4.7 Article

Defining the cause of skewed X-chromosome inactivation in X-linked mental retardation by use of a mouse model

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS
卷 80, 期 6, 页码 1138-1149

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/518369

关键词

-

资金

  1. MRC [MC_U137961145, MC_U137961147, MC_U142684173, MC_UP_1502/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Medical Research Council [MC_U137961147, MC_U137961145, MC_UP_1502/1, MC_U142684173] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. Medical Research Council [MC_U137961145, MC_U137961147, MC_UP_1502/1, MC_U142684173] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Extreme skewing of X-chromosome inactivation (XCI) is rare in the normal female population but is observed frequently in carriers of some X-linked mutations. Recently, it has been shown that various forms of X-linked mental retardation (XLMR) have a strong association with skewed XCI in female carriers, but the mechanisms underlying this skewing are unknown. ATR-X syndrome, caused by mutations in a ubiquitously expressed, chromatin-associated protein, provides a clear example of XLMR in which phenotypically normal female carriers virtually all have highly skewed XCI biased against the X chromosome that harbors the mutant allele. Here, we have used a mouse model to understand the processes causing skewed XCI. In female mice heterozygous for a null Atrx allele, we found that XCI is balanced early in embryogenesis but becomes skewed over the course of development, because of selection favoring cells expressing the wild-type Atrx allele. Unexpectedly, selection does not appear to be the result of general cellular-viability defects in Atrx-deficient cells, since it is restricted to specific stages of development and is not ongoing throughout the life of the animal. Instead, there is evidence that selection results from independent tissue-specific effects. This illustrates an important mechanism by which skewed XCI may occur in carriers of XLMR and provides insight into the normal role of ATRX in regulating cell fate.

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