4.5 Article

EIF4A3 deficient human iPSCs and mouse models demonstrate neural crest defects that underlie Richieri-Costa-Pereira syndrome

期刊

HUMAN MOLECULAR GENETICS
卷 26, 期 12, 页码 2177-2191

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/hmg/ddx078

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [R01NS0830897]
  2. NSF [DGF 1106401]
  3. FAPESP/CEPID [2013/08028-1]
  4. CNPq [305405/2011-5, 143094/2011-4]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biallelic loss-of-function mutations in the RNA-binding protein EIF4A3 cause Richieri-Costa-Pereira syndrome (RCPS), an autosomal recessive condition mainly characterized by craniofacial and limb malformations. However, the pathogenic cellular mechanisms responsible for this syndrome are entirely unknown. Here, we used two complementary approaches, patient-derived induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) and conditional Eif4a3 mouse models, to demonstrate that defective neural crest cell (NCC) development explains RCPS craniofacial abnormalities. RCPS iNCCs have decreased migratory capacity, a distinct phenotype relative to other craniofacial disorders. Eif4a3 haploinsufficient embryos presented altered mandibular process fusion and micrognathia, thus recapitulating the most penetrant phenotypes of the syndrome. These defects were evident in either ubiquitous or NCC-specific Eif4a3 haploinsufficient animals, demonstrating an autonomous requirement of Eif4a3 in NCCs. Notably, RCPS NCC-derived mesenchymal stem-like cells (nMSCs) showed premature bone differentiation, a phenotype paralleled by premature clavicle ossification in Eif4a3 haploinsufficient embryos. Likewise, nMSCs presented compromised in vitro chondrogenesis, and Meckel's cartilage was underdeveloped in vivo. These findings indicate novel and essential requirements of EIF4A3 for NCC migration and osteochondrogenic differentiation during craniofacial development. Altogether, complementary use of iPSCs and mouse models pinpoint unique cellular mechanisms by which EIF4A3 mutation causes RCPS, and provide a paradigm to study craniofacial disorders.

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