| Literature DB >> 32925082 |
David Howland1, Zdenka Ellederova2, Neil Aronin3, Deborah Fernau3, Jill Gallagher3, Amanda Taylor4, Jon Hennebold5, Alison R Weiss5, Heather Gray-Edwards3, Jodi McBride5.
Abstract
Genetically modified rodent models of Huntington's disease (HD) have been especially valuable to our understanding of HD pathology and the mechanisms by which the mutant HTT gene alters physiology. However, due to inherent differences in genetics, neuroanatomy, neurocircuitry and neurophysiology, animal models do not always faithfully or fully recapitulate human disease features or adequately predict a clinical response to treatment. Therefore, conducting translational studies of candidate HD therapeutics only in a single species (i.e. mouse disease models) may not be sufficient. Large animal models of HD have been shown to be valuable to the HD research community and the expectation is that the need for translational studies that span rodent and large animal models will grow. Here, we review the large animal models of HD that have been created to date, with specific commentary on differences between the models, the strengths and disadvantages of each, and how we can advance useful models to study disease pathophysiology, biomarker development and evaluation of promising therapeutics.Entities:
Keywords: Minipigs; nonhuman primates; sheep; therapeutics
Year: 2020 PMID: 32925082 PMCID: PMC7597371 DOI: 10.3233/JHD-200425
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Huntingtons Dis ISSN: 1879-6397
Outline of advantages and disadvantages of using sheep as animal models for HD
| Large brain &gyrated cortex | Thick skull |
| Prominent neostriatum | |
| Long lifespans [10+ years] | |
| Amenable to frequent blood &CSF collections | |
| Similar immune system to human | Sheep can acquire Q fever |
| Sheep cognitive tests have been developed | |
| Docile &easy to manage | |
| Inexpensive to maintain compared to NHP | Large space requirements |
| Transgenic HD model exists | |
| –OVT73 | |
| –cDNA for full length human mutant | –No genomic intronic or 3’UTR sequences |
| –69 pure CAG repeats | –Sub-endogenous levels transgene expression |
| –2 copies of sheep | |
| –Models pre-symptomatic disease | |
| –useful for HTT lowering PK-PD-safety studies | |
| –Metabolomic, histopathological changes | –Lacks overt/ robust behavioral phenotype |
| –Modest motor/circadian phenotype | |
| –Sizable flock and infrastructure (Australia) | –Tg model not readily available outside of AUS |
| –Model access through CHDI |
Fig. 1Schematic representations of HTT gene structures in the HD sheep, minipig and NHP models. Gene structures were derived from: OVT73 transgenic sheep [10]; TgHD (N548) transgenic minipig [43]; KI-HD-150Q minipig [53]; KI-HD-85Q minipig (Exemplar Genetics personal communication and D. Howland; this article); transgenic NHP models: uHTT-84Q and hHTT-73Q [67]; and the somatic NHP AAV-HTT-82/85Q and AAV-HTT-16/10Q (J. Mcbride; this article) [73]. Lentiviral and AAV DNA vector elements are depicted in open white squares. BGH, bovine growth hormone; UTR, untranslated region; GFP, green fluorescence protein; Ubi (promoter), ubiquitin; CAG (promoter), cytomegalovirus early enhancer element/promoter-first exon-first intron of chicken B-actin gene/splice acceptor of rabbit B-globin gene; SV40/CMV/U5, simian virus 40, cytomegalovirus, unique 5; RRE/cPPT, rev response element, central polypurine tract; LTR, long terminal repeat; FLAP, a 3-stranded DNA structure; WPRE, Woodchuck Hepatitis Virus Posttranscriptional Regulatory Element; IRES, internal ribosome entry site; ITR, inverted terminal repeat.
Outline of advantages and disadvantages of using minipigs as animal models for HD
| Large gyrencephalic brain with similar neuroanatomy and blood supply to humans | Two layers of frontal bone with large inter-bone gap |
| Similar neurodevelopmental processes and comparable white matter ratio and degree of myelination to humans, striatum is prominent and divided into separate caudate and putamen | |
| Similar immune system to human | Susceptible to PERV (porcine endogenous retroviruses) |
| Long lifespans (10–20 years) | |
| Omnivores, digestive system similar to humans, body weight 80–110 kg | |
| Amenable to frequent blood &CSF collections | |
| Able to reproduce at 6 months | |
| Gestation only 4 months | |
| 6–8 piglets per litter, thus relatively easy preparation of experimental groups for preclinical studies | |
| Relatively easy to maintain in controlled conditions in stables | Boars have to be stabled separately or castrated. |
| Inexpensive to maintain compared to NHP | |
| Minipigs can learn some cognitive and motoric tests | Minipigs are tetrapods and so gait and balance are dissimilar to those of humans. |
| Minipigs do not have forearms and fine motor skills can be tested only by tongue test | |
| Genetically modified models exist: | |
| 1. TgHD (N-548) | |
| –Models long premanifest stage | –Slow phenotype progression; manifest symptoms late |
| –CAG/CAA repeat structure | |
| –Useful for HTT lowering PK-PD, safety studies | –two endogenous minipig |
| –Model access through CHDI/IAPG | |
| 2. KI-HD-85Q (minipig | |
| –Model access through CHDI/IAPG | –100% porcine |
| –Useful for HTT lowering PK-PD, safety studies | –Phenotype not well described |
| 3. KI-HD-150Q (human | |
| –Models manifest disease | –Only 40% of F1 piglets survived longer than 5 months |
| –Severe disease symptoms may be too rapid for interventional testing | |
| –Unknown ability to access model |
Outline of advantages and disadvantages of using NHPs as animal models for HD
| Neuroanatomy, neurocircuitry and genetics are very similar to humans; long lifespan (∼35 years). | Long gestation (6 months), typically with singleton births. |
| Gyrencephalic brains with large cortices, striata –large, divided into separate caudate + putamen. | CAG repeat length in macaques is ∼10 compared to ∼35 in human patients. |
| Similar developmental stages and social structure to humans. | Expensive to generate, house, and maintain, including special housing and veterinary staff. |
| Highly visual and use facial expressions to communicate socio-emotional states | Macaques are quadrupeds and so gate and balance are dissimilar to those of humans. |
| Similar endocrine function to humans (monthly menstrual cycles and 24-hour hormone cycles). | Training macaques on complex tasks can be timely and dependent on individual temperament variability. |
| Can learn complex motor and cognitive tasks similar to those used evaluate in human patients. | Transgenic and somatic models express short fragments of m |
| Macaques have forearms and digits that allow for testing of fine motor skills. | The majority of HD macaque models have only been generated in limited numbers. |
| HD macaques show progressive development of symptoms that mirror those seen in HDGECs. | mHTT in AAV somatic models is only expressed in specific brain regions, versus throughout the entire body. |
| Primary outcome measures used in clinical trials, including the motor UHDRS and volumetric changes via MRI, are affected in most NHP models | In somatic and transgenic models, NHPs express 2 copies of endogenous HTT, not replicating the genetics of human HD. |
| Gene dysregulation, cell loss, gliosis, regional brain atrophy and inclusion formation evident in HD NHP models. | Rhesus macaques carry zoonotics that are harmful if transmitted to humans |
| Somatic models allow for freedom in model design: viral serotype, viral promoter and dose | Neither transgenic nor viral-mediated models have been used to date to screen therapeutics for HD. |
| The majority of HD macaque models to date have been created and maintained in the US, making them accessible via collaboration (OHSU for AAV somatic NHPs and Emory University for transgenic NHPs). | Somatic models have only been generated in adult macaques, which do not accurately model human HD wherein mHTT is expressed from birth. |
Summary of current efforts for development and use of large HD animal models
| Model /Type | PI/Institute | Creation Technology | Species | Status | References |
| OVT73 Transgenic m | Snell (Auckland U.) | Embryo DNA microinjection/transgenesis | Merino sheep | Model delivered, phenotyping | [ |
| OVT73 Transgenic m | Aronin/Gray-Edwards (UMASS) | Merino sheep | HTT lowering and biomarker testing | [ | |
| OVT73 Transgenic m | Morton (Cambridge U.) | Merino sheep | Biomarker discovery - cognition and EEG | [ | |
| OVT73 Transgenic m | BioMarin | Merino sheep | Biomarker discovery and HTT lowering | Personal communication Sundeep Chandra, BioMarin | |
| Knock-in m | Snell (Auckland U.) | Gene editing | Texel/dorset sheep | Model creation | Personal communication Russ Snell, Auckland U. |
| Transgenic m | Motlik/Ellederova (IAPG) | Lentiviral-mediated transgenesis | Libechov minipig | Model delivered, breeding, baseline phenotyping | [ |
| Transgenic m | Konstatinova (uniQure/IAPG) | Libechov minipig | Biomarker discovery and HTT lowering | [ | |
| KI-HD-85Q Knock-in m | Exemplar Genetics | AAV-mediated homologous recombination and SCNT | Libechov minipig | Model delivered | D. Howland, CHDI |
| KI-HD-85Q Knock-in m | Motlik/Ellederova (IAPG) | Libechov minipig | Cohort expansion and baseline phenotyping | D. Howland, CHDI | |
| KI-HD-150Q Knock-in m | Li (Emory U.) | CRISPR gene editing/SCNT | Chinese minipig | Baseline phenotyping | [ |
| AAV-m | Mcbride (OHSU) | Somatic viral transduction | Rhesus macaque | Model creation, phenotyping, biofluid and imaging biomarker discovery | [ |
| Transgenic m | Chan (Emory) | Lentiviral-mediated transgenesis | Rhesus macaque | Phenotyping and imaging biomarker discovery | [ |
| Knock-in m | Feng (MIT) | Gene editing | Marmoset | Model creation | Personal communication Guoping Feng, MIT |
| Knock-in m | Hennebold (OHSU) | Gene editing | Rhesus macaque | Model creation | Personal communication Jon Hennebold, OHSU |
| AAV-m | Okano (Keio U.) | Gene editing | Marmoset | Model creation | Personal communication Hideyuki Okano, Keio U. |