Regulators of chromatin dynamics and transcription are increasingly implicated in the aetiology of neurodevelopmental disorders. Haploinsufficiency of EHMT1, encoding a histone methyltransferase, is associated with several neurodevelopmental disorders, including Kleefstra syndrome, developmental delay and autism spectrum disorder. Using a mouse model of Ehmt1 haploinsufficiency (Ehmt1 D6Cre/+), we examined a number of brain and behavioural endophenotypes of relevance to neurodevelopmental disorders. Specifically, we show that Ehmt1 D6Cre/+ mice have deficits in information processing, evidenced by abnormal sensory-motor gating, a complete absence of object recognition memory, and a reduced magnitude of auditory evoked potentials in both paired-pulse inhibition and mismatch negativity. The electrophysiological experiments show that differences in magnitude response to auditory stimulus were associated with marked reductions in total and evoked beta- and gamma-band oscillatory activity, as well as significant reductions in phase synchronisation. The pattern of electrophysiological deficits in Ehmt1 D6Cre/+ matches those seen in control mice following administration of the selective NMDA-R antagonist, ketamine. This, coupled with reduction of Grin1 mRNA expression in Ehmt1 D6Cre/+ hippocampus, suggests that Ehmt1 haploinsufficiency may lead to disruption in NMDA-R. Taken together, these data indicate that reduced Ehmt1 dosage during forebrain development leads to abnormal circuitry formation, which in turn results in profound information processing deficits. Such information processing deficits are likely paramount to our understanding of the cognitive and neurological dysfunctions shared across the neurodevelopmental disorders associated with EHMT1 haploinsufficiency.
Regulators of chromatin dynamics and transcription are increasingly implicated in the aetiology of neurodevelopmental disorders. Haploinsufficiency of EHMT1, encoding a histone methyltransferase, is associated with several neurodevelopmental disorders, including Kleefstra syndrome, developmental delay and autism spectrum disorder. Using a mouse model of Ehmt1 haploinsufficiency (Ehmt1 D6Cre/+), we examined a number of brain and behavioural endophenotypes of relevance to neurodevelopmental disorders. Specifically, we show that Ehmt1 D6Cre/+ mice have deficits in information processing, evidenced by abnormal sensory-motor gating, a complete absence of object recognition memory, and a reduced magnitude of auditory evoked potentials in both paired-pulse inhibition and mismatch negativity. The electrophysiological experiments show that differences in magnitude response to auditory stimulus were associated with marked reductions in total and evoked beta- and gamma-band oscillatory activity, as well as significant reductions in phase synchronisation. The pattern of electrophysiological deficits in Ehmt1 D6Cre/+ matches those seen in control mice following administration of the selective NMDA-R antagonist, ketamine. This, coupled with reduction of Grin1 mRNA expression in Ehmt1 D6Cre/+ hippocampus, suggests that Ehmt1 haploinsufficiency may lead to disruption in NMDA-R. Taken together, these data indicate that reduced Ehmt1 dosage during forebrain development leads to abnormal circuitry formation, which in turn results in profound information processing deficits. Such information processing deficits are likely paramount to our understanding of the cognitive and neurological dysfunctions shared across the neurodevelopmental disorders associated with EHMT1 haploinsufficiency.
Post-translational modifiers of histone proteins influence chromatin dynamics
and transcriptional regulation throughout development and are essential for
the highly choreographed processes of lineage commitment and differentiation
during neurodevelopment (Hirabayashi and Gotoh, 2010; Tyssowski et al., 2014). Perhaps
unsurprisingly, exome sequencing studies and pathway analyses of genome wide
association studies implicate genes encoding chromatin and transcriptional
regulators in the aetiology of autism spectrum disorders (De Rubeis et al.,
2014; Yuen
et al., 2017), schizophrenia (Network and Pathway Analysis Subgroup of
the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium, 2015) and severe
developmental disorders (Deciphering Developmental Disorders Study, 2017; Singh et al.,
2016). One such gene, implicated in several neurodevelopmental
and neuropsychiatric disorders (Talkowski et al., 2012), is
EHMT1, which encodes the histone H3 lysine 9 mono-
and di-methyltransferase G9a-like protein (GLP).Haploinsufficiency of EHMT1 is the primary cause of the 9q34
subtelomeric-deletion syndrome, also known as Kleefstra syndrome (Kleefstra et al.,
2005, 2006), a condition associated with intellectual disabilities,
epilepsy, childhood hypotonia, facial dysmorphism, microcephaly, delays in
reaching developmental milestones and behavioural problems such as
aggressive outbursts and hypoactivity. Furthermore, analysis of copy number
variants (CNVs) (Cooper
et al., 2011) and a large exome sequencing study (Deciphering
Developmental Disorders Study, 2017) have linked de novo
mutations affecting EHMT1 to severe developmental delay
more generally. Finally, CNVs spanning EHMT1 have also been
associated with autism spectrum disorder (O’Roak et al., 2012) and
schizophrenia (Kirov et
al., 2012).The importance of Ehmt1 in brain function is supported by data
from animal models that demonstrate a range of behaviour changes reminiscent
of neurodevelopmental disorders including exploration and/or anxiety
phenotypes (Balemans et
al., 2010; Schaefer et al., 2009), and abnormal learning and memory
(Balemans et al.,
2013; Benevento et al., 2017; Iacono et al., 2018; Kramer et al.,
2011). More recently, studies using rodent neuronal cultures
and ex vivo slices (Benevento et al., 2016), and human
induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSCs) (Frega et al., 2019), have shown
that appropriate expression of EHMT1 is required for the
correct establishment and function neuronal networks. In human iPSCs, this
neuronal network dysfunction is driven by the abnormal expression of
GRIN1 expression and enhanced NMDA-R signalling
(Frega et al.,
2019).Here, we explore endophenotypes of relevance to psychiatric problems seen in
those carrying mutation of EHMT1, using a mouse model of
Ehmt1 haploinsufficiency
(Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice). In order to reduce
anatomical complexity and allow a more precise focus on the impact of
Ehmt1 haploinsufficiency during development, on later
behavioural and neurophysiological parameters, we generated a
forebrain-specific Ehmt1 knockout mouse. Cre recombination
was driven under the D6 promoter of the Dach1 gene limiting
Ehmt1 heterozygous deletion to the forebrain,
starting at embryonic stage 10.5 in the cortical vesicles (Van Den Bout et al.,
2002; Machon et al., 2002). Specifically, we find deficits in
sensory motor-gating and novel object recognition (NOR), and decreased
anxiety. We then build upon recent in vitro and ex
vivo evidence of abnormal neuronal networks and show a
reduction in the magnitude of auditory evoked potentials in paired-pulse
inhibition and mismatch negativity (MMN), providing in vivo
electrophysiological evidence of an impairment in information processing in
the Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice. Gene expression data and
pharmacological manipulation support the general idea that abnormal NMDA-R
signalling in Ehmt1D6Cre/+ adult mouse
contributing to the sensory-motor gating and information processing
deficits.
