Large animal models, such as the transgenic (tg) Huntington disease (HD) minipig, have been proposed to improve translational reliability and assessment of safety, efficacy and tolerability in preclinical studies. Minipigs are characterised by high genetic homology and comparable brain structures to humans. In addition, behavioural assessments successfully applied in humans could be explored in minipigs to establish similar endpoints in preclinical and clinical studies. Recently, analysis of voice and speech production was established to characterise HD patients.
Objective:
The aim of this study was to investigate whether vocalisation could also serve as a viable marker for phenotyping minipigs transgenic for Huntington’s disease (tgHD) and whether tgHD minipigs reveal changes in this domain compared to wildtype (wt) minipigs.
Methods:
While conducting behavioural testing, incidence of vocalisation was assessed for a cohort of 14 tgHD and 18 wt minipigs. Statistical analyses were performed using Fisher’s Exact Test for group comparisons and McNemar’s Test for intra-visit differences between tgHD and wt minipigs.
Results:
Vocalisation can easily be documented during phenotyping assessments of minipigs. Differences in vocalisation incidences across behavioural conditions were detected between tgHD and wt minipigs. Influence of the genotype on vocalisation was detectable during a period of 1.5 years.
Conclusion:
Vocalisation may be a viable marker for phenotyping minipigs transgenic for the Huntington gene. Documentation of vocalisation provides a non-invasive opportunity to capture potential disease signs and explore phenotypic development including the age of disease manifestation.
CarrerasR, MainauE, RodriguezP, LlonchP, DalmauA, MantecaX, et al. A novel gene containing a trinucleotide repeat that is expanded and unstable on Huntington’s disease chromosomes. The Huntington’s Disease Collaborative Research Group. Cell. 1993;72(6):971–83.
DumasEM, van den BogaardSJA, MiddelkoopHAM, RoosRACA review of cognition in Huntington’s disease. Front Biosci Sch Ed. 2013;5, 1–18.
6.
LemiereJ, DecruyenaereM, Evers-KieboomsG, VandenbusscheE, DomRCognitive changes in patients with Huntington’s disease (HD) and asymptomatic carriers of the HD mutation–a longitudinal follow-up study. J Neurol. 2004;251(8):935–42.
7.
LawrenceAD, SahakianBJ, HodgesJR, RosserAE, LangeKW, RobbinsTWExecutive and mnemonic functions in early Huntington’s disease. Brain. 1996;119(Pt 5):1633–45.
8.
LawrenceAD, HodgesJR, RosserAE, KershawA, RubinszteinDC, RobbinsTW, et al. Evidence for specific cognitive deficits in preclinical Huntington’s disease. Brain19981329–41.
9.
PaulsenJS, LongJDOnset of Huntington’s disease: Can it be purely cognitive? Mov Disord2014;29(11):1342–50.
VelascoGarcía MJ, CobetaI, MartínG, Alonso-NavarroH, Jimenez-JimenezFJAcoustic analysis of voice in Huntington’s disease patients. J Voice. 2011;25(2):208–17.
12.
RuszJ, KlempířJ, BaborováE, TykalováT, MajerováV, ČmejlaR, et al. Objective acoustic quantification of phonatory dysfunction in Huntington’s disease. PLoS One. 2013;8(6):e65881.
13.
KaplounLR, SaxmanJH, WassermanP, MarderKAcoustic analysis of voice and speech characteristics in presymptomatic gene carriers of Huntington’s disease: Biomarkers for preclinical sign onset?J Med Speech Lang Pathol2011; https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-260582935.html.
14.
VogelAP, ShirbinC, ChurchyardAJ, StoutJCSpeech acoustic markers of early stage and prodromal Huntington’s disease: A marker of disease onset?Neuropsychologia. 2012;50(14):3273–8.
15.
HeemskerkA-W, RoosRACDysphagia in Huntington’s disease: A review. Dysphagia. 2011;26(1):62–6.
16.
VenutoCS, McGarryA, MaQ, KieburtzKPharmacologic approaches to the treatment of Huntington’s disease. Mov Disord. 2012;27(1):31–41.
17.
WildEJ, TabriziSJTargets for future clinical trials in Huntington’s disease: What’s in the pipeline?Mov Disord. 2014;29(11):1434–45.
18.
KilloranA, BiglanKMCurrent therapeutic options for Huntington’s disease: Good clinical practice versus evidence-based approaches?Mov Disord. 2014;29(11):1404–13.
19.
BrooksSP, DunnettSBMouse models of Huntington’s disease. In: Behavioral Neurobiology of Huntington’s Disease and Parkinson’s Disease. Berlin: Springer; 2015. pp. 101–33.
20.
MenalledL, BrunnerDAnimal models of Huntington’s disease for translation to the clinic: Best practices. Mov Disord. Sep. 2014;29(11):1375–90.
21.
Munoz-SanjuanI, BatesGPThe importance of integrating basic and clinical research toward the development of new therapies for Huntington disease. J Clin Invest. 2011;121(2):476–83.
22.
SchramkeS, SchubertR, FrankF, WirsigM, FelsM, KemperN, et al. The Libechov minipig as a large animal model for preclinical research in Huntington’s disease - thoughts and perspectives. Čes Slov Neurol Neurochir.. 2015;78/111(S2):55–60.
23.
HowlandDS, Munoz-SanjuanIMind the gap: Models in multiple species needed for therapeutic development in Huntington’s disease. Mov Disord. 2014;29(11):1397–403.
24.
VodickaP, SmetanaKJ, DvorankovaB, EmerickT, XuYZ, OurednikJ, et al. The miniature pig as an animal model in biomedical research. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1049;1049161–71.
25.
LindNM, MoustgaardA, JelsingJ, VajtaG, CummingP, HansenAKThe use of pigs in neuroscience: Modeling brain disorders. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2007;31(5):728–51.
PouladiMA, MortonAJ, HaydenMRChoosing an animal model for the study of Huntington’s disease. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013;14(10):708–21.
28.
ChangR, LiuX, LiS, LiX-JTransgenic animal models for study of the pathogenesis of Huntington’s disease and therapy. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2015;9, 2179–88.
29.
BaxaM, Hruska-PlochanM, JuhasS, VodickaP, PavlokA, JuhasovaJ, et al. A transgenic minipig model of Huntington’s disease. J Huntingtons Dis. 2013;2(1):47–68.
30.
SchramkeS, SchuldenzuckerV, SchubertR, FrankF, WirsigM, OttS, et al. Behavioral phenotyping of minipigs transgenic for the Huntington gene. J Neurosci Methods. 2016;265, 34–45.
31.
SchubertR, FrankF, NagelmannN, LiebschL, SchuldenzuckerV, SchramkeS, et al. Neuroimaging of a minipig model of Huntington’s disease: Feasibility of volumetric, diffusion-weighted and spectroscopic assessments. J Neurosci Methods. 2016;265, 46–55.
32.
SchuldenzuckerV, SchubertR, MuratoriLM, FreisfeldF, RiekeL, MatheisT, et al. Behavioral testing of minipigs transgenic for the Huntington gene-A three-year observational study. PloS One. 2017;12(10):e0185970.
33.
RuszJ, KlempíJ, TykalováT, BaborováE, ČmejlaR, RužičkaE, et al. Characteristics and occurrence of speech impairment in Huntington’s disease: Possible influence of antipsychotic medication. J Neural Transm Vienna Austria. 2014;121(12):1529–39.
34.
TykalováT, HlavnickáJ, MacákováM, BaxaM, CmejlaR, MotlíkJ, et al. Grunting in a genetically modified minipig animal model for Huntington’s disease - pilot experiments. Čes Slov Neurol Neurochir . 2015;78/111(S2):61–5.
35.
MarchantJN, WhittakerX, BroomDMVocalisations of the adult female domestic pig during a standard human approach test and their relationships with behavioural and heart rate measures. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2001;72(1):23–39.
36.
SchraderL, TodtDVocal quality is correlated with levels of stress hormones in domestic pigs. Ethology. 1998;104(10):859–76.
37.
ManteuffelG, PuppeB, SchönPCVocalization of farm animals as a measure of welfare. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2004;88(1-2):163–82.
38.
DüpjanS, SchönP-C, PuppeB, TuchschererA, ManteuffelGDifferential vocal responses to physical and mental stressors in domestic pigs (Sus scrofa). Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2008;114(1-2):105–15.
39.
ReimertI, BolhuisJE, KempB, RodenburgTBIndicators of positive and negative emotions and emotional contagion in pigs. Physiol Behav. 2013;109, 42–50.
40.
Imfeld-MuellerS, Van WezemaelL, StauffacherM, GygaxL, HillmannEDo pigs distinguish between situations of different emotional valences during anticipation? Appl Anim Behav Sci2011;131(3-4):86–93.
41.
MahnhardtS, BrietzkeJ, KanitzE, SchönPC, TuchschererA, GimsaU, et al. Anticipation and frequency of feeding affect heart reactions in domestic pigs. J Anim Sci. 2014;92(11):4878–87.
42.
WangXOn cortical coding of vocal communication sounds in primates. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000;97(22):11843–9.
43.
DüpjanS, TuchschererA, LangbeinJ, SchönP-C, ManteuffelG, PuppeBBehavioural and cardiac responses towards conspecific distress calls in domestic pigs (Sus scrofa). Physiol Behav. 2011;103(5):445–52.
44.
da Silva CordeiroAF, de Alencar NääsI, OliveiraSRM, ViolaroF, de AlmeidaACM, NevesDPUnderstanding vocalization might help to assess stressful conditions in piglets. Animals (Basel). 2013;3(3):923–34.
45.
RübU, SeidelK, HeinsenH, VonsattelJP, den DunnenWF, KorfHWHuntington’s disease (HD): The neuropathology of a multisystem neurodegenerative disorder of the human brain. Brain Pathol. 2016;26(6):726–40.
46.
PhilpottAL, CumminsTDR, BaileyNW, ChurchyardA, FitzgeraldPB, Georgiou-KaristianisNCortical inhibitory deficits in premanifest and early Huntington’s disease. Behav Brain Res. 2016;296, 311–7.
47.
KonopkaG, RobertsTFAnimal models of speech and vocal communication deficits associated with psychiatric disorders. Biol Psychiatry. 2016;79(1):53–61.
48.
TalletC, LinhartP, PolichtR, HammerschmidtK, SimečekP, KratinovaP, et al. Encoding of situations in the vocal repertoire of piglets (Sus scrofa): A comparison of discrete and graded classifications. PloS One. 2013;8(8):e71841.
49.
DolezalovaD, Hruska-PlochanM, BjarkamCR, SorensenJCH, CunninghamM, WeingartenD, et al. Pig models of neurodegenerative disorders: Utilization in cell replacement-based preclinical safety and efficacy studies. J Comp Neurol. 2014;522(12):2784–2801.
50.
KornumBR, KnudsenGMCognitive testing of pigs (Sus scrofa) in translational biobehavioral research. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2011;35(3):437–51.
