Motor control in the striatum is an orchestra played by various neuronal populations. Loss of harmony due to dopamine deficiency is considered the primary pathological cause of the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease (PD). Recent progress in experimental approaches has enabled us to examine the striatal circuitry in a much more comprehensive manner, not only reshaping our understanding of striatal functions in movement regulation but also leading to new opportunities for the development of therapeutic strategies for treating PD. In addition to dopaminergic innervation, giant aspiny cholinergic interneurons (ChIs) within the striatum have long been recognized as a critical node for balancing dopamine signaling and regulating movement. With the roles of ChIs in motor control further uncovered and more specific manipulations available, striatal ChIs and their corresponding receptors are emerging as new promising therapeutic targets for PD. This review summarizes recent progress in functional studies of striatal circuitry and discusses the translational implications of these new findings for the treatment of PD.
PD is the second most common neurodegenerative disorder, affecting ~1%–2% of the world population over the age of 60 [1,2,3]. Patients typically suffer from involuntary tremors, muscle rigidity, and postural instability. These motor symptoms are believed to stem from an imbalance in the output of the striatum caused by a loss of nigrostriatal dopamine innervation [3, 4]. Despite decades of treatment efforts focusing on dopamine modulation, several lines of recent evidence have indicated that the striatal cholinergic system also plays an essential role in the information processing of the striatum and might emerge as a new drug target for treating PD. In this review, I will first update our current understanding of motor control in the striatum, highlighting the new insight into the role of dopamine in this process. I will then focus on recent progress in functional investigations of the striatal cholinergic system and discuss the implications of these new findings for therapeutic approaches of PD.
Motor control in the striatum
The neural circuits in the striatum play a central role in motor planning and action selection. They are also the areas that are most affected by dopamine depletion in PD and the most critical therapeutic targets for treating the disease [5, 6]. The striatum receives excitatory innervations predominantly from the cortex and thalamus, and functions as a primary relay to other basal ganglia nuclei [7,8,9,10]. More than 90% of neurons in the striatum are medium spiny neurons (MSNs), which are GABAergic projection neurons that inhibit their targets when activated. MSNs do not exhibit spontaneous activity in vitro and tend to fire at ~1 Hz in behaving animals unless under significant transient afferent input. The remaining striatal neurons are mainly giant aspiny cholinergic interneurons (ChIs, 1%–3%) and GABAergic interneurons (2%–5%). GABAergic interneurons are local regulation neurons that can be subdivided into fast-spiking interneurons, calretinin-expressing interneurons, and low-threshold spiking interneurons. Although both use GABA as a neurotransmitter, GABAergic interneurons are distinct from MSNs in terms of morphology, projection, regulation, protein expression and firing activity .
The heart of the functional organization of the striatum is the so-called “direct/indirect pathway” model first proposed by Mahlon R Delong and his colleagues in the 1990s . Roughly half of striatal MSNs express high levels of dopamine D1 receptors, forming the foundation of the direct pathway (also referred to as the striatonigral projection). The other half express dopamine D2 receptors and mainly innervate the pallidum, forming the indirect pathway (striatopallidal projection) [13,14,15,16]. This orthogonal organization of the motor control strategy is simple and seems to be remarkably conserved among all vertebrate species . The canonical theory derived from multiple disciplines of studies postulates that the two distinct populations of MSNs, together with their corresponding pathways, might exert opposite roles in motor function, with direct pathway facilitating movement and indirect pathway suppressing it [18,19,20,21,22]. While many early observations reconciled with this working model, direct evidence was missing for a very long time until transgenic and optogenetic approaches that allowed for recruiting specific pathways became available [10, 23,24,25,26]. It was shown that specific activation of the direct pathway using channelrhodopsin-2, a light-sensitive ion channel that triggers firing in neurons, promotes locomotion while stimulating the indirect pathway increases freezing and impedes movement initiation [10, 14, 24, 27].
This simple rate model, in which activation of the direct pathway is prokinetic and activation of the indirect pathway is antikinetic, was recently challenged by the Costa laboratory. Using in vivo calcium imaging, they characterized the activity of the direct and indirect pathways in the striatum of freely moving animals and found that both pathways were concurrently activated during action initiation and execution, opposing the long-held prediction of the classical model that the direct pathway is specifically involved in movement initiation and that the indirect pathway is solely responsible for terminating the ongoing action [21, 28, 29]. Additionally, their research found that excitation or inhibition of either pathway delayed the initiation of movement and impaired the continuity of a learned movement sequence. Interestingly, the performance of an action sequence can be fine-tuned by subtle activation of the direct pathway and aborted by activation of the indirect pathway . Together, these data indicate that both the direct and indirect pathways are necessary for action sequence execution, with the direct pathway facilitating the performance of a running action and the indirect pathway permitting it by inhibiting other competing actions (Fig. 1a). Hence, action selection and movement initiation in the striatum is most likely mediated by a highly regulated dynamic balance between the two complementary pathways in the striatum. It is the specific activity patterns, rather than activity levels, that are critical for appropriate action initiation and selection [22, 30].
Rethinking the role of dopamine in motor control
Although the importance of dopamine in movement regulation is widely recognized, it is not entirely clear how dopamine regulates the inputs and outputs of the striatum. The classical model states that since D1 and D2 receptors oppose each other in cyclic AMP production, activation of D1 receptors enhances the activity of the direct pathway, whereas activation of D2 receptors exerts opposite impacts on the indirect pathway. As a consequence, an increase in dopamine levels would shift the balance to favor the control of the direct pathway [13, 22, 31]. This working principle is essentially still a rate model that relies on dopamine levels to generate “go” and “stop” signals. Several recent studies, however, have indicated that this model seems to be too rigid to account for the complexity of dopamine regulation. On the one hand, both pathways enhance their firing activity simultaneously to initiate actions when dopamine is released, which is inconsistent with the prediction of the classical model that dopamine increases direct pathway activity and decreases indirect pathway activity [28, 29]. On the other, in vivo studies have indicated that activation of either D1 or D2 receptors can bidirectionally regulate the excitability of both pathways, in apparent contrast with the assumption that dopamine excites the direct pathway but inhibits the indirect pathway .
Thanks to the development of optogenetic indicators, dopamine dynamics concerning motor control were recently uncovered. Using in vivo calcium imaging of dopamine innervation to the striatum, the Costa laboratory and Dombeck laboratory have independently demonstrated that time-locked burst firing in dopamine axons is causally required for action execution, suggesting that it is the temporal dynamic of dopamine, not merely the dopamine level, that is responsible for the control of movement [31,32,33,34]. Another important finding of their studies is that once the movement is initiated, dopamine is dispensable for subsequent actions, opposing the classical model that dopamine levels constantly regulate striatal output [35, 36]. It has been postulated that motion sequences are performed either in a serial manner, in which the end of one element triggers the start of another, or are represented and controlled in a hierarchical manner, in which the number and order of elements are preprocessed before the commencement of movement [37, 38]. The fact that dopamine is required for the initiation phase but not for the ongoing phase of the movement sequence suggests that action sequences are probably represented hierarchically in broad neural networks, and dopamine transients most likely provide a brief gating signal in a precisely timed manner to invigorate the preplanned serial movements (Fig. 1a) [14, 30, 38].
Despite generating immediate impacts on the activity of striatal circuits, dopamine also governs motor learning by regulating the strength of synaptic connections originating from afferent inputs . Motor learning is a simultaneous decision-making process of what to do by the direct pathway and what not to do by the indirect pathway. When the consequence of a particular behavior turns out to be positive, a brief dopamine transient is produced to enforce the strength of the recruited circuits, making them more likely to be activated in the future. Instead, if the consequence has an adverse outcome, a temporary drop in dopamine level prohibits the strengthening of the engaged circuit. Consistent with this working model, under normal conditions, dopamine transients indeed dominate the formation of spike-timing-dependent long-term potentiation (LTP) in the direct pathway and long-term depression (LTD) in the indirect pathway . One caveat of this model is that the activity of dopamine axons originating from the substantia nigra does not change in response to behavioral consequences. It is thus most likely that dopamine projections from the ventral tegmental area (although relatively few) carry the feedback information [35, 40]. The long-term modulation of striatal circuitry by dopamine is essentially Hebbian learning, which highly relies on the precise timing of dopamine signaling, and the bidirectional nature of this regulation enables full-fledged motor control of the striatal circuitry (Fig. 1a) [41, 42].
While dopamine signaling has long been presumed to occur through volume transmission, which is considered slow and inaccurate, new lines of evidence have indicated that there may be more to consider [43, 44]. First, some dopamine terminals can form synapse-like structures through neuroligin-2, a cell adhesion protein found on the postsynaptic membrane that mediates synapse formation . Second, dopamine release highly relies on very specialized release sites along their axons, indicating a very organized architecture in the striatum [46,47,48,49]. Third, functional studies have demonstrated that dopamine release is exceptionally fast and efficient, and the release ability quickly declines following the initial transient, which fits well with the functional requirement of initiating movement but not supporting ongoing movement [47, 50, 51]. Finally, in addition to activating dopamine receptors, dopamine terminals can co-release GABA, generating fast inhibition in both pathways [52,53,54]. Together, these properties suggest that dopamine signaling is much more spatiotemporally controlled than previously thought, supporting the functional obligation for time-locked tuning of the striatal activity and synaptic plasticity.
Striatal cholinergic system
The striatum has the highest level of acetylcholine in the brain, most originates from local ChIs, with a small amount coming from the brainstem [55,56,57]. ChIs are huge cells (30–50 μm in diameter), possess extremely arborized axons, and make widespread connections throughout the striatum. It was estimated that, on average, each ChI can generate as many as half a million terminals [58,59,60]. ChIs mainly make two types of connections within the striatum. One is axodendritic synapses with distal dendrites and dendritic spine necks of MSNs, and the other is axoaxonal connections with afferent glutamatergic and dopaminergic terminals [57, 61,62,63,64,65]. In addition to exerting direct influences on synaptic sites, cholinergic terminals have also been suggested to be able to act through volume transmission, which can generate widespread cumulative impacts on nearby neurons .
ChIs display unique electrophysiological properties. They exhibit high input resistance, broad action potentials, and a pacemaking firing of 2–10 Hz . The depolarization phase of the spontaneous firing is controlled by hyperpolarization and cyclic nucleotide-activated cation (HCN) channels, and the repolarization phase is governed by calcium-activated potassium channels [68,69,70]. The external regulation of ChIs was traditionally considered to arise mainly from the thalamus [61, 71], but recent studies using monosynaptic rabies virus tracing have argued that cortical glutamatergic innervation is most likely the primary afferent input of ChIs [72, 73]. Notably, more than half of the synapses on ChIs arise from local MSNs and GABAergic interneurons, indicating that ChIs also receive significant inhibitory regulation from within the striatum [73,74,75]. Another essential extrinsic regulatory mechanism of ChI activity is its modulation by dopamine. Almost all ChIs express dopamine D2 and D5 receptors, and a small fraction of ChIs (~20%) also express D1 receptors [76, 77]. As D2 and D5 receptors are coupled with functionally opposing G proteins (Gi and Gs, respectively), dopamine can thus bidirectionally regulate cyclic AMP levels and their corresponding actuators within ChIs . Activation of D2 receptors slows down the firing rate and acetylcholine release [77, 79,80,81]. Activation of D5 receptors has been shown to play a crucial role in the formation of LTP at synapses on ChIs [82,83,84].
There are two types of cholinergic receptors in the striatum: muscarinic receptors (mAChRs) and nicotinic receptors (nAChRs) . Overall, mAChRs significantly outnumber nAChRs in the striatum. mAChRs are G-protein coupled receptors that can be subdivided into two classes: Gq-coupled (M1, M3, and M5) and Gi-coupled (M2 and M4). The M4 subtype is the most abundant mAChR in the striatum. Activation of Gq-coupled mAChRs generally enhances synaptic transmission, increases the excitability of neurons, and facilitates the formation of LTP, while activation of Gi-coupled receptors does the opposite. nAChRs are pentameric ion channels and permeable to both sodium and calcium ions when opened. There are also two subclasses of nAChRs: nAChRs composed of αβ subunit combinations and homomeric nAChRs made up of only α subunits. The most abundant type of nAChR formed in the striatum is the α4β2 nAChR. Although ChIs express all types of mAChRs and low levels of α7-containing nAChRs, M4 autoreceptors dominate the regulation of ChI activity in response to acetylcholine release. Activation of M4 receptors reduces firing activity, calcium influx, and acetylcholine release, providing robust feedback inhibition for ChIs (Fig. 2). This property significantly differs from that of other cholinergic neurons projecting to the hippocampus and cortex, in which autoinhibition is mediated through M2 receptors [85,86,87,88,89].
Cholinergic regulation of striatal circuitry
Although low in number, ChIs integrate a multitude of inputs and exert significant influences on striatal output. In contrast to dopaminergic regulation, cholinergic modulation does not seem to strictly distinguish between the direct and indirect pathways. Optogenetic activation of ChIs inhibits ~80% of MSNs from both pathways and excites the rest . There are three major pathways through which the striatal cholinergic system regulates the activity of the MSNs: glutamatergic innervation of MSNs, intrinsic excitability of MSNs, and striatal dopamine release. The net effect of the cholinergic modulation of MSN activity is thus determined by the complex interactions between these pathways, which, although hard to interpret, enables fine adjustment of the striatal circuitry at multiple levels (Fig. 2).
It has long been known that acetylcholine modulates striatal glutamate release from the presynaptic terminals of MSNs. Local application of acetylcholine or increasing the firing of ChIs significantly reduces excitatory transmission onto MSNs through the activation of mAChRs [90,91,92,93]. While both M2 and M4 mAChRs are found in the glutamatergic afferent terminals and both receptors activate Gi/o proteins, M4 receptors are thought to be primarily responsible for this inhibition [93, 94]. Given that ChIs have spontaneous activity, glutamatergic terminals are likely under tonic inhibition by acetylcholine . Since the majority of glutamatergic terminals originate from the cortex and thalamus, the regulation is considered to function as a filter of external movement control commands [73, 92, 95]. In addition to mAChRs, there is also a significant number of nAChRs that reside in glutamatergic terminals [96,97,98]. As nAChRs are permeable to calcium, the opening of these channels should, in theory, increases the release probability of glutamate. Consistent with this hypothesis, stimulating nAChRs increases glutamate levels in the striatum, as measured using microdialysis . In addition, it was recently shown that a subset of afferent glutamatergic synapses from the thalamus is specifically enhanced through upregulated activation of nAChRs in a mouse PD model . It appears that the regulation of glutamatergic terminals by ChIs is dichotomous, but it is unclear why the overall influence of broad acetylcholine stimulation is always the suppression of glutamate release? One possibility is that the impact of mAChR activation lasts much longer than that of nAChR activation, the effects of which decline exceptionally fast due to receptor desensitization [90,91,92,93]. It is also possible that nAChRs and mAChRs are expressed in different terminal subsets and that the appearance that mAChR activation dominates the effect of acetylcholine is simply because mAChR-expressing terminals outnumber nAChR-expressing terminals .
MSNs express mAChRs but are devoid of nAChRs, and the expression patterns are considerably different between the direct and indirect pathways. While MSNs in both pathways express M1 receptors, MSNs in the direct pathway also express a significant number of M4 receptors [94, 100]. Activation of M1 receptors stimulates Gq proteins and leads to corresponding changes in a multitude of ion channels, including Kv potassium channels, Kir2 channels, Nav1 sodium channels, and Cav2 calcium channels [101,102,103]. The net outcome of these regulations is generally an increase in dendritic excitability . Notably, activation of M1 receptors increases the excitability of the indirect pathway much more strongly than it increases the excitability of the direct pathway, likely due to different expression levels of the receptor or its corresponding actuators . In contrast, activation of M4 receptors tends to attenuate dendritic excitability, promote the formation of LTD, and suppress the formation of LTP in the projections of the direct pathway . Given that only MSNs in the direct pathway express M4 receptors, the overall effect of acetylcholine is to attenuate the intrinsic excitability of the direct pathway while promoting that of the indirect pathway, opposing the influences of dopamine.
The most exciting function of ChIs in the striatum is their regulation of dopamine release (Fig. 2). Dopamine neurons express high levels of nAChRs composed of α4, α6, and β2 subunits. More than half of nAChRs in the striatum reside in dopamine terminals [64, 107,108,109]. Early pharmacological studies suggested that activation of nAChRs promotes dopamine release [62, 110, 111]. Later, using voltammetric recordings in brain slices, it was revealed that the motivation of endogenous ChIs induces much more dopamine release than activation of dopamine axons alone [57, 112,113,114]. An important recent finding is that synchronous activation of ChIs can trigger dopamine release from dopamine terminals directly, independent of activity from dopamine cell bodies [61, 115, 116]. As dopamine neurons co-release GABA, activation of ChIs also triggers significant among of GABAergic currents in MSNs through dopamine axons . The mechanism of the cell body-independent release is still unclear. Since nAChRs are permeable to calcium, this release may be induced directly by the calcium influx through these channels. Nevertheless, it is also possible that the depolarization caused by nAChRs will induce an ectopic action potential that not only triggers dopamine and GABA release locally but broadcasts these signals along the extremely arborized dopamine axonal network . The finding that activation of striatal ChIs induces dopamine release blurred the boundaries between acetylcholine and dopamine in the striatum. It is entirely possible that many effects of the cholinergic modulation on striatal circuitry are actually exerted through dopamine. Further research is required to investigate when and how this mechanism is employed in vivo.
Role of ChIs in health
Striatal ChIs serve as information processing nodes by receiving inputs from a variety of neurons and integrating them to influence behavior through multiple regulatory pathways. The firing activity of ChIs in vivo varies depending on the behavioral context. When burst firing of ChIs is induced by glutamatergic innervation from the cortex and thalamus, the corresponding acetylcholine transient immediately suppresses the flow of information into MSNs by activating presynaptic M2/M4 receptors on glutamatergic terminals and increases the intrinsic excitability of the indirect pathway via M1 receptors (Fig. 2) . In freely moving animals, ChIs exhibit rapid and transient firing across the whole population before the onset of spontaneous locomotion, and the synchrony of ChI firing diminishes as animals transit to continuous movement, a pattern very reminiscent of that of dopamine neurons [36, 118]. Simultaneous recordings of ChIs and dopamine neurons, however, indicate that the activities of the two populations are coordinated but not correlated, suggesting that they code distinct aspects of the movement. No significant change or a slight reduction in the amount of locomotion is observed when ChIs are directly recruited using light, but unilateral ChI ablation can cause turning behavior [119,120,121]. Multiple lines of evidence indicate that ChIs are most likely responsible for the expression of behavioral flexibility to changed surroundings [122,123,124,125]. Most studies support a positive correlation between the activity of ChIs and motor shift [126,127,128], but one report indicated that the removal of ChIs enhances motor flexibility .
Another featured activity of ChIs in vivo is the pause-rebound firing pattern in response to motivationally significant events, in which ChIs reduce the firing rate when the sensory cue is presented and increase it immediately afterward. This response is acquired after reward-paired training and has been suggested to play a prominent role in motor learning. The acquisition of the response depends on the dopaminergic system, but ChIs do not simply reflect the firing activities of dopamine neurons [19, 20, 82, 130]. In contrast, the pause coincides with increased firing of dopamine neurons [130, 131]. Given that ChIs tonically inhibit glutamate release, the reduced activity of ChIs during cue presentation might permit the flow of more information into the striatum, consolidating striatal circuits synergistically with dopamine [130, 131]. The mechanisms of the pause-rebound activity are still under debate. Some believe it is solely caused by dopamine regulation [132, 133]. Others argue that both synaptic and intrinsic mechanisms can induce it in the absence of dopamine modulation [134, 135]. This discrepancy might arise from the heterogeneity of ChI distribution and regulation. Studies have shown that dopamine can inhibit ChIs residing in the dorsomedial striatum but excite ChIs in the dorsolateral area .
Role of ChIs in PD
A range of adaptations occurs in the striatum with the progression of PD [137,138,139,140]. The prevailing theory of the motor symptoms of PD is that the loss of dopamine in the striatum causes an imbalance between the direct and indirect pathways, with the direct pathway suppressed and the indirect pathway overexcited. Considering that the two pathways compete with each other in movement selection, these pathological alterations might shift the equilibrium between the two to favor blocking the proper relay of movement control commands, causing the hypokinetic symptoms of PD (Fig. 1b) [21, 141]. Although ChIs also highly express several PD causal genes (i.e., LRRK2), as do dopamine neurons, the accumulation of α-synuclein and the loss of ChIs are only observed in late PD [138, 142]. Associated with PD progress, both the acetylcholine level and activity of ChIs are highly elevated [106, 143]. Since ChIs tend to weaken the direct pathway and promote the indirect pathway, the elevated ChI activity is believed to exacerbate the PD symptoms (Fig. 1b) [99, 141]. Surprisingly, the elevated ChI activity is not caused by a loss of D2 inhibition as one would intuitively expect but is attributed to the attenuation of M4 autoreceptors, indicating that upregulation of acetylcholine signaling is not a byproduct of dopamine depletion but likely an active driver of striatal adaptations [89, 106]. Although the lack of D2 activation does not contribute much to the altered excitability of ChIs, it does reduce the pause duration of ChIs after burst firing. In addition to altered excitability, the firing of ChIs also becomes much more synchronized in PD models, likely due to elevated afferent inputs [92, 99, 144]. As synchronous activation of ChIs can trigger dopamine release directly, the increase in synchronicity might serve as a compensatory mechanism for dopamine reduction at the early stage of PD.
No significant changes have been found in the overall expression level of M-type receptors in mouse PD models, but whether there are differences in the level of regulation among subtypes has also not been fully determined . On the other hand, nAChRs are gradually lost following dopamine depletion in both animal models and clinical cases [85, 146]. Among nAChRs, the α4- and α6-containing subtypes are usually the first to be lost, most likely because these receptors mainly reside in dopamine axons .
nAChRs as a target for PD treatment
There are currently no disease-modifying drugs or approaches for treating PD, and most therapies focus only on managing PD symptoms . The primary beneficial effects of these treatments are to help manage PD symptoms, to alleviate levodopa-induced dyskinesia (LID), and to improve the cognitive impairments associated with the disease. The predominant view postulates that dopamine and acetylcholine play opposing roles in motor control and that the balance shifts towards acetylcholine in PD [89, 140, 149]. Consistent with this view, optogenetic inhibition of ChI activity indeed alleviates PD symptoms in several animal models of PD . Although mAChR antagonists have long been shown to effectively reverse PD motor symptoms, the cognitive and autonomic side effects have prevented them from being widely used, and their use quickly waned after the introduction of dopamine replacement therapy with levodopa . Today, levodopa is still the gold standard for PD treatment. However, levodopa has a short therapeutic window, and prolonged levodopa administration generates several side effects, including mood disturbances and dyskinesia; thus, there is a critical need to improve treatments for PD [151,152,153].
The new findings regarding the cholinergic system discussed above unravel several potential therapeutic targets in the striatal cholinergic system and support a re-emergence of cholinergic treatment for PD. Several lines of evidence indicate that nAChRs might serve as a promising drug target for those purposes [97, 99, 154, 155]. First, there is an extensive anatomical and functional overlap between nAChRs and dopamine projections within the striatum. Activation of nAChRs in dopamine axons can modulate and even directly trigger dopamine release. Second, various expressional and functional adaptations of nAChRs occur in association with PD progression and contribute to the expression of PD symptoms . Third, drugs that interact with nAChRs might protect against dopamine neuron degeneration [146, 156, 157]. The potential ability of nAChRs to rebalance the direct and indirect pathways is compatible with the therapeutic requirements for treating PD-related movement disorders [97, 99, 154, 155].
Immediate questions are which nAChR subtype should be targeted and whether the nAChR function should be up- or down-regulated. Given that nAChRs are significantly impaired in PD, it appears that restoring the function of nAChRs should be the direction to go. Since activation of nAChRs can trigger dopamine release, stimulating nAChRs might boost striatal dopamine levels, compensating for dopamine deficiency. Nevertheless, the treatment strategy is likely highly dependent on the stage of the disease. At late-stage PD, since there are much fewer dopamine terminals left in the striatum, nAChR stimulation might have a very limited impact on dopamine signaling but preferentially regulate the transmission of other neuronal innervations. Consistent with this idea, a recent report indicated that thalamostriatal projections to the indirect pathway are specifically enhanced by the overactivation of nAChRs in a late-stage PD mouse model. Importantly, inhibiting nAChRs, but not activating them, helps with motor deficits . The paradox that both activation and inhibition of nAChRs can be beneficial to PD might also arise from the fast desensitization properties of the receptors themselves. It has been shown that even the amount of nicotine administered by smoking efficiently desensitizes nAChRs, making it possible that long-term stimulation of nAChRs functionally inhibits, rather than activates, nAChR signaling in the striatum .
Another potential therapeutic strategy for manipulating the striatal cholinergic system is alleviating LID. A number of therapeutic strategies, including delaying the onset of levodopa treatment and reducing the levodopa dose, have been employed to minimize the onset of LID. However, these approaches inevitably compromise the control of PD symptoms [158, 159]. Strategies to treat LID are currently very limited, and there is a tremendous unmet need to identify new therapies. Several lines of evidence indicate that aberrant LTP formation and hypersensitivity of the direct pathway, together with strong inhibition of the indirect pathway, underlie this pathology (Fig. 1c) [160, 161]. These conditions are likely caused by the sustained activation of dopamine receptors during levodopa therapy. The strength of afferent inputs of the direct pathway are typically balanced by both dopamine and acetylcholine. Activation of dopamine D1 receptors enhances the formation of LTP, and activation of cholinergic M4 receptors (which are only expressed in the direct pathway) facilitates the formation of LTD [106, 162, 163]. Although it appears that M4 signaling should be enhanced to counterbalance the influence of constant D1 activation during levodopa treatment, activation of mAChRs through optogenetic stimulation of ChIs worsens this condition . In contrast, the ablation of ChIs or activation of nAChRs results in significant improvements in symptoms [152, 153, 164, 165]. The effectiveness of the approach seems to be dependent on the stage of PD, and none of the treatments reduces the action of levodopa, indicating that the mechanism is distinct from modulations linked to PD . Consistent with the idea that nAChRs play central roles in the treatment, both the development of dyskinesia and the therapeutic benefit of nicotine are reduced in nAChR knockout mice [154, 167].
The progress of PD is also accompanied by several nonmotor symptoms, including sleep disorder, depression, and cognitive impairment that eventually develops into dementia . The pathology of cognitive impairment is complex and involves the degeneration of several systems, a condition very reminiscent of Alzheimer’s disease. Regarding the cholinergic system, significant cholinergic neuronal loss and decreases in several subtypes of nAChRs have been found to be associated with the progression of cognitive decline [169, 170]. Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, which are commonly used to treat Alzheimer’s disease, are very effective in boosting cognition in PD patients . Unfortunately, increasing the level of acetylcholine in the brain exacerbates motor deficits in PD and is thus not an ideal approach. On the other hand, since acetylcholine levels are positively correlated with cognition, treating PD with anticholinergic drugs deteriorates cognition . Intense research has focused on α7 nAChR ligands, and some studies have reported that these drugs have positive effects on cognition [173, 174].
Nicotine as a drug candidate for PD treatment
Although the complexity of PD makes it extremely difficult to predict whether or which nAChRs can generate a beneficial effect, the use of nAChR agonists for the treatment of PD has been studied for over 3 decades. Drugs targeting β2-containing nAChRs have been shown to ameliorate PD symptoms in several animal PD models . Compounds that stimulate α7-containing nAChRs have been reported to slow down the degeneration of dopamine neurons . Nonetheless, the star candidate is an old compound: nicotine. Nicotine is a plant alkaloid present in tobacco and a nonselective nAChR agonist. It exhibits the highest binding affinity (Kd < 1 nM) for the α4β2 nAChRs and lowest binding affinity for α7-containing nAChRs (Kd > 1 μM) . Several clinical trials have claimed that nicotine reduces motor symptoms in PD patients, but others found it ineffective [155, 178,179,180]. These discrepancies most likely arise from the design of the studies (many of them did not include a placebo control group) and the different severity of the patients recruited.
Epidemiological studies have consistently shown that smoking is inversely related to susceptibility to PD . While tobacco contains thousands of components, nicotine stands out due to its relatively high abundance in tobacco and its interactions with nAChRs. If its potential neuroprotective effect is real, nicotine or nAChRs will represent a new milestone for PD treatment since current therapies only address the symptoms of PD. Preclinical studies have indeed provided some hints of this possibility. First, nicotine can prevent aggregation of both wild-type and A53T mutant α-synuclein in tubes . Second, in several cell culture models of PD, nicotine treatment can significantly decrease cell loss [182, 183]. Finally, in both 6-OHDA-induced rodent and MPTP-induced primate models of PD, nicotine administration can slow down dopamine neuron degeneration [184, 185]. The mechanisms of the possible neuroprotective effect are still enigmatic. Some biochemical studies have indicated that nicotine might upregulate anti-apoptotic proteins to slow down cell death and enhance the expression of enzymes of the P450 family to reduce neurotoxins [186, 187]. Others using single-cell transcriptomics of midbrain dopamine neurons have identified several genes regulated by nicotine treatment. Interestingly, nicotine did not influence nAChR genes but regulated a series of genes that might contribute to its neuroprotective effect, including genes associated with the ubiquitin-proteasome pathway, cell cycle regulation, and chromatin modification . It is essential to point out that nicotine only protects against ongoing degeneration rather than restore damaged neurons, suggesting that nicotine-based treatments would only be valid in the early stages of PD .
Although some clinical trials have reported improvements in PD symptoms after nicotine treatment, these early studies were generally performed over an observation period of several weeks, which is too short to test any disease-modifying potentials of nicotine. A recently completed placebo-controlled and double-blind multicenter trial, however, reported that chronic transdermal application of nicotine does not influence the progression of PD [179, 180]. One possible explanation for the failure of this trial is the U-shaped dose-response curve of nicotine. Maximal protection is only reached with an intermediate dose, but the clinical trial used a high dose [179, 190]. It is also possible that the benefit of smoking arises from the synergistic effect of other components in tobacco, as smoking also reduces monoamine oxidase activity in the brain, which contributes to the protection of dopamine neurons .
On the other hand, long-term nicotine treatment consistently suppresses LID without developing significant tolerance in several PD animal models [166, 192]. It seems that the effectiveness of nicotine depends on the formation of synaptic plasticity because the therapeutic benefits require chronic administration of the drug and because the effects of the drug are maintained for several weeks after treatment cessation . Nevertheless, the efficacy of nicotine is partially determined by the disease stage and the integrity of nAChRs. Nicotine is only effective in dealing with mild or moderate parkinsonian states but not in treating severe conditions when dopamine neurons are completely lost, likely due to the relatively low number of nAChRs that remained in the late stage of PD .
Substantial efforts toward discovering new therapeutic approaches for the management of PD have been made. Recent progress on the functional dissection of the striatal network has reshaped our understanding of the physiology and pathology of motor control and has shed light on new directions for treating PD symptoms. Although several new reciprocal interactions between the cholinergic and dopaminergic systems have recently been identified, the general principle that the two transmitters functionally antagonize each other in the process of motor control still holds. Suppressing ChI signaling seems to be beneficial for both controlling PD symptoms and slowing down the expression of LID. Despite the complex interactions and adaptations that occur in the striatum in PD, nAChRs are emerging as a promising drug target due to safety and effectiveness compared to other candidates. Although several approaches have been demonstrated to be very effective in rebalancing the direct and indirect pathways, it is essential to point out that none of them alleviated the motor learning deficits associated with severe dopamine decline. Restoring dopaminergic innervation or signaling pathways will be the ultimate goal for PD therapy, which relies on a much deeper understanding of motor control and a combination of various therapeutic strategies beyond pharmacological approaches.
Mayeux R. Epidemiology of neurodegeneration. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2003;26:81–104. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.26.043002.094919.
Erkkinen MG, Kim MO, Geschwind MD. Clinical neurology and epidemiology of the major neurodegenerative diseases. Csh Perspect Biol. 2018;10:a033118. https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a033118.
de Lau LM, Breteler M. Epidemiology of Parkinson’s disease. Lancet Neurol. 2006;5:525–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1474-4422(06)70471-9.
Lang AE, Lozano AM. Parkinson’s disease. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:1130–43. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199810153391607.
Yin HH, Knowlton BJ. The role of the basal ganglia in habit formation. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2006;7:464–76. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1919.
Graybiel A, Aosaki T, Flaherty A, Kimura M. The basal ganglia and adaptive motor control. Science. 1994;265:1826–31. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.8091209.
Hunnicutt BJ, Jongbloets BC, Birdsong WT, Gertz KJ, Zhong H, Mao T. A comprehensive excitatory input map of the striatum reveals novel functional organization. Elife. 2016;5:e19103. https://doi.org/10.7554/elife.19103.
Petreanu L, Mao T, ernson S, Svoboda K. The subcellular organization of neocortical excitatory connections. Nature. 2009;457:1142–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07709.
McGeorge AJ, Faull RLM. The organization of the projection from the cerebral cortex to the striatum in the rat. Neuroscience. 1989;29:503–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-4522(89)90128-0.
Wall NR, De La Parra M, Callaway EM, Kreitzer AC. Differential innervation of direct- and indirect-pathway striatal projection neurons. Neuron. 2013;79:347–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.05.014.
Heiman M, Schaefer A, Gong S, Peterson JD, Day M, Ramsey KE, et al. A translational profiling approach for the molecular characterization of CNS cell types. Cell. 2008;135:738–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2008.10.028.
DeLong MR. Primate models of movement disorders of basal ganglia origin. Trends Neurosci. 1990;13:281–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-2236(90)90110-v.
Gerfen C, Engber T, Mahan L, Susel Z, Chase T, Monsma F, et al. D1 and D2 dopamine receptor-regulated gene expression of striatonigral and striatopallidal neurons. Science. 1990;250:1429–32. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.2147780.
Kravitz AV, Freeze BS, Parker PR, Kay K, Thwin MT, Deisseroth K, et al. Regulation of parkinsonian motor behaviours by optogenetic control of basal ganglia circuitry. Nature. 2010;466:622–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09159.
Dubé L, Smith DA, Bolam PJ. Identification of synaptic terminals of thalamic or cortical origin in contact with distinct medium-size spiny neurons in the rat neostriatum. J Comp Neurol. 1988;267:455–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.902670402.
Chuhma N, Tanaka KF, Hen R, Rayport S. Functional connectome of the striatal medium spiny neuron. J Neurosci. 2011;31:1183–92. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.3833-10.2011.
Grillner S, Robertson B. The basal ganglia over 500 million years. Curr Biol. 2016;26:R1088–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.06.041.
Smith Y, Bevan MD, Shink E, Bolam J. Microcircuitry of the direct and indirect pathways of the basal ganglia. Neuroscience. 1998;86:353–87.
Xu M, Moratalla R, Gold LH, Hiroi N, Koob GF, Graybiel AM, et al. Dopamine D1 receptor mutant mice are deficient in striatal expression of dynorphin and in dopamine-mediated behavioral responses. Cell. 1994;79:729–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-8674(94)90557-6.
Aosaki T, Graybiel A, Kimura M. Effect of the nigrostriatal dopamine system on acquired neural responses in the striatum of behaving monkeys. Science. 1994;265:412–5. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.8023166.
Albin RL, Young AB, Penney JB. The functional anatomy of basal ganglia disorders. Trends Neurosci. 1989;12:366–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-2236(89)90074-x.
Calabresi P, Picconi B, Tozzi A, Ghiglieri V, Filippo M. Direct and indirect pathways of basal ganglia: a critical reappraisal. Nat Neurosci. 2014;17:1022–30. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3743.
Kreitzer AC, Malenka RC. Endocannabinoid-mediated rescue of striatal LTD and motor deficits in Parkinson’s disease models. Nature. 2007;445:643–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05506.
Freeze BS, Kravitz AV, Hammack N, Berke JD, Kreitzer AC. Control of basal ganglia output by direct and indirect pathway projection neurons. J Neurosci. 2013;33:18531–9. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.1278-13.2013.
Gong S, Doughty M, Harbaugh CR, Cummins A, Hatten ME, Heintz N, et al. Targeting Cre recombinase to specific neuron populations with bacterial artificial chromosome constructs. J Neurosci. 2007;27:9817–23. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.2707-07.2007.
Boyden ES, Zhang F, Bamberg E, Nagel G, Deisseroth K. Millisecond-timescale, genetically targeted optical control of neural activity. Nat Neurosci. 2005;8:1263–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1525.
Lee H, Weitz AJ, Bernal-Casas D, Duffy BA, Choy M, Kravitz AV, et al. Activation of direct and indirect pathway medium spiny neurons drives distinct brain-wide responses. Neuron. 2016;91:412–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2016.06.010.
Cui G, Jun S, Jin X, Pham MD, Vogel SS, Lovinger DM, et al. Concurrent activation of striatal direct and indirect pathways during action initiation. Nature. 2013;494:238–42. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11846.
Tecuapetla F, Matias S, Dugue GP, Mainen ZF, Costa RM. Balanced activity in basal ganglia projection pathways is critical for contraversive movements. Nat Commun. 2014;5:4315. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5315.
Tecuapetla F, Jin X, Lima SQ, Costa RM. Complementary contributions of striatal projection pathways to action initiation and execution. Cell. 2016;166:703–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2016.06.032.
Shen W, Flajolet M, Greengard P, Surmeier JD. Dichotomous dopaminergic control of striatal synaptic plasticity. Science. 2008;321:848–51. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1160575.
Panigrahi B, Martin KA, Li Y, Graves AR, Vollmer A, Olson L, et al. Dopamine is required for the neural representation and control of movement vigor. Cell. 2015;162:1418–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2015.08.014.
Mazzoni P, Hristova A, Krakauer JW. Why don’t we move faster? Parkinson’s disease, movement vigor, and implicit motivation. J Neurosci. 2007;27:7105–16. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.0264-07.2007.
Schultz W, Dayan P, Montague P. A neural substrate of prediction and reward. Science. 1997;275:1593–9. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.275.5306.1593.
Howe M, Dombeck D. Rapid signalling in distinct dopaminergic axons during locomotion and reward. Nature. 2016;535:505–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18942.
da Silva J, Tecuapetla F, Paixão V, Costa RM. Dopamine neuron activity before action initiation gates and invigorates future movements. Nature. 2018;554:244. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25457.
Hikosaka O, Takikawa Y, Kawagoe R. Role of the basal ganglia in the control of purposive saccadic eye movements. Physiol Rev. 2000;80:953–78. https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.2000.80.3.953.
Graybiel AM. The basal ganglia and chunking of action repertoires. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 1998;70:119–36. https://doi.org/10.1006/nlme.1998.3843.
Gerfen CR, Surmeier JD. Modulation of striatal projection systems by dopamine. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2011;34:441–66. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-061010-113641.
Matsuda W, Furuta T, Nakamura KC, Hioki H, Fujiyama F, Arai R, et al. Single nigrostriatal dopaminergic neurons form widely spread and highly dense axonal arborizations in the neostriatum. J Neurosci. 2009;29:444–53. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4029-08.2009.
Kempter R, Gerstner W, van Hemmen LJ. Hebbian learning and spiking neurons. Phys Rev E. 1999;59:4498–514. https://doi.org/10.1103/physreve.59.4498.
Yagishita S, Hayashi-Takagi A, Ellis-Davies G, Urakubo H, Ishii S, Kasai H. A critical time window for dopamine actions on the structural plasticity of dendritic spines. Science. 2014;345:1616–20. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1255514.
Rice ME, Cragg SJ. Dopamine spillover after quantal release: rethinking dopamine transmission in the nigrostriatal pathway. Brain Res Rev. 2008;58:303–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresrev.2008.02.004.
Yung K, Bolam J, Smith A, Hersch S, Ciliax B, Levey A. Immunocytochemical localization of D1 and D2 dopamine receptors in the basal ganglia of the rat: light and electron microscopy. Neuroscience. 1995;65:709–30.
Uchigashima M, Ohtsuka T, Kobayashi K, Watanabe M. Dopamine synapse is a neuroligin-2–mediated contact between dopaminergic presynaptic and GABAergic postsynaptic structures. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2016;113:4206–11. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1514074113.
Südhof TC. The presynaoptic active zone. Neuron. 2012;75:11–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.06.012.
Liu C, Kershberg L, Wang J, Schneeberger S, Kaeser PS. Dopamine secretion is mediated by sparse active zone-like release sites. Cell. 2018;172:706–718.e15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2018.01.008.
Liu C, Bickford LS, Held RG, Nyitrai H, Südhof TC, Kaeser PS. The active zone protein family ELKS supports Ca2+ influx at nerve terminals of inhibitory hippocampal neurons. J Neurosci. 2014;34:12289–303. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0999-14.2014.
Daniel JA, Galbraith S, Iacovitti L, Abdipranoto A, Vissel B. Functional heterogeneity at dopamine release sites. J Neurosci. 2009;29:14670–80. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1349-09.2009.
Marcott PF, Mamaligas AA, Ford CP. Phasic dopamine release drives rapid activation of striatal D2-receptors. Neuron. 2014;84:164–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2014.08.058.
Yapo C, Nair AG, Clement L, Castro LR, Kotaleski J, Vincent P. Detection of phasic dopamine by D1 and D2 striatal medium spiny neurons. J Physiol. 2017;595:7451–75. https://doi.org/10.1113/jp274475.
Tritsch NX, Ding JB, Sabatini BL. Dopaminergic neurons inhibit striatal output through non-canonical release of GABA. Nature. 2012;490:262–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11466.
Tritsch NX, Oh WJ, Gu C, Sabatini BL. Midbrain dopamine neurons sustain inhibitory transmission using plasma membrane uptake of GABA, not synthesis. ELife. 2014;3:e01936. https://doi.org/10.7554/elife.01936.
Kim J-II, Ganesan S, Luo SX, Wu Y-WW, Park E, Huang EJ, et al. Aldehyde dehydrogenase 1a1 mediates a GABA synthesis pathway in midbrain dopaminergic neurons. Science. 2015;350:102–6. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4690.
Dautan D, Huerta-Ocampo I, Witten IB, Deisseroth K, Bolam J, Gerdjikov T, et al. A major external source of cholinergic innervation of the striatum and nucleus accumbens originates in the brainstem. J Neurosci. 2014;34:4509–18. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.5071-13.2014.
Lehmann J, Langer S. The striatal cholinergic interneuron: synaptic target of dopaminergic terminals? Neuroscience. 1983;10:1105–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-4522(83)90102-1.
Fu-Ming Z, Liang Y, Dani JA. Endogenous nicotinic cholinergic activity regulates dopamine release in the striatum. Nat Neurosci. 2001;4:1224. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn769.
Bolam J, Wainer B, Smith A. Characterization of cholinergic neurons in the rat neostriatum. A combination of choline acetyltransferase immunocytochemistry, Golgi-impregnation and electron microscopy. Neuroscience. 1984;12:711718. https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-4522(84)90165-9.
Phelps PE, Houser CR, Vaughn JE. Immunocytochemical localization of choline acetyltransferase within the rat neostriatum: a correlated light and electron microscopic study of cholinergic neurons and synapses. J Comp Neurol. 1985;238:286–307. https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.902380305.
Contant C, Umbriaco D, Garcia S, Watkins K. Ultrastructural characterization of the acetylcholine innervation in adult rat neostriatum. Neuroscience. 1996;71:937–47.
Threlfell S, Lalic T, Platt NJ, Jennings KA, Deisseroth K, Cragg SJ. Striatal dopamine release is triggered by synchronized activity in cholinergic interneurons. Neuron. 2012;75:58–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.04.038.
Soliakov L, Gallagher T, Wonnacott S. Anatoxin-a-evoked [3H]dopamine release from rat striatal synaptosomes. Neuropharmacology. 1995;34:1535–41.
Soliakov L, Wonnacott S. Voltage-sensitive Ca2+ channels involved in nicotinic receptor-mediated [3H]dopamine release from rat striatal synaptosomes. J Neurochemistry. 1996;67:163–70.
Jones IW, Bolam PJ, Wonnacott S. Presynaptic localisation of the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor β2 subunit immunoreactivity in rat nigrostriatal dopaminergic neurones. J Comp Neurol. 2001;439:235–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.1345.
Wang L, Shang S, Kang X, Teng S, Zhu F, Liu B, et al. Modulation of dopamine release in the striatum by physiologically relevant levels of nicotine. Nat Commun. 2014;5:3925. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4925.
Mohebi A, Pettibone JR, Hamid AA, Wong JMT, Vinson LT, Patriarchi T, et al. Dissociable dopamine dynamics for learning and motivation. Nature. 2019;570:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1235-y.
Zhou F, Wilson CJ, Dani JA. Cholinergic interneuron characteristics and nicotinic properties in the striatum. J Neurobiol. 2002;53:590–605. https://doi.org/10.1002/neu.10150.
Bennett BD, Callaway JC, Wilson CJ. Intrinsic membrane properties underlying spontaneous tonic firing in neostriatal cholinergic interneurons. J Neurosci. 2000;20:8493–503. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.20-22-08493.2000.
Wilson CJ. The mechanism of intrinsic amplification of hyperpolarizations and spontaneous bursting in striatal cholinergic interneurons. Neuron. 2005;45:575–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2004.12.053.
Zhao Z, Zhang K, Liu X, Yan H, Ma X, Zhang S, et al. Involvement of HCN channel in muscarinic inhibitory action on tonic firing of dorsolateral striatal cholinergic interneurons. Front Cell Neurosci. 2016;10:71. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncel.2016.00071.
Lapper SR, Bolam JP. Input from the frontal cortex and the parafascicular nucleus to cholinergic interneurons in the dorsal striatum of the rat. Neuroscience. 1992;51:533–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-4522(92)90293-b.
Wall NR, Wickersham IR, Cetin A, Parra M, Callaway EM. Monosynaptic circuit tracing in vivo through Cre-dependent targeting and complementation of modified rabies virus. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2010;107:21848–53. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1011756107.
Guo Q, Wang D, He X, Feng Q, Lin R, Xu F, et al. Whole-brain mapping of inputs to projection neurons and cholinergic interneurons in the dorsal striatum. PloS ONE. 2015;10:e0123381. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0123381.
Gonzales K, Pare J, Wichmann T, Smith Y. GABAergic inputs from direct and indirect striatal projection neurons onto cholinergic interneurons in the primate putamen. J Comp Neurol. 2013;521:2502–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.23295.
Sullivan MA, Chen H, Morikawa H. Recurrent inhibitory network among striatal cholinergic interneurons. J Neurosci. 2008;28:8682–90. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.2411-08.2008.
Bergson C, Mrzljak L, Smiley J, Pappy M, Levenson R, Goldman-Rakic P. Regional, cellular, and subcellular variations in the distribution of D1 and D5 dopamine receptors in primate brain. J Neurosci. 1995;15:7821–36. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.15-12-07821.1995.
Yan Z, Song WJ, Surmeier JD. D2 dopamine receptors reduce N-type Ca2+ currents in rat neostriatal cholinergic interneurons through a membrane-delimited, protein-kinase-C-insensitive pathway. J Neurophysiol. 1997;77:1003–15. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.19184.108.40.2063.
Missale C, Nash S, Robinson S, Jaber M, Caron M. Dopamine receptors: from structure to function. Physiol Rev. 1998;78:189–225. https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.19220.127.116.11.
Cabrera-Vera T, Hernandez S, Earls L, Medkova M, Sundgren-Andersson A, Surmeier D, et al. RGS9-2 modulates D2 dopamine receptor-mediated Ca2+ channel inhibition in rat striatal cholinergic interneurons. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2004;101:16339–44. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0407416101.
Deng P, Zhang Y, Xu ZC. Involvement of I h in dopamine modulation of tonic firing in striatal cholinergic interneurons. J Neurosci. 2007;27:3148–56. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.5535-06.2007.
Carr DB, Day M, Cantrell AR, Held J, Scheuer T, Catterall WA, et al. Transmitter modulation of slow, activity-dependent alterations in sodium channel availability endows neurons with a novel form of cellular plasticity. Neuron. 2003;39:793–806. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0896-6273(03)00531-2.
Suzuki T, Miura M, Nishimura K, Aosaki T. Dopamine-dependent synaptic plasticity in the striatal cholinergic interneurons. J Neurosci. 2001;21:6492–501. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.21-17-06492.2001.
Oswald MJ, hulz J, Kelsch W, Oorschot DE, Reynolds JN. Potentiation of NMDA receptor-mediated transmission in striatal cholinergic interneurons. Front Cell Neurosci. 2015;9:116. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncel.2015.00116.
Centonze D, Grande C, Usiello A, Gubellini P, Erbs E, Martín AB, et al. Receptor subtypes involved in the presynaptic and postsynaptic actions of dopamine on striatal interneurons. J Neurosci. 2003;23:6245–54. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.23-15-06245.2003.
Conti MM, Chambers N, Bishop C. A new outlook on cholinergic interneurons in Parkinson’s disease and L-DOPA-induced dyskinesia. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2018;92:67–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.05.021 (Mov. Disord. 16 3 2001).
Azam L, Winzer-Serhan U, Leslie F. Co-expression of α7 and β2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor subunit mRNAs within rat brain cholinergic neurons. Neuroscience. 2003;119:965–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0306-4522(03)00220-3.
Bernard V, Normand E, Bloch B. Phenotypical characterization of the rat striatal neurons expressing muscarinic receptor genes. J Neurosci. 1992;12:3591–600. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.12-09-03591.1992.
Zhang W, Basile AS, Gomeza J, Volpicelli LA, Levey AI, Wess J. Characterization of central inhibitory muscarinic autoreceptors by the use of muscarinic acetylcholine receptor knock-out mice. J Neurosci. 2002;22:1709–17. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.22-05-01709.2002.
Ding J, Guzman JN, Tkatch T, Chen S, Goldberg JA, Ebert PJ, et al. RGS4-dependent attenuation of M4 autoreceptor function in striatal cholinergic interneurons following dopamine depletion. Nat Neurosci. 2006;9:832–42. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1700.
Malenka R, Kocsis J. Presynaptic actions of carbachol and adenosine on corticostriatal synaptic transmission studied in vitro. J Neurosci. 1988;8:3750–6. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.08-10-03750.1988.
Pakhotin P, Bracci E. Cholinergic interneurons control the excitatory input to the striatum. J Neurosci. 2007;27:391–400. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.3709-06.2007.
Ding JB, Guzman JN, Peterson JD, Goldberg JA, Surmeier JD. Thalamic gating of corticostriatal signaling by cholinergic interneurons. Neuron. 2010;67:294–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2010.06.017.
Pancani T, Bolarinwa C, Smith Y, Lindsley CW, Conn JP, Xiang Z. M4 mAChR-mediated modulation of glutamatergic transmission at corticostriatal synapses. Acs Chem Neurosci. 2014;5:318–24. https://doi.org/10.1021/cn500003z.
Hersch GC, Rees H, Heilman C, Levey A. Distribution of M1-M4 muscarinic receptor proteins in the rat striatum: light and electron microscopic immunocytochemistry using subtype-specific antibodies. J Neurosci. 1994;14:3351–63. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.14-05-03351.1994.
Bradfield LA, Bertran-Gonzalez J, Chieng B, Balleine BW. The thalamostriatal pathway and cholinergic control of goal-directed action: interlacing new with existing learning in the striatum. Neuron. 2013;79:153–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.04.039.
Wonnacott S. Presynaptic nicotinic ACh receptors. Trends Neurosci. 1997;20:92–8.
Quik M, Wonnacott S. α6β2* and α4β2* nicotinic acetylcholine receptors as drug targets for Parkinson’s disease. Pharmacol Rev. 2011;63:938–66. https://doi.org/10.1124/pr.110.003269.
Campos F, Alfonso M, Durán R. In vivo modulation of α7 nicotinic receptors on striatal glutamate release induced by anatoxin-A. Neurochem Int. 2010;56:850–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuint.2010.03.010.
Tanimura A, Du Y, Kondapalli J, Wokosin DL, Surmeier JD. Cholinergic interneurons amplify thalamostriatal excitation of striatal indirect pathway neurons in Parkinson’s disease models. Neuron. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2018.12.004.
Yan Z, Flores-Hernandez J, Surmeier D. Coordinated expression of muscarinic receptor messenger RNAs in striatal medium spiny neurons. Neuroscience. 2001;103:1017–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0306-4522(01)00039-2.
Howe A, Surmeier D. Muscarinic receptors modulate N-, P-, and L-type Ca2+ currents in rat striatal neurons through parallel pathways. J Neurosci. 1995;15:458–69. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.15-01-00458.1995.
Surmeier DJ, Bargas J, Hemmings HC, Nairn AC, Greengard P. Modulation of calcium currents by a D1 dopaminergic protein kinase/phosphatase cascade in rat neostriatal neurons. Neuron. 1995;14:385–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/0896-6273(95)90294-5.
Shen W, Hamilton SE, Nathanson NM, Surmeier JD. Cholinergic suppression of KCNQ channel currents enhances excitability of striatal medium spiny neurons. J Neurosci. 2005;25:7449–58. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.1381-05.2005.
Day M, Wokosin D, Plotkin JL, Tian X, Surmeier JD. Differential excitability and modulation of striatal medium spiny neuron dendrites. J Neurosci. 2008;28:11603–14. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.1840-08.2008.
Shen W, Tian X, Day M, Ulrich S, Tkatch T, Nathanson NM, et al. Cholinergic modulation of Kir2 channels selectively elevates dendritic excitability in striatopallidal neurons. Nat Neurosci. 2007;10:1458–66. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1972.
Shen W, Plotkin JL, Francardo V, Ko W, Xie Z, Li Q, et al. M4 muscarinic receptor signaling ameliorates striatal plasticity deficits in models of L-DOPA-induced dyskinesia. Neuron. 2015;88:762–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.10.039.
Novere N, Zoli M, Changeux JP. Neuronal nicotinic receptor a6 subunit mRNA is selectively concentrated in catecholaminergic nuclei of the rat brain. Eur J Neurosci. 1996;8:2428–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.1996.tb01206.x.
Hill J, Zoli M, Bourgeois J, Changeux J. Immunocytochemical localization of a neuronal nicotinic receptor: the beta 2-subunit. J Neurosci. 1993;13:1551–68.
Clarke P, Pert A. Autoradiographic evidence for nicotine receptors on nigrostriatal and mesolimbic dopaminergic neurons. Brain Res. 1985;348:355–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-8993(85)90456-1.
Grady S, Marks MJ, Wonnacott S, Collins AC. Characterization of nicotinic receptor-mediated [3 H]dopamine release from synaptosomes prepared from mouse striatum. J Neurochem. 1992;59:848–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-4159.1992.tb08322.x.
El‐Bizri H, Clarke PBS. Blockade of nicotinic receptor‐mediated release of dopamine from striatal synaptosomes by chlorisondamine and other nicotinic antagonists administered in vitro. Br J Pharmacol. 1994;111:406–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-5381.1994.tb14749.x.
Rice ME, Cragg SJ. Nicotine amplifies reward-related dopamine signals in striatum. Nat Neurosci. 2004;7:583–4. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1244.
Exley R, Clements MA, Hartung H, McIntosh MJ, Cragg SJ. α6-Containing nicotinic acetylcholine receptors dominate the nicotine control of dopamine neurotransmission in nucleus accumbens. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2008;33:2158. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.npp.1301617.
Zhang H, Sulzer D. Frequency-dependent modulation of dopamine release by nicotine. Nat Neurosci. 2004;7:581–2. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1243.
Surmeier JD, Graybiel AM. A feud that wasn’t: acetylcholine evokes dopamine release in the striatum. Neuron. 2012;75:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.06.028.
Cachope R, Mateo Y, Mathur BN, Irving J, Wang H-L, Morales M, et al. Selective activation of cholinergic interneurons enhances accumbal phasic dopamine release: setting the tone for reward processing. Cell Rep. 2012;2:33–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2012.05.011.
Nelson AB, Hammack N, Yang CF, Shah NM, Seal RP, Kreitzer AC. Striatal cholinergic interneurons drive GABA release from dopamine terminals. Neuron. 2014;82:63–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2014.01.023.
Howe M, Ridouh I, Mascaro AL, Larios A, Azcorra M, Dombeck DA. Coordination of rapid cholinergic and dopaminergic signaling in striatum during spontaneous movement. ELife. 2019;8. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.44903.
Witten IB, Lin SC, Brodsky M, Prakash R, Diester I, Anikeeva P, et al. Cholinergic interneurons control local circuit activity and cocaine conditioning. Science. 2010;330:1677–81. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1193771.
Maurice N, Liberge M, Jaouen F, Ztaou S, Hanini M, Camon J, et al. Striatal cholinergic interneurons control motor behavior and basal ganglia function in experimental Parkinsonism. Cell Rep. 2015;13:657–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2015.09.034.
Kaneko S, Hikida T, Watanabe D, Ichinose H, Nagatsu T, Kreitman RJ, et al. Synaptic integration mediated by striatal cholinergic interneurons in basal ganglia function. Science. 2000;289:633–7. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.289.5479.633.
Nicolle MM, Baxter MG. Glutamate receptor binding in the frontal cortex and dorsal striatum of aged rats with impaired attentional set‐shifting. Eur J Neurosci. 2003;18:3335–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2003.03077.x.
Ragozzino ME, Jih J, Tzavos A. Involvement of the dorsomedial striatum in behavioral flexibility: role of muscarinic cholinergic receptors. Brain Res. 2002;953:205–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0006-8993(02)03287-0.
Ragozzino ME, Ragozzino KE, Mizumori SJ, Kesner RP. Role of the dorsomedial striatum in behavioral flexibility for response and visual cue discrimination learning. Behav Neurosci. 2002;116:105–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7044.116.1.105.
Floresco SB, Ghods-Sharifi S, Vexelman C, Magyar O. Dissociable roles for the nucleus accumbens core and shell in regulating set shifting. J Neurosci. 2006;26:2449–57. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.4431-05.2006.
Yamaguchi T, Goto A, Nakahara I, Yawata S, Hikida T, Matsuda M, et al. Role of PKA signaling in D2 receptor-expressing neurons in the core of the nucleus accumbens in aversive learning. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2015;112:11383–8. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1514731112.
McCool MF, Patel S, Talati R, Ragozzino ME. Differential involvement of M1-type and M4-type muscarinic cholinergic receptors in the dorsomedial striatum in task switching. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2008;89:114–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2007.06.005.
Tzavos A, Jih J, Ragozzino ME. Differential effects of M1 muscarinic receptor blockade and nicotinic receptor blockade in the dorsomedial striatum on response reversal learning. Behav Brain Res. 2004;154:245–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2004.02.011.
Okada K, Nishizawa K, Fukabori R, Kai N, Shiota A, Ueda M, et al. Enhanced flexibility of place discrimination learning by targeting striatal cholinergic interneurons. Nat Commun. 2014;5:3778 https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4778.
Morris G, Arkadir D, Nevet A, Vaadia E, Bergman H. Coincident but distinct messages of midbrain dopamine and striatal tonically active neurons. Neuron. 2004;43:133–43.
Schulz JM, Reynolds J. Pause and rebound: sensory control of cholinergic signaling in the striatum. Trends Neurosci. 2013;36:41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2012.09.006.
Cazorla M, de Carvalho F, Chohan MO, Shegda M, Chuhma N, Rayport S, et al. Dopamine D2 receptors regulate the anatomical and functional balance of basal ganglia circuitry. Neuron. 2014;81:153–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.10.041.
Chuhma N, Mingote S, Moore H, Rayport S. Dopamine neurons control striatal cholinergic neurons via regionally heterogeneous dopamine and glutamate signaling. Neuron. 2014;81:901–12.
Straub C, Tritsch NX, Hagan NA, Gu C, Sabatini BL. Multiphasic modulation of cholinergic interneurons by nigrostriatal afferents. J Neurosci. 2014;34:8557–69. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.0589-14.2014.
Zhang Y-F, Reynolds J, Cragg SJ. Pauses in cholinergic interneuron activity are driven by excitatory input and delayed rectification, with dopamine modulation. Neuron. 2018;98:918–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2018.04.027.
Cai Y, Ford CP. Dopamine cells differentially regulate striatal cholinergic transmission across regions through corelease of dopamine and glutamate. Cell Rep. 2018;25:3148–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2018.11.053.
Zhai S, Tanimura A, Graves SM, Shen W, Surmeier JD. Striatal synapses, circuits, and Parkinson’s disease. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2018;48:9–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2017.08.004.
Emamzadeh FN, Surguchov A. Parkinson’s disease: biomarkers, treatment, and risk factors. Front Neurosci. 2018;12:612. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2018.00612.
Engelender S, Isacson O. The threshold theory for Parkinson’s disease. Trends Neurosci. 2017;40:4–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2016.10.008.
Day M, Wang Z, Ding J, An X, Ingham CA, Shering AF, et al. Selective elimination of glutamatergic synapses on striatopallidal neurons in Parkinson disease models. Nat Neurosci. 2006;9:251–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1632.
Tanimura A, Pancani T, Lim SO, Tubert C, Melendez AE, Shen W, et al. Striatal cholinergic interneurons and Parkinson’s disease. Eur J Neurosci. 2018;47:1148–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.13638.
Mori F, Tanji K, Zhang H, Kakita A, Takahashi H, Wakabayashi K. α-Synuclein pathology in the neostriatum in Parkinson’s disease. Acta Neuropathol. 2008;115:453–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00401-007-0316-4.
DeBoer P, Abercrombie ED, Heeringa M, Westerink BHC. differential effect of systemic administration of bromocriptine andl-DOPA on the release of acetylcholine from striatum of intact and 6-OHDA-treated rats. Brain Res. 1993;608:198–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-8993(93)91459-6.
Salin P, López IP, Kachidian P, Barroso-Chinea P, Rico AJ, Gómez-Bautista V, et al. Changes to interneuron-driven striatal microcircuits in a rat model of Parkinson’s disease. Neurobiol Dis. 2009;34:545–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbd.2009.03.006.
Knol R, de Bruin K, Opmeer B, Voorn P, Jonker AJ, van Eck-Smit B, et al. Decreased ipsilateral [123I]iododexetimide binding to cortical muscarinic receptors in unilaterally 6-hydroxydopamine lesioned rats. Nucl Med Biol. 2014;41:90–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucmedbio.2013.10.003.
Quik M. Smoking, nicotine and Parkinson’s disease. Trends Neurosci. 2004;27:561–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2004.06.008.
Bordia T, Grady SR, McIntosh MJ, Quik M. Nigrostriatal damage preferentially decreases a subpopulation of α6β2* nAChRs in mouse, monkey, and Parkinson’s disease striatum. Mol Pharmacol. 2007;72:52–61. https://doi.org/10.1124/mol.107.035998.
Barker RA, Götz M, Parmar M. New approaches for brain repair—from rescue to reprogramming. Nature. 2018;557:329–34. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0087-1.
Wang Z, Kai L, Day M, Ronesi J, Yin HH, Ding J, et al. Dopaminergic control of corticostriatal long-term synaptic depression in medium spiny neurons is mediated by cholinergic interneurons. Neuron. 2006;50:443–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2006.04.010.
Whyte R, Hunter K, Laurence D, Stern G, Armitage P. Levodopa and orphenadrine hydrochloride in parkinsonism. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1971;4:18–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00568893.
Voon V, Fernagut P-O, Wickens J, Baunez C, Rodriguez M, Pavon N, et al. Chronic dopaminergic stimulation in Parkinson’s disease: from dyskinesias to impulse control disorders. Lancet Neurol. 2009;8:1140–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1474-4422(09)70287-x.
Zhang D, Mallela A, Sohn D, Carroll IF, Bencherif M, Letchworth S, et al. Nicotinic receptor agonists reduce l-DOPA–induced dyskinesias in a monkey model of Parkinson’s disease. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2013;347:225–34. https://doi.org/10.1124/jpet.113.207639.
Bordia T, Perez XA, Heiss JE, Zhang D, Quik M. Optogenetic activation of striatal cholinergic interneurons regulates L-dopa-induced dyskinesias. Neurobiol Dis. 2016;91:47–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbd.2016.02.019.
Bordia T, McGregor M, McIntosh J, Enan R, Quik M. Evidence for a role for α6∗ nAChRs in l-dopa-induced dyskinesias using parkinsonian α6∗ nAChR gain-of-function mice. Neuroscience. 2015;295:187–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2015.03.040.
Quik M, Perez XA, Bordia T. Nicotine as a potential neuroprotective agent for Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord. 2012;27:947–57. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.25028.
Quik M, O’Neill M, Perez XA. Nicotine neuroprotection against nigrostriatal damage: importance of the animal model. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2007;28:229–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tips.2007.03.001.
Chen H, Huang X, Guo X, Mailman R, Park Y, Kamel F, et al. Smoking duration, intensity, and risk of Parkinson disease. Neurology. 2010;74:878–84. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0b013e3181d55f38.
Lang A. When and how should treatment be started in Parkinson disease?. Neurology. 2009;72:S39–43. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0b013e318198e177.
Lang AE, Espay AJ. Disease modification in Parkinson’s disease: current approaches, challenges, and future considerations. Mov Disord. 2018;33:660–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.27360.
Jenner P. Molecular mechanisms of L-DOPA-induced dyskinesia. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2008;9:665–77. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2471.
Konitsiotis S, Bargiotas P. Levodopa-induced dyskinesias in Parkinson’s disease: emerging treatments. Neuropsych Dis Treat. 2013;9:1605. https://doi.org/10.2147/ndt.s36693.
Jeon J, Dencker D, Wörtwein G, Woldbye DP, Cui Y, Davis AA, et al. A subpopulation of neuronal M4 muscarinic acetylcholine receptors plays a critical role in modulating dopamine-dependent behaviors. J Neurosci. 2010;30:2396–405. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.3843-09.2010.
Mamaligas AA, Ford CP. Spontaneous synaptic activation of muscarinic receptors by striatal cholinergic neuron firing. Neuron. 2016;91:574–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2016.06.021.
Won L, Ding Y, Singh P, Kang U. Striatal cholinergic cell ablation attenuates l-DOPA induced dyskinesia in Parkinsonian mice. J Neurosci. 2014;34:3090–4. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.2888-13.2014.
Quik M, Cox H, Parameswaran N, O’Leary K, Langston WJ, Monte D. Nicotine reduces levodopa-induced dyskinesias in lesioned monkeys. Ann Neurol. 2007;62:588–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.21203.
Huang LZ, Campos C, Ly J, Carroll IF, Quik M. Nicotinic receptor agonists decrease L-dopa-induced dyskinesias most effectively in partially lesioned parkinsonian rats. Neuropharmacology. 2011;60:861–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropharm.2010.12.032.
Quik M, Campos C, Grady SR. Multiple CNS nicotinic receptors mediate L-dopa-induced dyskinesias: studies with parkinsonian nicotinic receptor knockout mice. Biochem Pharmacol. 2013;86:1153–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcp.2013.06.027.
Charvin D, Medori R, Hauser RA, Rascol O. Therapeutic strategies for Parkinson disease: beyond dopaminergic drugs. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd.2018.136.
Gotti C, Riganti L, Vailati S, Clementi F. Brain neuronal nicotinic receptors as new targets for drug discovery. Curr Pharmacol Des. 2006;12:407–28. https://doi.org/10.2174/138161206775474486.
Palma E, Conti L, Roseti C, Limatola C. Novel approaches to study the involvement of α7-nAChR in human diseases. Curr Drug Targets. 2012;13:579–86. https://doi.org/10.2174/138945012800398838.
Pagano G, Rengo G, Pasqualetti G, Femminella G, Monzani F, Ferrara N, et al. Cholinesterase inhibitors for Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2014;86:767–73. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2014-308764.
Takahashi S, Tohgi H, Yonezawa H, Obara S, Yamazaki E. The effect of trihexyphenidyl, an anticholinergic agent, on regional cerebral blood flow and oxygen metabolism in patients with Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol Sci. 1999;167:56–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-510x(99)00142-2.
Nikiforuk A, Kos T, Potasiewicz A, Popik P. Positive allosteric modulation of alpha 7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptors enhances recognition memory and cognitive flexibility in rats. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2015;25:1300–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroneuro.2015.04.018.
Vallés A, Borroni M, Barrantes FJ. Targeting brain α7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in Alzheimer’s disease: rationale and current status. CNS Drugs. 2014;28:975–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40263-014-0201-3.
Kucinski A, Wersinger S, Stachowiak EK, Corso TD, Parry MJ, Zhang J, et al. Neuronal nicotinic receptor agonists ameliorate spontaneous motor asymmetries and motor discoordination in a unilateral mouse model of Parkinson’s disease. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2013;111:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbb.2013.07.005.
Stuckenholz V, Bacher M, Balzer-Geldsetzer M, Alvarez-Fischer D, Oertel WH, Dodel RC, et al. The α7 nAChR agonist PNU-282987 reduces inflammation and MPTP-induced nigral dopaminergic cell loss in mice. J Park Dis. 2013;3:161–72. https://doi.org/10.3233/jpd-120157.
Daly JW. Nicotinic agonists, antagonists, and modulators from natural sources. Cell Mol Neurobiol. 2005;25:513–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10571-005-3968-4.
Group T. Randomized placebo-controlled study of the nicotinic agonist SIB-1508Y in Parkinson disease. Neurology. 2006;66:408–10. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000196466.99381.5c.
Villafane G, Thiriez C, Audureau E, Straczek C, Kerschen P, Cormier‐Dequaire F, et al. High‐dose transdermal nicotine in Parkinson’s disease patients: a randomized, open‐label, blinded‐endpoint evaluation phase 2 study. Eur J Neurol. 2018;25:120–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/ene.13474.
Villafane G, Cesaro P, Rialland A, Baloul S, Azimi S, Bourdet C, et al. Chronic high dose transdermal nicotine in Parkinson’s disease: an open trial. Eur J Neurol. 2007;14:1313–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-1331.2007.01949.x.
Hong DP, Fink AL, Uversky VN. Smoking and Parkinson’s disease: does nicotine affect α-synuclein fibrillation?. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2009;1794:282–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbapap.2008.09.026.
Lu J, Su P, Barber J, Nash JE, Le AD, Liu F, et al. The neuroprotective effect of nicotine in Parkinson’s disease models is associated with inhibiting PARP-1 and caspase-3 cleavage. PeerJ. 2017;5:e3933. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3933.
Höllerhage M, Goebel J, Andrade DA, Oertel W, Hengerer B, Höglinger G. Caffeine and nicotine are protective in a new model of α-synuclein mediated cell death in vitro. Basal Ganglia. 2013;3:42 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baga.2013.01.010.
Quik M, Parameswaran N, McCallum SE, Bordia T, Bao S, McCormack A, et al. Chronic oral nicotine treatment protects against striatal degeneration in MPTP‐treated primates. J Neurochem. 2006;98:1866–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-4159.2006.04078.x.
Costa G, Abin-Carriquiry J, Dajas F. Nicotine prevents striatal dopamine loss produced by 6-hydroxydopamine lesion in the substantia nigra11Published on the World Wide Web on 1 December 2000. Brain Res. 2001;888:336–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0006-8993(00)03087-0.
Dasgupta P, Kinkade R, Joshi B, DeCook C, Haura E, Chellappan S. Nicotine inhibits apoptosis induced by chemotherapeutic drugs by up-regulating XIAP and survivin. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2006;103:6332–7. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0509313103.
Miksys S, Tyndale R. Nicotine induces brain CYP enzymes: relevance to Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsons Dis Relat Disord. 2006;70:177–80.
Henley BM, Williams BA, nivasan R, Cohen BN, Xiao C, Mackey ED, et al. Transcriptional regulation by nicotine in dopaminergic neurons. Biochem Pharmacol. 2013;86:1074–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcp.2013.07.031.
Huang LZ, Parameswaran N, Bordia T, McIntosh MJ, Quik M. Nicotine is neuroprotective when administered before but not after nigrostriatal damage in rats and monkeys. J Neurochem. 2009;109:826–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-4159.2009.06011.x.
Ryan R, Ross S, Drago J, Loiacono R. Dose‐related neuroprotective effects of chronic nicotine in 6‐hydroxydopamine treated rats, and loss of neuroprotection in α4 nicotinic receptor subunit knockout mice. Br J Pharmacol. 2001;132:1650–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjp.0703989.
Castagnoli KP, Steyn SJ, Petzer JP, der Schyf CJ, Castagnoli N. Neuroprotection in the MPTP Parkinsonian C57BL/6 mouse model by a compound isolated from tobacco. Chem Res Toxicol. 2001;14:523–7. https://doi.org/10.1021/tx000224v.
Bordia T, Campos C, Huang L, Quik M. Continuous and intermittent nicotine treatment reduces l-3,4-Dihydroxyphenylalanine (l-DOPA)-induced dyskinesias in a rat model of Parkinson’s disease. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2008;327:239–47. https://doi.org/10.1124/jpet.108.140897.
Quik M, Mallela A, Chin M, McIntosh MJ, Perez XA, Bordia T. Nicotine-mediated improvement in L-dopa-induced dyskinesias in MPTP-lesioned monkeys is dependent on dopamine nerve terminal function. Neurobiol Dis. 2012;50:30–41.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbd.2012.09.006.
We thanks Xintong Cai for comments on the paper. This work was supported by the Gordon Fellowship from Harvard Medical School (to Changliang Liu).
The author declares no competing interest.
About this article
Cite this article
Liu, C. Targeting the cholinergic system in Parkinson’s disease. Acta Pharmacol Sin 41, 453–463 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41401-020-0380-z
This article is cited by
Neurotoxicity Research (2021)
Acta Pharmacologica Sinica (2020)