Go to The Journal of Clinical Investigation
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Journal stats
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Transfers
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
  • Physician-Scientist Development
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • By specialty
    • COVID-19
    • Cardiology
    • Immunology
    • Metabolism
    • Nephrology
    • Oncology
    • Pulmonology
    • All ...
  • Videos
  • Collections
    • In-Press Preview
    • Resource and Technical Advances
    • Clinical Research and Public Health
    • Research Letters
    • Editorials
    • Perspectives
    • Physician-Scientist Development
    • Reviews
    • Top read articles

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Specialties
  • In-Press Preview
  • Resource and Technical Advances
  • Clinical Research and Public Health
  • Research Letters
  • Editorials
  • Perspectives
  • Physician-Scientist Development
  • Reviews
  • Top read articles
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Journal stats
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Transfers
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
Neuronal network dysfunction precedes storage and neurodegeneration in a lysosomal storage disorder
Rebecca C. Ahrens-Nicklas, Luis Tecedor, Arron F. Hall, Elena Lysenko, Akiva S. Cohen, Beverly L. Davidson, Eric D. Marsh
Rebecca C. Ahrens-Nicklas, Luis Tecedor, Arron F. Hall, Elena Lysenko, Akiva S. Cohen, Beverly L. Davidson, Eric D. Marsh
View: Text | PDF
Research Article Metabolism Neuroscience

Neuronal network dysfunction precedes storage and neurodegeneration in a lysosomal storage disorder

  • Text
  • PDF
Abstract

Accumulation of lysosomal storage material and late-stage neurodegeneration are hallmarks of lysosomal storage disorders (LSDs) affecting the brain. Yet, for most LSDs, including CLN3 disease, the most common form of childhood dementia, it is unclear what mechanisms drive neurologic symptoms. Do deficits arise from loss of function of the mutated protein or toxicity from storage accumulation? Here, using in vitro voltage-sensitive dye imaging and in vivo electrophysiology, we find progressive hippocampal dysfunction occurs before notable lysosomal storage and neuronal loss in 2 CLN3 disease mouse models. Pharmacologic reversal of lysosomal storage deposition in young mice does not rescue this circuit dysfunction. Additionally, we find that CLN3 disease mice lose an electrophysiologic marker of new memory encoding — hippocampal sharp-wave ripples. This discovery, which is also seen in Alzheimer’s disease, suggests the possibility of a shared electrophysiologic signature of dementia. Overall, our data describe new insights into previously unknown network-level changes occurring in LSDs affecting the central nervous system and highlight the need for new therapeutic interventions targeting early circuit defects.

Authors

Rebecca C. Ahrens-Nicklas, Luis Tecedor, Arron F. Hall, Elena Lysenko, Akiva S. Cohen, Beverly L. Davidson, Eric D. Marsh

×

Figure 5

CBX, a drug that reduces storage burden, cannot correct hypoexcitability of the DG and worsens hypoexcitability of the hilus and CA3 in early-stage CLN3 disease.

Options: View larger image (or click on image) Download as PowerPoint
CBX, a drug that reduces storage burden, cannot correct hypoexcitability...
(A–C) Hippocampal slices from 2-month-old CLN3–/– mice treated with 2 weeks of 20 mg CBX, a dose that reduces storage burden and normalizes endocytosis in vivo, show residual hypoexcitability of the DG after PP stimulation, as measured by VSDI response as compared with untreated CLN3–/– slices. (D–F) CBX treatment worsened hypoexcitability of the hilus and CA3 after SC stimulation as compared with untreated CLN3–/–. Group sizes (n = slices, N = mice): 2-month PP stimulation untreated n = 26, N = 5; CBX-treated n = 25, N = 5; 2-month SC stimulation untreated n = 11, N = 5; CBX-treated n = 20, N = 5. Areas of statistical significance identified using a permutation sampling method; for regions of significance with P < 0.05, the difference in fluorescence change (ΔF/FUntreated – ΔF/FCBX) is shown. Panel A reproduced from Figure 1B. Panel D reproduced from Figure 3B.

Copyright © 2026 American Society for Clinical Investigation
ISSN 2379-3708

Sign up for email alerts