4.6 Article

Reduced Life- and Healthspan in Mice Carrying a Mono-Allelic BubR1 MVA Mutation

期刊

PLOS GENETICS
卷 8, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1003138

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [R01-CA96985]
  2. Noaber Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mosaic Variegated Aneuploidy (MVA) syndrome is a rare autosomal recessive disorder characterized by inaccurate chromosome segregation and high rates of near-diploid aneuploidy. Children with MVA syndrome die at an early age, are cancer prone, and have progeroid features like facial dysmorphisms, short stature, and cataracts. The majority of MVA cases are linked to mutations in BUBR1, a mitotic checkpoint gene required for proper chromosome segregation. Affected patients either have bi-allelic BUBR1 mutations, with one allele harboring a missense mutation and the other a nonsense mutation, or mono-allelic BUBR1 mutations combined with allelic variants that yield low amounts of wild-type BubR1 protein. Parents of MVA patients that carry single allele mutations have mild mitotic defects, but whether they are at risk for any of the pathologies associated with MVA syndrome is unknown. To address this, we engineered a mouse model for the nonsense mutation 2211insGTTA (referred to as GTTA) found in MVA patients with bi-allelic BUBR1 mutations. Here we report that both the median and maximum lifespans of the resulting BubR1(+/GTTA) mice are significantly reduced. Furthermore, BubR1(+/GTTA) mice develop several aging-related phenotypes at an accelerated rate, including cataract formation, lordokyphosis, skeletal muscle wasting, impaired exercise ability, and fat loss. BubR1(+/GTTA) mice develop mild aneuploidies and show enhanced growth of carcinogen-induced tumors. Collectively, these data demonstrate that the BUBR1 GTTA mutation compromises longevity and healthspan, raising the interesting possibility that mono-allelic changes in BUBR1 might contribute to differences in aging rates in the general population.

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

4.6
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