4.8 Article

Survival and Motor Phenotypes in FVB C9-500 ALS/FTD BAC Transgenic Mice Reproduced by Multiple Labs

Journal

NEURON
Volume 108, Issue 4, Pages 784-+

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2020.09.009

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [RO1 NS098819]
  2. Target ALS
  3. ALS Association
  4. Packard Center
  5. Muscular Dystrophy Association
  6. URVentures
  7. URMC
  8. Swiss National Science Foundation
  9. Swiss Foundation for Research on Muscle Diseases
  10. European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program [725825]
  11. European Research Council (ERC) [725825] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Mordes et al. (2020) did not detect the survival or motor phenotypes in C9orf72 BAC transgenic mice originally described by Liu et al. (2016) . We discuss methodological differences between the Mordes and Liu studies, several additional studies in which survival and motor phenotypes were found, and possible environmental and genetic effects. First, Nguyen et al. (2020) showed robust ALS/FTD phenotypes in C9-BAC versus non-transgenic (NT) mice and that alpha-GA(1) treatment improved survival, behavior, and neurodegeneration. The groups of Gelbard and Saxena also show decreased survival of C9-BAC versus NT mice and neuropathological and behavioral deficits similar to those shown by Liu et al. (2016) . Although FVB/N mice can have seizures, increases in seizure severity and death of C9 and NT animals, which may mask C9 disease phenotypes, have been observed in recent C9-500 FVB/NJ-bred cohorts. In summary, we provide an update on phenotypes seen in FVB C9-BAC mice and additional details to successfully use this model. This Matters Arising Response paper addresses the Mordes et al. (2020) Matters Arising paper, published concurrently in Neuron.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available