Materials and methods
Animals
All procedures were conducted in accordance with the requirements of the
UK Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, with additional ethical
approval at Cardiff University.In order to generate experimental cohorts,
Ehmt1fl/fl (Schaefer et al., 2009) male
studs were paired in trios with one homozygous females carrying two
copies of the Tg(Dach1-cre)1Krs/Kctt Cre transgene, maintained on a
F1(C57BL/6J x CBA/Ca) background; and one wild-type F1(C57BL/6J x
CBA/Ca) female. The Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mouse
model was used in order to limit the effects of the deletion to the
forebrain and hippocampus only and confounding effects of the non-CNS
phenotypes, such as obesity (Balemans et al., 2010).
Experimental cohorts were reared together and then weaned into mixed
cages (2–5 per cage) of Ehmt1D6cre/+
(experimental line) and Ehmt1fl/+ mice
(control line). All experimental subjects were male mice, and aged
between 4 and 6 months during behavioural testing. A subset of the
behavioural cohort was subsequently used in the electrophysiology
experiments (7–8 months). Animals were housed 12-h-light/12-h-dark
(lights on at 7 a.m.), and standard laboratory diet and water were
available ad libitum throughout testing. Experimenters were blind to
the genotype of animals during behavioural testing.
Behaviour
All animals were initially subject to sensory-motor gating testing
(Ehmt1fl/+, n = 25;
Ehmt1D6cre/+ mice, n = 31). A subset
of these was then subsequently tested on the rotor-rod
(Ehmt1fl/+, n = 9;
Ehmt1D6cre/+ mice, n = 18) and then
elevated plus maze (EPM) and open field (OF). The remainder of the
animals were subsequently tested on the NOR memory test
(Ehmt1fl/+ mice, n = 16;
Ehmt1D6cre/+ mice, n = 13).
Sensory-motor gating
Acoustic startle response (ASR) and prepulse inhibition (PPI) of
the startle response were monitored using an SR-Lab apparatus
(San Diego Instruments, San Diego, USA) modified for use in
mice, according to published methods (McNamara et al.,
2016). Briefly, animals were placed in a Perspex tube
(internal diameter of 35 mm) and white noise stimuli were
presented via a speaker. The amount of movement relayed as their
startle response was measured as a piezoelectric measure
converted to arbitrary startle units. The measurement used was
the maximum startle (Vmax). Due to the effect of weight on this
reflex movement measurement, all data were normalised for
individual body weight. Pulse-alone trials consisted of a 40-ms
120-dB startle stimulus and a prepulse trial consisted of a
20 ms prepulse at 4, 8, or 16 dB above background and a 40-ms
120-dB startle stimulus, 70 ms after the prepulse. The stimuli
were presented in a pseudorandom manner every 15 s. Whole body
startle responses were recorded as the average startle during a
65-ms window timed from the onset of the startle pulse.Percentage PPI score for each trial was calculated:
(%PPI = 100 × (ASRstartle pulse alone − ASRprepulse + startle
pulse)/ASRstartle pulse alone).
Rotarod testing
A rotarod task (Ugo Basile, Italy) was used to assess motor
learning and co-ordination. This consisted of a rotating rod
30 mm in diameter, with five separated chambers 57 mm in width,
with a rod elevation of 160 mm. Motor learning was assessed
across six rotarod sessions; one morning session and one evening
session, on three consecutive days. The rod speed accelerated
incrementally from 5–50 r/min across the 300 s session. The main
measure during training was latency to first fall. However, if
the mice fell, they were continuously replaced on the rotating
rod, until the full 300 s-session was over in order to prevent
any confounds from arising from overall differences in time
spent on the rotarod across sessions. In a separate test session
on day four, the mice were given one 300 sec session at 10, 20,
30, 40, and 50 r/min consecutively in one morning session in
order to assess motor coordination. Again, the latency to first
fall was recorded for each animal at each speed.
NOR memory
The NOR test arena was a square 30 cm × 30 cm with 30 cm high,
white Perspex walls. Four different, non-displaceable objects
were used. All objects were white and selected for their equal
appeal and available in triplicate to avoid the use of olfactory
cues. In the habituation phase, 24 h prior to the task, each
subject was allowed to explore the arena for 10 min in the
absence of objects. In the acquisition phase, the subject was
returned to the arena containing two identical sample objects
(A, A’) and given 10 min to explore. After a retention phase,
consisting of 15 or 90 min, the subject was returned to the
arena with two objects, one identical to the sample and the
other novel (A, B). During both the familiarisation and test
phases, objects were located adjacent corners of the arena. The
location of the novel object was counterbalanced. To prevent
coercion to explore the objects, the subject was released in a
third corner. Objects were cleaned with 70% ethanol wipes
between sessions and object selection was randomised.The main measure used was the Recognition Index (RI), indicating
whether the animal investigated the novel object more than
chance. This was calculated by the percentage of time spent
investigating the novel object relative to the total object
investigation
(RI = TN/(TN + TF) × 100). An
RI significantly above chance or 50% indicates recognition of
novelty and an RI equal to or below 50% indicates either no
preference for the novelty or no recognition of novelty. Other
parameters recorded were overall time spent with each object,
and frequency of visits to the zones containing an object. Data
were collected in 1-min time bins across the 10-min session by a
camera linked to a computer with EthoVision Observer software
(Noldus, Nottingham, UK).
Electrophysiology
Adult male Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice (n = 7) and
Ehmt1fl/+ control cage-mates (n = 7)
at 6–7 months of age were anesthetised with 2% isoflurane for
stereotaxic electrode implantation. The electrode configuration used
two bilateral frontal electrodes, one monopolar and one bipolar
(2.7 mm anterior, 1.5 mm lateral, 1.2-deep relative to bregma); two
bilateral hippocampal electrodes, one monopolar and one bipolar
(2.7 mm posterior, 3 mm lateral, 2.2 mm deep relative to bregma); and
one bipolar electrode in the auditory cortex (2.7 mm posterior, 4 mm
lateral, 1.1-deep relative to bregma) as has been previously reported
(Ehrlichman
et al., 2008; Siegel et al., 2003) (for
further details see Supplementary Figure 1). Due to animal loss, a
subset of these was used in the MMN study;
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice (n = 5) and
Ehmt1fl/+ control cage-mates
(n = 5).Event-related potentials (ERPs) were obtained by averaging
electroencephalography (EEG) traces centred at times 0 and 500 ms to
0 μV, respectively. For each trial, power was calculated using a
complex Morlet wavelets w(t, f0) (Kronland-Martinet et al.,
1987). The script used can be found at https://www.physics.lancs.ac.uk/research/nbmphysics/diats/tfr/.
