| Literature DB >> 30255129 |
Noemi Morello1, Riccardo Schina1, Federica Pilotto1, Mary Phillips2, Riccardo Melani3, Ornella Plicato1, Tommaso Pizzorusso3,4, Lucas Pozzo-Miller2, Maurizio Giustetto1,5.
Abstract
Rett syndrome (RTT) is caused in most cases by loss-of-function mutations in the X-linked gene encoding methyl CpG-binding protein 2 (MECP2). Understanding the pathological processes impacting sensory-motor control represents a major challenge for clinical management of individuals affected by RTT, but the underlying molecular and neuronal modifications remain unclear. We find that symptomatic male Mecp2 knockout (KO) mice show atypically elevated parvalbumin (PV) expression in both somatosensory (S1) and motor (M1) cortices together with excessive excitatory inputs converging onto PV-expressing interneurons (INs). In accordance, high-speed voltage-sensitive dye imaging shows reduced amplitude and spatial spread of synaptically induced neuronal depolarizations in S1 of Mecp2 KO mice. Moreover, motor learning-dependent changes of PV expression and structural synaptic plasticity typically occurring on PV+ INs in M1 are impaired in symptomatic Mecp2 KO mice. Finally, we find similar abnormalities of PV networks plasticity in symptomatic female Mecp2 heterozygous mice. These results indicate that in Mecp2 mutant mice the configuration of PV+ INs network is shifted toward an atypical plasticity state in relevant cortical areas compatible with the sensory-motor dysfunctions characteristics of RTT.Entities:
Keywords: Cerebral cortex; Rett syndrome; X-linked intellectual disability; neuroanatomy; parvalbumin-expressing interneurons; structural synaptic plasticity
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30255129 PMCID: PMC6153339 DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0086-18.2018
Source DB: PubMed Journal: eNeuro ISSN: 2373-2822
P values of the indicated statistical comparisons.
| Figure | Measurement | Type of test | Comparison | Age | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| PV cell density | Unpaired | WT vs. | P56 | |
|
| PV fluorescence intensity | Unpaired | WT vs. | P56 | |
|
| Relative frequency of PV INs | Mann–Whitney | WT vs. | P56 | |
|
| Fraction of PV INs | Unpaired | WT vs. | P56 | |
| WT vs. | P56 | ||||
| WT vs. | P56 | ||||
| WT vs. | P56 | ||||
|
| PV cell density | Unpaired | WT vs. | P28 | |
|
| PV fluorescence intensity | Unpaired | WT vs. | P28 | |
|
| Relative frequency of PV INs | Mann–Whitney | WT vs. | P28 | |
|
| Fraction of PV INs | Unpaired | WT vs. | P28 | |
| WT vs. | P28 | ||||
| WT vs. | P28 | ||||
| WT vs. | P28 | ||||
| VGLUT1 density on PV dendrites | Unpaired | WT vs. | P56 | ||
| VGAT density on PV dendrites | Unpaired | WT vs. | P56 | ||
| VGLUT1 density on PV soma | Unpaired | WT vs. | P56 | ||
| VGAT density on PV soma | Unpaired | WT vs. | P56 | ||
| VGLUT1 density on CR dendrites | Unpaired | WT vs. | P56 | ||
| VGAT density on CR dendrites | Unpaired | WT vs. | P56 | ||
| VGLUT1 density on CR soma | Unpaired | WT vs. | P56 | ||
| VGAT density on CR soma | Unpaired | WT vs. | P56 | ||
| VGLUT1 density on PV dendrites | Unpaired | WT vs. | P28 | ||
| VGAT density on PV dendrites | Unpaired | WT vs. | P28 | ||
| VGLUT1 density on PV soma | Unpaired | WT vs. | P28 | ||
| VGAT density on PV soma | Unpaired | WT vs. | P28 | ||
| VGLUT1 density on CR dendrites | Unpaired | WT vs. | P28 | ||
