Strain- and Age-Dependent Hippocampal Neuron Sodium Currents Correlate With Epilepsy Severity in Dravet Syndrome Mice.

Current Literature In Basic Science It Was the Interneuron With the Parvalbumin in the Hippocampus! No, It Was the Pyramidal Cell With the Glutamate in the Cortex! Searching for Clues to the Mechanism of Dravet Syndrome The Plot Thickens Strain- and Age-Dependent Hippocampal Neuron Sodium Currents Correlate With Epilepsy Severity in Dravet Syndrome Mice. Mistry AM, Thompson CH, Miller AR, Vanoye CG, George AL Jr, Kearney JA. Neurobiol Dis 201;65:1 11. Heterozygous loss-of-function SCN1A mutations cause Dravet syndrome, an epileptic encephalopathy of infancy that exhibits variable clinical severity. We utilized a heterozygous Scn1a knockout (Scn1a+/ ) mouse model of Dravet syndrome to investigate the basis for phenotype variability. These animals exhibit strain-dependent seizure severity and survival. Scn1a+/ mice on strain 129S6/SvEvTac (129.Scn1a+/ ) have no overt phenotype and normal survival compared with Scn1a+/ mice bred to C57BL/6J (F1.Scn1a+/ ) that have severe epilepsy and premature lethality. We tested the hypothesis that strain differences in sodium current (INa) density in hippocampal neurons contribute to these divergent phenotypes. Whole-cell voltage-clamp recording was performed on acutely-dissociated hippocampal neurons from postnatal days 21 24 (P21 24) 129.Scn1a+/ or F1.Scn1a+/ mice and wild-type littermates. INa density was lower in GABAergic interneurons from F1.Scn1a+/ mice compared to wild-type littermates, while on the 129 strain there was no difference in GABAergic interneuron INa density between 129.Scn1a+/ mice and wild-type littermate controls. By contrast, INa density was elevated in pyramidal neurons from both 129.Scn1a+/ and F1.Scn1a+/ mice, and was correlated with more frequent spontaneous action potential firing in these neurons, as well as more sustained firing in F1.Scn1a+/ neurons. We also observed age-dependent differences in pyramidal neuron INa density between wild-type and Scn1a+/ animals. We conclude that preserved INa density in GABAergic interneurons contributes to the milder phenotype of 129.Scn1a+/ mice. Furthermore, elevated INa density in excitatory pyramidal neurons at P21 24 correlates with age-dependent onset of lethality in F1.Scn1a+/ mice. Our findings illustrate differences in hippocampal neurons that may underlie strain- and age-dependent phenotype severity in a Dravet syndrome mouse model, and emphasize a contribution of pyramidal neuron excitability. Commentary Dravet syndrome (DS, also known as Severe Myoclonic Epilepsy of Infancy) is a catastrophic pediatric epileptic encephalopathy with cognitive, behavioral, and motor impairments, as well as a high risk of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP). The first mutations linked to DS were identified in SCN1A, the gene encoding the α subunit of the voltage-gated sodium channel Na V 1.1 (1). To date, the majority of DS patients have de novo SCN1A mutations that result in haploinsufficiency (2). This raises some interesting questions: How does reduced expression of a major brain sodium channel gene result in hyperexcitability and network synchrony? Further, why do individuals with the same Epilepsy Currents, Vol. 14, No. 6 (November/December) 2014 pp. 350 352 American Epilepsy Society heterozygous SCN1A mutation, even within the same family, sometimes have divergent seizure phenotypes? A major breakthrough in understanding the mechanism of DS occurred with the development of the first mouse model of the disease by the Catterall group (3). Global deletion of Scn1a yielded a strong seizure phenotype in heterozygous animals and was the first in vivo confirmation of Scn1a haploinsufficiency resulting in seizures. Patch clamp recordings in acutely dissociated hippocampal neurons isolated from postnatal day (P) 14 16 Scn1a +/- mice demonstrated that morphologically identified bipolar neurons, but not pyramidal neurons, had dramatically reduced sodium current density. This resulted in reduced firing frequency of interneurons in response to injected current. Nav1.1 was postulated to be the major functional sodium channel in interneurons, particularly in fast-spiking, parvalbumin-positive cells (3, 4). In contrast, glutamatergic pyramidal neurons were proposed to rely on other brain sodium 350

Dravet Syndrome It s Not Only Interneurons channels, possibly Nav1.2 or Nav1.6, for firing. Based on this model, it was hypothesized that pathophysiology in DS is due to dysfunctional inhibitory circuits: the interneuron hypothesis. Since the initial description of Scn1a +/- mice by the Catterall group, two competing theories have emerged to explain the mechanism of DS. The interneuron hypothesis is largely supported by work done in mouse models (4 10), while more recent data that challenge it, showing increased sodium current density and hyperexcitability in both inhibitory and excitatory neurons, have been generated using human DS patientderived induced pluripotent stem cell (ipsc) neurons (11, 12). Is it possible that this discordance results from differences in the model systems themselves? In their paper in Neurobiology of Disease, Mistry and colleagues begin to bridge the gap between competing DS mechanistic theories. Prior work from Dr. Kearney s laboratory (13) showed that phenotypic severity of the Scn1a +/- mutation in mice is highly dependent on genetic background. Scn1a +/- mice maintained on the 129 strain exhibited no seizures and lived normal life spans. In contrast, crossing Scn1a +/- mice on the 129 background to the C57Bl/6J strain, referred to as F1.Scn1a +/-, resulted in animals with a severe phenotype, including overt seizures and SUDEP. Thus, genetic background is key to the severity of pathophysiology in DS mouse models. In the Mistry et al. study, the authors compare sodium current properties and neuronal firing in acutely dissociated hippocampal neurons from Scn1a +/- mice on the 129 versus the 129 x C57Bl/6J F1 backgrounds at two different developmental time points. In all of their experiments, the identity of acutely dissociated bipolar interneurons was confirmed by single cell RT-PCR. Using the criteria of Gad67 but not Gfap positivity, only 48% of morphologically identified bipolar neurons were confirmed as such. This is an important consideration for the interpretation of previous work in which a proportion of morphologically identified bipolar neurons may have been, in reality, astrocytes. Patch clamp recording of hippocampal neurons showed that sodium current density was significantly lower in identified P21-24 GABAergic interneurons from the phenotypically more severe F1.Scn1a +/- strain compared to wild-type littermates, similar to the Catterall et al. (3) study focusing on neurons isolated from P14-16 Scn1a +/- mice bred for 6 generations onto C57Bl/6 from 129SvJ. In contrast, GABAergic interneuron sodium current densities in 129.Scn1a +/- mice (which had no spontaneous seizures) and their corresponding wild-type littermates were indistinguishable. Surprisingly, and similar to more recently published findings in human ipsc forebrain neuron models of DS (11), sodium current density was elevated in pyramidal neurons from both P21-24 129.Scn1a +/- and F1.Scn1a +/- mice compared to strain-matched wild-type littermates. Importantly, pyramidal neurons from the phenotypically more severe F1.Scn1a +/- strain displayed a significantly larger increase in sodium current density compared to pyramidal neurons from the less severe 129.Scn1a +/- strain. In addition, F1.Scn1a +/-, but not 129.Scn1a +/- P21-24 pyramidal neurons exhibited a significant hyperpolarizing shift in the voltage-dependence of activation compared to wild-type. Consistent with this observation and in agreement with previous studies (8), P21-24 F1.Scn1a +/- pyramidal neurons exhibited high frequency spontaneous firing and greater excitability across a range of current injections. P21-24 pyramidal neurons from the less phenotypically severe 129.Scn1a +/- strain also exhibited higher spontaneous firing frequencies than wild-type, but their rate of firing was significantly less than that observed in the F1.Scn1a +/- animals. These observed increases in pyramidal neuron sodium current density were age-dependent, occurring later in development than the observed reduction in inhibitory neuron sodium current density. Sodium current densities in P14-15 pyramidal neurons were not significantly different between mutant and wild-type on either background. Interestingly, the exaggerated increase in sodium current density in the P21-24 F1.Scn1a +/- excitatory pyramidal neurons correlated with age-dependent onset of lethality. Finally, the authors reported strain-dependent trends in compensatory up- or down-regulation of other brain sodium channel transcripts in response to Scn1a haploinsufficiency, results that may shed light on patient-specific difference in phenotype severity. This study provides important new clues to solving the mechanism of DS. First, it is now clear from multiple models of DS that both inhibitory and excitatory neurons have