Next Article in Journal
Cytochalasin B Modulates Nanomechanical Patterning and Fate in Human Adipose-Derived Stem Cells
Next Article in Special Issue
Across Dimensions: Developing 2D and 3D Human iPSC-Based Models of Fragile X Syndrome
Previous Article in Journal
Identification of UDP-Glucuronosyltransferase 2B15 (UGT2B15) as a Target for IGF1 and Insulin Action
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effects of Soy-Based Infant Formula on Weight Gain and Neurodevelopment in an Autism Mouse Model
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

New Animal Models for Understanding FMRP Functions and FXS Pathology

1
REI Division, Department of ObGyn, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
2
Washington National Primate Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
3
Program in Neuroscience, Department of Biomedical Sciences, College of Medicine, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cells 2022, 11(10), 1628; https://doi.org/10.3390/cells11101628
Submission received: 21 March 2022 / Revised: 3 May 2022 / Accepted: 9 May 2022 / Published: 12 May 2022

Abstract

:
Fragile X encompasses a range of genetic conditions, all of which result as a function of changes within the FMR1 gene and abnormal production and/or expression of the FMR1 gene products. Individuals with Fragile X syndrome (FXS), the most common heritable form of intellectual disability, have a full-mutation sequence (>200 CGG repeats) which brings about transcriptional silencing of FMR1 and loss of FMR protein (FMRP). Despite considerable progress in our understanding of FXS, safe, effective, and reliable treatments that either prevent or reduce the severity of the FXS phenotype have not been approved. While current FXS animal models contribute their own unique understanding to the molecular, cellular, physiological, and behavioral deficits associated with FXS, no single animal model is able to fully recreate the FXS phenotype. This review will describe the status and rationale in the development, validation, and utility of three emerging animal model systems for FXS, namely the nonhuman primate (NHP), Mongolian gerbil, and chicken. These developing animal models will provide a sophisticated resource in which the deficits in complex functions of perception, action, and cognition in the human disorder are accurately reflected and aid in the successful translation of novel therapeutics and interventions to the clinic setting.

1. Introduction

Fragile X syndrome (FXS), the most common form of heritable intellectual disability, is caused by a disruption of the fragile X mental retardation 1 gene (FMR1; also called fragile X messenger ribonucleoprotein 1 gene) on the X chromosome and the resultant absence of FMR protein (FMRP) [1,2]. For the most part, the loss of FMRP is caused by the expansion of the trinucleotide CGG repeat in the 5′ UTR of the FMR1 gene [3]. Loss of FMRP results in the characteristic features of FXS, including mild to severe intellectual disability, cognitive impairments, seizures, poor language development, altered physical features such as macroorchidism and facial dysmorphisms, and behavioral problems such as social difficulties, anxiety, hyperactivity, hypersensitivity to sensory stimuli, and other autistic-like behaviors [4,5,6,7,8]. Behavioral deficits in FXS can be detected as early as infancy and toddlerhood and can last a lifetime (reviewed in [9]).
There are no known naturally occurring animal models of Fragile X disorders. Current animal models of FXS, both invertebrate (Drosophila, fruit fly [10,11,12]) and vertebrate (Mus, mouse; Rattus, rat; Danio, zebrafish [13,14,15,16,17,18,19]), have focused on loss-of-function models with disruption or knockout (KO) of the FMR1 gene homolog. Given the degree of brain homology between mouse and human, the mouse model has provided valuable insight into regional neuropathological effects resulting from a loss of FMRP. Using established test batteries, the mouse and more recently the rat have also informed our understanding of the learning, motor, cognitive, and behavioral deficits associated with FXS [20,21,22]. However, results from FXS rodent models have been inconsistent [14,17,23,24], perhaps due to the challenges of modeling higher cognitive functions and social behaviors in these species and limitations specific to sensory, biochemical, and anatomical differences between humans and rodents. The fruit fly has a single FMR1 gene homolog (dFmr1) that has allowed for the development of several loss-of-function mutations to model FXS [10,12]. The homozygous mutants display abnormal behavior along with altered synaptogenesis and spermatogenesis, which may in part resemble the human FXS phenotype [25,26,27]. The strength of the fly model lies in its high-throughput genetic and pharmacological screening capabilities and accompanying lower costs and greater speed in identifying novel pathways and processes that contribute to or protect against FXS. However, the limited homology between fly and human proteins means that candidate molecules and pathways identified in the fly model ultimately require further testing in a mammalian model of FXS before translation to clinical trials. More recently, a new vertebrate model system with which to study FXS has been generated: Fmr1 KO zebrafish [15,19]. Similar to the fruit fly, zebrafish models are of interest because they have the potential to contribute significantly to high-throughput drug screening and rescue studies [28,29,30]. However, the zebrafish does not possess the complex behavioral phenotypes found in higher order mammals.
The existing FXS animal models each contribute a unique understanding to the molecular, cellular, physiological, and behavioral deficits associated with FXS. In particular, the mouse and fly models have been instrumental in the identification of several molecular mechanisms that may underlie this disorder [31,32,33,34,35]. As a result, several targeted drug therapies have been tested in clinical trials [36,37,38,39] and while some have shown improvement in clinical outcomes, there remains a need for safe and effective treatments for FXS individuals. With the limited availability of FXS patients for enrollment and the cost and time associated with clinical trials, animal models will continue to play an important role in identifying and testing candidate compounds with therapeutic promise. This review explores the potential of new animal model systems that are in development to support and promote basic, translational, and clinical studies of FXS.

2. Strategies and Current Status in the Development of a Nonhuman Primate Model of FXS

Developing a nonhuman primate (NHP) model of FXS requires a systematic and strategic approach to meet the challenges of ethics, cost, and timeline that typifies research involving NHPs. However, efforts to meet these challenges are worthwhile given the translational value that the NHP represents to substantially address the limitations encountered with current model systems. An NHP model would contribute significantly to the understanding of higher cognitive functions controlled by the prefrontal cortex [40], complex social behaviors that incorporate visual and auditory cues [41,42], neurotransmitter and neuromodulatory systems [43], brain connectivity where cell type and size are important [44,45], and neurodevelopmental timelines [46,47] associated with early learning, puberty, and the aging process in FXS. Here, we outline two key strategies for the development of NHP disease models and the current status of NHP models for FXS.
Historically, gene editing in macaques has been laborious and inefficient. While notable successes with virus-mediated transgenesis have produced disease models including Huntington and Rett disease in the NHP, limitations due to the random insertion of size-limited exogenous genes coupled with very low efficiency in live birth outcomes hampered initial efforts [48,49,50,51]. With the advent of engineered nucleases such as TALEN and CRISPR/Cas9, efficient point or indel mutation of endogenous genes has greatly expanded the possibility for generating NHP models of human disease. Although these new tools are more promising in terms of NHP model fidelity and efficiency, consideration for unique requirements such as housing, specialized embryology skills, and experienced care for offspring and their long-term maintenance remain and necessitate that these endeavors are undertaken at established and accredited primate centers.
Ideally, the production of a new animal model should strive for high construct validity to recapitulate the human genetic condition. Of note, only apes—a subset of old-world primates that includes the macaque—and the squirrel monkey, a new world primate, have been identified as having FMR1 CGG repeat lengths within the normal human range (23–45 repeats), although these are differentiated in old-world primates by one to three single G interruptions rather than the AGG observed in the human [52,53,54,55]. In the context of FXS, high construct validity would either require the insertion of an expanded CGG repeat under FMR1’s endogenous promoter to cause its hypermethylation and inactivation or destabilization of the endogenous repeat tract perhaps through removal of the ‘G’ interruption/s to permit in situ CGG repeat expansion. Under these conditions, the NHP FXS model would reveal to a greater extent interaction of the expanding/ed repeat with a toxic gain-of-function role and associated loss of FMRP. It has so far been proven to be technically difficult to manipulate long, pure CGG repeats for transgenic purposes. While a full mutation knock-in has not been successful and our own efforts to knock-in a human pre-mutation construct (CGG99) into macaque ESCs has thus far been unsuccessful, a premutation knock-in mouse model has been achieved. This mouse model has provided critical insight into repeat instability and expansion mechanisms, although subsequent full mutation length (>200) CGG repeats have not demonstrated the expected hypermethylation or gene silencing of FMR1 [56,57]. In the human, FMR1 gene deletions, promoter variants, missense, and nonsense mutations also result in an FXS phenotype [58,59,60,61] and formed the basis of a recent knock-in mouse that offers a new preclinical model for testing FXS drug candidates [62].
Currently, the best approach to developing an animal model of FXS continues to involve a loss-of-function strategy. We propose two main strategies for developing an NHP model of FXS that considers the practicalities and limitations as well as the ethics for working with this species. The first strategy (Strategy 1: Figure 1) involves zygote injection: Gene editing products are injected either into the pronucleus or cytoplasm of the embryo shortly after fertilization. This approach mirrors techniques used extensively in mouse model development, in which animal numbers and short generational intervals permit the selection and expansion of the desired genotype/phenotype [63,64,65]. Delivery of engineered nucleases into zygotes by electroporation has been tested in a range of species. It provides a faster and technically easier option that has reported high rates of embryo survival and targeting efficiency with a reduced incidence of mosaicism [66,67,68]. For application to the NHP, the strategy should also include a plan to identify or select mutant embryos prior to performing embryo transfer into recipient females. This allows a reduction in recipient number and avoids production of wild-type infants or infants that harbor an unsuitable or mosaic mutation. Use of a fluorescent reporter would permit some assurance that early embryos carry the mutation while trophoblast biopsy at the blastocyst stage would permit screening and sequencing of a mutation prior to transfer. Inclusion of embryo sex determination would also allow identification of female and male embryos and an opportunity to assess allele heterozygosity and mosaicism [68,69,70]. Efforts to reduce the possibility of somatic mosaicism, which could complicate subsequent studies, should be made to ensure efficient utilization of the NHP resource Additionally, establishing pregnancies with embryos of a known FMR1 genotype provides a basis for including measures of gestational morphometrics and establishment of FXS-related pregnancy morphometrics that may contribute further to the identification of physical and possibly molecular biomarkers as this model system develops.
An alternate strategy (Strategy 2; Figure 1), which has been highly successful in mice [71,72], is the embryonic stem cell (ESC)-embryo complementation approach for the formation of chimeras. This approach has the benefit of identifying and validating a specific FMR1 mutation in a macaque ESC (mqESC) system prior to its use in generating a whole animal model. Early efforts to produce ESC-embryo chimeras in the NHP using blastocyst complementation were unsuccessful [73], possibly due to inherent differences in blastocyst development between mouse and primate embryos [74,75]. However, aggregation of naive and primed-state mqESCs with morula stage embryos did result in chimeric fetuses with contribution of the mqESCs across all three germ lineages [76] With further refinements in methodology, live born ESC-chimeric macaques have now been produced with evidence of germline transmission [77]. With additional improvements in in vitro culture conditions and understanding of differing states of primate stem cell pluripotency, the generation of high-contribution and germline ESC-chimeras in the NHP may soon be realized [78,79,80].
Exploring both strategies, we designed TALENs to introduce mutations within regions known to cause the FXS phenotype in the highly conserved residues of the K-homology domains [81,82,83,84]. The KH0 domain in Exon 6 and the KH1/KH2 domain in Exon 9 are domains largely responsible for FMRP’s ability to bind mRNA and associate with polyribosomes [58]. In the human, frameshift and missense mutations in or near these regions have resulted in moderate to severe FXS phenotype in the absence of an expanded trinucleotide repeat sequence [81,82]. When tested in mqESCs, mutation rates ranged from 0.41 to 0.61 for Exons 6 and 9, respectively, with deletions from 2 to >750 bp. We observed >75% loss of FMRP with a concomitant reduction in FMR1 expression in these KO mqESCs. Interestingly, we also observed in some KO mqESC lines truncated FMR proteins with very low/null full length FMRP. While there are some FXS individuals that present with FMR1 variants that result in truncated FMRP [60,85], targeting the FMR1 promoter and Exon 1 and 2 regions in the macaque to generate a true null phenotype may prove a better strategy. When we injected these same TALENs directly into macaque zygotes, the embryos produced showed loss of FMRP expression.
Recently, CRIPSR/Cas9 technology was employed to generate a marmoset model of FXS [86]. In this study, cytoplasmic injection of gRNA targeting the FMR1 coding region resulted in six newborns from 27 transferred embryos carrying deletions ranging from 1 to 21 bp. Unfortunately, only one infant, notable for a mosaic genotype, survived beyond 8 days. Germline transmission of the FMR1 mutant allele (15 bp deletion) has been confirmed in this male, representing the first founder animal for a NHP model of FXS. In human FXS pregnancies, FMR1 remains transcriptionally active during early embryonic development before becoming silenced, although differences in the timing of gene methylation in fetal and chorionic villi are noted [87,88]. This distinction may be important in higher mammals/primates versus rodents and may be implicated in the lethal phenotype observed in the marmoset FMR1 KO model.
Whichever approach is taken, the primary objective is to establish germline transmission of the mutant allele, characterize the founder population, and generate high-value FXS infants. Consideration for the care of FMR1 KO infants, particularly those with a severe phenotype, is necessary and facilities should be prepared to provide experienced nursery and veterinary care for these potentially medically fragile infants. Under standard housing conditions, NHP infants are born and raised under the care of their mother, usually in a group setting. While it is unclear from the marmoset outcomes if the reported outcomes were a direct or indirect result of the FMR1 KO [86], there remains a paucity of information about how an NHP FXS model will present. At birth NHP infants, like humans, are completely dependent on maternal care and it is conceivable that NHP FXS infants may have deficits that could impact their ability to cling at birth, vocalize or demonstrate appropriate auditory responses or thrive due to gastrointestinal issues [89]. Furthermore, if seizure activity is present, timely and effective interventions may be necessary but difficult to administer in the setting of maternal rearing. Additionally, while infanticide amongst primates is uncommon, infant abandonment or abuse can occur, particularly with young or first-time mothers [90]. Until there is a clear understanding of the physical and behavioral phenotype in NHP FXS infants, a conservative approach would be to employ nursery or hand-rearing to successfully raise and socialize infants [91].
The NHP has the potential to provide a sophisticated model in which deficits in higher cognitive function and behavior can be associated with the loss of FMRP to accurately reflect the human disorder. The similarities between the NHP and human brain with respect to anatomy and size facilitates studies involving noninvasive imaging modalities of FXS pathology, while longitudinal studies would provide a high impact system in which to study deficits in complex functions of perception, action, and cognition associated with FXS. New and targeted therapies would also benefit because an NHP model can best mimic the neurological, endocrine, and metabolic processes of the human and facilitate preclinical studies with multi-target approaches. Similarly, the endo- and behavioral phenotype and associated age-dependent effects of FXS would be ideally suited to the NHP model. With better access to very early postnatal time points, studies aimed at early detection as well as early intervention strategies can also be undertaken. Additionally, the longer lifespan of the NHP allows for the inclusion of longitudinal studies in which to characterize the dynamic nature of FXS and potentially identify moderators or mediators of the phenotype. Finally, identification of novel cellular and molecular mechanisms may prove to be useful targets for intervention in FXS as well as other autism-related disorders in the human, such as Rett syndrome and Angelman syndrome, which similarly involve deficits in higher cognitive function and abnormal behaviors.

