CNS critical periods: implications for dystonia and other neurodevelopmental disorders

Critical periods are discrete developmental stages when the nervous system is especially sensitive to stimuli that facilitate circuit maturation. The distinctive landscapes assumed by the developing CNS create analogous periods of susceptibility to pathogenic insults and responsiveness to therapy. Here, we review critical periods in nervous system development and disease, with an emphasis on the neurodevelopmental disorder DYT1 dystonia. We highlight clinical and laboratory observations supporting the existence of a critical period during which the DYT1 mutation is uniquely harmful, and the implications for future therapeutic development.

Critical periods are a feature of many processes in healthy neurodevelopment and have been studied extensively for a number of developmental processes (6, 9–12). Principles learned from these studies form the basis for understanding selective windows of vulnerability to pathogenic insults in neurodevelopmental disease.

Visual system. A large body of work in multiple species demonstrates that visual input to both eyes during a discrete temporal window is required for normal development of visual function (6, 9, 13–17). There exists a critical period of increased sensitivity to visual deprivation or impairment when such insults can cause irreversible visual dysfunction. Monocular deprivation during the visual critical period in many species causes loss of visual cortical neuron responsiveness to the deprived eye and pallor/reduced size of the lateral geniculate nucleus (13, 15). These changes persist even after the occluded eye is reopened but are attenuated or absent if the monocular deprivation occurs after critical period closure.

The visual critical period can be modified by altering sensory experience. Elimination of essentially all visual stimuli through dark rearing slows the maturation of visual circuits, effectively extending the visual critical period (18, 19). In kittens, visual plasticity, measured as the degree of shifting of visual cortical neuron spiking preference after monocular deprivation, normally rises sharply at 6 weeks of age and declines over the next 10 weeks (19). In contrast, dark-reared kittens maintain a steady increase in plasticity over the first 12 weeks and retain plasticity at 16 weeks of age (19). Dark-reared rats also exhibit a lengthened critical period and heightened plasticity. However this effect is counteracted by environmental enrichment in the form of running wheels and toys, which promote visual system consolidation and maturation (20). After typical critical period closure, 50-day-old rats dark reared from birth without environmental enrichment still exhibit plasticity in response to monocular deprivation, while 50-day-old rats dark-reared from birth with environmental enrichment do not (20). These findings demonstrate that sensory stimuli and experience can influence the critical period, even when the experience involves a modality different from that under study.

Visual system critical periods are directly relevant to human disease. Pediatric cataracts can impair normal visual development (21, 22). Early removal of neonatal cataracts is critical for enabling normal visual function (23). Amblyopia is the failure to develop normal vision, typically because of ocular misalignment. Early therapy (i.e., patching the “good” eye to force use of the at-risk eye) prior to critical period closure is essential. This early intervention improves outcomes and often prevents loss of visual acuity (24–26). These observations highlight the relationship between critical period plasticity, developmental susceptibility, and the capacity for recovery during the critical period.

How do environmental factors such as dark rearing impact the critical period for recovery from monocular deprivation? While our understanding of these events is limited, some work — including genetic, molecular, and pharmacologic manipulations — provides initial insight. Duffy et al. demonstrated that dark rearing increased plasticity in kittens with monocular deprivation (27). In this study, dark rearing appeared to accelerate recovery of visual function through a mechanism that may involve disassembly and reorganization of cytoskeletal elements that limit plasticity (27). The ability of dark rearing to promote recovery in cats was limited to a critical period following monocular deprivation, with effects tapering off by around 6 months of age (28). Studies of the Ly6/neurotoxin 1 (Lynx1) protein highlight a role for nicotinic cholinergic signaling in visual system critical period regulation. Lynx1 binds to and modulates nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (29). Lynx1 expression increases coincident with critical period closure. Monocular deprivation in adult (after critical period closure) WT mice does not induce lasting changes to the visual system, while the same manipulation in adult Lynx1-deficient animals shifts visual cortical neuron spiking preference away from the occluded eye (30). Lynx1-knockout mice are also able to recover from monocular deprivation at older ages compared with controls. Pharmacological approaches to mimic Lynx1 deletion by treating WT mice with an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor (thus increasing cholinergic signaling) similarly allowed recovery of visual acuity after monocular deprivation in older animals (30). Lynx1 deletion and enhancing cholinergic signaling similarly increase plasticity in auditory circuits (31).

The extracellular matrix (ECM) is another established modulator of plasticity. A strong body of work has demonstrated that manipulating specific ECM components influences visual plasticity (32–34). The maturation of ECM into perineuronal nets inhibits axon growth and limits visual plasticity (35). Degradation of chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans, a primary component of perineuronal nets, restores ocular dominance plasticity in mature mice. Taken together, these studies on nicotinic signaling and ECM provide proof-of-concept evidence that genetic, pharmacological, and chemical interventions can alter critical periods. These strategies are valuable means to explore the pathophysiology of neurodevelopmental disease and assess for potential therapeutic effects of critical period modulation.

Other systems. Similar to the principles described in the visual system, classic work by Knudsen and colleagues defined critical periods related to barn owl auditory function. These investigators explored the impact of brain maturation on auditory function plasticity by inducing unilateral hearing (by plugging individual ears) at different ages. Animals younger than 8 weeks of age were able to adjust to ear plugging and recovered normal sound localization; however, the ability to adapt to ear plugging was lost at older ages (36). The unique plasticity of younger animals was also demonstrated by their ability to recover normal sound localization after removal of the ear plugs. Ear unplugging prior to 20 weeks of age facilitated rapid recovery of sound localization, but recovery was slower and incomplete when unplugging occurred after 28 weeks of age (37). Visual calibration of auditory space is also developmentally dependent. Shifting the relative position of the owls’ auditory and visual maps (through prismatic goggle wearing) caused inaccurate striking of targets (38). Correction and recalibration of auditory and visual maps at an early age resulted in successful recovery of auditory-visual correlation, but the capacity for recovery was limited to owls younger than 200 days (39). Considered together, these data demonstrate a developmental critical period during which auditory and visual function is strongly modified by sensory experience. Remarkably, this period of plasticity is itself modifiable by experience. Housing the owls in an enriched environment (e.g., in a larger aviary with other owls) essentially eliminated the critical period, enabling recovery of map alignment at all ages tested (39).

Few studies have examined and experimentally manipulated critical periods in motor development. Tail suspension of neonatal and juvenile rats to limit hind limb activity is one approach that has been utilized (40). Suspension between P13 and P31 caused persistent gait abnormalities, leading Walton et al. to label this period as a critical window during which hind limb weight-bearing activity is required for normal motor development (40). Tail suspension earlier or later or for shorter periods of time produced only mild, transient effects. Another approach has been to simulate damage to the corticospinal system by chronically inhibiting primary motor cortex signaling with the GABAergic agonist muscimol. Inactivation of the feline motor cortex from postnatal week 5 to 7 caused inaccurate forelimb reaching, overstepping on a horizontal ladder, and loss of spinal cholinergic interneurons (41). Strikingly, motor function and spinal cholinergic interneuron density were normalized by having the cats perform a forelimb reaching task from postnatal week 8 to 13. In contrast, the reaching task had no benefit if performed from postnatal week 20 to 24 (41). Motor critical periods have not been studied extensively in humans because of ethical considerations regarding experimentation. An extensive body of literature exists documenting a critical period for language acquisition (12). Briefly, while language is a complex process involving sensory, cognitive, and motor processes, the exceptional ability of young children to acquire language skills — which markedly declines by teenage years and beyond — supports the general notion of motor critical periods (42, 43).

