4.6 Article

Increased DNA Damage and Apoptosis in CDKL5-Deficient Neurons

期刊

MOLECULAR NEUROBIOLOGY
卷 57, 期 5, 页码 2244-2262

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12035-020-01884-8

关键词

CDKL5; Neuronal maturation; Oxidative stress; DNA damage; gamma H2AX

资金

  1. Italian parent association CDKL5 insieme verso la cura

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mutations in the CDKL5 gene, which encodes a serine/threonine kinase, causes a rare encephalopathy, characterized by early-onset epilepsy and severe intellectual disability, named CDKL5 deficiency disorder (CDD). In vitro and in vivo studies in mouse models of Cdkl5 deficiency have highlighted the role of CDKL5 in brain development and, in particular, in the morphogenesis and synaptic connectivity of hippocampal and cortical neurons. Interestingly, Cdkl5 deficiency in mice increases vulnerability to excitotoxic stress in hippocampal neurons. However, the mechanism by which CDKL5 controls neuronal survival is far from being understood. To investigate further the function of CDKL5 and dissect the molecular mechanisms underlying neuronal survival, we generated a human neuronal model of CDKL5 deficiency, using CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genome editing. We demonstrated that CDKL5 deletion in human neuroblastoma SH-SY5Y cells not only impairs neuronal maturation but also reduces cell proliferation and survival, with alterations in the AKT and ERK signaling pathways and an increase in the proapoptotic BAX protein and in DNA damage-associated biomarkers (i.e., gamma H2AX, RAD50, and PARP1). Furthermore, CDKL5-deficient cells were hypersensitive to DNA damage-associated stress, accumulated more DNA damage foci (gamma H2AX positive) and were more prone to cell death than the controls. Importantly, increased kainic acid-induced cell death of hippocampal neurons of Cdkl5 KO mice correlated with an increased gamma H2AX immunostaining. The results suggest a previously unknown role for CDKL5 in DNA damage response that could underlie the pro-survival function of CDKL5.

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