3. The Mongolian Gerbil Is a More Human-like Rodent Species for Modeling Sensory Dysfunction and Social Difficulties in FXS as Compared to Mice and Rats

A fundamental function of the brain is to process, integrate, and interpret sensory information for decision making. Sensation emerges before birth and early in life, playing important roles in the construction, maturation, maintenance, and plasticity of brain network systems. Sensory deficits are a hallmark feature of many types of neurodevelopmental disorders including FXS [92,93]. Given that vertebrate species including humans share general organization of sensory systems, several rodent species, particularly mice, rats, and gerbils, are used as model organisms for understanding sensory processing mechanisms and sensory–cognition interactions under both physiological and pathological conditions [18,94,95,96,97]. However, there are inherent differences between mice, rats, and humans in their sensory ability, along with anatomical and functional variations at key aspects of sensory processing.
One marked example lies in the auditory system. Hearing is most sensitive for humans at frequencies below 4 kHz and for mice at 16 kHz (Figure 2a) [98,99]. Particularly, the normal human voice range is roughly 100 Hz–2 kHz [100], which is a frequency range that mice barely hear and rats have a high threshold for (shaded area in Figure 2a). Humans also use this low frequency range for computing interaural time differences (ITDs) [101,102], a main binaural cue for sound segregation including speech recognition in noise. Given the central role of sound segregation and vocal communication in language development and social interaction, understanding how FMRP loss impairs neuronal processing of low frequency sounds is expected to provide an important and likely necessary avenue for understanding FXS pathology. Thus, there is a critical need for additional animal models for examining whether, and if so how, deficits in processing low-frequency sounds underlie auditory dysfunction and poor language development in FXS.
A gerbil model of FXS is expected to help fill this important gap. Along with mice and rats, Mongolian gerbils (Meriones unguiculatus) belong to the Muridae family of rodentia [103]. Upon splitting with lineage leading to mice and rats roughly 20 million years ago [104,105], gerbils have developed certain specializations that make them of interest in sensory neuroscience. In the auditory system, gerbils have a large inner ear, which is related to good low-frequency hearing, and their hearing range covers most of the human audiogram (Figure 2a) [106,107]. In the brain, gerbils have a well-developed medial superior olive (MSO) (Figure 2b), the first auditory cell center specialized for binaural hearing using low frequency sounds [108,109]. In contrast, the MSO in mice is small [110,111], consistent with their low sensitivity to low-frequency sounds. Importantly, healthy humans have an enormous and well-organized MSO [112,113], consistent with the importance of ITD computation and low-frequency processing. With these human-like features, the Mongolian gerbil is one of the most studied experimental systems for auditory research, with an abundance of basic psychoacoustical data available [114,115] along with a huge foundation of knowledge on the structure and physiological properties of auditory neurons including MSO neurons; to name a few [116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125]. Such knowledge provides the foundation for accurately assessing auditory deficits under pathological conditions such as FXS. The MSO circuit offers a particularly attractive location in the brain for this study. For example, MSO neurons exhibit a high level of dendritic FMRP in both humans and gerbils [126]. Postmortem examination of FXS brains revealed significant MSO dysmorphology including reduced neuron numbers and abnormal neuron morphology [127,128,129].
Mongolian gerbils also have unique features in the visual system that make them an advantageous model for studies of vision under healthy and FXS conditions. Like humans, gerbils are primarily diurnal. As compared to nocturnal mice and rats, gerbils have superior acuity and better photopic vision [132,133]. The gerbil retina has a higher percentage of cone photoreceptors (13%) as compared to mice and rats (1–3%) [134,135]. Gerbils have been used to study the development and physiology of the retina [136,137] and have served as a model for understanding and treating retina pathological conditions including degenerative diseases, infections, and other types of damage [138,139,140,141]. Although there is no study of FMRP in the gerbil retina yet, FMRP expression has been documented in the developing and mature retina of humans, mice, rats, and chickens [142,143,144]. In the brain, FMRP is expressed differentially along the visual pathways of NHP and mice [145,146]. Under pathological conditions, FXS individuals exhibit macular dysplasia [147] and impaired functions for processing stimulus movement information [145]. Remarkably, FMRP level is tightly associated with visual temporal performance among healthy individuals [148] and FMR1 premutation carriers [149]. Studies of Fmr1 KO mice further demonstrated reduced retina signal transmission and retina perception [150,151] and impaired visual circuit organization and information processing in the midbrain [150,152] in the absence of FMRP.
In addition to sensory processing, gerbils provide an advantageous model for understanding social communication deficits in FXS. Mongolian gerbils have well-developed social structures and distinctive behavioral characteristics that are not observed in mice and rats. For example, like humans, gerbils establish monogamous breeding pairs and display a clear influence of paternal parenting on pup development [153]. Consistently, there is evidence that individual housing impairs gerbils’ social behavior [154,155]. Additionally, gerbils explore frequently the open arms of a radial maze following repeated exposures, a behavior not observed in mice and rats [156]. Therefore, the gerbil may serve as a suitable model for exploring genetic and molecular mechanisms of social and other behaviors that more closely resemble human conditions than mice and rats.
Metabolic studies of FXS could be another area that Mongolian gerbils could serve as an experimental model. In Fmr1 knockout mice, mitochondrial alterations have been repeatedly reported, including altered expression of mitochondrial genes, impaired mitochondrial fusion, increased oxidative stress, and reduced ATP production [157,158,159,160,161,162]. Mongolian gerbils have a greater capacity of temperature regulation and a higher metabolic rate than other rodents including mice and rats [163] and have been a popular model for studying thermoregulation under various conditions (e.g., [164,165]) and oxidative stress-mediated cerebral ischemia (reviewed in [166]). They are also used for understanding salt/water homeostasis [167] and vitamin A biosynthesis [168]. Interestingly, an association between thermoregulatory grooming and social behaviors was reported in this species [169,170].
Finally, gerbils are well suited to study epilepsy (seizures), another common pathological condition in FXS. Hyperactivity and seizures are common in FXS [9]. Approximately 10–25% of children with FXS exhibit seizures [89,171,172]. Gerbils are known to have high susceptibility to seizures [173,174]. Studies in gerbils have identified multiple seizure-inducing mechanisms including GABAergic-dependent synaptic transmission [175,176,177]. Given that seizures during early life can result in long-lasting cognitive impairments in Fmr1 KO mice [178], gerbil models of FXS have a high potential to help understand seizure generation in FXS children and further assess the impact of seizures on other cognitive and behavioral phenotypes of FXS.
The technical feasibility of developing gerbil models of FXS has been greatly enhanced with recent advancements in gerbil genome sequencing and genetic-editing tool development. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated zygote genome editing via assisted reproductive techniques enables highly efficient production of mammalian KO animals without establishing ESC lines and comprehensive genetic analyses [179,180]. Completion of the sequencing and initial annotation of the gerbil genome [181,182] would help eliminate possible off-targets while designing CRISPR/Cas9 constructs. Comparative sequencing analyses also demonstrated a high degree of similarity genome-wide and with Fmr1 specifically between the gerbil, mouse, and human [182]. Although the development of a Fmr1 KO gerbil is still on the way, CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gerbil KO strains for several other genes have recently been developed [183]. Altogether, these lines of work promise the feasibility of producing and validating Fmr1 KO gerbils.
In conclusion, Mongolian gerbils have excellent sensitivity to low-frequency sounds that are used for speech perception, superior visual perception with a high level of cone composition in the retina, and complex social architecture and behaviors as compared to mice and rats. These more human-like characteristics render the use of gerbils for more closely recapitulating the sensory and communication deficits observed in FXS humans, particularly those associated with auditory and visual information processing and those mediating social-based behaviors. Gerbils are also suited to study epilepsy and metabolic deficits, common conditions associated with FXS. Experimentally, gerbils are diurnal, quickly bred, and are easy to handle in captivity. Upon the availability of FXS gerbils, auditory brain circuits could provide precise morphological and functional assessments of FMRP loss, and auditory deficits are relatively easy to assess behaviorally, a big advantage over more complex learning or cognitive tasks. With this advantage, therapeutic approaches can be rigorously tested. Therefore, a disease model of FXS in gerbils promises to bring new insight into understanding FXS pathology and can be easily adopted for basic research and preclinical therapeutic tests.

4. Chicken Embryos Are a Useful Model Organism for In-Depth Dissection of FMRP Function in Assembling Neural Circuits and for Identification of the Emergence of FXS Neuropathology

Underappreciation of developmental mechanisms is another critical knowledge gap in the field of neurodevelopmental disorders. As the most frequent monogenetic form of autism and intellectual disability, FXS is at the frontier of efforts for drug development in treating neurodevelopmental disorders. In normal brains, FMRP is an RNA binding protein that provides spatiotemporal control of RNA trafficking and protein translation in dendrites and axons [184], an essential function for synaptic development and circuit assembly [185]. From studying Fmr1 KO animal models, much is known about cellular and molecular alterations in the brain at adolescent and adult ages when behavioral deficits are evident. This includes but is not limited to altered cellular and synaptic proteomes, impaired postsynaptic plasticity, and subtle but significant morphological changes in dendrites and axons [9]. Although it is commonly assumed that many deficits in FXS are derived from development, we know very little about how these deficits are generated. Similarly, very little effort has been made to prevent the initial generation of such deficits at young ages when the brain is less damaged. This lack of knowledge is very significant given the recent discovery in invertebrates that the requirement of FMRP expression for normal brain function is tightly restricted to an early developmental period [186,187,188]. Intriguingly, FXS individuals indeed show early-onset behavioral alterations and social visual engagement starting in infancy [9,189]. Thus, determining FMRP function during the embryonic stages of circuit development in vertebrates will be the beginning of a deeper understanding of FXS neuropathology.
The chicken is one of the most versatile experimental systems available for life sciences [189]. Specifically, chicken embryos provide a model organism with unique benefits for developmental studies of FXS at the molecular and cellular levels. First, both chickens and humans are precocious, meaning that a large portion of brain developmental events take place during embryonic stages. Neuron birth, differentiation, and migration at early stages are followed by neural circuit assembly during the late embryonic stage (the third trimester of human gestation). This is in contrast to rodents, in which massive synaptic connections are established after birth during the first several postnatal weeks. This difference could be highly relevant as birth-associated events could play significant roles in autism pathogenesis (reviewed in [190]). Second, easy access to chicken embryos in ovo allows site-specific genetic manipulations with a high degree of spatial and temporal control, an ability that has not been achieved by in utero manipulations in mammals. Combined with temporal control using drug-inducible vector systems, this approach reduces potential accumulating and compensatory effects during development as well as transneuronal influence from interacting synaptic components, thus allowing FMRP function determination with high precision. Third, chickens possess neural circuits that are organized and function in comparable manners as mammals and yet with a less complicated brain anatomy. This allows sensitive assessment of changes in neuronal structure and properties in abnormal brain development without losing clinical relevance to human diseases.
The chicken homolog of the FMR1 gene was first cloned and characterized in 1996 [191]. The nucleotide and amino acid sequences of chicken FMRP are remarkably similar to human FMRP (85% and 92% identities, respectively), with identical phosphorylation and mRNA binding sites [126,191]. Indeed, the chicken FMRP binds a subset of brain mRNAs including its own mRNA [191,192], and the binding motif of FMR1 gene is conserved between human and chicken [193]. Recently, genome-wide molecular characterizations of chickens from embryonic to adult stages became available [194], further enhancing the broadness and depth of genetic studies in chickens.
Studies of chicken embryos following targeted FMRP misexpression have uncovered a number of novel FMRP functions in developing auditory neurons and circuits. It is well-established that auditory hindbrain assembly shares the same developmental framework between birds and mammals [195,196]. Chickens are low-frequency listeners, within a hearing frequency range of up to 4–5 kHz. The two key excitatory nuclei of the chicken auditory brainstem, the nucleus magnocellularis (NM) and nucleus laminaris (NL), are structurally and functionally similar to the mammalian anteroventral cochlear nucleus and MSO, respectively. NM neurons receive temporally locked excitation from the auditory ganglion neurons in the inner ear, and in turn, send bilaterally segregated signals to the NL. Like the mammalian MSO, bipolar neurons in the avian NL are specialized to compute ITD for sound localization and segregation [197,198]. Structure and physiological properties of developing and mature NM and NL neurons are well-characterized (e.g., [199,200,201,202,203,204,205,206,207,208,209,210]), providing an enormous advantage for designing experiments and interpreting results.
The journey for understanding FMRP function in the NM–NL circuit began with the identification of intensive FMRP expression in NM and NL neurons [126]. Proteomic analyses of tissue samples collected specifically from these auditory cell groups provided a list of putative mRNA targets of FMRP relevant to NM and NL neurons [192]. Subsequently, FMRP actions during NM and NL development were examined in vivo [211,212], adopting genetic approaches using drug-inducible constructs that affect the target throughout development or during specific time windows [213]. Specifically, drug-inducible Fmr1-shRNA constructs were delivered via in ovo electroporation into NM precursor cells at an early embryonic stage, producing a mosaicism of FMRP expression in NM neurons, with reduced and normal FMRP levels in neighboring transfected and nontransfected neurons, respectively. This pattern allows for robust statistical analyses between FMRP-deficient and FMRP-intact neurons, axons, and terminals within the same local environment. This is very significant because it avoids individual variations that are inherent with between-animal comparisons, the predominant strategy used in studies of KO animal models. Studies on chicken embryos have made several important observations pertaining to FMRP functions (Figure 3). First, a cell-autonomous effect of FMRP deficiency on dendritic development was observed [212]. Normally, auditory nerve axons form large axosomatic endbulb synapses on the cell bodies of NM neurons. These neurons grow extensive dendrites at early stages and retract these dendrites when endbulbs begin to form. Neurons transfected with Fmr1 shRNA exhibited a remarkable delay in dendritic branch retraction, which is expected to affect dendritic integration of afferent inputs and timely formation of large endbulb terminals. Second, a transsynaptic effect was observed on the incoming auditory nerve terminals. FMRP reduction in NM neurons led to smaller presynaptic endbulbs with a reduced morphological complexity. Patch-clamp recording from FMRP-shRNA-transfected NM neurons confirmed functional consequences of dendritic and synaptic deficits on neurotransmission, showing smaller amplitudes and slower kinetics of spontaneous and evoked excitatory postsynaptic potentials. Third, examining the developmental trajectory of NM axons projecting upon NL dendrites revealed additional roles of FMRP in axon growth and projection [212]. CRISPR or shRNA-mediated FMRP KO and knockdown resulted in disorganized axonal bundling, delay in midline crossing, and aberrant axon over-projection within the NL. These effects may be associated with local acute effects of FMRP loss, an idea that is supported by the presence of FMRP-containing puncta along the developing NM axons. Thus, FMRP in NM neurons has a diverse range of functions depending on the subcellular sites of protein localization.
While they are a newly established model for FMRP and FXS research, chicken embryos have a long-standing history for studying a wide variety of neurodevelopmental disorders. These include neural tube-related diseases [214], fetal alcohol spectrum syndrome [215,216], and Joubert syndrome [217]. Chicken embryos are also used for studying drug- and virus-induced abnormal brain development [218,219]. This diversity will facilitate the identification of underlying mechanisms that are common across diseases of distinct etiology. Intriguingly, chicken embryos have been promoted for use as a pharmacology model in replace/reduce use of rodents [219]. Further advancement in this field would enable direct application of the knowledge gained from studying chicken embryos to preclinical studies.

5. Conclusions

New animal organisms have been adopted or are in development for FXS research and are expected to fill several important gaps that existing animal models have not filled. We anticipate that an NHP model of FXS will provide a unique series of molecular and phenotypic features and provide an exciting opportunity to address a range of neurological questions that link cellular, molecular and behavioral phenotypes in FXS and potentially other autism spectrum disorders. Modeling FXS in Mongolian gerbils is expected to more closely recapitulate the sensory and communication deficits observed in FXS, particularly those associated with auditory and visual information processing and those mediating social-based behaviors. Finally, advanced genetic and imaging approaches in chicken embryos allow in-depth characterization of FMRP functions during circuit assembly periods with high temporal and spatial resolutions and clinical relevance. These models, along with existing rodent and invertebrate models, are expected to contribute significantly to the next phase of FXS research and neurodevelopmental disorder studies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, writing, and funding acquisition, E.C. and Y.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

NHP work was supported by funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH; R21HD071876) and pilot award funds supported by grant number P51 OD010425, which is the core grant of the Washington National Primate Research Center to E.C. Gerbil and chicken work was funded by NIH, grant numbers DC13074 (Y.W.), DC17267 (Y.W. and E.C.), MH126176 (Y.W.).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We thank Terra Bradley for the careful editing of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Pieretti, M.; Zhang, F.P.; Fu, Y.H.; Warren, S.T.; Oostra, B.A.; Caskey, C.T.; Nelson, D.L. Absence of Expression of the FMR-1 Gene in Fragile X Syndrome. Cell 1991, 66, 817–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Verheij, C.; Bakker, C.E.; de Graaff, E.; Keulemans, J.; Willemsen, R.; Verkerk, A.J.; Galjaard, H.; Reuser, A.J.; Hoogeveen, A.T.; Oostra, B.A. Characterization and Localization of the FMR-1 Gene Product Associated with Fragile X Syndrome. Nature 1993, 363, 722–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Zhao, X.; Usdin, K. (Dys)Function Follows Form: Nucleic Acid Structure, Repeat Expansion, and Disease Pathology in FMR1 Disorders. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 9167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Largo, R.H.; Schinzel, A. Developmental and Behavioural Disturbances in 13 Boys with Fragile X Syndrome. Eur. J. Pediatr. 1985, 143, 269–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hagerman, R.J. Fragile X Syndrome. Curr. Probl. Pediatr. 1987, 17, 621–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Reiss, A.L.; Freund, L.S.; Baumgardner, T.L.; Abrams, M.T.; Denckla, M.B. Contribution of the FMR1 Gene Mutation to Human Intellectual Dysfunction. Nat. Genet. 1995, 11, 331–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Boyle, L.; Kaufmann, W.E. The Behavioral Phenotype of FMR1 Mutations. Am. J. Med. Genet. C. Semin. Med. Genet. 2010, 154C, 469–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Cregenzán-Royo, O.; Brun-Gasca, C.; Fornieles-Deu, A. Behavior Problems and Social Competence in Fragile X Syndrome: A Systematic Review. Genes 2022, 13, 280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hagerman, R.J.; Berry-Kravis, E.; Hazlett, H.C.; Bailey, D.B.; Moine, H.; Kooy, R.F.; Tassone, F.; Gantois, I.; Sonenberg, N.; Mandel, J.L.; et al. Fragile X Syndrome. Nat. Rev. Dis. Primers 2017, 3, 17065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zarnescu, D.C.; Shan, G.; Warren, S.T.; Jin, P. Come FLY with Us: Toward Understanding Fragile X Syndrome. Genes Brain Behav. 2005, 4, 385–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Banerjee, P.; Nayar, S.; Hebbar, S.; Fox, C.F.; Jacobs, M.C.; Park, J.H.; Fernandes, J.J.; Dockendorff, T.C. Substitution of Critical Isoleucines in the KH Domains of Drosophila Fragile X Protein Results in Partial Loss-of-Function Phenotypes. Genetics 2007, 175, 1241–1250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Drozd, M.; Bardoni, B.; Capovilla, M. Modeling Fragile X Syndrome in Drosophila. Front. Mol. Neurosci. 2018, 11, 124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bakker, C.; Verheiji, C.; Willemsen, R.; Vanderhelm, R.; Oerlemanns, F.; Vermey, M.; Bygrave, A.; Hoogeveen, A.; Oostra, B.; Reyniers, E.; et al. Fmr1 Knockout Mice: A Model to Study Fragile X Mental Retardation. The Dutch-Belgian Fragile X Consortium. Cell 1994, 78, 23–33. [Google Scholar]
  14. Mientjes, E.J.; Nieuwenhuizen, I.; Kirkpatrick, L.; Zu, T.; Hoogeveen-Westerveld, M.; Severijnen, L.; Rifé, M.; Willemsen, R.; Nelson, D.L.; Oostra, B.A. The Generation of a Conditional Fmr1 Knock out Mouse Model to Study Fmrp Function in Vivo. Neurobiol. Dis. 2006, 21, 549–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Den Broeder, M.J.; van der Linde, H.; Brouwer, J.R.; Oostra, B.A.; Willemsen, R.; Ketting, R.F. Generation and Characterization of FMR1 Knockout Zebrafish. PLoS ONE 2009, 4, e7910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Till, S.M.; Asiminas, A.; Jackson, A.D.; Katsanevaki, D.; Barnes, S.A.; Osterweil, E.K.; Bear, M.F.; Chattarji, S.; Wood, E.R.; Wyllie, D.J.A.; et al. Conserved Hippocampal Cellular Pathophysiology but Distinct Behavioural Deficits in a New Rat Model of FXS. Hum. Mol. Genet. 2015, 24, 5977–5984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Tian, Y.; Yang, C.; Shang, S.; Cai, Y.; Deng, X.; Zhang, J.; Shao, F.; Zhu, D.; Liu, Y.; Chen, G.; et al. Loss of FMRP Impaired Hippocampal Long-Term Plasticity and Spatial Learning in Rats. Front. Mol. Neurosci. 2017, 10, 269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Dahlhaus, R. Of Men and Mice: Modeling the Fragile X Syndrome. Front. Mol. Neurosci. 2018, 11, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hu, J.; Chen, L.; Yin, J.; Yin, H.; Huang, Y.; Tian, J. Hyperactivity, Memory Defects, and Craniofacial Abnormalities in Zebrafish Fmr1 Mutant Larvae. Behav. Genet. 2020, 50, 152–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Musumeci, S.A.; Bosco, P.; Calabrese, G.; Bakker, C.; De Sarro, G.B.; Elia, M.; Ferri, R.; Oostra, B.A. Audiogenic Seizures Susceptibility in Transgenic Mice with Fragile X Syndrome. Epilepsia 2000, 41, 19–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Spencer, C.M.; Alekseyenko, O.; Serysheva, E.; Yuva-Paylor, L.A.; Paylor, R. Altered Anxiety-Related and Social Behaviors in the Fmr1 Knockout Mouse Model of Fragile X Syndrome. Genes Brain. Behav. 2005, 4, 420–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. De Vrij, F.M.S.; Levenga, J.; van der Linde, H.C.; Koekkoek, S.K.; De Zeeuw, C.I.; Nelson, D.L.; Oostra, B.A.; Willemsen, R. Rescue of Behavioral Phenotype and Neuronal Protrusion Morphology in Fmr1 KO Mice. Neurobiol. Dis. 2008, 31, 127–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Spencer, C.M.; Alekseyenko, O.; Hamilton, S.M.; Thomas, A.M.; Serysheva, E.; Yuva-Paylor, L.A.; Paylor, R. Modifying Behavioral Phenotypes in Fmr1KO Mice: Genetic Background Differences Reveal Autistic-like Responses. Autism Res. 2011, 4, 40–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Leach, P.T.; Hayes, J.; Pride, M.; Silverman, J.L.; Crawley, J.N. Normal Performance of Fmr1 Mice on a Touchscreen Delayed Nonmatching to Position Working Memory Task. eNeuro 2016, 3, ENEURO.0143-15.2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Pan, L.; Zhang, Y.Q.; Woodruff, E.; Broadie, K. The Drosophila Fragile X Gene Negatively Regulates Neuronal Elaboration and Synaptic Differentiation. Curr. Biol. 2004, 14, 1863–1870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Zhang, Y.Q.; Matthies, H.J.G.; Mancuso, J.; Andrews, H.K.; Woodruff, E.; Friedman, D.; Broadie, K. The Drosophila Fragile X-Related Gene Regulates Axoneme Differentiation during Spermatogenesis. Dev. Biol. 2004, 270, 290–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Chang, S.; Bray, S.M.; Li, Z.; Zarnescu, D.C.; He, C.; Jin, P.; Warren, S.T. Identification of Small Molecules Rescuing Fragile X Syndrome Phenotypes in Drosophila. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2008, 4, 256–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Tropepe, V.; Sive, H.L. Can Zebrafish Be Used as a Model to Study the Neurodevelopmental Causes of Autism? Genes Brain Behav. 2003, 2, 268–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Mathur, P.; Guo, S. Use of Zebrafish as a Model to Understand Mechanisms of Addiction and Complex Neurobehavioral Phenotypes. Neurobiol. Dis. 2010, 40, 66–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Kalueff, A.V.; Stewart, A.M.; Gerlai, R. Zebrafish as an Emerging Model for Studying Complex Brain Disorders. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 2014, 35, 63–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Bear, M.F.; Huber, K.M.; Warren, S.T. The mGluR theory of fragile X mental retardation. Trends Neurosci. 2004, 27, 370–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. D’Hulst, C.; Kooy, R.F. The GABAA Receptor: A Novel Target for Treatment of Fragile X? Trends Neurosci. 2007, 30, 425–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Braat, S.; D’Hulst, C.; Heulens, I.; De Rubeis, S.; Mientjes, E.; Nelson, D.L.; Willemsen, R.; Bagni, C.; Van Dam, D.; De Deyn, P.P.; et al. The GABAA Receptor Is an FMRP Target with Therapeutic Potential in Fragile X Syndrome. Cell Cycle 2015, 14, 2985–2995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Telias, M. Molecular Mechanisms of Synaptic Dysregulation in Fragile X Syndrome and Autism Spectrum Disorders. Front. Mol. Neurosci. 2019, 12, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Richter, J.D.; Zhao, X. The Molecular Biology of FMRP: New Insights into Fragile X Syndrome. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2021, 22, 209–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Budimirovic, D.B.; Dominick, K.C.; Gabis, L.V.; Adams, M.; Adera, M.; Huang, L.; Ventola, P.; Tartaglia, N.R.; Berry-Kravis, E. Gaboxadol in Fragile X Syndrome: A 12-Week Randomized, Double-Blind, Parallel-Group, Phase 2a Study. Front. Pharmacol. 2021, 12, 757825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Champigny, C.; Morin-Parent, F.; Bellehumeur-Lefebvre, L.; Çaku, A.; Lepage, J.-F.; Corbin, F. Combining Lovastatin and Minocycline for the Treatment of Fragile X Syndrome: Results From the LovaMiX Clinical Trial. Front. Psychiatry 2021, 12, 762967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Protic, D.D.; Aishworiya, R.; Salcedo-Arellano, M.J.; Tang, S.J.; Milisavljevic, J.; Mitrovic, F.; Hagerman, R.J.; Budimirovic, D.B. Fragile X Syndrome: From Molecular Aspect to Clinical Treatment. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 1935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Available online: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (accessed on 17 February 2022).
  40. Kaas, J.H. The Evolution of Brains from Early Mammals to Humans. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Cogn. Sci. 2013, 4, 33–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Anacker, A.M.J.; Beery, A.K. Life in Groups: The Roles of Oxytocin in Mammalian Sociality. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 2013, 7, 185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Freeman, S.M.; Young, L.J. Comparative Perspectives on Oxytocin and Vasopressin Receptor Research in Rodents and Primates: Translational Implications. J. Neuroendocrinol. 2016, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Quik, M.; Polonskaya, Y.; Gillespie, A.; Jakowec, M.; Lloyd, G.K.; Langston, J.W. Localization of Nicotinic Receptor Subunit MRNAs in Monkey Brain by in Situ Hybridization. J. Comp. Neurol. 2000, 425, 58–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Van der Staay, F.J. Animal Models of Behavioral Dysfunctions: Basic Concepts and Classifications, and an Evaluation Strategy. Brain Res. Rev. 2006, 52, 131–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ventura-Antunes, L.; Mota, B.; Herculano-Houzel, S. Different Scaling of White Matter Volume, Cortical Connectivity, and Gyrification across Rodent and Primate Brains. Front. Neuroanat. 2013, 7, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Liu, C.; Tian, X.; Liu, H.; Mo, Y.; Bai, F.; Zhao, X.; Ma, Y.; Wang, J. Rhesus Monkey Brain Development during Late Infancy and the Effect of Phencyclidine: A Longitudinal MRI and DTI Study. Neuroimage 2015, 107, 65–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Otani, T.; Marchetto, M.C.; Gage, F.H.; Simons, B.D.; Livesey, F.J. 2D and 3D Stem Cell Models of Primate Cortical Development Identify Species-Specific Differences in Progenitor Behavior Contributing to Brain Size. Cell Stem Cell 2016, 18, 467–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Chan, A.W.; Chong, K.Y.; Martinovich, C.; Simerly, C.; Schatten, G. Transgenic Monkeys Produced by Retroviral Gene Transfer into Mature Oocytes. Science 2001, 291, 309–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Yang, S.-H.; Cheng, P.-H.; Banta, H.; Piotrowska-Nitsche, K.; Yang, J.-J.; Cheng, E.C.H.; Snyder, B.; Larkin, K.; Liu, J.; Orkin, J.; et al. Towards a Transgenic Model of Huntington’s Disease in a Non-Human Primate. Nature 2008, 453, 921–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Liu, Z.; Li, X.; Zhang, J.-T.; Cai, Y.-J.; Cheng, T.-L.; Cheng, C.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, C.-C.; Nie, Y.-H.; Chen, Z.-F.; et al. Autism-like Behaviours and Germline Transmission in Transgenic Monkeys Overexpressing MeCP2. Nature 2016, 530, 98–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Park, J.E.; Zhang, X.F.; Choi, S.-H.; Okahara, J.; Sasaki, E.; Silva, A.C. Generation of Transgenic Marmosets Expressing Genetically Encoded Calcium Indicators. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 34931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Eichler, E.E.; Kunst, C.B.; Lugenbeel, K.A.; Ryder, O.A.; Davison, D.; Warren, S.T.; Nelson, D.L. Evolution of the Cryptic FMR1 CGG Repeat. Nat. Genet. 1995, 11, 301–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Eichler, E.E.; Hammond, H.A.; Macpherson, J.N.; Ward, P.A.; Nelson, D.L. Population Survey of the Human FMR1 CGG Repeat Substructure Suggests Biased Polarity for the Loss of AGG Interruptions. Hum. Mol. Genet. 1995, 4, 2199–2208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Garcia Arocena, D.; Breece, K.E.; Hagerman, P.J. Distribution of CGG Repeat Sizes within the Fragile X Mental Retardation 1 (FMR1) Homologue in a Non-Human Primate Population. Hum. Genet. 2003, 113, 371–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Namdar-Aligoodarzi, P.; Mohammadparast, S.; Zaker-Kandjani, B.; Talebi Kakroodi, S.; Jafari Vesiehsari, M.; Ohadi, M. Exceptionally Long 5′ UTR Short Tandem Repeats Specifically Linked to Primates. Gene 2015, 569, 88–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Brouwer, J.R.; Mientjes, E.J.; Bakker, C.E.; Nieuwenhuizen, I.M.; Severijnen, L.A.; Van der Linde, H.C.; Nelson, D.L.; Oostra, B.A.; Willemsen, R. Elevated Fmr1 MRNA Levels and Reduced Protein Expression in a Mouse Model with an Unmethylated Fragile X Full Mutation. Exp. Cell Res. 2007, 313, 244–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Entezam, A.; Biacsi, R.; Orrison, B.; Saha, T.; Hoffman, G.E.; Grabczyk, E.; Nussbaum, R.L.; Usdin, K. Regional FMRP Deficits and Large Repeat Expansions into the Full Mutation Range in a New Fragile X Premutation Mouse Model. Gene 2007, 395, 125–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  58. Siomi, H.; Choi, M.; Siomi, M.C.; Nussbaum, R.L.; Dreyfuss, G. Essential Role for KH Domains in RNA Binding: Impaired RNA Binding by a Mutation in the KH Domain of FMR1 That Causes Fragile X Syndrome. Cell 1994, 77, 33–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Handt, M.; Epplen, A.; Hoffjan, S.; Mese, K.; Epplen, J.T.; Dekomien, G. Point Mutation Frequency in the FMR1 Gene as Revealed by Fragile X Syndrome Screening. Mol. Cell Probes 2014, 28, 279–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Quartier, A.; Poquet, H.; Gilbert-Dussardier, B.; Rossi, M.; Casteleyn, A.-S.; des Portes, V.; Feger, C.; Nourisson, E.; Kuentz, P.; Redin, C.; et al. Intragenic FMR1 Disease-Causing Variants: A Significant Mutational Mechanism Leading to Fragile-X Syndrome. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2017, 25, 423–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  61. Tekendo-Ngongang, C.; Grochowsky, A.; Solomon, B.D.; Yano, S.T. Beyond Trinucleotide Repeat Expansion in Fragile X Syndrome: Rare Coding and Noncoding Variants in FMR1 and Associated Phenotypes. Genes 2021, 12, 1669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Prieto, M.; Folci, A.; Poupon, G.; Schiavi, S.; Buzzelli, V.; Pronot, M.; François, U.; Pousinha, P.; Lattuada, N.; Abelanet, S.; et al. Missense Mutation of Fmr1 Results in Impaired AMPAR-Mediated Plasticity and Socio-Cognitive Deficits in Mice. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 1557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Zhang, T.; Yin, Y.; Liu, H.; Du, W.; Ren, C.; Wang, L.; Lu, H.; Zhang, Z. Generation of VDR Knock-Out Mice via Zygote Injection of CRISPR/Cas9 System. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0163551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Zuo, E.; Cai, Y.-J.; Li, K.; Wei, Y.; Wang, B.-A.; Sun, Y.; Liu, Z.; Liu, J.; Hu, X.; Wei, W.; et al. One-Step Generation of Complete Gene Knockout Mice and Monkeys by CRISPR/Cas9-Mediated Gene Editing with Multiple SgRNAs. Cell Res. 2017, 27, 933–945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Leidy-Davis, T.; Cheng, K.; Goodwin, L.O.; Morgan, J.L.; Juan, W.C.; Roca, X.; Ong, S.T.; Bergstrom, D.E. Viable Mice with Extensive Gene Humanization (25-Kbp) Created Using Embryonic Stem Cell/Blastocyst and CRISPR/Zygote Injection Approaches. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 15028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Hashimoto, M.; Yamashita, Y.; Takemoto, T. Electroporation of Cas9 Protein/SgRNA into Early Pronuclear Zygotes Generates Non-Mosaic Mutants in the Mouse. Dev. Biol 2016, 418, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Challa, A.K.; Stanford, D.; Allen, A.; Rasmussen, L.; Amanor, F.K.; Raju, S.V. Validation of Gene Editing Efficiency with CRISPR-Cas9 System Directly in Rat Zygotes Using Electroporation Mediated Delivery and Embryo Culture. MethodsX 2021, 8, 101419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Tanihara, F.; Hirata, M.; Nguyen, N.T.; Sawamoto, O.; Kikuchi, T.; Otoi, T. One-Step Generation of Multiple Gene-Edited Pigs by Electroporation of the CRISPR/Cas9 System into Zygotes to Reduce Xenoantigen Biosynthesis. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 2249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Schmidt, J.K.; Strelchenko, N.; Park, M.A.; Kim, Y.H.; Mean, K.D.; Schotzko, M.L.; Kang, H.J.; Golos, T.G.; Slukvin, I.I. Genome Editing of CCR5 by CRISPR-Cas9 in Mauritian Cynomolgus Macaque Embryos. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 18457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Rubinstein, C.D.; McLean, D.T.; Lehman, B.P.; Meudt, J.J.; Schomberg, D.T.; Krentz, K.J.; Reichert, J.L.; Meyer, M.B.; Adams, M.; Konsitzke, C.M.; et al. Assessment of Mosaicism and Detection of Cryptic Alleles in CRISPR/Cas9-Engineered Neurofibromatosis Type 1 and TP53 Mutant Porcine Models Reveals Overlooked Challenges in Precision Modeling of Human Diseases. Front. Genet. 2021, 12, 721045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Parker-Thornburg, J.V.; Alana, J.L.; Smith, C.N.; Detry, M.; Rojas, M.L.; Baskin, K.K. Cryopreserved Morulae Can Be Used to Efficiently Generate Germline-Transmitting Chimeras by Blastocyst Injection. Transgenic Res. 2005, 14, 685–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Yamazaki, K.; Kubara, K.; Ishii, S.; Li, P.; Dairiki, R.; Hihara, T.; Ishizuka, Y.; Izumi, Y.; Kumai, M.; Kamisako, T.; et al. In Vitro and in Vivo Functions of T Cells Produced in Complemented Thymi of Chimeric Mice Generated by Blastocyst Complementation. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 3242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Tachibana, M.; Sparman, M.; Ramsey, C.; Ma, H.; Lee, H.-S.; Penedo, M.C.T.; Mitalipov, S. Generation of Chimeric Rhesus Monkeys. Cell 2012, 148, 285–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Cockburn, K.; Rossant, J. Making the Blastocyst: Lessons from the Mouse. J. Clin. Investig. 2010, 120, 995–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Niakan, K.K.; Han, J.; Pedersen, R.A.; Simon, C.; Pera, R.A.R. Human Pre-Implantation Embryo Development. Development 2012, 139, 829–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Chen, Y.; Niu, Y.; Li, Y.; Ai, Z.; Kang, Y.; Shi, H.; Xiang, Z.; Yang, Z.; Tan, T.; Si, W.; et al. Generation of Cynomolgus Monkey Chimeric Fetuses Using Embryonic Stem Cells. Cell Stem Cell 2015, 17, 116–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Kang, Y.; Ai, Z.; Duan, K.; Si, C.; Wang, Y.; Zheng, Y.; He, J.; Yin, Y.; Zhao, S.; Niu, B.; et al. Improving Cell Survival in Injected Embryos Allows Primed Pluripotent Stem Cells to Generate Chimeric Cynomolgus Monkeys. Cell Rep. 2018, 25, 2563–2576.e9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Park, C.-H.; Jeoung, Y.-H.; Uh, K.-J.; Park, K.-E.; Bridge, J.; Powell, A.; Li, J.; Pence, L.; Zhang, L.; Liu, T.; et al. Extraembryonic Endoderm (XEN) Cells Capable of Contributing to Embryonic Chimeras Established from Pig Embryos. Stem Cell Rep. 2021, 16, 212–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Tan, T.; Wu, J.; Si, C.; Dai, S.; Zhang, Y.; Sun, N.; Zhang, E.; Shao, H.; Si, W.; Yang, P.; et al. Chimeric Contribution of Human Extended Pluripotent Stem Cells to Monkey Embryos Ex Vivo. Cell 2021, 184, 2020–2032.e14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Zhao, L.; Gao, X.; Zheng, Y.; Wang, Z.; Zhao, G.; Ren, J.; Zhang, J.; Wu, J.; Wu, B.; Chen, Y.; et al. Establishment of Bovine Expanded Potential Stem Cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2021, 118, e2018505118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. De Boulle, K.; Verkerk, A.J.; Reyniers, E.; Vits, L.; Hendrickx, J.; Van Roy, B.; Van den Bos, F.; de Graaff, E.; Oostra, B.A.; Willems, P.J. A Point Mutation in the FMR-1 Gene Associated with Fragile X Mental Retardation. Nat. Genet. 1993, 3, 31–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Lugenbeel, K.A.; Peier, A.M.; Carson, N.L.; Chudley, A.E.; Nelson, D.L. Intragenic Loss of Function Mutations Demonstrate the Primary Role of FMR1 in Fragile X Syndrome. Nat. Genet. 1995, 10, 483–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Wang, Y.C.; Lin, M.L.; Lin, S.J.; Li, Y.C.; Li, S.Y. Novel Point Mutation within Intron 10 of FMR-1 Gene Causing Fragile X Syndrome. Hum. Mutat. 1997, 10, 393–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Myrick, L.K.; Hashimoto, H.; Cheng, X.; Warren, S.T. Human FMRP Contains an Integral Tandem Agenet (Tudor) and KH Motif in the Amino Terminal Domain. Hum. Mol. Genet. 2015, 24, 1733–1740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Fu, X.; Yan, A.; Xu, Y.; Liao, J.; Guo, X.; Zhang, D.; Yang, W.; Zheng, D.; Lan, F. Splicing of Exon 9a in FMR1 Transcripts Results in a Truncated FMRP with Altered Subcellular Distribution. Gene 2020, 731, 144359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Abe, Y.; Nakao, H.; Goto, M.; Tamano, M.; Koebis, M.; Nakao, K.; Aiba, A. Efficient Marmoset Genome Engineering by Autologous Embryo Transfer and CRISPR/Cas9 Technology. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 20234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Willemsen, R.; Bontekoe, C.J.M.; Severijnen, L.-A.; Oostra, B.A. Timing of the Absence of FMR1 Expression in Full Mutation Chorionic Villi. Hum. Genet. 2002, 110, 601–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Sutcliffe, J.S.; Nelson, D.L.; Zhang, F.; Pieretti, M.; Caskey, C.T.; Saxe, D.; Warren, S.T. DNA Methylation Represses FMR-1 Transcription in Fragile X Syndrome. Hum. Mol. Genet. 1992, 1, 397–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Kidd, S.A.; Lachiewicz, A.; Barbouth, D.; Blitz, R.K.; Delahunty, C.; McBrien, D.; Visootsak, J.; Berry-Kravis, E. Fragile X Syndrome: A Review of Associated Medical Problems. Pediatrics 2014, 134, 995–1005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Maestripieri, D.; Carroll, K.A. Causes and consequences of infant abuse and neglect in monkeys. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2000, 5, 245–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Burbacher, T.M.; Grant, K.S.; Worlein, J.; Ha, J.; Curnow, E.; Juul, S.; Sackett, G.P. Four Decades of Leading-Edge Research in the Reproductive and Developmental Sciences: The Infant Primate Research Laboratory at the University of Washington National Primate Research Center. Am. J. Primatol. 2013, 75, 1063–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Baranek, G.T.; Roberts, J.E.; David, F.J.; Sideris, J.; Mirrett, P.L.; Hatton, D.D.; Bailey, D.B. Developmental Trajectories and Correlates of Sensory Processing in Young Boys with Fragile X Syndrome. Phys. Occup. Ther. Pediatr. 2008, 28, 79–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Rais, M.; Binder, D.K.; Razak, K.A.; Ethell, I.M. Sensory Processing Phenotypes in Fragile X Syndrome. ASN Neuro 2018, 10, 1759091418801092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Moore, T.; Zirnsak, M. Neural Mechanisms of Selective Visual Attention. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2017, 68, 47–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Petersen, C.C.H. Sensorimotor Processing in the Rodent Barrel Cortex. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2019, 20, 533–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Flossmann, T.; Rochefort, N.L. Spatial Navigation Signals in Rodent Visual Cortex. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 2021, 67, 163–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Samuelsen, C.L.; Vincis, R. Cortical Hub for Flavor Sensation in Rodents. Front. Syst Neurosci. 2021, 15, 772286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Heffner, R.S.; Koay, G.; Heffner, H.E. Audiograms of Five Species of Rodents: Implications for the Evolution of Hearing and the Perception of Pitch. Hear. Res. 2001, 157, 138–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Zwicker, E.; Fastl, H. Psychoacoustics: Facts and Models; Springer Science & Business Media: New York, NY, USA, 2013; ISBN 978-3-662-09562-1. [Google Scholar]
  100. Hillenbrand, J.; Getty, L.A.; Clark, M.J.; Wheeler, K. Acoustic Characteristics of American English Vowels. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1995, 97, 3099–3111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Brughera, A.; Dunai, L.; Hartmann, W.M. Human Interaural Time Difference Thresholds for Sine Tones: The High-Frequency Limit. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2013, 133, 2839–2855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Hartmann, W.M.; Dunai, L.; Qu, T. Interaural Time Difference Thresholds as a Function of Frequency. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 2013, 787, 239–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Batchelder, M.; Keller, L.S.; Ball Sauer, M.; West, W.L. The Laboratory Rabbit, Guinea Pig, Hamster, and Other Rodents; Academic Press: Boston, MA, USA,, 2012; pp. 1131–1155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Steppan, S.; Adkins, R.; Anderson, J. Phylogeny and Divergence-Date Estimates of Rapid Radiations in Muroid Rodents Based on Multiple Nuclear Genes. Syst. Biol. 2004, 53, 533–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Chevret, P.; Dobigny, G. Systematics and Evolution of the Subfamily Gerbillinae (Mammalia, Rodentia, Muridae). Mol. Phylogenetics Evol. 2005, 35, 674–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Lay, D.M. The Anatomy, Physiology, Functional Significance and Evolution of Specialized Hearing Organs of Gerbilline Rodents. J. Morphol. 1972, 138, 41–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  107. Ryan, A. Hearing Sensitivity of the Mongolian Gerbil, Meriones Unguiculatis. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1976, 59, 1222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Grothe, B. The Evolution of Temporal Processing in the Medial Superior Olive, an Auditory Brainstem Structure. Prog. Neurobiol. 2000, 61, 581–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Grothe, B.; Pecka, M. The Natural History of Sound Localization in Mammals—A Story of Neuronal Inhibition. Front. Neural. Circuits. 2014, 8, 116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  110. Ollo, C.; Schwartz, I.R. The superior olivary complex in C57BL/6 mice. Am. J. Anat. 1979, 155, 349–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Fischl, M.J.; Burger, R.M.; Schmidt-Pauly, M.; Alexandrova, O.; Sinclair, J.L.; Grothe, B.; Forsythe, I.D.; Kopp-Scheinpflug, C. Physiology and Anatomy of Neurons in the Medial Superior Olive of the Mouse. J. Neurophysiol. 2016, 116, 2676–2688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  112. Moore, J.K. Organization of the Human Superior Olivary Complex. Microsc. Res. Tech. 2000, 51, 403–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Kulesza, R.J. Cytoarchitecture of the Human Superior Olivary Complex: Medial and Lateral Superior Olive. Hear. Res. 2007, 225, 80–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Wagner, E.; Klump, G.M.; Hamann, I. Gap Detection in Mongolian Gerbils (Meriones unguiculatus). Hear. Res. 2003, 176, 11–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Gleich, O.; Hamann, I.; Kittel, M.C.; Klump, G.M.; Strutz, J. A Quantitative Analysis of Psychometric Functions for Different Auditory Tasks in Gerbils. Hear. Res. 2006, 220, 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Rosowski, J.J.; Ravicz, M.E.; Teoh, S.W.; Flandermeyer, D. Measurements of Middle-Ear Function in the Mongolian Gerbil, a Specialized Mammalian Ear. Audiol. Neurotol. 1999, 4, 129–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Hermann, J.; Pecka, M.; von Gersdorff, H.; Grothe, B.; Klug, A. Synaptic Transmission at the Calyx of Held under in Vivo like Activity Levels. J. Neurophysiol. 2007, 98, 807–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  118. Cant, N.B. Patterns of Convergence in the Central Nucleus of the Inferior Colliculus of the Mongolian Gerbil: Organization of Inputs from the Superior Olivary Complex in the Low Frequency Representation. Front. Neural. Circuits 2013, 7, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  119. Roberts, M.T.; Seeman, S.C.; Golding, N.L. A Mechanistic Understanding of the Role of Feedforward Inhibition in the Mammalian Sound Localization Circuitry. Neuron 2013, 78, 923–935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  120. Mayer, F.; Albrecht, O.; Dondzillo, A.; Klug, A. Glycinergic Inhibition to the Medial Nucleus of the Trapezoid Body Shows Prominent Facilitation and Can Sustain High Levels of Ongoing Activity. J. Neurophysiol. 2014, 112, 2901–2915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  121. Kotak, V.C.; Mowery, T.M.; Sanes, D.H. Characterization of Auditory Synaptic Inputs to Gerbil Perirhinal Cortex. Front. Neural Circuits 2015, 9, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  122. Ko, K.W.; Rasband, M.N.; Meseguer, V.; Kramer, R.H.; Golding, N.L. Serotonin Modulates Spike Probability in the Axon Initial Segment through HCN Channels. Nat. NeuroSci. 2016, 19, 826–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  123. Stange-Marten, A.; Nabel, A.L.; Sinclair, J.L.; Fischl, M.; Alexandrova, O.; Wohlfrom, H.; Kopp-Scheinpflug, C.; Pecka, M.; Grothe, B. Input Timing for Spatial Processing Is Precisely Tuned via Constant Synaptic Delays and Myelination Patterns in the Auditory Brainstem. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, E4851–E4858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  124. Wei, L.; Karino, S.; Verschooten, E.; Joris, P.X. Enhancement of Phase-Locking in Rodents. I. An Axonal Recording Study in Gerbil. J. Neurophysiol. 2017, 118, 2009–2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Paraouty, N.; Rizzuto, C.R.; Sanes, D.H. Dopaminergic Signaling Supports Auditory Social Learning. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 13117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Wang, Y.; Sakano, H.; Beebe, K.; Brown, M.R.; de Laat, R.; Bothwell, M.; Kulesza, R.J.; Rubel, E.W. Intense and specialized dendritic localization of the fragile X mental retardation protein in binaural brainstem neurons: A comparative study in the alligator, chicken, gerbil, and human. J. Comp. Neurol. 2014, 522, 2107–2128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  127. Kulesza, R.J.; Mangunay, K. Morphological Features of the Medial Superior Olive in Autism. Brain Res. 2008, 1200, 132–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Beebe, K.; Wang, Y.; Kulesza, R. Distribution of fragile X mental retardation protein in the human auditory brainstem. Neuroscience 2014, 273, 79–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. McCullagh, E.A.; Rotschafer, S.E.; Auerbach, B.D.; Klug, A.; Kaczmarek, L.K.; Cramer, K.S.; Kulesza, R.J.; Razak, K.A.; Lovelace, J.W.; Lu, Y.; et al. Mechanisms underlying auditory processing deficits in Fragile X syndrome. FASEB J. 2020, 34, 3501–3518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  130. Kelly, J.B.; Masterton, B. Auditory Sensitivity of the Albino Rat. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 1977, 91, 930–936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Gleich, O.; Strutz, J. The Mongolian Gerbil as a model for the analysis of peripheral and central age-dependent hearing loss. In Hearing Loss; Naz, S., Ed.; InTechOpen: London, UK, 2012; ISBN 978-953-51-0366-0. [Google Scholar]
  132. Baker, A.G.; Emerson, V.F. Grating Acuity of the Mongolian Gerbil (Meriones unguiculatus). Behav. Brain Res. 1983, 8, 195–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Yang, S.; Luo, X.; Xiong, G.; So, K.-F.; Yang, H.; Xu, Y. The Electroretinogram of Mongolian Gerbil (Meriones unguiculatus): Comparison to Mouse. Neurosci. Lett. 2015, 589, 7–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Govardovskii, V.I.; Ro¨hlich, P.; Sze’l, A.; Khokhlova, T.V. Cones in the Retina of the Mongolian Gerbil, Meriones unguiculatus: An Immunocytochemical and Electrophysiological Study. Vis. Res. 1992, 32, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Bytyqi, A.H.; Layer, P.G. Lamina Formation in the Mongolian Gerbil Retina (Meriones unguiculatus). Anat. Embryol. 2005, 209, 217–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Garbers, C.; Henke, J.; Leibold, C.; Wachtler, T.; Thurley, K. Contextual Processing of Brightness and Color in Mongolian Gerbils. J. Vis. 2015, 15, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  137. Zhang, T.; Huang, L.; Zhang, L.; Tan, M.; Pu, M.; Pickard, G.E.; So, K.-F.; Ren, C. ON and OFF Retinal Ganglion Cells Differentially Regulate Serotonergic and GABAergic Activity in the Dorsal Raphe Nucleus. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 26060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Delbarre, B.; Delbarre, G.; Rochat, C.; Calinon, F. Effect of Piribedil, a D-2 Dopaminergic Agonist, on Dopamine, Amino Acids, and Free Radicals in Gerbil Brain after Cerebral Ischemia. Mol. Chem. Neuropathol. 1995, 26, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Takayanagi, T.H.; Akao, N.; Suzuki, R.; Tomoda, M.; Tsukidate, S.; Fujita, K. New Animal Model for Human Ocular Toxocariasis: Ophthalmoscopic Observation. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1999, 83, 967–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  140. Akao, N.; Hayashi, E.; Sato, H.; Fujita, K.; Furuoka, H. Diffuse Retinochoroiditis Due to Baylisascaris Procyonis in Monglian Gerbils. J. Parasitol. 2003, 89, 174–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Mauck, M.C.; Mancuso, K.; Kuchenbecker, J.A.; Connor, T.B.; Hauswirth, W.W.; Neitz, J.; Neitz, M. Longitudinal Evaluation of Expression of Virally Delivered Transgenes in Gerbil Cone Photoreceptors. Vis. Neurosci. 2008, 25, 273–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  142. Abitbol, M.; Menini, C.; Delezoide, A.L.; Rhyner, T.; Vekemans, M.; Mallet, J. Nucleus Basalis Magnocellularis and Hippocampus Are the Major Sites of FMR-1 Expression in the Human Fetal Brain. Nat. Genet. 1993, 4, 147–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Guimarães-Souza, E.M.; Perche, O.; Morgans, C.W.; Duvoisin, R.M.; Calaza, K.C. Fragile X Mental Retardation Protein Expression in the Retina Is Regulated by Light. Exp. Eye Res. 2016, 146, 72–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  144. Zhang, P.-P.; Yao, H.-H.; Zha, A.-H.; Liu, X.-Y.; Fan, K.-Y.; Xu, Y.; Yuan, H.-Y.; Li, L.; Wang, L.-C. Cellular Localization of the FMRP in Rat Retina. Biosci. Rep. 2020, 40, BSR20200570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Kogan, C.S.; Boutet, I.; Cornish, K.; Zangenehpour, S.; Mullen, K.T.; Holden, J.J.A.; Der Kaloustian, V.M.; Andermann, E.; Chaudhuri, A. Differential Impact of the FMR1 Gene on Visual Processing in Fragile X Syndrome. Brain 2004, 127, 591–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  146. Zorio, D.A.R.; Jackson, C.M.; Liu, Y.; Rubel, E.W.; Wang, Y. Cellular distribution of the fragile X mental retardation protein in the mouse brain. J. Comp. Neurol. 2017, 525, 818–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  147. Kranjc, B.S.; Brezigar, A.; Peterlin, B. Bilateral Macular Dysplasia in Fragile X Syndrome. Optom. Vis. Sci. 1998, 75, 856–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Kéri, S.; Benedek, G. Fragile X Protein Expression Is Linked to Visual Functions in Healthy Male Volunteers. Neuroscience 2011, 192, 345–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Kéri, S.; Benedek, G. Visual Pathway Deficit in Female Fragile X Premutation Carriers: A Potential Endophenotype. Brain Cogn. 2009, 69, 291–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Rossignol, R.; Ranchon-Cole, I.; Pâris, A.; Herzine, A.; Perche, A.; Laurenceau, D.; Bertrand, P.; Cercy, C.; Pichon, J.; Mortaud, S.; et al. Visual Sensorial Impairments in Neurodevelopmental Disorders: Evidence for a Retinal Phenotype in Fragile X Syndrome. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e105996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  151. Perche, O.; Felgerolle, C.; Ardourel, M.; Bazinet, A.; Pâris, A.; Rossignol, R.; Meyer-Dilhet, G.; Mausset-Bonnefont, A.-L.; Hébert, B.; Laurenceau, D.; et al. Early Retinal Defects in Fmr1-/y Mice: Toward a Critical Role of Visual Dys-Sensitivity in the Fragile X Syndrome Phenotype? Front. Cell Neurosci. 2018, 12, 96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  152. Kay, R.B.; Gabreski, N.A.; Triplett, J.W. Visual Subcircuit-Specific Dysfunction and Input-Specific Mispatterning in the Superior Colliculus of Fragile X Mice. J. Neurodevelop. Disord. 2018, 10, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  153. Piovanotti, M.R.A.; Vieira, M.L. Presence of the Father and Parental Experience Have Differentiated Effects on Pup Development in Mongolian Gerbils (Meriones Unguiculatus). Behav. Processes 2004, 66, 107–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Hendrie, C.A.; Pickles, A.R.; Duxon, M.S.; Riley, G.; Hagan, J.J. Effects of Fluoxetine on Social Behaviour and Plasma Corticosteroid Levels in Female Mongolian Gerbils. Behav. Pharmacol. 2003, 14, 545–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Pickles, A.R.; Hagan, J.J.; Jones, D.N.C.; Hendrie, C.A. Short-Term Individual Housing Induced Social Deficits in Female Mongolian Gerbils: Attenuation by Chronic but Not Acute Imipramine. Neuropharmacology 2012, 62, 1993–1998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Rico, J.L.; Penagos-Gil, M.; Castañeda, A.F.; Corredor, K. Gerbils Exhibit Stable Open-Arms Exploration across Repeated Testing on the Elevated plus-Maze. Behav. Processes 2016, 122, 104–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Bechara, E.G.; Didiot, M.C.; Melko, M.; Davidovic, L.; Bensaid, M.; Martin, P.; Castets, M.; Pognonec, P.; Khandjian, E.W.; Moine, H.; et al. A Novel Function for Fragile X Mental Retardation Protein in Translational Activation. PLoS Biol. 2009, 7, e16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  158. Mithal, D.S.; Chandel, N.S. Mitochondrial Dysfunction in Fragile-X Syndrome: Plugging the Leak May Save the Ship. Mol. Cell 2020, 80, 381–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Licznerski, P.; Park, H.-A.; Rolyan, H.; Chen, R.; Mnatsakanyan, N.; Miranda, P.; Graham, M.; Wu, J.; Cruz-Reyes, N.; Mehta, N.; et al. ATP Synthase C-Subunit Leak Causes Aberrant Cellular Metabolism in Fragile X Syndrome. Cell 2020, 182, 1170–1185.e9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Bach, S.; Shovlin, S.; Moriarty, M.; Bardoni, B.; Tropea, D. Rett Syndrome and Fragile X Syndrome: Different Etiology With Common Molecular Dysfunctions. Front. Cell Neurosci. 2021, 15, 764761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. D’Antoni, S.; de Bari, L.; Valenti, D.; Borro, M.; Bonaccorso, C.M.; Simmaco, M.; Vacca, R.A.; Catania, M.V. Aberrant Mitochondrial Bioenergetics in the Cerebral Cortex of the Fmr1 Knockout Mouse Model of Fragile X Syndrome. Biol. Chem. 2020, 401, 497–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Shen, M.; Wang, F.; Li, M.; Sah, N.; Stockton, M.E.; Tidei, J.J.; Gao, Y.; Korabelnikov, T.; Kannan, S.; Vevea, J.D.; et al. Reduced Mitochondrial Fusion and Huntingtin Levels Contribute to Impaired Dendritic Maturation and Behavioral Deficits in Fmr1-Mutant Mice. Nat. Neurosci. 2019, 22, 386–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Robinson, P.F. Metabolism of the Gerbil, Meriones unguiculatus. Science 1959, 130, 502–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Khakisahneh, S.; Zhang, X.-Y.; Nouri, Z.; Wang, D.-H. Cecal Microbial Transplantation Attenuates Hyperthyroid-Induced Thermogenesis in Mongolian Gerbils. Microb. Biotechnol. 2022, 15, 817–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Guo, Y.-Y.; Hao, S.; Zhang, M.; Zhang, X.; Wang, D. Aquaporins, Evaporative Water Loss and Thermoregulation in Heat-Acclimated Mongolian Gerbils (Meriones unguiculatus). J. Therm. Biol. 2020, 91, 102641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  166. Lee, J.-C.; Won, M.-H. Neuroprotection of Antioxidant Enzymes against Transient Global Cerebral Ischemia in Gerbils. Anat. Cell Biol. 2014, 47, 149–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  167. Nouri, Z.; Zhang, X.-Y.; Khakisahneh, S.; Degen, A.A.; Wang, D.-H. The Microbiota-Gut-Kidney Axis Mediates Host Osmoregulation in a Small Desert Mammal. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes 2022, 8, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  168. Lee, C.M.; Lederman, J.D.; Hofmann, N.E.; Erdman, J.W. The Mongolian Gerbil (Meriones unguiculatus) Is an Appropriate Animal Model for Evaluation of the Conversion of Beta-Carotene to Vitamin A. J. Nutr. 1998, 128, 280–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  169. Thiessen, D.D.; Graham, M.; Perkins, J.; Marcks, S. Temperature Regulation and Social Grooming in the Mongolian Gerbil (Meriones unguiculatus). Behav. Biol. 1977, 19, 279–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Thiessen, D.D. Body Temperature and Grooming in the Mongolian Gerbil. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1988, 525, 27–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Musumeci, S.A.; Hagerman, R.J.; Ferri, R.; Bosco, P.; Dalla Bernardina, B.; Tassinari, C.A.; De Sarro, G.B.; Elia, M. Epilepsy and EEG Findings in Males with Fragile X Syndrome. Epilepsia 1999, 40, 1092–1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Berry-Kravis, E.; Raspa, M.; Loggin-Hester, L.; Bishop, E.; Holiday, D.; Bailey, D.B. Seizures in Fragile X Syndrome: Characteristics and Comorbid Diagnoses. Am. J. Intellect. Dev. Disabil. 2010, 115, 461–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Loskota, W.J.; Lomax, P.; Rich, S.T. The Gerbil as a Model for the Study of the Epilepsies. Epilepsia 1974, 15, 109–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Ludvig, N.; Farias, P.A.; Ribak, C.E. An Analysis of Various Environmental and Specific Sensory Stimuli on the Seizure Activity of the Mongolian Gerbil. Epilepsy Res. 1991, 8, 30–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  175. Kang, T.-C.; Park, S.-K.; Bahn, J.H.; Jeon, S.G.; Jo, S.M.; Cho, S.-W.; Choi, S.Y.; Won, M.H. The Alteration of G-Aminobutyric Acid-Transaminase Expression in the Gerbil Hippocampus Induced by Seizure. Neurochem. Int. 2001, 6, 609–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Hwang, I.K.; Park, S.-K.; An, S.-J.; Yoo, K.-Y.; Kim, D.-S.; Jung, J.-Y.; Won, M.H.; Choi, S.-Y.; Kwon, O.-S.; Kang, T.-C. GABAA, Not GABAB, Receptor Shows Subunit- and Spatial-Specific Alterations in the Hippocampus of Seizure Prone Gerbils. Brain Res. 2004, 1003, 98–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Kwak, S.-E.; Kim, J.-E.; Kim, D.-S.; Jung, J.-Y.; Ho Won, M.; Kwon, O.-S.; Choi, S.-Y.; Kang, T.-C. Effects of GABAergic Transmissions on the Immunoreactivities of Calcium Binding Proteins in the Gerbil Hippocampus. J. Comp. Neurol. 2005, 485, 153–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Hodges, S.L.; Reynolds, C.D.; Nolan, S.O.; Huebschman, J.L.; Okoh, J.T.; Binder, M.S.; Lugo, J.N. A Single Early-Life Seizure Results in Long-Term Behavioral Changes in the Adult Fmr1 Knockout Mouse. Epilepsy Res. 2019, 157, 106193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Liang, P.; Zhang, X.; Chen, Y.; Huang, J. Developmental History and Application of CRISPR in Human Disease. J. Gene Med. 2017, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  180. Wu, J.; Vilarino, M.; Suzuki, K.; Okamura, D.; Bogliotti, Y.S.; Park, I.; Rowe, J.; McNabb, B.; Ross, P.J.; Belmonte, J.C.I. CRISPR-Cas9 Mediated One-Step Disabling of Pancreatogenesis in Pigs. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 10487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  181. Cheng, S.; Fu, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Xian, W.; Wang, H.; Grothe, B.; Liu, X.; Xu, X.; Klug, A.; McCullagh, E.A. Enhancement of de Novo Sequen.ncing, Assembly and Annotation of the Mongolian Gerbil Genome with Transcriptome Sequencing and Assembly from Several Different Tissues. BMC Genom. 2019, 20, 903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  182. Zorio, D.A.R.; Monsma, S.; Sanes, D.H.; Golding, N.L.; Rubel, E.W.; Wang, Y. De novo sequencing and initial annotation of the Mongolian gerbil (Meriones unguiculatus) genome. Genomics 2019, 111, 441–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Wang, Y.; Zhao, P.; Song, Z.; Du, X.; Huo, X.; Lu, J.; Liu, X.; Lv, J.; Li, C.; Guo, M.; et al. Generation of Gene-Knockout Mongolian Gerbils via CRISPR/Cas9 System. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2020, 8, 780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Davis, J.K.; Broadie, K. Multifarious Functions of the Fragile X Mental Retardation Protein. Trends Genet. 2017, 33, 703–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Wong, H.H.-W.; Lin, J.Q.; Ströhl, F.; Roque, C.G.; Cioni, J.-M.; Cagnetta, R.; Turner-Bridger, B.; Laine, R.F.; Harris, W.A.; Kaminski, C.F.; et al. RNA Docking and Local Translation Regulate Site-Specific Axon Remodeling In Vivo. Neuron 2017, 95, 852–868.e8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  186. Gatto, C.L.; Broadie, K. Temporal Requirements of the Fragile x Mental Retardation Protein in Modulating Circadian Clock Circuit Synaptic Architecture. Front. Neural Circuits 2009, 3, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  187. Doll, C.A.; Broadie, K. Activity-Dependent FMRP Requirements in Development of the Neural Circuitry of Learning and Memory. Development 2015, 142, 1346–1356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  188. Sears, J.C.; Broadie, K. Fragile X Mental Retardation Protein Regulates Activity-Dependent Membrane Trafficking and Trans-Synaptic Signaling Mediating Synaptic Remodeling. Front. Mol. Neurosci. 2018, 10, 440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  189. Klin, A.; Shultz, S.; Jones, W. Social Visual Engagement in Infants and Toddlers with Autism: Early Developmental Transitions and a Model of Pathogenesis. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2015, 50, 189–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  190. Ben-Ari, Y. Is birth a critical period in the pathogenesis of autism spectrum disorders? Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2015, 16, 498–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Price, D.K.; Zhang, F.; Ashley, C.T.; Warren, S.T. The Chicken FMR1 Gene Is Highly Conserved with a CCT 5′-Untranslated Repeat and Encodes an RNA-Binding Protein. Genomics 1996, 31, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  192. Sakano, H.; Zorio, D.A.R.; Wang, X.; Ting, Y.S.; Noble, W.S.; MacCoss, M.J.; Rubel, E.W.; Wang, Y. Proteomic analyses of nucleus laminaris identified candidate targets of the fragile X mental retardation protein. J. Comp. Neurol. 2017, 525, 3341–3359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  193. Schaeffer, C.; Bardoni, B.; Mandel, J.L.; Ehresmann, B.; Ehresmann, C.; Moine, H. The Fragile X Mental Retardation Protein Binds Specifically to Its MRNA via a Purine Quartet Motif. EMBO J. 2001, 20, 4803–4813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Xu, Z.; Che, T.; Li, F.; Tian, K.; Zhu, Q.; Mishra, S.K.; Dai, Y.; Li, M.; Li, D. The Temporal Expression Patterns of Brain Transcriptome during Chicken Development and Ageing. BMC Genom. 2018, 19, 917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Nothwang, H.G. Evolution of Mammalian Sound Localization Circuits: A Developmental Perspective. Prog. Neurobiol. 2016, 141, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  196. Hirsch, D.; Kohl, A.; Wang, Y.; Sela-Donenfeld, D. Axonal Projection Patterns of the Dorsal Interneuron Populations in the Embryonic Hindbrain. Front. Neuroanat. 2021, 15, 793161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  197. Ashida, G.; Carr, C.E. Sound Localization: Jeffress and Beyond. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 2011, 21, 745–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  198. Sanchez, J.T.; Wang, Y.; Lu, Y.; Burger, R.M.; Seidl, A.H.; Rubel, E.W. Nucleus laminaris. In Handbook of Brain Microcircuits; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 425–436. ISBN 978-0-19-063614-2. [Google Scholar]
  199. Parks, T.N.; Rubel, E.W. Organization and Development of Brain Stem Auditory Nuclei of the Chicken: Organization of Projections from N. Magnocellularis to N. Laminaris. J. Comp. Neurol. 1975, 164, 435–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Rubel, E.W.; Smith, Z.D.; Steward, O. Sprouting in the Avian Brainstem Auditory Pathway: Dependence on Dendritic Integrity. J. Comp. Neurol. 1981, 202, 397–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Jhaveri, S.; Morest, D.K. Neuronal Architecture in Nucleus Magnocellularis of the Chicken Auditory System with Observations on Nucleus Laminaris: A Light and Electron Microscope Study. Neuroscience 1982, 7, 809–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Kuba, H.; Koyano, K.; Ohmori, H. Development of Membrane Conductance Improves Coincidence Detection in the Nucleus Laminaris of the Chicken. J. Physiol. 2002, 540, 529–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Kuba, H. Evaluation of the Limiting Acuity of Coincidence Detection in Nucleus Laminaris of the Chicken. J. Physiol. 2003, 552, 611–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Kuba, H. Tonotopic Specialization of Auditory Coincidence Detection in Nucleus Laminaris of the Chick. J. Neurosci. 2005, 25, 1924–1934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  205. Burger, R.M.; Cramer, K.S.; Pfeiffer, J.D.; Rubel, E.W. Avian Superior Olivary Nucleus Provides Divergent Inhibitory Input to Parallel Auditory Pathways. J. Comp. Neurol. 2005, 481, 6–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Blackmer, T.; Kuo, S.P.; Bender, K.J.; Apostolides, P.F.; Trussell, L.O. Dendritic Calcium Channels and Their Activation by Synaptic Signals in Auditory Coincidence Detector Neurons. J. Neurophysiol. 2009, 102, 1218–1226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  207. Sanchez, J.T.; Seidl, A.H.; Rubel, E.W.; Barria, A. Control of Neuronal Excitability by NMDA-Type Glutamate Receptors in Early Developing Binaural Auditory Neurons: Early Control of Neuronal Excitability by NMDA-Rs. J. Physiol. 2012, 590, 4801–4818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Hong, H.; Lu, T.; Wang, X.; Wang, Y.; Sanchez, J.T. Resurgent sodium current promotes action potential firing in the avian auditory brainstem. J. Physiol. 2018, 596, 423–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  209. Wang, X.; Hong, H.; Brown, D.H.; Sanchez, J.T.; Wang, Y. Distinct Neural Properties in the Low-Frequency Region of the Chicken Cochlear Nucleus Magnocellularis. eNeuro 2017, 4, ENEURO.0016-17.2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  210. Gao, M.; Maynard, K.R.; Chokshi, V.; Song, L.; Jacobs, C.; Wang, H.; Tran, T.; Martinowich, K.; Lee, H.-K. Rebound Potentiation of Inhibition in Juvenile Visual Cortex Requires Vision-Induced BDNF Expression. J. Neurosci. 2014, 34, 10770–10779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  211. Wang, X.; Zorio, D.A.R.; Schecterson, L.; Lu, Y.; Wang, Y. Postsynaptic FMRP Regulates Synaptogenesis In Vivo in the Developing Cochlear Nucleus. J. Neurosci. 2018, 38, 6445–6460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  212. Wang, X.; Kohl, A.; Yu, X.; Zorio, D.A.R.; Klar, A.; Sela-Donenfeld, D.; Wang, Y. Temporal-specific roles of fragile X mental retardation protein in the development of the hindbrain auditory circuit. Development 2020, 147, dev188797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  213. Schecterson, L.C.; Sanchez, J.T.; Rubel, E.W.; Bothwell, M. TrkB Downregulation Is Required for Dendrite Retraction in Developing Neuron.ns of Chicken Nucleus Magnocellularis. J. Neurosci. 2012, 32, 14000–14009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  214. Petazzi, P.; Akizu, N.; García, A.; Estarás, C.; Martínez de Paz, A.; Rodríguez-Paredes, M.; Martínez-Balbás, M.A.; Huertas, D.; Esteller, M. An Increase in MECP2 Dosage Impairs Neural Tube Formation. Neurobiol. Dis. 2014, 67, 49–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  215. Garic, A.; Berres, M.E.; Smith, S.M. High-Throughput Transcriptome Sequencing Identifies Candidate Genetic Modifiers of Vulnerability to Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders. Alcohol Clin. Exp. Res. 2014, 38, 1874–1882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  216. Flentke, G.R.; Smith, S.M. The Avian Embryo as a Model for Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder. Biochem. Cell Biol. 2018, 96, 98–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  217. Stephen, L.A.; Tawamie, H.; Davis, G.M.; Tebbe, L.; Nürnberg, P.; Nürnberg, G.; Thiele, H.; Thoenes, M.; Boltshauser, E.; Uebe, S.; et al. TALPID3 Controls Centrosome and Cell Polarity and the Human Ortholog KIAA0586 Is Mutated in Joubert Syndrome (JBTS23). eLife 2015, 4, e08077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  218. Thawani, A.; Sirohi, D.; Kuhn, R.J.; Fekete, D.M. Zika Virus Can Strongly Infect and Disrupt Secondary Organizers in the Ventricular Zone of the Embryonic Chicken Brain. Cell Rep. 2018, 23, 692–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  219. Zosen, D.; Hadera, M.G.; Lumor, J.S.; Andersen, J.M.; Paulsen, R.E. Chicken Embryo as Animal Model to Study Drug Distribution to the Developing Brain. J. Pharm. Toxicol. Methods 2021, 112, 107105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Strategies for modeling Fragile X syndrome in the nonhuman primate.
Figure 1. Strategies for modeling Fragile X syndrome in the nonhuman primate.
Cells 11 01628 g001
Figure 2. Human-like hearing ability and auditory brainstem circuit in Mongolian gerbils. (a) Rodent and human audiograms. Gerbils (blue), but not mice (green) or rats (purple), have good (low thresholds) low-frequency hearing, comparable to humans (red). The shaded area is the frequency range for the human voice. Threshold < 20 dB is usually considered normal hearing. Humans use low-frequency sounds (below 1500 Hz) for ITD computation. The figure is built upon published studies [98,99,107,130,131]. (b) The schematic shows the MSO circuit for ITD computation, which is conserved across vertebrate species that are sensitive to low-frequency sounds. As an underlying substrate of this function, bipolar dendrites of MSO neurons receive segregated inputs from the ipsilateral (blue lines) and contralateral (green lines) ears through the AVCN. Abbreviations: ITD, interaural time difference; MSO, medial superior olive; AVCN, anteroventral cochlear nucleus; FMRP, Fragile X mental retardation protein.
Figure 2. Human-like hearing ability and auditory brainstem circuit in Mongolian gerbils. (a) Rodent and human audiograms. Gerbils (blue), but not mice (green) or rats (purple), have good (low thresholds) low-frequency hearing, comparable to humans (red). The shaded area is the frequency range for the human voice. Threshold < 20 dB is usually considered normal hearing. Humans use low-frequency sounds (below 1500 Hz) for ITD computation. The figure is built upon published studies [98,99,107,130,131]. (b) The schematic shows the MSO circuit for ITD computation, which is conserved across vertebrate species that are sensitive to low-frequency sounds. As an underlying substrate of this function, bipolar dendrites of MSO neurons receive segregated inputs from the ipsilateral (blue lines) and contralateral (green lines) ears through the AVCN. Abbreviations: ITD, interaural time difference; MSO, medial superior olive; AVCN, anteroventral cochlear nucleus; FMRP, Fragile X mental retardation protein.
Cells 11 01628 g002
Figure 3. Site-specific FMRP functions in the chicken NM circuit. In ovo electroporation of FMRP-shRNA or CRISPR-mediated KO constructs into NM precursor cells at embryonic day 2 (left). Five distinct phenotypes were observed at subcellular levels later in development during axon navigation and circuit assembly (right). Abbreviations: SGN, spiral ganglion neurons; NM, nucleus magnocellularis; NL, nucleus laminaris; FMRP, Fragile X mental retardation protein.
Figure 3. Site-specific FMRP functions in the chicken NM circuit. In ovo electroporation of FMRP-shRNA or CRISPR-mediated KO constructs into NM precursor cells at embryonic day 2 (left). Five distinct phenotypes were observed at subcellular levels later in development during axon navigation and circuit assembly (right). Abbreviations: SGN, spiral ganglion neurons; NM, nucleus magnocellularis; NL, nucleus laminaris; FMRP, Fragile X mental retardation protein.
Cells 11 01628 g003
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Curnow, E.; Wang, Y. New Animal Models for Understanding FMRP Functions and FXS Pathology. Cells 2022, 11, 1628. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells11101628

AMA Style

Curnow E, Wang Y. New Animal Models for Understanding FMRP Functions and FXS Pathology. Cells. 2022; 11(10):1628. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells11101628

Chicago/Turabian Style

Curnow, Eliza, and Yuan Wang. 2022. "New Animal Models for Understanding FMRP Functions and FXS Pathology" Cells 11, no. 10: 1628. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells11101628

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop