Cellular bases of focal and generalized epilepsies

Direct reprogramming into interneurons: potential for brain repair

The brain tissue has only a limited capacity for generating new neurons. Therefore, to treat neurological diseases, there is a need of other cell sources for brain repair. Different sources of cells have been subject of intense research over the years, including cells from primary tissue, stem cell-derived cells and reprogrammed cells. As an alternative, direct reprogramming of resident brain cells into neurons is a recent approach that could provide an attractive method for treating brain injuries or diseases as it uses the patient's own cells for generating novel neurons inside the brain. In vivo reprogramming is still in its early stages but holds great promise as an option for cell therapy. To date, both inhibitory and excitatory neurons have been obtained via in vivo reprogramming, but the precise phenotype or functionality of these cells has not been analysed in detail in most of the studies. Recent data shows that in vivo reprogrammed neurons are able to functionally mature and integrate into the existing brain circuitry, and compose interneuron phenotypes that seem to correlate to their endogenous counterparts. Interneurons are of particular importance as they are essential in physiological brain function and when disturbed lead to several neurological disorders. In this review, we describe a comprehensive overview of the existing studies involving brain repair, including in vivo reprogramming, with a focus on interneurons, along with an overview on current efforts to generate interneurons for cell therapy for a number of neurological diseases.

Simultaneous impairment of neuronal and metabolic function of mutated gephyrin in a patient with epileptic encephalopathy

Synaptic inhibition is essential for shaping the dynamics of neuronal networks, and aberrant inhibition plays an important role in neurological disorders. Gephyrin is a central player at inhibitory postsynapses, directly binds and organizes GABA_A and glycine receptors (GABA_ARs and GlyRs), and is thereby indispensable for normal inhibitory neurotransmission. Additionally, gephyrin catalyzes the synthesis of the molybdenum cofactor (MoCo) in peripheral tissue. We identified a de novo missense mutation (G375D) in the gephyrin gene (GPHN) in a patient with epileptic encephalopathy resembling Dravet syndrome. Although stably expressed and correctly folded, gephyrin‐G375D was non‐synaptically localized in neurons and acted dominant‐negatively on the clustering of wild‐type gephyrin leading to a marked decrease in GABA_AR surface expression and GABAergic signaling. We identified a decreased binding affinity between gephyrin‐G375D and the receptors, suggesting that Gly375 is essential for gephyrin–receptor complex formation. Surprisingly, gephyrin‐G375D was also unable to synthesize MoCo and activate MoCo‐dependent enzymes. Thus, we describe a missense mutation that affects both functions of gephyrin and suggest that the identified defect at GABAergic synapses is the mechanism underlying the patient's severe phenotype.

How do we make models that are useful in understanding partial epilepsies?

The goals of constructing epilepsy models are (1) to develop approaches to prophylaxis of epileptogenesis following cortical injury; (2) to devise selective treatments for established epilepsies based on underlying pathophysiological mechanisms; and (3) use of a disease (epilepsy) model to explore brain molecular, cellular and circuit properties. Modeling a particular epilepsy syndrome requires detailed knowledge of key clinical phenomenology and results of human experiments that can be addressed in critically designed laboratory protocols. Contributions to understanding mechanisms and treatment of neurological disorders has often come from research not focused on a specific disease-relevant issue. Much of the foundation for current research in epilepsy falls into this category. Too strict a definition of the relevance of an experimental model to progress in preventing or curing epilepsy may, in the long run, slow progress. Inadequate exploration of the experimental target and basic laboratory results in a given model can lead to a failed effort and false negative or positive results. Models should be chosen based on the specific issues to be addressed rather than on convenience of use. Multiple variables including maturational age, species and strain, lesion type, severity and location, latency from injury to experiment and genetic background will affect results. A number of key issues in clinical and basic research in partial epilepsies remain to be addressed including the mechanisms active during the latent period following injury, susceptibility factors that predispose to epileptogenesis, injury - induced adaptive versus maladaptive changes, mechanisms of pharmaco-resistance and strategies to deal with multiple pathophysiological processes occurring in parallel.

Are alterations in transmitter receptor and ion channel expression responsible for epilepsies?

Neuronal voltage-gated ion channels and ligand-gated synaptic receptors play a critical role in maintaining the delicate balance between neuronal excitation and inhibition within neuronal networks in the brain. Changes in expression of voltage-gated ion channels, in particular sodium, hyperpolarization-activated cyclic nucleotide-gated (HCN) and calcium channels, and ligand-gated synaptic receptors, in particular GABA and glutamate receptors, have been reported in many types of both genetic and acquired epilepsies, in animal models and in humans. In this chapter we review these and discuss the potential pathogenic role they may play in the epilepsies.