4.8 Article

Gating properties of SCN5A mutations and the response to mexiletine in long-QT syndrome type 3 patients

期刊

CIRCULATION
卷 116, 期 10, 页码 1137-1144

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.707877

关键词

electrophysiology; genetics; long-QT syndrome; pharmacology; sodium; ion channels

资金

  1. Telethon [GGP04066] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background-Mexiletine (Mex) has been proposed as a gene-specific therapy for patients with long-QT syndrome type 3 (LQT3) caused by mutations in the cardiac sodium channel gene (SCN5A). The degree of QT shortening and the protection from arrhythmias vary among patients harboring different mutations. We tested whether the clinical response to Mex in LQT3 could be predicted by the biophysical properties of the different mutations. Methods and Results-We identified 4 SCN5A mutations in 5 symptomatic LQT3 patients with different responses to Mex (6 to 8 mg . kg(-1) . d(-1)). We classified the mutations as sensitive to Mex (P1332L, R1626P; >= 10% of QTc shortening and QTc < 500 ms or no arrhythmias) or insensitive to Mex (S941N, M1652R; negligible or no QTc shortening and sudden death). We measured Na+ current from HEK 293 cells transfected with wild-type (WT) or mutant Nav1.5. All mutations showed impaired inactivation of Na+ current, but the mutations identified in patient responders to Mex ( P1332L, R1626P) showed a hyperpolarizing shift of V-1/2 of steady-state inactivation. Furthermore, Mex produced use-dependent block with the order R1626P=P1332L > S941N=WT > M1652R, suggesting that Mex-sensitive mutants present prolonged recovery from Mex block. Conclusions-We propose that voltage dependence of channel availability and shifts of V-1/2 of steady-state inactivation correlate with the clinical response observed in LQT3 patients. This supports the view that the response to Mex is mutation specific and that in vitro testing may help to predict the response to therapy in LQT3.

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

4.8
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