Anti-epilepsy drugs can cause inflammations

Glial cells play a crucial role in the nervous system

Hannes Dambach from the Department for Neuroanatomy and Molecular Brain Research, together with a team of colleagues, studied how anti-epilepsy drugs affect the survival of glial cells in cultures. Glial cells are the largest cell group in the brain; they are crucial for supplying neurons with nutrients and affect immune and inflammatory responses. The question of how glial cells are affected by anti-epilepsy drugs had previously not been studied in depth. The RUB work group Clinical Neuroanatomy, headed by Prof Dr Pedro Faustmann, analysed four substances: valproic acid, gabapentin, phenytoin and carbamazepine.

Four anti-epilepsy drugs affect glial cells in different ways

Glial cells treated by the researchers with valproic adic and gabapentin had better survival chances than those treated with phenytoin and carbamazepine. However, carbamazepine had a positive effect, too: it reduced inflammatory responses. Valproic acid, on the other hand, turned out to be pro-inflammatory. In how far the anti-epilepsy drugs affected inflammations was also determined by the applied dose. Consequently, different drugs affected glial cells – and hence indirectly the neurons – in different ways.

Inflammatory responses should be taken under consideration in clinical studies

“Clinical studies should focus not only on the question in how far anti-epilepsy drugs affect the severity and frequency of epileptic seizures,” says Pedro Faustmann. “It is also necessary to test them with regard to the role they play in inflammatory responses in the central nervous system.” Thus, doctors could take the underlying inflammatory condition under consideration when selecting the right anti-epilepsy drug.

Epilepsy may have different causes

In Germany, between 0.5 and 1 percent of the population suffer from epilepsy that requires drug treatment. The disease may have many causes: genetic predisposition, disorders of the central nervous system after meningitis, traumatic brain injury and stroke. Inflammatory responses may also be caused by damage to the brain.

Effects of Chronic Stress Can be Traced to Your Genes

New research shows that chronic stress changes gene activity in immune cells before they reach the bloodstream. With these changes, the cells are primed to fight an infection or trauma that doesn’t actually exist, leading to an overabundance of the inflammation that is linked to many health problems.

This is not just any stress, but repeated stress that triggers the sympathetic nervous system, commonly known as the fight-or-flight response, and stimulates the production of new blood cells. While this response is important for survival, prolonged activation over an extended period of time can have negative effects on health.

A study in animals showed that this type of chronic stress changes the activation, or expression, of genes in immune cells before they are released from the bone marrow. Genes that lead to inflammation are expressed at higher-than-normal levels, while the activation of genes that might suppress inflammation is diminished.

Ohio State University scientists made this discovery in a study of mice. Their colleagues from other institutions, testing blood samples from humans living in poor socioeconomic conditions, found that similarly primed immune cells were present in these chronically stressed people as well.

“The cells share many of the same characteristics in terms of their response to stress,” said John Sheridan, professor of oral biology in the College of Dentistry and associate director of Ohio State’s Institute for Behavioral Medicine Research (IBMR), and co-lead author of the study. “There is a stress-induced alteration in the bone marrow in both our mouse model and in chronically stressed humans that selects for a cell that’s going to be pro-inflammatory.

“So what this suggests is that if you’re working for a really bad boss over a long period of time, that experience may play out at the level of gene expression in your immune system.”

The findings suggest that drugs acting on the central nervous system to treat mood disorders might be supplemented with medications targeting other parts of the body to protect health in the context of chronic social stress.

Steven Cole, a professor of medicine and a member of the Cousins Center for Psychoneuroimmunology at UCLA, is a co-corresponding author of the study. The research is published in a recent issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The mind-body connection is well established, and research has confirmed that stress is associated with health problems. But the inner workings of that association – exactly how stress can harm health – are still under investigation.

Sheridan and colleagues have been studying the same mouse model for a decade to reveal how chronic stress – and specifically stress associated with social defeat – changes the brain and body in ways that affect behavior and health.

