4.6 Review

MICAL1 Monooxygenase in Autosomal Dominant Lateral Temporal Epilepsy: Role in Cytoskeletal Regulation and Relation to Cancer

期刊

GENES
卷 13, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/genes13050715

关键词

autosomal-dominant lateral temporal epilepsy; LGI1; RELN; MICAL1; semaphorin signaling; axonal development; cancer genomics

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [PJT-169125]
  2. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada [RGPIN-2020-05388]
  3. Ontario Institute for Cancer Research [P.CTIP.842]
  4. Canada Research Chairs Program [950-231665]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article discusses the mutations in the LGI1, RELN, and MICAL1 genes associated with autosomal dominant lateral temporal epilepsy (ADLTE), with a particular focus on the G150S point mutation found in MICAL1. Additionally, the article explores the potential link between these activating MICAL1 mutations and cancer.
Autosomal dominant lateral temporal epilepsy (ADLTE) is a genetic focal epilepsy associated with mutations in the LGI1, RELN, and MICAL1 genes. A previous study linking ADLTE with two MICAL1 mutations that resulted in the substitution of a highly conserved glycine residue for serine (G150S) or a frameshift mutation that swapped the last three C-terminal amino acids for 59 extra residues (A1065fs) concluded that the mutations increased enzymatic activity and promoted cell contraction. The roles of the Molecule Interacting with CasL 1 (MICAL1) protein in tightly regulated semaphorin signaling pathways suggest that activating MICAL1 mutations could result in defects in axonal guidance during neuronal development. Further studies would help to illuminate the causal relationships of these point mutations with ADLTE. In this review, we discuss the proposed pathogenesis caused by mutations in these three genes, with a particular emphasis on the G150S point mutation discovered in MICAL1. We also consider whether these types of activating MICAL1 mutations could be linked to cancer.

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