Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2022 Aug 19;17(8):e0272277. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0272277

Dysregulation of the hippocampal neuronal network by LGI1 auto-antibodies

Elodie Fels 1,2,3, Marie-Eve Mayeur 1,2,3, Estelle Wayere 1,2,3, Clémentine Vincent 1,2,3,4, Céline Malleval 1,2,3, Jérôme Honnorat 1,2,3,4, Olivier Pascual 1,2,3,*
Editor: Giuseppe Biagini5
PMCID: PMC9390894  PMID: 35984846

Abstract

LGI1 is a neuronal secreted protein highly expressed in the hippocampus. Epileptic seizures and LGI1 hypo-functions have been found in both ADLTE, a genetic epileptogenic syndrome and LGI1 limbic encephalitis (LE), an autoimmune disease. Studies, based mainly on transgenic mouse models, investigated the function of LGI1 in the CNS and strangely showed that LGI1 loss of function, led to a decreased AMPA-receptors (AMPA-R) expression. Our project intends at better understanding how an altered function of LGI1 leads to epileptic seizures. To reach our goal, we infused mice with LGI1 IgG purified from the serum of patients diagnozed with LGI1 LE. Super resolution imaging revealed that LGI1 IgG reduced AMPA-R expression at the surface of inhibitory and excitatory neurons only in the dentate gyrus of the hippocampus. Complementary electrophysiological approaches indicated that despite reduced AMPA-R expression, LGI1 IgG increased the global hyperexcitability in the hippocampal neuronal network. Decreased AMPA-R expression at inhibitory neurons and the lack of LGI1 IgG effect in presence of GABA antagonist on excitability, led us to conclude that LGI1 function might be essential for the proper functioning of the overall network and orchestrate the imbalance between inhibition and excitation. Our work suggests that LGI1 IgG reduced the inhibitory network activity more significantly than the excitatory network shedding lights on the essential role of the inhibitory network to trigger epileptic seizures in patients with LGI1 LE.

1. Introduction

Leucin-rich glioma inactivated protein 1 (LGI1) is a 60 KDa secreted protein largely expressed in the central nervous system (CNS) with a high expression profile in the hippocampus. LGI1 gene mutations are involved in an inherited form of epilepsy called autosomal dominant temporal lobe epilepsy (ADLTE) [1, 2]. Epileptic seizures are characterized by hyperexcitability and hypersynchronous activity of the neuronal network. To investigate the involvement of LGI1 in the regulation of the neuronal network, a knock-out mouse model lgi1-/- has been created [3]. In this model, severe epileptic seizures appeared from 2 weeks of age, leading to the death of the animal at three weeks post-natal, supporting the idea of an essential role of LGI1 during the maturation of the neuronal network [3]. Another study based on a transgenic mouse model carrying a genetic alteration associated with ADLTE, demonstrated that LGI1 has a crucial function on the maturation and pruning of excitatory synapses during the development [4]. Nevertheless, the role of LGI1 in the regulation of the mature neuronal network has been recently highlighted by the description of autoimmune encephalitis with LGI1 auto-antibodies (Abs) [5, 6]. LGI1-Abs have been found in the serum and the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of adult patients with limbic encephalitis (LGI1 LE) [6, 7] and such patient are also characterized by epileptic seizures. LGI1-Abs seem to play a direct role to block LGI1 protein indicating an essential function of LGI1 in the regulation of the neuronal network activity during adulthood [810].

Further studies investigating the function of LGI1 in the CNS found that LGI1 interacts at excitatory synapses with its transmembrane partners Disintegrin and metalloproteinase domain-containing protein 22 (ADAM22) and/or 23 (ADAM23) [1114] to form a large trans-synaptic complex. By this complex, it was suggested that LGI1 regulates the expression and activity of voltage-gated potassium kv1.1 channels at the presynaptic compartment through its interaction with ADAM23 [3, 1518], and the expression of α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid receptors (AMPA-R) through its interaction with ADAM22 at the postsynaptic compartment [11]. Strangely, in contradiction with the epileptic seizures phenotype, the dysfunction of LGI1 was reported to reduce the expression of AMPA-R leading to the decrease of the excitatory synaptic transmission [3, 12, 16, 19]. Few regulatory mechanisms have been proposed so far, a study suggested that the main action of LGI1 would be on kv1.1 channels resulting in an homeostatic regulation [18], but this theory has not been proven yet while another theory suggested that the reduction of AMPA-R at excitatory synapses on inhibitory neurons would increase excitability and could explain the epileptic seizures [3]. Nevertheless, there is currently no demonstrated explanation for this contradiction.

The aim of our study was to investigate the synaptic function of LGI1 in the mature hippocampus. To do this, we used LGI1-Abs purified from the serum of patients with LGI1 LE and investigated the effects on AMPA-R expression on the regulation of the neuronal network activity. We showed that the neutralization of LGI1 protein by LGI1-Abs reduced AMPA-R expression at the surface of both excitatory and inhibitory neurons. Moreover, we observed that LGI1-Abs increased the hyperexcitability of the neuronal network independently of kv1.1 channels. Thus, we brought, for the first time, evidences that this increased hyperexcitability was due to a disturbance of the inhibitory network which is not able to control the overexcitability of the neuronal network.

2. Material and method

Animals

The study was conducted in accordance with the European Community Council directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for experimental and scientific purposes. Animal care and treatment procedures were performed according to the ARRIVE guidelines approved by the French Ethical Committee of Lyon 1 University (#13703).

For the electrophysiological study, a total of 18 C57BL6/JRj mice aged of 7 weeks old (Janvier Labs) were used (nCtrl = 6 mice, nLGI1 = 7 mice, nDTX-K = 5 mice). Animals were placed at 12h/12h light/dark cycle with food and water ad libidum. For immunohistochemistry study, we used a transgenic GAD2-rosa tomato (GAD2-RT) mice model [20]. To do so, Gad2-IRES-Cre+/+ mice expressing Cre recombinase under the control of Gad2 promotor which encodes for the glutamic acid decarboxylase 65 (GAD65), were crossed with Gt(ROSA)26Sortm9(CAG-tdTomato)Hze+/+ mice expressing the loxed stop codon into the Gt(ROSA)26Sor locus. Thus, 7 GAD2-RT mice expressing the fluorescent protein rosa tomato in GAD65 cells were used in this experiment.

Immunoglobulins G purification

The serum of a patient with LGI1 LE was provided by the French Reference Center on Paraneoplastic Neurological Syndromes and Autoimmune Encephalitis and the NeuroBioTec biobank from Hospices Civils de Lyon. Control immunoglobulins G (ctrl IgG) were provided by the Etablissement Français du Sang (EFS).

Control and LE serum were incubated with protein-A coated beads (Protein A-Sepharose 4B Fast Flow, Sigma, #P9424) before being placed into chromatography columns (Evergreen Scientific, #208-3384-060). IgG were eluted with glycine (0.1M pH 2.8) and neutralized with Tris-HCL (1.5M, pH 8.8) before to be dialyzed (Dialysis Cassettes, Thermofisher, #87730) against PBS overnight at 4°C. Concentrations of purified IgG were determined by nanodrop assay.

