4.8 Article

Gain of Toxicity from ALS/FTD-Linked Repeat Expansions in C9ORF72 Is Alleviated by Antisense Oligonucleotides Targeting GGGGCC-Containing RNAs

期刊

NEURON
卷 90, 期 3, 页码 535-550

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2016.04.006

关键词

-

资金

  1. ALS Association
  2. NIH [R01-NS088578, R01-NS087227, R21-NS089979, R21-NS084528, R01-NS088689, R01-NS063964, R01-NS077402, P01-NS084974, T32 AG00216, F32 NS087842, K99 NS091538]
  3. UCSD Alzheimer's Disease Research Center
  4. Target ALS [13-04827, 13-44792]
  5. Robert Packard Center for ALS Research at Johns Hopkins
  6. Mayo Clinic Foundation
  7. FWO-Vlaanderen
  8. Belgian Alzheimer Disease Association (SAO)
  9. European Union's Seventh Framework Programme FP7 [617198]
  10. University of California, San Diego
  11. Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hexanucleotide expansions in C9ORF72 are the most frequent genetic cause of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and frontotemporal dementia. Disease mechanisms were evaluated in mice expressing C9ORF72 RNAs with up to 450 GGGGCC repeats or with one or both C9orf72 alleles inactivated. Chronic 50% reduction of C9ORF72 did not provoke disease, while its absence produced splenomegaly, enlarged lymph nodes, and mild social interaction deficits, but not motor dysfunction. Hexanucleotide expansions caused age-, repeat-length-, and expression-level-dependent accumulation of RNA foci and dipeptide-repeat proteins synthesized by AUG-independent translation, accompanied by loss of hippocampal neurons, increased anxiety, and impaired cognitive function. Single-dose injection of antisense oligonucleotides (ASOs) that target repeat-containing RNAs but preserve levels of mRNAs encoding C9ORF72 produced sustained reductions in RNA foci and dipeptide-repeat proteins, and ameliorated behavioral deficits. These efforts identify gain of toxicity as a central disease mechanism caused by repeat-expanded C9ORF72 and establish the feasibility of ASO-mediated therapy.

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

4.8
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