. Reeves RH
     2. Irving NG
     3. Moran TH
     4. Wohn A
     5. Kitt C
     6. Sisodia SS
     7. Schmidt C
     8. Bronson RT
     9. Davisson MT

     (1995) A mouse model for Down syndrome exhibits learning and behaviour deficits

     Nature Genetics 11:177–184.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/ng1095-177

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
118. 1. Reinholdt LG
     2. Ding Y
     3. Gilbert GJ
     4. Czechanski A
     5. Solzak JP
     6. Roper RJ
     7. Johnson MT
     8. Donahue LR
     9. Lutz C
     10. Davisson MT

     (2011) Molecular characterization of the translocation breakpoints in the Down syndrome mouse model Ts65Dn

     Mammalian Genome 22:685–691.

     https://doi.org/10.1007/s00335-011-9357-z

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
119. 1. Richtsmeier JT
     2. Baxter LL
     3. Reeves RH

     (2000) Parallels of craniofacial maldevelopment in Down syndrome and Ts65Dn mice

     Developmental Dynamics 217:137–145.

     https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0177(200002)217:2<137::AID-DVDY1>3.0.CO;2-N

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
120. 1. Roberts RM
     2. Mathias JL
     3. Wheaton P

     (2012) Cognitive functioning in children and adults with nonsyndromal cleft lip and/or palate: A meta-analysis

     Journal of Pediatric Psychology 37:786–797.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jss052

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
121. 1. Rodrigues M
     2. Nunes J
     3. Figueiredo S
     4. Martins de Campos A
     5. Geraldo AF

     (2019) Neuroimaging assessment in Down syndrome: a pictorial review

     Insights into Imaging 10:52.

     https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-019-0729-3

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
122. 1. Rondal JA

     (2020) Down syndrome: A curative prospect?

     AIMS Neuroscience 7:168–193.

     https://doi.org/10.3934/Neuroscience.2020012

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
123. 1. Roper RJ
     2. St John HK
     3. Philip J
     4. Lawler A
     5. Reeves RH

     (2006) Perinatal loss of Ts65Dn Down syndrome mice

     Genetics 172:437–443.

     https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.105.050898

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
124. 1. Roper RJ
     2. VanHorn JF
     3. Cain CC
     4. Reeves RH

     (2009) A neural crest deficit in Down syndrome mice is associated with deficient mitotic response to Sonic hedgehog

     Mechanisms of Development 126:212–219.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mod.2008.11.002

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
125. 1. Rouillard AD
     2. Gundersen GW
     3. Fernandez NF
     4. Wang Z
     5. Monteiro CD
     6. McDermott MG
     7. Ma’ayan A

     (2016) The harmonizome: a collection of processed datasets gathered to serve and mine knowledge about genes and proteins

     Database 2016:baw100.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/database/baw100

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
126. 1. Ruparelia A
     2. Pearn ML
     3. Mobley WC

     (2012) Cognitive and pharmacological insights from the Ts65Dn mouse model of Down syndrome

     Current Opinion in Neurobiology 22:880–886.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2012.05.002

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
127. 1. Santin MD
     2. Valabrègue R
     3. Rivals I
     4. Pénager R
     5. Paquin R
     6. Dauphinot L
     7. Albac C
     8. Delatour B
     9. Potier M-C

     (2014) In vivo 1H MRS study in microlitre voxels in the hippocampus of a mouse model of Down syndrome at 11.7 T

     NMR in Biomedicine 27:1143–1150.

     https://doi.org/10.1002/nbm.3155

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
128. 1. Saran NG
     2. Pletcher MT
     3. Natale JE
     4. Cheng Y
     5. Reeves RH

     (2003) Global disruption of the cerebellar transcriptome in a Down syndrome mouse model

     Human Molecular Genetics 12:2013–2019.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddg217

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
129. 1. Shaw PR
     2. Klein JA
     3. Aziz NM
     4. Haydar TF

     (2020) Longitudinal neuroanatomical and behavioral analyses show phenotypic drift and variability in the Ts65Dn mouse model of Down syndrome

     Disease Models & Mechanisms 13:dmm046243.

     https://doi.org/10.1242/dmm.046243

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
130. 1. Smigielska-Kuzia J
     2. Sobaniec W

     (2007)

     Brain metabolic profile obtained by proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy HMRS in children with Down syndrome

     Advances in Medical Sciences 52 Suppl 1:183–187.

