4.7 Article

Femoral Structure and Biomechanical Characteristics in Sanfilippo Syndrome Type-B Mice

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms241813988

关键词

Sanfilippo syndrome; MPS IIIB; lysosomal storage disease; bone; model

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study identifies osteogenic manifestations in MPS IIIB mouse model, which could serve as potential biomarkers for preclinical treatment of MPS IIIB.
Sanfilippo syndrome Type-B, also known as mucopolysaccharidosis IIIB (MPS IIIB), accounts for approximately one-third of all Sanfilippo syndrome patients and is characterized by a similar natural history as Type-A. Patients suffer from developmental regression, bone malformation, organomegaly, GI distress, and profound neurological deficits. Despite human trials of enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) (SBC-103, AX250) in MPS IIIB, there is currently no FDA approved treatment and a few palliative options. The major concerns of ERT and gene therapy for the treatment of bone malformation are the inadequate biodistribution of the missing enzyme, N-acetyl-alpha-glucosaminidase (NAGLU), and that the skeleton is a poorly hit target tissue in ERT and gene therapy. Each of the four known human types of MPS III (A, B, C, and D) is usually regarded as having mild bone manifestations, yet it remains poorly characterized. This study aimed to determine bone mineral content (BMC), volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD), and biomechanical properties in femurs MPS IIIB C57BL/6 mice compared to phenotypic control C57BL/6 mice. Significant differences were observed in MPS IIIB mice within various cortical and cancellous bone parameters for both males and females (p < 0.05). Here, we establish some osteogenic manifestations of MPS IIIB within the mouse model by radiographic and biomechanical tests, which are also differentially affected by age and sex. This suggests that some skeletal features of the MPS IIIB mouse model may be used as biomarkers of peripheral disease correction for preclinical treatment of MPS IIIB.

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