4.7 Article

Membrane Repair Deficit in Facioscapulohumeral Muscular Dystrophy

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms21155575

关键词

FSHD; DUX4; membrane; repair; myoblast; myofiber; antisense oligonucleotide; MOE; gapmer; antioxidant; muscle

资金

  1. Strength, Science, and Stories of Inspiration-Muscular Dystrophy Association Postdoctoral Fellowship
  2. NIH (NIAMS) [2T32AR056993, R01AR055686]
  3. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research Center Award through the NIH NICHD [U54HD090257]
  4. FSHD Society
  5. Friends of FSH Research
  6. FSHD Global Research Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Deficits in plasma membrane repair have been identified in dysferlinopathy and Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, and contribute to progressive myopathy. Although Facioscapulohumeral Muscular Dystrophy (FSHD) shares clinicopathological features with these muscular dystrophies, it is unknown if FSHD is characterized by plasma membrane repair deficits. Therefore, we exposed immortalized human FSHD myoblasts, immortalized myoblasts from unaffected siblings, and myofibers from a murine model of FSHD (FLExDUX4) to focal, pulsed laser ablation of the sarcolemma. Repair kinetics and success were determined from the accumulation of intracellular FM1-43 dye post-injury. We subsequently treated FSHD myoblasts with aDUX4-targeting antisense oligonucleotide (AON) to reduceDUX4expression, and with the antioxidant Trolox to determine the role ofDUX4expression and oxidative stress in membrane repair. Compared to unaffected myoblasts, FSHD myoblasts demonstrate poor repair and a greater percentage of cells that failed to repair, which was mitigated by AON and Trolox treatments. Similar repair deficits were identified inFLExDUX4myofibers. This is the first study to identify plasma membrane repair deficits in myoblasts from individuals with FSHD, and in myofibers from a murine model of FSHD. Our results suggest thatDUX4expression and oxidative stress may be important targets for future membrane-repair therapies.

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

4.7
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