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
131. 1. Smigielska-Kuzia J
     2. Boćkowski L
     3. Sobaniec W
     4. Sendrowski K
     5. Olchowik B
     6. Cholewa M
     7. Lukasiewicz A
     8. Lebkowska U

     (2011) A volumetric magnetic resonance imaging study of brain structures in children with Down syndrome

     Neurologia i Neurochirurgia Polska 45:363–369.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/s0028-3843(14)60107-9

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
132. 1. Souchet B
     2. Guedj F
     3. Penke-Verdier Z
     4. Daubigney F
     5. Duchon A
     6. Herault Y
     7. Bizot JC
     8. Janel N
     9. Créau N
     10. Delatour B
     11. Delabar JM

     (2015) Pharmacological correction of excitation/inhibition imbalance in Down syndrome mouse models

     Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience 9:267.

     https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00267

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
133. 1. Souchet B
     2. Duchon A
     3. Gu Y
     4. Dairou J
     5. Chevalier C
     6. Daubigney F
     7. Nalesso V
     8. Créau N
     9. Yu Y
     10. Janel N
     11. Herault Y
     12. Delabar JM

     (2019) Prenatal treatment with EGCG enriched green tea extract rescues GAD67 related developmental and cognitive defects in Down syndrome mouse models

     Scientific Reports 9:3914.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-40328-9

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
134. 1. Stagni F
     2. Giacomini A
     3. Guidi S
     4. Ciani E
     5. Bartesaghi R

     (2015) Timing of therapies for Down syndrome: the sooner, the better

     Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience 9:265.

     https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00265

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
135. 1. Stagni F
     2. Giacomini A
     3. Emili M
     4. Trazzi S
     5. Guidi S
     6. Sassi M
     7. Ciani E
     8. Rimondini R
     9. Bartesaghi R

     (2016) Short- and long-term effects of neonatal pharmacotherapy with epigallocatechin-3-gallate on hippocampal development in the Ts65Dn mouse model of Down syndrome

     Neuroscience 333:277–301.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2016.07.031

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
136. 1. Stagni F
     2. Giacomini A
     3. Emili M
     4. Guidi S
     5. Bartesaghi R

     (2018) Neurogenesis impairment: An early developmental defect in Down syndrome

     Free Radical Biology & Medicine 114:15–32.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2017.07.026

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
137. 1. Stagni F
     2. Bartesaghi R

     (2022) The challenging pathway of treatment for neurogenesis impairment in down syndrome: achievements and perspectives

     Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience 16:903729.

     https://doi.org/10.3389/fncel.2022.903729

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
138. 1. Starbuck JM
     2. Llambrich S
     3. Gonzàlez R
     4. Albaigès J
     5. Sarlé A
     6. Wouters J
     7. González A
     8. Sevillano X
     9. Sharpe J
     10. De La Torre R
     11. Dierssen M
     12. Vande Velde G
     13. Martínez-Abadías N

     (2021) Green tea extracts containing epigallocatechin-3-gallate modulate facial development in Down syndrome

     Scientific Reports 11:4715.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-83757-1

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
139. 1. Starčuk Z
     2. Starčuková J
     3. Štrbák O
     4. Graveron-Demilly D

     (2009) Simulation of coupled-spin systems in the steady-state free-precession acquisition mode for fast magnetic resonance (MR) spectroscopic imaging

     Measurement Science and Technology 20:104033.

     https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-0233/20/10/104033

     • Google Scholar
140. 1. Stefan D
     2. Cesare FD
     3. Andrasescu A
     4. Popa E
     5. Lazariev A
     6. Vescovo E
     7. Strbak O
     8. Williams S
     9. Starcuk Z
     10. Cabanas M
     11. van Ormondt D
     12. Graveron-Demilly D

     (2009) Quantitation of magnetic resonance spectroscopy signals: the jMRUI software package

     Measurement Science and Technology 20:104035.

     https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-0233/20/10/104035

     • Google Scholar
141. 1. Steingass KJ
     2. Chicoine B
     3. McGuire D
     4. Roizen NJ

     (2011) Developmental disabilities grown up: down syndrome

     Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics 32:548–558.

     https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0b013e31822182e0

     • Google Scholar
142. 1. Stringer M
     2. Abeysekera I
     3. Dria KJ
     4. Roper RJ
     5. Goodlett CR

     (2015) Low dose EGCG treatment beginning in adolescence does not improve cognitive impairment in a Down syndrome mouse model

     Pharmacology, Biochemistry, and Behavior 138:70–79.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbb.2015.09.002

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
143. 1. Stringer M
     2. Abeysekera I
     3. Thomas J
     4. LaCombe J
     5. Stancombe K
     6. Stewart RJ
     7. Dria KJ
     8. Wallace JM
     9. Goodlett CR
     10. Roper RJ