Taken together, these studies demonstrate that developmental stage and unique critical period plasticity facilitate normal development. Analogously, in neurodevelopmental disease, the nervous system is likely uniquely susceptible to mutations in genes or other insults that strongly impact the processes that are critical for supporting the enhanced plasticity and other distinctive features of the developing brain.

As with developmental critical periods, critical periods of vulnerability and response to therapy have been investigated for several neurodevelopmental disorders. Here, we consider the disease-related critical periods primarily in the context of gene function in inherited developmental disorders.

Critical periods have been explored in the context of synaptic Ras GTPase-activating protein 1–related (SYNGAP1-related) intellectual disability. Mutations in SYNGAP1 cause a neurodevelopmental spectrum disorder that includes autism, intellectual disability, and epilepsy (44–46). Studies in mice demonstrate a critical period of vulnerability to Syngap1 LOF. At P1, deletion of Syngap1 causes synaptic and cognitive deficits, whereas deletion in adults has no effect (47). Similarly, restoring Syngap1 expression in adult LOF mice has minimal impact on behavioral phenotypes (47). These data demonstrate a critical period of vulnerability to Syngap1 impairment during neurodevelopment and a therapeutic critical period after which Syngap1 supplementation is ineffective.

Angelman syndrome, caused by ubiquitin protein ligase E3A (UBE3A) LOF, is a complex neurodevelopmental disease characterized by epilepsy, developmental regression, and autistic features (48). Sonzogni et al. defined a critical period of vulnerability in Ube3a LOF mice by demonstrating that embryonic deletion produced robust autism-like phenotypes, but had little effect when depleted in 3- or 12-week-old animals (49). Silva-Santos et al. performed an analogous study to determine whether a therapeutic critical period exists for Ube3a restoration and found that the effectiveness of behavioral rescue inversely correlated with age (50). Early (at 3 weeks of age) restoration fully rescued deficits in motor coordination; adolescent (6 week) restoration was partially effective; but adult restoration (14 weeks) was completely ineffective. Prevention of autism-associated phenotypes, such as reduced marble burying and nest building, required embryonic Ube3a reactivation, defining a therapeutic critical period (50). These data highlight the pleiotropic effects of pathogenic mutations and the importance of clearly defining the unique processes linked to each symptom.

Not all early-onset neurodevelopmental diseases exhibit critical periods. Mutations in the X-linked gene MECP2 cause Rett syndrome, which is characterized by an array of neurological symptoms, including ataxia and intellectual disability (51). Mecp2 deletion in juvenile and adult mice produces similar Rett syndrome–associated behavioral phenotypes and lethality (52). These data are consistent with studies demonstrating that expression of Mecp2 in adult mice is important for maintenance of neuronal morphology and neuronal networks (53, 54). Indeed, in both adult and juvenile mice, restoration of Mecp2 expression in a Rett syndrome model effectively suppresses neurological phenotypes (55). A similar scenario has been described in studies of SHANK3-related autism. Germline disruption of the autism-linked gene Shank3 causes synaptic and autism-like behavioral deficits in young mice (56, 57). Strikingly, adult Shank3 restoration rescued synaptic protein composition, repetitive behaviors, and social interaction deficits (58), but not anxiety or motor performance, which were rescued only when Shank3 was reactivated at juvenile ages (58). These findings reinforce the notion that multiple independent pathophysiological processes can occur in neurodevelopmental disease.

These studies indicate that the responsiveness of the adult nervous system to gene replacement correlates with an ongoing role for the gene in the mature nervous system. In the cases of Syngap1 and Ube3a, adult induction of LOF caused greatly attenuated phenotypes compared with embryonic or juvenile LOF. Analogously, early gene repletion of Syngap1 or Ube3a rescues mouse behavioral phenotypes, but adult gene repletion does not. In contrast, profound phenotypes emerge with adult-onset depletion of Mecp2, and genetic restoration in adulthood is effective. These contrasting observations emphasize the importance of determining whether critical periods exist— both for identifying key pathophysiologic processes and for guiding rational therapeutic development.

A striking example of another critical period of vulnerability is that for prenatal alcohol exposure. The selective temporal vulnerability to neurodegeneration caused by ethanol exposure corresponds specifically to the period of rapid synaptogenesis in each brain region (59, 60). Ethanol acts as an NMDA receptor antagonist, and the susceptibility of neurons to NMDA antagonists is similarly developmentally regulated (61). These experiments exemplify how defining selective temporal vulnerability can help to unravel disease pathogenesis and point toward specific therapeutic strategies.

Delayed-onset dystonia due to perinatal hypoxia can occur in humans. Some children who experience perinatal hypoxic injury develop dystonia many years later, typically during their teenage years (62, 63). The delay between the brain injury and the age at dystonia onset suggests that ongoing neurodevelopmental processes may act as a so-called second hit required to trigger symptoms. Work by Aravamuthan et al. indicates that such insults depend upon a critical period to cause dystonia (64). This work demonstrates that perinatal hypoxic injury in rats causes motor and electrophysiologic dysfunction if induced at P7–P8, but not if the hypoxic injury occurs at P5–P6.

A related but distinct issue is relevant in adult-onset disease. Accumulating evidence demonstrates that many disease processes begin long before symptom onset. The study of monogenic disorders with high penetrance, in which presymptomatic mutation carriers can be studied, has been especially informative. For example, fragile X-associated tremor/ataxia syndrome (FXTAS), caused by an intermediate premutation length CGG repeat expansion in the promoter of the FMR1 gene, is a neurodegenerative disorder that typically manifests after the age of 55, with age-dependent penetrance and progressive clinical features (65–67). Larger expansions of the same repeat cause fragile X syndrome, the most common inherited cause of intellectual disability. Despite the late onset of FXTAS, widespread structural and connectivity changes are observed in younger premutation carriers, long before the emergence of motor or cognitive symptoms (68–70). Similarly, premanifest Huntington disease (HD) is characterized by significant volumetric, microstructural, and functional connectivity changes in brain imaging studies (reviewed in ref. 71). A recent study demonstrated abnormalities in the prenatal cortex of human fetuses carrying the pathogenic HD-related CAG repeat expansion in the HTT gene, even though the disease typically manifests decades later (72).

These data suggest that in some cases, the pathogenic cascade of late-onset diseases may begin during brain development. This concept is distinct from that of a classical critical period of sensitivity or vulnerability, but highlights that disruption of developmental pathways may be an important component of the pathogenesis of age-related disease. Work in animal models provides clues to these conceptual differences. Selective expression of mutant Htt during development produces movement abnormalities that are analogous to, but less severe than, those in mice harboring mutant Htt their entire lives (73). These data suggest that HD is not characterized by a critical period, but that a potentially HTT-independent pathogenic cascade begins much earlier than symptom onset. In both cases, it is important to identify early disease processes that are likely more amenable to gene therapy prior to onset of potentially irreversible damage.

Even Alzheimer disease, the paradigmatic age-related neurodegenerative illness, is now understood to begin decades prior to symptom onset (74–78), which may in part explain the failures of disease-modifying therapies (79–81). These observations highlight that defining the earliest manifestations of disease pathophysiology, including those emerging during brain development, is likely essential to developing efficacious therapies for a larger group of diseases than those with an obvious developmental component.

DYT1 dystonia is caused by an in-frame TOR1A deletion mutation that results in removal of a single glutamic acid residue (ΔE) from the torsinA protein (4). The expression pattern of torsinA in mice is consistent with an important role in neurodevelopment. TorsinA is expressed at higher levels in neural compared with nonneural tissues (82, 83), and striatal torsinA expression is greater in developing than mature mice (84). Limited data exist documenting the expression pattern of torsinA in human postmortem brains (85), but they suggest that it is expressed by the early postnatal period.

Multiple lines of evidence suggest that the ΔE mutation impairs torsinA function. TorsinA is an AAA+ ATPase localized to the nuclear envelope (NE)/endoplasmic reticulum endomembrane space. It requires the cofactor lamina-associated polypeptide 1 (LAP1) or luminal domain–like LAP1 (LULL1) for ATPase activity; the ΔE mutation disrupts interaction with these cofactors, impairing ATPase activity (86–90). ΔE torsinA accumulates aberrantly at the NE and can recruit WT torsinA to this structure. This finding is consistent with a dominant-negative molecular mechanism and a role at the NE.

Mouse genetic studies provide in vivo data confirming that the ΔE mutation impairs torsinA function. Tor1a^–/–, Tor1a^ΔE/–, and Tor1a^ΔE/ΔE mice are phenotypically similar: each of these genotypes exhibits early postnatal lethality and morphologic abnormalities of the neuronal nuclear membrane known as “blebs” (91). These studies define ΔE torsinA as a LOF allele. Additional in vivo work confirms the LOF effect of the ΔE mutation, but demonstrates that ΔE torsinA retains some function (i.e., is a hypomorphic allele). For example, conditional deletion of Tor1a from the CNS (Nestin-Cre; Tor1a^fl/–) causes neurodegeneration in a discrete subset of sensorimotor regions, including cortex, thalamus, red nucleus, facial nerve nucleus (7N), and cerebellum (92). Mice made to selectively express the Tor1a^ΔE allele in the CNS (Nestin-Cre; Tor1a^fl/ΔE) exhibit the same pattern but significantly less cell loss than Tor1a-deficient mice, indicating some residual torsinA function. Consistent with this conclusion, Nestin-Cre; Tor1a^fl/– mice die by approximately P16, whereas Nestin-Cre; Tor1a^fl/ΔE mice exhibit delayed postnatal growth and overtly abnormal postures, but not early lethality (92). A gene dosage study further supports the conclusion that Tor1a^ΔE is a hypomorphic LOF allele (93).

Modeling DYT1 dystonia with torsinA LOF in mice demonstrates a critical role for torsinA in early postnatal brain maturation. The phenotypes described above for mice with conditional Tor1a^ΔE/– CNS mutations are not present at birth, emerge in the first 1–2 weeks of life, and do not subsequently progress (92). Deletion of Tor1a from all cerebellar cells (using En1-Cre) causes almost complete loss of deep cerebellar neurons within the first 2 weeks of life, but no further change up to 1.5 years of age (93). Conditional Tor1a deletion in forebrain of mice (using Dlx5/6-Cre; herein referred to as Dlx-CKO) causes a highly selective loss of dorsal striatal cholinergic interneurons that begins at approximately P12 and appears complete by approximately P30 (Table 1 and Figure 1; ref. 94). Assessment of human postmortem striatal tissue from patients with DYT1 dystonia shows a selective cholinergic abnormality (94), providing support for the validity of the model. Motor symptoms in the Dlx-CKO model emerge in juvenile mice (~P15) and are responsive to clinically used drugs, indicating shared pathophysiology with DYT1 dystonia (94). These data highlight a potential critical period of vulnerability in the first few postnatal weeks, when neurodegeneration is ongoing and motor symptoms begin (Figure 1). Interestingly, this time period in rodents appears to roughly correlate with the preadolescent period in humans (95), when symptom onset in DYT1 dystonia typically occurs (5).

Figure 1

A neurodevelopmental model of DYT1 pathogenesis. Timeline of molecular, cellular, and behavioral events in Dlx-CKO mice, as well as concurrent and potentially related developmental processes (109, 140). Molecular and cellular phenotypes emerge throughout a discrete period of vulnerability to torsinA impairment during early postnatal CNS maturation. These phenotypes rapidly disappear or stabilize, but motor dysfunction persists for life. This model highlights that initial torsinA-linked molecular events can lead to permanent circuit dysfunction delinked from the initial genetic insult. The sources for the phenotypes defined are as follows: NE blebbing (84), perinuclear ubiquitin accumulation, cholinergic interneuron (ChI) degeneration, and motor dysfunction (94). Illustrated by Rachel Davidowitz.

Table 1

Findings consistent with a critical period for torsinA function and selective developmental vulnerability

Unique developmental effects are also observed in models of DYT6 dystonia, which is caused by mutations in the THAP1 gene (96). As in DYT1 dystonia, symptom onset in DYT6 dystonia typically emerges during childhood and is incompletely penetrant (97). A large number of dominantly inherited THAP1 mutations cause DYT6 dystonia, including early truncations, consistent with a LOF mechanism. Mice with CNS-specific Thap1 mutations exhibit impaired myelination and motor dysfunction as juveniles (98). Myelination largely normalizes in adulthood, but motor dysfunction persists (98). THAP1 is therefore essential for early postnatal myelination but appears largely dispensable in adulthood. These data indicate a model whereby a transient developmental defect can resolve but nevertheless causes permanent CNS dysfunction.

Studies in DYT1 models have documented aberrant corticostriatal plasticity (99, 100) and suggest a role for striatal cholinergic interneurons in this phenotype (99, 101–103). Augmented and premature long-term potentiation at corticostriatal synapses is observed in immature Tor1a^ΔE/+ mice (Table 1; ref. 104). Alterations in plasticity correlated with increased brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) levels, which were observed in juvenile but not adult Tor1a^ΔE/+ striatum. BDNF antagonism rescued plasticity deficits in juvenile, but not adult, mice (104). These findings are consistent with those described above, indicating a developmental window.

One study, employing RNAi-mediated knockdown rather than gene deletion of torsinA, proposes an opposite model of DYT1 pathophysiology (105). The authors argue that developmental compensation prevents early torsinA LOF phenotypes, and that acute knockdown at later ages is required in order to model the disease. However, the multiple examples of early postnatal phenotypes in the Tor1a mutants described above and the fact that the human disease itself is caused by a germline mutation are not consistent with this model. RNAi is known to exert toxic off-target effects (106), and the effects of gene knockdown can differ considerably from those of traditional gene-targeting strategies (107), suggesting alternative explanations for these acute knockdown findings.

Molecular and cellular studies of torsinA provide clues to its essential role during postnatal maturation. Several studies demonstrate that torsinA functions at the NE. Postmigratory neurons from Tor1a^–/– and Tor1a^ΔE/ΔE mice exhibit abnormal blebbing of the inner nuclear membrane (INM), forming Ω-shaped outpouchings (blebs) that are connected to the INM by a neck-like structure (83, 91, 108). These structures are not observed in any other cell types or in migrating neurons. NE blebs emerge in a caudal-rostral gradient reflective of CNS development. In newborn mice, earlier-maturing caudal regions exhibit higher percentages of nuclei with NE blebs than later-maturing rostral regions. NE blebs appear to be linked to nuclear pore complex (NPC) biogenesis. Maturing neurons dramatically increase the number of NPCs during a discrete developmental window (109) that likely corresponds to a demand for increased transcription and translation as these cells mature and integrate into circuits. NE blebs appear similar to an intermediate structure of interphase NPC biogenesis (108, 110, 111) and contain NPC components (108, 112). TorsinA-null neurons exhibit mislocalized, incomplete-appearing NPCs that contain early-added nucleoporins but lack components that are added later in the process (110, 113), consistent with a halted intermediate structure. Furthermore, depleting an essential component of NPC assembly prevents formation of NE blebs in a cellular model of torsin LOF (112). The period of rapid NPC biogenesis could represent a strongly upregulated developmental process that increases demand on torsinA function, rendering the developing CNS uniquely vulnerable to torsinA LOF.

Another factor that influences vulnerability of the developing CNS to torsinA LOF is the expression level of the torsinA paralog torsinB. TorsinB shares sequence similarity (approximately 68%) with torsinA and is activated by the same cofactors that activate torsinA catalytic function (88). TorsinB levels in the striatum begin to increase in the second postnatal week, and torsinA levels decrease during the same period (Table 1 and Figure 2; ref. 84). The increase in torsinB expression correlates with resolution of NE blebs (Figure 2), suggesting that this upregulation may contribute to the normalization of the torsinA-related phenomenon. Consistent with this possibility, deleting both Tor1a and Tor1b prevents bleb resolution, and torsinB overexpression suppresses NE bleb formation in vitro (Figure 2; ref. 84). These data highlight how the relative levels of torsinA and torsinB that characterize normal development may correspond to a critical period when torsinA function is essential.

Figure 2

TorsinB dictates developmental vulnerability to torsinA LOF–related NE blebbing. Abnormal NE blebbing occurs during a developmental window when torsinB levels are low. Blebs resolve as torsinB levels rise during maturation. Simultaneous deletion of torsinA and torsinB prevents bleb resolution, highlighting how the torsinB expression level dictates susceptibility to torsinA LOF. Illustrated by Rachel Davidowitz.

TorsinB expression levels also modulate behavioral abnormalities and neurodegeneration caused by torsinA LOF. Homozygous germline deletion of torsinB appears phenotypically silent (84, 114). In DYT1 mouse models, however, reducing torsinB levels worsens behavioral and neuropathological phenotypes, whereas increasing torsinB expression completely rescues abnormal movements and neuronal loss (114). Emx1-Cre–mediated deletion of torsinA in mice causes cortical thinning and motor dysfunction; simultaneous deletion of torsinA and torsinB in the same spatial field exacerbates both neurodegeneration and motor dysfunction in all mice. Conversely, torsinB overexpression in multiple torsinA-CKO mouse models is protective, preventing phenotypes including early lethality, neurodegeneration, and motor dysfunction (114). Critically, torsinB overexpression also rescues the neuropathological and behavioral features of mice that selectively express the Tor1a^ΔE allele in the CNS (Nestin-Cre; Tor1a^fl/ΔE), establishing the effectiveness of this intervention in the context of pathogenic ΔE torsinA. These studies provide further evidence that developmental changes in torsinB expression may play a key role in dictating the critical period of vulnerability to torsinA LOF, and that modulating torsinB levels may be an effective therapeutic strategy for DYT1 dystonia.

While DYT1 and some other genetic forms of dystonia manifest primarily in childhood, most cases of sporadic dystonia occur in adulthood (115). Why do some forms of dystonia display a developmental vulnerability and onset while others do not? The mechanisms of adult-onset primary dystonia are poorly understood because nearly all cases are idiopathic. DYT25 dystonia, caused by dominant mutations in GNAL, is the single inherited form of dystonia that manifests primarily (although not exclusively) during adulthood (3). GNAL encodes the α (stimulatory) subunit of the Gα(olf) heterotrimeric complex that participates in D1 receptor signaling (116). Dystonia arising from multiple etiologies has been linked to a set of common downstream abnormalities, including altered basal ganglia output, reduced cortical inhibition, impaired sensorimotor integration, and maladaptive plasticity (117–126). Interestingly, in some patients DYT25 dystonia manifests during childhood, and GNAL participates in several of the processes affected by genes causing childhood-onset dystonia. Considered together, these facts suggest that diverse molecular processes converge on one or more dystonia-related circuit mechanisms, but that the developmental susceptibility to these mutations likely depends on the specific gene and its role, or lack thereof, in developmental processes.

Several central themes emerge in the consideration of strategies for neurodevelopmental diseases. The effectiveness of etiologically based molecular therapies for many (and likely most) neurodevelopmental disorders will be restricted to periods when the developmental process(es) directly or closely linked to disease are initially active, prior to downstream circuit reorganization or neurodegeneration. In contrast, following symptom onset (especially in established disease), circuit-based interventions will typically be required. While caution is warranted in extrapolating from mouse models of disease, available data indicate, for example, that basal ganglia output is unlikely to change following torsinA repletion in adulthood, whereas patients with DYT1 and other etiologic forms of dystonia with long-standing symptoms benefit from the circuit-based therapy of deep brain stimulation (124, 127).

For DYT1 dystonia, future studies exploring a therapeutic critical period for Tor1a gene replacement will require novel genetic tools for reactivation and/or supplementation of torsinA expression in DYT1 dystonia model systems at different developmental stages. In vivo torsinA rescue studies in symptomatic animal models of disease are important for advancing understanding of DYT1 pathogenesis in relation to developmental processes and assessing the therapeutic potential (and timing requirements) of torsinA augmentation. If torsinA function is especially important during early postnatal maturation, as suggested by the work discussed above, then restoration strategies will need to occur before torsinA-resistant downstream consequences ensue. Genetic screening can identify mutation carriers, but intervention is unlikely to be feasible in presymptomatic children with an incompletely penetrant disease. These considerations highlight the importance of identifying early biomarkers, perhaps through imaging, that can accurately predict which carriers are destined to develop dystonia. The only known factor that impacts penetrance is the torsinA D216H substitution, which is protective when present in trans to the ΔE torsinA allele (128). In addition to defining the temporal constraints of torsinA repletion, future studies should be directed at identifying other factors that influence penetrance.

An alternative to torsinA-based strategies is torsinB augmentation. An advantage of this therapeutic target is that, in contrast to torsinA-based strategies, it will not increase levels of pathogenic ΔE torsinA. TorsinB expression levels determine the tissue specificity (82, 83) and temporal pattern (84) of abnormal NE blebbing, and torsinB overexpression rescues the behavioral and neurodegenerative consequences of torsinA LOF (114). These observations provide proof-of-concept evidence that torsinB augmentation could potentially suppress or prevent dystonia in patients with DYT1 dystonia. TorsinB likely exerts its beneficial effects through pathways overlapping with torsinA, so any temporal constraints for torsinA-mediated rescue will also likely apply to torsinB supplementation. The efficacy of torsinB rescue in reversing motor dysfunction in later-stage (already symptomatic) mice has not been tested.

A potential approach to increasing receptiveness to etiologically based (genetic) therapies is upregulation of the relevant critical period pathways. As reviewed above, restoration of critical period plasticity, using pharmacologic, genetic (30, 31), and/or environmental manipulations (20, 129), has been performed in a variety of contexts. It may be possible to increase or extend responsiveness to gene replacement in DYT1 dystonia and other developmental diseases. However, this approach in DYT1 dystonia requires a more complete understanding of torsinA function as well as the molecular and cellular correlates of torsinA LOF in the human nervous system. Importantly, evidence for aberrant plasticity has been suggested in clinical (117, 120, 130, 131) and laboratory studies (100, 104). Altering plasticity or attempting to restore juvenile-like plasticity could exacerbate symptoms. Similar considerations pertain to strategies to diminish plasticity during disease onset.

An alternative to either intervention during critical period or modifying/recreating critical period–like plasticity is development of therapeutic approaches that are not dependent on a specific developmental landscape for efficacy. Available therapies for primary dystonia, including anticholinergic drugs and altering basal ganglia output (e.g., pallidotomy or deep brain stimulation) (123, 132), already target circuit dysfunction downstream of the genetic insult. It is essential to develop and refine treatment strategies to reduce off-target effects and increase efficacy, especially for those with long- standing, stable disease.

One promising area of investigation is targeting of striatal cholinergic dysfunction. Several lines of evidence implicate the striatum as a key node in dystonia pathogenesis (2, 124, 133–135) and directly implicate striatal cholinergic interneurons as a cell type relevant to DYT1 pathophysiology. Striatal cholinergic interneurons contribute to the aberrant corticostriatal plasticity observed in DYT1 mice (99, 100, 136, 137). Antimuscarinics and other selective muscarinic agents can correct aberrant plasticity in DYT1 mice (99, 102). Within the striatum, cholinergic interneurons are uniquely vulnerable to torsinA LOF, as a subset of these neurons degenerate in the absence of torsinA (94, 138). The degeneration of these neurons is coincident with dystonia-like motor symptoms in multiple mouse models (94, 139), and rescue of these neurons correlates with motor symptom suppression (114, 139). These observations suggest that striatal cholinergic interneuron dysfunction may contribute to the expression of motor symptoms.

A more detailed understanding of cholinergic interneuron vulnerability to torsinA LOF and the nature of the contribution of their aberrant function to DYT1 dystonia could provide new concepts for therapeutic development before and after a critical period. Understanding the initial vulnerability of these neurons will be relevant to preventing or suppressing critical period events. Defining the subsequent dysfunctional state of these cells could provide a path forward for the treatment of later-stage, established dystonia. Expanding on studies involving correction of plasticity (99, 102–104) to determine whether muscarinic or nicotinic agents that act more selectively can suppress motor dysfunction in symptomatic models of DYT1 dystonia may be a promising direction. More fundamentally, the role of striatal cholinergic signaling in motor learning, and how these mechanisms may go awry in dystonia, needs considerable clarification. Because such studies would target circuit mechanisms proximate to the motor symptoms, they may benefit treatment of multiple forms of dystonia. A multifaceted approach is necessary to develop a range of therapeutic strategies to effectively combat dystonia symptoms of any etiology and at all stages of disease.

This project was supported by NIH grants R01 NS109227, F31 NS113433, T32 GM007863, and T32 GM007315, and Tyler’s Hope for a Dystonia Cure Foundation.

Address correspondence to: William T. Dauer, 6000 Harry Hines Blvd, Room NB5.604, Dallas, Texas 75390, USA. Phone: 214.645.3332; Email: william.dauer@utsouthwestern.edu.

Conflict of interest: The authors have declared that no conflict of interest exists.

Copyright: © 2021, Li et al. This is an open access article published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Reference information: JCI Insight. 2021;6(4):e142483.https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.142483.

1. Albanese A, et al. EFNS guidelines on diagnosis and treatment of primary dystonias. Eur J Neurol. 2011;18(1):5–18.
   View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
2. Schneider SA, Bhatia KP. Secondary dystonia — clinical clues and syndromic associations. Eur J Neurol. 2010;17(suppl 1):52–57.
   View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
3. Weisheit CE, et al. Inherited dystonias: clinical features and molecular pathways. Handb Clin Neurol. 2018;147:241–254.
   View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
4. Ozelius LJ, et al. The early-onset torsion dystonia gene (DYT1) encodes an ATP-binding protein. Nat Genet. 1997;17(1):40–48.
   View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
5. Bressman SB, et al. The DYT1 phenotype and guidelines for diagnostic testing. Neurology. 2000;54(9):1746–1752.
   View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
6. Hensch TK. Critical period regulation. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2004;27:549–579.
   View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
7. Sengpiel F. The critical period. Curr Biol. 2007;17(17):R742–R743.
   View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
8. Takesian AE, Hensch TK. Balancing plasticity/stability across brain development. Prog Brain Res. 2013;207:3–34.
   View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
9. Hensch TK. Critical period plasticity in local cortical circuits. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2005;6(11):877–888.
   View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
10. Knudsen EI. Sensitive periods in the development of the brain and behavior. J Cogn Neurosci. 2004;16(8):1412–1425.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
11. Hurford JR. The evolution of the critical period for language acquisition. Cognition. 1991;40(3):159–201.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
12. Kuhl PK. Brain mechanisms in early language acquisition. Neuron. 2010;67(5):713–727.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
13. Hubel DH, Wiesel TN. The period of susceptibility to the physiological effects of unilateral eye closure in kittens. J Physiol. 1970;206(2):419–436.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
14. Drager UC. Observations on monocular deprivation in mice. J Neurophysiol. 1978;41(1):28–42.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
15. Fagiolini M, et al. Functional postnatal development of the rat primary visual cortex and the role of visual experience: dark rearing and monocular deprivation. Vision Res. 1994;34(6):709–720.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
16. Gordon JA, Stryker MP. Experience-dependent plasticity of binocular responses in the primary visual cortex of the mouse. J Neurosci. 1996;16(10):3274–3286.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
17. Prusky GT, Douglas RM. Developmental plasticity of mouse visual acuity. Eur J Neurosci. 2003;17(1):167–173.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
18. Borges S, Berry M. The effects of dark rearing on the development of the visual cortex of the rat. J Comp Neurol. 1978;180(2):277–300.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
19. Mower GD. The effect of dark rearing on the time course of the critical period in cat visual cortex. Brain Res Dev Brain Res. 1991;58(2):151–158.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
20. Bartoletti A, et al. Environmental enrichment prevents effects of dark-rearing in the rat visual cortex. Nat Neurosci. 2004;7(3):215–216.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
21. Cheng KP, et al. Visual results after early surgical treatment of unilateral congenital cataracts. Ophthalmology. 1991;98(6):903–910.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
22. Moore BD. Pediatric cataracts--diagnosis and treatment. Optom Vis Sci. 1994;71(3):168–173.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
23. Maurer D, et al. Rapid improvement in the acuity of infants after visual input. Science. 1999;286(5437):108–110.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
24. Williams C, et al. Amblyopia treatment outcomes after screening before or at age 3 years: follow up from randomised trial. BMJ. 2002;324(7353):1549.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
25. Daw NW. Critical periods and amblyopia. Arch Ophthalmol. 1998;116(4):502–505.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
26. Hensch TK, Quinlan EM. Critical periods in amblyopia. Vis Neurosci. 2018;35:E014.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
27. Duffy KR, Mitchell DE. Darkness alters maturation of visual cortex and promotes fast recovery from monocular deprivation. Curr Biol. 2013;23(5):382–386.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
28. Mitchell DE, et al. The critical period for darkness-induced recovery of the vision of the amblyopic eye following early monocular deprivation. J Vis. 2019;19(6):25.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
29. Miwa JM, et al. lynx1, an endogenous toxin-like modulator of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in the mammalian CNS. Neuron. 1999;23(1):105–114.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
30. Morishita H, et al. Lynx1, a cholinergic brake, limits plasticity in adult visual cortex. Science. 2010;330(6008):1238–1240.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
31. Takesian AE, et al. Inhibitory circuit gating of auditory critical-period plasticity. Nat Neurosci. 2018;21(2):218–227.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
32. Carulli D, et al. Animals lacking link protein have attenuated perineuronal nets and persistent plasticity. Brain. 2010;133(pt 8):2331–2347.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
33. Kelly EA, et al. Proteolytic regulation of synaptic plasticity in the mouse primary visual cortex: analysis of matrix metalloproteinase 9 deficient mice. Front Cell Neurosci. 2015;9:369.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
34. Fawcett JW, et al. The roles of perineuronal nets and the perinodal extracellular matrix in neuronal function. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2019;20(8):451–465.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
35. Pizzorusso T, et al. Reactivation of ocular dominance plasticity in the adult visual cortex. Science. 2002;298(5596):1248–1251.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
36. Knudsen EI, et al. Monaural occlusion alters sound localization during a sensitive period in the barn owl. J Neurosci. 1984;4(4):1001–1011.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
37. Knudsen EI, et al. A critical period for the recovery of sound localization accuracy following monaural occlusion in the barn owl. J Neurosci. 1984;4(4):1012–1020.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
38. Knudsen EI, Knudsen PF. Visuomotor adaptation to displacing prisms by adult and baby barn owls. J Neurosci. 1989;9(9):3297–3305.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
39. Brainard MS, Knudsen EI. Sensitive periods for visual calibration of the auditory space map in the barn owl optic tectum. J Neurosci. 1998;18(10):3929–3942.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
40. Walton KD, et al. Identification of a critical period for motor development in neonatal rats. Neuroscience. 1992;51(4):763–767.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
41. Friel K, et al. Using motor behavior during an early critical period to restore skilled limb movement after damage to the corticospinal system during development. J Neurosci. 2012;32(27):9265–9276.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
42. Niparko JK, et al. Spoken language development in children following cochlear implantation. JAMA. 2010;303(15):1498–1506.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
43. Hall WC, et al. Language deprivation syndrome: a possible neurodevelopmental disorder with sociocultural origins. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2017;52(6):761–776.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
44. Mignot C, et al. Genetic and neurodevelopmental spectrum of SYNGAP1-associated intellectual disability and epilepsy. J Med Genet. 2016;53(8):511–522.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
45. Parker MJ, et al. De novo, heterozygous, loss-of-function mutations in SYNGAP1 cause a syndromic form of intellectual disability. Am J Med Genet A. 2015;167A(10):2231–2237.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
46. Hamdan FF, et al. Mutations in SYNGAP1 in autosomal nonsyndromic mental retardation. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(6):599–605.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
47. Clement JP, et al. Pathogenic SYNGAP1 mutations impair cognitive development by disrupting maturation of dendritic spine synapses. Cell. 2012;151(4):709–723.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
48. Kishino T, et al. UBE3A/E6-AP mutations cause Angelman syndrome. Nat Genet. 1997;15(1):70–73.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
49. Sonzogni M, et al. Delayed loss of UBE3A reduces the expression of Angelman syndrome-associated phenotypes. Mol Autism. 2019;10:23.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
50. Silva-Santos S, et al. Ube3a reinstatement identifies distinct developmental windows in a murine Angelman syndrome model. J Clin Invest. 2015;125(5):2069–2076.
    View this article via: JCI PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
51. Amir RE, et al. Rett syndrome is caused by mutations in X-linked MECP2, encoding methyl-CpG-binding protein 2. Nat Genet. 1999;23(2):185–188.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
52. McGraw CM, et al. Adult neural function requires MeCP2. Science. 2011;333(6039):186.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
53. Cheval H, et al. Postnatal inactivation reveals enhanced requirement for MeCP2 at distinct age windows. Hum Mol Genet. 2012;21(17):3806–3814.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
54. Du F, et al. Acute and crucial requirement for MeCP2 function upon transition from early to late adult stages of brain maturation. Hum Mol Genet. 2016;25(9):1690–1702.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
55. Guy J, et al. Reversal of neurological defects in a mouse model of Rett syndrome. Science. 2007;315(5815):1143–1147.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
56. Wang X, et al. Synaptic dysfunction and abnormal behaviors in mice lacking major isoforms of Shank3. Hum Mol Genet. 2011;20(15):3093–3108.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
57. Yang M, et al. Reduced excitatory neurotransmission and mild autism-relevant phenotypes in adolescent Shank3 null mutant mice. J Neurosci. 2012;32(19):6525–6541.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
58. Mei Y, et al. Adult restoration of Shank3 expression rescues selective autistic-like phenotypes. Nature. 2016;530(7591):481–484.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
59. Ikonomidou C, et al. Ethanol-induced apoptotic neurodegeneration and fetal alcohol syndrome. Science. 2000;287(5455):1056–1060.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
60. Tenkova T, et al. Ethanol-induced apoptosis in the developing visual system during synaptogenesis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44(7):2809–2817.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
61. Ikonomidou C, et al. Blockade of NMDA receptors and apoptotic neurodegeneration in the developing brain. Science. 1999;283(5398):70–74.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
62. Burke RE, et al. Delayed-onset dystonia in patients with “static” encephalopathy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1980;43(9):789–797.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
63. Kostic VS, et al. [Delayed-onset dystonia due to asphyxia in the perinatal period]. Srp Arh Celok Lek. 1997;125(3–4):84–88.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
64. Aravamuthan BR, et al. Sex may influence motor phenotype in a novel rodent model of cerebral palsy. Neurobiol Dis. 2020;134:104711.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
65. Jacquemont S, et al. Fragile X premutation tremor/ataxia syndrome: molecular, clinical, and neuroimaging correlates. Am J Hum Genet. 2003;72(4):869–878.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
66. Leehey MA, et al. Progression of tremor and ataxia in male carriers of the FMR1 premutation. Mov Disord. 2007;22(2):203–206.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
67. Hagerman RJ, et al. Intention tremor, parkinsonism, and generalized brain atrophy in male carriers of fragile X. Neurology. 2001;57(1):127–130.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
68. Leow A, et al. Altered structural brain connectome in young adult fragile X premutation carriers. Hum Brain Mapp. 2014;35(9):4518–4530.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
69. Wang JY, et al. Abnormal trajectories in cerebellum and brainstem volumes in carriers of the fragile X premutation. Neurobiol Aging. 2017;55:11–19.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
70. Wang JY, et al. Age-dependent structural connectivity effects in fragile x premutation. Arch Neurol. 2012;69(4):482–489.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
71. Ross CA, et al. Huntington disease: natural history, biomarkers and prospects for therapeutics. Nat Rev Neurol. 2014;10(4):204–216.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
72. Barnat M, et al. Huntington’s disease alters human neurodevelopment. Science. 2020;369(6505):787–793.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
73. Molero AE, et al. Selective expression of mutant huntingtin during development recapitulates characteristic features of Huntington’s disease. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113(20):5736–5741.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
74. Benzinger TL, et al. Regional variability of imaging biomarkers in autosomal dominant Alzheimer’s disease. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110(47):E4502–E4509.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
75. Fleisher AS, et al. Florbetapir PET analysis of amyloid-β deposition in the presenilin 1 E280A autosomal dominant Alzheimer’s disease kindred: a cross-sectional study. Lancet Neurol. 2012;11(12):1057–1065.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
76. Sperling R, et al. The evolution of preclinical Alzheimer’s disease: implications for prevention trials. Neuron. 2014;84(3):608–622.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
77. Hilker R, et al. Nonlinear progression of Parkinson disease as determined by serial positron emission tomographic imaging of striatal fluorodopa F 18 activity. Arch Neurol. 2005;62(3):378–382.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
78. Bohnen NI, et al. Positron emission tomography of monoaminergic vesicular binding in aging and Parkinson disease. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2006;26(9):1198–1212.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
79. Coric V, et al. Safety and tolerability of the γ-secretase inhibitor avagacestat in a phase 2 study of mild to moderate Alzheimer disease. Arch Neurol. 2012;69(11):1430–1440.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
80. Honig LS, et al. Trial of Solanezumab for mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(4):321–330.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
81. Landen JW, et al. Multiple-dose ponezumab for mild-to-moderate Alzheimer’s disease: safety and efficacy. Alzheimers Dement (N Y). 2017;3(3):339–347.
    View this article via: CrossRef Google Scholar
82. Jungwirth M, et al. Relative tissue expression of homologous torsinB correlates with the neuronal specific importance of DYT1 dystonia-associated torsinA. Hum Mol Genet. 2010;19(5):888–900.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
83. Kim CE, et al. A molecular mechanism underlying the neural-specific defect in torsinA mutant mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107(21):9861–9866.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
84. Tanabe LM, et al. Neuronal nuclear membrane budding occurs during a developmental window modulated by torsin paralogs. Cell Rep. 2016;16(12):3322–3333.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
85. Siegert S, et al. TorsinA expression is detectable in human infants as young as 4 weeks old. Brain Res Dev Brain Res. 2005;157(1):19–26.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
86. Brown RS, et al. The mechanism of torsin ATPase activation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111(45):E4822–E4831.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
87. Naismith TV, et al. Interaction of torsinA with its major binding partners is impaired by the dystonia-associated DeltaGAG deletion. J Biol Chem. 2009;284(41):27866–27874.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
88. Zhao C, et al. Regulation of torsin ATPases by LAP1 and LULL1. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110(17):E1545–E1554.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
89. Goodchild RE, Dauer WT. The AAA+ protein torsinA interacts with a conserved domain present in LAP1 and a novel ER protein. J Cell Biol. 2005;168(6):855–862.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
90. Demircioglu FE, et al. Structures of torsinA and its disease-mutant complexed with an activator reveal the molecular basis for primary dystonia. Elife. 2016;5:17983.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
91. Goodchild RE, et al. Loss of the dystonia-associated protein torsinA selectively disrupts the neuronal nuclear envelope. Neuron. 2005;48(6):923–932.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
92. Liang CC, et al. TorsinA hypofunction causes abnormal twisting movements and sensorimotor circuit neurodegeneration. J Clin Invest. 2014;124(7):3080–3092.
    View this article via: JCI PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
93. Weisheit CE, Dauer WT. A novel conditional knock-in approach defines molecular and circuit effects of the DYT1 dystonia mutation. Hum Mol Genet. 2015;24(22):6459–6472.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
94. Pappas SS, et al. Forebrain deletion of the dystonia protein torsinA causes dystonic-like movements and loss of striatal cholinergic neurons. Elife. 2015;4:08352.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
