| Literature DB >> 33126897 |
Kyung Ah Han1, Taek Han Yoon1, Jungsu Shin1, Ji Won Um1,2, Jaewon Ko3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent progress in genomics has contributed to the identification of a large number of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) risk genes, many of which encode synaptic proteins. Our understanding of ASDs has advanced rapidly, partly owing to the development of numerous animal models. Extensive characterizations using a variety of behavioral batteries that analyze social behaviors have shown that a subset of engineered mice that model mutations in genes encoding Shanks, a family of excitatory postsynaptic scaffolding proteins, exhibit autism-like behaviors. Although these behavioral assays have been useful in identifying deficits in simple social behaviors, alterations in complex social behaviors remain largely untested.Entities:
Keywords: Autism; Shank2; Shank3; Social cooperation; Social dominance; Tube test
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33126897 PMCID: PMC7602353 DOI: 10.1186/s13229-020-00392-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mol Autism Impact factor: 7.509
Fig. 1Altered social dominance and social cooperative behaviors of Shank mutant mice. a Schematics of tube and social cooperation behavior tests. Left panel: Tube test design. Right panel: Social cooperation test design. b, c Analysis of social dominance of Shank2 mice (b) and Shank3 mice (c). Representative graphs showing comparable win percentages for Shank2 and Shank3 mice and their littermate controls. Data are expressed as means ± SEMs (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001; Mann–Whitney U test). ‘n’ denotes the number of mice analyzed: Ctrl (b), n = 10; Shank2 (b), n = 9; Ctrl (c), n = 11; Shank3 (c), n = 13. d, e Analysis of social cooperation in Shank2 mice (d) and Shank3 mice (e). The performance of Shank2 or Shank3 mice and their WT littermates in social cooperation tests was evaluated. Data are expressed as means ± SEMs (n denotes the number of mouse pairs analyzed; n = 6 (Ctrl, d); n = 7 (Shank2, d); n = 6 (Ctrl, e), n = 10 (Shank3, e); *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ****p < 0.0001; two-way repeated ANOVA). Mutual rewards (Genotype: F(1,9) = 1.583, p = 0.2400; Day: F(3.763, 33.87) = 8.463, p < 0.0001; Genotype x Day: F(11, 99) = 1.171, p = 0.3168, d; Genotype: F(1,14) = 25.52, p = 0.0002; Day: F(4.437, 62.12) = 7.205, p < 0.0001; Genotype x Day: F(11, 154) = 2.641, p = 0.0040, e), efficacy (Genotype: F(1,9) = 0.4601, p = 0.5146; Day: F(3.994,35.94) = 7.386, p = 0.0002; Genotype × Day: F(11,99) = 0.6153, p = 0.8119, d; Genotype: F(1,14) = 23.11, p = 0.0003; Day: F(5.091,71.27) = 5.113, p = 0.0004; Genotype × Day: F(11,154) = 1.969, p = 0.0350, e), latency (Genotype: F(1,9) = 0.04543, p = 0.8360; Day: F(4.166,37.49) = 5.841, p = 0.0008; Genotype × Day: F(11,99) = 0.7166, p = 0.7201, d; Genotype: F(1,14) = 16.28, p = 0.0012; Day: F(6.167,86.33) = 2.484, p = 0.0278; Genotype × Day: F(11,154) = 0.7885, p = 0.6512, e) and activity (Genotype: F(1,9) = 6.947, p = 0.0271; Day: F(3.226,29.04) = 7.820, p = 0.0004; Genotype × Day: F(11,99) = 1.418, p = 0.1766, d; Genotype: F(11,209) = 1.305, p = 0.0031; Day: F(5.485,104.2) = 2.674, p = 0.0220; and Genotype × Day: F(11,209) = 1.305, p = 0.2230, e). See also Additional file 1: Table S1 for summary
Fig. 2Identification of brain regions exhibiting distinct changes in neuronal activity upon social experience stimulation. a Representative images of c-Fos immunostaining in coronal brain sections from the indicated brain regions of control (Ctrl) or the indicated Shank mutant mice. Brain sections were obtained from mice housed in the naïve state or 1.5 h after tube tests or 1.5 h after social cooperation tests. Scale bar: 1 mm. b–g Quantification of activated neurons in the mPFC (ACC, PL and IL), striatum (DMS), nucleus accumbens (NAcc), habenula (MHb and LHb), lateral septum (LS), hippocampus (CA1, CA3 and DG) and periaqueductal gray (PAG) by c-Fos immunostaining in Shank2 (b, d, f) and Shank3 (c, e, g) mice. Both types of Shank mutant mice were compared with their respective WT littermates (Ctrl). (Ctrl/naïve, n = 11–24 slices (3 mice), Shank2/naïve, n = 10–24 slices (3 mice); Ctrl/SD, n = 10–24 slices (4 mice), Shank2/SD, n = 10–24 slices (4 mice); Control/SC, n = 11–24 slices (4 mice), Shank2/SC, n = 9–24 slices (4 mice); Control/naïve, n = 9–13 slices (3 mice), Shank3/naïve, n = 9–16 slices (4 mice); Control/SD, n = 9–24 slices (4 mice), Shank3/SD, n = 11– 24 slices (4 mice); Control/SC, n = 12–24 slices (4 mice); and Shank3/SC, n = 12–24 slices (4 mice); *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001; Mann–Whitney U test). Ctrl versus Shank2/naïve/CA1, p = 0.0845; Ctrl versus Shank2/naïve/CA3, p = 0.6047; Ctrl versus Shank2/naïve/DG, p = 0.2230; Ctrl versus Shank2/naïve/PAG, p = 0.9229; Ctrl versus Shank2/naïve/ACC, p = 0.0222; Ctrl versus Shank2/naïve/PL, p = 0.1987; Ctrl versus Shank2/naïve/IL, p = 0.0008; Ctrl versus Shank2/naïve/DMS, p = 0.0355; Ctrl vs Shank2/naïve/NAcc, p = 0.0218; Ctrl vs Shank2/naïve/LHb, p = 0.0020; Ctrl versus Shank2/naïve/MHb, p = 0.0053; Ctrl versus Shank2/naïve/LS, p = 0.0914; Ctrl versus Shank2/SD/CA1, p = 0.2189; Ctrl versus Shank2/SD/CA3, p = 0.6815; Ctrl versus Shank2/SD/DG, p = 0.0403; Ctrl versus Shank2/SD/PAG, p = 0.0295; Ctrl versus Shank2/SD/ACC, p = 0.6505; Ctrl versus Shank2/SD/PL, p = 0.7399; Ctrl versus Shank2/SD/IL, p = 0.0129; Ctrl versus Shank2/SD/DMS, p = 0.0005; Ctrl versus Shank2/SD/NAcc, p = 0.4492; Ctrl versus Shank2/SD/LHb, p = 0.0464; Ctrl versus Shank2/SD/MHb, p = 0.4567; Ctrl versus Shank2/SD/LS, p = 0.2657; Ctrl versus Shank2/SC/CA1, p = 0.0278; Ctrl versus Shank2/SC/CA3, p = 0.0992; Ctrl versus Shank2/SC/DG, p = 0.0143; Ctrl versus Shank2/SC/PAG, p = 0.0013; Ctrl versus Shank2/SC/ACC, p = 0.0977; Ctrl versus Shank2/SC/PL, p = 0.0134; Ctrl versus Shank2/SC/IL, p = 0.0019; Ctrl versus Shank2/SC/DMS, p = 0.0058; Ctrl versus Shank2/SC/NAcc, p = 0.0003; Ctrl versus Shank2/SC/LHb, p = 0.0098; Ctrl versus Shank2/SC/MHb, p = 0.0482; Ctrl versus Shank2/SC/LS, p = 0.4863; Ctrl versus Shank3/naïve/CA1, p = 0.0093; Ctrl versus Shank3/naïve/CA3, p = 0.0225; Ctrl versus Shank3/naïve/DG, p = 0.5499; Ctrl versus Shank3/naïve/PAG, p = 0.6771; Ctrl versus Shank3/naïve/ACC, p = 0.0877; Ctrl versus Shank3/naïve/PL, p = 0.0214; Ctrl versus Shank3/naïve/IL, p = 0.0915 ; Ctrl versus Shank3/naïve/DMS, p = 0.0225; Ctrl versus Shank3/naïve/NAcc, p = 0.2523; Ctrl versus Shank3/naïve/LHb, p = 0.7103; Ctrl versus Shank3/naïve/MHb, p = 0.3693; Ctrl versus Shank3/naïve/LS, p = 0.9279; Ctrl versus Shank3/SD/CA1, p = 0.1978; Ctrl versus Shank3/SD/CA3, p = 0.1600; Ctrl versus Shank3/SD/DG, p = 0.2189; Ctrl versus Shank3/SD/PAG, p = 0.0006; Ctrl versus Shank3/SD/ACC, p = 0.0018; Ctrl versus Shank3/SD/PL, p = 0.0001; Ctrl versus Shank3/SD/IL, p = 0.0014; Ctrl versus Shank3/SD/DMS, p < 0.0001; Ctrl versus Shank3/SD/NAcc, p = 0.4746; Ctrl versus Shank3/SD/LHb, p = 0.0099; Ctrl versus Shank3/SD/MHb, p = 0.0036; Ctrl versus Shank3/SD/LS, p = 0.0001; Ctrl versus Shank3/SC/CA1, p = 0.8428; Ctrl versus Shank3/SC/CA3, p = 0.1600; Ctrl versus Shank3/SC/DG, p = 0.7125; Ctrl versus Shank3/SC/PAG, p = 0.1600; Ctrl versus Shank3/SC/ACC, p = 0.1432; Ctrl versus Shank3/SC/PL, p = 0.1135; Ctrl versus Shank3/SC/IL, p = 0.5137; Ctrl versus Shank3/SC/DMS, p = 0.0004; Ctrl versus Shank3/SC/NAcc, p = 0.0841; Ctrl versus Shank3/SC/LHb, p = 0.5137; Ctrl versus Shank3/SC/MHb, p = 0.7985; and Ctrl versus Shank3/SC/LS, p = 0.6707. See also Additional file 1: Table S2 for summary