The mice are repeatedly subjected to stress that might resemble a person’s response to persistent life stressors. In this model, male mice living together are given time to establish a hierarchy, and then an aggressive male is added to the group for two hours at a time. This elicits a “fight or flight” response in the resident mice as they are repeatedly defeated by the intruder.

“These mice are chronically in that state, so our research question is, ‘What happens when you stimulate the sympathetic nervous system over and over and over, or continuously?’ We see deleterious consequences to that,” Sheridan said.

Under normal conditions, the bone marrow in animals and humans is making and releasing billions of red blood cells every day, as well as a variety of white blood cells that constitute the immune system. Sheridan and colleagues already knew from previous work that stress skews this process so that the white blood cells produced in the bone marrow are more inflammatory than normal upon their release – as if they are ready to defend the body against an external threat.

A typical immune response to a pathogen or other foreign body requires some inflammation, which is generated with the help of immune cells. But when inflammation is excessive and has no protective or healing role, the condition can lead to an increased risk for cardiovascular diseases, diabetes and obesity, as well as other disorders.

In this work, the researchers compared cells circulating in the blood of mice that had experienced repeated social defeat to cells from control mice that were not stressed. The stressed mice had an average fourfold increase in the frequency of immune cells in their blood and spleen compared to the normal mice.

Genome-wide analysis of these cells that had traveled to the spleen in the stressed mice showed that almost 3,000 genes were expressed at different levels – both higher and lower – compared to the genes in the control mice. Many of the 1,142 up-regulated genes in the immune cells of stressed mice gave the cells the power to become inflammatory rapidly and efficiently.

“There is no traditional viral or bacterial challenge – we’re generating the challenge via a psychological response,” said study first author Nicole Powell, a research scientist in oral biology at Ohio State. “This study provides a nice mechanism for how psychology impacts biology. Other studies have indicated that these cells are more inflammatory; our work shows that these cells are primed at the level of the gene, and it’s directly due to the sympathetic nervous system.”

The researchers confirmed that the sympathetic nervous system was activated by showing that a beta blocker reduced symptoms associated with chronic stress. The beta receptors that were turned off by this intervention are major participants in the sympathetic nervous system response.

Meanwhile, UCLA’s Cole performs specialized statistical analyses of genome function to determine how people’s perception of their surroundings affects their biology. He and colleagues analyzed blood samples both from Sheridan’s mice and from healthy young adult humans whose socioeconomic status had been previously characterized as either high or low.

The human analysis identified differing levels of expression of 387 genes between the low- and high-socioeconomic status adults – and as in the mice, the up-regulated genes were pro-inflammatory in nature. The researchers also noted that almost a third of the genes with altered expression levels in immune cells from chronically stressed humans were the same genes differentially expressed in mice that had experienced repeated social defeat – a much higher similarity than would occur by chance.

This same pro-inflammatory immune-cell profile has been seen in research on parents of children with cancer.

“What we see in this study is a convergence of animal and human data showing similar genomic responses to adversity,” Cole said. “The molecular information from animal research integrates nicely with the human findings in showing a significant up-regulation of pro-inflammatory genes as a consequence of stress – and not just experimental stress, but authentic environmental stressors humans experience in everyday life.”

The pig, the fish and the jellyfish: Tracing nervous disorders in humans

What do pigs, jellyfish and zebrafish have in common? It might be hard to discern the connection, but the different species are all pieces in a puzzle. A puzzle which is itself part of a larger picture of solving the riddles of diseases in humans.

The pig, the jellyfish and the zebrafish are being used by scientists at Aarhus University to, among other things, gain a greater understanding of hereditary forms of diseases affecting the nervous system. This can be disorders like Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, autism, epilepsy and the motor neurone disease ALS.

In a project, which has just finished, the scientists have focussed on a specific gene in pigs. The gene, SYN1, encodes the protein synapsin, which is involved in communication between nerve cells. Synapsin almost exclusively occurs in nerve cells in the brain. Parts of the gene can thus be used to control an expression of genes connected to hereditary versions of the aforementioned disorders.

The pig
The SYN1 gene can, with its specific expression in nerve cells, be used for generation of pig models of neurodegenerative diseases like Parkinson’s. The reason scientists bring a pig into the equation is that the pig is well suited as a model for investigating human diseases.

