4.5 Article

Depolarization causes the formation of a ternary complex between GlialCAM, MLC1 and ClC-2 in astrocytes: implications in megalencephalic leukoencephalopathy

期刊

HUMAN MOLECULAR GENETICS
卷 26, 期 13, 页码 2436-2450

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/hmg/ddx134

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Leukodystrophies Association (ELA) Research Foundation [ELA2012-014C2B]
  2. Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion (MICINN) [SAF SAF2012-31486, SAF2015-70377]
  3. Generalitat de Catalunya [SGR2014-1178, SGR2014-1165, SGR2014-541]
  4. Instituto de Salud Carlos III: ERARE [FISPI14/00141, FIS PI13/00121, RETIC RD16/0008/0014]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Megalencephalic leukoencephalopathy with subcortical cysts (MLC) is a rare type of leukodystrophy caused by mutations in either MLC1 or GLIALCAM. GlialCAM is necessary for the correct targeting of MLC1, but also for the targeting of the Cl-channel ClC-2. Furthermore, GlialCAM modifies ClC-2 functional properties in vitro. However, in vivo studies in GlialCAM(-/-)mice have shown that the modification of ClC-2 activity only occurs in oligodendrocytes, despite GlialCAM and ClC-2 being expressed in astrocytes. Thus, the relationship between GlialCAM, MLC1 and ClC-2 in astrocytes is unknown. Here, we show that GlialCAM, ClC-2 and MLC1 can form a ternary complex in cultured astrocytes, but only under depolarizing conditions. We also provide biochemical evidences that this ternary complex exists in vivo. The formation of this complex changes ClC-2 localization in the membrane and its functional properties. ClC-2 association with GlialCAM/MLC1 depends on calcium flux through L-type calcium channels and activation of calcium-dependent calpain proteases. Based on these studies, we propose that the chloride influx mediated by GlialCAM/MLC1/ClC-2 in astrocytes may be needed to compensate an excess of potassium, as occurs in conditions of high neuronal activity. We suggest that a defect in this compensation may contribute to the pathogenesis of MLC disease.

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

4.5
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