4.6 Review

The 5-phosphatase OCRL in Lowe syndrome and Dent disease 2

期刊

NATURE REVIEWS NEPHROLOGY
卷 13, 期 8, 页码 455-470

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nrneph.2017.83

关键词

-

资金

  1. Telethon [TGM11CB1]
  2. European Research Council [670881]
  3. Associazione Italiana Sindrome di Lowe (AISLO)
  4. European Community [305608]
  5. Cystinosis Research Foundation (Irvine, California, USA)
  6. Swiss National Science Foundation [31003A-169850]
  7. clinical research priority program (KFSP) radiz (Rare Disease Initiative Zurich) of the UZH
  8. European Research Council (ERC) [670881] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lowe syndrome is an X-linked disease that is characterized by congenital cataracts, central hypotonia, intellectual disability and renal Fanconi syndrome. The disease is caused by mutations in OCRL, which encodes an inositol polyphosphate 5-phosphatase (OCRL) that acts on phosphoinositides - quantitatively minor constituents of cell membranes that are nonetheless pivotal regulators of intracellular trafficking. In this Review we summarize the considerable progress made over the past decade in understanding the cellular roles of OCRL in regulating phosphoinositide balance along the endolysosomal pathway, a fundamental system for the reabsorption of proteins and solutes by proximal tubular cells. We discuss how studies of OCRL have led to important discoveries about the basic mechanisms of membrane trafficking and describe the key features and limitations of the currently available animal models of Lowe syndrome. Mutations in OCRL can also give rise to a milder pathology, Dent disease 2, which is characterized by renal Fanconi syndrome in the absence of extrarenal pathologies. Understanding how mutations in OCRL give rise to two clinical entities with differing extrarenal manifestations represents an opportunity to identify molecular pathways that could be targeted to develop treatments for these conditions.

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

4.6
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