The wavelets have a Gaussian shape in the time domain (SD σt) and in
the frequency domain (SD σt) around its central frequency ƒ0: w(t,
f0) = A * exp(−t2/2 σt2) * exp(2iπf0t) with σf = 1/πσt. The wavelet
family we used was defined by f0/σf = 1, with f0 ranging from 0.5 to
100 Hz in logarithmically distributed frequency steps (for full
details, see Materials and Methods in Supplementary Information).Auditory stimuli were generated using Spike2, version 7.2, and a
Power1401 interface (CED, Cambridge, UK). Auditory stimulus was
delivered with speakers positioned directly in front of each recording
cage. Each mouse received an auditory, paired-pulse session and two
sessions of MMN.
Paired pulse
Following Halene et al. (2009), each mouse received an
auditory, paired-pulse session in which a single tone was
presented at 1500 Hz and 90 dB (S1) followed by a 500-ms
intra-trial interval and a second tone at 1500 Hz and 90 dB
(S2). The tones were sinusoidal and 10 ms in duration. The
inter-pulse interval between the two tones was 10 s. Each mouse
received 1250 paired-pulse trials per recording session.
Mismatch negativity
The mice also received two sessions of the MMN protocol. Similar to
Ehrlichman et al. (2008), the mice received 24
‘standard’ tones at 90 dB and 1500 Hz and one ‘deviant’ tone at
90 dB and 2000 Hz. All tones were sinusoidal and 10 ms in
duration and the intra-pulse interval between the 25 tones was
500 ms, while the inter-trial interval was 5 s. Each mouse was
recorded for 360 trials in each of two sessions. In one session,
10 mg/kg of ketamine was administered, and in the second
session, an equal volume of saline was administered. The dosage
of ketamine was chosen based on previous work (Ehrlichman
et al., 2008; Siegel et al., 2003).
The within group design was counterbalanced by genotype and the
order in which ketamine or saline sessions were administered.
All recordings took place 5 min after intraperitoneal injections
of either 10 mg/kg ketamine or the volume equivalent dose of
saline. The waveform channels were filtered between 1 and
500 Hz.
Gene expression
RNA was extracted from macrodissected hippocampi using the RNeasy micro
kit (Qiagen) following the manufacturer instructions. A 96-well
RT2 Custom Profiler PCR Array (CAPM12608, Qiagen,
Manchester, UK) for mice was used. The custom genes list was generated
based on GLP targets identified in the literature and tissue-specific
relevance. For the qPCR array 1 μg of total RNA was used and
manufacturer instructions were followed, for cDNA synthesis –
RT2 First Strand Kit (Qiagen) and for the RT-PCR
reaction – RT2 SYBR Green ROX qPCR Matermix (Qiagen). The
average Ct values across the three housekeeping genes B2m,
B-actin and Gapdh were used as
endogenous controls. ΔCt values were generated by normalising to the
geometric mean of the Ct values for these three housekeeping genes.
All individual reactions were carried out in triplicate. Real-time
qPCR data were visualised using the ΔΔCt method (Livak and Schmittgen,
2001).
Statistics
All data were analysed using SPSS 20 (SPSS, Armonk, NJ, USA). The
statistical differences between groups were analysed using independent
samples t-tests, ANOVAs, or where appropriate Repeated Measures ANOVA
(RP-ANOVAs). The main between-subject factor was GENOTYPE
(Ehmt1fl/+ controls or
Ehmt1D6Cre/+). The following
within-subject factors were also analysed: TRIAL (Startle trial);
PREPULSE (4, 8 or 16 dB); SESSION and SPEED (rotarod); PULSE (standard
or deviant in the MMN). To check for normal distribution, Mauchly’s
test of sphericity of the covariance matrix or Levene’s test for
equality of variances were applied. The more conservative Huynh–Feldt
corrections, with adjusted degrees of freedom are reported in cases in
which test assumptions were violated. Non-parametric analyses were as
follows. For the NOR task, the binomial distribution one-sample
Kolmogorov–Smirnov (KS) test was applied to determine whether average
RIs or SIs were significantly above chance (above 50%). For analysis
of N1 amplitude, Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used. Statistical tests on
the electrophysiological time-frequency data were performed using the
permutation method with <1000 iterations (Westfall and Young, 1993)
(see Materials and Methods in Supplementary Information for full details). For all
comparisons, alpha value was set at p < 0.05.
Results
Impaired sensory-motor gating in
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mouse
The ASR and PPI of this response, were used to examine sensory-motor
function in the Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice. Over
the course of six consecutive auditory pulse (120 dB) startle trials,
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice had, on average,
twice the startle response compared to
Ehmt1fl/+ mice (Figure 1(a); ANOVA, main
effect of GENOTYPE, F1,53 = 6.86, p = 0.01). A significant
interaction between GENOTYPE and TRIAL (F3.87,201.0 = 2.48,
p = 0.03) indicated different patterns of startle reactivity and
habituation relative to Ehmt1fl/+ mice.
Post hoc analysis revealed that there was an equivalent startle
response to the initial trial between genotypes
(p = 0.68), but on average
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice showed a
significantly enhanced startle response in all consecutive trials
(trial 2, p = 0.05; trial 3,
p = 0.01; trial 4, p = 0.001; trial
5, p = 0.01; and trial 6,
p = 0.02).
Figure 1.
Sensory-motor gating, and motor learning and coordination.
(a) The startle response after six consecutive 120-dB
pulse stimulations show
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice
(n = 31) had a significantly higher overall maximum
startle response in all trials. (b) Prepulse inhibition of
the startle response generally increased with the
increasing volume of the prepulse as expected. However,
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ displayed a
20%–40% reduction in PPI of startle relative to
Ehmt1Fl/+ mice (n = 25).