- Pigs are very like humans in their size, genetics, anatomy and physiology. There are plenty of them, so they are easily obtainable for research purposes, and it is ethically easier to use them than, for example, apes, says senior scientist Knud Larsen from Aarhus University.

Before the gene was transferred from humans to pigs, the scientists had to ensure that the SYN1 gene was only expressed in nerve cells. This was where the zebra fish entered the equation.

The zebrafish and the jellyfish
- The zebrafish is, as a model organism, the darling of researchers, because it is transparent and easy to genetically modify. We thus attached the relevant gene, SYN1, to a gene from a jellyfish (GFP), and put it into a zebrafish in order to test the specificity of the gene, explains Knud Larsen.

This is because jellyfish contain a gene that enables them to light up. This gene was transferred to the zebrafish alongside SYN1, so that the scientists could follow where in the fish activity occurred as a result of the SYN1 gene.

- We could clearly see that the transparent zebrafish shone green in its nervous system as a result of the SYN1 gene from humans initiating processes in the nervous system. We could thus conclude that SYN1 works specifically in nerve cells, says Knud Larsen.

The results of this investigation pave the way for the SYN1 gene being used in pig models for research into human diseases. The pig with the human gene SYN1 can presumably also be used for research into the development of the brain and nervous system in the foetus.

- I think it is interesting that the nervous system is so well preserved, from an evolutionary point of view, that you can observe a nerve-cell-specific expression of a pig gene in a zebrafish. It is impressive that something that works in a pig also works in a fish, says Knud Larsen.

Read the scientific article here.

Pulse propagation and signal transduction in the hydraulic brain

When Descartes turned his critical eye to the nervous system, he reasoned that the nerves must transduce hydraulic power to control the musculature. In the circulatory system, blood is pushed comparatively slowly through the aorta, perhaps around 0.3 meters per second. Superimposed on that flow, however, is an arterial pulse wave which propagates much faster, both through the blood and the walls of the vessel. For compliant and healthy vessels that speed might be around 10 meters per second, while for more hardened arteries, it could be 15 or higher. Modern day electrophysiologists have since replaced the hydraulic model with the idea that nerves really only transmit information—electrical information no less. Yet when looking at the power supply to the leg, for example, it is still hard to ignore the fact that the main femoral artery, at a diameter scarcely a half of an inch, looks rather meager next to the “information-supplying” sciatic nerve, which may actually be more like three-quarters of an inch. A conflux of ideas from a variety of disciplines has recently led to a critical re-emergence of the more mechanical side of the nervous system. To that point, two German scientists have just published a paper in the journal, Medical Hypotheses, where they suggest that the pulse wave is the main event in nervous conduction, while the electrical show is mere epiphenomenon.

We recently discussed the increasingly popular idea that action potentials may actually be soliton waves which propagate in the membranes of axons as phase transitions with minimal loss in energy. Convincing biologists that these subtle creatures could exist in the chaotic and varied conditions inside neurons has been a challenge. However, it is harder to argue against the fact that any kind of electrochemical spike based on the rapid influx of ions will be accompanied by a significant pressure pulse. The idea that the German researchers have supported, is that these as the pressure pulses naturally decay in the viscoelastic medium of the nerve, they are refreshed by ionic input at the nodes between myelinated axon segments, or continuously in unmyelinated axons.

If you have ever been absent-minded enough to grab a live wire, or even brush up strongly against one, the sensation is unforgettable. It is not such a stretch to acknowledge that when you slam your funny bone, or more precisely the Ulnar nerve (largest unprotected nerve in your body), the resultant vibe and decay feels almost identical to a real electrical assault. Similarly, the so-called “stingers” that run down the limbs after a sharp blow to the head are familiar to most footballers, and can give one quite a shock. Unfortunately these (albeit very simplistic) macroscopic intuitions don’t hold up so well when extended to the microscopic domain. Granted, when the electrochemical mechanisms that are assumed to underlie nervous conduction are looked at in detail, it becomes more difficult to disentangle the mechanical from the electric. However, as the authors observe, at some point, an attentive electrophysiologist must ask his or herself, “why are so many ion channels mechanosensitive” ?

One unexpected finding of the patch clamp recording technique was that the dilation of the membrane caused by local tension leads to considerable increase in transmembrane ion flow. Impulse waves causing short extensions in the membrane can directly induce opening and closing of both voltage and ligand gated channels. The idea that the pore in these channels is a rigid tube isolated from larger membrane events is difficult to support in this context. According to the authors, it is quite likely that common mechanoreceptor devices, like the pressure- or vibration-sensitive Vater-Pacinian corpuscles of the skin, conduct signals to initiate high-speed polysynaptic muscle reflex circuits without any classical intermediary electrical conversion.

The exact conduction velocity of mechanical impulses in nerve fibers remains unknown. It is estimated that under physiologic conditions, an unamplified axoplasmic pressure pulse would decay over roughly 1 mm due to viscosity, depending on the distensibility of the axon wall. When compared to the theoretical case of an absolutely rigid wall, a typical myelin sheath may be rigid enough to support pulse speeds up to one-fifth of the estimated maximum. That speed is not to shabby when compared with some rough estimates from previous authors, which put the maximum pulse velocity under an indistensible membrane somewhere upwards of 1500 meters per second. Suddenly, the quicker than life eyeblink response, or speed of the tenderfoot stepping on a sharp shard, become a little more comprehensible.

The theory as it stands is incomplete and needs to be adapted for specific cases with real biology in mind. In different animals, and in different regions of their brains, conduction in neurons goes by different names. For example, in the cerebellum, the unmyelinated parallel fibers pack to extreme densities in a regular crystalline lattice whose reason to be defies physiologic explanation to this day. Just as we currently have no good explanation for how signals could be properly isolated in nerve bundles where seemingly random nodes of Ranvier overlap in extent and influence, it is hard to imagine parallel fibers could maintain their electrochemical, or even mechanical, autonomy within this geometry.

The pressure wave theory wields considerable predictive power when it comes to explaining some of the unique synaptic specializations found throughout the brain. When considered only from an electrochemical point of view, the huge structural synaptic investments, like those found at the neuromuscular junction (NMJ), can hardly be imagined to be driven by local, and weak, current or field effects. One might need look no further than simple-to-recreate Chaldni patterns set up in two dimensions on the surface of a taunt drum, to make the imaginative leap to a three dimensional system, with multiple vibrating players, where more extreme patterns might easily be set up to provide authorship to repeatable complex structure. For the NMJ in particular, the case has been made that at the end-plate, the comparatively enormous efflux of acetylcholine to the deeply-guttered cleft, and propagation of excitation through the transverse tubule system, are all components of a continuous mechanical amplifier.

The apparent ease with which evolving organisms manage to cobble together all manner of sensitive hearing devices becomes infinitely more explicable once we see that nature has apparently been doing this kind of thing all alone inside of neurons. The amplification and transduction through liquid channels, of barely noticeable vibrations against a background of thermal noise much greater in magnitude, is in this light, no evolutionary stumble-upon, but rather the bread and butter of neural systems, and perhaps many aspects of life in general.

Deconstructing motor skills

Hitting the perfect tennis serve requires hours and hours of practice, but for scientists who study complex motor behaviors, there always has been a large unanswered question — what is the brain learning from those hours spent on the court? Is it simply the timing required to hit the perfect serve, or is it the precise path along which to move the hand?

The answer, Harvard researchers say, is both — but in separate circuits.

Bence Ölveczky, the John L. Loeb Associate Professor of the Natural Sciences, has found that the brain uses two largely independent neural circuits to learn the temporal and spatial aspects of a motor skill. The study is described in a Sept. 26 paper in Neuron.

“What we’re studying is the structure of motor-skill learning,” Ölveczky said. “What we were able to show is that the brain divides something that’s complex into modules — in this case for timing and for motor implementation — as a way to take advantage of the hierarchical structure of the motor system, and it imprints learning at the different levels independently.”

To tease out how those independent circuits operate, Ölveczky and his colleagues turned to a creature well-known for its ability to learn — the zebra finch. The tiny birds are regularly used in studies of learning because each male learns to sing a unique song from its father.

In a series of experiments, Ölveczky’s team used traditional conditioning techniques to change the timing of a bird’s song by speeding up or slowing down certain “syllables” in the song. They could also change which vocal muscles were activated and have the bird sing at a higher or lower pitch.

“But when you change the pitch of a syllable, the duration doesn’t change, and when you change the duration the pitch doesn’t change,” Ölveczky said. “It appears the neural circuits for the two features are separate.”

Additional evidence that the circuits for learning motor implementation and timing are distinct came when researchers lesioned the basal ganglia of the birds — the region of the brain long thought to play a critical role in song learning.

“The thinking had been that there was one circuit for song-learning in general,” Ölveczky said. “We found that if we lesioned the basal ganglia and repeated the pitch-shift experiment, the bird could no longer use the information it got from our feedback to change its behavior — in other words, it couldn’t learn.”

Experiments aimed at changing the birds’ timing, however, were just as effective, suggesting two separate learning circuits — with only one involving the basal ganglia.

Such independence and modularity is critical, Ölveczky said, because it allows different features of a behavior to be modified independently if circumstances change. Parallel learning of different features can also speed up the learning process and enable the flexibility we see in birdsong and many human motor skills.

“If you learn something — it could be your tennis serve, or it could be any behavior — and you need to slow it down or speed it up to fit some new contingency, you don’t have to completely re-learn the whole thing, you can just change the timing, and everything else will remain exactly the same.

“In fact, ‘slow practice,’ a technique used by many piano and dance teachers, makes good use of this modularity,” Ölveczky said. “Students are first taught to perform the movements of a piece slowly. Once they have learned it, all they need to do is get the timing right. The technique works because the two processes — motor implementation and timing — do not interfere with each other.”

The hope among researchers, Ölveczky said, is that a better understanding of how birds learn complex motor tasks such as singing unique songs will help shed new light on the neural underpinnings of learning in humans.

“For us, this is inspiration to look at similar types of questions in mammals,” he said. “The flexibility with which we can alter the spatial and temporal structure of our motor output is similar to songbirds, but our understanding of how the mammalian brain implements the underlying learning process is not anywhere near as advanced as for songbirds. The intriguing parallels in both circuitry and behavior, however, suggest a general principle of how the brain parses the motor skill learning process.”

Is this my finger? Sensory illusion study provides new insight for body representation brain disorders

People can be easily tricked into believing an artificial finger is their own, shows a study published today [23 September] in The Journal of Physiology. The results reveal that the brain does not require multiple signals to build a picture body ownership, as this is the first time the illusion has been created using sensory inputs from the muscle alone.

The discovery provides new insight into clinical conditions where body representation in the brain is disrupted due to changes in the central or peripheral nervous systems e.g. stroke, schizophrenia and phantom limb syndrome following amputation.

Professor Simon Gandevia, Deputy Director of Neuroscience Research Australia (NeuRA), says:

“It may seem silly to ask yourself whether your index finger is part of your body. However, our current findings demonstrate that this question has led to important insights into key brain functions.

“These findings could lead to new clinical interventions where the addition or the removal of specific sensory stimuli is used to change someone’s body image.”

In the experiment, subjects held an artificial finger with their left hand that was located 12 cm above their right index finger. Vision was eliminated and anaesthesia was used to numb the skin and remove feelings of joint movement. When the artificial finger and the right index finger were moved synchronously, subjects reported they were holding their own index finger: the brain incorrectly incorporated the artificial finger into its internal body representation.

The human brain uses sensory signals to maintain and update internal representation of the body, to plan and generate movements and interact with the world. The study gives new understanding as to how the brain decides what is part of our own body and where it is located. Contrary to previous theories which used multiple sensory inputs including touch and vision, these results demonstrate that messages coming from muscle receptors are enough to change the internal body representation.

The team additionally found a new type of sensory ‘grasp illusion’ in which perceived distances between index fingers decreases when subjects hold an artificial finger. This implies that the brain generates possible scenarios and tests them against available sensory information.

Professor Gandevia says:

“Grasping the artificial finger induces a sensation in some subjects that their hands are level with one another, despite being 12 cm apart. This illusion demonstrates that our brain is a thoughtful (yet at times gullible!) decision maker: it uses available sensory information and memories of past experiences to decide what scenario is most likely (i.e. ‘my hands are level’).”

Capturing brain activity with sculpted light

Researchers in Vienna develop new imaging technique to study the function of entire nervous systems. Scientists at the Campus Vienna Biocenter (Austria) have found a way to overcome some of the limitations of light microscopy. Applying the new technique, they can record the activity of a worm’s brain with high temporal and spatial resolution, ultimately linking brain anatomy to brain function. The journal Nature Methods publishes the details in its current issue.

A major aim of today’s neuroscience is to understand how an organism’s nervous system processes sensory input and generates behavior. To achieve this goal, scientists must obtain detailed maps of how the nerve cells are wired up in the brain, as well as information on how these networks interact in real time.

The organism many neuroscientists turn to in order to study brain function is a tiny, transparent worm found in rotting soil. The simple nematode C. elegans is equipped with just 302 neurons that are connected by roughly 8000 synapses. It is the only animal for which a complete nervous system has been anatomically mapped.

Researchers have so far focused on studying the activity of single neurons and small networks in the worm, but have not been able to establish a functional map of the entire nervous system. This is mainly due to limitations in the imaging-techniques they employ: the activity of single cells can be resolved with high precision, but simultaneously looking at the function of all neurons that comprise entire brains has been a major challenge. Thus, there was always a trade-off between spatial or temporal accuracy and the size of brain regions that could be studied.

Scientists at Vienna’s Research Institute of Molecular Pathology (IMP), the Max Perutz Laboratories (MFPL), and the Research Platform Quantum Phenomena & Nanoscale Biological Systems (QuNaBioS) of the University of Vienna have now closed this gap and developed a high speed imaging technique with single neuron resolution that bypasses these limitations. In a paper published online in Nature Methods, the teams of Alipasha Vaziri and Manuel Zimmer describe the technique which is based on their ability to “sculpt” the three-dimensional distribution of light in the sample. With this new kind of microscopy, they are able to record the activity of 70% of the nerve cells in a worm’s head with high spatial and temporal resolution. 

“Previously, we would have to scan the focused light by the microscope in all three dimensions”, says quantum physicist Robert Prevedel. “That takes far too long to record the activity of all neurons at the same time. The trick we invented tinkers with the light waves in a way that allows us to generate “discs” of light in the sample. Therefore, we only have to scan in one dimension to get the information we need. We end up with three-dimensional videos that show the simultaneous activities of a large number of neurons and how they change over time.” Robert Prevedel is a Senior Postdoc in the lab of Alipasha Vaziri, who is an IMP-MFPL Group Leader and is heading the Research Platform Quantum Phenomena & Nanoscale Biological Systems (QuNaBioS) of the University of Vienna, where the new technique was developed.

However, the new microscopic method is only half the story. Visualising the neurons requires tagging them with a fluorescent protein that lights up when it binds to calcium, signaling the nerve cells’ activity. “The neurons in a worm’s head are so densely packed that we could not distinguish them on our first images”, explains neurobiologist Tina Schrödel, co-first author of the study. “Our solution was to insert the calcium sensor into the nuclei rather than the entire cells, thereby sharpening the image so we could identify single neurons.” Tina Schrödel is a Doctoral Student in the lab of the IMP Group Leader Manuel Zimmer.

The new technique that came about by a close collaboration of physicists and neurobiologists has great potentials beyond studies in worms, according to the researchers. It will open up the way for experiments that were not possible before. One of the questions that will be addressed is how the brain processes sensory information to “plan” specific movements and then executes them. This ambitious project will require further refinement of both the microscopy methods and computational methods in order to study freely moving animals. The team in Vienna is set to achieve this goal in the coming two years.