4.2 Article

Low dystrophin levels are insufficient to normalize the neuromuscular synaptic abnormalities of mdx mice

期刊

NEUROMUSCULAR DISORDERS
卷 28, 期 5, 页码 427-442

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.nmd.2018.02.013

关键词

Acetylcholine receptor; Duchenne muscular dystrophy; Dystrophin; mdx mice; Neuromuscular junction; Synaptic transmission

资金

  1. 'Prinses Beatrix Spierfonds' [W.OR11-11]
  2. 'Stichting Spieren voor Spieren'
  3. 'L'Association Francaise contre les myopathies' [15042, 16686]
  4. Dutch Duchenne Parent Project

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dystrophin is a sub-sarcolemmal component of skeletal muscle fibres and is enriched at the postsynaptic membrane of the neuromuscular junction (NMJ). In the mdx mouse, dystrophin absence not only causes muscle damage but also mild synaptic dysfunctions and clear morphological aberrations at NMJs. In particular, reduction of postsynaptic sensitivity for the neurotransmitter acetylcholine and extra exhaustion of presynaptic acetylcholine release during intense synaptic activity exists. Current experimental therapeutic approaches in Duchenne muscular dystrophy aim to restore dystrophin expression. An important question is what dystrophin levels are needed to improve muscle function. Recent experimental and clinical studies suggested that levels as low as a few percent of normal can be beneficial. Similarly, it is of interest to know how dystrophin levels relate to NMJ function and morphology. We investigated NMJs of a series of mdx-Xist(Delta hs) mice, which expressed dystrophin between similar to 2% and 19% of normal. Most functional and morphological NMJ parameters of these mice remained comparable to mdx. On the other hand, mdx''- mice (expressing similar to 50% dystrophin) showed normal NMJ features. Thus, the minimal dystrophin level required for normal NMJ function and morphology lies between 19% and 50% of normal when expression of dystrophin is not uniform. (C) 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

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

4.2
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