Back

A thalamostriatal brake counteracts cortical recruitment of striatal ensembles in levodopa-induced dyskinesia

Wang, J.; Tu, X.-Y.; Liang, J.-X.; Sun, J.-Y.; Xu, W.; Wang, Y.; Yi, X.; Wu, Y.-J.; Li, X.-N.; Liu, Y.-X.; Liu, Z.; Li, W.-G.; Song, L.

2026-07-27 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.07.22.740223 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Levodopa-induced dyskinesia (LID) is a disabling complication of Parkinsons disease therapy, yet how upstream circuits recruit and restrain dyskinesia-linked striatal ensembles remains unclear. Using FosTRAP-based ensemble access in a unilateral 6-hydroxydopamine mouse model, we identified secondary motor cortex (M2) and parafascicular thalamus (PF) as dominant afferents with opposing functions. Projection-wide M2 activation promoted dyskinesia, whereas PF activation suppressed ongoing dyskinesia and shifted behavior toward non-dyskinetic states. Chronic levodopa reduced overall presynaptic terminal abundance while preserving putative contacts onto ensemble neurons, thereby increasing effective pathway-to-ensemble coupling. This remodeling followed distinct pathway rules: M2 contacts became spatially dispersed and biased toward NMDAR-mediated excitation, whereas PF inputs recruited stronger polysynaptic inhibition. Dyskinesia preferentially re-engaged ensemble-projecting M2 neurons, but reactivated PF neurons were topographically segregated from PF neurons directly innervating the ensemble. Accordingly, selective M2-to-ensemble stimulation promoted dyskinesia, whereas selective PF-to-ensemble stimulation was ineffective. Finally, ensemble-restricted Grin1 knockdown reduced peak dyskinesia and weakened M2-driven dyskinesia. These findings define LID as a targetable imbalance between cortical ensemble recruitment and thalamostriatal restraint.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.