     (2017) Epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG) consumption in the Ts65Dn model of Down syndrome fails to improve behavioral deficits and is detrimental to skeletal phenotypes

     Physiology & Behavior 177:230–241.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2017.05.003

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
144. 1. Sunkin SM
     2. Ng L
     3. Lau C
     4. Dolbeare T
     5. Gilbert TL
     6. Thompson CL
     7. Hawrylycz M
     8. Dang C

     (2013) Allen Brain Atlas: an integrated spatio-temporal portal for exploring the central nervous system

     Nucleic Acids Research 41:D996–D1008.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gks1042

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
145. 1. Suri S
     2. Tompson BD
     3. Cornfoot L

     (2010) Cranial base, maxillary and mandibular morphology in Down syndrome

     The Angle Orthodontist 80:861–869.

     https://doi.org/10.2319/111709-650.1

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
146. 1. Tallino S
     2. Winslow W
     3. Bartholomew SK
     4. Velazquez R

     (2022) Temporal and brain region-specific elevations of soluble Amyloid-β40-42 in the Ts65Dn mouse model of Down syndrome and Alzheimer’s disease

     Aging Cell 21:e13590.

     https://doi.org/10.1111/acel.13590

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
147. Software

     1. The MathWorks Inc

     (2022) MATLAB for artificial intelligence, version 0.1

     MathWorks.

     https://www.mathworks.com
148. 1. Thomas JR
     2. LaCombe J
     3. Long R
     4. Lana-Elola E
     5. Watson-Scales S
     6. Wallace JM
     7. Fisher EMC
     8. Tybulewicz VLJ
     9. Roper RJ

     (2020) Interaction of sexual dimorphism and gene dosage imbalance in skeletal deficits associated with Down syndrome

     Bone 136:115367.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2020.115367

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
149. 1. Thomas JR
     2. Roper RJ

     (2021) Current analysis of skeletal phenotypes in down syndrome

     Current Osteoporosis Reports 19:338–346.

     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-021-00674-y

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
150. 1. Thomas JR
     2. Sloan K
     3. Cave K
     4. Wallace JM
     5. Roper RJ

     (2021) Skeletal deficits in male and female down syndrome model mice arise independent of normalized dyrk1a expression in osteoblasts

     Genes 12:1729.

     https://doi.org/10.3390/genes12111729

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
151. 1. Treit S
     2. Zhou D
     3. Chudley AE
     4. Andrew G
     5. Rasmussen C
     6. Nikkel SM
     7. Samdup D
     8. Hanlon-Dearman A
     9. Loock C
     10. Beaulieu C

     (2016) Relationships between head circumference, brain volume and cognition in children with prenatal alcohol exposure

     PLOS ONE 11:e0150370.

     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0150370

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
152. 1. Vanherp L
     2. Poelmans J
     3. Weerasekera A
     4. Hillen A
     5. Croitor-Sava AR
     6. Sorrell TC
     7. Lagrou K
     8. Vande Velde G
     9. Himmelreich U

     (2021) Trehalose as quantitative biomarker for in vivo diagnosis and treatment follow-up in cryptococcomas

     Translational Research 230:111–122.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trsl.2020.11.001

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
153. 1. Vicente A
     2. Bravo-González LA
     3. López-Romero A
     4. Muñoz CS
     5. Sánchez-Meca J

     (2020) Craniofacial morphology in down syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

     Scientific Reports 10:19895.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-76984-5

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
154. 1. Vilardell M
     2. Rasche A
     3. Thormann A
     4. Maschke-Dutz E
     5. Pérez-Jurado LA
     6. Lehrach H
     7. Herwig R

     (2011) Meta-analysis of heterogeneous Down Syndrome data reveals consistent genome-wide dosage effects related to neurological processes

     BMC Genomics 12:229.

     https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-12-229

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
155. 1. Vogels A
     2. Fryns JP

     (2006) Pfeiffer syndrome

     Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases 1:19.

     https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-1172-1-19

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
156. 1. Weerasekera A
     2. Sima DM
     3. Dresselaers T
     4. Van Huffel S
     5. Van Damme P
     6. Himmelreich U

     (2018) Non-invasive assessment of disease progression and neuroprotective effects of dietary coconut oil supplementation in the ALS SOD1^G93A mouse model: A ¹H-magnetic resonance spectroscopic study

     NeuroImage. Clinical 20:1092–1105.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2018.09.011

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
157. 1. Weisfeld-Adams JD
     2. Tkachuk AK
     3. Maclean KN
     4. Meeks NL
     5. Scott SA

     (2016) A de novo 2.78-Mb duplication on chromosome 21q22.11 implicates candidate genes in the partial trisomy 21 phenotype

     NPJ Genomic Medicine 1:16003.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/npjgenmed.2016.3

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
158. 1. Wilhoit LF
     2. Scott DA
     3. Simecka BA

     (2017) Fetal alcohol spectrum disorders: characteristics, complications, and treatment

     Community Mental Health Journal 53:711–718.

