4.5 Article

Differential effects of the Huntington's disease CAG mutation in striatum and cerebellum are quantitative not qualitative

Journal

HUMAN MOLECULAR GENETICS
Volume 20, Issue 21, Pages 4258-4267

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/hmg/ddr355

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [NS32765, NS049206]
  2. Massachusetts HD Center Without Walls [NS16367]
  3. i2b2 [LM008748-01]
  4. Huntington's Disease Society of America Coalition for the Cure Normal Function Team

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Huntington's disease (HD) involves marked early neurodegeneration in the striatum, whereas the cerebellum is relatively spared despite the ubiquitous expression of full-length mutant huntingtin, implying that inherent tissue-specific differences determine susceptibility to the HD CAG mutation. To understand this tissue specificity, we compared early mutant huntingtin-induced gene expression changes in striatum to those in cerebellum in young Hdh CAG knock-in mice, prior to onset of evident pathological alterations. Endogenous levels of full-length mutant huntingtin caused qualitatively similar, but quantitatively different gene expression changes in the two brain regions. Importantly, the quantitatively different responses in the striatum and cerebellum in mutant mice were well accounted for by the intrinsic molecular differences in gene expression between the striatum and cerebellum in wild-type animals. Tissue-specific gene expression changes in response to the HD mutation, therefore, appear to reflect the different inherent capacities of these tissues to buffer qualitatively similar effects of mutant huntingtin. These findings highlight a role for intrinsic quantitative tissue differences in contributing to HD pathogenesis, and likely to other neurodegenerative disorders exhibiting tissue-specificity, thereby guiding the search for effective therapeutic interventions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available