Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / Nearly 18% of children are diagnosed with developmental disabilities. Autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are increasingly common developmental disabilities, but neither is well understood. ADHD and ASD are both prevalent in the genetic disorder Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) which impairs the Ras-MAPK/ERK pathway through mutation of the neurofibromin gene (NF1+/−). More broadly, syndromic forms of developmental disorders are often caused by mutations of proteins in pathways interconnected with Ras including TSC1/2, FMR1, and SynGAP. Of NF1 patients, around 30-50% are diagnosed with ASDs and more than 60% with ADHD. These studies are the first to show that male mice haploinsufficient for the Nf1 gene (Nf1+/−) exhibit deficits in behavioral inhibition in multiple contexts, a key feature of ADHD. They exhibit hyperactivity and impulsivity in an open field, delay discounting task, and cliff avoidance reaction test, rescuable through treatment with the clinically effective ADHD drug, guanfacine (α2A adrenergic receptor agonist). Previous experiments in our lab identified social deficits including deficits in consolidation of social memory. Using optogenetics and awake behaving electrode recordings, we explored the role of the cortico-striatal-limbic circuitry in impulsivity and in social deficits in male Nf1+/− mice. Manipulation of the prefrontal cortex, nucleus accumbens, or basolateral amygdala through optogenetics rescued social deficits. These studies are the first to record brain activity in a preclinical model of NF1 during impulsive behavior, finding broad spectrum changes across slow, delta, theta, and gamma oscillatory frequencies and decreased synchrony of the prefrontal cortex and nucleus accumbens during a delay discounting task. Overall, Nf1+/− male mice with deletion of a single NF1 gene recapitulate cognitive phenotypes of NF1 patients and are a useful model system to identify alterations in neural circuitry associated with ASD and ADHD.

No description available.

Le trouble déficit de l’attention avec ou sans hyperactivité (TDAH) est une maladie neurodéveloppementale de l’enfant et de l’adulte caractérisée par un déficit attentionnel, une impulsivité et une hyperactivité. La physiopathologie de cette maladie demeure non élucidée, néanmoins des stratégies thérapeutiques médicamenteuses s’avèrent efficaces. En France, le médicament utilisé dans le traitement du TDAH est le méthylphénydate (MPH) qui est un psychostimulant, et deux autres molécules paraissent prometteuses : le dymésilate de lisdexamfétamine (LDX - psychostimulant) et la guanfacine (GFC - non psychostimulant). Les cibles moléculaires de ces médicaments sont bien connues mais l’impact de ces traitement en aigu et chronique sur le fonctionnement cérébral est pour l’instant peu documenté. L’objectif de cette thèse a été d’étudier (i) la physiopathologie du TDAH et (ii) les effets de ces traitements du TDAH en aigu et en chronique sur un versant préclinique et à l’aide de l’imagerie microTEP couplée au 2-deoxy-2-(18F)fluoro-d-glucose (18FDG). Dans la première étude, des modèles animaux du TDAH ont été utilisés : des rats SHR/NCrl présentanttroubles de l’attention, hyperactivité et impulsivité et des rats WKY/NCrl présentant uniquement des troubles de l’attention. Une imagerie microTEP au 18FDG sur animal éveillé a été réalisée sur ces animaux adultes afin d’obtenir leurs profils d’activité cérébrale. Notre hypothèse était que les rats SHR/NCrl et WKY/NCrl présenteraient des modifications de capture de 18FDG similaires qui seraient impliquées dans le trouble attentionnel commun aux deux souches, alors que les rats SHR/NCrl présenteraient aussi des modifications non retrouvés chez les WKY/NCrl qui joueraient un rôle dans la genèse de l’hyperactivité-impulsivité. Cettehypothèse a été confirmée par nos résultats montrant des dysfonctions fronto-striatales limbiques et du réseau du mode par défaut chez les rats SHR/NCrl et WKY/NCrl, ainsi que des dysfonctions fronto-striatales associatives spécifiques aux rats SHR/NCrl.Dans la seconde étude, un traitement journalier au MPH, au LDX ou à la GFC a été mis en place chez des rats témoins de l’adolescence à l’âge adulte (mimant un traitement de l’enfance à la fin de l’adolescence chez l’homme). Les effets de ces