4.7 Article

Neurologic, gastric, and opthalmologic Pathologies in a murine model of Mucolipidosis type IV

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS
卷 81, 期 5, 页码 1070-1083

出版社

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/521954

关键词

-

资金

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [HD045561, R01 HD045561] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK57521, DK12437, DK40561, P30 DK057521, DK70260, DK43351, P30 DK040561, R01 DK070260, P30 DK043351] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIGMS NIH HHS [T32-GM077481-25] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NINDS NIH HHS [R01 NS039995, NS39995, 1F32NS052072-01A1, F32 NS052072] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mucolipidosis type IV (MLIV) is an autosomal recessive lysosomal storage disorder caused by mutations in the MCOLN1 gene, which encodes the 65-kDa protein mucolipin-1. The most common clinical features of patients with MLIV include severe mental retardation, delayed motor milestones, ophthalmologic abnormalities, constitutive achlorhydria, and elevated plasma gastrin levels. Here, we describe the first murine model for MLIV, which accurately replicates the phenotype of patients with MLIV. The Mcoln1(-/-) mice present with numerous dense inclusion bodies in all cell types in brain and particularly in neurons, elevated plasma gastrin, vacuolization in parietal cells, and retinal degeneration. Neurobehavioral assessments, including analysis of gait and clasping, confirm the presence of a neurological defect. Gait deficits progress to complete hind-limb paralysis and death at age similar to 8 mo. The Mcoln1(-/-) mice are born in Mendelian ratios, and both male and female Mcoln1(-/-) mice are fertile and can breed to produce progeny. The creation of the first murine model for human MLIV provides an excellent system for elucidating disease pathogenesis. In addition, this model provides an invaluable resource for testing treatment strategies and potential therapies aimed at preventing or ameliorating the abnormal lysosomal storage in this devastating neurological disorder.

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