4.7 Article

Patient-Specific iPSC-Based Models of Huntington's Disease as a Tool to Study Store-Operated Calcium Entry Drug Targeting

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PHARMACOLOGY
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2018.00696

关键词

store-operated calcium channels; SOC; Huntington's disease; neurodegeneration; EVP4593; iPS cells; CRAC channels

资金

  1. Russian Science Foundation [17-74-20068]
  2. Russian Foundation for Basic Research [17-54-80006 BRICS]
  3. Russian Federation
  4. Russian Science Foundation [17-74-20068] Funding Source: Russian Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Neurodegenerative pathologies are among the most serious and socially significant problems of modern medicine, along with cardiovascular and oncological diseases. Several attempts have been made to prevent neuronal death using novel drugs targeted to the cell calcium signaling machinery, but the lack of adequate models for screening markedly impairs the development of relevant drugs. A potential breakthrough in this field is offered by the models of hereditary neurodegenerative pathologies based on endogenous expression of mutant proteins in neurons differentiated from patientspecific induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs). Here, we study specific features of store-operated calcium entry (SOCE) using an iPSCs-based model of Huntington's disease (HD) and analyze the pharmacological effects of a specific drug targeted to the calcium channels. We show that SOCE in gamma aminobutyric acid-ergic striatal medium spiny neurons (GABA MSNs) was mediated by currents through at least two different channel groups, I-CRAC and I-SOC. Both of these groups were upregulated in HD neurons compared with the wild-type neurons. Thapsigargin-induced intracellular calcium store depletion in GABA MSNs resulted in predominant activation of either I-CRAC or I-SOC. The potential anti-HD drug EVP4593, which was previously shown to have neuroprotective activity in different HD models, affected both I-CRAC and I-SOC.

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