4.7 Article

Selective Motor Neuron Resistance and Recovery in a New Inducible Mouse Model of TDP-43 Proteinopathy

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 36, 期 29, 页码 7707-7717

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1457-16.2016

关键词

amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; motor neuron; reinnervation; rNLS mice; selective vulnerability; TDP-43

资金

  1. Brody Family Medical Trust Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Motor neurons (MNs) are the neuronal class that is principally affected in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), but it is widely known that individual motor pools do not succumb to degeneration simultaneously. Because >90% of ALS patients have an accumulation of cytoplasmic TDP-43 aggregates in postmortem brain and spinal cord (SC), it has been suggested that these inclusions in a given population may trigger its death. We investigated seven MN pools in our new inducible rNLS8 transgenic (Tg) mouse model of TDP-43 proteinopathy and found striking differences in MN responses to TDP-43 pathology. Despite widespread neuronal expression of cytoplasmic human TDP-43, only MNs in the hypoglossal nucleus and the SC are lost after 8 weeks of transgene expression, whereas those in the oculomotor, trigeminal, and facial nuclei are spared. Within the SC, slow MNs survive to end stage, whereas fast fatigable MNs are lost. Correspondingly, axonal dieback occurs first from fast-twitch muscle fibers, whereas slow-twitch fibers remain innervated. Individual pools show differences in the downregulation of endogenous nuclear TDP-43, but this does not fully account for vulnerability to degenerate. After transgene suppression, resistant MNs sprout collaterals to reinnervate previously denervated neuromuscular junctions concurrently with expression of matrix metalloproteinase 9 (MMP-9), a marker of fast MNs. Therefore, although pathological TDP-43 is linked to MN degeneration, the process is not stochastic and mirrors the highly selective patterns of MN degeneration observed in ALS patients.

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