4.5 Article

GABA- and acetylcholine-related gene expression in blood correlate with tic severity and microarray evidence for alternative splicing in Tourette syndrome: A pilot study

Journal

BRAIN RESEARCH
Volume 1381, Issue -, Pages 228-236

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2011.01.026

Keywords

Gene expression profiling; Tourette syndrome; Blood; GABA; Acetylcholine; Alternative splicing

Categories

Funding

  1. Tourette Syndrome Association (TSA)
  2. MIND Institute
  3. NIMH [K08 MH072958]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

burette syndrome (TS) is a complex childhood neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by motor and vocal tics. Recently, altered numbers of GABAergic-parvalbumin (PV) and cholinergic interneurons were observed in the basal ganglia of individuals with TS. Thus, we postulated that gamma-amino butyric acid (GABA)- and acetylcholine (ACh)-related genes might be associated with the pathophysiology of TS. Total RNA isolated from whole blood of 26 un-medicated TS subjects and 23 healthy controls (HC) was processed on Affymetrix Human Exon 1.0 ST arrays. Data were analyzed to identify genes whose expression correlated with tic severity in TS, and to identify genes differentially spliced in TS compared to HC subjects. Many genes (3627) correlated with tic severity in TS (p<0.05) among which GABA- (p = 2.1 x 10(-3)) and ACh- (p = 4.25 x 10(-8)) related genes were significantly over-represented. Moreover, several GABA and ACh-related genes were predicted to be alternatively spliced in IS compared to HC including GABA receptors GABRA4 and GABRG1, the nicotinic ACh receptor CHRNA4 and cholinergic differentiation factor (CDF). This pilot study suggests that at least some of these GABA- and ACh-related genes observed in blood that correlate with tics or are alternatively spliced are involved in the pathophysiology of TS and tics. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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