4.7 Article

C9orf72 Dipeptide Repeats Cause Selective Neurodegeneration and Cell-Autonomous Excitotoxicity in Drosophila Glutamatergic Neurons

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 38, 期 35, 页码 7741-7752

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0908-18.2018

关键词

ALS; C9orf72 dipeptide repeats; cell-autonomous; excitotoxicity; FTD; selective neurotoxicity

资金

  1. National Science Foundation of China [81771425]
  2. Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology [2015ZX09102005002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The arginine-rich dipeptide repeats (DPRs) are highly toxic products from the C9orf72 repeat expansion mutations, which are the most common causes of familial amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD). However, the effects of DPRs in the synaptic regulation and excitotoxicity remain elusive, and how they contribute to the development of FTD is primarily unknown. By expressing DPRs with different toxicity strength in various neuronal populations in a Drosophila model, we unexpectedly found that Glycine-Arginine/Proline-Arginine (GR/PR) with 36 repeats could lead to neurodegenerative phenotypes only when they were expressed in glutamatergic neurons, including motor neurons. We detected increased extracellular glutamate and intracellular calcium levels in GR/PR-expressing larval ventral nerve cord and/or adult brain, accompanied by significant increase of synaptic boutons and active zones in larval neuromuscular junctions. Inhibiting the vesicular glutamate transporter expression or blocking the NMDA receptor in presynaptic glutamatergic motor neurons could effectively rescue the motor deficits and shortened life span caused by poly GR/PR, thus indicating a cell-autonomous excitotoxicity mechanism. Therefore, our results have revealed a novel mode of synaptic regulation by arginine-rich C9 DPRs expressed at more physiologically relevant toxicity levels and provided a mechanism that could contribute to the development of C9-related ALS and FTD.

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

4.7
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