Cited by 69

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Parkinson's Disease-Linked LRRK2-G2019S Mutation Alters Synaptic Plasticity and Promotes Resilience to Chronic Social Stress in Young Adulthood

Matikainen-Ankney, Bridget A., Kezunovic, Nebojsa, Menard, Caroline, Flanigan, Meghan E., Zhong, Yue, Russo, Scott J., Benson, Deanna L., Huntley, George W.·2018·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

The G2019S mutation in leucine-rich repeat kinase 2 (LRRK2) is a prevalent cause of late-onset Parkinson's disease, producing psychiatric and motor symptoms, including depression, that are indistinguishable from sporadic cases. Here we tested how this mutation impacts depression-related behaviors and associated synaptic responses and plasticity in mice expressing a Lrrk2-G2019S knock-in mutation. Young adult male G2019S knock-in and wild-type mice were subjected to chronic social defeat stress (CSDS), a validated depression model, and other tests of anhedonia, anxiety, and motor learning. We found that G2019S mice were highly resilient to CSDS, failing to exhibit social avoidance compared to wild-type mice, many of which exhibited prominent social avoidance and were thus susceptible to CSDS. In the absence of CSDS, no behavioral differences between genotypes were found. Whole-cell recordings of spiny projection neurons (SPNs) in the nucleus accumbens revealed that glutamatergic synapses in G2019S mice lacked functional calcium-permeable AMPARs, and following CSDS, failed to accumulate inwardly rectifying AMPAR responses characteristic of susceptible mice. Based on this abnormal AMPAR response profile, we asked whether long-term potentiation (LTP) of corticostriatal synaptic strength was affected. We found that both D 1 receptor (D 1 R)- and D 2 R-SPNs in G2019S mutants were unable to express LTP, with D 2 R-SPNs abnormally expressing long-term depression following an LTP-induction protocol. Thus, G2019S promotes resilience to chronic social stress in young adulthood, likely reflecting synapses constrained in their ability to undergo experience-dependent plasticity. These unexpected findings may indicate early adaptive coping mechanisms imparted by the G2019S mutation. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT The G2019S mutation in LRRK2 causes late-onset Parkinson's disease (PD).LRRK2 is highly expressed in striatal neurons throughout life, but it is unclear how mutant LRRK2 affects striatal neuron function and behaviors in young adulthood. We addressed this question using Lrrk2-G2019S knock-in mice. The data show that young adult G2019S mice were unusually resilient to a depression-like syndrome resulting from chronic social stress. Further, mutant striatal synapses were incapable of forms of synaptic plasticity normally accompanying depression-like behavior and important for supporting the full range of cognitive function. These data suggest that in humans,LRRK2 mutation may affect striatal circuit function in ways that alter normal responses to stress and could be relevant for treatment strategies for non-motor PD symptoms.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1523/jneurosci.1457-18.2018

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 LRRK2-G2019S promotes resilience to CSDS. A , Schematic showing the 10-day CSDS paradigm and SI test. B , Representative locomotion traces (red lines) of individual mice showing movement during the SI test. C , A significantly greater fraction of GSKI mice are resilient to CSDS ( p = 0.0309, Fisher's exact test, n = 14 WT and 16 GSKI). D , Scatter plots of unstressed (control) and stressed WT and GSKI SI ratios versus time spent in interaction zone (in seconds) when social target is present. There is a significant correlation between these variables for WT mice (left; p = 0.0001, Pearson correlation), but not for GSKI mice (right; p = 0.3743, Pearson correlation). E , Time in the interaction zone for WT mice (left, gray symbols) or GSKI mice (right, blue symbols) in the absence(triangles) or presence (circles) of a social target. WT control (con) and WT resilient (res) mice spend significantly more time in the interaction zone when the social target is present compared withsusceptible (sus) WT mice ( p = 0.0001, F = 11.41, n = 8control, 14 CSDS; 8 WT res, 6 WT sus). Resilient GSKI mice also spend significantly more time in the interaction zone when a novel social target is present ( p = 0.0004, F = 5.792, n = 8 control, 16 CSDS; 15 GSKI res, 1 GSKI sus). F , The time spent in the interaction zone with a novel social target was normalized to time spent in the interaction zone without a social target to calculate the SI ratio. Comparisons of SI ratios across genotypes show that WT SI ratios were significantly decreased in susceptible but not resilient mice compared with unstressed controls, whereas all but one GSKI mouse exhibited resilient SI ratios ( p = 0.00001, F = 6.607, n = 8 control mice per genotype, 6 WT susceptible, 8 WT resilient, n = 1 GSKI susceptible and 15 GSKI resilient). G , After CSDS, GSKI mice spent significantly more time grooming during sucrose splash test in comparison with WT mice ( p = 0.0146, F = 4.376, n = 4 con, 9 CSDS mice per genotype). H , there were no significant differences between GSKI and WT mice in sucrose consumption either before or following CSDS ( p = 0.137, F = 2.046, n = 4 con, 9 CSDSmicepergenotype). One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc tests for multiple comparisons conducted in E -H . * p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.01, *** p ≤ 0.001, **** p ≤ 0.0001. Error bars represent S.E.M.
Figure 1 LRRK2-G2019S promotes resilience to CSDS. A , Schematic showing the 10-day CSDS paradigm and SI test. B , Representative locomotion traces (red lines) of individual mice showing movement during the SI test. C , A significantly greater fraction of GSKI mice are resilient to CSDS ( p = 0.0309, Fisher's exact test, n = 14 WT and 16 GSKI). D , Scatter plots of unstressed (control) and stressed WT and GSKI SI ratios versus time spent in interaction zone (in seconds) when social target is present. There is a significant correlation between these variables for WT mice (left; p = 0.0001, Pearson correlation), but not for GSKI mice (right; p = 0.3743, Pearson correlation). E , Time in the interaction zone for WT mice (left, gray symbols) or GSKI mice (right, blue symbols) in the absence(triangles) or presence (circles) of a social target. WT control (con) and WT resilient (res) mice spend significantly more time in the interaction zone when the social target is present compared withsusceptible (sus) WT mice ( p = 0.0001, F = 11.41, n = 8control, 14 CSDS; 8 WT res, 6 WT sus). Resilient GSKI mice also spend significantly more time in the interaction zone when a novel social target is present ( p = 0.0004, F = 5.792, n = 8 control, 16 CSDS; 15 GSKI res, 1 GSKI sus). F , The time spent in the interaction zone with a novel social target was normalized to time spent in the interaction zone without a social target to calculate the SI ratio. Comparisons of SI ratios across genotypes show that WT SI ratios were significantly decreased in susceptible but not resilient mice compared with unstressed controls, whereas all but one GSKI mouse exhibited resilient SI ratios ( p = 0.00001, F = 6.607, n = 8 control mice per genotype, 6 WT susceptible, 8 WT resilient, n = 1 GSKI susceptible and 15 GSKI resilient). G , After CSDS, GSKI mice spent significantly more time grooming during sucrose splash test in comparison with WT mice ( p = 0.0146, F = 4.376, n = 4 con, 9 CSDS mice per genotype). H , there were no significant differences between GSKI and WT mice in sucrose consumption either before or following CSDS ( p = 0.137, F = 2.046, n = 4 con, 9 CSDSmicepergenotype). One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc tests for multiple comparisons conducted in E -H . * p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.01, *** p ≤ 0.001, **** p ≤ 0.0001. Error bars represent S.E.M.CC-BY-NC-SA · From the PDF
Image 2
CC-BY-NC-SA · From the PDF
Figure 3 G2019S mutation does not alter glutamatergic receptor subunit expression. Blots for GluA1, GluA2, and actin protein levels in total (T) and synaptic (S) fractions ( A ). B , Dotted bar graphs showing quantification of data shown in A ; no significant differences seen in either GluA1 or GluA2 levels in total or synaptic fractions across genotypes. Within genotype, both GluA1 and GluA2showsignificant synaptic enrichment compared with total fractions as expected (ANOVA, p < 0.0001; n = 4pergenotype). C , Single optical images acquired with a 63 × objective (left) and after threshold was applied (right). Bar graph ( D ) of puncta area and density for WT and GSKI NAc GluA2. There were no significant differences between WT and GSKI, n = 3-4 animals per genotype, p = 0.2955 for area, and p = 0.7226 for density.
Figure 3 G2019S mutation does not alter glutamatergic receptor subunit expression. Blots for GluA1, GluA2, and actin protein levels in total (T) and synaptic (S) fractions ( A ). B , Dotted bar graphs showing quantification of data shown in A ; no significant differences seen in either GluA1 or GluA2 levels in total or synaptic fractions across genotypes. Within genotype, both GluA1 and GluA2showsignificant synaptic enrichment compared with total fractions as expected (ANOVA, p < 0.0001; n = 4pergenotype). C , Single optical images acquired with a 63 × objective (left) and after threshold was applied (right). Bar graph ( D ) of puncta area and density for WT and GSKI NAc GluA2. There were no significant differences between WT and GSKI, n = 3-4 animals per genotype, p = 0.2955 for area, and p = 0.7226 for density.CC-BY-NC-SA · From the PDF
Image 4
CC-BY-NC-SA · From the PDF
Figure 5 Subtype-specific disruption in bidirectional synaptic plasticity in G2019S SPNs. A , WT SPNs recorded in dorsomedial striatum from P21 mice. Plots show EPSC amplitudes and input resistance as a function of time. LTP was induced by pairing brief depolarization (horizontal bar, 0 mV) with continuous corticostriatal presynaptic stimulation (0.1 Hz). Sample traces are averages of EPSCs from representative areas in the plot graph (a, baseline; b, post-pairing). B , GSKI SPNs recorded in dorsomedial striatum from P21 mice. The LTP protocol abnormally produced LTD. Plot shows reduction of EPSC amplitudes following pairing (horizontal bar, 0 mV). Sample traces are averages of EPSCs from representative areas in the plot (c, baseline; d, post-pairing). C , Normalized EPSCamplitudesofWT(gray)orGSKI(blue)SPNsfromP21miceatbaselineandfollowingpairing(horizontalbar,0mV).DataarenormalizedtoWTbaseline[ n = 6(3)], GSKI[ n = 6(3); p = 0.0001, F = 332.6 for genotype main effect]. Symbols represent the averages of 6 trials. LTP induced in WT SPNs was NMDAR-dependent (half-grey, half-white symbols), because it was blocked completely by APV [40 𝛍 M; n = 4 (2), p = 0.0001, F = 773.1, for pharmacologic main effect]. D , In response to the LTP-pairing protocol, GSKI D 1 R-SPNs remain unchanged from baseline [black circles, normalizedtraces of D 1 R-SPNs; n = 6(5), p = 0.0001, F = 33.05for genotype main effect]. In contrast, D 2 R-SPNsshowLTD[whitecircles,normalizedtracesofD 2 R-SPNs; n = 3(2)]. Representative traces show average EPSCs before (gray) and after (black) applying the LTP-induction protocol to D 1 R- or D 2 R-SPNs. Two-way ANOVAs were conducted in C and D . E , Graph showing the effect of LTP-protocolonP70WTandGSKISPNs(bothD 1 RandD 2 RSPNs).LTPwasinducedinallWTcells[graysquares; n = 4(4)], whereas the LTP-protocol abnormally elicited modest LTD in GSKI SPNs [blue circles; n = 5(3), p = 0.0001, F = 175.3 for genotype main effect]. Insets, Averaged EPSC traces during baseline and after pairing. GBZ (10 𝛍 M) was applied throughout. Error bars indicate SEM.