| VGAT density on CR dendrites | Unpaired | WT vs. | P28 | ||
| VGLUT1 density on CR soma | Unpaired | WT vs. | P28 | ||
| VGAT density on CR soma | Unpaired | WT vs. | P28 | ||
|
| VSD response (ΔF/F) | Two-way ANOVA | WT vs. | P45-60 | Genotype |
| Spatial spread of VSD signal | Two-way ANOVA | WT vs. | P45-60 | Genotype | |
| Spatial spread of VSD signal | Unpaired | WT vs. | P45-60 | ||
|
| VSD response (ΔF/F) | Two-way ANOVA | WT vs. | P24-26 | Genotype |
| Spatial spread of VSD signal | Two-way ANOVA | WT vs. | P24-26 | Genotype | |
| Spatial spread of VSD signal | Unpaired | WT vs. | P24-26 | ||
|
| PV cell density | Unpaired | WT vs. | P56 | |
|
| PV fluorescence intensity | Unpaired | WT vs. | P56 | t(10) = 1.74, |
|
| Relative frequency of PV INs | Mann–Whitney | WT vs. | P56 | |
|
| Fraction of PV INs | Unpaired | WT vs. | P56 | |
| WT vs. | P56 | ||||
| WT vs. | P56 | ||||
| WT vs. | P56 | ||||
|
| PV cell density | Unpaired | WT vs. | P28 | |
|
| PV fluorescence intensity | Unpaired | WT vs. | P28 | |
|
| Relative frequency of PV INs | Mann–Whitney | WT vs. | P28 | |
|
| Fraction of PV INs | Unpaired | WT vs. | P28 | |
| WT vs. | P28 | ||||
| WT vs. | P28 | ||||
| WT vs. | P28 | ||||
|
| Rotarod task | Two-way ANOVA | Genotype vs. RR | P56 | RR |
| Genotype | |||||
| Interaction | |||||
|
| Relative frequency of PV INs | Mann–Whitney | WT AC vs. | P56 | |
| WT AC vs. WT RR | P56 | ||||
| KO-AC vs. KO-RR | P56 | ||||
|
| Fraction of PV INs | Two-way ANOVA | Genotype vs. RR (medium-high PV) | P56 | Interaction |
| Fraction of PV INs | Two-way ANOVA | Genotype vs. RR (high PV) | P56 | Interaction | |
| Genotype | |||||
| RR | |||||
|
| Correlation between % High PV | Pearson’s | WT and | P56 | |
| and RR performance | |||||
|
| VGLUT1 density on PV dendrites | Two-way ANOVA | Genotype vs. RR | P56 | Genotype |
| RR | |||||
| VGLUT1 density on PV soma | Two-way ANOVA | Genotype vs. RR | P56 | Genotype | |
| RR | |||||
| VGAT density on PV dendrites | Two-way ANOVA | Genotype vs. RR | P56 | Genotype | |
| RR | |||||
|
| Relative frequency of PV INs | Mann–Whitney | WT vs. | 2 M | |
| Relative frequency of PV INs | Mann–Whitney | WT vs. | 4 M | ||
|
| Fraction of PV INs | Unpaired | WT vs. Mecp2 Het (high PV) | 4 M | |
| WT vs. Mecp2 Het (medium-high PV) | 4 M | ||||
| WT vs. Mecp2 Het (medium-low PV) | 4 M | ||||
| WT vs. Mecp2 Het (low PV) | 4 M | ||||
| Relative frequency of PV INs | Mann–Whitney | WT vs. | 8 M | ||
|
| Fraction of PV INs | Unpaired | WT vs. Mecp2 Het (high PV) | 8 M | |
| WT vs. Mecp2 Het (medium-high PV) | 8 M | ||||
| WT vs. Mecp2 Het (medium-low PV) | 8 M | ||||
| WT vs. Mecp2 Het (low PV) | 8 M | ||||
|
| Rotarod task | Two-way ANOVA | Genotype vs. RR | 8 M | RR |
| Genotype | |||||
| Interaction | |||||
|
| Correlation between % HIGH PV and RR performance | Pearson’s | WT and | 8 M |
Data structure (normal or non-normal distribution), statistical tests, and observed power value of the statistical test
| Figure | Data structure | Type of test | Power |
|---|---|---|---|
| Normal distribution | Unpaired | 0.720 | |
|
| Normal distribution | Unpaired | 0.757 |
|
| Normal distribution | Unpaired | Low 0.372; medium-low 0.413; medium-high 0.410; high 0.845 |
|
| Normal distribution | Unpaired | 0.086 |
|
| Normal distribution | Unpaired | 0.186 |
|
| Normal distribution | Unpaired | Low 0.286; medium-low 0.214; medium-high 0.412; high 0.059 |
| Normal distribution | Unpaired | 0.902 | |
| Normal distribution | Unpaired | 0.823 | |
| Normal distribution | Unpaired | 0.953 | |
| Normal distribution | Unpaired | 0.410 | |
| Normal distribution | Unpaired | 0.616 | |
| Normal distribution | Unpaired | 0.053 | |
| Normal distribution | Unpaired | 0.232 | |
| Normal distribution | Unpaired | 0.352 | |
| Normal distribution | Unpaired | 0.989 | |
| Normal distribution | Unpaired | 0.837 | |
| Normal distribution | Unpaired | 0.136 | |
| Normal distribution | Unpaired | 0.055 | |
| Normal distribution | Unpaired | 0.055 | |
| Normal distribution | Unpaired | 0.057 | |
| Normal distribution | Unpaired | 0.052 | |
| Normal distribution | Unpaired | 0.050 | |
|
| Normal distribution | Two-way ANOVA with RM | Genotype 0.978 |
| Normal distribution | Two-way ANOVA with RM | Genotype 0.729 | |
|
| Normal distribution | Two-way ANOVA with RM | Genotype 1.000 |
| Normal distribution | Two-way ANOVA with RM | Genotype 0.856 | |
|
| Normal distribution | Unpaired | 0.910 |
|
| Normal distribution | Unpaired | 0.053 |
|
| Normal distribution | Unpaired | Low 0.070; medium-low 0.145; medium-high 0.206; high 0.599 |
|
| Normal distribution | Unpaired | 0.228 |
|
| Normal distribution | Unpaired | 0.132 |
|
| Normal distribution | Unpaired | Low 0.283; medium-low 0.456; medium-high 0.070; high 0.123 |
|
| Normal distribution | Two-way ANOVA with RM | Interaction 0.464; test 0.957; genotype 0.895 |
|
| Normal distribution | Two-way ANOVA | (Low) interaction 0.666; test 0.094; genotype 0.228 |
| (Medium-low) interaction 0.113; test 0.278; genotype 0.919 | |||
| (Medium-high) interaction 0.739; test 0.466; genotype 0.524 | |||
| (High) interaction 0.914; test 0.721; genotype 0.997 | |||
|
| Normal distribution | Pearson’s | 0.829 |
|
| Normal distribution | Two-way ANOVA | Interaction 0.996; test 0.940; genotype 1.000 |
| Normal distribution | Two-way ANOVA | Interaction 0.152; test 0.999; genotype 0.999 | |
|
| Normal distribution | Two-way ANOVA | Interaction 0.999; test 0.999; genotype 0.993 |
|
| Normal distribution | Two-way ANOVA | Interaction 0.209; test 0.723; genotype 0.290 |
|
| Normal distribution | Unpaired | Low 0.062; medium-low 0.536 |
| Medium-high 0.310; high 0.081 | |||
|
| Normal distribution | Unpaired | Low 0.108; medium-low 0.154 |
| Medium-high 0.820; High 0.276 | |||
|
| Normal distribution | Unpaired | Low 0.234; medium-low 0.942 |
| Medium-high 0.074; high 0.791 | |||
|
| Normal distribution | Two-way ANOVA with RM | Interaction 0.370; test 1.000; genotype 0.844 |
|
| Normal distribution | Pearson’s | 0.647 |
Figure 1.Atypical high-PV expression in the S1 cortex of Mecp2 KO mice. , Representative images showing PV labeling in layer II/III of S1 cortex in WT and Mecp2 KO mice at P56. Histograms showing quantitative analysis of PV+ cell density (), PV mean fluorescence intensity (), cumulative () and binned () frequency distribution of PV cells intensity in WT and Mecp2 KO mice at P56. , Representative images showing PV labeling in layer II/III of S1 cortex in WT and Mecp2 KO mice at P28. Histograms showing quantitative analysis of PV cell density (), PV mean fluorescence intensity (), cumulative () and binned () frequency distribution of PV cells intensity in WT and Mecp2 KO mice at P28. n = 6 mice per genotype. Student’s t test: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, Mann–Whitney U test for , : ##p < 0.01; ###p < 0.001. Scale bar = 100 μm.
Figure 2.Distribution of excitatory and inhibitory presynaptic terminals onto PV+ and CR+ INs in P56 Mecp2 KO mice. Representative confocal images of VGLUT1+ (green: , ) and VGAT+ (blue: , ) puncta corresponding to excitatory and inhibitory presynaptic terminals, respectively, apposed to dendrites (top) and somata (bottom) of PV+ INs in layer II/III of S1 cortex in P56 WT and Mecp2 KO mice. Histograms showing quantitative analysis in WT and Mecp2 KO mice of VGLUT1+ and VGAT+ puncta density contacting either dendrites (, ) or somata (, ), respectively, of PV+ INs. Confocal images showing VGLUT1+ (green: , ) and VGAT+ (blue: , ) puncta contacting dendrites (top) and somata (bottom) of CR+ INs in layer II/III of S1 cortex in WT and Mecp2 KO mice. Histograms showing quantitative analysis in WT and Mecp2 KO mice of VGLUT1+ and VGAT+ puncta density contacting either dendrites (, ) or somata (, ), respectively, of CR+ INs. PV: VGLUT1 n = 6 mice per genotype; VGAT dendrites n = 5 WT and 4 Mecp2 KO mice per genotype; VGAT soma n = 5 mice per genotype; CR: VGLUT1 n = 6 mice and VGAT n = 5 mice per genotype. Student’s t test: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01. , Representative 3D projections in three image planes showing excitatory VGLUT1+ (green) and inhibitory VGAT+ (blue) synaptic terminals contacting PV+ cell bodies and dendrites (red). Arrowheads point to selected VGLUT1+ and VGAT+ puncta apposed to dendrites or somata of PV+ interneurons at the intersection of the XY cross. Note the lack of black pixels between the presynaptic puncta and the postsynaptic structures. Scale bars = 5 μm.
Figure 3.Distribution of excitatory and inhibitory presynaptic terminals onto PV+ INs in P28 Mecp2 KO mice. Representative confocal images of excitatory, VGLUT1+ (green: , ) and inhibitory, VGAT+ (blue: , ) synaptic terminals contacting PV+ (red) dendrites (top) and somata (bottom) in layer II/III of S1 cortex in P28 WT and Mecp2 KO mice. Histograms showing quantitative analysis in WT and Mecp2 KO mice of VGLUT1+ and VGAT+ puncta density contacting either dendrites (, ) or somata (, ), respectively, of PV+ INs. Representative confocal images of VGLUT1+ (green: , ) and VGAT+ (blue: , ) puncta contacting CR+ (red) dendrites (top) and somata (bottom) in layer II/III of S1 cortex in P28 Mecp2 KO mice and WT littermates. Histograms showing quantitative analysis in WT and Mecp2 KO mice of VGLUT1+ and VGAT+ puncta density contacting either dendrites (, ) or somata (, ), respectively, of CR+ INs. PV: GLUT1 dendrites n = 5 mice per genotype; GLUT1 soma n = 8 mice per genotype; VGAT n = 5 mice per genotype; CR: VGLUT1 and VGAT n = 5 mice per genotype. Student’s t test: **p < 0.01. Scale bars = 5 μm.
Figure 4.Smaller amplitude and spatial spread of synaptically induced neuronal depolarizations in layer II/III of S1 cortex in presymptomatic and symptomatic Mecp2 KO mice. , Representative example (left) of a VSD-stained S1 slice with superimposed evoked VSD signals expressed as ΔF/F, and displayed in a pseudo-color scale (warmer colors represent larger VSD amplitudes). Representative examples (right) of fEPSPs and VSD ΔF/F traces at lower (50% maximum response) and higher (maximum response) stimulation intensities. , , Frames of representative time-lapse movies of VSD-stained slices during a single fEPSP in symptomatic () and presymptomatic () mice. , , Input-output relationship between afferent stimulus intensity and the amplitude of VSD signals expressed as % ΔF/F in symptomatic () and presymptomatic () mice. , , Input-output relationship between afferent stimulus intensity and the spatial spread of signal through cortical layers I–V in symptomatic () and presymptomatic () mice. , , Spatio-temporal spread of VSD signals at maximum response stimulation in symptomatic () and presymptomatic () mice. Solid lines represent the mean; shaded areas represent the standard error of the mean. n = 12 slices from 4 WT mice; n = 24 slices from 6 Mecp2 KO mice at P45-P50; n = 17 slices from 3 WT and Mecp2 KO mice at P24–P26. Two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni posthoc tests for , , , and t test of area under the curve for , . *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. Scale bars = 100 µm.
Figure 5.Atypical high-PV-network configuration in the M1 cortex of Mecp2 KO mice. , Representative images showing PV expression in layer II/III of M1 cortex in both WT and Mecp2 KO mice at P56. Histograms showing quantitative analysis of PV+ cell density at P56 (), PV mean fluorescence intensity (), cumulative () and binned () frequency distribution of PV cells intensity in WT and Mecp2 KO mice. , Representative images showing PV expression in layer II/III of M1 cortex in both WT and Mecp2 KO mice at P28. Histograms showing quantitative analysis of PV cell density (), PV mean fluorescence intensity (), cumulative () and binned () frequency distribution of PV cells intensity in WT and Mecp2 KO mice at P28. n = 6 mice per genotype at P56 and n = 4 mice per genotype at P28. Student’s t test: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, Mann–Whitney U test for , : #p < 0.05; ##p < 0.01. Scale bars = 100 μm.
Figure 6.Motor learning–induced plasticity of PV network is impaired in symptomatic Mecp2 KO mice. , Latency to fall (seconds) from an accelerating rotating rod in P56 Mecp2 KO mice and WT littermates. Graphs show data of first and last trials/d (T1–4), for two consecutive days (day 1–2). , Representative images of PV immunofluorescence in layer II/III INs of the M1 cortex in both WT and Mecp2 KO P56 mice after AC or RR tasks. Cumulative () and binned () frequency distribution of PV cells intensity in layer II/III of M1 cortex, in Mecp2 KO mice and WT littermates after AC or RR tasks. () Correlation analysis between the mean latency to fall (seconds) from the rod on day 2 and the fraction of high PV+ INs in Mecp2 KO mice and WT littermates. n = 6 WT-AC mice, 5 Mecp2 KO-AC mice, 6 WT-RR mice, and 5 Mecp2 KO-RR mice for and . n = 9 WT-RR mice and 9 Mecp2 KO-RR mice for and . Two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni posthoc tests for and : *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001; Mann–Whitney U test for : #p < 0.05, ##p < 0.01, ###p < 0.001; Pearson’s r for . Scale bar = 100 μm.
Figure 7.Motor learning produces atypical structural synaptic plasticity of inputs converging on PV+ INs in Mecp2 KO mice. , Representative confocal images of excitatory VGLUT1+ (green) and inhibitory VGAT+ (blue) puncta apposed to PV+ (red) dendrites and somata in layer II/III of M1 cortex in AC- and RR-trained WT and Mecp2 KO mice. , , Histograms showing quantitative analysis of VGLUT1+ puncta density on dendrites () and somata () of PV+ INs after AC and RR training. , , Histograms showing quantitative analysis of VGAT+ puncta density on dendrites () and somata () of PV+ INs after AC and RR training. Dendrites: n = 5 WT and 5 Mecp2 KO mice; somata: n = 6 WT and 5 Mecp2 KO mice. Two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni posthoc tests: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. Scale bar = 5 μm.
Figure 8.Atypical high-PV expression in the M1 cortex of female Mecp2 Het mice correlates with motor impairments. Representative images showing PV expression in layer II/III of M1 cortex in both WT and Mecp2 Het mice at 2 (), 4 (), and 8 () months of age. Cumulative (, , ) and binned (, , ) frequency distribution of PV cells intensity in WT and Mecp2 Het M1 cortex at 2 (, ), 4 (, ), and 8 (, ) months of age. , Latency to fall (seconds) from an accelerating rotating rod in 8-mo-old Mecp2 Het mice and WT littermates. Graphs show data of first and last trials/d (T1–4), for two consecutive days (day 1–2). , Correlation analysis between the mean latency to fall (seconds) from the rod on day 2 and the fraction of high PV+ INs in 8-mo-old Mecp2 Het and WT females. –: n = 6 WT and 6 Mecp2 Het mice; , : n = 11 WT and 11 Mecp2 Het mice. Mann–Whitney U test for , , : ###p < 0.001; Student’s t test for , , : *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01; two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni posthoc tests for : *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01; Pearson’s r for . Scale bar = 100 μm.