(c) Both Ehmt1Fl/+ (n = 9) and
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice
(n = 18) improved motor ability on the rotarod as
evidenced by an increase in latency to fall across 6
training sessions. There was no also difference in
genotype during training. (d) In a probe test, where
rotarod speed accelerated throughout the session, there
was a general decrease in the latency to fall as the speed
increased, but again no difference between genotypes. Data
are mean ± SEM, or box plots showing median (solid line),
mean (dotted line) and 10th, 25th, 75th and 90th
percentiles. * represents main effect of GENOTYPE
p < 0.05; ## represents main effect of within-subject
factor (TRIAL, PREPULSE, SESSION or SPEED).
Sensory-motor gating, and motor learning and coordination.
(a) The startle response after six consecutive 120-dB
pulse stimulations show
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice
(n = 31) had a significantly higher overall maximum
startle response in all trials. (b) Prepulse inhibition of
the startle response generally increased with the
increasing volume of the prepulse as expected. However,
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ displayed a
20%–40% reduction in PPI of startle relative to
Ehmt1Fl/+ mice (n = 25).
(c) Both Ehmt1Fl/+ (n = 9) and
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice
(n = 18) improved motor ability on the rotarod as
evidenced by an increase in latency to fall across 6
training sessions. There was no also difference in
genotype during training. (d) In a probe test, where
rotarod speed accelerated throughout the session, there
was a general decrease in the latency to fall as the speed
increased, but again no difference between genotypes. Data
are mean ± SEM, or box plots showing median (solid line),
mean (dotted line) and 10th, 25th, 75th and 90th
percentiles. * represents main effect of GENOTYPE
p < 0.05; ## represents main effect of within-subject
factor (TRIAL, PREPULSE, SESSION or SPEED).As expected, increasing the prepulse volume led to a linear increase in
the inhibition of the startle in both groups (Figure 1(b); ANOVA, main
effect of PREPULSE, F1.49,80.35 = 73.26,
p = 0.001). However, there was a 20%–40% PPI
reduction in the Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice
relative to Ehmt1fl/+ cage-mates (Figure 1(b);
ANOVA main effect of GENOTYPE, F1,54 = 5.54, p = 0.022),
suggesting that, in addition to an enhanced startle response, the
mutant mice were also impaired in the normal PPI response
Normal motor function in the Ehmt1D6Cre/+
mouse
Altered sensory-motor gating in Ehmt1D6Cre/+
mice was not due to any gross deficits in motoric competence. Training
on the rotarod test indicated normal learning with repeated sessions,
with latency to fall reducing across training sessions (Figure 1(c);
ANOVA, main effect of SESSION, F5,130 = 21.33,
p < 0.001), but there was no difference in GENOTYPE
(F1,26 = 0.12, p = 0.73) and no interaction between
training SESSION and GENOTYPE (F5,130 = 0.67, p = 0.65).
Moreover, in an accelerating rotarod probe test of motor coordination,
latency to fall decreased as the speed increased (Figure 1(d); ANOVA, main
effect of SPEED, F4,104 = 38.38, p < 0.001), but there
was no difference between GENOTYPE (F1, 26 = 0.67,
p = 0.42) or interaction between SPEED and GENOTYPE
(F4,104 = 0.65, p = 0.63).
Reduced anxiety in the Ehmt1D6Cre/+
mouse
A number of measures in the elevated plus maze and open field tests
indicated that Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice have a
reduced anxiety phenotypes. On the EPM (Figure 2(a) and (b)),
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice spent on average
twice as long as Ehmt1Fl/+ cage-mates on
the open-arm (t26 = −2.08, p = 0.04) and made on average
40% more entries into the open arm of EPM more than controls, although
this did not reach statistical significance (t26 = −1.52,
p = 0.14). On the OF test (Figure 2(c) and (d)),
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice made on average
25% more entries in the inner zone of the OF (t26 = −3.21,
p = 0.004) and spent 50% more time in the inner zone than
Ehmt1Fl/+ mice, although this did
not reach statistical significance (t26 = −1.86,
p = 0.07).
Figure 2.
Behaviour in the elevated plus maze and open field. On the
EPM, Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice
(n = 17) showed a pattern of behaviour consistent with
reduced anxiety relative to
Ehmt1Fl/+ mice (n = 9),
including increased open arm entries (a) and increased
time on time on the open arm (b), although only the latter
was statistically different from controls. Convergent
evidence of a reduced anxiety phenotype was seen in the OF
test. Here, Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice
made significantly more entries into the centre of the OF
(c) and spent more time in the inner zone (d), although
this did not reach significance. Box plots showing median
(solid line), mean (dashed line) and 10th, 25th, 75th and
90th percentiles. * represents main effect of GENOTYPE
p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Behaviour in the elevated plus maze and open field. On the
EPM, Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice
(n = 17) showed a pattern of behaviour consistent with
reduced anxiety relative to
Ehmt1Fl/+ mice (n = 9),
including increased open arm entries (a) and increased
time on time on the open arm (b), although only the latter
was statistically different from controls. Convergent
evidence of a reduced anxiety phenotype was seen in the OF
test. Here, Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice
made significantly more entries into the centre of the OF
(c) and spent more time in the inner zone (d), although
this did not reach significance. Box plots showing median
(solid line), mean (dashed line) and 10th, 25th, 75th and
90th percentiles. * represents main effect of GENOTYPE
p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Impaired NOR in Ehmt1D6Cre/+
mouse
The NOR task takes advantage of the preference of rodents to attend to
new objects in their environment as a means for testing declarative
memory (Antunes and
Biala, 2012). Here, two inter-trial intervals were used:
half of the cohort was examined following a 15-min delay between the
initial object exposure and the test trial, and half the cohort was
examined after a 90-min delay. In the test phase, as expected the
Ehmt1fl/+ control mice explored the
novel object significantly more than chance (50%) in both the 15-min
and 90-min retention trials (Figure 3; Kolmogorov–Smirnov
test (KS), 15 min, 60%, p = 0. 02; 90 min retention trial, 67%,
p = 0.002). However, exploration of the novel object by
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice was not
significantly above chance, at either 15-min (52%, p = 0.97) or 90-min
retention trial (50%, p = 0.44).
Figure 3.
Novel object recognition. In both the 15-min and 90-min
retention tests of the NOR task
Ehmt1fl/+ control mice
(n = 16) explored the novel object more than chance.
However, exploration of the novel object by
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice
(n = 13) was not significantly above chance, for either
the 15- or 90-min retention trials indicating a deficit in
declarative memory. Data are box plots showing median
(solid line), mean (dotted line) and 10th, 25th, and 75th
and 90th percentiles (dots represent 5th and 95th
percentile). * represents main effect of GENOTYPE
p < .05; ** p < .01.
Novel object recognition. In both the 15-min and 90-min
retention tests of the NOR task
Ehmt1fl/+ control mice
(n = 16) explored the novel object more than chance.
