Keywords
MPTP, marmoset, reproduction
-
Views
Downloads
How to cite this article
Nuara SG, Burgess LA, Hamadjida A et al. The neuro-toxin MPTP does not prevent reproduction in marmosets [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. MNI Open Res 2019, 3:2 (https://doi.org/10.12688/mniopenres.12818.2) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Export Citation
Sciwheel
EndNote
Ref. Manager
Bibtex
ProCite
Sente
▬
✚
Research Note
Revised
The neuro-toxin MPTP does not prevent reproduction in marmosets
[version 2; peer review: 2 approved] PUBLISHED 22 May 2019
OPEN PEER REVIEW
REVIEWER STATUS
Abstract
Corresponding author: Philippe Huot Competing interests: PH has received payments from UCB.
Grant information: PH has research support from Parkinson Canada, Fonds de Recherche Québec – Santé, the Weston Brain Institute, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Michael J Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research and the Montreal Neurological Institute.
Copyright: © 2019 Nuara SG et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Nuara SG, Burgess LA, Hamadjida A et al. The neuro-toxin MPTP does not prevent reproduction in marmosets [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. MNI Open Res 2019, 3:2 (https://doi.org/10.12688/mniopenres.12818.2) First published: 26 Apr 2019, 3:2 (https://doi.org/10.12688/mniopenres.12818.1) Latest published: 22 May 2019, 3:2 (https://doi.org/10.12688/mniopenres.12818.2) Revised Amendments from Version 1
In this revised version of the manuscript, we have incorporated the changes suggested by the reviewers. Specifically, we acknowledge that the observations made in the marmoset may not be generalisable to Old World monkeys and we also emphasise the fact that MPTP was administered acutely.
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Joachim Wistuba
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Cécile Moro
Introduction
The common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus) has been used to model Parkinson’s disease since 19841 and since then, nearly 100 experimental drugs that aim at alleviating disease manifestations and treatment-related complications have been assessed in this small primate2. Marmosets are typically rendered parkinsonian by administration of a neuro-toxin, 1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine (MPTP), which destroys dopaminergic neurons3, leading to a parkinsonian phenotype.
Despite this abundant literature, whether MPTP interferes with marmosets’ ability to procreate has, to our knowledge, not been documented. Here, we report the case of 3 marmosets which were able to generate offspring after having been administered MPTP.
Methods
Animals
Two male and 1 female common marmosets (from McGill University breeding colony), weighing 350–400g, were pair-housed under conditions of controlled temperature (24±1°C), humidity (50%) and a 12h light/dark cycle (07:15 lights on). They were cared for in accordance with a protocol approved by McGill University and the Montreal Neurological Institute Animal Care Committees in accordance with the regulations defined by the Canadian Council on Animal Care. They had unlimited access to water and were fed with marmoset food (Mazuri® Marmoset Jelly, catalogue number 0007066, USA), nuts and fresh fruits twice daily. Home cages were enriched with primate toys, nestboxes and perches. All efforts were made to avoid causing harm to animals; we achieved this by working in close collaboration with the Animal Care Committees and veterinary teams.
Induction and assessment of parkinsonism
Parkinsonism was induced by s.c. injections of MPTP hydrochloride in the back of the animals (2 mg/kg every other day, for 5 days, at 08:30; catalogue number M0896, MilliporeSigma, Canada), as previously reported4–9. Animals were not sedated during the injections.
Following a 6-week recovery period, a stable parkinsonian phenotype was observed. For behavioural assessment, each marmoset was placed individually into an observation cage (36 × 33 × 22 in) containing food, water and a wooden perch, and left undisturbed for 6 h. Behaviour was recorded via webcam and analysed post hoc by a movement disorder neurologist blinded to the treatment given.
Parkinsonism was scored for 5 min every 10 min using a scale that combined measures of range of movement, bradykinesia, posture, and attention/alertness4–7,10,11. Range of movement was rated on a 0 to 9 scale: 0 = running, jumping between roof, walls, perch, using limbs through a wide range of activity; 9 = no movement. Bradykinesia was rated from 0 to 3: 0 = normal initiation and speed of movement; 3 = prolonged freezing, akinesia, inability to move. Postural abnormalities were rated 0 or 1: 0 = normal balance, upright posture, head held up; 1 = impaired balance, crouched posture, head down. Attention/alertness was rated 0 or 1; 0 = normal head checking movements, movement of neck in variable directions, smooth, small movements; 1 = reduced or absent head checking, head in one position for more than 50% of observation period. The score attributed to each of the behaviours assessed was the most prevalent of the 5 min observation period. The global parkinsonian was calculated as a combination of the above behaviours according to the following formula: (range of movement × 1) + (bradykinesia × 3) + (posture × 9) + (attention/alertness × 9). The maximal parkinsonian disability score per 5 min observation period was 36.
Housing and breeding
As mentioned above, marmosets were pair-housed. One male marmoset was paired with a female marmoset which had not been exposed to MPTP, while 1 MPTP-lesioned male and 1 MPTP-lesioned female marmosets were housed together.
Behavioural assessment of the young marmosets
To minimise stress to families and to avoid interfering with the rearing process, newborn marmosets were not caught and all observations were made by experienced animal care technicians in the animal’s home cages.
Euthanasia
As we will report later, two newborn marmosets had to be euthanised. They were administered ketamine (Vetoquinol N.-A Inc, Canada) 20 mg/kg intra-muscularly, followed by 100 mg/kg sodium pentobarbital (Vetoquinol N.-A Inc, Canada) intravenously, according to McGill University standard operating procedures (https://www.mcgill.ca/research/research/compliance/animals/animal-research-practices/sop).
Results
Parkinsonism
Acute administration of MPTP resulted in the development of a parkinsonian phenotype, characterised by bradykinesia, hunched posture, reduced activity and reduced alertness in all 3 animals, as previously reported4–7.
Pairing and breeding
Parkinsonian male marmoset paired with non-parkinsonian female marmoset. At the time of the pairing (May 2017), the male marmoset was 3.5 years old and he was paired with a 3-year old female marmoset. The female marmoset was pregnant at the time of the pairing and gave birth to twin babies (1 male and 1 female baby) 4 months later (September 2017). Despite not being the biological father of these 2 babies, the male marmoset was an active and attentive participant in the rearing of these two babies.
Five months later (February 2018), i.e. 9 months after the pairing, triplets were born, of which 2 survived. Based on our experience, when female marmosets give birth to triplets, it is expected that one baby may not survive, and it is therefore unlikely that this casualty can be attributed to MPTP. Another 6 months later (August 2018), a second set of triplets, of which 2 survived, were born. More recently, twins were born (January 2019).
Thus, the male marmoset that was administered MPTP has so far fathered 8 babies, 6 of which have survived, are healthy and are developing normally, e.g. weaning, range of motion, body size, etc. In addition, the male marmoset has also been actively involved in the care and rearing of the babies.
Parkinsonian male marmoset paired with parkinsonian female marmoset. A male and a female marmoset, both aged ≈ 8 years old, were administered MPTP 5 years ago and have been pair-housed together since then. The female marmoset has been administered monthly injections of progesterone-based contraceptive. Quite unexpectedly, despite the parkinsonian state of both animals and the monthly injections, the female marmoset gave birth to twins in September 2018. Because experiments in which the female marmoset was administered investigational products were conducted during the pregnancy and that the impact of these substances on babies was uncertain, and also because the adequacy of the care provided by the 2 parkinsonian parents was uncertain, a decision was made to euthanise the newly-born marmosets shortly after their birth.
Discussion
Here, we report that marmosets were able to procreate after having been administered with the neuro-toxin MPTP. These cases suggest that MPTP, when administered acutely may not be toxic to the reproductive system, in the marmoset. Moreover, MPTP-exposed marmosets appear to be able to care for their offspring, despite their parkinsonism. It is noteworthy that marmosets are New World monkeys; it is currently unknown whether Old World monkeys, apes or humans would be able to procreate after exposure to MPTP.
In the case of the parkinsonian male marmoset paired with the non-parkinsonian female marmoset, that babies were born 9 months after the pairing occurred makes a strong case that the MPTP-exposed animal is the biological father of the offspring. The average gestation period of a female marmoset lasts 143-144 days, and twin babies are common12; the birth of another set of triplets 5 months after the last delivery is an agreement with the duration and the outcome of a normal pregnancy, as is the subsequent birth of twins.
In the case of the paired MPTP-lesioned marmosets, that the 2 animals were housed exclusively together for years indicates that babies were conceived by 2 parkinsonian animals. It is nevertheless surprising that the female marmoset was able to become pregnant despite the monthly administration of contraceptive. It is possible that the injection was not optimally timed within her cycle; whether MPTP slightly interfered with the cycle duration remains uncertain.
In the brain, MPTP is converted to its toxic metabolite, 1-methyl-4-phenylpyridinium [MPP+] by the enzyme monoamine oxidase B [MAO-B]13 in astrocytes14,15 and then enters dopaminergic neurons via the dopamine transporter16. The dopamine transporter is expressed, albeit at low levels, in the hypothalamus17,18, and MPTP administration was shown to produce degenerative changes to hypothalamic dopaminergic neurons, in the marmoset19. This could, in theory, lead to disruption of the hypothalamo – hypophyso – gonadal axis with possible incapacity to procreate, but that does not seem to be the case, based on our report.
Several organs in addition to the brain express the MAO-B, notably blood, kidneys and liver20, representing sites where MPP+ could be generated. However, the dopamine transporter may not be present within the testis, which is why MPP+ may not have led to a loss of reproductive function. Recently, it was shown that the dopamine transporter may be present on spermatozoids21, suggesting that perhaps MPTP could be toxic to spermatozoids acutely, but with on-going spermatogenesis, this effect might be short-lived.
MPTP could also be toxic to the autonomic nervous system in rhesus macaques, but a recovery process seems to happen22.
In summary, this report suggests that MPTP administration may not affect the reproductive function in marmosets or, if it does, it is for a limited period of time. Future reports and studies are required to confirm our observations.
Download
Export To
metrics
VIEWS
$counts.viewCount
downloads
Citations
CITE
how to cite this article
Nuara SG, Burgess LA, Hamadjida A et al. The neuro-toxin MPTP does not prevent reproduction in marmosets [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] MNI Open Res 2019, 3:2 (https://doi.org/10.12688/mniopenres.12818.2)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
track
receive updates on this article
Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Competing Interests Policy
Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list:
Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests'
- Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper.
- You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors.
- You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student).
- You work at the same institute as any of the authors.
- You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission.
- You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published.
Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests'
- You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements.
- You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors.
- You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on.
Stay Updated
Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles
Register with MNI Open Research
Already registered? Sign in
Open Peer Review
https://mniopenresearch.org/articles/3-2/v2#referee-response-26171
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
https://mniopenresearch.org/articles/3-2/v2#referee-response-26171
https://mniopenresearch.org/articles/3-2/v2#referee-response-26172
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Reproductive Biology
https://mniopenresearch.org/articles/3-2/v2#referee-response-26172
https://mniopenresearch.org/articles/3-2/v1#referee-response-26170
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Not applicable
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
No source data required
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Partly
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Macaca fascicularis; parkinsonian model; photobiomodulation
https://mniopenresearch.org/articles/3-2/v1#referee-response-26170
This is a concern we have had from the moment we began ... Continue reading However, it is more a case report than an experimental plan to study effets of MPTP on reproduction.
This is a concern we have had from the moment we began working on this report, as the manuscript does not precisely fits any of the proposed categories. We went back to the MNI Open Research authors’ guidelines, which state that case reports should describe clinical observations. For this reason, acknowledging the caveat mentioned by the Reviewer, we would like to leave the manuscript within the “Research Notes” category.
In the present study, MPTP was injected for only 5 days, and it is known that MPTP is washed out after a few days in mice, and that brain function recover partly after a few months. I would suggest to adapt discussion to a case report instead of scientific conclusion, and/or indicate that MPTP exposure was temporary.
See response to the comment above for the first half of the query. We now emphasise that the exposure to MPTP was temporary: “These cases suggest that MPTP, when administered acutely may not be toxic to the reproductive system, in the marmoset”.
This is a concern we have had from the moment we began working on this report, as the manuscript does not precisely fits any of the proposed categories. We went back to the MNI Open Research authors’ guidelines, which state that case reports should describe clinical observations. For this reason, acknowledging the caveat mentioned by the Reviewer, we would like to leave the manuscript within the “Research Notes” category.
In the present study, MPTP was injected for only 5 days, and it is known that MPTP is washed out after a few days in mice, and that brain function recover partly after a few months. I would suggest to adapt discussion to a case report instead of scientific conclusion, and/or indicate that MPTP exposure was temporary.
See response to the comment above for the first half of the query. We now emphasise that the exposure to MPTP was temporary: “These cases suggest that MPTP, when administered acutely may not be toxic to the reproductive system, in the marmoset”.
This is a concern we have had from the moment we began ... Continue reading However, it is more a case report than an experimental plan to study effets of MPTP on reproduction.
This is a concern we have had from the moment we began working on this report, as the manuscript does not precisely fits any of the proposed categories. We went back to the MNI Open Research authors’ guidelines, which state that case reports should describe clinical observations. For this reason, acknowledging the caveat mentioned by the Reviewer, we would like to leave the manuscript within the “Research Notes” category.
In the present study, MPTP was injected for only 5 days, and it is known that MPTP is washed out after a few days in mice, and that brain function recover partly after a few months. I would suggest to adapt discussion to a case report instead of scientific conclusion, and/or indicate that MPTP exposure was temporary.
See response to the comment above for the first half of the query. We now emphasise that the exposure to MPTP was temporary: “These cases suggest that MPTP, when administered acutely may not be toxic to the reproductive system, in the marmoset”.
This is a concern we have had from the moment we began working on this report, as the manuscript does not precisely fits any of the proposed categories. We went back to the MNI Open Research authors’ guidelines, which state that case reports should describe clinical observations. For this reason, acknowledging the caveat mentioned by the Reviewer, we would like to leave the manuscript within the “Research Notes” category.
In the present study, MPTP was injected for only 5 days, and it is known that MPTP is washed out after a few days in mice, and that brain function recover partly after a few months. I would suggest to adapt discussion to a case report instead of scientific conclusion, and/or indicate that MPTP exposure was temporary.
See response to the comment above for the first half of the query. We now emphasise that the exposure to MPTP was temporary: “These cases suggest that MPTP, when administered acutely may not be toxic to the reproductive system, in the marmoset”.
https://mniopenresearch.org/articles/3-2/v1#referee-response-26166
This report is interesting as it was not yet clear whether or not the toxin interferes with the HPG axis or the local endocrine milieu in primates in a way that might hamper reproductive ability. Moreover the Parkinson-like phenotype appears not to impair brood care behaviour. However, it should be considered that neotropic monkeys have a peculiar endocrine regulation of reproduction and the results seen here might therefore not be fully transferable to other primates.
The report is well designed ad gives full insight into the events observed. I have only two questions/comment the authors might consider for discussion:
- As in case of the pair the female was treated with contraception it was not clear to me why she got pregnant at all? In line with this it might be that MPTP treatment has an effect on the time to pregnancy, which cannot be excluded due to the contraceptive regimen applied to the female. The authors might consider to discuss this point.
- The endocrine regulation in marmosets is peculiar – thus, it might be that MPTP is not interfering into New World monkeys reproductive regulation, however this does not mean that the same is true in other monkey, incl. the human.
Minor: in Materials and Methods, the authors state that the monkeys had unlimited access to food – is that really true?Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Not applicable
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Yes
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Reproductive Biology
https://mniopenresearch.org/articles/3-2/v1#referee-response-26166
Indeed, we were equally surprised when it was discovered that the female marmoset became pregnant despite the contraception. The following sentences were added to discuss it: “It is nevertheless surprising that the female marmoset was able to become pregnant despite the monthly administration of contraceptive. It is possible that the injection was not optimally timed within her cycle; whether MPTP slightly interfered with the cycle duration remains uncertain."
The endocrine regulation in marmosets is peculiar – thus, it might be that MPTP is not interfering into New World monkeys reproductive regulation, however this does not mean that the same is true in other monkey, incl. the human.
This is an important point about which we did not think while writing the report. We have added this sentence to incorporate it: “It is noteworthy that marmosets are New World monkeys; it is currently unknown whether Old World monkeys, apes or humans would be able to procreate after exposure to MPTP”.
In Materials and Methods, the authors state that the monkeys had unlimited access to food – is that really true?
We thank the Reviewer for noticing this detail. We corrected it and it now reads: “They had unlimited access to water and were fed with marmoset food (Mazuri Marmoset Jelly, catalogue Number 0007066, USA), nuts and fresh fruits twice daily”.
Indeed, we were equally surprised when it was discovered that the female marmoset became pregnant despite the contraception. The following sentences were added to discuss it: “It is nevertheless surprising that the female marmoset was able to become pregnant despite the monthly administration of contraceptive. It is possible that the injection was not optimally timed within her cycle; whether MPTP slightly interfered with the cycle duration remains uncertain."
The endocrine regulation in marmosets is peculiar – thus, it might be that MPTP is not interfering into New World monkeys reproductive regulation, however this does not mean that the same is true in other monkey, incl. the human.
This is an important point about which we did not think while writing the report. We have added this sentence to incorporate it: “It is noteworthy that marmosets are New World monkeys; it is currently unknown whether Old World monkeys, apes or humans would be able to procreate after exposure to MPTP”.
In Materials and Methods, the authors state that the monkeys had unlimited access to food – is that really true?
We thank the Reviewer for noticing this detail. We corrected it and it now reads: “They had unlimited access to water and were fed with marmoset food (Mazuri Marmoset Jelly, catalogue Number 0007066, USA), nuts and fresh fruits twice daily”.
Indeed, we were equally surprised when it was discovered that the female marmoset became pregnant despite the contraception. The following sentences were added to discuss it: “It is nevertheless surprising that the female marmoset was able to become pregnant despite the monthly administration of contraceptive. It is possible that the injection was not optimally timed within her cycle; whether MPTP slightly interfered with the cycle duration remains uncertain."
The endocrine regulation in marmosets is peculiar – thus, it might be that MPTP is not interfering into New World monkeys reproductive regulation, however this does not mean that the same is true in other monkey, incl. the human.
This is an important point about which we did not think while writing the report. We have added this sentence to incorporate it: “It is noteworthy that marmosets are New World monkeys; it is currently unknown whether Old World monkeys, apes or humans would be able to procreate after exposure to MPTP”.
In Materials and Methods, the authors state that the monkeys had unlimited access to food – is that really true?
We thank the Reviewer for noticing this detail. We corrected it and it now reads: “They had unlimited access to water and were fed with marmoset food (Mazuri Marmoset Jelly, catalogue Number 0007066, USA), nuts and fresh fruits twice daily”.
Indeed, we were equally surprised when it was discovered that the female marmoset became pregnant despite the contraception. The following sentences were added to discuss it: “It is nevertheless surprising that the female marmoset was able to become pregnant despite the monthly administration of contraceptive. It is possible that the injection was not optimally timed within her cycle; whether MPTP slightly interfered with the cycle duration remains uncertain."
The endocrine regulation in marmosets is peculiar – thus, it might be that MPTP is not interfering into New World monkeys reproductive regulation, however this does not mean that the same is true in other monkey, incl. the human.
This is an important point about which we did not think while writing the report. We have added this sentence to incorporate it: “It is noteworthy that marmosets are New World monkeys; it is currently unknown whether Old World monkeys, apes or humans would be able to procreate after exposure to MPTP”.
In Materials and Methods, the authors state that the monkeys had unlimited access to food – is that really true?
We thank the Reviewer for noticing this detail. We corrected it and it now reads: “They had unlimited access to water and were fed with marmoset food (Mazuri Marmoset Jelly, catalogue Number 0007066, USA), nuts and fresh fruits twice daily”.