95. Semple BD, et al. Brain development in rodents and humans: identifying benchmarks of maturation and vulnerability to injury across species. Prog Neurobiol. 2013;106–107:1–16.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
96. Fuchs T, et al. Mutations in the THAP1 gene are responsible for DYT6 primary torsion dystonia. Nat Genet. 2009;41(3):286–288.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
97. Bressman SB, et al. Mutations in THAP1 (DYT6) in early-onset dystonia: a genetic screening study. Lancet Neurol. 2009;8(5):441–446.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
98. Yellajoshyula D, et al. The DYT6 dystonia protein THAP1 regulates myelination within the oligodendrocyte lineage. Dev Cell. 2017;42(1):52–67.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
99. Maltese M, et al. Anticholinergic drugs rescue synaptic plasticity in DYT1 dystonia: role of M1 muscarinic receptors. Mov Disord. 2014;29(13):1655–1665.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
100. Martella G, et al. Impairment of bidirectional synaptic plasticity in the striatum of a mouse model of DYT1 dystonia: role of endogenous acetylcholine. Brain. 2009;132(Pt 9):2336–2349.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
101. Bonsi P, et al. Loss of muscarinic autoreceptor function impairs long-term depression but not long-term potentiation in the striatum. J Neurosci. 2008;28(24):6258–6263.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
102. Dang MT, et al. An anticholinergic reverses motor control and corticostriatal LTD deficits in Dyt1 ΔGAG knock-in mice. Behav Brain Res. 2012;226(2):465–472.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
103. Eskow Jaunarajs KL, et al. Striatal cholinergic dysfunction as a unifying theme in the pathophysiology of dystonia. Prog Neurobiol. 2015;127–128:91–107.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
104. Maltese M, et al. Early structural and functional plasticity alterations in a susceptibility period of DYT1 dystonia mouse striatum. Elife. 2018;7:33331.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
105. Fremont R, et al. A role for cerebellum in the hereditary dystonia DYT1. Elife. 2017;6:22775.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
106. Kok FO, et al. Reverse genetic screening reveals poor correlation between morpholino-induced and mutant phenotypes in zebrafish. Dev Cell. 2015;32(1):97–108.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
107. Morgens DW, et al. Systematic comparison of CRISPR/Cas9 and RNAi screens for essential genes. Nat Biotechnol. 2016;34(6):634–636.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
108. Laudermilch E, et al. Dissecting torsin/cofactor function at the nuclear envelope: a genetic study. Mol Biol Cell. 2016;27(25):3964–3971.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
109. Lodin Z, et al. Nuclear pore complexes in cells of the developing mouse cerebral cortex. Acta Histochem. 1978;63(1):74–79.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
110. Otsuka S, et al. Nuclear pore assembly proceeds by an inside-out extrusion of the nuclear envelope. Elife. 2016;5:19071.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
111. Otsuka S, Ellenberg J. Mechanisms of nuclear pore complex assembly - two different ways of building one molecular machine. FEBS Lett. 2018;592(4):475–488.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
112. Rampello AJ, et al. Torsin ATPase deficiency leads to defects in nuclear pore biogenesis and sequestration of MLF2. J Cell Biol. 2020;219(6):201910185.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
113. Pappas SS, et al. TorsinA dysfunction causes persistent neuronal nuclear pore defects. Hum Mol Genet. 2018;27(3):407–420.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
114. Li J, et al. TorsinB overexpression prevents abnormal twisting in DYT1 dystonia mouse models. Elife. 2020;9:54285.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
115. Jinnah HA, et al. The focal dystonias: current views and challenges for future research. Mov Disord. 2013;28(7):926–943.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
116. Fuchs T, et al. Mutations in GNAL cause primary torsion dystonia. Nat Genet. 2013;45(1):88–92.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
117. Belvisi D, et al. Abnormal experimentally- and behaviorally-induced LTP-like plasticity in focal hand dystonia. Exp Neurol. 2013;240:64–74.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
118. McDonnell MN, et al. The effect of cutaneous input on intracortical inhibition in focal task-specific dystonia. Mov Disord. 2007;22(9):1286–1292.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
119. Neychev VK, et al. The functional neuroanatomy of dystonia. Neurobiol Dis. 2011;42(2):185–201.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
120. Quartarone A, et al. Abnormal plasticity of sensorimotor circuits extends beyond the affected body part in focal dystonia. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2008;79(9):985–990.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
121. Ridding MC, et al. Changes in the balance between motor cortical excitation and inhibition in focal, task specific dystonia. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1995;59(5):493–498.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
122. Schabrun SM, et al. Normalizing motor cortex representations in focal hand dystonia. Cereb Cortex. 2009;19(9):1968–1977.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
123. Termsarasab P, et al. Medical treatment of dystonia. J Clin Mov Disord. 2016;3:19.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
124. Vidailhet M, et al. Bilateral deep-brain stimulation of the globus pallidus in primary generalized dystonia. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(5):459–467.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
125. Albanese A, et al. Phenomenology and classification of dystonia: a consensus update. Mov Disord. 2013;28(7):863–873.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
126. Shakkottai VG, et al. Current opinions and areas of consensus on the role of the cerebellum in dystonia. Cerebellum. 2017;16(2):577–594.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
127. Vidailhet M, et al. Bilateral, pallidal, deep-brain stimulation in primary generalised dystonia: a prospective 3 year follow-up study. Lancet Neurol. 2007;6(3):223–229.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
128. Risch NJ, et al. Intragenic cis and trans modification of genetic susceptibility in DYT1 torsion dystonia. Am J Hum Genet. 2007;80(6):1188–1193.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
129. Duffy KR, et al. Susceptibility to monocular deprivation following immersion in darkness either late into or beyond the critical period. J Comp Neurol. 2016;524(13):2643–2653.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
130. Edwards MJ, et al. Abnormalities in motor cortical plasticity differentiate manifesting and nonmanifesting DYT1 carriers. Mov Disord. 2006;21(12):2181–2186.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
131. Gilbertson T, et al. Maladaptive striatal plasticity and abnormal reward-learning in cervical dystonia. Eur J Neurosci. 2019;50(7):3191–3204.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
132. Cloud LJ, Jinnah HA. Treatment strategies for dystonia. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2010;11(1):5–15.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
133. Kaji R, et al. Pathogenesis of dystonia: is it of cerebellar or basal ganglia origin? J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2018;89(5):488–592.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
134. Bhatia KP, Marsden CD. The behavioural and motor consequences of focal lesions of the basal ganglia in man. Brain. 1994;117(Pt 4):859–876.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
135. Coubes P, et al. Treatment of DYT1-generalised dystonia by stimulation of the internal globus pallidus. Lancet. 2000;355(9222):2220–2221.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
136. Scarduzio M, et al. Strength of cholinergic tone dictates the polarity of dopamine D2 receptor modulation of striatal cholinergic interneuron excitability in DYT1 dystonia. Exp Neurol. 2017;295:162–175.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
137. Shen W, et al. M4 Muscarinic receptor signaling ameliorates striatal plasticity deficits in models of L-DOPA-induced dyskinesia. Neuron. 2015;88(4):762–773.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
138. Pappas SS, et al. A cell autonomous torsinA requirement for cholinergic neuron survival and motor control. Elife. 2018;7:36691.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
139. Cascalho A, et al. Excess Lipin enzyme activity contributes to TOR1A recessive disease and DYT-TOR1A dystonia. Brain. 2020;143(6):1746–1765.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
140. Tepper JM, et al. Postnatal development of the rat neostriatum: electrophysiological, light- and electron-microscopic studies. Dev Neurosci. 1998;20(2-3):125–145.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar