4.8 Article

Sarm1 Deletion, but Not WldS, Confers Lifelong Rescue in a Mouse Model of Severe Axonopathy

Journal

CELL REPORTS
Volume 21, Issue 1, Pages 10-16

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2017.09.027

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Medical Research Council grants [MR/N004582/1, MR/M024075/1]
  2. Motor Neurone Disease Association (MNDA) grant [838-791]
  3. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
  4. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BBS/E/B/000C0433] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. Medical Research Council [G1000702, MR/N004582/1, MR/M024075/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. Motor Neurone Disease Association [Ribchester/Apr15/838-791] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. BBSRC [BBS/E/B/000C0433] Funding Source: UKRI
  8. MRC [MR/M024075/1, G1000702, MR/N004582/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Studies with the Wld(S) mutant mouse have shown that axon and synapse pathology in several models of neurodegenerative diseases are mechanistically related to injury-induced axon degeneration Wallerian degeneration). Crucially, an absence of SARM1 delays Wallerian degeneration as robustly as Wld(S), but their relative capacities to confer long-term protection against related, non-injury axonopathy and/or synaptopathy have not been directly compared. While Sarm1 deletion or Wld(S) can rescue perinatal lethality and widespread Wallerian-like axonopathy in young NMNAT2-deficient mice, we report that an absence of SARM1 enables these mice to survive into old age with no overt phenotype, whereas those rescued by Wld(S) invariantly develop a progressive neuromuscular defect in their hindlimbs from around 3 months of age. We therefore propose Sarm1 deletion as a more reliable tool than Wld S for investigating Wallerian-like mechanisms in disease models and suggest that SARM1 blockade may have greater therapeutic potential than WLDS-related strategies.

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