4.5 Article

In vivo phenotypic and molecular characterization of retinal degeneration in mouse models of three ciliopathies

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL EYE RESEARCH
卷 186, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.exer.2019.107721

关键词

Ciliopathies; Unfolded protein response; Retinitis pigmentosa; Bardet-biedl syndrome; Alstrom syndrome; Leber congenital amaurosis

资金

  1. Retina France, France
  2. Formicoeur, France
  3. UNADEV, France
  4. Inserm, France
  5. University of Strasbourg, France

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cilia are highly conserved and ubiquitously expressed organelles. Ciliary defects of genetic origins lead to ciliopathies, in which retinal degeneration (RD) is one cardinal clinical feature. In order to efficiently find and design new therapeutic strategies the underlying mechanism of retinal degeneration of three murine model was compared. The rodent models correspond to three emblematic ciliopathies, namely: Bardet-Biedl Syndrome (BBS), Alstrom Syndrome (ALMS) and CEP290-mediated Leber Congenital Amaurosis (LCA). Scotopic rodent electroretinography (ERG) was used to test the retinal function of mice, Transmitted Electron microscopy (T.E.M) was performed to assess retinal structural defects and real-time PCR for targeted genes was used to monitor the expression levels of the major apoptotic Caspase-related pathways in retinal extracts to identify pathological pathways driving the RD in order to identify potential therapeutic targets. We found that BBS and CEP290-mediated LCA mouse models exhibit perinatal retinal degeneration associated with rhodopsin mislocalization in the photoreceptor and the induction of an Endoplasmic Reticulum (ER) stress. On the other hand, the tested ALMS mouse model, displayed a slower degeneration phenotype, with no Rhodopsin mislocalization nor ER-stress activity. Our data points out that behind the general phenotype of vision loss associated with these ciliopathies, the mechanisms and kinetics of disease progression are different.

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