4.7 Article

CREB Signaling Is Involved in Rett Syndrome Pathogenesis

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 37, 期 13, 页码 3671-3685

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3735-16.2017

关键词

CREB; hESC; iPSC; MECP2; Rett syndrome; rolipram

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [P30HD03352/U54HD090256]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rett syndrome (RTT) is a debilitating neurodevelopmental disorder caused by mutations in the MECP2 gene. To facilitate the study of cellular mechanisms in human cells, we established several human stem cell lines: human embryonic stem cell (hESC) line carrying the common T158 Mmutation (MECP2(T158M/T158M)), hESCline expressing no MECP2(MECP2-KO), congenic pair of wild-type and mutant RTT patient-specific induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) line carrying the V247fs mutation (V247fs-WT and V247fs-MT), and iPSC line in which the V247fs mutation was corrected by CRISPR/Cas9-based genome editing (V247fs-MT-correction). Detailed analyses of forebrain neurons differentiated from these human stem cell lines revealed genotype-dependent quantitative phenotypes in neurite growth, dendritic complexity, and mitochondrial function. At the molecular level, we found a significant reduction in the level of CREB and phosphorylated CREB in forebrain neurons differentiated from MECP2(T158M/T158M), MECP2-KO, and V247fs-MT stem cell lines. Importantly, overexpression of CREB or pharmacological activation of CREB signaling in those forebrain neurons rescued the phenotypes in neurite growth, dendritic complexity, and mitochondrial function. Finally, pharmacological activation of CREB in the female Mecp2 heterozygous mice rescued several behavioral defects. Together, our study establishes a robust in vitro platform for consistent quantitative evaluation of genotype-dependent RTT phenotypes, reveals a previously unappreciated role of CREB signaling in RTT pathogenesis, and identifies a potential therapeutic target for RTT.

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