Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
    • Special Collections
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
    • Editorial Board
    • ECR Advisory Board
    • Journal Staff
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
    • Accessibility
  • SUBSCRIBE

User menu

  • Log out
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Neuroscience
  • Log out
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Neuroscience

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
    • Special Collections
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
    • Editorial Board
    • ECR Advisory Board
    • Journal Staff
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
    • Accessibility
  • SUBSCRIBE
PreviousNext
Articles, Behavioral/Cognitive

Deep Brain Stimulation of Different Pedunculopontine Targets in a Novel Rodent Model of Parkinsonism

Nadine K. Gut and Philip Winn
Journal of Neuroscience 25 March 2015, 35 (12) 4792-4803; https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3646-14.2015
Nadine K. Gut
1Strathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow G4 0RE, Scotland, United Kingdom, and
2School of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of St. Andrews, St. Andrews KY16 9JP, Scotland, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Nadine K. Gut
Philip Winn
1Strathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow G4 0RE, Scotland, United Kingdom, and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Philip Winn
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

The pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus (PPTg) has been proposed as a target for deep brain stimulation (DBS) in parkinsonian patients, particularly for symptoms such as gait and postural difficulties refractory to dopaminergic treatments. Several patients have had electrodes implanted aimed at the PPTg, but outcomes have been disappointing, with little evidence that gait and posture are improved. The PPTg is a heterogeneous structure. Consequently, exact target sites in PPTg, possible DBS mechanisms, and potential benefits still need systematic investigation in good animal models. We have investigated the role of PPTg in gait, developed a refined model of parkinsonism including partial loss of the PPTg with bilateral destruction of nigrostriatal dopamine neurons that mimics human pathophysiology, and investigated the effect of DBS at different PPTg locations on gait and posture using a wireless device that lets rats move freely while receiving stimulation. Neither partial nor complete lesions of PPTg caused gait deficits, underlining questions raised previously about the status of PPTg as a motor control structure. The effect of DBS in the refined and standard model of parkinsonism were very different despite minimal behavioral differences in nonstimulation control conditions. Anterior PPTg DBS caused severe episodes of freezing and worsened gait, whereas specific gait parameters were mildly improved by stimulation of posterior PPTg. These results emphasize the critical importance of intra-PPTg DBS location and highlight the need to take PPTg degeneration into consideration when modeling parkinsonian symptoms. They also further implicate a role for PPTg in the pathophysiology of parkinsonism.

  • basal ganglia
  • cognition
  • deep brain stimulation
  • dopamine
  • freezing of gait
  • posture

Introduction

The pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus (PPTg) has a role in parkinsonism: there is cholinergic and noncholinergic cell loss (Hirsch et al., 1987; Rinne et al., 2008; Pienaar et al., 2013) and altered activity in remaining neurons (Mitchell et al., 1989; Orieux et al., 2000; Breit et al., 2001; Aravamuthan et al., 2008). Since 2005, PPTg deep brain stimulation (DBS) has been used to address symptoms such as gait, postural disturbances, and freezing of gait (FOG). Despite initial positive reports (Mazzone et al., 2005; Plaha and Gill, 2005; Stefani et al., 2007), subsequent studies were disappointing (Ferraye et al., 2010). The hypothesis that PPTg DBS could correct axial symptoms came from two assumptions: (1) dysfunction of basal ganglia (BG) output nuclei has a pathological effect on PPTg that might be corrected by local low-frequency stimulation; and (2) PPTg is a locomotor control structure (Pahapill and Lozano, 2000; Nandi et al., 2002). This second assumption is based on primate studies that report frank motor effects of lesions centered on (but including more than) the PPTg (Kojima et al., 1997; Munro-Davies et al., 1999). However, other primate studies show that firing PPTg neuron firing relates more to cognitive functions, not movement (Kobayashi and Okada, 2007). Studies in cats, rats, and mice are not consistent with PPTg being a motor control center (Inglis et al., 1994a,b; Alderson et al., 2003; Homs-Ormo et al., 2003; Steiniger and Kretschmer, 2004; Winn, 2006). Rather, it has a role in learning and decision making, with subtle deficits in motor control emerging only as task difficulty increases (Olmstead et al., 1998; Corrigall et al., 2001; Samson and Chappell, 2001; Alderson et al., 2004, 2006; Diederich and Koch, 2005; Kobayashi and Okada, 2007; Wilson et al., 2009; Thompson and Felsen, 2013; MacLaren et al., 2014). Differences in anatomical organization are unlikely to account for different experimental outcomes: PPTg structure and connectivity is highly conserved from teleost fish through to humans (Rye et al., 1987; Brantley and Bass, 1988; Mesulam et al., 1989; Medina and Reiner, 1994; Marín et al., 1997; Stephenson-Jones et al., 2011).

The PPTg contains populations of cholinergic, GABAergic, and glutamatergic neurons, with different distributions and patterns of connections (Ros et al., 2010; Martinez-Gonzalez et al., 2011); for example, BG output is directed to anterior and sensory input to posterior parts (Winn, 2008), creating functional differences across the PPTg (Alderson et al., 2008). This raises questions about whether the consequences of PPTg DBS depend on location and what kinds of effects to expect. Given the variable nature of PPTg DBS in parkinsonian patients and uncertainty about functional differentiation within the PPTg, we undertook experiments in rodent models to define the therapeutic potential for PPTg DBS. We did this by doing the following: (1) assessing the effect of both full and partial PPTg lesions on gait and posture, (2) combining a partial PPTg lesion with bilateral destruction of substantia nigra part compacta (SNc) dopamine (DA) neurons to model better the pathology of parkinsonism; and (3) examining the effects on gait of DBS in different PPTg locations.

Materials and Methods

Subjects

One hundred eight adult male Lister Hooded rats (Harlan Olac) weighing 317–396 g were housed singly under a 12 h light/dark cycle and with food control. Body weight was monitored daily and food adjusted (never less than 15 g/d per rat) to maintain stable weight; water was available ad libitum. Experiments were performed in compliance with the United Kingdom Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and European Communities Council Directive of 24/11/86 (86/609/EEC).

Experimental design

At the start of each experiment, rats were trained for 10–12 d on the Noldus CatWalk to measure gait and posture. Rats were then tested for 3–4 d to obtain a presurgical baseline. Experiment 1 examined the role of the PPTg in the symptomatology of parkinsonism, Experiment 2 tested a novel model of parkinsonism, and DBS of the anterior PPTg (aPPTg; Experiment 3) and posterior PPTg (pPPTg; Experiment 4) was examined to determine whether there were beneficial effects on gait and posture. Experimental protocols are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Experimental design. At the start of the experiment, all animals were trained for 10–12 d on the Noldus CatWalk. They were then tested for 3–4 d to obtain a presurgical baseline. In the PPTg lesion experiment (A), animals then underwent two successive surgeries for bilateral PPTg lesions or sham lesions. After 7 d recovery, they were retrained and tested over 7 consecutive days. Experiment 2 (B) compared the traditional 6-OHDA model of Parkinson's disease to a refined model consisting of striatal DA depletion plus partial lesions of the PPTg, rats with partial PPTg lesions only and sham controls. This followed the same experimental design, except that postsurgical testing was performed every other day. In Experiments 3 and 4 (C), both parkinsonian models (traditional and refined) and sham controls with implanted DBS electrodes in the aPPTg or pPPTg underwent a series of different testing conditions after surgery: first, a postsurgical baseline was taken (3 d), and then their response to l-DOPA was observed on 2 consecutive days. After a washout period of 2 d, they were retested on the CatWalk before DBS was switched on. Stimulation was chronic and lasted 6 d, and the rats were tested on days 4–6. After a day of rest from stimulation, DBS was resumed, maintaining the same frequency but changing the pulse width. Testing followed the same pattern as before. After testing on day 6 of stimulation, the DBS was left on. The following 2 d, the rats were testing for their reaction to the combination of l-DOPA and DBS. DBS was then switched off, and the rats were given a day of rest before being retested for the last time.

Surgical procedures

All surgical procedures were performed with rats secured in a stereotaxic frame (David Kopf Instruments) under isoflurane anesthesia (2–3% isoflurane and 1.4 L/min O2) and pretreated with an analgesic (Rimadyl; 0.05 ml/rat carprofen, 5% w/v, i.p.; Pfizer). After surgery, animals received intraperitoneal injections of Hartmann's solution (∼1 ml/h surgery; Baxter Healthcare).

PPTg lesions.

Excitotoxic lesions of the PPTg were made following an established protocol (Wilson et al., 2009). In brief, in two surgical procedures separated by 1 week, the PPTg was lesioned bilaterally by pressure injection of 180 nl of 0.09–0.12 m ibotenic acid for full lesions and 200 nl of 0.06 m ibotenic acid for partial lesions into the aPPTg or pPPTg at these coordinates [incisor bar elevated to create a horizontal angle of 8°29′ between it and the interaural line (IAL) (Whishaw et al., 1977)]: in Experiments 1 and 2: aPPTg, +0.6 mm IAL, ±2.0 mm midline, and −7.0 mm from dura; pPPTg, −0.8 mm IAL, ±1.9 mm midline, and −6.5 mm from dura; in Experiments 3 and 4: aPPTg, +0.5 mm IAL, ±2.0 mm midline, and −7.0 mm from dura; pPPTg, −0.7 mm IAL, ±1.9 mm midline, and −6.7 mm from dura. Sham-operated controls underwent identical procedures but received only vehicle (sterile phosphate buffer).

DA depletion using 6-OHDA.

Seven micrograms (free base weight) of 6-OHDA-hydrobromide dissolved in 2 μl of sterile 0.1% l-ascorbic acid/0.9% saline shortly before infusion were delivered bilaterally at four sites in the striata at the following coordinates (incisor bar at 0 mm): (1) +1.3 mm anteroposterior (AP; from bregma), ±2.6 mm mediolateral (ML; from the midline at the skull surface), −5.0 mm dorsoventral (DV; from dura); (2) +0.4 mm AP, ±3.0 mm ML, −5.0 mm DV; (3) −0.4 mm AP, ±4.2 mm ML, −5.0 mm DV; and (4) −1.3 mm AP, ±4.5 mm ML, −5.0 mm DV. Infusions were made (1 μl/min) via 30 gauge stainless steel cannulae connected via polyethylene tubing to 10 μl syringes mounted in a Harvard microdrive pump. Cannulae were left in situ for 2 min after each infusion before retracting them. Control rats received infusions only of vehicle.

Combined 6-OHDA and PPTg lesions.

Rats receiving combination DA depletion and partial bilateral PPTg lesions underwent three separate surgeries. During the first two, bilateral partial PPTg lesions were created; after an additional 7 d recovery, the DA-depleting procedure was performed.

DBS electrode implantation.

For DBS experiments, rats received bilateral electrode implants into either the aPPTg or pPPTg. These procedures were conducted during the same surgery as infusion of 6-OHDA. After the last infusion of 6-OHDA, the incisor bar was elevated to create a horizontal angle of 8°29′ between it and the IAL. Concentric bipolar electrodes were lowered into place at the same coordinates used for toxin infusion. Electrodes were made from Teflon-coated platinum/iridium (90:10) wire (50 μm uncoated diameter, 114 μm coated diameter; Science Products) threaded through 30 gauge stainless steel cannula (Plastics One) insulated with polyolefin 2:1 heat shrink (total diameter, 300 μm + 50 μm; wire protruding, 500 μm; length of bared tip of cannula and wire, 200 μm). Anode and cathode of the electrodes were then connected to a connector head stage that was then secured to the skull with dental cement (methyl methacrylate-based dental acrylic; Simplex Rapid) anchored by stainless steel screws (0–80 × ⅛ and 0–80 × 332; Plastics One).

Intracranial stimulation

Chronic stimulation was performed by attaching and securing a wireless DBS device to the head stage. The home cages were modified to protect animals from damaging the device and head cap. DBS devices were programmed to deliver biphasic constant-current square-wave pulses at a frequency of 25 Hz and pulse width of either 160 μs (DBS1 settings) or 500 μs (DBS2 settings). First, the threshold for stimulation-induced behavioral side-effects, such as slowing or an arrest of exploratory behavior up to “freezing” and “staring” or erected whiskers and/or ears, was determined for each rat individually in a stepwise procedure (starting at ∼30 μA, increases of 20 μA). Each stimulation epoch was no longer than ∼20 s with at least 1 min between epochs. The intensity for chronic stimulation was set at 20% of the side-effect-inducing intensity and retested and further adjusted if animals still appeared disturbed by stimulation. Final average stimulation intensities were as follows: in Experiment 3: DBS1, 78 μA (range, 56–120 μA); DBS2, 61 μA (range, 4072 μA); in Experiment 4: DBS1, 107 μA (range, 72–136 μA); DBS2, 105 μA (range, 72–152 μA; here, for both settings, the intensity was lower for the 6-OHDA group than for the other groups).

Behavioral testing

CatWalk.

Gait testing was conducted on the CatWalk 7.1 (Noldus). The principal working mechanisms of the CatWalk are explained in the study by Hamers et al. (2006). In brief, rats traverse a 100 × 12 × 0.6 cm glass walkway, motivated by their home cage being present at the far end for them to return to after testing. A camera mounted below the runway captures footfall: the spacing and size of each print is assessed to derive measures of gait. Before presurgery testing, rats were trained for 10–12 d on the CatWalk to ensure an acceptable performance of three consecutive non-interrupted runs. The following parameters were analyzed: (1) for gait stability: base of support (BOS; distance between the two forepaws and two hindpaws), duty cycle (stance duration expressed as a percentage of the duration of the step cycle), support [percentage of contact of two diagonal paws (diagonal) or three paws (three) with the ground of all combinations of numbers of paws]; (2) for velocity: swing speed; (3) for stride: stride length; and (4) for coordination: print position (distance between the position of the hindpaw and the position of the previously placed forepaw on the ipsilateral side within the same step cycle).

FOG.

During Experiments 3 and 4, rats showed moderate to severe freezing during testing. Unlike gait hesitation in the middle of a run (slowing down and coming to a stop) reflecting destination hesitation according to the classification of Fahn (1995) (see Schaafsma et al., 2003), which had been observed previously, in the DBS studies, some rats suffered from severe start hesitation. If no run at all (or not the required three runs per testing session) could be recorded, the performance was recorded as such (freezing leading to less than three runs and freezing leading to complete lack of data for the session).

l-DOPA administration.

As part of the DBS experiments, rats received injections of l-DOPA [12 mg · kg−1 · ml−1 l-3,4-dihydroxyphenylalanine methylester (free base weight) plus 15 mg · kg−1 · ml−1 benserazide hydrochloride (free base weight) in sterile 0.9% saline, i.p.; Fig. 1 C]. Immediately after injection, rats were returned to their home cage and kept under close observation to classify and quantify changes in behavior. The severity of l-DOPA-induced dyskinesias was assessed by determining the time for which rats displayed abnormal involuntary movement (AIM) using a six-point scale (Creese and Iversen, 1973) and presented in minutes. Behavior was rated as follows: 1, normal; 2, active with bursts of sniffing and rearing; 3, continuous sniffing and rearing over the entire area of the cage; 4, continuous abnormal behavior in one place (e.g., up and down head movements, crossing and lifting of the forelegs); 5, additional bursts of licking or gnawing of paws, legs, or sides (including self-mutilation, which was always intercepted by experimenters providing alternative substrates for gnawing) and/or gnawing of the cage; and 6, continuous licking and/or gnawing.

Histological analysis

All rats were given a lethal intraperitoneal injection of 200 mg/ml sodium pentobarbitone (0.6–0.8 ml/rat Euthatal; Merial Animal Health) and transcardially perfused with 0.1% PBS, followed by fixative (4% paraformaldehyde in 0.1 m phosphate buffer; ∼350 ml). Brains were stored in 20% sucrose solution in 0.1 m PB at ∼4°C before coronal 30 μm sections were cut on a freezing microtome. Parallel sections (1:6) were immunohistochemically processed (free-floating) for the following: (1) neuron-specific nuclear protein (NeuN) in the upper brainstem using a mouse-derived anti-NeuN monoclonal antibody (Merck Millipore); (2) ChAT of the upper brainstem using goat anti-ChAT polyclonal antibody (Merck Millipore); and (3) tyrosine hydroxylase (TH) and calbindin-D28k (CB; double stain) of the midbrain using mouse-derived monoclonal anti-CB (Sigma-Aldrich) and mouse-derived monoclonal anti-TH. Vector Laboratories Elite ABC kits providing biotinylated secondary antibody, avidin, and biotinylated horseradish peroxidase reagent were used, as well as 3,3-diaminobenzidine tetrahydrochloride (Sigma Fast DAB; Sigma-Aldrich) for NeuN and CB and slate gray peroxidase substrate (ImmPACT SG; Vector Laboratories) for visualizing TH-containing cells. Sections were mounted onto slides, and sections were stained for NeuN counterstained with cresyl violet.

For lesion assessment, all sections were assessed using a light microscope (Leica DM LB2) at 1.6× magnification. The extent of nonselective damage caused by ibotenic acid in and around the PPTg was assessed on the NeuN-stained sections, judged by lack of cell bodies. Lesion outlines were drawn on rat brain atlas schematics (Paxinos and Watson, 2005). Lesions were assessed visually and rated semiquantitatively from 0 to 4 [0, no PPTg lesion; 1, small/partial PPTg lesion (>50% of NeuN-stained neurons remaining); 2, partial to full PPTg lesion [<50% of NeuN-positive (NeuN+) neurons remaining]; 3, fully lesioned PPTg (no neurons stained for NeuN in the PPTg area); and 4, extensive lesion covering PPTg and surrounding tissue]. Animals with either a lack of PPTg lesion on at least one side (0; PPTg not hit) or lesions that were so extensive that they damaged the SN (4 on both sides) were excluded. For full lesions, histology had to show at least lesion in one hemisphere scoring 4 and the other side scoring 2. For partial lesions (including combined lesion groups), a score of 1 was required as the minimum and no more than a score of 3 on either side. To judge the degree of damage to cholinergic cells, surviving ChAT+ neurons within the entire PPTg were counted and expressed as a percentage of the average total cell count taken from sham-lesioned animals; in the case of Experiments 3 and 4 (with all rats bearing electrodes, regardless of lesion condition) brains with track lesions from the implanted electrodes, neurons of the nontargeted part of the PPTg (anterior or posterior, respectively) were counted; the percentage reflects half of what was counted in controls. To determine the extent of DA neuron loss, all TH+ neurons within the dorsal and ventral tier of the SNc, SN pars medialis, and SN pars lateralis were counted manually. The additional CB stain was performed to distinguish DA-containing neurons of the SN from the VTA (including the parabrachial pigmented area) neurons. All animals of the 6-OHDA groups of Experiments 2–4 were included in this analysis (16 with 6-OHDA only; 15 with 6-OHDA and PPTg lesion). These data also formed the basis for correlating the relationship between DA neuron and PPTg loss.

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 21 (IBM). Mixed ANOVAs were performed to compare within either postsurgery testing days or testing conditions and between groups. Significant interactions were explored with univariate ANOVAs and repeated-measures ANOVAs. Greenhouse–Geisser corrections were used when indicated. Post hoc analyses were performed with Tukey's HSD tests. Frequency counts of FOG were analyzed with χ2 tests for association. Statistically significant effects were accepted with a p value ≤0.05. Correlations between the amount of cholinergic neuron loss from the PPTg and motor parameters on the CatWalk were run using Pearson's correlation.

Results

Histological analysis

In all experiments, only rats with PPTg lesions as described above (Fig. 2), a loss of TH immunoreactivity of at least 90%, and correct electrode placements without excessive damage (Fig. 3) were included in behavioral analyses. Thirteen rats were excluded because they did not meet criteria, 25 rats died after ibotenic acid infusions (there are respiratory difficulties after infusion of the excitotoxin into the PPTg; Wilson et al. 2009), and three rats did not meet performance criteria in CatWalk training. The final group sizes were as follows: in Experiment 1: full PPTg lesion, n = 6; sham lesion, n = 4; in Experiment 2: partial PPTg lesion, n = 7; combined lesion, n = 7; 6-OHDA lesion, n = 7; sham lesion, n = 8; in Experiment 3: combined lesion, n = 4; 6-OHDA lesion, n = 5; sham lesion, n = 5; in Experiment 4: combined lesion, n = 4; 6-OHDA, n = 4; sham lesion, n = 4.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

A, Representation of lesion extension along the rostrocaudal axis in rats of each experiment after PPTg ibotenic acid infusion. The position of the selected schematics (adapted from Paxinos and Watson, 2005) on the rostrocaudal axis is represented as the distance from the IAL; in millimeters). Sections IAL +2.88 mm through to IAL +1.68 mm were identified as sections containing aPPTg neurons (identified by PPTg cholinergic neurons in shams and partially lesioned rats), and those from IAL +1.08 mm to IAL +0.36 mm represent sections containing pPPTg. Lesion damage is represented in colored shading: blue for lesions in rats of PPTg lesion groups and red for lesions in rats of combined lesion groups. B–G, Representative histological photomicrographs of lesions in the aPPTg and pPPTg of rats bearing full lesions in Experiment 1 (B, NeuN stained; C, ChAT stained) and of rats bearing partial lesions in Experiments 2–4 (D, NeuN stained; E, ChAT stained; F, ChAT stained sections of sham-lesioned rat). G shows midbrain sections at the level of the SN in 6-OHDA-lesioned rats and shams; sections are double stained for anti-CB and anti-TH. Scale bars: B, D, 1 mm; C, E, F, 250 μm; G, short, 1 mm and long, 500 μm.

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

Electrode placements. Representative photomicrographs of electrode tracks in aPPTg (A, B) and pPPTg (C, D). Track damage was unavoidable but did not compromise behavior. NeuN-stained sections (A, C) were taken from the combined lesion group and show cell loss of the PPTg area. ChAT-stained sections (B, D) are from the 6-OHDA lesion group showing cholinergic PPTg neurons. Schematic drawings (adapted from Paxinos and Watson, 2005) representing implantation sites of electrode tips in Experiment 3 (E) and Experiment 4 (F). Note that one rat of the combined lesion group of Experiment 4 was not included in the DBS testing and is therefore not included in these schematics. Red triangles represent sites of electrode tips in the combined lesion groups, yellow squares of sites in the 6-OHDA lesion groups, and gray circles of sites in the sham lesion groups. Scale bars: short, 1 mm and long, 500 μm.

Cell loss after ibotenic acid infusions

PPTg lesion locations and sizes from all experiments are shown in Figure 2, with representative sections stained to show NeuN and ChAT immunohistochemistry. Figure 4 shows counts of cholinergic cells in PPTg. Rats in the full PPTg lesion group showed a mean loss of 68.80% of ChAT+ neurons (range of 49.92–93.10%); the partial PPTg lesion group of Experiment 2 lost 56.08% (range of 33.32–72.65%). Cholinergic cell loss in the combined lesion group of Experiment 2 reached 73.27% (range of 56.45–95.65%), in Experiment 3 (pPPTg cell count) reached 55.82% (range of 37.46–80.15%), and in Experiment 4 (aPPTg cell count) reached 50.59% (range of 34.69–67.35%).

Figure 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 4.

PPTg ChAT+ count for each experiment, presented as the percentage of the mean count in sham-lesioned rats. Graph shows group means ± SEMs. *p ≤ 0.05, **p ≤ 0.005, ***p ≤ 0.001, a significant difference between PPTg lesion/combined lesion group and shams. PPTg and combined lesion groups did not differ from each other (Experiment 2, p = 0.095) and neither did 6-OHDA and sham lesion groups (Experiment 2, p = 0.979; Experiment 3, p = 0.758; and Experiment 4, p = 1.000). LHS, left-hand side; RHS, right-hand side; brain, total of both sides.

Effect of DA depletion on cholinergic cell count in the PPTg

DA loss from the SNc was assessed with TH and CB immunohistochemistry; representative lesions are shown in Figure 2G. The traditional parkinsonian model (6-OHDA group) in all experiments was assessed for possible PPTg cholinergic cell loss caused by a chronically DA-depleted SNc. Did a lack of functioning target neurons and altered afferent input from the BG contribute to PPTg damage? In Experiments 2–4, cholinergic cell survival was 97.26% (range of 83.83–108.05%), 93.38% (range of 77.76–106.22%), and 99.69% (range of 73.90–122.45%), respectively, and did not differ from sham controls (p = 0.979, p = 0.758, and p = 1.000, respectively). Loss of SNc DA neurons did not affect PPTg cholinergic neuron number.

Effect of PPTg lesions on DA cell survival in the SNc (Experiment 2)

To test the hypothesis that lack of afferent stimulation of nigral DA neurons after PPTg degeneration might contribute to DA cell loss, DA cell counts were examined in rats bearing partial PPTg lesions. TH+ cell count was, on average, 89.88% of sham controls (range of 68.86–112.33%). Statistically, there was no difference between the PPTg lesion group and sham controls (p = 0.230).

Behavior

Effect of PPTg lesions on gait: Experiment 1

Full PPTg lesions did not impair rats' gait in any parameters (Table 1, Experiment 1). PPTg-lesioned rats did not differ from sham-operated animals in gait stability, speed, stride, or coordination (BOS forepaw, F(1,8) = 2.224, p = 0.174; BOS hindpaw, F(1,8) = 0.144, p = 0.714; duty cycle forepaw, F(1,8) = 4.782, p = 0.060; duty cycle hindpaw, F(1,8) = 0.223, p = 0.650; support diagonal paw, F(1,8) = 0.003, p = 0.955, support three paws, F(1,8) = 1.870, p = 0.209; swing speed forepaw, F(1,8) = 2.938, p = 0.125; swing speed hindpaw, F(1,8) = 2.745, p = 0.136; stride length forepaw, F(1,8) = 3.606, p = 0.094; stride length hindpaw, F(1,8) = 2.233, p = 0.173; print position right, F(1,8) = 0.226, p = 0.648; print position left, F(1,8) = 4.619, p = 0.064). Likewise, rats bearing partial PPTg lesions (Experiment 2) showed no differences from controls.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Summary of the effect of full PPTg lesions (Experiment 1) and partial PPTg lesions, 6-OHDA lesions, and combined lesions (Experiment 2) on CatWalk gait parameters

Gait and posture in a combined DA-depletion and PPTg lesion: Experiments 2–4

The goal of Experiment 2 was to establish a model in rodents to reflect better the pathophysiology of parkinsonism: did the addition of partial PPTg lesions change gait and postural impairments seen after bilateral DA depletion? Data are presented in Table 1 (Experiment 2).

Cholinergic neuron loss and gait patterning.

There was a range in the extent of cholinergic neuron survival after full PPTg lesions. However, there was no consistent correlation between cholinergic survival and activity on the CatWalk. The deficit in BOS for the forelimbs only (not the hindlimbs) correlated with cholinergic survival (−0.85, p = 0.03), but no other measure of speed or stride showed significant correlation (with either two-tailed or one-tailed tests).

Gait stability.

Changes in gait parameters indicate increased instability in DA-depleted rats: BOS of forelimbs and hindlimbs was significantly increased in both parkinsonian groups compared with controls (forelimbs, F(3,25) = 27.154, p < 0.001; hindlimbs, F(3,25) = 20.219, p < 0.001; Tukey's HSD: forelimbs, combined lesion group, p < 0.001; 6-OHDA group, p < 0.001; hindlimbs, combined lesion group, p < 0.001; 6-OHDA group, p < 0.001); there was no significant difference between Parkinson's disease models (p = 0.683). The use of diagonal two-legged support during the gait cycle decreased in parkinsonian rats, compensated for by an increase of three-legged support (diagonal, F(3,25) = 7.991, p = 0.001; three, F(3,25) = 5.536, p = 0.005).

Speed.

Swing speed of forelimbs and hindlimbs of both 6-OHDA and refined models of parkinsonism decreased significantly compared with shams (forelimbs, F(3,25) = 26.540, p < 0.001; hindlimbs, F(3,25) = 66.856, p < 0.001; Tukey's HSD tests, all p values < 0.001). The two models did not differ from each other (forelimbs, p = 0.492; hindlimbs, p = 0.719).

Stride.

Parkinsonian rats took shorter steps than shams (forelimbs, F(3,25) = 13.7795, p < 0.001; hindlimbs, F(3,25) = 11.156, p < 0.001; Tukey's HSD: forelimbs, combined lesion group, p = 0.021; 6-OHDA group, p < 0.001; hindlimbs, combined lesion group, p = 0.068; 6-OHDA group, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the lesion groups (forelimbs, p = 0.095; hindlimbs, p = 0.134).

FOG: Experiments 3 and 4

In Experiments 3 and 4, it was often difficult for rats to complete non-interrupted runs or to complete all three required runs because of severe FOG (starting hesitation). Instances of FOG are reported as a percentage of all available testing occasions of each condition (Fig. 5) and analyzed as frequency counts. In Experiment 3, the combined lesion group was more likely to show freezing in all four conditions (postsurgery baseline, χ(2)2 = 13.680, p = 0.001; DBS1, χ(2)2 = 27.756, p < 0.001; DBS2, χ(2)2 = 24.333, p < 0.001; DBS-OFF, χ(2)2 = 7.200, p = 0.027). In Experiment 4, no FOG occurred during DBS-OFF, but, in DBS1, the combined lesion group was more likely to freeze than the 6-OHDA group (χ(2)2 = 8.649, p = 0.013).

Figure 5.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 5.

Frequency count of FOG episodes that resulted in less than three runs per session or considerable difficulties in CatWalk testing expressed as a percentage of the total number of testing occasions (sessions × rats). In the aPPTg DBS experiment, the combined lesion group was more likely to show freezing in all four conditions. In the pPPTg DBS experiment, the combined lesion group was more likely to freeze than the 6-OHDA group after stimulation at DBS1 settings.

The effect of PPTg DBS on gait: Experiments 3 and 4

aPPTg DBS.

Gait data collection was impaired in this experiment because of a high incidence of FOG. Figure 5 shows FOG in this experiment and the subsequent one involving DBS in the pPPTg. Analysis of gait measures in the aPPTg DBS rats was made using the available data. Figure 6 presents the principal measures. Repeated-measures ANOVAs across testing conditions showed that, in the combined lesion group, there was no difference between conditions in any parameter; DBS in the aPPTg had no effect on these rats' gait (BOS: forelimbs, F(3,3) = 3.711, p = 0.155; hindlimbs, F(3,3) = 3.337, p = 0.174; duty cycle: forelimbs, F(3,3) = 0.184, p = 0.901; hindlimbs, F(3,3) = 2.166, p = 0.271; support: diagonal, F(3,3) = 0.498, p = 0.709; three, F(3,3) = 0.294, p = 0.829; swing speed: forelimbs, F(3,3) = 0.682, p = 0.682; hindlimbs, F(3,3) = 1.183, p = 0.447; stride length: forelimbs, F(3,3) = 0.377, p = 0.778; hindlimbs, F(3,3) = 1.174, p = 0.449; print position right: F(3,3) = 6.667, p = 0.077; print position left 1: F(3,3) = 1.376, p = 0.400).

Figure 6.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 6.

Key findings of the performance on the CatWalk of all groups in Experiments 3 (A) and 4 (B). Graphs show group means ± SEMs of selected gait parameters measured before surgery, after surgery, and during DBS1 and DBS2. *p ≤ 0.05, **p ≤ 0.005, ***p ≤ 0.001, significant difference compared with the postsurgery baseline.

In the 6-OHDA group, aPPTg DBS had a significant detrimental effect on a number of gait parameters. In many cases, these only came about in DBS2. BOS of the forelimbs increased compared with the postsurgical baseline deficit with DBS1 and DBS2. The stance duration of the forelimbs also increased: the hindlimbs showed the same trend, but the effect was not significant. The same was observed regarding support: support over diagonal paws decreased, but support over three paws increased significantly with DBS2. Stride length of the hindlimbs was significantly shortened with DBS2 stimulation. DBS2 but not DBS1 stimulation slowed swing speed (BOS forelimbs, F(3,12) = 148.367, p < 0.001; DBS1, p = 0.004; DBS2, p = 0.046; duty cycle: forelimbs, F(3,12) = 14.322, p < 0.001; hindlimbs, F(3,12) = 6.931, p = 0.018, Greenhouse–Geisser corrected; forelimbs: DBS2, p = 0.010; support diagonal, F(3,12) = 18.557, p < 0.001; three, F(3,12) = 20.694, p < 0.001; diagonal: DBS2, p = 0.039; three: DBS2, p = 0.001; stride length hindlimbs: F(3,12) = 8.039, p = 0.003; hindlimbs: DBS2, p = 0.040).

pPPTg DBS.

FOG in the pPPTg DBS experiment was less severe in both parkinsonian groups (Fig. 5). The principal gait measures of performance on the CatWalk are shown in Figure 6. Stimulation with neither a short (DBS1) nor a long (DBS2) pulse width had an effect on any of the measured gait parameters in the combined lesion group. However, the 6-OHDA group benefited from stimulation of the pPPTg. In most cases, stimulation with DBS1 showed some improvements, but these did not reach statistical significance. However, stimulation during the DBS2 condition had a significant beneficial effect. Stance duration of the hindpaws decreased, support with three paws decreased, and stride length became longer. In contrast, the swing speed increased with stimulation with DBS1 but not DBS2 stimulation settings. Stimulation of the pPPTg had no effect on BOS (duty cycle hindpaw, F(3,9) = 8.380, p = 0.006; DBS2, p = 0.020; support diagonal, F(3,9) = 4.951, p = 0.027; three, F(3,9) = 7.505, p = 0.008; diagonal: DBS2, p = 0.061; three: DBS2, p = 0.021; stride length forelimbs, F(3,9) = 13.555, p = 0.001; hindlimbs, F(3,9) = 9.957, p = 0.003; forelimbs: DBS2, p = 0.045; hindlimbs: DBS2, p = 0.044; swing speed forelimbs, F(3,9) = 10.633, p = 0.003; hindlimbs, F(3,9) = 16.220, p = 0.001; forelimbs: DBS1, p = 0.027).

l-DOPA administration.

The effects of l-DOPA in Experiments 3 and 4 are shown in Figure 7. The effect of l-DOPA on gait could not be assessed because the drug at the dose administered induced dyskinesia-like AIMs, which made testing on the CatWalk impossible. At a mean time of 11.8 min (range of 7.0–20.8 min) after l-DOPA administration, the parkinsonian rats showed the first AIM, which then became more severe. Sham-lesioned controls did not show any signs of these. The rate of progression differed between groups and testing condition. The total amount of time the lesioned animals showed AIMs did not differ between groups (anterior DBS-OFF, F(1,7) = 3.506, p = 0.103; DBS-ON, F(1,6) = 3.241, p = 0.122; posterior DBS-OFF, F(1,6) = 4.057, p = 0.091; DBS-ON, F(1,5) = 0.086, p = 0.781); it was the quality of AIMs that changed rather than the duration (Fig. 7).

Figure 7.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 7.

l-DOPA-induced stereotypies. A, Experiment 3. During DBS-OFF, the combined lesion group displayed very severe AIMs (score 6) for longer than those of other severity levels [effect of score (F(5,15) = 15.890, p < 0.001), Tukey's corrected pairwise comparisons (score 1, q = 8.089, p < 0.05; score 3, q = 8.632, p < 0.05]. Univariate ANOVAs comparing both groups directly revealed that the combined lesion group showed AIMs of the most severe stage (score 6) significantly longer that the 6-OHDA group (F(1,7) = 7.151, p = 0.032), although this relation was inverse regarding dyskinesia score 4 (F(1,7) = 15.890, p = 0.005). B, Experiment 4. The 6-OHDA group displayed less severe stages of dyskinesia for longer than the combined lesion group (score 2, F(1,6) = 7.377. p = 0.035; score 3, F(1,6) = 8.828, p = 0.025; score 5, F(1,6) = 7.573, p = 0.033), whereas the combined lesion group showed significantly more continuous licking and biting (F(1,6) = 9.220, p = 0.023). C, D, DBS-ON. The effect of l-DOPA did not change in Experiment 3. There was no interaction of group × condition (ON vs OFF), regarding neither score 4 (F(1,6) = 4.591, p = 0.076) nor score 6 (F(1,6) = 0.005, p = 0.944). However, pPPTg DBS (Experiment 4) caused a shift of the l-DOPA-induced AIMs in the combined lesion group from continuous licking and biting to dyskinetic behavior in the form of up/down head movements and crossing/lifting of the forelegs (score 4) [significant interaction of group × condition (ON vs OFF; F(1,5) = 8.504, p = 0.033) on score 6].

Figure 7 shows the time for which rats in the different groups and conditions were dyskinetic. Both parkinsonian groups showed AIMs after intraperitoneal l-DOPA injections. Irrespective of the position of the stimulation electrode, the group with combined DA depletion and PPTg lesions showed more severe AIMs than the 6-OHDA group and mostly of a different quality (Fig. 7A,B; licking and biting rather than stereotyped head and body movements; for details, see the figure legend).

Focusing on these differences (AIMs scores 4 and 6), the analyses showed an amelioration of the severe AIMs in the combined lesion group with posterior DBS (Fig. 7D) but not with anterior DBS (Fig. 7C): pPPTg DBS (ON) caused a shift of the l-DOPA-induced AIMs. The appearance of continuous licking and biting was reduced, with AIMs instead taking the form of stereotyped up and down head movements and crossing and lifting of the forelegs [aPPTg DBS experiment, no interaction of group × DBS condition (ON/OFF): score 4, F(1,6) = 4.591, p = 0.076; score 6, F(1,6) = 0.005, p = 0.944; no effect of condition: score 4, F(1,6) = 0.000, p = 1.000; score 6, F(1,6) = 1.212, p = 0.313; pPPTg DBS experiment: significant effect of condition: score 4, F(1,5) = 9.791, p = 0.026; score 6, significant interaction of group × DBS condition, F(1,5) = 8.504, p = 0.033].

Discussion

Key findings

First, the PPTg is not critical for normal gait: neither partial nor full PPTg lesions effected stability, speed, stride, or coordination. Addition of a partial PPTg lesion to a DA-depleting lesion did not affect gait differently from DA depletion alone. However, compared with controls, rats with additional PPTg lesions had no deficits in hindlimb stride length or the distribution of support, unlike those with only DA-depleting lesions. Second, loss of PPTg neurons did not affect SNc DA neuron number or vice versa. In parkinsonism, in which mechanisms of toxicity and progression differ from animal models, different events might occur, but there is no a priori reason to believe that PPTg loss damages SNc DA neurons. Third, FOG was not seen in rats with only 6-OHDA lesions but was marked in rats with a 6-OHDA lesion plus a partial PPTg lesion, as well as an electrode implanted in the aPPTg but not the pPPTg. Activation of aPPTg electrodes exaggerated FOG; neither pPPTg electrodes nor DBS had the same effect. Fourth, effects on gait depended on the parkinsonian model and target site. In DA-depleted rats with an intact PPTg, pPPTg DBS ameliorated gait deficits, but aPPTg DBS made them worse. However, with partial PPTg damage (as in parkinsonism), DBS was ineffective. It was not the case that partial PPTg lesion made DBS altogether ineffective: rats with partial PPTg and DA-depleting lesions developed stronger l-DOPA-induced AIMs than DA-depleted rats with an intact PPTg. pPPTg DBS (but not aPPTg DBS) attenuated these; it was possible to activate surviving neurons for therapeutic benefit.

Clinical position

We used stimulation frequencies relevant to clinical work in humans (and monkeys). Clinically, lower frequencies are consistently most beneficial: higher frequencies cause impairment (Nandi et al., 2002; Plaha and Gill, 2005). Our pilot experiments using 130 Hz produced akinesia or freezing, regardless of how low the intensity. Initial encouraging clinical results after PPTg DBS (Mazzone et al., 2005; Plaha and Gill, 2005; Stefani et al., 2007) were not confirmed (Stefani et al., 2013). Follow-up studies reported a decline of the transient gait amelioration, and double-blind trials showed no motor improvements with PPTg DBS measured by Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) or objective measures of freezing (Ferraye et al., 2010). The initial focus on gait and posture diverted to cognitive deficits: (1) start–react and reaction time in attentional tasks (Thevathasan et al., 2010); (2) working memory, verbal fluency, executive functioning, and delayed recall (Alessandro et al., 2010; Ceravolo et al., 2011); and (3) rapid eye movement sleep (Lim et al., 2009). Were initial clinical expectations based on a flawed hypothesis? The majority of PPTg DBS publications refer to the PPTg as the major component of the MLR, a notion that derives from stimulation studies of rostral brainstem in decerebrate cats and rats (Garcia-Rill et al., 1987; Skinner et al., 1990) and lesion studies in monkeys (Kojima et al., 1997; Aziz et al., 1998; Munro-Davies et al., 1999). This is not entirely supported now (Garcia-Rill et al., 2011): the lesion studies are problematic to interpret (Winn, 2006), and recent primate electrophysiological data emphasize nonmotor PPTg functions (Okada and Kobayashi, 2013). The literature in mice, rats, and cats is consistent: loss or inactivation of PPTg effects tasks involving learning and decision making but not movement (Swerdlow and Koob, 1987; Dellu et al., 1991; Inglis et al., 1994a,b; Olmstead and Franklin, 1994; Keating and Winn, 2002; Alderson et al., 2003; Homs-Ormo et al., 2003; Steiniger and Kretschmer, 2004; Taylor et al., 2004; Wilson et al., 2009). It has been argued that PPTg organization and projections differ in primates but, although there are differences in the strength of particular PPTg connections (Alam et al., 2011), the pattern of connectivity is highly conserved across species (Winn, 2008; Martinez-Gonzalez et al., 2011). What is interesting is the increasing clinical focus on cognitive deficits; this aligns with experimental studies, reinforcing the belief that PPTg function is not simple motor control and validating the utility of rat models for exploring PPTg function.

Interpretation and conclusion

The animal literature shows that the PPTg has a role in cognitive functions and sleep (but is not a master switch for sleep–wake transitions; Saper et al., 2010; Petrovic et al., 2013). What does this mean for its contribution to movement disorders? Cholinergic, GABAergic, and glutamatergic neurons in the PPTg are distributed along different rostrocaudal gradients (Mesulam et al., 1983; Wang and Morales, 2009). Its anatomical, neurochemical, and electrophysiological heterogeneity explains the functional diversity of the structure, with lesions in different parts having different effects (Alderson et al., 2008; Wilson et al., 2009; Ros et al., 2010; Martinez-Gonzalez et al., 2012). Consequently, the effects of PPTg DBS will depend on the exact location: of the few cases reporting benefits from PPTg DBS, the best effects were achieved with posterior stimulation (Ferraye et al., 2010) or outside the PPTg (Zrinzo et al., 2007). The pPPTg receives fast sensory input, responding to its meaning and value. In contrast, the aPPTg is the principal site of BG input, which brakes PPTg by GABA-mediated inhibition. Both parts project to thalamocortical and corticostriatal systems via the thalamus and midbrain DA neurons, as well as connecting with structures below, such as the pontine reticular formation and spinal cord (Pan and Hyland, 2005; Kobayashi et al., 2007; Maskos, 2008; Mena-Segovia et al., 2008a; Okada et al., 2009; Thompson and Felsen, 2013).

aPPTg DBS in this study worsened gait in the 6-OHDA model and caused marked FOG in the combined lesion group. FOG as a gait disturbance is not a pure motor problem, and, as in patients, FOG here was contextual: it did not appear in the home cage, but, within the confined space of the CatWalk, animals showed pronounced start hesitation. Two possible explanations for aPPTg DBS-induced FOG are as follows. (1) It could activate local BG-projecting GABA neurons (Mena-Segovia et al., 2008a). This is plausible but does not sit easily with the fact that aPPTg damage itself promoted FOG. (2) Alternatively, FOG might be a consequence of aPPTg DBS, exacerbating a problem with automatic or habitual control of behavior, a BG function disrupted in parkinsonism. Replacing the automatic control of action effected by the BG (dorsolateral striatum/posterior lateral putamen) that is disturbed in parkinsonism with ventral striatal goal-directed processes would account for slower execution of movements and susceptibility to interference from other goal-directed tasks (Redgrave et al., 2010). Redgrave and colleagues hypothesize that output from ventral striatal goal-directed systems has to overcome “noisy” output from stimulus–response habitual control circuits at points at which the two systems converge, such as the aPPTg. Therefore, loss of functionality here is disabling in situations with increased need for goal-directed processes to override automatic and habitual ones. MacLaren et al. (2014) suggest that motor impairment in complex motor tasks after PPTg lesions might be attributable to a lack of integration of sensory information—including nonphysical attributes such as salience and value—supporting the hypothesis of integration failure at the level of the PPTg in more complex motor behavior.

Posterior stimulation improved gait parameters in the 6-OHDA lesion group. Through thalamic connections, the PPTg influences cortical activity. Mena-Segovia and colleagues (Mena-Segovia et al., 2008b; Mena-Segovia and Bolam, 2011) have shown that neurochemically identified PPTg neurons differentially effect cortical oscillatory activity. Increased activity is seen in several cortical areas after PPTg stimulation, including the medial sensorimotor area (Ballanger, 2009). Underactivity here is important in parkinsonian motor symptoms (Berardelli et al., 2001), and increased activation is associated with motor improvement (Brooks and Samuel, 2000). Furthermore, in the parkinsonian rodent model, the relation between cortical and PPTg activity was shown to be altered (Aravamuthan et al., 2008). It is likely that benefits seen here after pPPTg DBS can be attributed to an influence on cortical structures, which will help ameliorate deficiencies in corticostriatal activity produced by DA depletion. However, for clinical application, it needs to be highlighted that this effect was absent in the model with PPTg degeneration. This suggests that, for patients with advanced parkinsonism, PPTg DBS is not a promising option. Most studies of PPTg DBS (including the early ones reporting most improvement) describe severe gait deficits and high UPDRS scores. The effect of symptom severity (and likely linked degree of degeneration) on PPTg DBS outcome is difficult to compare across studies, because factors, such as electrode placement, number of electrodes, stimulation parameters, and diagnosis, also contribute. PPTg DBS is only discussed for patients with pronounced gait impairment, a condition developed in more advanced stages when DBS in the PPTg, according the results reported here, is not beneficial. However, because the pPPTg can affect corticostriatal activity, it might be an appropriate target to address cognitive domains, as the clinical literature suggests (Pötter-Nerger and Volkmann, 2013). Future studies will have to address the role of the aPPTg in FOG (could this be ameliorated by targeted deactivation of GABA input?) and the precise effects of pPPTg DBS on corticostriatal function. Using model systems like this systematically might yet reveal the PPTg to be a valuable therapeutic target in parkinsonism.

Footnotes

  • This research was supported by Medical Research Council Grant G0901332 (P.W.), part of an ERA-NET NEURON grant. N.K.G. was also supported by a studentship from the School of Psychology, University of St. Andrews and by an award from a Scottish Universities Life Sciences Alliance Strategic Research Development Grant to the University of Strathclyde. We thank Dr. Richard Pinnell and Prof. Judy Pratt for their invaluable work in developing the wireless DBS device. We also thank the technical staff of the Strathclyde Biological Procedures Unit for their excellent animal care and support and Prof. Jens Volkmann and Prof. Peter Redgrave for critical review of drafts of this manuscript.

  • The authors declare no competing financial interests.

  • Correspondence should be addressed to Nadine K. Gut, Biozentrum, University of Basel, Klingelbergstrasse 50/70, 4056 Basel, Switzerland. nadine.gut{at}unibas.ch

This article is freely available online through the J Neurosci Author Open Choice option.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Alam M,
    2. Schwabe K,
    3. Krauss JK
    (2011) The pedunculopontine nucleus area: critical evaluation of interspecies differences relevant for its use as a target for deep brain stimulation. Brain 134:11–23, doi:10.1093/brain/awq322, pmid:21147837.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Alderson HL,
    2. Faulconbridge LF,
    3. Gregory LP,
    4. Latimer MP,
    5. Winn P
    (2003) Behavioural sensitisation to repeated d-amphetamine: effects of excitotoxic lesions of the pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus. Neuroscience 118:311–315, doi:10.1016/S0306-4522(03)00152-0, pmid:12699767.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Alderson HL,
    2. Latimer MP,
    3. Blaha CD,
    4. Phillips AG,
    5. Winn P
    (2004) An examination of d-amphetamine self-administration in pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus-lesioned rats. Neuroscience 125:349–358, doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2004.02.015, pmid:15062978.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Alderson HL,
    2. Latimer MP,
    3. Winn P
    (2006) Intravenous self-administration of nicotine is altered by lesions of the posterior, but not anterior, pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus. Eur J Neurosci 23:2169–2175, doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2006.04737.x, pmid:16630063.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Alderson HL,
    2. Latimer MP,
    3. Winn P
    (2008) A functional dissociation of the anterior and posterior pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus: excitotoxic lesions have differential effects on locomotion and the response to nicotine. Brain Struct Funct 213:247–253, doi:10.1007/s00429-008-0174-4, pmid:18266007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Alessandro S,
    2. Ceravolo R,
    3. Brusa L,
    4. Pierantozzi M,
    5. Costa A,
    6. Galati S,
    7. Placidi F,
    8. Romigi A,
    9. Iani C,
    10. Marzetti F,
    11. Peppe A
    (2010) Non-motor functions in parkinsonian patients implanted in the pedunculopontine nucleus: focus on sleep and cognitive domains. J Neurol Sci 289:44–48, doi:10.1016/j.jns.2009.08.017, pmid:19765737.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Aravamuthan BR,
    2. Bergstrom DA,
    3. French RA,
    4. Taylor JJ,
    5. Parr-Brownlie LC,
    6. Walters JR
    (2008) Altered neuronal activity relationships between the pedunculopontine nucleus and motor cortex in a rodent model of Parkinson's disease. Exp Neurol 213:268–280, doi:10.1016/j.expneurol.2008.05.023, pmid:18601924.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Aziz TZ,
    2. Davies L,
    3. Stein J,
    4. France S
    (1998) The role of descending basal ganglia connections to the brain stem in parkinsonian akinesia. Br J Neurosurg 12:245–249, doi:10.1080/02688699845078, pmid:11013688.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Ballanger B,
    2. Lozano AM,
    3. Moro E,
    4. van Eimeren T,
    5. Hamani C,
    6. Chen R,
    7. Cilia R,
    8. Houle S,
    9. Poon YY,
    10. Lang AE,
    11. Strafella AP
    (2009) Cerebral blood flow changes induced by pedunculopontine nucleus stimulation in patients with advanced Parkinson's disease: a [(15)O] H2O PET study. Hum Brain Mapp 30:3901–3909, doi:10.1002/hbm.20815, pmid:19479730.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Berardelli A,
    2. Rothwell JC,
    3. Thompson PD,
    4. Hallett M
    (2001) Pathophysiology of bradykinesia in Parkinson's disease. Brain 124:2131–2146, doi:10.1093/brain/124.11.2131, pmid:11673316.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Brantley RK,
    2. Bass AH
    (1988) Cholinergic neurons in the brain of a teleost fish (Porichthys notatus) located with a monoclonal antibody to choline acetyltransferase. J Comp Neurol 275:87–105, doi:10.1002/cne.902750108, pmid:3170792.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Breit S,
    2. Bouali-Benazzouz R,
    3. Benabid AL,
    4. Benazzouz A
    (2001) Unilateral lesion of the nigrostriatal pathway induces an increase of neuronal activity of the pedunculopontine nucleus, which is reversed by the lesion of the subthalamic nucleus in the rat. Eur J Neurosci 14:1833–1842, doi:10.1046/j.0953-816x.2001.01800.x, pmid:11860479.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Brooks DJ,
    2. Samuel M
    (2000) The effects of surgical treatment of Parkinson's disease on brain function: PET findings. Neurology 55(12 Suppl 6):S52–S59.
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    1. Ceravolo R,
    2. Brusa L,
    3. Galati S,
    4. Volterrani D,
    5. Peppe A,
    6. Siciliano G,
    7. Pierantozzi M,
    8. Moschella V,
    9. Bonuccelli U,
    10. Stanzione P,
    11. Stefani A
    (2011) Low frequency stimulation of the nucleus tegmenti pedunculopontini increases cortical metabolism in parkinsonian patients. Eur J Neurol 18:842–849, doi:10.1111/j.1468-1331.2010.03254.x, pmid:21087362.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Corrigall WA,
    2. Coen KM,
    3. Zhang J,
    4. Adamson KL
    (2001) GABA mechanisms in the pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus influence particular aspects of nicotine self-administration selectively in the rat. Psychopharmacology 158:190–197, doi:10.1007/s002130100869, pmid:11702093.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Creese I,
    2. Iversen SD
    (1973) Blockage of amphetamine induced motor stimulation and stereotypy in the adult rat following neonatal treatment with 6-hydroxydopamine. Brain Res 55:369–382, doi:10.1016/0006-8993(73)90302-8, pmid:4145950.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Dellu F,
    2. Mayo W,
    3. Cherkaoui J,
    4. Le Moal M,
    5. Simon H
    (1991) Learning disturbances following excitotoxic lesion of cholinergic pedunculo-pontine nucleus in the rat. Brain Res 544:126–132, doi:10.1016/0006-8993(91)90893-Z, pmid:1855131.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Diederich K,
    2. Koch M
    (2005) Role of the pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus in sensorimotor gating and reward-related behavior in rats. Psychopharmacology 179:402–408, doi:10.1007/s00213-004-2052-y, pmid:15821954.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Fahn S
    (1995) in Advances in neurology, The freezing phenomenon in Parkinsonism, negative motor phenomena, eds Fahn S, Hallett M, Luders HO, Marsden CD (Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia), Vol. 67, pp 53–63.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Ferraye MU,
    2. Debû B,
    3. Fraix V,
    4. Goetz L,
    5. Ardouin C,
    6. Yelnik J,
    7. Henry-Lagrange C,
    8. Seigneuret E,
    9. Piallat B,
    10. Krack P,
    11. Le Bas JF,
    12. Benabid AL,
    13. Chabardès S,
    14. Pollak P
    (2010) Effects of pedunculopontine nucleus area stimulation on gait disorders in Parkinson's disease. Brain 133:205–214, doi:10.1093/brain/awp229, pmid:19773356.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Garcia-Rill E,
    2. Houser CR,
    3. Skinner RD,
    4. Smith W,
    5. Woodward DJ
    (1987) Locomotion-inducing sites in the vicinity of the pedunculopontine nucleus. Brain Res Bull 18:731–738, doi:10.1016/0361-9230(87)90208-5, pmid:3304544.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Garcia-Rill E,
    2. Simon C,
    3. Smith K,
    4. Kezunovic N,
    5. Hyde J
    (2011) The pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus: from basic neuroscience to neurosurgical applications: arousal from slices to humans: implications for DBS. J Neural Transm 118:1397–1407, doi:10.1007/s00702-010-0500-x, pmid:20936418.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Hamers FP,
    2. Koopmans GC,
    3. Joosten EA
    (2006) CatWalk-assisted gait analysis in the assessment of spinal cord injury. J Neurotrauma 23:537–548, doi:10.1089/neu.2006.23.537, pmid:16629635.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Hirsch EC,
    2. Graybiel AM,
    3. Duyckaerts C,
    4. Javoy-Agid F
    (1987) Neuronal loss in the pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus in Parkinson disease and in progressive supranuclear palsy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 84:5976–5980, doi:10.1073/pnas.84.16.5976, pmid:3475716.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. Homs-Ormo S,
    2. Coll-Andreu M,
    3. Satorra-Marín N,
    4. Arévalo-García R,
    5. Morgado-Bernal I
    (2003) Effects of pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus lesions on emotional reactivity and locomotion in rats. Brain Res Bull 59:495–503, doi:10.1016/S0361-9230(02)00966-8, pmid:12576147.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Inglis WL,
    2. Dunbar JS,
    3. Winn P
    (1994a) Outflow from the nucleus accumbens to the pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus: a dissociation between locomotor activity and the acquisition of responding for conditioned reinforcement stimulated by d-amphetamine. Neuroscience 62:51–64, doi:10.1016/0306-4522(94)90314-X, pmid:7816212.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Inglis WL,
    2. Allen LF,
    3. Whitelaw RB,
    4. Latimer MP,
    5. Brace HM,
    6. Winn P
    (1994b) An investigation into the role of the pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus in the mediation of locomotion and orofacial stereotypy induced by d-amphetamine and apomorphine in the rat. Neuroscience 58:817–833, doi:10.1016/0306-4522(94)90459-6, pmid:8190259.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Keating GL,
    2. Winn P
    (2002) Examination of the role of the pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus in radial maze tasks with or without a delay. Neuroscience 112:687–696, doi:10.1016/S0306-4522(02)00108-2, pmid:12074910.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Kobayashi K,
    2. Hoshino K,
    3. Homma S,
    4. Takagi S,
    5. Norita M
    (2007) A possible monosynaptic pathway links the pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus to thalamostriatal neurons in the hooded rat. Arch Histol Cytol 70:207–214, doi:10.1679/aohc.70.207, pmid:18079589.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Kobayashi Y,
    2. Okada K
    (2007) Reward prediction error computation in the pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus neurons. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1104:310–323, doi:10.1196/annals.1390.003, pmid:17344541.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Kojima J,
    2. Yamaji Y,
    3. Matsumura M,
    4. Nambu A,
    5. Inase M,
    6. Tokuno H,
    7. Takada M,
    8. Imai H
    (1997) Excitotoxic lesions of the pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus produce contralateral hemiparkinsonism in the monkey. Neurosci Lett 226:111–114, doi:10.1016/S0304-3940(97)00254-1, pmid:9159502.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Lim AS,
    2. Moro E,
    3. Lozano AM,
    4. Hamani C,
    5. Dostrovsky JO,
    6. Hutchison WD,
    7. Lang AE,
    8. Wennberg RA,
    9. Murray BJ
    (2009) Selective enhancement of rapid eye movement sleep by deep brain stimulation of the human pons. Ann Neurol 66:110–114, doi:10.1002/ana.21631, pmid:19670451.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. MacLaren DA,
    2. Santini JA,
    3. Russell AL,
    4. Markovic T,
    5. Clark SD
    (2014) Deficits in motor performance after pedunculopontine lesions in rats - impairment depends on demands of task. Eur J Neurosci 40:3224–3236, doi:10.1111/ejn.12666, pmid:24995993.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Marín O,
    2. Smeets WJ,
    3. González A
    (1997) Distribution of choline acetyltransferase immunoreactivity in the brain of anuran (Rana perezi, Xenopus laevis) and urodele (Pleurodeles waltl) amphibians. J Comp Neurol 382:499–534, doi:10.1002/(SICI)1096-9861(19970616)382:4<499::AID-CNE6>3.0.CO%3B2-Y, pmid:9184996.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Martinez-Gonzalez C,
    2. Bolam JP,
    3. Mena-Segovia J
    (2011) Topographical organization of the pedunculopontine nucleus. Front Neuroanat 5:22, doi:10.3389/fnana.2011.00022, pmid:21503154.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Martinez-Gonzalez C,
    2. Wang HL,
    3. Micklem BR,
    4. Bolam JP,
    5. Mena-Segovia J
    (2012) Subpopulations of cholinergic, GABAergic and glutamatergic neurons in the pedunculopontine nucleus contain calcium-binding proteins and are heterogeneously distributed. Eur J Neurosci 35:723–734, doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2012.08002.x, pmid:22356461.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Maskos U
    (2008) The cholinergic mesopontine tegmentum is a relatively neglected nicotinic master modulator of the dopaminergic system: relevance to drugs of abuse and pathology. Br J Pharmacol 153(Suppl 1):S438–S445, doi:10.1038/bjp.2008.5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. Mazzone P,
    2. Lozano A,
    3. Stanzione P,
    4. Galati S,
    5. Scarnati E,
    6. Peppe A,
    7. Stefani A
    (2005) Implantation of human pedunculopontine nucleus: a safe and clinically relevant target in Parkinson's disease. Neuroreport 16:1877–1881, doi:10.1097/01.wnr.0000187629.38010.12, pmid:16272871.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Medina L,
    2. Reiner A
    (1994) Distribution of choline acetyltransferase immunoreactivity in the pigeon brain. J Comp Neurol 342:497–537, doi:10.1002/cne.903420403, pmid:8040363.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Mena-Segovia J,
    2. Micklem BR,
    3. Nair-Roberts RG,
    4. Ungless MA,
    5. Bolam JP
    (2009) GABAergic neuron distribution in the pedunculopontine nucleus defines functional subterritories. J Comp Neurol 515:397–408, doi:10.1002/cne.22065, pmid:19459217.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. Mena-Segovia J,
    2. Bolam JP
    (2011) Phasic modulation of cortical high-frequency oscillations by pedunculopontine neurons. Prog Brain Res 193:85–92, doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-53839-0.00006-5, pmid:21854957.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. ↵
    1. Mena-Segovia J,
    2. Winn P,
    3. Bolam JP
    (2008a) Cholinergic modulation of midbrain dopaminergic systems. Brain Res Rev 58:265–271, doi:10.1016/j.brainresrev.2008.02.003, pmid:18343506.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Mena-Segovia J,
    2. Sims HM,
    3. Magill PJ,
    4. Bolam JP
    (2008b) Cholinergic brainstem neurons modulate cortical gamma activity during slow oscillations. J Physiol 586:2947–2960, doi:10.1113/jphysiol.2008.153874, pmid:18440991.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. Mesulam MM,
    2. Mufson EJ,
    3. Wainer BH,
    4. Levey AI
    (1983) Central cholinergic pathways in the rat: an overview based on an alternative nomenclature (Ch1-Ch6). Neuroscience 10:1185–1201, doi:10.1016/0306-4522(83)90108-2, pmid:6320048.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Mesulam MM,
    2. Geula C,
    3. Bothwell MA,
    4. Hersh LB
    (1989) Human reticular formation: cholinergic neurons of the pedunculopontine and laterodorsal tegmental nuclei and some cytochemical comparisons to forebrain cholinergic neurons. J Comp Neurol 283:611–633, doi:10.1002/cne.902830414, pmid:2545747.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Mitchell IJ,
    2. Clarke CE,
    3. Boyce S,
    4. Robertson RG,
    5. Peggs D,
    6. Sambrook MA,
    7. Crossman AR
    (1989) Neural mechanisms underlying parkinsonian symptoms based upon regional uptake of 2-deoxyglucose in monkeys exposed to 1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine. Neuroscience 32:213–226, doi:10.1016/0306-4522(89)90120-6, pmid:2586750.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    1. Munro-Davies LE,
    2. Winter J,
    3. Aziz TZ,
    4. Stein JF
    (1999) The role of the pedunculopontine region in basal-ganglia mechanisms of akinesia. Exp Brain Res 129:511–517, doi:10.1007/s002210050921, pmid:10638425.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. ↵
    1. Nandi D,
    2. Aziz TZ,
    3. Giladi N,
    4. Winter J,
    5. Stein JF
    (2002) Reversal of akinesia in experimental parkinsonism by GABA antagonist microinjections in the pedunculopontine nucleus. Brain 125:2418–2430, doi:10.1093/brain/awf259, pmid:12390969.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. ↵
    1. Okada K,
    2. Kobayashi Y
    (2013) Reward prediction-related increases and decreases in tonic neuronal activity of the pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus. Front Integr Neurosci 7:36, doi:10.3389/fnint.2013.00036, pmid:23717270.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. ↵
    1. Okada K,
    2. Toyama K,
    3. Inoue Y,
    4. Isa T,
    5. Kobayashi Y
    (2009) Different pedunculopontine tegmental neurons signal predicted and actual task rewards. J Neurosci 29:4858–4870, doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4415-08.2009, pmid:19369554.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  50. ↵
    1. Olmstead MC,
    2. Franklin KB
    (1994) Lesions of the pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus block drug-induced reinforcement but not amphetamine-induced locomotion. Brain Res 638:29–35, doi:10.1016/0006-8993(94)90629-7, pmid:8199867.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. ↵
    1. Olmstead MC,
    2. Munn EM,
    3. Franklin KB,
    4. Wise RA
    (1998) Effects of pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus lesions on responding for intravenous heroin under different schedules of reinforcement. J Neurosci 18:5035–5044, pmid:9634569.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. ↵
    1. Orieux G,
    2. Francois C,
    3. Féger J,
    4. Yelnik J,
    5. Vila M,
    6. Ruberg M,
    7. Agid Y,
    8. Hirsch EC
    (2000) Metabolic activity of excitatory parafascicular and pedunculopontine inputs to the subthalamic nucleus in a rat model of Parkinson's disease. Neuroscience 97:79–88, doi:10.1016/S0306-4522(00)00011-7, pmid:10771341.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. ↵
    1. Pahapill PA,
    2. Lozano AM
    (2000) The pedunculopontine nucleus and Parkinson's disease. Brain 123:1767–1783, doi:10.1093/brain/123.9.1767, pmid:10960043.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  54. ↵
    1. Pan WX,
    2. Hyland BI
    (2005) Pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus controls conditioned responses of midbrain dopamine neurons in behaving rats. J Neurosci 25:4725–4732, doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0277-05.2005, pmid:15888648.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  55. ↵
    1. Paxinos G,
    2. Watson C
    (2005) The rat brain in stereotaxic coordinates (Elsevier Academic, San Diego).
  56. ↵
    1. Petrovic J,
    2. Ciric J,
    3. Lazic K,
    4. Kalauzi A,
    5. Saponjic J
    (2013) Lesion of the pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus in rat augments cortical activation and disturbs sleep/wake state transitions structure. Exp Neurol 247:562–571, doi:10.1016/j.expneurol.2013.02.007, pmid:23481548.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. ↵
    1. Pienaar IS,
    2. Elson JL,
    3. Racca C,
    4. Nelson G,
    5. Turnbull DM,
    6. Morris CM
    (2013) Mitochondrial abnormality associates with type-specific neuronal loss and cell morphology changes in the pedunculopontine nucleus in Parkinson disease. Am J Pathol 183:1826–1840, doi:10.1016/j.ajpath.2013.09.002, pmid:24099985.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. ↵
    1. Plaha P,
    2. Gill SS
    (2005) Bilateral deep brain stimulation of the pedunculopontine nucleus for Parkinson's disease. Neuroreport 16:1883–1887, doi:10.1097/01.wnr.0000187637.20771.a0, pmid:16272872.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. ↵
    1. Pötter-Nerger M,
    2. Volkmann J
    (2013) Deep brain stimulation for gait and postural symptoms in Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord 28:1609–1615, doi:10.1002/mds.25677, pmid:24132849.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. ↵
    1. Redgrave P,
    2. Rodriguez M,
    3. Smith Y,
    4. Rodriguez-Oroz MC,
    5. Lehericy S,
    6. Bergman H,
    7. Agid Y,
    8. DeLong MR,
    9. Obeso JA
    (2010) Goal-directed and habitual control in the basal ganglia: implications for Parkinson's disease. Nat Rev Neurosci 11:760–772, doi:10.1038/nrn2915, pmid:20944662.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. ↵
    1. Rinne JO,
    2. Ma SY,
    3. Lee MS,
    4. Collan Y,
    5. Röyttä M
    (2008) Loss of cholinergic neurons in the pedunculopontine nucleus in Parkinson's disease is related to disability of the patients. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 14:553–557, doi:10.1016/j.parkreldis.2008.01.006, pmid:18329941.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. ↵
    1. Ros H,
    2. Magill PJ,
    3. Moss J,
    4. Bolam JP,
    5. Mena-Segovia J
    (2010) Distinct types of non-cholinergic pedunculopontine neurons are differentially modulated during global brain states. Neuroscience 170:78–91, doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2010.06.068, pmid:20603194.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. ↵
    1. Rye DB,
    2. Saper CB,
    3. Lee HJ,
    4. Wainer BH
    (1987) Pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus of the rat: cytoarchitecture, cytochemistry, and some extrapyramidal connections of the mesopontine tegmentum. J Comp Neurol 259:483–528, doi:10.1002/cne.902590403, pmid:2885347.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. ↵
    1. Samson HH,
    2. Chappell A
    (2001) Injected muscimol in pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus alters ethanol self-administration. Alcohol 23:41–48, doi:10.1016/S0741-8329(00)00122-1, pmid:11282451.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. ↵
    1. Saper CB,
    2. Fuller PM,
    3. Pedersen NP,
    4. Lu J,
    5. Scammell TE
    (2010) Sleep state switching. Neuron 68:1023–1042, doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2010.11.032, pmid:21172606.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. ↵
    1. Schaafsma JD,
    2. Balash Y,
    3. Gurevich T,
    4. Bartels AL,
    5. Hausdorff JM,
    6. Giladi N
    (2003) Characterization of freezing of gait subtypes and the response of each to levodopa in Parkinson's disease. Eur J Neurol 10:391–398, doi:10.1046.j.1468-1331,2003.00611.x, pmid:12823491.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. ↵
    1. Skinner RD,
    2. Kinjo N,
    3. Henderson V,
    4. Garcia-Rill E
    (1990) Locomotor projections from the pedunculopontine nucleus to the spinal cord. Neuroreport 1:183–186, doi:10.1097/00001756-199011000-00001, pmid:2129877.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. ↵
    1. Stefani A,
    2. Lozano AM,
    3. Peppe A,
    4. Stanzione P,
    5. Galati S,
    6. Tropepi D,
    7. Pierantozzi M,
    8. Brusa L,
    9. Scarnati E,
    10. Mazzone P
    (2007) Bilateral deep brain stimulation of the pedunculopontine and subthalamic nuclei in severe Parkinson's disease. Brain 130:1596–1607, doi:10.1093/brain/awl346, pmid:17251240.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  69. ↵
    1. Stefani A,
    2. Peppe A,
    3. Galati S,
    4. Bassi MS,
    5. D'Angelo V,
    6. Pierantozzi M
    (2013) The serendipity case of the pedunculopontine nucleus low-frequency brain stimulation: chasing a gait response, finding sleep, and cognition improvement. Front Neurol 4:68, doi:10.3389/fneur.2013.00068, pmid:23761781.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  70. ↵
    1. Steiniger B,
    2. Kretschmer BD
    (2004) Effects of ibotenate pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus lesions on exploratory behaviour in the open field. Behav Brain Res 151:17–23, doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2003.08.001, pmid:15084417.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. ↵
    1. Stephenson-Jones M,
    2. Samuelsson E,
    3. Ericsson J,
    4. Robertson B,
    5. Grillner S
    (2011) Evolutionary conservation of the basal ganglia as a common vertebrate mechanism for action selection. Curr Biol 21:1081–1091, doi:10.1016/j.cub.2011.05.001, pmid:21700460.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  72. ↵
    1. Swerdlow NR,
    2. Koob GF
    (1987) Lesions of the dorsomedial nucleus of the thalamus, medial prefrontal cortex and pedunculopontine nucleus: effects on locomotor activity mediated by nucleus accumbens-ventral pallidal circuitry. Brain Res 412:233–243, doi:10.1016/0006-8993(87)91129-2, pmid:3607466.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. ↵
    1. Taylor CL,
    2. Kozak R,
    3. Latimer MP,
    4. Winn P
    (2004) Effects of changing reward on performance of the delayed spatial win-shift radial maze task in pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus lesioned rats. Behav Brain Res 153:431–438, doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2003.12.019, pmid:15265639.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  74. ↵
    1. Thevathasan W,
    2. Silburn PA,
    3. Brooker H,
    4. Coyne TJ,
    5. Khan S,
    6. Gill SS,
    7. Aziz TZ,
    8. Brown P
    (2010) The impact of low-frequency stimulation of the pedunculopontine nucleus region on reaction time in parkinsonism. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 81:1099–1104, doi:10.1136/jnnp.2009.189324, pmid:20562469.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  75. ↵
    1. Thompson JA,
    2. Felsen G
    (2013) Activity in mouse pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus reflects action and outcome in a decision-making task. J Neurophysiol 110:2817–2829, doi:10.1152/jn.00464.2013, pmid:24089397.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  76. ↵
    1. Wang HL,
    2. Morales M
    (2009) Pedunculopontine and laterodorsal tegmental nuclei contain distinct populations of cholinergic, glutamatergic and GABAergic neurons in the rat. Eur J Neurosci 29:340–358, doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2008.06576.x, pmid:19200238.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  77. ↵
    1. Whishaw IQ,
    2. Cioe JD,
    3. Previsich N,
    4. Kolb B
    (1977) The variability of the interaural line vs the stability of bregma in rat stereotaxic surgery. Physiol Behav 19:719–722, doi:10.1016/0031-9384(77)90304-3, pmid:345295.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  78. ↵
    1. Wilson DI,
    2. MacLaren DA,
    3. Winn P
    (2009) Bar pressing for food: differential consequences of lesions to the anterior versus posterior pedunculopontine. Eur J Neurosci 30:504–513, doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2009.06836.x, pmid:19614747.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  79. ↵
    1. Winn P
    (2006) How best to consider the structure and function of the pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus: evidence from animal studies. J Neurol Sci 248:234–250, doi:10.1016/j.jns.2006.05.036, pmid:16765383.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  80. ↵
    1. Winn P
    (2008) Experimental studies of pedunculopontine functions: are they motor, sensory or integrative? Parkinsonism Relat Disord 14(Suppl 2):S194–S198.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  81. ↵
    1. Zrinzo L,
    2. Zrinzo LV,
    3. Hariz M
    (2007) The pedunculopontine and peripeduncular nuclei: a tale of two structures. Brain 130:e73, doi:10.1093/brain/awm079, pmid:17525137, author reply e74.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 35 (12)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 35, Issue 12
25 Mar 2015
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Advertising (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Neuroscience article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Deep Brain Stimulation of Different Pedunculopontine Targets in a Novel Rodent Model of Parkinsonism
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Neuroscience
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Neuroscience.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Deep Brain Stimulation of Different Pedunculopontine Targets in a Novel Rodent Model of Parkinsonism
Nadine K. Gut, Philip Winn
Journal of Neuroscience 25 March 2015, 35 (12) 4792-4803; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3646-14.2015

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Request Permissions
Share
Deep Brain Stimulation of Different Pedunculopontine Targets in a Novel Rodent Model of Parkinsonism
Nadine K. Gut, Philip Winn
Journal of Neuroscience 25 March 2015, 35 (12) 4792-4803; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3646-14.2015
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • basal ganglia
  • cognition
  • deep brain stimulation
  • dopamine
  • freezing of gait
  • posture

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

Articles

  • Memory Retrieval Has a Dynamic Influence on the Maintenance Mechanisms That Are Sensitive to ζ-Inhibitory Peptide (ZIP)
  • Neurophysiological Evidence for a Cortical Contribution to the Wakefulness-Related Drive to Breathe Explaining Hypocapnia-Resistant Ventilation in Humans
  • Monomeric Alpha-Synuclein Exerts a Physiological Role on Brain ATP Synthase
Show more Articles

Behavioral/Cognitive

  • Continuous Diffusion-Detected Neuroplasticity during Motor Learning
  • Neural Signatures of Flexible Multiple Timing
  • Functional and Regional Specificity of Noradrenergic Signaling for Encoding and Retrieval of Associative Recognition Memory in the Rat
Show more Behavioral/Cognitive
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Follow SFN on BlueSky
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Issue Archive
  • Collections

Information

  • For Authors
  • For Advertisers
  • For the Media
  • For Subscribers

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Notice
  • Contact
  • Accessibility
(JNeurosci logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2025 by the Society for Neuroscience.
JNeurosci Online ISSN: 1529-2401

The ideas and opinions expressed in JNeurosci do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the JNeurosci Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in JNeurosci should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in JNeurosci.