Figure 5 Subtype-specific disruption in bidirectional synaptic plasticity in G2019S SPNs. A , WT SPNs recorded in dorsomedial striatum from P21 mice. Plots show EPSC amplitudes and input resistance as a function of time. LTP was induced by pairing brief depolarization (horizontal bar, 0 mV) with continuous corticostriatal presynaptic stimulation (0.1 Hz). Sample traces are averages of EPSCs from representative areas in the plot graph (a, baseline; b, post-pairing). B , GSKI SPNs recorded in dorsomedial striatum from P21 mice. The LTP protocol abnormally produced LTD. Plot shows reduction of EPSC amplitudes following pairing (horizontal bar, 0 mV). Sample traces are averages of EPSCs from representative areas in the plot (c, baseline; d, post-pairing). C , Normalized EPSCamplitudesofWT(gray)orGSKI(blue)SPNsfromP21miceatbaselineandfollowingpairing(horizontalbar,0mV).DataarenormalizedtoWTbaseline[ n = 6(3)], GSKI[ n = 6(3); p = 0.0001, F = 332.6 for genotype main effect]. Symbols represent the averages of 6 trials. LTP induced in WT SPNs was NMDAR-dependent (half-grey, half-white symbols), because it was blocked completely by APV [40 𝛍 M; n = 4 (2), p = 0.0001, F = 773.1, for pharmacologic main effect]. D , In response to the LTP-pairing protocol, GSKI D 1 R-SPNs remain unchanged from baseline [black circles, normalizedtraces of D 1 R-SPNs; n = 6(5), p = 0.0001, F = 33.05for genotype main effect]. In contrast, D 2 R-SPNsshowLTD[whitecircles,normalizedtracesofD 2 R-SPNs; n = 3(2)]. Representative traces show average EPSCs before (gray) and after (black) applying the LTP-induction protocol to D 1 R- or D 2 R-SPNs. Two-way ANOVAs were conducted in C and D . E , Graph showing the effect of LTP-protocolonP70WTandGSKISPNs(bothD 1 RandD 2 RSPNs).LTPwasinducedinallWTcells[graysquares; n = 4(4)], whereas the LTP-protocol abnormally elicited modest LTD in GSKI SPNs [blue circles; n = 5(3), p = 0.0001, F = 175.3 for genotype main effect]. Insets, Averaged EPSC traces during baseline and after pairing. GBZ (10 𝛍 M) was applied throughout. Error bars indicate SEM.CC-BY-NC-SA · From the PDF
Figure 6 Schematic summary comparing behavioral and plasticity differences between WT striatal synapses (left) and GSKI striatal synapses (right). WT striatal synapses acquire CP-AMPARs in mice susceptible to CSDS or during LTP. In contrast, GSKI striatal synapses fail to accumulate CP-AMPARs at baseline, following CSDS, or in response to an LTP-induction protocol. Thus GSKI mice remain resilient to CSDS and fail to express LTP.
Figure 6 Schematic summary comparing behavioral and plasticity differences between WT striatal synapses (left) and GSKI striatal synapses (right). WT striatal synapses acquire CP-AMPARs in mice susceptible to CSDS or during LTP. In contrast, GSKI striatal synapses fail to accumulate CP-AMPARs at baseline, following CSDS, or in response to an LTP-induction protocol. Thus GSKI mice remain resilient to CSDS and fail to express LTP.CC-BY-NC-SA · From the PDF

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 68

  1. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3906-13.2014 · DOI
  2. 10.1155/2016/9869712 · DOI
  3. 10.1186/s13024-015-0066-z · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1016/0896-6273(95)90049-7 · DOI
  5. 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.09.040 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4258-07.2007 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1016/j.tins.2005.06.005 · DOI
  8. 10.1038/s41598-017-09106-3 · DOI
  9. 10.1016/S0896-6273(00)00008-8 · DOI
  10. 10.1113/jphysiol.2007.144501 · DOI
  11. 10.1016/j.biopsych.2016.09.007 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1186/2045-5380-1-11 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1016/j.jaac.2013.04.003 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1371/journal.pone.0108982 · DOI
  15. 10.1074/jbc.M404982200 · DOI
  16. 10.1371/journal.pone.0063778 · DOI
  17. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2454-13.2013 · DOI
  18. 10.1016/j.cell.2007.09.012 · DOI
  19. 10.1042/BST20160396 · DOI
  20. 10.1212/WNL.0000000000001684 · DOI
  21. 10.1007/s13311-017-0527-x · DOI
  22. 10.1002/mds.22242 · DOI
  23. 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2009.08.007 · DOI · Paper page
  24. 10.1016/S1474-4422(08)70117-0 · DOI · Paper page
  25. 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2006.04246.x · DOI
  26. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1392-15.2015 · DOI · Paper page
  27. 10.1126/science.1653450 · DOI
  28. 10.1016/j.neuron.2007.06.001 · DOI · Paper page
  29. 10.1111/j.1600-0404.2006.00579.x · DOI
  30. 10.1042/BJ20070209 · DOI · Paper page
  31. 10.1113/jphysiol.1995.sp020812 · DOI
  32. 10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.05.022 · DOI · Paper page
  33. 10.1016/j.neuron.2008.11.005 · DOI
  34. 10.1176/appi.ajp.2008.08071076 · DOI
  35. 10.1016/0091-3057(91)90284-9 · DOI · Paper page
  36. 10.1016/j.expneurol.2010.05.004 · DOI
  37. 10.1016/j.neuron.2011.11.015 · DOI
  38. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4051-15.2017 · DOI
  39. 10.1038/35013064 · DOI
  40. 10.1016/j.nbd.2014.07.013 · DOI
  41. 10.1038/s41593-018-0081-9 · DOI
  42. 10.1016/j.neuron.2014.08.023 · DOI · Paper page
  43. 10.1016/j.neuron.2018.03.038 · DOI
  44. 10.1016/j.tins.2006.03.006 · DOI
  45. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3314-15.2016 · DOI · Paper page
  46. 10.1002/hipo.22282 · DOI
  47. 10.1016/S0896-6273(00)80517-6 · DOI
  48. 10.3233/JPD-130192 · DOI
  49. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0964-17.2017 · DOI · Paper page
  50. 10.1038/nn.3636 · DOI
  51. 10.1002/mds.26077 · DOI · Paper page
  52. 10.1016/j.brainres.2010.10.016 · DOI
  53. 10.1126/science.1160575 · DOI · Paper page
  54. 10.1016/j.neuron.2015.10.039 · DOI
  55. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2712-13.2014 · DOI
  56. 10.1016/S0031-9384(02)00939-3 · DOI
  57. 10.7554/eLife.12813 · DOI · Paper page
  58. 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2006.03919.x · DOI
  59. 10.1159/000017308 · DOI
  60. 10.1038/nature11466 · DOI · Paper page
  61. 10.1016/j.celrep.2015.10.009 · DOI
  62. 10.1126/science.1710829 · DOI
  63. 10.1038/nn.2551 · DOI · Paper page
  64. 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2015.07.025 · DOI
  65. 10.7554/eLife.28377 · DOI · Paper page
  66. 10.1073/pnas.0507360102 · DOI · Paper page
  67. 10.1073/pnas.1712648115 · DOI
  68. 10.1016/j.nbd.2015.02.031 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 69

Metadata

Authors
Matikainen-Ankney, B. A., Kezunovic, N., Menard, C., Flanigan, M. E., Zhong, Y., Russo, S. J., Benson, D. L., & Huntley, G. W.
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2018-09-24
Volume
38
Issue
45
Pages
9700-9711
ISSN
  • 0270-6474
  • 1529-2401
Cited by
69
References
17
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review