4.6 Review

Molecular Mechanisms and Therapeutics for the GAA•TTC Expansion Disease Friedreich Ataxia

期刊

NEUROTHERAPEUTICS
卷 16, 期 4, 页码 1032-1049

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13311-019-00764-x

关键词

Friedreich ataxia; trinucleotide repeat expansion; transcription; epigenetics; mitochondrial disease; therapeutics

资金

  1. NEI NIH HHS [R01 EY026490, R01 EY029166] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIH, NINDS [5R01NS062856] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NINDS NIH HHS [R01 NS062856] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Friedreich ataxia (FRDA), the most common inherited ataxia, is caused by transcriptional silencing of the nuclear FXN gene, encoding the essential mitochondrial protein frataxin. Currently, there is no approved therapy for this fatal disorder. Gene silencing in FRDA is due to hyperexpansion of the triplet repeat sequence GAA center dot TTC in the first intron of the FXN gene, which results in chromatin histone modifications consistent with heterochromatin formation. Frataxin is involved in mitochondrial iron homeostasis and the assembly and transfer of iron-sulfur clusters to various mitochondrial enzymes and components of the electron transport chain. Frataxin insufficiency leads to progressive spinocerebellar neurodegeneration, causing symptoms of gait and limb ataxia, slurred speech, muscle weakness, sensory loss, and cardiomyopathy in many patients, resulting in death in early adulthood. Numerous approaches are being taken to find a treatment for FRDA, including excision or correction of the repeats by genome engineering methods, gene activation with small molecules or artificial transcription factors, delivery of frataxin to affected cells by protein replacement therapy, gene therapy, or small molecules to increase frataxin protein levels, and therapies aimed at countering the cellular consequences of reduced frataxin. This review will summarize the mechanisms involved in repeat-mediated gene silencing and recent efforts aimed at development of therapeutics.

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