4.8 Article

Genomic imprinting of experience-dependent cortical plasticity by the ubiquitin ligase gene Ube3a

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1001281107

关键词

Angelman syndrome; critical period; epigenetics; ocular dominance plasticity; visual cortex

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [EY02874, MH077972]
  2. Angelman Syndrome Foundation
  3. Uehara Memorial Foundation
  4. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A defect in the maternal copy of a ubiqutin ligase gene Ube3a can produce a neurodevelopmental defect in human children known as Angelman syndrome. We investigated the role of the maternally expressed Ube3a gene in experience-dependent development and plasticity of the mouse visual system. As demonstrated by optical imaging, rapid ocular dominance (OD) plasticity after brief monocular deprivation (MD) was severely impaired during the critical period (CP) in the visual cortex (VC) of Ube3a maternal-deficient (m-/p+) mice. Prolonged MD elicited significant plasticity in m-/p+ mice that never matched the level seen in control animals. In older animals after the CP, 7-day MD elicited mild OD shifts in both control and m-/p+ mice; however, the OD shifts in m-/p+ mice lacked the strengthening of visual responses to the two eyes characteristic of normal adult plasticity. Anatomic effects of the maternal deficiency include reduced spine density on basal, but not apical, dendrites of pyramidal neurons in the binocular region of the VC. Imprinting of Ube3a expression was not fully established in the early postnatal period, consistent with the normal development of cortical retinotopy and visual acuity that we observed in m-/p+ mice, but was fully established by the onset of the CP. These results demonstrate that paternal and maternal genomes are not functionally equivalent for cortical plasticity, and that maternally expressed Ube3a is required for normal experience-dependent modification of cortical circuits during and after the CP.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据