1
|
Silvennoinen K, Balestrini S, Rothwell JC, Sisodiya SM. Transcranial magnetic stimulation as a tool to understand genetic conditions associated with epilepsy. Epilepsia 2020; 61:1818-1839. [PMID: 32783192 PMCID: PMC8432162 DOI: 10.1111/epi.16634] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/26/2020] [Revised: 07/09/2020] [Accepted: 07/09/2020] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
Advances in genetics may enable a deeper understanding of disease mechanisms and promote a shift to more personalised medicine in the epilepsies. At present, understanding of consequences of genetic variants mainly relies on preclinical functional work; tools for acquiring similar data from the living human brain are needed. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), in particular paired-pulse TMS protocols which depend on the function of cortical GABAergic interneuron networks, has the potential to become such a tool. For this report, we identified and reviewed 23 publications on TMS studies of cortical excitability and inhibition in 15 different genes or conditions relevant to epilepsy. Reduced short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI) and reduced cortical silent period (CSP) duration were the most commonly reported findings, suggesting abnormal GABAA - (SICI) or GABAB ergic (CSP) signalling. For several conditions, these findings are plausible based on established evidence of involvement of the GABAergic system; for some others, they may inform future research around such mechanisms. Challenges of TMS include lack of complete understanding of the neural underpinnings of the measures used: hypotheses and analyses should be based on existing clinical and preclinical data. Further pitfalls include gathering sufficient numbers of participants, and the effect of confounding factors, especially medications. TMS-EEG is a unique perturbational technique to study the intrinsic properties of the cortex with excellent temporal resolution; while it has the potential to provide further information of use in interpreting effects of genetic variants, currently the links between measures and neurophysiology are less established. Despite these challenges, TMS is a tool with potential for elucidating the system-level in vivo functional consequences of genetic variants in people carrying genetic changes of interest, providing unique insights.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katri Silvennoinen
- Department of Clinical and Experimental Epilepsy, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, London, UK.,Chalfont Centre for Epilepsy, Chalfont St. Peter, UK
| | - Simona Balestrini
- Department of Clinical and Experimental Epilepsy, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, London, UK.,Chalfont Centre for Epilepsy, Chalfont St. Peter, UK
| | - John C Rothwell
- Sobell Department of Motor Neuroscience and Movement Disorders, Department of UCL Queen Square, Institute of Neurology, London, UK
| | - Sanjay M Sisodiya
- Department of Clinical and Experimental Epilepsy, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, London, UK.,Chalfont Centre for Epilepsy, Chalfont St. Peter, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Balestrini S, Sisodiya SM. Personalized treatment in the epilepsies: challenges and opportunities. EXPERT REVIEW OF PRECISION MEDICINE AND DRUG DEVELOPMENT 2018. [DOI: 10.1080/23808993.2018.1486189] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/01/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Simona Balestrini
- Department of Clinical and Experimental Epilepsy, UCL Institute of Neurology, London, and Epilepsy Society, Chalfont-St-Peter, Bucks, United Kingdom
| | - Sanjay M Sisodiya
- Department of Clinical and Experimental Epilepsy, UCL Institute of Neurology, London, and Epilepsy Society, Chalfont-St-Peter, Bucks, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Bauer PR, de Goede AA, Stern WM, Pawley AD, Chowdhury FA, Helling RM, Bouet R, Kalitzin SN, Visser GH, Sisodiya SM, Rothwell JC, Richardson MP, van Putten MJAM, Sander JW. Long-interval intracortical inhibition as biomarker for epilepsy: a transcranial magnetic stimulation study. Brain 2018; 141:409-421. [PMID: 29340584 PMCID: PMC5837684 DOI: 10.1093/brain/awx343] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/02/2017] [Revised: 10/08/2017] [Accepted: 10/24/2017] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Cortical excitability, as measured by transcranial magnetic stimulation combined with electromyography, is a potential biomarker for the diagnosis and follow-up of epilepsy. We report on long-interval intracortical inhibition data measured in four different centres in healthy controls (n = 95), subjects with refractory genetic generalized epilepsy (n = 40) and with refractory focal epilepsy (n = 69). Long-interval intracortical inhibition was measured by applying two supra-threshold stimuli with an interstimulus interval of 50, 100, 150, 200 and 250 ms and calculating the ratio between the response to the second (test stimulus) and to the first (conditioning stimulus). In all subjects, the median response ratio showed inhibition at all interstimulus intervals. Using a mixed linear-effects model, we compared the long-interval intracortical inhibition response ratios between the different subject types. We conducted two analyses; one including data from the four centres and one excluding data from Centre 2, as the methods in this centre differed from the others. In the first analysis, we found no differences in long-interval intracortical inhibition between the different subject types. In all subjects, the response ratios at interstimulus intervals 100 and 150 ms showed significantly more inhibition than the response ratios at 50, 200 and 250 ms. Our second analysis showed a significant interaction between interstimulus interval and subject type (P = 0.0003). Post hoc testing showed significant differences between controls and refractory focal epilepsy at interstimulus intervals of 100 ms (P = 0.02) and 200 ms (P = 0.04). There were no significant differences between controls and refractory generalized epilepsy groups or between the refractory generalized and focal epilepsy groups. Our results do not support the body of previous work that suggests that long-interval intracortical inhibition is significantly reduced in refractory focal and genetic generalized epilepsy. Results from the second analysis are even in sharper contrast with previous work, showing inhibition in refractory focal epilepsy at 200 ms instead of facilitation previously reported. Methodological differences, especially shorter intervals between the pulse pairs, may have contributed to our inability to reproduce previous findings. Based on our results, we suggest that long-interval intracortical inhibition as measured by transcranial magnetic stimulation and electromyography is unlikely to have clinical use as a biomarker of epilepsy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Prisca R Bauer
- NIHR University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, UCL Institute of Neurology, Queen Square, London, WC1N 3BG, UK
- Stichting Epilepsie Instellingen Nederland (SEIN), Achterweg 5, 2103 SW Heemstede, The Netherlands
| | - Annika A de Goede
- Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, MIRA – Institute for Biomedical Technology and Technical Medicine, University of Twente, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands
| | - William M Stern
- NIHR University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, UCL Institute of Neurology, Queen Square, London, WC1N 3BG, UK
- Chalfont Centre for Epilepsy, Chalfont St Peter, SL9 0RJ, UK
| | - Adam D Pawley
- Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London 16 De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AF, UK
| | - Fahmida A Chowdhury
- NIHR University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, UCL Institute of Neurology, Queen Square, London, WC1N 3BG, UK
- Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London 16 De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AF, UK
| | - Robert M Helling
- Stichting Epilepsie Instellingen Nederland (SEIN), Achterweg 5, 2103 SW Heemstede, The Netherlands
- Image Sciences Institute, University Medical Centre Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Romain Bouet
- Lyon Neuroscience Research Center, INSERM U1028 - CNRS UMR5292, Université Claude Bernard Lyon1, Brain Dynamics and Cognition Team, Centre Hospitalier Le Vinatier (Bât. 452), 95 Bd Pinel, 69500 Bron, France
| | - Stiliyan N Kalitzin
- Stichting Epilepsie Instellingen Nederland (SEIN), Achterweg 5, 2103 SW Heemstede, The Netherlands
- Image Sciences Institute, University Medical Centre Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Gerhard H Visser
- Stichting Epilepsie Instellingen Nederland (SEIN), Achterweg 5, 2103 SW Heemstede, The Netherlands
| | - Sanjay M Sisodiya
- NIHR University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, UCL Institute of Neurology, Queen Square, London, WC1N 3BG, UK
- Chalfont Centre for Epilepsy, Chalfont St Peter, SL9 0RJ, UK
| | - John C Rothwell
- NIHR University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, UCL Institute of Neurology, Queen Square, London, WC1N 3BG, UK
| | - Mark P Richardson
- Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London 16 De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AF, UK
| | - Michel J A M van Putten
- Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, MIRA – Institute for Biomedical Technology and Technical Medicine, University of Twente, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands
- Department of Clinical Neurophysiology and Neurology, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Koningsplein 1, 7512 KZ Enschede, The Netherlands
| | - Josemir W Sander
- NIHR University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, UCL Institute of Neurology, Queen Square, London, WC1N 3BG, UK
- Stichting Epilepsie Instellingen Nederland (SEIN), Achterweg 5, 2103 SW Heemstede, The Netherlands
- Chalfont Centre for Epilepsy, Chalfont St Peter, SL9 0RJ, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Stern WM, Sander JW, Rothwell JC, Sisodiya SM. Impaired intracortical inhibition demonstrated in vivo in people with Dravet syndrome. Neurology 2017; 88:1659-1665. [PMID: 28356460 PMCID: PMC5405762 DOI: 10.1212/wnl.0000000000003868] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/20/2016] [Accepted: 01/30/2017] [Indexed: 11/15/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Dravet syndrome is a rare neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by seizures and other neurologic problems. SCN1A mutations account for ∼80% of cases. Animal studies have implicated mutation-related dysregulated cortical inhibitory networks in its pathophysiology. We investigated such networks in people with the condition. METHODS Transcranial magnetic stimulation using single and paired pulse paradigms was applied to people with Dravet syndrome and to 2 control groups to study motor cortex excitability. RESULTS Short interval intracortical inhibition (SICI), which measures GABAergic inhibitory network behavior, was undetectable in Dravet syndrome, but detectable in all controls. Other paradigms, including those testing excitatory networks, showed no difference between Dravet and control groups. CONCLUSIONS There were marked differences in inhibitory networks, detected using SICI paradigms, while other inhibitory and excitatory paradigms yielded normal results. These human data showing reduced GABAergic inhibition in vivo in people with Dravet syndrome support established animal models.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- William M Stern
- From the Department of Clinical and Experimental Epilepsy, NIHR University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre (W.M.S., J.W.S., S.M.S.), and Sobell Department of Motor Neuroscience and Movement Disorders (J.C.R.), UCL Institute of Neurology; Epilepsy Society (W.M.S., J.W.S., S.M.S.), Chalfont St Peter, UK; and Stichting Epilepsie Instellingen Nederland (SEIN) (J.W.S.), Heemstede, the Netherlands
| | - Josemir W Sander
- From the Department of Clinical and Experimental Epilepsy, NIHR University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre (W.M.S., J.W.S., S.M.S.), and Sobell Department of Motor Neuroscience and Movement Disorders (J.C.R.), UCL Institute of Neurology; Epilepsy Society (W.M.S., J.W.S., S.M.S.), Chalfont St Peter, UK; and Stichting Epilepsie Instellingen Nederland (SEIN) (J.W.S.), Heemstede, the Netherlands
| | - John C Rothwell
- From the Department of Clinical and Experimental Epilepsy, NIHR University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre (W.M.S., J.W.S., S.M.S.), and Sobell Department of Motor Neuroscience and Movement Disorders (J.C.R.), UCL Institute of Neurology; Epilepsy Society (W.M.S., J.W.S., S.M.S.), Chalfont St Peter, UK; and Stichting Epilepsie Instellingen Nederland (SEIN) (J.W.S.), Heemstede, the Netherlands
| | - Sanjay M Sisodiya
- From the Department of Clinical and Experimental Epilepsy, NIHR University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre (W.M.S., J.W.S., S.M.S.), and Sobell Department of Motor Neuroscience and Movement Disorders (J.C.R.), UCL Institute of Neurology; Epilepsy Society (W.M.S., J.W.S., S.M.S.), Chalfont St Peter, UK; and Stichting Epilepsie Instellingen Nederland (SEIN) (J.W.S.), Heemstede, the Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|