HEK239T cells immunostaining

HEK293T cells were seeded on glass coverslips (Labelians #LCO14), pretreated with 10 μg/μl poly-L-lysine (Sigma, #P1399). At 70% confluence, HEK293T cells were transfected with ADAM22 and LGI1-GFP plasmids using the lipofectamine LTK transfection kit (Thermofisher, #153388100). Transfected HEK293T cells were incubated with purified IgG for 1 hour at increasing dilution and then were fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde (PFA, Euromedex, #EM-15713-S). Cells were incubated for 30 minutes in a blocking buffer solution containing 1% Bovin Serum Albumine (BSA, Axday, #1000–70), 10% Normal Goat Serum (NGS, Eurobio, #S-100), PBS. Secondary antibodies against human IgG coupled with Alexa555 were incubated during 2 hours at room temperature. Cell cultures were stained with DAPI before to be mounted on slide with Fluoromount (Thermofisher, #4958–02). Images were acquired using an epifluorescence microscope (Zeiss, Imager Z1, Apotome).

Immunocytofluorescence

Primary hippocampal cell cultures were incubated with purified ctrl or LGI1 IgG for 1 hour before to be fixed with 4% PFA (Euromedex, #EM-15713-S) for 15 minutes. After 3 washes in PBS, cells were incubated in blocking buffer solutions composed of 1% BSA (Axday, #1000–70), 10% NGS (Eurobio, #S-100), PBS for 1 hour. Secondary antibodies against human IgG coupled with Alexa555 (Invitrogen, #A21433) were incubated for 2 hours at room temperature. Cell nuclei were stained using 1 μg/ml DAPI (Sigma, #D9542) for 10 minutes before to be mounted in fluromount (Thermofisher, #4958–02). Images were acquired using epifluorescence microcope (Zeiss, Imager Z1 Apotome).

Surgery and pumps implantation

6 weeks old mice were implanted with an osmotic pump (Alzet, 1007D) previously filled with purified ctrl or LGI1 IgG (60 μg/ml) or dendrotoxin-K (DTX-K) (100 nM). The day of surgery, mice were deeply anesthetized with isoflurane (IsoVet) 4% and the surgeries were performed on a stereotaxic frame. The cannula was implanted into the medial-septum according to the following coordinates: antero-posterior: Bregma+0.25 mm; lateral: Bregma+0.5mm; depth: skull surface-3mm. Intra-peritoneal injection of metacam® (2mg/kg) were made immediately after the surgery and the next day. Mice brains were infused for 7 days before to proceed to the experiments.

Electrophysiology

Acute hippocampal slices (400μm) were cut using a vibratome (HM 650V, ThermoFisher) in sucrose aCSF at 4°C composed of (mM): 250 Sucrose, 3 KCl, 1.25 NaH2PO4, 2 CaCl2, 1 MgCl2, 26 NaHCO3, 10 D-Glucose saturated with 95% O2 et 5% CO2. Recordings were performed in regular aCSF of the following composition (in mM): 125 NaCl, 3 KCl, 1.25 NaH2PO4, 2 CaCl2, 1 MgCl2, 26 NaHCO3, 10 D-Glucose saturated with 95% O2 and 5% CO2. On ipsilateral slices in regard to the cannula, we used 2–4 dorsal slices to perform experiments.

The evoked excitatory post-synaptic potentials (eEPSP) and the local field potentials (LFP) in the CA1 region of the hippocampus were recorded. For eEPSP recordings, a stimulating electrode (Phymep, #CBAR C75) was positioned on the Schaeffer collaterals. To establish the input-output (IO) curve, increasing stimulations (100 μA steps) between 0 to 600 μA for 0.05msec at 0.01Hz were delivered, and the slope of the evoked responses were analyzed. To study the global hyperexcitability of the network, LFP were recorded in the CA1 region of hippocampus. in presence of 4-aminopyridine (4-AP) (40μM, Tocris #0940) alone or 4-AP (40μM) and picrotoxin (100μM, Tocris #1128). The global hyperexcitability was determined by multiplying the numbers of ictus by the area of the ictus.

PSD enrichment and immunoblot

Post-synaptic density (PSD) fractions were realized from hippocampal slices of infused mice with control purified IgG. Hippocampal slices were dissociated and centrifugated in buffer solution 1 composed of 0.32M sucrose, 10 mM HEPES, pH: 7.40 completed with protease inhibitor (Sigma, #4693132001) and orthovanadate (Biolabs, # P0758S). Crude membrane fractions in the pellets were collected and resuspended in the buffer solution 2 composed of 1mM EDTA, 4 mM HEPES, pH: 7.40, to chelate calcium, and centrifugated twice. The synaptosomal fractions in the pellet was resuspended and incubated in the buffer solution 3 composed of 100 mM NaCl, 20 mM HEPES, 0.5% Triton, pH 7.4 at 4°C. The solution was centrifugated and the non-PSD fraction contained in the supernatant was collected. The PSD fraction contained in the pellet was resuspended in the buffer solution 4 composed of 0.15 mM NaCl, 1% Triton, 1% DOC, 1%SDS, 20mM HEPES, pH: 7.50 and centrifugated to be collected.

Immunoblot were performed with the following antibodies: anti-ADAM22 (1:340 Abcam, # ab231340), anti-ADAM23 (1:5000 Abcam, # ab28304), anti-PSD-95 (1:1000 Cell Signaling, #3450S), anti-Synaptophysin (1:6000 Sigma, # S5768). Secondary antibodies conjugated to horseradish peroxidase (HRP) directed against mice (1:6000 JacksonLabs, #115-036-003) or rabbit (1:6000 JacksonLabs, #11-036-003) were used. Revelation and analysis have been realized with ImageLab software.

Immunohistochemistry

GAD2-RT infused mice were anesthetized with isoflurane (IsoVet) and perfused with 5 ml NaCl 0.9% at 120 ml/hour then 5ml NaCl 0.9% at 60 ml/hour. The brain was removed and fixed into 4% PFA, (Euromedex, # EM-15713-S) for 24 hours and preserved in 30% sucrose solution for 72 hours. Then, brains were frozen into -40°C isopentane for 30 to 45 sec and embedded into optimal cutting temperature (OCT) compound. Coronal hippocampal sections (7μm) were cut with cryostat (Thermofisher, #NX50) at -20°C and were collected on high precision coverslips (Marienfield #0117580) previously coated with gelatin.

Coverslips were rehydrated in PBS during 5 min and incubated into blocking buffer 10% Normal Goat Serum (NGS, Eurobio, #S-100), 1% BSA (Axday, #1000–70). GluA1 rabbit antibodies (1:1000, Millipore #ABN241) were incubated overnight at 4°C, following by rabbit Alexa647 antibodies (1:1000, Invitrogen #A21244).

Super-resolution microscopy STORM

To perform super-resolution microscopy, stained slices fixed on coverslips were mounted in cavity slides (Marienfield # 631–9475) embedded into a switching buffer for dSTORM as reported [21, 22]. Image acquisitions were performed using a Nikon PALM-STORM microscope equipped with an EM-CCD camera (Andor Ixon 897 Ultra, gain 250). Acquisitions were made using the software NIS-Element. Analyzes were performed in the molecular layer of the dentate gyrus, and in the stratum radiatum and stratum lacunosum molecular of the CA3 and CA1 regions. Super-resolution acquisitions were performed using a 642 nm wavelength laser diode at 320 mW of the laser power and a Cy5 filter 4040C (M352119). GluA1 localization tabs were generated with ThunderStorm plugin on Image J software, and analyses were performed through SR Tesseler software.

Analyze

Statistics were performed on GraphPad Prism 7 software. Data are represented with mean±SEM. Normality conditions were assessed for every data with Shapiro-Wilk test. For the comparison of 3 groups, if data passed the normality, a one-way ANOVA was performed. If data did not pass the normality, nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test was performed. For 2 groups comparison unpaired Student-t test were made if data passed the normality. If data did not pass the normality, Mann-Whitney test were performed. Data were considered statistically different when p-value < 0.05 (*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001).

3. Results

3.1. Purified IgG from patients with LGI1 LE contained LGI1 Abs

To evaluate LGI1 function in the adult hippocampus, we used purified IgG from the serum of a patient diagnosed with LGI1 LE. To ascertain if the purified IgG from the serum of patient with LGI1 LE contains LGI1 Abs, we performed an immunostaining on HEK293T cells expressing LGI1 protein with its partners ADAM22 to fix LGI1 at the surface of cells. We observed that purified IgG from LGI1 LE patient (LGI1 P1) stains the surface of cells expressing LGI1-GFP protein but not purified IgG from healthy subject (Control C1) (Fig 1). Thus, we confirmed that purified IgG from LGI1 LE patient recognized LGI1 protein on HEK293T cells and contained LGI1-Abs in opposition to IgG from healthy subject.

Fig 1. Purified IgG from LGI1 LE patient contain LGI1 Abs.

Fig 1

HEK293T cells were transfected with LGI1-GFP and ADAM22 plasmids. Purified IgG from LGI1 LE patient are colocalized with LGI1-GFP signal at the cell surface of HEK293T transfected cells while no signal was found in cells treated with purified IgG from healthy subject. Scale bar = 20μm.

3.2. LGI1 Abs reduce the expression of AMPA receptors in the dentate gyrus of the hippocampus

To investigate if LGI1-Abs modulate the expression of AMPA-R at excitatory or inhibitory neurons, by STochastic Optical Reconstruction Microscopy (STORM) we analyzed the expression of GluA1 subunits of AMPA-R in hippocampal slices from mice infused with LGI1 or control IgG for 7 days. To distinguish excitatory and inhibitory neurons, we performed this study on hippocampal slices from mice expressing td-tomato in GAD65 interneurons.

First, we quantified the numbers of GluA1 subunits of AMPA-R inside cluster larger than 20 nm at the surface of inhibitory neurons expressing td-tomato (GAD+ cells) in the dentate gyrus (DG), CA3 and CA1 regions respectively (Fig 2A). In the DG, we observed that pre-incubation with LGI1 IgG decrease significantly the relative surface number of GluA1 subunits compared to ctrl IgG. We did not observe any difference between LGI1 P1 and control C1 IgG infusion in the expression of GluA1 subunits in CA3 or CA1 regions (Fig 2B–2D). We observed that the density of GluA1 clusters was not different after LGI1 P1 or control C1 IgG pre-infusion in all the areas of the hippocampus considered (S2 Fig). These results indicate that pre-incubation with LGI1 P1 decreased the expression of AMPA-R at the surface of inhibitory neurons of the DG of the hippocampus but not in CA3 or CA1 area.

Fig 2. LGI1 Abs decrease the expression of AMPA-R inside clusters at the surface of interneurons in the hippocampus.

Fig 2

Epifluorescence images (100x objective) of an inhibitory GAD+ neuron expressing td-tomato (left image). Magnification of the corresponding super-resolution STORM image showing the expression of GluA1 subunits along the neuronal extension (right image) (A). The total density of surface GluA1 subunits decreased after LGI1 P1 IgG infusion compared to control C1 IgG infusion at the surface of interneurons in the DG (Mann-Whitney **p = 0.0091, nCtrl = 12 neurons, nLGI1 = 14 neurons) (B) but not in CA3 region (Mann-Whitney test p = 0.63, nCtrl = 11 neurons, nLGI1 = 6 neurons) (C) nor CA1 region of the hippocampus (Mann-Whitney t-test p = 0.68, nCtrl = 6 neurons, nLGI1 = 12 neurons) (D). Data are represented as means ± SEM (analysis realized from nCtrl = 4 mice, nLGI1 = 3 mice).

Secondly, to investigate the expression of AMPA-R at the surface of excitatory neurons, we analyzed a GAD negative (GAD-) region in which GAD+ cells were absent (Fig 3A). We observed that LGI1 P1 IgG pre-incubation decreased the surface numbers of GluA1 subunits inside clusters in the DG but not in CA3 or CA1 area (Fig 3B–3D). We observed that there was no difference in the density of GluA1 clusters following LGI1 P1 or control C1 IgG pre-incubation in the DG, CA3 or CA1 area (S3 Fig). Altogether, our results indicate that LGI1-Abs decrease the expression of AMPA-R at the surface of inhibitory and excitatory neurons only in the dentate gyrus of the hippocampus.

Fig 3. LGI1 Abs decrease the expression of AMPA-R inside clusters at the surface of excitatory neurons in the hippocampus.

Fig 3

Epifluorescence images (100x objective) of GAD- region representing excitatory neurons (left image). The magnification showing the super-resolution STORM image of the expression of GluA1 subunits in the GAD- region (right image) (A). The total density of surface GluA1 subunits decreased after LGI1 P1 IgG infusion compared to control C1 IgG infusion in GAD- area in the DG of the hippocampus (Unpaired t test *p = 0.031, nCtrl = 16 area, nLGI1 = 13 area) (B) but not in CA3 region (Mann-Whitney test p = 0.33, nCtrl = 19 area, nLGI1 = 9 area) (C) nor CA1 (Unpaired t-test p = 0.49, nCtrl = 11 area, nLGI1 = 14 area) (D). Data are represented as mean ± SEM (analysis realized from nCtrl = 4 mice, nLGI1 = 3 mice.

3.3. LGI1 Abs increase the hyperexcitability of the neuronal network independently of kv1.1 channels inhibition

The blockade of LGI1 function leads to epileptic seizures [3]. To investigate the effect of LGI1 IgG on the hippocampal neuronal network transmission, we recorded by electrophysiology, the local field potentials (LFP) in CA1 area at the exit of the hippocampal network of acute hippocampal slices mice infused during 7 days with control or LGI1 IgG. First, to determine if the basal transmission was modulated by LGI1 IgG pre-infusion compared to control IgG, we recorded the evoked excitatory post-synaptic potentials (eEPSP) in CA1 area when delivering increasing voltage pulses at Schaffer collaterals. The resulting input-output (IO) curve obtained by analyzing the slope of eEPSP, was not different between LGI1 or control IgG pre-infusion (Fig 4A). This result means that there is no effect of LGI1 IgG pre-infusion on the basal transmission compared to control IgG. Then, we recorded the spontaneous local field potential in the CA1 area of the hippocampus in order to consider the output of the hippocampal network. In basal condition, we did not observe any spontaneous epileptic activity in hippocampal slices from control or LGI1 infused mice. Thereby, we added 4-aminopyridine (4-AP) (40μM), a non-specific blocker of voltage gated potassium channels to induce an hyperexcitability of the hippocampal neuronal network. The addition of 4-AP induced an epileptic like activity consisting in spontaneous depolarizations similar to ictus (Fig 4B). We observed that the induced hyperexcitability was significantly increased in slices from mice pre-infused with LGI1 IgG when compared to slices pre-infused with control IgG (Fig 4C). More specifically, we observed that LGI1 IgG increased the ictus area (Fig 4D) but not the ictus frequency (Fig 4E) when compared to control IgG. These results indicate that LGI1-Abs increased the hyperexcitability of the neuronal network mainly by increasing the cell synchronization compared to the ctrl IgG. Similar results were obtained with purified IgG from a second patient (S1 and S2 Figs).

Fig 4. LGI1 abs increase induced neuronal hyperexcitability in the hippocampus.

Fig 4

LFP were recorded in CA1 region of acute hippocampal slices from mice infused for 7 days with control C1 IgG, LGI1 P1 IgG. Increasing stimulations intensity were delivered to Schaffer collaterals and the slope of eEPSP in CA1 area were plotted. No effect of the infusion of control C1 IgG, LGI1 P1 IgG on the IO curve was detected (two-way ANOVA test, p = 0.27; nCtrl = 12; nLGI1 = 14) (A). Examples of ictus recorded in slices infused with control C1 IgG, LGI1 P1 IgG (B). The global hyperexcitability of the neuronal network is increased after LGI1 P1 IgG infusion compared to control C1 IgG infusion (Kruskal-Wallis test *p = 0.02, Dunn’s post Hoc test LGI1-Ctrl **p = 0.0082) (C) as well as the area of the ictus (Kruskal-Wallis test *p = 0.02, Dunn’s post Hoc test LGI1-Ctrl **p = 0.12) (D) while frequency is unchanged (Kruskal-Wallis test *p = 0.40, Dunn’s post Hoc test LGI1-Ctrl **p>0.99) (E). Data are represented as mean ± SEM (nCtrl = 6 mice, nLGI1 = 7 mice).

We investigated if a chronic inhibition of kv1.1 channels would trigger the same alterations on the neuronal network than the LGI1 P1 IgG pre-infusion. To do this, we infused mice with dendrotoxin-K (DTX-K) (100 nM) for 7 days and record the LFP in CA1 region of acute hippocampal slices from these mice. We recorded eEPSP in the CA1 area of hippocampus after increasing stimulation of Schaffer collaterals and we did not observe any effect of DTX-K infusion on the IO curve compared to LGI1 P1 nor control C1 IgG infusion (Fig 5A). We observed that the global hyperexcitability after DTX-K infusion was not different compared to control C1 IgG, when 4-AP was added to create an hyperexcitability of the hippocampal neuronal network (Fig 5B and 5C). When looking at area and frequency of the ictus we observed that the ictus area was not different following DTX-K infusion compared to control C1 IgG infusion (Fig 4D) as well as the frequency of ictus (Fig 5D) although a tendency of increase could be seen. All together these results indicate that the blockage of kv1.1 channels by DTX-K infusion in the hippocampus of mice does not increase the global hyperexcitability.

Fig 5. DTX-K infusion does not increase neuronal hyperexcitability in the hippocampus.

Fig 5

LFP were recorded in CA1 region of acute hippocampal slices from mice infused for 7 days with control C1 IgG or DTX-K. Increasing stimulations intensity were delivered to Schaffer collaterals and the slope of eEPSP in CA1 area were plotted. No effect of the infusion of control C1 IgG vs DTX-K on the IO curve was detected (two-way ANOVA test, p = 065; nCtrl = 12; nDTX-K = 8) (A). Examples of ictus recorded in slices infused with control C1 IgG or DTX-K (B). The global hyperexcitability of the neuronal network is not increased significantly after DTX-K infusion compared to control C1 IgG infusion (Dunn’s post Hoc test DTX-K- Ctrl p = 0.11) (C) as well as the area of the ictus (Fisher LSD post Hoc test, Ctrl-DTX-K p = 0.73) (D) while frequency is not significantly increased (Kruskal-Wallis test, p = 0.09) (E). Data are represented as mean ± SEM (nCtrl = 6 mice, nDTX-K = 5 mice).

3.4. LGI1 Abs reduced the inhibitory network transmission

We showed that LGI1-Abs increased the induced hyperexcitability of the hippocampal neuronal network, independently of kv1.1 channels down-regulation. To investigate if the increased hyperexcitability of LGI1 IgG could result from a down-regulation of the inhibitory network, we recorded the LFP in the CA1 area of acute hippocampal slices from mice pre-infused with LGI1 P1 or control C1 IgG in presence of 4-AP (40 μM) and picrotoxin (100 μM), a GABAA antagonist. In such conditions we did not observe any difference in the global hyperexcitability of the neuronal network between LGI1 P1 and control C1 IgG pre-infusion (Fig 6). More specifically, the blockade of the inhibitory network increases the global hyperexcitability of the neuronal network infused for control C1 IgG compared to the non-blockade of the inhibitory network, while the blockade of the inhibitory network did not change the global hyperexcitability of the neuronal network infused with LGI1 P1 IgG compared to the non-blockage of the inhibitory network. Similar results were obtained with purified IgG of a second patient (S3 Fig). These results indicate that the LGI1-Abs impaired the inhibitory network in the hippocampus which results in the increase of the hyperexcitability of the neuronal network.

Fig 6. LGI1 abs have no effect on the global hyperexcitability when the inhibitory network was blocked.

Fig 6

(A) LFP in presence of 4-AP (40μM) and picrotoxin (100μM) were recorded in CA1 area of acute hippocampal slices from mice infused for 7 days with control C1 or LGI1 P1 IgG. No difference was found in the global hyperexcitability between control C1 IgG and LGI1 P1 IgG infused neuronal network when recordings were performed in presence of picrotoxine (Mann-Whitney test p = 0.20, nCtrl = 6 mice, nLGI1 = 7 mice). (B) Examples of ictus recorded in presence of 4-AP and picrotoxine. Data are represented as mean ± SEM (nCtrl = 6 mice, nLGI1 = 7 mice).

4. Discussion

Previous studies reported a decrease of AMPA-R expression when LGI1 function is altered [3, 12, 16, 19]. Our work confirmed that LGI1-Abs reduced the expression of AMPA-R and additionally, we showed that this reduction of expression affects both excitatory and inhibitory neurons of the DG and no other area of the hippocampus. Moreover, we found that LGI1-Abs increased the hyperexcitability of the neuronal network certainly due to a down-regulation of the inhibitory neuronal network. Altogether, our results suggest that the reduction of AMPA-R triggers a more drastic downregulation of the inhibitory transmission compared to the excitatory transmission which creates an imbalance between excitatory and inhibitory networks. This imbalance prevents the inhibitory network to control hyperexcitability of the neuronal network. Our study suggests that the inhibitory network down-regulation is a mechanism probably involved in the generation of epileptic seizures in patients with LGI1 LE.

The reduction of AMPA-R in the DG of the hippocampus after LGI1 IgG infusion is in accordance with the higher expression profile of LGI1 in the DG area compared to CA3 or CA1 area of the hippocampus [2, 3, 23]. The effect of an infusion of LGI1 IgG on the expression of AMPA-R in the hippocampus has been investigated in a previous study in which it was reported a reduction in the DG and CA1 regions after 18 days of Abs infusion [16]. Nevertheless, in this study, the infusion was performed into the ventricles and acquisitions were realized with confocal microscopy. In our study, we infused IgG directly into the septum, a structure nearby the hippocampus, and we quantified the AMPA-R expression with a better resolution using STORM microscopy. The goal of our study was to understand how a reduction of AMPA-R expression leads to epileptic seizures. In our electrophysiological experiments, we blocked the potassium channels using 4-AP to create hyperexcitability of the neuronal network and to prevent a functional effect caused by a potential kv1.1 channels alteration. We observed that LGI1 IgG increase the hyperexcitability of the neuronal network when kv channels were blocked. Nevertheless, some authors suggested that the alteration on AMPA-R could be due to a homeostatic regulation of kv1.1 channels [18]. Our study does not support this hypothesis. Indeed, although the blocking of Kv1.1 channels by 4-AP at the concentration we used is likely incomplete, we highlighted that a prolonged kv1.1 channels blockage by DTX-K infusion, did not result in an increased neuronal hyperexcitability when kv channels were blocked by 4-AP. Although we cannot rule out an action of LGI1 IgG on Kv1.1 channels, the results obtained in our specific model underline a specific role of LGI1 in the regulation of AMPA-R independently of kv1.1 channels reported reduction [16, 18].

We also demonstrated a decrease of AMPA-R expression on inhibitory and excitatory neurons of the DG. It is important to note that we analyzed the total surface expression of AMPA-R without focusing on the synaptic structure. Indeed, lack of a good combination of primary and secondary antibodies prevented us to investigate synaptic AMPA-R in the hippocampus by super-resolution microscopy in hippocampal slices of infused mice. A recent study showed that the synaptic interactions between LGI1 and ADAM22 are essential for the alignment of presynaptic and postsynaptic compartment involving a large complex of synaptic proteins, including AMPA-R [24]. Thereby, it will be interesting to investigate synaptic AMPA-R organization in the hippocampus of mouse infused with LGI1 IgG.

Patients with LGI1 LE exhibited epileptic seizures known to be due to an hyperexcitability and hypersynchronous activity of the neuronal network [810]. Inhibitory network disturbance has already been shown to drive neuronal network hyperexcitability especially in the DG [2527]. Indeed, interneurons are essential for the control of the balance of neuronal transmission [28, 29]. In our study, we suggest a role of the inhibitory network in the epileptic seizures observed in patient with LGI1 LE. Even if the expression of AMPA-R is reduced at the surface of both excitatory and inhibitory neurons of the hippocampus, the high arborization of interneurons allow them to contact many excitatory neurons. For example, it was shown that one basket cell can contact 2,500 pyramidal cells and that hilar perforant path associated cell (HIPP cells) may generate 100,000 synapses on the DG [30, 31]. Moreover, the dentate granule cells project mostly on inhibitory neurons compared to excitatory neurons [32]. Thus, a reduction of excitatory inputs on CA3 region provide an increase of the overall excitability due to an imbalance between excitation and inhibition transmission. Thus, these arguments can explain why small alterations of interneurons functioning may lead to high consequences of the neuronal network balance. Different subtypes of interneurons composed the hippocampal network [31] and the role of LGI1 in these different sub-populations remain to be elucidated. Further studies are needed to clarify the exact mechanisms underlying the dysregulation of the inhibitory network by LGI1 abs.

5. Conclusion

To conclude, we demonstrated an essential role of LGI1 in the regulation of AMPA-R expression and revealed a functional role of LGI-1 mainly on the inhibitory network. More studies are needed to clarify the underlying mechanisms of the dysregulation observed in LGI1 LE patients but our results indicate that special attention should be given to the inhibition as a leading cause for epilepsy in these patients.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Purified IgG from LGI1 LE patient 2 5P2) contain LGI1 Abs.

HEK293T cells were transfected with LGI1-GFP and ADAM22 plasmids. Purified IgG from LGI1 LE patient 2 are colocalized with LGI1-GFP signal at the cell surface of HEK293T transfected cells while no signal was found in cells treated with purified IgG from healthy subject. Scale bar = 20μm.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. LGI1 abs from P2 increase induced neuronal hyperexcitability in the hippocampus.

LFP were recorded in CA1 region of acute hippocampal slices from mice infused for 7 days with control C1 IgG, LGI1 P2. (A) Increasing stimulations intensity were delivered to Schaffer collaterals and the slope of eEPSP in CA1 area were plotted. No effect of the infusion of control C2 IgG, LGI1 P2 on the IO curve was detected (two-way ANOVA test, p = 0,27; nCtrl = 12; nLGI1 = 14). (B) Examples of ictus recorded in slices infused with control C2 IgG, LGI1 P2 IgG. (C) The global hyperexcitability of the neuronal network was significantly increased on slices infused with LGI1 P2 IgG compared to slices infused with control C2 IgG (** for p = 0,0023, Mann Whitney test, nC2 = 9 souris nP2 = 11 mice). (D) The ictus area was significantly increased between slices infused with LGI1 P2 IgG and slices infused with control C2 IgG (*** for p = 0,0004; nC2 = 9 nP2 = 11 mice). (E) The ictus frequency was not different between LGI1 P2 IgG, control C2 IgG (Mann Whitney test: p = 0,44; nC1 = 9, nP1 = 11 mice). Data are represented as mean ± SEM.

(TIF)

S3 Fig. LGI1 abs have no effect on the global hyperexcitability when the inhibitory network was block.

(A) LFP in presence of 4-AP (40μM) and picrotoxin (100μM) were recorded in CA1 area of acute hippocampal slices from mice infused for 7 days with control C2 or LGI1 P2 IgG. No difference was found in the global hyperexcitability between control C2 IgG and LGI1 P2 IgG infused neuronal network when recordings were performed in presence of picrotoxine (Mann-Whitney test, p = 0,80; nC2 = 8; nP2 = 8 mice). Data are represented as mean ± SEM.

(TIF)

S1 Data

(XLSX)

S2 Data

(XLSX)

S3 Data

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We thank Camilla Luccardini, Bruno Chapuis and Denis Ressnikoff from the Centre d’Imagerie Quantitative Lyon-Est (CIQLE), Alexandra Vandermoeten from the Animalerie SPF SCAR at the Faculté de Médecine et de Pharmacie Rockefeller. We thank Magali Mondin from Bordeaux Imaging Center for helping in the development of an analysis program on SR Tesseler software.

Abbreviations

LGI1

leucine-rich glioma inactivated protein 1

ADLTE

autosomal dominant temporal lobe epilepsy

LE

limbic encephalitis

CNS

central nervous system

AMPA-R

α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid receptors

IgG

Immunoglobulins G

Abs

antibodies

(a)CSF

(artificial) cerebrospinal fluid

ADAM

A disintegrin and metalloprotease protein

PSD

postsynaptic density

Kv

voltage-gated potassium channels

GAD2-RT

GAD2-rosa tomato mice

GAD

glutamic acid decarboxylase 65

ctrl

control

(e)EPSP

(evoked) excitatory postsynaptic potentials

LFP

local field potential

IO

input-output

STORM

stochastic optical reconstruction microscopy

4-AP

4-aminopyridine

DTX-K

dendrotoxin-K

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the article and its supporting information files.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by FRM (Fondation pour la recherche médicale) DQ20170336751. This work has been developed within the BETPSY project, which is supported by a public grant overseen by the ANR (Agence nationale de la recherche), as part of the second “Investissements d’Avenir” program (reference ANR-18-RHUS-0012). EF was supported by a research grant from the Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 attributed by the doctoral school Neurosciences et Cognition (ED476). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Kalachikov S, Evgrafov O, Ross B, Winawer M, Barker-Cummings C, Boneschi FM, et al. Mutations in LGI1 cause autosomal-dominant partial epilepsy with auditory features. Nat Genet. 2002. Mar;30(3):335–41. doi: 10.1038/ng832 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Senechal KR, Thaller C, Noebels JL. ADPEAF mutations reduce levels of secreted LGI1, a putative tumor suppressor protein linked to epilepsy. Hum Mol Genet. 2005. Jun 15;14(12):1613–20. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddi169 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Fukata Y, Lovero KL, Iwanaga T, Watanabe A, Yokoi N, Tabuchi K, et al. Disruption of LGI1–linked synaptic complex causes abnormal synaptic transmission and epilepsy. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2010. Feb 23;107(8):3799–804. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0914537107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Zhou Y-D, Lee S, Jin Z, Wright M, Smith SEP, Anderson MP. Arrested maturation of excitatory synapses in autosomal dominant lateral temporal lobe epilepsy. Nat Med. 2009. Oct;15(10):1208–14. doi: 10.1038/nm.2019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Irani SR, Alexander S, Waters P, Kleopa KA, Pettingill P, Zuliani L, et al. Antibodies to Kv1 potassium channel-complex proteins leucine-rich, glioma inactivated 1 protein and contactin-associated protein-2 in limbic encephalitis, Morvan’s syndrome and acquired neuromyotonia. Brain. 2010. Sep;133(9):2734–48. doi: 10.1093/brain/awq213 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Lai M, Huijbers MG, Lancaster E, Graus F, Bataller L, Balice-Gordon R, et al. Investigation of LGI1 as the antigen in limbic encephalitis previously attributed to potassium channels: a case series. Lancet Neurol. 2010. Aug;9(8):776–85. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(10)70137-X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Irani SR, Michell AW, Lang B, Pettingill P, Waters P, Johnson MR, et al. Faciobrachial dystonic seizures precede Lgi1 antibody limbic encephalitis. Ann Neurol. 2011. May;69(5):892–900. doi: 10.1002/ana.22307 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Ariño H, Armangué T, Petit-Pedrol M, Sabater L, Martinez-Hernandez E, Hara M, et al. Anti-LGI1–associated cognitive impairment: Presentation and long-term outcome. Neurology. 2016. Aug 23;87(8):759–65. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000003009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.van Sonderen A, Petit-Pedrol M, Dalmau J, Titulaer MJ. The value of LGI1, Caspr2 and voltage-gated potassium channel antibodies in encephalitis. Nat Rev Neurol. 2017. May;13(5):290–301. doi: 10.1038/nrneurol.2017.43 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Vogrig A, Pauletto G, Lettieri C, Valente M, Gigli GL. Peculiar EEG signatures, ictal drinking and long-term follow-up in anti-LGI1 encephalitis. Neurol Sci. 2019. Jul;40(7):1503–5. doi: 10.1007/s10072-019-3729-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Fukata Y. Epilepsy-Related Ligand/Receptor Complex LGI1 and ADAM22 Regulate Synaptic Transmission. Science. 2006. Sep 22;313(5794):1792–5. doi: 10.1126/science.1129947 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Ohkawa T, Fukata Y, Yamasaki M, Miyazaki T, Yokoi N, Takashima H, et al. Autoantibodies to Epilepsy-Related LGI1 in Limbic Encephalitis Neutralize LGI1-ADAM22 Interaction and Reduce Synaptic AMPA Receptors. J Neurosci. 2013. Nov 13;33(46):18161–74. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3506-13.2013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Sagane K, Ishihama Y, Sugimoto H. LGI1 and LGI4 bind to ADAM22, ADAM23 and ADAM11. Int J Biol Sci. 2008;387–96. doi: 10.7150/ijbs.4.387 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Yamagata A, Miyazaki Y, Yokoi N, Shigematsu H, Sato Y, Goto-Ito S, et al. Structural basis of epilepsy-related ligand–receptor complex LGI1–ADAM22. Nat Commun. 2018. Dec;9(1):1546. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-03947-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Lancaster E, Burnor E, Zhang J, Lancaster E. ADAM23 is a negative regulator of Kv1.1/Kv1.4 potassium currents. Neurosci Lett. 2019. Jun;704:159–63. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2019.04.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Petit-Pedrol M, Sell J, Planagumà J, Mannara F, Radosevic M, Haselmann H, et al. LGI1 antibodies alter Kv1.1 and AMPA receptors changing synaptic excitability, plasticity and memory. Brain [Internet]. 2018. Oct 20 [cited 2021 Mar 1]; Available from: https://academic.oup.com/brain/advance-article/doi/ doi: 10.1093/brain/awy253 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Schulte U, Thumfart J-O, Klöcker N, Sailer CA, Bildl W, Biniossek M, et al. The Epilepsy-Linked Lgi1 Protein Assembles into Presynaptic Kv1 Channels and Inhibits Inactivation by Kvβ1. Neuron. 2006. Mar;49(5):697–706. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2006.01.033 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Seagar M, Russier M, Caillard O, Maulet Y, Fronzaroli-Molinieres L, De San Feliciano M, et al. LGI1 tunes intrinsic excitability by regulating the density of axonal Kv1 channels. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2017. Jul 18;114(29):7719–24. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1618656114 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Lovero KL, Fukata Y, Granger AJ, Fukata M, Nicoll RA. The LGI1–ADAM22 protein complex directs synapse maturation through regulation of PSD-95 function. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2015. Jul 28;112(30):E4129–37. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1511910112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Besser S, Sicker M, Marx G, Winkler U, Eulenburg V, Hülsmann S, et al. A Transgenic Mouse Line Expressing the Red Fluorescent Protein tdTomato in GABAergic Neurons. Mothet J-P, editor. PLOS ONE. 2015. Jun 15;10(6):e0129934. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0129934 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Heilemann M, van de Linde S, Schüttpelz M, Kasper R, Seefeldt B, Mukherjee A, et al. Subdiffraction-Resolution Fluorescence Imaging with Conventional Fluorescent Probes. Angew Chem Int Ed. 2008. Aug 4;47(33):6172–6. doi: 10.1002/anie.200802376 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.van de Linde S, Sauer M, Heilemann M. Subdiffraction-resolution fluorescence imaging of proteins in the mitochondrial inner membrane with photoswitchable fluorophores. J Struct Biol. 2008. Dec;164(3):250–4. doi: 10.1016/j.jsb.2008.08.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Herranz-Pérez V, Olucha-Bordonau FE, Morante-Redolat JM, Pérez-Tur J. Regional distribution of the leucine-rich glioma inactivated (LGI) gene family transcripts in the adult mouse brain. Brain Res. 2010. Jan;1307:177–94. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2009.10.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Fukata Y, Chen X, Chiken S, Hirano Y, Yamagata A, Inahashi H, et al. LGI1–ADAM22–MAGUK configures transsynaptic nanoalignment for synaptic transmission and epilepsy prevention. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2021. Jan 19;118(3):e2022580118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2022580118 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.André V, Marescaux C, Nehlig A, Fritschy JM. Alterations of hippocampal GABAergic system contribute to development of spontaneous recurrent seizures in the rat lithium-pilocarpine model of temporal lobe epilepsy: Gabaergic Neurons in Rat Epileptic Hippocampus. Hippocampus. 2001;11(4):452–68. doi: 10.1002/hipo.1060 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Dudek FE, Sutula TP. Epileptogenesis in the dentate gyrus: a critical perspective. In: Progress in Brain Research [Internet]. Elsevier; 2007. [cited 2021 Oct 2]. p. 755–73. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0079612307630416 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Wyeth MS, Zhang N, Mody I, Houser CR. Selective Reduction of Cholecystokinin-Positive Basket Cell Innervation in a Model of Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. J Neurosci. 2010. Jun 30;30(26):8993–9006. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1183-10.2010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Chamberland S, Topolnik L. Inhibitory control of hippocampal inhibitory neurons. Front Neurosci [Internet]. 2012. [cited 2021 Jul 1];6. Available from: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnins.2012.00165/abstract [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Booker SA, Vida I. Morphological diversity and connectivity of hippocampal interneurons. Cell Tissue Res. 2018. Sep;373(3):619–41. doi: 10.1007/s00441-018-2882-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Amaral DG, Scharfman HE, Lavenex P. The dentate gyrus: fundamental neuroanatomical organization (dentate gyrus for dummies). In: Progress in Brain Research [Internet]. Elsevier; 2007. [cited 2021 Jul 20]. p. 3–790. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0079612307630015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Pelkey KA, Chittajallu R, Craig MT, Tricoire L, Wester JC, McBain CJ. Hippocampal GABAergic Inhibitory Interneurons. Physiol Rev. 2017. Oct 1;97(4):1619–747. doi: 10.1152/physrev.00007.2017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Acsády L, Kamondi A, Sík A, Freund T, Buzsáki G. GABAergic Cells Are the Major Postsynaptic Targets of Mossy Fibers in the Rat Hippocampus. J Neurosci. 1998. May 1;18(9):3386–403. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.18-09-03386.1998 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Giuseppe Biagini

22 Apr 2022

PONE-D-22-03323Dysregulation of the hippocampal neuronal network by LGI1 auto-antibodies.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Pascual,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 06 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Giuseppe Biagini, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf  and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Funding Section of your manuscript:

“This work was supported by FRM (Fondation pour la recherche médicale) DQ20170336751. This work has been developed within the BETPSY project, which is supported by a public grant overseen by the ANR (Agence nationale de la recherche), as part of the second “Investissements d’Avenir” program (reference ANR-18-RHUS-0012). Elodie Fels was supported by a research grant from the Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 attributed by the doctoral school Neurosciences et Cognition (ED476).”

We note that you have provided additional information within the Funding Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Funding section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“This work was supported by FRM (Fondation pour la recherche médicale) DQ20170336751. This work has been developed within the BETPSY project, which is supported by a public grant overseen by the ANR (Agence nationale de la recherche), as part of the second “Investissements d’Avenir” program (reference ANR-18-RHUS-0012). Elodie Fels was supported by a research grant from the Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 attributed by the doctoral school Neurosciences et Cognition (ED476).”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

5. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This work was supported by FRM (Fondation pour la recherche médicale) DQ20170336751. This work has been developed within the BETPSY project, which is supported by a public grant overseen by the ANR (Agence nationale de la recherche), as part of the second “Investissements d’Avenir” program (reference ANR-18-RHUS-0012). Elodie Fels was supported by a research grant from the Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 attributed by the doctoral school Neurosciences et Cognition (ED476).”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This Ms is quite clear with sufficient data in introduction to understand the project.

At first glance, the results sound good. However this is not always easy to find the n numbers for each experiment. Are you sure that the concentration of 4AP is sufficient to fully blocks the K channels? At least you should discuss this point.

I was particularly dispapointed by the methods section that lacks a lot of sufficient precisions.

I have made a short list to give some few examples:

1) Ln98 “animals” section: please give the n numbers for each mouse category.

2) Ln 160 “Surgery and pumps implantation”. Please give more details about the isoflurane rate.

3) For the IO curves, what was the step when you increased the intensity of stimulation?

4) In a lot of places, the concentrations (in particular for the antibodies) are not indicated.

5) Please be consistent and precise: sometimes you use “.” and sometimes “,” as a decimal separator. The both can have completely different meanings and are not equivalent.

Several words are written in French but not in English.

For example to name a few:

1) Immunoglobulines or Synaptophysine (ln200)

2) blockage (Ln325).

Some other sentences are not correct:

1) Ln117: should be “before being placed”.

2) Or Ln177 “a stimulating electrode (Phymep, #CBAR C75) was position on the Schaeffer collaterals” please correct.

Other minor comment: Ln73-74: the full name of ADAM22 is “Disintegrin and metalloproteinase domain-containing protein 22”

Reviewer #2: It was an interesting study, and the authors collected precious data, which I think, with some work, will be a valuable contribution to the literature to be published. The manuscript is easy and understandable to follow, and the authors obtained enough data to support the conclusion. There are some issues as follows:

2. Inflammatory enzymes have been observed in the brains of people with epilepsy. What do you think about the contribution of inflammation to hyperexcitability?

3. As the cannula was implanted into the medial-septum, purified ctrl, LGI1 IgG, or dendrotoxin-K were spread in all parts of the hippocampus. Please mention the total number of slices used in this study and which parts of the hippocampus were selected for experiments.

4. LGI1 is necessary for correctly positioning proteins (such as ADAM22 and ADAM23) at the synapse. Do you think in LGI1 (-/-) the concentration of these proteins will be changed?

5. Do you think acute lockdown of the LGI1 affects the cellular viability and number of active excitatory synapses in primary cultures?

6. Why did the authors select Wistar rats for the primary hippocampal cell culture section?

6. Supplementary data S4 and S5 are mentioned in the manuscript, but they are missing.

7. Recent studies begin to reveal a trans-synaptic configuration of the LGI1-ADAM22 complex and its pivotal role in AMPA and NMDA receptor-mediated synaptic transmission through regulating MAGUKs. Do you think NMDA receptors could affect the results?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Aug 19;17(8):e0272277. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0272277.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


31 May 2022

response to the reviewers:

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This Ms is quite clear with sufficient data in introduction to understand the project.

At first glance, the results sound good. However this is not always easy to find the n numbers for each experiment. Are you sure that the concentration of 4AP is sufficient to fully blocks the K channels? At least you should discuss this point.

We thank the reviewer to raise this important concern, indeed the concentration we used do not totally block Kv1.1 and kv1.2 channels, this is the reason why we also performed infusion of DTX-k which is more specific and that we used at high concentration. This point is now discussed in the discussion as follow. “Indeed, although the blocking of KV1.1 channels by 4-AP at the concentration we used is likely incomplete, …”

I was particularly dispapointed by the methods section that lacks a lot of sufficient precisions. I have made a short list to give some few examples: 1) Ln98 “animals” section: please give the n numbers for each mouse category.

We have now added the n for each category.

2) Ln 160 “Surgery and pumps implantation”. Please give more details about the isoflurane rate.

The isoflurane rate is now added in the material and methods section.

3) For the IO curves, what was the step when you increased the intensity of stimulation?

The step was 100µA, it is now added in the material and methods

4) In a lot of places, the concentrations (in particular for the antibodies) are not indicated.

The concentration of antibodies used as been added to the text in the material and method section.

5) Please be consistent and precise: sometimes you use “.” and sometimes “,” as a decimal separator. The both can have completely different meanings and are not equivalent.

This has been corrected

Several words are written in French but not in English. For example to name a few:

1) Immunoglobulines or Synaptophysine (ln200)

2) blockage (Ln325)

Typo errors have been corrected. Thanks a lot for the thorough full reading.

Some other sentences are not correct:

1) Ln117: should be “before being placed”.

This has been corrected

2) Or Ln177 “a stimulating electrode (Phymep, #CBAR C75) was position on the Schaeffer collaterals” please correct.

This has been corrected

Other minor comment: Ln73-74: the full name of ADAM22 is “Disintegrin and metalloproteinase domain-containing protein 22”

It has been corrected. We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her reading and the corrections he/she provided.

Reviewer #2: It was an interesting study, and the authors collected precious data, which I think, with some work, will be a valuable contribution to the literature to be published. The manuscript is easy and understandable to follow, and the authors obtained enough data to support the conclusion. There are some issues as follows:

2. Inflammatory enzymes have been observed in the brains of people with epilepsy. What do you think about the contribution of inflammation to hyperexcitability?

In our case, although we have not measured carefully the inflammation in our model we could not see obvious signs of inflammation such as change of microglial and astrocytes shapes. It should be mentioned at this point that we could not detect any spontaneous seizures in the mice and could not detect obvious neuronal loss although not measured in vivo. We believe that the infusion of autoantibodies, only induced a mild change of network excitability compared to status epilepticus and may thus not trigger inflammation.

3. As the cannula was implanted into the medial-septum, purified ctrl, LGI1 IgG, or dendrotoxin-K were spread in all parts of the hippocampus. Please mention the total number of slices used in this study and which parts of the hippocampus were selected for experiments.

Thank you for raising this point. Although we found a very homogeneous diffusion of the antibodies in both hemispheres, we used only ipsilateral slices and mostly the dorsal part of the hippocampus. We have now added those precisions to the material and methods section as follow: “On ipsilateral slices in regard to the cannula, we used 2-4 dorsal slices to perform experiments”

4. LGI1 is necessary for correctly positioning proteins (such as ADAM22 and ADAM23) at the synapse. Do you think in LGI1 (-/-) the concentration of these proteins will be changed?

This is a very interesting question indeed. Fukata and colleagues in 2010, observed a reduced expression of ADAM22 and ADAM23 proteins at the membrane of cells in the hippocampus from transgenic mice lgi1 -/- compared to wild type mice. However, this has never been studied in a model of mice infused with anti-LGI1 IgGs. In respect to the results we presented in this work, we could expect the surface expression of ADAMs would remain stable for a while but their locations may change. This misallocation could finally end up by an internalization fitting with the observation made by Fukata and colleagues of a global decrease of concentration of ADAMs.

5. Do you think acute lockdown of the LGI1 affects the cellular viability and number of active excitatory synapses in primary cultures?

We have performed some experiments on hippocampal primary cell cultures to evaluate cell viability in presence of autoantibodies. We performed LDH assays to quantify neuronal death but we could not detect significant neuronal loss following incubation anti LGI1 IgG for 48 hours when compared to controls. We also performed immunostaining and electrophysiology and could not found any obvious alteration of synapses or synapses number. We did not go further into the analysis of primary cultures as we found that they were very heterogeneous in term of activity.

6. Why did the authors select Wistar rats for the primary hippocampal cell culture section?

This section should not appear in the manuscript, as we did not provide results from cell cultures due to their heterogeneity we were mentioning earlier. we apologies for the confusion and it is now removed from the material and method section. To be transparent on the matter, we initially started experiments on mice cultures but we had very heterogeneous results in electrophysiology. Because we suspected the quality of our culture to be responsible for these variable results we switched to rat cultures that were supposed to be more robust. This switch from mice to rat did not improve the heterogeneity of the neuronal activity found in our cultures. We thus decided to discard those results and focused on the results we obtained on slices.

6. Supplementary data S4 and S5 are mentioned in the manuscript, but they are missing.

We are sorry about this issue they were mislabeled and were supposed to refer to S2 and S3. This point has been corrected in the new version of the manuscript

7. Recent studies begin to reveal a trans-synaptic configuration of the LGI1-ADAM22 complex and its pivotal role in AMPA and NMDA receptor-mediated synaptic transmission through regulating MAGUKs. Do you think NMDA receptors could affect the results?

This is a very interesting question. We did not quantify the modification of NMDA receptors in our experiments but it is not excluded that NMDA receptors are altered too. Our conclusion did not confer a unique role of LGI1 on AMPA receptors but allow us to assess that LGI1 blockade leads to the reduction of AMPA receptors. It is not excluded that other proteins of the complex would be altered too. Indeed, Fukata and colleagues in 2021 showed that there are many proteins involved in the LGI 1-ADAM22 complex included NMDA-receptors. Thus, we cannot rule out that LGI1 antibodies, also affect NMDA receptors. In future studies, the question should address which proteins are affected by LGI1 blockage and how this dysregulation occurs.

________________________________________

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Giuseppe Biagini

18 Jul 2022

Dysregulation of the hippocampal neuronal network by LGI1 auto-antibodies.

PONE-D-22-03323R1

Dear Dr. Pascual,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Giuseppe Biagini, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: The authors answered my comments clearly and also included or removed the parts that needed to be modified.

Reviewer #3: After adding the changes requested by the first two reviewers, the article seems suitable for publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Giuseppe Biagini

11 Aug 2022

PONE-D-22-03323R1

Dysregulation of the hippocampal neuronal network by LGI1 auto-antibodies.

Dear Dr. Pascual:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Giuseppe Biagini

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Purified IgG from LGI1 LE patient 2 5P2) contain LGI1 Abs.

    HEK293T cells were transfected with LGI1-GFP and ADAM22 plasmids. Purified IgG from LGI1 LE patient 2 are colocalized with LGI1-GFP signal at the cell surface of HEK293T transfected cells while no signal was found in cells treated with purified IgG from healthy subject. Scale bar = 20μm.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. LGI1 abs from P2 increase induced neuronal hyperexcitability in the hippocampus.

    LFP were recorded in CA1 region of acute hippocampal slices from mice infused for 7 days with control C1 IgG, LGI1 P2. (A) Increasing stimulations intensity were delivered to Schaffer collaterals and the slope of eEPSP in CA1 area were plotted. No effect of the infusion of control C2 IgG, LGI1 P2 on the IO curve was detected (two-way ANOVA test, p = 0,27; nCtrl = 12; nLGI1 = 14). (B) Examples of ictus recorded in slices infused with control C2 IgG, LGI1 P2 IgG. (C) The global hyperexcitability of the neuronal network was significantly increased on slices infused with LGI1 P2 IgG compared to slices infused with control C2 IgG (** for p = 0,0023, Mann Whitney test, nC2 = 9 souris nP2 = 11 mice). (D) The ictus area was significantly increased between slices infused with LGI1 P2 IgG and slices infused with control C2 IgG (*** for p = 0,0004; nC2 = 9 nP2 = 11 mice). (E) The ictus frequency was not different between LGI1 P2 IgG, control C2 IgG (Mann Whitney test: p = 0,44; nC1 = 9, nP1 = 11 mice). Data are represented as mean ± SEM.

    (TIF)

    S3 Fig. LGI1 abs have no effect on the global hyperexcitability when the inhibitory network was block.

    (A) LFP in presence of 4-AP (40μM) and picrotoxin (100μM) were recorded in CA1 area of acute hippocampal slices from mice infused for 7 days with control C2 or LGI1 P2 IgG. No difference was found in the global hyperexcitability between control C2 IgG and LGI1 P2 IgG infused neuronal network when recordings were performed in presence of picrotoxine (Mann-Whitney test, p = 0,80; nC2 = 8; nP2 = 8 mice). Data are represented as mean ± SEM.

    (TIF)

    S1 Data

    (XLSX)

    S2 Data

    (XLSX)

    S3 Data

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the article and its supporting information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES