4.5 Article

The voltage-gated sodium channel Scn8a is a genetic modifier of severe myoclonic epilepsy of infancy

期刊

HUMAN MOLECULAR GENETICS
卷 16, 期 23, 页码 2892-2899

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/hmg/ddm248

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [T32 GM008490] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [NS051834, NS046484] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The mammalian genome contains four voltage-gated sodium channel genes that are primarily expressed in the central nervous system: SCN1A, SCN2A, SCN3A and SCN8A. Mutations in SCN1A and SCN2A are responsible for several dominant idiopathic epilepsy disorders, including generalized epilepsy with febrile seizures plus (GEFS+) and severe myoclonic epilepsy of infancy (SMEI). Mutations in SCN8A are associated with cognitive deficits and neuropsychiatric illness in humans and movement disorders in mice; however, a role for SCN8A (Na(v)1.6) in epilepsy has not been investigated. To determine the relationship between Nav1.6 dysfunction and seizure susceptibility, we examined the thresholds of two Scn8a mouse mutants, Scn8a(med) and Scn8a (med-jo), to flurothyl- and kainic acid (KA)-induced seizures. Both mutants were more seizure resistant than wild-type littermates, suggesting that altered Nav1.6 function reduces neuronal excitability. To determine whether impaired Nav1.6 function could ameliorate seizure severity in a mouse model of SMEI, we generated Scn1a(+/-); Scn8a (med-jo/+) double heterozygous mice. Unlike Scn1a(+/-) mice that are more susceptible to flurothyl- induced seizures, Scn1a(+/-); Scn8a(med-jo/+) mice displayed thresholds that were comparable to wildtype littermates. The Scn8a(med-jo) allele was also able to rescue the premature lethality of Scn1a(+/-) mice and extend the lifespan of Scn1a(-/-) mutants. These results demonstrate that genetic interactions can alter seizure severity and support the hypothesis that genetic modifiers contribute to the clinical variability observed in SMEI and GEFS+.

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

4.5
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