4.8 Article

Pathogenic variants in glutamyl-tRNAGln amidotransferase subunits cause a lethal mitochondrial cardiomyopathy disorder

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-06250-w

关键词

-

资金

  1. Medical Research Council, UK [MC_U105697135, MC_UU_00015/4]
  2. Miracles for Mito
  3. Children's Hospital Colorado Foundation
  4. University of Colorado Foundation
  5. Telethon Foundation, Italy [GGP15041]
  6. Instituto de Salud Carlos III [PI13/00556, PI16/00789]
  7. FEDER funds from the E.U.
  8. Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia [PD/BD/105750/2014]
  9. MRC [MC_UU_00015/4, MC_U105697135] Funding Source: UKRI
  10. Medical Research Council [MC_UU_00015/4] Funding Source: researchfish
  11. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [PD/BD/105750/2014] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mitochondrial protein synthesis requires charging mt-tRNAs with their cognate amino acids by mitochondrial aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases, with the exception of glutaminyl mt-tRNA (mt-tRNA(Gln)). mt-tRNA(Gln) is indirectly charged by a transamidation reaction involving the GatCAB aminoacyl-tRNA amidotransferase complex. Defects involving the mitochondrial protein synthesis machinery cause a broad spectrum of disorders, with often fatal outcome. Here, we describe nine patients from five families with genetic defects in a GatCAB complex subunit, including QRSL1, GATB, and GATC, each showing a lethal metabolic cardiomyopathy syndrome. Functional studies reveal combined respiratory chain enzyme deficiencies and mitochondrial dysfunction. Aminoacylation of mt-tRNAGln and mitochondrial protein translation are deficient in patients' fibroblasts cultured in the absence of glutamine but restore in high glutamine. Lentiviral rescue experiments and modeling in S. cerevisiae homologs confirm pathogenicity. Our study completes a decade of investigations on mitochondrial aminoacylation disorders, starting with DARS2 and ending with the GatCAB complex.

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

4.8
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