4.7 Article

RIPK3-mediated cell death is involved in DUX4-mediated toxicity in facioscapulohumeral dystrophy

期刊

JOURNAL OF CACHEXIA SARCOPENIA AND MUSCLE
卷 12, 期 6, 页码 2079-2090

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jcsm.12813

关键词

FSHD; DUX4; Necroptosis; Ripk3; Facioscapulohumeral dystrophy

资金

  1. FSH Society Grant [FSHS-220177]
  2. Association Francaise contre les Myopathies (AFM) via TRANSLAMUSCLE [19507, 22946]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study investigated the role of RIPK3 in DUX4-mediated cell death, showing that DUX4 expression induces caspase-independent and RIPK3-mediated cell death in vitro. In vivo experiments on RIPK3-deficient animals demonstrated improved body and muscle weights, reduced activation of DUX4 network genes, and enhanced muscle histology, suggesting a potential therapeutic target for FSHD.
Background Facioscapulohumeral dystrophy (FSHD) is caused by mutations leading to the aberrant expression of the DUX4 transcription factor in muscles. DUX4 was proposed to induce cell death, but the involvement of different death pathways is still discussed. A possible pro-apoptotic role of DUX4 was proposed, but as FSHD muscles are characterized by necrosis and inflammatory infiltrates, non-apoptotic pathways may be also involved. Methods We explored DUX4-mediated cell death by focusing on the role of one regulated necrosis pathway called necroptosis, which is regulated by RIPK3. We investigated the effect of necroptosis on cell death in vitro and in vivo experiments using RIPK3 inhibitors and a RIPK3-deficient transgenic mouse model. Results We showed in vitro that DUX4 expression causes a caspase-independent and RIPK3-mediated cell death in both myoblasts and myotubes. In vivo, RIPK3-deficient animals present improved body and muscle weights, a reduction of the aberrant activation of the DUX4 network genes, and an improvement of muscle histology. Conclusions These results provide evidence for a role of RIPK3 in DUX4-mediated cell death and open new avenues of research.

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