However, exploration of the novel object by
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice
(n = 13) was not significantly above chance, for either
the 15- or 90-min retention trials indicating a deficit in
declarative memory. Data are box plots showing median
(solid line), mean (dotted line) and 10th, 25th, and 75th
and 90th percentiles (dots represent 5th and 95th
percentile). * represents main effect of GENOTYPE
p < .05; ** p < .01.This difference at test was not due to differences during the habituation
phase, as indicated by overall exploration time of the object that was
replaced by a novel object at test
(Ehmt1fl/+ mean = 114 s, ± SEM = 15;
Ehmt1D6Cre/+
mean = 113 s ± SEM = 12; ANOVA, no main effect of GENOTYPE,
F1,28 = 0.031, p = 0.86).
Electrophysiological measurements of paired-pulse auditory evoked
potentials
In order to gain an insight into the neural changes underpinning the
deficits in sensory-motor gating seen in
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice, we used
electrophysiological methods. A subset of the behavioural cohort was
then subject to EEG recording to measure auditory evoked potentials
(AEPs). AEPs are voltage fluctuations time-locked to an auditory event
used for brain dysfunction clinical diagnosis (Luck et al., 2011). We used
a paired-pulse paradigm in which two pulses were delivered
back-to-back with a 500-ms interval between the first stimulus (S1)
and the second stimulus (S2) (Figure 4(a)). The grand
average waveforms show a stereotypic maximal positive deflection (P1)
and maximal negative deflection (N1) (Figure 4(b1)).
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice had a nearly
twofold lower N1 amplitude response after the S1 (Figure 4(b1)) but not after
S2 (Figure
4(b2)). In addition,
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice had a significant
reduction in the S2/S1 ratio for the N1 component (Wilcoxon, rank
sum = 64, p = 0.018), what is considered an electrophysiological
measurement of sensory gating (Figure 4(c)). During peak
activation of the paired-pulse experiment we observed an increase in
total power across high-frequency bands from 10–100 Hz in both groups
of mice (Figure
4(d1) and (d2)). The difference
time-frequency plot and the permutation test between
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ and
Ehmt1fl/+ control mice however,
revealed that the distributed peak that occurred approximately 40 ms
after the S1 pulse, a time corresponding with the N1, was
significantly greater in the beta (13–30 Hz) and gamma (30–70 Hz)
frequency bands in the Ehmt1fl/+ control
mice (Figure
4(g1) and (g2)). The late (>200 ms
after the S1 pulse) decrease in the delta frequency band (~4 Hz)
prominent in Ehmt1fl/+ (Figure
4(d1)–(g1)) was not different from
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ (Figure 4(g2)).
Figure 4.
AEP paired-pulse measurements. (a) Schematic showing the
paired-pulse stimulus paradigm. (b1) Grand average ERP
waveform after pulse 1 (S1) in
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ (red)
and Ehmt1fl/+ (black).
The P1 and N1 components are indicated on the waveform.
(b2) The waveforms for pulse 2 (S2); (c) N1 amplitude for
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ (n = 7) and
Ehmt1fl/+ (n = 7) mice.
(d1 and d2) Normalised total power (in time-frequency
plot) of both S1 (time 0) and S2 (time 500 ms) for
Ehmt1fl/+ (d1) and
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ (d2). Note
the early increase in the beta/gamma range (10–100 Hz) and
the late decrease in the delta range (~4 Hz) and the
reduction of both components in the
Ehmt1D6Cre/+. (e1 and
e2) Evoked power time-frequency plots for the same data
set; (f1 and f2) phase locking factor for the same data
set; (g1) difference of total power between
Ehmt1fl/+ and
Ehmt1D6Cre/+; (g2)
Statistical significance heat map based on permutation
tests of total power are indicated by the colour scale
(p < 0.05); (h1) difference of evoked power between
Ehmt1fl/+ and
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice; and
(h2) statistical significance between evoked power of
Ehmt1fl/+ and
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice
(spurious spots above 50 Hz are due to occasional 50 Hz
noise contamination in some of the recordings). Data shown
as mean ± SEM.
AEP paired-pulse measurements. (a) Schematic showing the
paired-pulse stimulus paradigm. (b1) Grand average ERP
waveform after pulse 1 (S1) in
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ (red)
and Ehmt1fl/+ (black).
The P1 and N1 components are indicated on the waveform.
(b2) The waveforms for pulse 2 (S2); (c) N1 amplitude for
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ (n = 7) and
Ehmt1fl/+ (n = 7) mice.
(d1 and d2) Normalised total power (in time-frequency
plot) of both S1 (time 0) and S2 (time 500 ms) for
Ehmt1fl/+ (d1) and
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ (d2). Note
the early increase in the beta/gamma range (10–100 Hz) and
the late decrease in the delta range (~4 Hz) and the
reduction of both components in the
Ehmt1D6Cre/+. (e1 and
e2) Evoked power time-frequency plots for the same data
set; (f1 and f2) phase locking factor for the same data
set; (g1) difference of total power between
Ehmt1fl/+ and
Ehmt1D6Cre/+; (g2)
Statistical significance heat map based on permutation
tests of total power are indicated by the colour scale
(p < 0.05); (h1) difference of evoked power between
Ehmt1fl/+ and
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice; and
(h2) statistical significance between evoked power of
Ehmt1fl/+ and
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice
(spurious spots above 50 Hz are due to occasional 50 Hz
noise contamination in some of the recordings). Data shown
as mean ± SEM.Measurements of evoked power, EEG power which is phase-locked with the
event onset across trials, demonstrated increases in the delta
(~4 Hz), beta (13–30 Hz) and low gamma (here ~40 Hz) band responses in
both groups of mice approximately ~30–50 ms after the S1 (Figure 4(e1)
and (e2)).
Again, permutation tests revealed a reduction in evoked power in
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice after both the S1
and ~40 ms after the S2 pulse (Figure 4(h1) and (h2)). In
complement, we measured the phase locking factor (PLF), which provide
a measurement of trial-to-trial reliability across the frequency
domain (Goffin et
al., 2014). To extract the PLF, magnitude information is
transformed to 1 and averaged so that the phase angle with respect to
event onset is extracted (Roach and Mathalon, 2008).
Values between zero and one are obtained, in which one reflects
perfect synchrony of phase angles across trials.
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice did not show PLF
values above .17 at any point, while control mice show nearly twofold
PLF synchrony (+.25) at ~40 ms post-S1 pulse, between ~20 and 40 Hz.
Overall Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice demonstrated
reduced PLF (Figure
4(f1) and (f2)).
Electrophysiological measurements of MMN AEPs
The MMN response is elicited when a qualitative feature of the stimulus
does not match the pattern in a previous series (Light and Braff, 2005)
(Figure
5(a)). One core feature of MMN is the importance of NMDA
receptor function. For instance, non-competitive NMDA-R antagonists,
like ketamine and the selective antagonist of the NR2B NMDA subunit,
CP-101,606 reduce MMN amplitude (Sivarao et al., 2014), the
level of which predicts the magnitude of psychotic experiences in
response to these drugs (Umbricht et al., 2002).
Therefore, in order to probe this function further here, mice were
given either saline or 10 mg/kg of ketamine prior to the MMN test.
Figure 5.
AEP mismatch negativity phenotypes and NMDA mRNA expression.
(a) Mismatch negativity stimulus. (b) Grand average ERP
waveforms (shaded areas) after the saline or ketamine
conditions in the in Ehmt1fl/+
(n = 5) and Ehmt1D6Cre/+
(n = 5), for the deviant (red) and standard (black) tone
for each condition. (c1 and c2) Time-frequency plot of
evoked power for the standard and deviant pulse in
Ehmt1fl/+ mice after
saline injection. (c3 and c4) Time-frequency plot of
evoked power for the standard and deviant pulse in
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice
following saline injection. (d) N1 amplitude peak
amplitude corresponding to each condition. (e1)
Permutation test showing heat map of p-values for the
difference of distribution between deviant tone maps of
saline treated Ehmt1fl/+ (c2)
and Ehmt1D6Cre/+ (c4). (e2)
Permutation test showing heat map of p-values for the
difference of distribution between deviant tone maps of
ketamine treated Ehmt1fl/+
(c2) and Ehmt1D6Cre/+ (c4).
(f) NMDA-R subunit mRNA expression in hippocampal samples
(Ehmt1fl/+ n = 4,
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ n = 8).
Data shown are mean ± SEM. * represents main effect of
GENOTYPE p < 0.05.
AEP mismatch negativity phenotypes and NMDA mRNA expression.
(a) Mismatch negativity stimulus. (b) Grand average ERP
waveforms (shaded areas) after the saline or ketamine
conditions in the in Ehmt1fl/+
(n = 5) and Ehmt1D6Cre/+
(n = 5), for the deviant (red) and standard (black) tone
for each condition. (c1 and c2) Time-frequency plot of
evoked power for the standard and deviant pulse in
Ehmt1fl/+ mice after
saline injection. (c3 and c4) Time-frequency plot of
evoked power for the standard and deviant pulse in
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice
following saline injection. (d) N1 amplitude peak
amplitude corresponding to each condition. (e1)
Permutation test showing heat map of p-values for the
difference of distribution between deviant tone maps of
saline treated Ehmt1fl/+ (c2)
and Ehmt1D6Cre/+ (c4). (e2)
Permutation test showing heat map of p-values for the
difference of distribution between deviant tone maps of
ketamine treated Ehmt1fl/+
(c2) and Ehmt1D6Cre/+ (c4).
(f) NMDA-R subunit mRNA expression in hippocampal samples
(Ehmt1fl/+ n = 4,
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ n = 8).
Data shown are mean ± SEM. * represents main effect of
GENOTYPE p < 0.05.In saline-treated animals, there was a difference between
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ and
Ehmt1fl/+ mice in response to the
deviant pulse (Figure
5(c)–(d)) as indicated by analysis of the N1 amplitude that
showed an interaction between GENOTYPE and PULSE (repeated measures
ANOVA, F1,8 = 12.70, p = 0.007). In the standard pulse
condition Ehmt1fl/+ mice, amplitude
corresponded to an increase in ~10–40 Hz evoked potential
approximately 30–50 ms post-stimulus (Figure 5(c1)–(c2)). In the
deviant pulse condition, Ehmt1fl/+ mice
not only show an increase in ~10–40 Hz evoked potential, but also one
with greater peak latency, at 40–70 ms post-stimulus (Figure 5(c2)).
In contrast, Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice treated
with saline showed no pattern of change in the amplitude response for
either standard or deviant pulses.However, following 10 mg/kg of ketamine administration, the difference in
the N1 amplitude between the standard and deviant pulse was absent for
both genotypes (Figure 5(b) and (d)), as indicated by a lack
of interaction between GENOTYPE and PULSE (repeated measures ANOVA,
F1,7 = 0.011, p = 0.921). Further analysis underlined
this finding. Permutation tests after saline administration for the
deviant-only condition demonstrates a difference between
Ehmt1fl/+ controls and
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ wavelet transforms, at
30 Hz between 50 and 80 ms post-stimulus (Figure 5(e1)), driven by the
higher amplitude response in the Ehmt1fl/+
control mice. In contrast, after ketamine administration, the
difference in deviant response between
Ehmt1fl/+ controls and
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice was abolished
(Figure
5(e2)).
Altered NMDA-R expression in Ehmt1D6cre/+
mutant mice
In light of similarity in basal Ehmt1D6Cre/+
electrophysiological phenotype and the electrophysiological phenotype
in Ehmt1fl/+ control mice following
ketamine administration, we assessed the NMDA system in
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice. RT qPCR was used
to examine the mRNA levels of NMDA-R subunits Grin1, Grin2a,
Grin2b and Grin2c in the adult
hippocampus. Expression of Grin1, the gene encoding
NMDA NR1 subunit, was significantly reduced by 40% on average in
Ehmt1D6cre/+ mice (Figure 5(f);
t = −3.07, p = 0.014). No difference was seen in expression of other
NMDA-R subunits examined (Figure 5(f)
Grin2a, t = −1.02, p = 0.331;
Grin2b, t = −0.814, p = 0.435; or
Grin2c, t = −0.71, p = 0.498). Furthermore,
there were no genotype differences in AMPA-R subunit gene expression
examined (see Supplementary Figure 4).
Discussion
Recent studies in human genomics strongly implicate a number of genes found to
regulate chromatin dynamics in the aetiology of neurodevelopmental disorders
from developmental delay (Singh et al., 2016), to autism
spectrum disorders (De
Rubeis et al., 2014; Yuen et al., 2017), and
schizophrenia (Network
and Pathway Analysis Subgroup of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium,
2015). EHMT1 is one such gene, associated with
both neurodevelopmental and neuropsychiatric disorders. Here, we examined
behavioural and electrophysiological correlates of information processing in
a mouse model of Ehmt1 haploinsufficiency, specifically in
the forebrain. We found that Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice
have sensorimotor and auditory gating deficits, reduced anxiety, and
learning and memory deficits, in the absence of generic deficits in motor
function. Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice also showed a number
of abnormalities in electrophysiological measurements including a reduced
magnitude of AEPs after paired-pulse inhibition and MMN tasks, reduced
evoked and total power in high-frequency bands, and reduce PLF. Overall,
these data indicate that Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice show
deficits in sensory motor gating and information process, possibly related
to abnormal NMDA-R functioning.Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice displayed decreased anxiety in a
number of measures across a two separate tests, namely, the EPM and OF.
Although these findings in our model were not confounded by impaired motor
competence as indicated by normal behaviour and learning on the rotarod
test, not all measures on both the EPM and OF reached statistical
significance. It may be that a more robust assessment of anxiety in this
model would be achieved using a unified score from a number of separate
measures (Harrison et
al., 2020). Generally, however, these findings of decreased
anxiety are consistent with previous studies of Ehmt1
haploinsufficient models (Balemans et al., 2010; Iacono et al., 2018), although
other models, specifically a CamKII-driven full Ehmt1
deletion shows decreased anxiety (Schaefer et al., 2009). This
indicates that the relationship between Ehmt1 function and
anxiety behaviour probably depends on extent, timing and location of the
genetic lesion.EHMT1 is a risk gene associated with a number of
neurodevelopmental and psychiatric disorders (Talkowski et al., 2012), thus it
was important for this work to focus not only on translational phenotypes
but those that overlap traditional diagnostic boundaries. Several prominent
features shared by these disorders are associated with deficits in attention
and gating, or filtering out intrusive stimuli (Belmonte et al., 2004; Javitt, 2009;
Orekhova et al.,
2008; Perry
et al., 2007). Behaviourally, the
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice showed evidence of this
in an acoustic startle test. Consistent with previous findings in other
Ehmt1 haploinsufficiency models (Balemans et al.,
2013; Iacono et al., 2018), sensory motor gating deficits were
manifest by both a greatly enhanced ASR and a decreased PPI of startle.Information processing deficits are another common phenotype associated with
EHMT1 risk populations. Accordingly,
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice were examined on their
performance in the NOR task, a paradigm where an animal’s ability to
remember a previously encountered object is indicated by an increased
willingness to explore the novel object over the familiar object. The
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice showed no evidence of
NOR, even with only a 15-min interval after habituation. Importantly, this
was not due to reduced interest in exploration or exposure to the familiar
object, as time spent in exploration was equivalent across
Ehmt1fl/+ control and
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mutant mice. Similar to the
acoustic startle and PPI phenotype, deficits in a NOR paradigm have been
seen in other Ehmt1+/− mice (Balemans et al.,
2013; Iacono et al., 2018). This convergence across models and
laboratories suggests that both sensory motor-gating and information
processing deficits are key behavioural features of Ehmt1
haploinsufficiency.Given the robustness of behavioural deficits in sensory motor-gating and
information processing seen in models of Ehmt1
haploinsufficiency, we explored this further by examining
electrophysiological measures of these domains.
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ had reduced N1 amplitude in
response to stimulus 1 (S1). Furthermore,
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice had a significant
reduction in the S2/S1 ratio for the N1 component, an electrophysiological
correlate of sensory gating.Evidence of information processing deficits in the
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice was provided by the
reduced response in a MMN paradigm. The decreased amplitude responses in
these AEP measurements meanwhile corresponded to significant reductions in
total and evoked power in high-frequency bands. Such reductions may be
particularly insightful, as numerous studies report disruptions in
gamma-band activity across neurodevelopment (Kwon et al., 1999; Orekhova et al.,
2008), neuropsychiatric (Tatard-Leitman et al., 2015) and
neurodegenerative diseases (Iaccarino et al., 2016). Whether
reduced gamma activity is actually directly associated with disease
pathologies across these patient populations remains largely unknown.
Recently, however, reductions in gamma-band activity were found to precede
the onset of plaque formations and cognitive decline in a mouse model of
Alzheimer’s disease. Meanwhile, the stimulation of fast-spiking interneurons
in the gamma frequency range (~40 Hz), a way to boost gamma-band activity
(Cardin et al.,
2009), led to the reduction in the plaque forming amyloid
isoforms and attenuated plaque load in ageing mice (Iaccarino et al., 2016). In a
more functional assessment, the induction of long-term potentiation using
high-frequency stimulation (~100 Hz) was found to restore spine density and
long-term memory in early stages of the disease in mice (Roy et al.,
2016). While these findings are specific to Alzheimer’s disease, they
also confirm an important link between gamma synchrony and cognitive
function exists (Fries,
2015). Furthermore, we may find disruptions in high-frequency
oscillation patterns tightly correspond with the degree of cognitive
impairment and range of pathologies across EHMT1 risk
populations.The decreases in high-frequency activity coupled with reduced
Grin1 mRNA are suggestive of overall disruptions in
local connectivity and may hint at more global imbalances in
excitation/inhibition (E/I). Such findings do corroborate previous reports
showing abnormalities in neural development and connectivity in
Ehmt1+/− mouse models (Balemans et al.,
2013, 2014; Benevento et al., 2017), and that
Ehmt1-mediated H3K9me2 levels dynamically regulate synaptic
scaling, thus playing a direct role in the fine balance between excitation
and inhibition at the level of individual neurons (Benevento et al., 2016). And
indeed, many of the Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice phenotypes
are markedly similar to Grin1 mouse mutants (Furuse et al.,
2010). The Grin1neo−/− mice and the
Grin1Rgsc174 heterozygous mice both show
increased stereotypy (Mohn et al., 1999) and deficits in sensorimotor gating (Duncan et al.,
2004). Mice with even subtle reductions in the NR1 receptor are
found to have decreases in MMN (Featherstone et al., 2015),
gamma-band disruptions and reduction in E/I balance (Gandal et al., 2012).
Nevertheless, it is important to note that the studies presented here
represent a change in mRNA and not protein levels and, moreover, only
provide a correlative link between the electrophysiological deficits seen in
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice and
Grin1 reduction. Interestingly however, a recent
study has demonstrated increased Grin1 expression and
NMDA-R hyperactivity in iPSCs derived from Kleefstra syndrome patients
(Frega et al.,
2019). Despite the discrepancies, together these data suggest
that future investigation of Ehmt1 haploinsufficiency may
benefit from further examination of the relationship with the NMDA
system.In summary, Ehmt1D6Cre/+ forebrain-specific
haploinsufficiency produced deficits in sensory-gating and information
processing. Behavioural evidence from explicit tests of sensorimotor gating
and findings from a learning and memory task, suggest that
Ehmt1D6Cre/+ mice do not attend to or
process information in order to inform appropriate behavioural responses.
Neural correlates of these abnormalities were further demonstrated using
electrophysiological studies, which indicated deficits related to
disruptions in local connectivity and NMDA function. Taken together these
data suggest that Ehmt1 haploinsufficiency leads to
abnormal circuit formation and behavioural abnormalities that likely
underpin deficits seen across the broad spectrum of neurodevelopmental and
neuropsychiatric disorders with which EHMT1 is
associated.Click here for additional data file.Supplemental material, Davis_et_al_EPOCH for Impairments in sensory-motor
gating and information processing in a mouse model of Ehmt1
haploinsufficiency by Brittany A Davis, François David, Ciara O’Regan,
Manal A Adam, Adrian J Harwood, Vincenzo Crunelli and Anthony R Isles
in Brain and Neuroscience AdvancesClick here for additional data file.Supplemental material, Davis_et_al_NOR for Impairments in sensory-motor
gating and information processing in a mouse model of Ehmt1
haploinsufficiency by Brittany A Davis, François David, Ciara O’Regan,
Manal A Adam, Adrian J Harwood, Vincenzo Crunelli and Anthony R Isles
in Brain and Neuroscience AdvancesClick here for additional data file.Supplemental material, Davis_et_al_qPCR for Impairments in sensory-motor
gating and information processing in a mouse model of Ehmt1
haploinsufficiency by Brittany A Davis, François David, Ciara O’Regan,
Manal A Adam, Adrian J Harwood, Vincenzo Crunelli and Anthony R Isles
in Brain and Neuroscience AdvancesClick here for additional data file.Supplemental material, Davis_et_al_Rotarod for Impairments in
sensory-motor gating and information processing in a mouse model of
Ehmt1 haploinsufficiency by Brittany A Davis, François David, Ciara
O’Regan, Manal A Adam, Adrian J Harwood, Vincenzo Crunelli and Anthony
R Isles in Brain and Neuroscience AdvancesClick here for additional data file.Supplemental material, Davis_et_al_Startle_and_PPI for Impairments in
sensory-motor gating and information processing in a mouse model of
Ehmt1 haploinsufficiency by Brittany A Davis, François David, Ciara
O’Regan, Manal A Adam, Adrian J Harwood, Vincenzo Crunelli and Anthony
R Isles in Brain and Neuroscience AdvancesClick here for additional data file.Supplemental material, Davis_et_al_Suppl_Info_Revision for Impairments in
sensory-motor gating and information processing in a mouse model of
Ehmt1 haploinsufficiency by Brittany A Davis, François David, Ciara
O’Regan, Manal A Adam, Adrian J Harwood, Vincenzo Crunelli and Anthony
R Isles in Brain and Neuroscience Advances
Authors: T B Halene; R S Ehrlichman; Y Liang; E P Christian; G J Jonak; T L Gur; J A Blendy; H C Dow; E S Brodkin; F Schneider; R C Gur; S J Siegel Journal: Genes Brain Behav Date: 2009-05-08 Impact factor: 3.449
Authors: Hannah F Iaccarino; Annabelle C Singer; Anthony J Martorell; Andrii Rudenko; Fan Gao; Tyler Z Gillingham; Hansruedi Mathys; Jinsoo Seo; Oleg Kritskiy; Fatema Abdurrob; Chinnakkaruppan Adaikkan; Rebecca G Canter; Richard Rueda; Emery N Brown; Edward S Boyden; Li-Huei Tsai Journal: Nature Date: 2016-12-07 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: T Kleefstra; M Smidt; M J G Banning; A R Oudakker; H Van Esch; A P M de Brouwer; W Nillesen; E A Sistermans; B C J Hamel; D de Bruijn; J-P Fryns; H G Yntema; H G Brunner; B B A de Vries; H van Bokhoven Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 6.318
Authors: Gary E Duncan; Sheryl S Moy; Antonio Perez; Dawn M Eddy; Wendy M Zinzow; Jeffrey A Lieberman; John N Snouwaert; Beverly H Koller Journal: Behav Brain Res Date: 2004-08-31 Impact factor: 3.332
Authors: Monique C M Balemans; Manon M H Huibers; Nathalie W D Eikelenboom; Arthur J Kuipers; Rik C J van Summeren; Michael M C A Pijpers; Makoto Tachibana; Yoichi Shinkai; Hans van Bokhoven; Catharina E E M Van der Zee Journal: Behav Brain Res Date: 2009-11-05 Impact factor: 3.332
Authors: G Kirov; A J Pocklington; P Holmans; D Ivanov; M Ikeda; D Ruderfer; J Moran; K Chambert; D Toncheva; L Georgieva; D Grozeva; M Fjodorova; R Wollerton; E Rees; I Nikolov; L N van de Lagemaat; A Bayés; E Fernandez; P I Olason; Y Böttcher; N H Komiyama; M O Collins; J Choudhary; K Stefansson; H Stefansson; S G N Grant; S Purcell; P Sklar; M C O'Donovan; M J Owen Journal: Mol Psychiatry Date: 2011-11-15 Impact factor: 15.992
Authors: Brian J O'Roak; Laura Vives; Santhosh Girirajan; Emre Karakoc; Niklas Krumm; Bradley P Coe; Roie Levy; Arthur Ko; Choli Lee; Joshua D Smith; Emily H Turner; Ian B Stanaway; Benjamin Vernot; Maika Malig; Carl Baker; Beau Reilly; Joshua M Akey; Elhanan Borenstein; Mark J Rieder; Deborah A Nickerson; Raphael Bernier; Jay Shendure; Evan E Eichler Journal: Nature Date: 2012-04-04 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Digavalli V Sivarao; Ping Chen; Yili Yang; Yu-Wen Li; Rick Pieschl; Michael K Ahlijanian Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2014-08-05 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Maya Wilde; Lena Constantin; Peter R Thorne; Johanna M Montgomery; Ethan K Scott; Juliette E Cheyne Journal: J Neurodev Disord Date: 2022-08-30 Impact factor: 4.074
Authors: Mouhamed Alsaqati; Brittany A Davis; Jamie Wood; Megan M Jones; Lora Jones; Aishah Westwood; Olena Petter; Anthony R Isles; David Linden; Marianne Van den Bree; Michael Owen; Jeremy Hall; Adrian J Harwood Journal: Transl Psychiatry Date: 2022-10-10 Impact factor: 7.989