     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-017-0104-0

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
159. 1. Wozniak JR
     2. Riley EP
     3. Charness ME

     (2019) Clinical presentation, diagnosis, and management of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder

     The Lancet. Neurology 18:760–770.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30150-4

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
160. 1. Xicota L
     2. Rodríguez J
     3. Langohr K
     4. Fitó M
     5. Dierssen M
     6. de la Torre R
     7. TESDAD study group

     (2020) Effect of epigallocatechin gallate on the body composition and lipid profile of down syndrome individuals: Implications for clinical management

     Clinical Nutrition 39:1292–1300.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2019.05.028

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
161. 1. Yin X
     2. Jin N
     3. Shi J
     4. Zhang Y
     5. Wu Y
     6. Gong CX
     7. Iqbal K
     8. Liu F

     (2017) Dyrk1A overexpression leads to increase of 3R-tau expression and cognitive deficits in Ts65Dn Down syndrome mice

     Scientific Reports 7:619.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-00682-y

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
162. 1. Zis P
     2. Strydom A

     (2018) Clinical aspects and biomarkers of Alzheimer’s disease in Down syndrome

     Free Radical Biology & Medicine 114:3–9.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2017.08.024

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Sergi Llambrich

   Biomedical MRI, Department of Imaging and Pathology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9980-0208

2. Birger Tielemans

   Biomedical MRI, Department of Imaging and Pathology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

   Contribution

   Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Ellen Saliën

   Biomedical MRI, Department of Imaging and Pathology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

   Contribution

   Formal analysis, Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

4. Marta Atzori

   Department of Human Genetics, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

   Contribution

   Formal analysis

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

5. Kaat Wouters

   Laboratory of Biological Psychology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

   Contribution

   Formal analysis

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

6. Vicky Van Bulck

   Laboratory of Biological Psychology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

   Contribution

   Formal analysis

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9355-0567

7. Mark Platt

   Centre for Preclinical Imaging, Department of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Formal analysis

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

8. Laure Vanherp

   Biomedical MRI, Department of Imaging and Pathology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

   Contribution

   Formal analysis

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

9. Nuria Gallego Fernandez

   Departament de Biologia Evolutiva, Ecologia i Ciències Ambientals (BEECA), Facultat de Biologia, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

   Contribution

   Formal analysis

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

10. Laura Grau de la Fuente

    Departament de Biologia Evolutiva, Ecologia i Ciències Ambientals (BEECA), Facultat de Biologia, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

    Contribution

    Formal analysis

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

11. Harish Poptani

    Centre for Preclinical Imaging, Department of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom

    Contribution

    Resources

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

12. Lieve Verlinden

    Clinical and Experimental Endocrinology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Contribution

    Methodology

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

13. Uwe Himmelreich

    Biomedical MRI, Department of Imaging and Pathology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Contribution

    Resources, Formal analysis, Methodology

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2060-8895

14. Anca Croitor

    Biomedical MRI, Department of Imaging and Pathology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Contribution

    Formal analysis

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

15. Catia Attanasio

    Department of Human Genetics, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Contribution

    Resources, Supervision

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8077-5719

16. Zsuzsanna Callaerts-Vegh

    Laboratory of Biological Psychology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Contribution

    Resources, Supervision

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9091-2078

17. Willy Gsell

    Biomedical MRI, Department of Imaging and Pathology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Contribution

    Methodology

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7334-6107

18. Neus Martínez-Abadías

    Departament de Biologia Evolutiva, Ecologia i Ciències Ambientals (BEECA), Facultat de Biologia, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Resources, Data curation, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

    Contributed equally with

    Greetje Vande Velde

    For correspondence

    neusmartinez@ub.edu

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3061-2123

19. Greetje Vande Velde

    Biomedical MRI, Department of Imaging and Pathology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Resources, Data curation, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Visualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Writing – review and editing

    Contributed equally with

    Neus Martínez-Abadías

    For correspondence

    greetje.vandevelde@kuleuven.be

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5633-3993

• 443

  views

• 24

  downloads

• 0

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.