4.5 Article

The Deep Intronic c.903+469T>C Mutation in the MTRR Gene Creates an SF2/ASF Binding Exonic Splicing Enhancer, Which Leads to Pseudoexon Activation and Causes the cbIE Type of Homocystinuria

期刊

HUMAN MUTATION
卷 31, 期 4, 页码 437-444

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/humu.21206

关键词

MTRR; ESE; SF2/ASF; Pre-mRNA splicing; cblE; homocystinuria

资金

  1. Grant Agency of Charles University, Czech Republic [30/2004]
  2. Charles University, Ministry of Education of the Czech Republic [MSM0021620806]
  3. Danish Research Council for Health and Disease [22-04-395, 271-07-342]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Deep intronic mutations are often ignored as possible causes of human diseases. A deep intronic mutation in the MTRR gene, c.903+469T>C, is the most frequent mutation causing the cblE type of homocystinuria. It is well known to be associated with pre-mRNA rnissplicing, resulting in pseudoexon inclusion; however, the pathological mechanism remains unknown. We used minigenes to demonstrate that this mutation is the direct cause of MTRR pseudoexon inclusion, and that the pseudoexon is normally not recognized due to a suboptimal 5' splice site. Within the pseudoexon we identified an exonic splicing enhancer (ESE), which is activated by the mutation. Cotransfection and siRNA experiments showed that pseudoexon inclusion depends on the cellular amounts of SF2/ASF and in vitro RNA-binding assays showed dramatically increased SF2/ASF binding to the mutant MTRR ESE. The mutant MTRR ESE sequence is identical to an ESE of the alternatively spliced MST1R proto-oncogene, which suggests that this ESE could be frequently involved in splicing regulation. Our study conclusively demonstrates that an intronic single nucleotide change is sufficient to cause pseudoexon activation via creation of a functional ESE, which binds a specific splicing factor. We suggest that this mechanism may cause genetic disease much more frequently than previously reported. Hum Mutat 31:437-444, 2010. (C) 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据