Advertisement

Journal of Neurology

, Volume 260, Issue 1, pp 214–220 | Cite as

Paired associate learning in children with neurofibromatosis type 1: implications for clinical trials

  • Jonathan M. PayneEmail author
  • Belinda Barton
  • E. Arthur Shores
  • Kathryn N. North
Original Communication

Abstract

Studies investigating behavior in mice with a heterozygous null mutation of the NF1 gene (Nf1 +/) have provided critical insights into the molecular and cellular mechanisms underlying cognitive impairments associated with neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1). Hyperactivation of the Ras-MAPK signaling cascade, which results in increased GABA-mediated inhibition and significantly reduced long-term potentiation, has been proposed as a core mechanism underlying Nf1 +/ mice deficits in visuospatial learning and attention. This assertion has been reinforced by preclinical trials that reveal that these impairments can be rescued both at a cognitive and cellular level. We attempted to demonstrate a phenotypic parallel between Nf1 +/ mice and children with NF1 using a well-validated measure of visuospatial learning. Children with NF1 (n = 71) and healthy controls (n = 29) were assessed on a computerized paired associate learning task. Interrelationships between visuospatial learning and other cognitive abilities that may influence performance, such as intelligence, attention and visuospatial function, were explored. Children with NF1 displayed significant impairments in visuospatial learning, with reduced initial retention and poorer learning across repeated trials. Importantly, we demonstrated that visuospatial learning was inferior in NF1 even after accounting for group differences in intelligence, sustained attention and visuospatial abilities. We have thus identified impaired visuospatial learning as a core phenotypic feature in children with NF1. These findings imply that hippocampal-based learning networks are dysfunctional in children with NF1 and provide validation for a primary outcome measure for clinical trials aiming to correct aberrant Ras signaling.

Keywords

Neurofibromatosis type 1 Visuospatial learning Ras-MAPK signaling cascade CANTAB Clinical trials 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by the Sherman Fellowship in Neurofibromatosis 1 Research Australia, awarded to Dr. Payne.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standard

This research has been approved by the appropriate ethics committee and have therefore been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki.

References

  1. 1.
    Evans DG, Howard E, Giblin C, Clancy T, Spencer H, Huson SM, Lalloo F (2000) Birth incidence and prevalence of tumor-prone syndromes: estimates from a UK family genetic register service. Am J Med Genet 152A:327–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hyman SL, Shores EA, North KN (2005) The nature and frequency of cognitive deficits in children with neurofibromatosis type 1. Neurology 65:1037–1044PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moore BD III, Ater JL, Needle MN, Slopis J, Copeland DR (1994) Neuropsychological profile of children with neurofibromatosis, brain tumor, or both. J Child Neurol 9:368–377PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rowbotham I, Pit-ten Cate IM, Sonuga-Barke EJ, Huijbregts SC (2009) Cognitive control in adolescents with neurofibromatosis type 1. Neuropsychology 23:50–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Levine TM, Materek A, Abel J, O’Donnell M, Cutting LE (2006) Cognitive profile of neurofibromatosis type 1. Semin Pediatr Neurol 13:8–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Li W, Cui Y, Kushner SA, Brown RA, Jentsch JD, Frankland PW, Cannon TD, Silva AJ (2005) The HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor lovastatin reverses the learning and attention deficits in a mouse model of neurofibromatosis type 1. Curr Biol 15:1961–1967PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cui Y, Costa RM, Murphy GG, Elgersma Y, Zhu Y, Gutmann DH, Parada LF, Mody I, Silva AJ (2008) Neurofibromin regulation of ERK signaling modulates GABA release and learning. Cell 135:549–560PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Squire LR (1992) Memory and the hippocampus: a synthesis from findings with rats, monkeys, and humans. Psychol Rev 99:195–231PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Levy DA, Bayley PJ, Squire LR (2004) The anatomy of semantic knowledge: medial vs. lateral temporal lobe. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:6710–6715PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fowler KS, Saling MM, Conway EL, Semple JM, Louis WJ (1997) Computerized neuropsychological tests in the early detection of dementia: prospective findings. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 3:139–146PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fowler KS, Saling MM, Conway EL, Semple JM, Louis WJ (2002) Paired associate performance in the early detection fo DAT. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 8:58–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Owen AM, Sahakian BJ, Semple J, Polkey CE, Robbins TW (1995) Visuo-spatial short-term recognition memory and learning after temporal lobe excisions, frontal lobe excisions or amygdalo-hippocampectomy in man. Neuropsychologia 33:1–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Taffe MA, Weed MR, Gutierrez T, Davis SA, Gold LH (2002) Differential muscarinic and NMDA contributions to visuo-spatial paired-associate learning in rhesus monkeys. Psychopharmacology 160:253–262PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nicoll RA, Malenka RC (1999) Expression mechanisms underlying NMDA receptor-dependent long-term potentiation. Ann N Y Acad Sci 868:515–525PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Statement (1988) Neurofibromatosis. Arch Neurol 45:575–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Conners CK (1997) Conners’ rating scales-revised. Multi-Health Systems Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sahakian BJ, Morris RG, Evenden JL, Heald A, Levy R, Philpot M, Robbins TW (1988) A comparative study of visuospatial memory and learning in Alzheimer-type dementia and Parkinson’s disease. Brain 111:695–718PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wechsler D (2003) Wechsler intelligence scales for children, 4th edn. The Psychological Corporation, San AntonioGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Manly T, Robertson IH, Anderson V, Nimmo-Smith I (1999) The test of everyday attention for children. Battley Brothers, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Benton AL, Varney NR, Hamsher K (1976) Judgment of line orientation. Department of Neurology, University of Iowa, Iowa CityGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Holm S (1979) A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat 6:65–70Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (2007) Using mulivariate statistics, 5th edn. Allyn and Bacon, BostonGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Singer JJ, MacGregor AJ, Cherkas LF, Spector TD (2006) Genetic influences on cognitive function using the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery. Intelligence 34:421–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hofman KJ, Harris EL, Bryan RN, Denckla MB (1994) Neurofibromatosis type 1: the cognitive phenotype. J Pediatr 124:S1–S8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ullrich NJ, Ayr L, Leaffer E, Irons MB, Rey-Casserly C (2010) Pilot study of a novel computerized task to assess spatial learning in children and adolescents with neurofibromatosis type 1. J Child Neurol 25:1195–1202PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Moore BD III, Slopis JM, Schomer D, Jackson EF (2000) Neuropsychological significance of areas of high signal intensity on brain MRIs of children with neurofibromatosis. Neurology 46:1660–1668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Payne JM, Moharir MD, Webster R, North KN (2010) Brain structure and function in neurofibromatosis type 1: current concepts and future directions. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 81:304–309PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pride N, Payne JM, Webster R, Shores EA, Rae C, North KN (2010) Corpus callosum morphology and its relationship to cognitive function in neurofibromatosis type 1. J Child Neurol 25:834–841PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hancock JF (2003) Ras proteins: different signals from different locations. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 4:373–384PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shilyansky C, Lee YS, Silva AJ (2010) Molecular and cellular mechanisms of learning disabilities: a focus on NF1. Annu Rev Neurosci 33:221–243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cooke SF, Bliss TV (2006) Plasticity in the human central nervous system. Brain 129:1659–1673PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Neves G, Cooke SF, Bliss TV (2008) Synaptic plasticity, memory and the hippocampus: a neural network approach to causality. Nat Rev Neurosci 9:65–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fray PJ, Robbins TW, Sahakian BJ (1996) Neuorpsychiatyric applications of CANTAB. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 11:329–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Von Huben SN, Davis SA, Lay CC, Katner SN, Crean RD, Taffe MA (2006) Differential contributions of dopaminergic D1- and D2-like receptors to cognitive function in rhesus monkeys. Psychopharmacology 188:586–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Blackwell AD, Sahakian BJ, Vesey R, Semple JM, Robbins TW, Hodges JR (2004) Detecting dementia: novel neuropsychological markers of preclinical Alzheimer’s disease. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 17:42–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nestor PJ, Scheltens P, Hodges JR (2004) Advances in the early detection of Alzheimer’s disease. Nat Med 10:S34–S41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lowe C, Rabbitt P (1998) Test/re-test reliability of the CANTAB and ISPOCD neuropsychological batteries: theoretical and practical issues. Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery. International Study of Post-Operative Cognitive Dysfunction. Neuropsychologia 36:915–923PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Acosta MT, Kardel PG, Walsh KS, Rosenbaum KN, Gioia GA, Packer RJ (2011) Lovastatin as treatment for neurocognitive deficits in neurofibromatosis type 1: phase I study. Pediatr Neurol 45:241–245PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Dennis M, Francis DJ, Cirino PT, Schachar R, Barnes MA, Fletcher JM (2009) Why IQ is not a covariate in cognitive studies of neurodevelopmental disorders. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 15:331–343PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Cutting LE, Koth CW, Denckla MB (2000) How children with neurofibromatosis type 1 differ from “typical” learning disabled clinic attenders: nonverbal learning disabilities revisited. Dev Neuropsychol 17:29–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan M. Payne
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Belinda Barton
    • 2
    • 3
  • E. Arthur Shores
    • 4
  • Kathryn N. North
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for Neuroscience and Muscle ResearchThe Children’s Hospital at WestmeadWestmead, SydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Discipline of Paediatrics and Child Health, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Children’s Hospital Education Research InstituteThe Children’s Hospital at WestmeadWestmead, SydneyAustralia
  4. 4.Department of PsychologyMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations