4.3 Article

Early Progenitor Cell Marker Expression Distinguishes Type II From Type I Focal Cortical Dysplasias

Journal

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1097/NEN.0b013e3181eac1f5

Keywords

Cortical dysplasia; Epilepsy; mTOR; STRAD alpha; Tuberous sclerosis complex

Funding

  1. Department of Defense CDMRP TSC Initiative
  2. National Epilepsy Fund [NEF 05-11]
  3. Stichting Michelle [M06.011, M07 016]
  4. [NS045877]
  5. [NS045022]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Type I and type II focal cortical dysplasias (FCDs) exhibit distinct histopathologic features that suggest different pathogenic mechanisms. Type I FCDs are characterized by mild laminar disorganization and hypertrophic neurons, whereas type II FCDs exhibit dramatic laminar disorganization and cytomegalic cells (balloon cells). Both FCD types are associated with intractable epilepsy; therefore, identifying cellular or molecular differences between these lesion types that explains the histologic differences could provide new diagnostic and therapeutic insights. Type II FCDs express nestin, a neuroglial progenitor protein that is modulated in vitro by the stem cell proteins c-Myc, sex-determining region Y-box 2 (SOX2), and Octamer-4 (Oct-4) after activation of mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1). Because mTORC1 activation has been demonstrated in type II FCDs, we hypothesized that c-Myc, SOX2, and Oct-4 expression would distinguish type II from type I FCDs. In addition, we assayed the expression of progenitor cell proteins forkhead box G1 (FOXG1), Kruppel-like factor 4 (KLF4), Nanog, and SOX3. Differential expression of 7 stem cellproteins and aberrant phosphorylation of 2 mTORC1 substrates, S6 and S6 kinase 1 proteins, clearly distinguished type II from type I FCDs (n = 10 each). Our results demonstrate new potential pathogenic pathways in type II FCDs and suggest biomarkers for diagnostic pathology in resected epilepsy specimens.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available