| Literature DB >> 30386286 |
Yo-Tsen Liu1,2,3,4, Yi-Chieh Chen5,6, Shang-Yeong Kwan1,2, Chien-Chen Chou1,2, Hsiang-Yu Yu1,2, Der-Jen Yen1,2, Kwong-Kum Liao1,2, Wei-Ta Chen1,2,3,4, Yung-Yang Lin1,2,3,4,7, Rou-Shayn Chen8,9, Kang-Yang Jih1,2, Shu-Fen Lu1, Yu-Te Wu4,5,6, Po-Shan Wang2,5,6,10, Fu-Jung Hsiao3,4.
Abstract
Paroxysmal kinesigenic dyskinesia (PKD) is conventionally regarded as a movement disorder (MD) and characterized by episodic hyperkinesia by sudden movements. However, patients of PKD often have sensory aura and respond excellently to antiepileptic agents. PRRT2 mutations, the most common genetic etiology of PKD, could cause epilepsy syndromes as well. Standing in the twilight zone between MDs and epilepsy, the pathogenesis of PKD is unclear. Gamma oscillations arise from the inhibitory interneurons which are crucial in the thalamocortical circuits. The role of synchronized gamma oscillations in sensory gating is an important mechanism of automatic cortical inhibition. The patterns of gamma oscillations have been used to characterize neurophysiological features of many neurological diseases, including epilepsy and MDs. This study was aimed to investigate the features of gamma synchronizations in PKD. In the paired-pulse electrical-stimulation task, we recorded the magnetoencephalographic data with distributed source modeling and time-frequency analysis in 19 patients of newly-diagnosed PKD without receiving pharmacotherapy and 18 healthy controls. In combination with the magnetic resonance imaging, the source of gamma oscillations was localized in the primary somatosensory cortex. Somatosensory evoked fields of PKD patients had a reduced peak frequency (p < 0.001 for the first and the second response) and a prolonged peak latency (the first response p = 0.02, the second response p = 0.002), indicating the synchronization of gamma oscillation is significantly attenuated. The power ratio between two responses was much higher in the PKD group (p = 0.013), indicating the incompetence of activity suppression. Aberrant gamma synchronizations revealed the defective sensory gating of the somatosensory area contributes the pathogenesis of PKD. Our findings documented disinhibited cortical function is a pathomechanism common to PKD and epilepsy, thus rationalized the clinical overlaps of these two diseases and the therapeutic effect of antiepileptic agents for PKD. There is a greater reduction of the peak gamma frequency in PRRT2-related PKD than the non-PRRT PKD group (p = 0.028 for the first response, p = 0.004 for the second response). Loss-of-function PRRT2 mutations could lead to synaptic dysfunction. The disinhibiton change on neurophysiology reflected the impacts of PRRT2 mutations on human neurophysiology.Entities:
Keywords: PRRT2; gamma oscillation; magnetoencephalagraphy; paroxysmal kinesigenic dyskinesia; primary somatosensory cortex; sensory gating
Year: 2018 PMID: 30386286 PMCID: PMC6198142 DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2018.00831
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurol ISSN: 1664-2295 Impact factor: 4.003
Clinical features and genetic diagnosis of the patients of PKD.
| 1 | R217EfsX | M | 38 | 9 | 29 | 10–20 | 10 | N |
| 2 | R217PfsX | M | 28 | 11 | 17 | 20–30 | 10–15 | N |
| 3 | R217PfsX | F | 24 | 16 | 8 | 20–30 | 10–15 | Y |
| 4 | R217PfsX | M | 19 | 12 | 7 | 20–30 | 5–10 | Y |
| 5 | G324EfsX | M | 26 | 12 | 14 | 20–30 | 5–10 | Y |
| 6 | N | M | 18 | 13 | 5 | 5–10 | < 5 | N |
| 7 | N | M | 25 | 10 | 15 | 20–30 | 5–10 | N |
| 8 | N | M | 19 | 16 | 3 | 20–30 | < 5 | N |
| 9 | N | M | 18 | 13 | 5 | 20–30 | 5–10 | Y |
| 10 | N | M | 23 | 14 | 9 | 20–30 | 5–10 | N |
| 11 | N | F | 17 | 12 | 5 | < 5 | < 5 | Y |
| 12 | N | M | 27 | 14 | 13 | 20–30 | 20–30 | N |
| 13 | N | M | 23 | 10 | 13 | 20–30 | 5–10 | Y |
| 14 | N | F | 17 | 11 | 6 | 20–30 | 5–10 | Y |
| 15 | N | M | 26 | 10 | 16 | 10–20 | 5–10 | N |
| 16 | N | F | 38 | 20 | 18 | 10–20 | 5–10 | N |
| 17 | N | M | 27 | 10 | 17 | 5–10 | 5–10 | N |
| 18 | N | M | 25 | 13 | 12 | 20–30 | 20–30 | N |
| 19 | N | M | 25 | 17 | 8 | < 5 | 20–30 | N |
| 27.0 ± 7.0 | 12.0 ± 7.9 | 15.0 ± 8.9 | / | / | 60% | |||
| Non- | 23.4 ± 5.6 | 13.1 ± 3.0 | 10.4 ± 5.1 | / | / | 28.6% | ||
AOE, Age of examination (year); AON, Age of onset (year); DD, disease duration (AOE-AON, year); Duration: duration of each attack; N, no; Y, yes.
Figure 1Analysis of gamma oscillations of SEF responses. The time-frequency representation of cortical activities from one channel in response of paired-pulse electrical stimulation from Control No. 1 was shown as the example. (A) Prominent power increase was observed after the first and second electric stimulations, especially at the frequency bands of 5~20 Hz and 30~100 Hz. In the frequency range of gamma oscillation, the peak frequency was 77 Hz for both responses. (B) The time-varying dynamic power change of the peak gamma activities (at 77 Hz) in the time window of−500~900 ms (long-dashed line in 1A) exhibited the peak latencies at 28.8 and 526.6 ms for first and second response respectively. (C) The power spectrums of the maximal power increase located at 77 Hz for both the first and second stimulation. (D) The topographic distributions of peak gamma oscillation showed the temporal-dynamic and spatial-specific cortical activation. Synchronized gamma increase was elicited contralaterally and locally. (E) Localization of gamma oscillation at peak frequencies and latencies for the first and second stimulations were mapped onto the primary somatosensory area on the reconstructed cortical surface of brain. MRI. L, left; R, right; 1st, the first; 2nd, the second.
Figure 2Power spectrums of gamma synchronization. The power spectrum (0-100 Hz) at the peak latencies of first and second responses for each of the 19 PKD patients and 18 controls were listed. The peak frequencies in the gamma frequency range (30~100 Hz) were obtained and indicated with inverted-triangle symbol. (A) In all PKD patients, the peak frequency ranged between 30~50 Hz. (B) In the majority of the control subjects (16/18, except No. 4 and No.18), the peak gamma frequency was at 45~90 Hz.
Figure 3Group difference of gamma synchronization between PKD and the healthy controls (HC). (A) The peak frequency of gamma oscillation in the PKD group was much smaller than that in the HCl group (for the first response, PKD: HC = 40.1 ± 1.5 Hz: 62.1 ± 4.2 Hz, p < 0.001; for the second response, PKD: HC = 39.2 ± 1.8 Hz: 58.8 ± 4.1 Hz, p < 0.001). (B) The peak latency of gamma oscillation was significantly delayed in PKD as compared with the HC (for the first response, PKD: HC = 31.99 ± 1.59 ms: 28.26 ± 1.33 ms, p = 0.02; for the second response, PKD: HC = 535.04 ± 1.46 ms: 530.52 ± 1.43 ms, p = 0.002). (C) There was no group effect for the power of gamma. The power ratio of the second response to the first response was higher in PKD than in HC (PKD: HC = 0.72 ± 0.064: 0.51 ± 0.048, p = 0.013). ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05.
Figure 4Group difference of gamma synchronizations between PRRT2-related PKD and non-PRRT2 PKD. (A) The PKD patients with an identified PRRT2 pathological mutation (n = 5) had lower evoked peak gamma frequencies than those patients without a PRRT2 mutation (n = 9) (for the first response, PRRT2+ PKD: PRRT2- PKD = 35.8 ± 2.1 Hz: 44 ± 1.7 Hz, p = 0.028; for the second response, PRRT2+ PKD: PRRT2- PKD = 35 ± 1.9 Hz: 44.5 ± 1.4 Hz, p = 0.004). (B,C) There was no difference of the peak latency, peak power and power ratio of gamma activities between PRRT2+ PKD and PRRT2- PKD. PRRT2+ PKD = PRRT2-related PKD, PRRT2- PKD = non-PRRT2 related PKD, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05.