traitements sur l’activité cérébrale ont été évalués après la première et la dernière injection par imagerie microTEP au 18FDG sur animal éveillé. Nos résultats montrent que chaque médicament a un effet important sur les régions limbiques, et que le LDX présente une action supplémentaire sur des régions associatives et sur les régions du réseau du mode par défaut. A notre connaissance, ce sont les premières données de neuroimagerie en préclinique qui mettent en avant l’implication des régions limbiques liées à la motivation et du réseau du mode par défaut dans la physiopathologie du TDAH. Nos résultats renforcent l’hypothèse selon laquelle les médicaments du TDAH agiraient sur les troubles primaires du TDAH et non en compensant un déficit d’attention par une augmentation de la motivation. Ces résultats suggèrent aussi que (i) la GFC est un non psychostimulant qui présente deseffets similaires au médicament de référence le MPH, et que (ii) le LDX montre un profil d’action intéressant car touchant à la fois les régions limbiques, associatives et le réseau du mode par défaut que nous trouvons toutes perturbées chez les rats SHR/NCrl. / Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorders (ADHD) is a neurodevelopment disorder affecting childs and adults presenting attention deficits, hyperactivity and impulsivity. Despite numerous neuroimaging studies on ADHD patients, the specific dysfunctions underlying the symptoms of ADHD remain unknown. To date, ADHD patients can be treated using psychostimulant drugs such as methylphenidate (MPH) and other promising compounds are currently in development (dymesilate-lisdexamfétamine (LDX) and guanfacine (GFC), that are psychostimulant and non psychostimulant medications, respectively). Even if the molecular targets of these medications are well defined, how these compounds will impact the brain activity to reverse ADHD symptoms is less known. The objectives of this work were to study (i) the pathophysiology of ADHD and (i) the effects of an acute or repeated administration of MPH, LDX or GFC using animal models and microPET imaging with 2-deoxy-2-(18F)fluoro-d-glucose (18FDG). First, we used an animal model of ADHD, namely the SHR/NCrl and WKY/NCrl rats that both exhibit attention deficits, with impulsivity-hyperactivity only displayed by SHR/NCrl rats. MicroPET imaging using 18FDG on awake rats was performed to obtain brain metabolic profiles of these animals. Our hypothesis was that SHR/NCrl and WKY/NCrl would shared brain dysfunctions in several regions of interest involved in the attention deficits, while SHR/NCrl rats would also displayed specific abnormalities related to hyperactivity-impulsivity. Our results confirmed these hypothesis as both SHR/NCrl and WKY/NCrl showed metabolic alterations in fronto-striatal limbic regions and in areas of the default mode network. In addition, SHR/NCrl specifically exhibited functional modifications in fronto-striatal associative areas.Second, daily injections with MPH, LDX or GFC were performed on control rats from adolescence to adulthood (corresponding to a treatment from childhood to the end of adolescence in humans). The effects of such treatments were evaluated after the first and the last injections on freely moving rats using microPET imaging with 18FDG. Our results showed that each medication affects the activity of limbic brain regions. In addition, LDX has an interesting profile showing effects also on associative fronto-striatal areas and on thedefault mode network. To our knowledge, these are the first preclinical neuroimaging results highlighting the crucial role of limbic brain regions related to motivation and the default mode network in the pathophysiology of attention deficits in ADHD. These data also reinforce the hypothesis that ADHD medications act on the brain areas primarily involved in the pathophysiology of ADHD. Interestingly, we showed that GFC and MPH shared the same effects on the limbic brain regions suggesting that this non psychostimulant medication is of a great interest for the treatment of ADHD. While MPH and GFC act primarily on limbic circuits, LDX also altered the activity of the default mode network and associative fronto-striatal areas. This support the hypothesis that LDX could be an interesting education for treating ADHD acting on all the systems identified as dysfunctional in the animal models of ADHD.

