| Literature DB >> 34420979 |
Hagar G Yamin1, Noa Menkes-Caspi1, Edward A Stern1,2, Dana Cohen1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Huntington's disease (HD) is an inherited fatal neurodegenerative disease, leading to neocortical and striatal atrophy. The commonly studied R6/2 HD transgenic mouse model displays progressive motor and cognitive deficits in parallel to major pathological changes in corticostriatal circuitry.Entities:
Keywords: Basal ganglia; electrophysiology; locomotion; neurons
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34420979 PMCID: PMC8609681 DOI: 10.3233/JHD-210492
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Huntingtons Dis ISSN: 1879-6397
Fig. 1Behavioral characteristics of WT and R6/2 Tg mice during exposure to a novel environment. A) Experimental timeline. B) Number of average gridline crossings in 5 s bins are shown for WT mice for four consecutive sessions. Colors denote the sessions order. C) Number of gridline crossings in 5 s bins for WTs (black), Tg young (red) and Tg old (blue) mice averaged over all sessions and animals. Tg mice explored the novel environment significantly less than WTs in an age-dependent manner (ANOVA, F = 45.4, df = 3, p = 1.8×10–27).
Fig. 2Similar classification of striatal neurons into distinct cell types in WT and R6/2 Tg mice. A, B) Electrode arrays were positioned in the mouse DS. Examples of electrode placement (arrows) marked with electrolytic lesions in DS of a WT (A) and a Tg animal (B). Shown are 60μm coronal slices. Slice coordinates relative to Bregma are shown above. C, D) 3D scatter plots of waveform parameters and firing characteristics of sorted single neurons recorded in WTs (C) and in Tg mice (D) showing 4 distinct clusters, each corresponding to a different striatal cell type, and a fifth subset of unclassified neurons (yellow). The set of parameters defining each group is listed in Table 1. MSNs (n = 83 and n = 22 for WT and Tg mice, respectively) are marked in red; FSIs (n = 59 and n = 101 for WT and Tg mice, respectively) are marked in blue; UINs (n = 8 and n = 27 for WT and Tg mice, respectively) are marked in cyan; and TANs (n = 8 and n = 9 for WT and Tg mice, respectively) are marked in green. E) The average waveform of MSNs (top), FSIs (center top), UINs (center bottom) and TANs (bottom) from WT (colored line) and Tg (dashed black line) mice, showing the similarity in waveform between the genotypes. F) Distribution of recorded cell types for each genotype (in percentage and cell count). The proportion of different striatal cell populations differed between genotypes (χ2, df = 4, p = 0.0001).
Classification criteria for different neuronal subgroups
| MSNs | FSIs | UINs | TANs | |
| Baseline firing rate (spikes/s) | No restriction | No restriction | < 4 | No restriction |
| Valley to peak duration (μs) | > 400 | ≤400 | ≤400 | > 400 |
| PROPISI >2s | ≥0.32 | < 0.3 | > 0.4 | < 0.32 |
Parameters for cell type classification. MSNs, medium spiny neurons; FSIs, fast spiking interneurons; UINs, unidentified neurons; TANs, tonically active neurons; PROPISI >2s, proportion of interspike intervals exceeding 2 s.
Fig. 3Response patterns of distinct striatal subpopulations varied across genotypes. A) The proportion of responsive and non-responsive MSNs (left) and FSIs (right) from WT and Tg mice. FSIs from Tg mice had a significantly higher percentage of responsive cells than those from WT mice (χ2, df = 1, p = 0.005). B) An example of a FSI from a Tg animal that increased its firing rate relative to baseline when transferred to the novel environment. This neuron maintained the same firing rate even when the animal was placed back in the home cage and was categorized as ‘Total responsive’. (Left) Firing rate histogram calculated in 5 s bins for the entire period of a session. The orange lines and the black arrows mark the transition times from the home cage to the novel environment and then from the novel environment back to the home cage. (Right) The firing rate histogram of the same neuron calculated in 2.5 min bins. C) Same as (B) for a FSI from a WT animal that decreased its firing rate relative to baseline only when the animal remained in the novel environment and was categorized as ‘NE’. D) Same as (B) for a MSN from a Tg animal that increased its firing rate when the animal was placed back in its home cage, and was categorized as ‘HC’. E, F) Same as (B, right) for FSI from WT animal that responded to transitions (E), and MSN from Tg animal that had a nonspecific response (F). G) Firing pattern distributions of the different neuronal response groups of MSNs (left) and FSIs (right) from WT and Tg mice. No significant difference in response pattern distribution was found between genotypes (χ2, df = 4, p > 0.14). The color code for the different categories appears beneath the figure.
Fig. 4Age dependent deterioration of the ability of FSIs from Tg mice to estimate locomotion. A-C) Linear regression analysis calculated using the activity of all the MSNs and FSIs from WT (A) young Tg mice (B) and old tg mice (C). Black lines represent the locomotion averaged over all animals and experiments. Green, red and blue lines represent the outcome of the linear regression using all units, only MSNs and only FSIs, respectively. All regressions were significant (WT all units: R2 = 0.9, F = 6.19, df = 142, p = 8×10–19, WT MSNs: R2 = 0.78, F = 6.7, df = 83, p = 1.5×10–24, WT FSIs: R2 = 0.77, F = 10.3, df = 59, p = 3.2×10–34, young Tg all units: R2 = 0.70, F = 9.1, df = 48, p = 2.5×10–29, old Tg all units: R2 = 0.68, F = 4.6, df = 75, p = 2.1×10–16, young Tg MSNs: R2 = 0.23, F = 6.7, df = 10, p = 3.7×10–9, old Tg MSNs: R2 = 0.21, F = 4.9, df = 12, p = 3.2×10–7, young Tg FSIs: R2 = 0.65, F = 9.9, df = 38, p = 2.4×10–29, old Tg FSIs: R2 = 0.65, F = 5.3, df = 63, p = 1.3×10–18). D, E) Distribution of R2 values calculated from 10,000 repetitions of the linear regression using random selections of 10 (D) or 12 (E) MSNs from WT mice. The R2 value of the regression analysis for MSNs from Tg mice (n = 10 or 12 for young and old tg mice, respectively) is indicated in red. The likelihood of obtaining equal R2 value or less from different selections of MSNs from WT mice is higher than p = 0.05, thus we conclude that the low R2 value obtained for Tg mice is due to their low prevalence. F) Mean R2 values calculated from 10,000 repetitions of the linear regression using a growing number of neurons of each cell type. The red circle and triangle are the same values shown in red in E and D, respectively. Cohen’s d values are stated in Table 2.
Effect size values of R2 as measured by Cohen’s d between genotypes
| Number of units | 5 | 10 | 15 | 20 | 25 | 30 | 35 | 40 | 45 | 50 | 55 |
| Tg young –WT all | 0.56 | 0.51 | 0.40 | 0.20 | –0.03 | –0.31 | –0.7 | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Tg old –WT all | 0.05 | 0.37 | 0.84 | 1.35 | 1.95 | 2.59 | 3.35 | 4.23 | 5.42 | 7.18 | 10.85 |
| Tg Young –Tg old | 0.69 | 1.13 | 1.75 | 2.34 | 3.04 | 3.82 | 4.71 | NA | NA | NA | NA |
Cohen’s d values between the R2 distributions calculated for models with different number of FSIs recorded from Tg mice at two age groups (young and old) and WTs (all ages). Values higher than 0.8 are considered big effects (see Methods). Tg, transgenic; WT, wild type littermate controls