4.5 Article

Prevention of premature death and seizures in a Depdc5 mouse epilepsy model through inhibition of mTORC1

期刊

HUMAN MOLECULAR GENETICS
卷 29, 期 8, 页码 1365-1377

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/hmg/ddaa068

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [K08 NS083710]
  2. National Institute of General Medical Sciences [T32GM007347, C57BL/6 N-Depdc5tm1c, C57BL/6N-Depdc5tm1c]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mutations in DEP domain containing 5 (DEPDC5) are increasingly appreciated as one of the most common causes of inherited focal epilepsy. Epilepsies due to DEPDC5 mutations are often associated with brain malformations, tend to be drug-resistant, and have been linked to an increased risk of sudden unexplained death in epilepsy (SUDEP). Generation of epilepsy models to define mechanisms of epileptogenesis remains vital for future therapies. Here, we describe a novel mouse model of Depdc5 deficiency with a severe epilepsy phenotype, generated by conditional deletion of Depdc5 in dorsal telencephalic neuroprogenitor cells. In contrast to control and heterozygous mice, Depdc5-Emx1-Cre conditional knockout (CKO) mice demonstrated macrocephaly, spontaneous seizures and premature death. Consistent with increased mTORC1 activation, targeted neurons were enlarged and both neurons and astrocytes demonstrated increased S6 phosphorylation. Electrophysiologic characterization of miniature inhibitory post-synaptic currents in excitatory neurons was consistent with impaired post-synaptic response to GABAergic input, suggesting a potential mechanism for neuronal hyperexcitability. mTORC1 inhibition with rapamycin significantly improved survival of CKO animals and prevented observed seizures, including for up to 40 days following rapamycin withdrawal. These data not only support a primary role for mTORC1 hyperactivation in epilepsy following homozygous loss of Depdc5, but also suggest a developmental window for treatment which may have a durable benefit for some time even after withdrawal.

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