4.8 Article

Cell-intrinsic glial pathology is conserved across human and murine models of Huntington's disease

期刊

CELL REPORTS
卷 36, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2021.109308

关键词

-

资金

  1. Lundbeck Foundation
  2. Adelson Medical Research Foundation
  3. NIMH [R01 MH099578]
  4. CHDI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Glial pathology is a causal contributor to the dysfunction of striatal neurons in Huntington's disease (HD). Through analyzing gene expression changes in astrocytes and microglia from mouse and human models, commonalities in glial pathobiology across species and models were identified. The data suggest that there are cell-type-specific changes in gene expression in glia expressing truncated mHTT compared to those expressing full-length mHTT, while also highlighting a conserved set of dysregulated pathways in HD glia.
Glial pathology is a causal contributor to the striatal neuronal dysfunction of Huntington's disease (HD). We investigate mutant HTT-associated changes in gene expression by mouse and human striatal astrocytes, as well as in mouse microglia, to identify commonalities in glial pathobiology across species and models. Mouse striatal astrocytes are fluorescence-activated cell sorted (FACS) from R6/2 and zQ175 mice, which respectively express exon1-only or full-length mHTT, and human astrocytes are generated either from human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) expressing full-length mHTT or from fetal striatal astrocytes transduced with exon1-only mHTT. Comparison of differential gene expression across these conditions, all with respect to normal HTT controls, reveals cell-type-specific changes in transcription common to both species, yet with differences that distinguish glia expressing truncated mHTT versus full-length mHTT. These data indicate that the differential gene expression of glia expressing truncated mHTT may differ from that of cells expressing full-length mHTT, while identifying a conserved set of dysregulated pathways in HD glia.

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

4.8
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