Posttraumatic stress disorder is a debilitating anxiety disorder that can develop in the aftermath of a traumatic or life–threatening event involving extreme horror, intense fear or bodily harm. The disorder is typified by a symptom triad consisting of re–experiencing, hyperarousal and avoidance symptoms. Approximately 15–25% of trauma–exposed individuals go on to develop PTSD, depending on the nature and severity of the trauma. Although dysfunctional adaptive responses exist in multiple neurobiological pathways in the disorder, e.g. glutamate, GABA, glucocortocoids and serotonin, the noradrenergic system is particularly prominent and represents an important pharmacological target in attempts at preventing the development of PTSD posttrauma. However, current literature shows opposing and conflicting results regarding the effect of selective noradrenergic agents in memory processing, and the effect of modulation of selective noradrenergic receptors are spread over diverse protocols and paradigms of learning and fear also employing different strains of animals. Fear conditioning is a behavioural paradigm that uses associative learning to study the neural mechanisms underlying learning, memory and fear. It is useful in investigating the underpinnings of disorders associated with maladaptive fear responses. Performing fear conditioning experiments with the aim of applying it to an animal model of PTSD, and relating these behavioural responses to a defined neural mechanism, will assist both in the elucidation of the underlying pathology of the disease, as well as the development of more effective treatment. This project has set about to re–examine the diverse and complex role of noradrenergic receptors in the conditioned fear response with relevance to PTSD. To the best of my knowledge, this study represents the first attempt at studying a range of noradrenergic compounds with diverse actions and their ability to modify conditioned fear in a single animal model. This work thus introduces greater consistency and comparative relevance not currently available in the literature, and will also provide much needed pre–clinical evidence in support of treatment strategies targeting the noradrenergic system in the prevention of PTSD posttrauma. The first objective of this study was to set up and validate a passive avoidance fear conditioning protocol under our laboratory conditions using the Gemini Avoidance System. The noradrenergic system plays a prominent role in memory consolidation and fear conditioning, while administration of –adrenergic blockers, such as propranolol, have been shown to abolish learning and fear conditioning in both humans and animals. Propranolol has also demonstrated clinical value in preventing the progression of acute traumatic stress syndrome immediately posttrauma to full–blown PTSD. To confer predictive validity to our model, the centrally active –adrenergic antagonist, propranolol, and the non–centrally acting –adrenergic antagonist, nadolol, were administered to Wistar rats after passive avoidance fear conditioning training in the Gemini Avoidance System. Wistar rats were used because of their recognised enhanced sensitivity to stress. Evidence from this pilot study confirmed that propranolol 10 mg/kg significantly inhibits the consolidation of learned fear in rats, whereas nadolol is ineffective. This effectively validated our protocol and the apparatus for further application in this study and also confirmed the importance of a central mechanism of action for –adrenoceptor blockade in the possible application of these drugs in preventing the development of PTSD posttrauma. The second objective of this study was to investigate the role of 1–, 2–, 1–, and 2–receptors in a conditioned fear passive avoidance paradigm. This was done in order to investigate how selective pharmacological modulation of these receptors may modify the conditioned fear response, and whether any of these receptor systems might exert opposing effects in passive fear conditioning. Various centrally active noradrenergic agents were employed over a 3–tiered dose response design, including the 1–antagonist, prazosin, the 2–agonist, guanfacine, the 2–antagonist, yohimbine, the 1–antagonist, betaxolol and the 2–antagonist ICI 118551. The effect of post–exposure administration of these drugs on conditioned fear was compared to that of propranolol 10 mg/kg. Selected doses of betaxolol (10 mg/kg) and ICI 118551 (1 mg/kg) attenuated fear conditioning to an extent comparable to propranolol, as did prazosin (0.1 mg/kg). Yohimbine tended to boster fear learning at all doses tested, albeit not significantly, while guanfacine did not produce any significant effect on memory retention at any of the doses studied. This latter observation was surprising since yohimbine tended to bolster fear conditioning while earlier studies indicate that 2–agonism impairs conditioned fear. Concluding, this study has conferred validity to our passive avoidance model and has provided greater insight into the separate roles of noradrenergic receptors in contextual conditioned fear learning. The study has provided supportive evidence for a key role for both 1– and 2–antagonism, as well as 1–antagonism, in inhibiting fear memory consolidation and hence as viable secondary treatment options to prevent the development of PTSD posttrauma. However, further study is required to delineate the precise role of the 2–receptor in this regard. / Thesis (M.Sc. (Pharmacology))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2012.

Posttraumatic stress disorder is a debilitating anxiety disorder that can develop in the aftermath of a traumatic or life–threatening event involving extreme horror, intense fear or bodily harm. The disorder is typified by a symptom triad consisting of re–experiencing, hyperarousal and avoidance symptoms. Approximately 15–25% of trauma–exposed individuals go on to develop PTSD, depending on the nature and severity of the trauma. Although dysfunctional adaptive responses exist in multiple neurobiological pathways in the disorder, e.g. glutamate, GABA, glucocortocoids and serotonin, the noradrenergic system is particularly prominent and represents an important pharmacological target in attempts at preventing the development of PTSD posttrauma. However, current literature shows opposing and conflicting results regarding the effect of selective noradrenergic agents in memory processing, and the effect of modulation of selective noradrenergic receptors are spread over diverse protocols and paradigms of learning and fear also employing different strains of animals. Fear conditioning is a behavioural paradigm that uses associative learning to study the neural mechanisms underlying learning, memory and fear. It is useful in investigating the underpinnings of disorders associated with maladaptive fear responses. Performing fear conditioning experiments with the aim of applying it to an animal model of PTSD, and relating these behavioural responses to a defined neural mechanism, will assist both in the elucidation of the underlying pathology of the disease, as well as the development of more effective treatment. This project has set about to re–examine the diverse and complex role of noradrenergic receptors in the conditioned fear response with relevance to PTSD. To the best of my knowledge, this study represents the first attempt at studying a range of noradrenergic compounds with diverse actions and their ability to modify conditioned fear in a single animal model. This work thus introduces greater consistency and comparative relevance not currently available in the literature, and will also provide much needed pre–clinical evidence in support of treatment strategies targeting the noradrenergic system in the prevention of PTSD posttrauma. The first objective of this study was to set up and validate a passive avoidance fear conditioning protocol under our laboratory conditions using the Gemini Avoidance System. The noradrenergic system plays a prominent role in memory consolidation and fear conditioning, while administration of –adrenergic blockers, such as propranolol, have been shown to abolish learning and fear conditioning in both humans and animals. Propranolol has also demonstrated clinical value in preventing the progression of acute traumatic stress syndrome immediately posttrauma to full–blown PTSD. To confer predictive validity to our model, the centrally active –adrenergic antagonist, propranolol, and the non–centrally acting –adrenergic antagonist, nadolol, were administered to Wistar rats after passive avoidance fear conditioning training in the Gemini Avoidance System. Wistar rats were used because of their recognised enhanced sensitivity to stress. Evidence from this pilot study confirmed that propranolol 10 mg/kg significantly inhibits the consolidation of learned fear in rats, whereas nadolol is ineffective. This effectively validated our protocol and the apparatus for further application in this study and also confirmed the importance of a central mechanism of action for –adrenoceptor blockade in the possible application of these drugs in preventing the development of PTSD posttrauma. The second objective of this study was to investigate the role of 1–, 2–, 1–, and 2–receptors in a conditioned fear passive avoidance paradigm. This was done in order to investigate how selective pharmacological modulation of these receptors may modify the conditioned fear response, and whether any of these receptor systems might exert opposing effects in passive fear conditioning. Various centrally active noradrenergic agents were employed over a 3–tiered dose response design, including the 1–antagonist, prazosin, the 2–agonist, guanfacine, the 2–antagonist, yohimbine, the 1–antagonist, betaxolol and the 2–antagonist ICI 118551. The effect of post–exposure administration of these drugs on conditioned fear was compared to that of propranolol 10 mg/kg. Selected doses of betaxolol (10 mg/kg) and ICI 118551 (1 mg/kg) attenuated fear conditioning to an extent comparable to propranolol, as did prazosin (0.1 mg/kg). Yohimbine tended to boster fear learning at all doses tested, albeit not significantly, while guanfacine did not produce any significant effect on memory retention at any of the doses studied. This latter observation was surprising since yohimbine tended to bolster fear conditioning while earlier studies indicate that 2–agonism impairs conditioned fear. Concluding, this study has conferred validity to our passive avoidance model and has provided greater insight into the separate roles of noradrenergic receptors in contextual conditioned fear learning. The study has provided supportive evidence for a key role for both 1– and 2–antagonism, as well as 1–antagonism, in inhibiting fear memory consolidation and hence as viable secondary treatment options to prevent the development of PTSD posttrauma. However, further study is required to delineate the precise role of the 2–receptor in this regard. / Thesis (M.Sc. (Pharmacology))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2012.