4.7 Article

GLA-modified RNA treatment lowers GB3 levels in iPSC-derived cardiomyocytes from Fabry-affected individuals

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS
卷 110, 期 9, 页码 1600-1605

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2023.07.013

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the efficacy of nucleoside-modified messenger RNA (modRNA) treatment for Fabry disease and validated it using a human cardiac model generated from induced pluripotent stem cells. The results showed that modRNA treatment restored α-Galactosidase A enzyme activity and reduced glycosphingolipid accumulation, demonstrating its therapeutic potential.
Recent studies in non-human model systems have shown therapeutic potential of nucleoside-modified messenger RNA (modRNA) treat-ments for lysosomal storage diseases. Here, we assessed the efficacy of a modRNA treatment to restore the expression of the galactosidase alpha (GLA), which codes for a-Galactosidase A (a-GAL) enzyme, in a human cardiac model generated from induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) derived from two individuals with Fabry disease. Consistent with the clinical phenotype, cardiomyocytes from iPSCs derived from Fabry-affected individuals showed accumulation of the glycosphingolipid Globotriaosylceramide (GB3), which is an a-galactosidase substrate. Furthermore, the Fabry cardiomyocytes displayed significant upregulation of lysosomal-associated proteins. Upon GLA modRNA treatment, a subset of lysosomal proteins were partially restored to wild-type levels, implying the rescue of the mo-lecular phenotype associated with the Fabry genotype. Importantly, a significant reduction of GB3 levels was observed in GLA modRNA-treated cardiomyocytes, demonstrating that a-GAL enzymatic activity was restored. Together, our results validate the utility of iPSC-derived cardiomyocytes from affected individuals as a model to study disease processes in Fabry disease and the therapeutic potential of GLA modRNA treatment to reduce GB3 accumulation in the heart.

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