4.7 Article

Distinct phenotypes of three-repeat and four-repeat human tau in a transgenic model of tauopathy

期刊

NEUROBIOLOGY OF DISEASE
卷 105, 期 -, 页码 74-83

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.nbd.2017.05.003

关键词

3R tau; 4R tau; Alzheimer's disease; Drosophila; Isoforms; Tauopathy

资金

  1. European Union (European Social Fund - ESF)
  2. Greek national funds through the Operational Program Education and Lifelong Learning of the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) - Research Funding Program: THALIS -UOA - Study mechanisms of neurodegeneration in Alzheimer's disease

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tau exists as six closely related protein isoforms in the adult human brain. These are generated from alternative splicing of a single mRNA transcript and they differ in the absence or presence of two N-terminal and three or four microtubule binding domains. Typically all six isoforms have been considered functionally similar. However, their differential involvement in particular tauopathies raises the possibility that there may be isoform-specific differences in physiological function and pathological role. To explore this, we have compared the phenotypes induced by the ON3R and ON4R isoforms in Drosophila. Expression of the 3R isoform causes more profound axonal transport defects and locomotor impairments, culminating in a shorter lifespan than the 4R isoform. In contrast, the 4R isoform leads to greater neurodegeneration and impairments in learning and memory. Furthermore, the phosphorylation patterns of the two isoforms are distinct, as is their ability to induce oxidative stress. These differences are not consequent to different expression levels and are suggestive of bona fide physiological differences in isoform biology and pathological potential. They may therefore explain isoform-specific mechanisms of tau-toxicity and the differential susceptibility of brain regions to different tauopathies. Crown Copyright (C) 2017 Published by Elsevier Inc.

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