4.8 Article

Mechanistic determinants of MBNL activity

期刊

NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH
卷 44, 期 21, 页码 10326-10342

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkw915

关键词

-

资金

  1. Foundation for Polish Science TEAM program - European Union within the European Regional Development Fund [TEAM/2011-7/10]
  2. Polish National Science Centre [2011/01/B/NZ1/01603, 2014/15/B/NZ2/02453, 2014/12/T/NZ2/00516]
  3. National Multidisciplinary Laboratory of Functional Nanomaterials NanoFun [POIG.02.02.00-00-025/09]
  4. Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Republic of Poland
  5. Leading National Research Centre (KNOW) programme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Muscleblind-like (MBNL) proteins are critical RNA processing factors in development. MBNL activity is disrupted in the neuromuscular disease myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1), due to the instability of a non-coding microsatellite in the DMPK gene and the expression of CUG expansion (CUGexp) RNAs. Pathogenic interactions between MBNL and CUGexp RNA lead to the formation of nuclear complexes termed foci and prevent MBNL function in pre-mRNA processing. The existence of multiple MBNL genes, as well as multiple protein isoforms, raises the question of whether different MBNL proteins possess unique or redundant functions. To address this question, we coexpressed three MBNL paralogs in cells at equivalent levels and characterized both specific and redundant roles of these proteins in alternative splicing and RNA foci dynamics. When coexpressed in the same cells, MBNL1, MBNL2 and MBNL3 bind the same RNA motifs with different affinities. While MBNL1 demonstrated the highest splicing activity, MBNL3 showed the lowest. When forming RNA foci, MBNL1 is the most mobile paralog, while MBNL3 is rather static and the most densely packed on CUGexp RNA. Therefore, our results demonstrate that MBNL paralogs and gene-specific isoforms possess inherent functional differences, an outcome that could be enlisted to improve therapeutic strategies for DM1.

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