altered sodium currents, suggesting that both inhibitory and excitatory networks contribute to seizure severity. Inhibitory neuron sodium channel loss-of-function combined with excitatory neuron sodium channel gain-of-function may result in an inhibition-excitation imbalance during the P21-24 developmental period in F1.Scn1a +/- mice leading to severe seizures. Second, similar to human DS patients with variable seizure severity and susceptibility to SUDEP, the phenotypic severity of DS mouse models is highly dependent on genetic background. In spite of these advances, important questions remain. A detailed developmental time course of sodium channel protein expression in excitatory versus inhibitory neurons (and in different interneuronal subtypes) in specific brain areas and comparing mouse strains is a necessary, yet difficult, next step. A detailed examination of sodium channel expression in the developmental period surrounding P18, the time point at which F1.Scn1a +/- begin to seize, would be particularly informative. Not only sodium channel pore-forming α subunits, but also β subunits, need to be investigated. It will be important to know whether impaired inhibitory neuron GABAergic signaling through loss of Nav1.1-mediated sodium current density during early development (e.g., P14-16) can subsequently influence sodium current expression in excitatory neurons, presumably through synaptic signaling, at later time points (P21-24). If the expression of other sodium channel subunits is indeed altered in response to Scn1a haploinsufficiency, as suggested here and in the human ipsc neuron models, what is underlying the mechanism for this compensatory gene expression? Does the developmental switch of early GABAergic excitatory to inhibitory signaling occur normally in Scn1a +/- mouse and ipsc neuron models? If not, this in itself changes the prevailing ideas surrounding disinhibition. Finally, what other genes that is, encoding other ion channels, cell adhesion molecules, or synaptic proteins are altered in response to Scn1a haploinsufficency? New animal models, as well as analysis of DS patient-derived ipsc neurons, which allow correlation of human epilepsy phenotypes with cell autonomous electrophysiological, genetic, and channel protein 351

Dravet Syndrome It s Not Only Interneurons complex characterization, will shed further light on this rapidly progressing field. by Lori L. Isom, PhD References 1. Claes L, Del Favero J, Ceulemans B, Lagae L, Van Broeckhoven C, De Jonghe P. De novo mutations in the sodium-channel gene SCN1A cause severe myoclonic epilepsy of infancy. Am J Hum Genet 2001;68:1327 1332. 2. Marini C, Scheffer IE, Nabbout R, Suls A, De Jonghe P, Zara F, Guerrini R. The genetics of Dravet syndrome. Epilepsia 2011;52(suppl 2):24 29. 3. Yu FH, Mantegazza M, Westenbroek RE, Robbins CA, Kalume F, Burton KA, Spain WJ, McKnight GS, Scheuer T, Catterall WA. Reduced sodium current in GABAergic interneurons in a mouse model of severe myoclonic epilepsy in infancy. Nat Neurosci 2006;9:1142 1149. 4. Ogiwara I, Miyamoto H, Morita N, Atapour N, Mazaki E, Inoue I, Takeuchi T, Itohara S, Yanagawa Y, Obata K, Furuichi T, Hensch TK, Yamakawa K. Na(v)1.1 localizes to axons of parvalbumin-positive inhibitory interneurons: A circuit basis for epileptic seizures in mice carrying an Scn1a gene mutation. J Neurosci 2007;27:5903 5914. 5. Cheah CS, Yu FH, Westenbroek RE, Kalume FK, Oakley JC, Potter GB, Rubenstein JL, Catterall WA. Specific deletion of NaV1.1 sodium channels in inhibitory interneurons causes seizures and premature death in a mouse model of Dravet syndrome. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2012;109:14646 14651. 6. Kalume F, Westenbroek RE, Cheah CS, Yu FH, Oakley JC, Scheuer T, Catterall WA. Sudden unexpected death in a mouse model of Dravet syndrome. J Clin Invest 2013;123:1798 1808. 7. Yu FH, Mantegazza M, Westenbroek R, Robbins CA, Spain WJ, Burton KA, McKnight GS, Scheuer T, Catterall WA. Deletion of the Na v 1.1 channel: A mouse model for severe myoclonic elilepsy of infancy. Abstract Viewer/Itinerary Planner Washington, DC: Society for Neuroscience. 2004; Program No. 479.5. 8. Liautard C, Scalmani P, Carriero G, de Curtis M, Franceschetti S, Mantegazza M. Hippocampal hyperexcitability and specific epileptiform activity in a mouse model of Dravet syndrome. Epilepsia 2013;54:1251 1261. 9. Han S, Tai C, Westenbroek RE, Yu FH, Cheah CS, Potter GB, Rubenstein JL, Scheuer T, de la Iglesia HO, Catterall WA. Autistic-like behaviour in Scn1a+/- mice and rescue by enhanced GABA-mediated neurotransmission. Nature 2012;489:385 390. 10. Han S, Yu FH, Schwartz MD, Linton JD, Bosma MM, Hurley JB, Catterall WA, de la Iglesia HO. Na(V)1.1 channels are critical for intercellular communication in the suprachiasmatic nucleus and for normal circadian rhythms. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2012;109:E368 377. 11. Liu Y, Lopez-Santiago LF, Yuan Y, Jones JM, Zhang H, O Malley HA, Patino GA, O Brien JE, Rusconi R, Gupta A, Thompson RC, Natowicz MR, Meisler MH, Isom LL, Parent JM. Dravet syndrome patientderived neurons suggest a novel epilepsy mechanism. Ann Neurol 2013;74:128 139. 12. Jiao J, Yang Y, Shi Y, Chen J, Gao R, Fan Y, Yao H, Liao W, Sun XF, Gao S. Modeling Dravet syndrome using induced pluripotent stem cells (ipscs) and directly converted neurons. Hum Mol Genet 2013; 22: 4241 4252. 13. Miller AR, Hawkins NA, McCollom CE, Kearney JA. Mapping genetic modifiers of survival in a mouse model of Dravet syndrome. Genes Brain Behav 2014;13:163 172. 352

American Epilepsy Society Epilepsy Currents Journal Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest Instructions The purpose of this form is to provide readers of your manuscript with information about your other interests that could influence how they receive and understand your work. Each author should submit a separate form and is responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the submitted information. The form is in four parts. 1. Identifying information. Enter your full name. If you are NOT the main contributing author, please check the box no and enter the name of the main contributing author in the space that appears. Provide the requested manuscript information. 2. The work under consideration for publication. This section asks for information about the work that you have submitted for publication. The time frame for this reporting is that of the work itself, from the initial conception and planning to the present. The requested information is about resources that you received, either directly or indirectly (via your institution), to enable you to complete the work. Checking No means that you did the work without receiving any financial support from any third party that is, the work was supported by funds from the same institution that pays your salary and that institution did not receive third-party funds with which to pay you. If you or your institution received funds from a third party to support the work, such as a government granting agency, charitable foundation or commercial sponsor, check Yes. Then complete the appropriate boxes to indicate the type of support and whether the payment went to you, or to your institution, or both. 3. Relevant financial activities outside the submitted work. This section asks about your financial relationships with entities in the bio-medical arena that could be perceived to influence, or that give the appearance of potentially influencing, what you wrote in the submitted work. For example, if your article is about testing an epidermal growth factor receptor (DGFR) antagonist in lung cancer, you should report all associations with entities pursuing diagnostic or therapeutic strategies in cancer in general, not just in the area of EGFR or lung cancer. Report all sources of revenue paid (or promised to be paid) directly to you or your institution on your behalf over the 36 months prior to submission of the work. This should include all monies from sources with relevance to the submitted work, not just monies from the entity that sponsored the research. Please note that your interactions with the work s sponsor that are outside the submitted work should also be listed here. If there is any question, it is usually better to disclose a relationship than not to do so. For grants you have received for work outside the submitted work, you should disclose support ONLY from entities that could be perceived to be affected financially by the published work, such as drug companies, or foundations supported by entities that could be perceived to have a financial stake in the outcome. Public funding sources, such as government agencies, charitable foundations or academic institutions, need not be disclosed. For example, if a government agency sponsored a study in which you have been involved and drugs were provided by a pharmaceutical company, you need only list the pharmaceutical company. 4. Other relationships Use this section to report other relationships or activities that readers could perceive to have influenced, or that give the appearance of potentially influencing, what you wrote in the submitted work.

American Epilepsy Society Epilepsy Currents Journal Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest Section #1 Identifying Information 1. Today s Date: Feb 20, 2014 2. First Name Lori Last Name Isom Degree PhD 3. Are you the Main Assigned Author? Yes No If no, enter your name as co-author: 4. Manuscript/Article Title: It was the interneuron with the parvalbumin in the hippocampus! No, it was the pyramidal cell with the glutamate in the cortex! Searching for Clues to the Mechanism of Dravet Syndrome the Plot Thickens 5. Journal Issue you are submitting for: 14.6 Section #2 The Work Under Consideration for Publication Did you or your institution at any time receive payment or services from a third party for any aspect of the submitted work (including but not limited to grants, data monitoring board, study design, manuscript preparation, statistical analysis, etc.)? Complete each row by checking No or providing the requested information. If you have more than one relationship just add rows to this table. Type No Money Paid to You Money to Your Institution* Name of Entity Comments** 1. Grant NIH 2. Consulting fee or honorarium 3. Support for travel to meetings for the study or other purposes 4. Fees for participating in review activities such as data monitoring boards, statistical analysis, end point committees, and the like 5. Payment for writing or reviewing the manuscript 6. Provision of writing assistance, medicines, equipment, or administrative support. 7. Other * This means money that your institution received for your efforts on this study. ** Use this section to provide any needed explanation. Page 2 11/26/2014

Section #3 Relevant financial activities outside the submitted work. Place a check in the appropriate boxes in the table to indicate whether you have financial relationships (regardless of amount of compensation) with entities as described in the instructions. Use one line for each entity; add as many lines as you need by clicking the Add box. You should report relationships that were present during the 36 months prior to submission. Complete each row by checking No or providing the requested information. If you have more than one relationship just add rows to this table. Type of relationship (in alphabetical order) No Name of Entity Comments** 1. Board membership 2. Consultancy 3. Employment 4. Expert testimony Money Paid to You Money to Your Institution* 5. Grants/grants pending NIH 6. Payment for lectures including service on speakers bureaus 7. Payment for manuscript preparation. 8. Patents (planned, pending or issued) 9. Royalties 10. Payment for development of educational presentations 11. Stock/stock options 12. Travel/accommodations/meeti ng expenses unrelated to activities listed.** 13. Other (err on the side of full disclosure) * This means money that your institution received for your efforts. ** For example, if you report a consultancy above there is no need to report travel related to that consultancy on this line. Section #4 Other relationships Are there other relationships or activities that readers could perceive to have influenced, or that give the appearance of potentially influencing, what you wrote in the submitted work? No other relationships/conditions/circumstances that present a potential conflict of interest. Yes, the following relationships/conditions/circumstances are present: Thank you for your assistance. Epilepsy Currents Editorial Board Page 3 11/26/2014