4.5 Article

Behavioral abnormalities precede neuropathological markers in rats transgenic for Huntington's disease

期刊

HUMAN MOLECULAR GENETICS
卷 15, 期 21, 页码 3177-3194

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/hmg/ddl394

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Huntington's disease (HD) is caused by an expanded CAG repeat leading to the synthesis of an aberrant protein and to the formation of polyglutamine (polyQ)-containing inclusions and aggregates. Limited information is available concerning the association of neuropathological markers with the development of behavioral markers in HD. Using a previously generated transgenic rat model of HD (tgHD rat), we performed association studies on the time-course of behavioral symptoms (motor function, learning, anxiety) and the appearance of striatal atrophy, 1C2 immunopositive aggregates and polyQ recruitment sites, a precursor to these aggregates. At the age of 1 month, tgHD rats exhibited reduced anxiety and improved motor performance, while at 6 months motor impairments and at 9 months cognitive decline occurred. In contrast, polyQ recruitment sites appeared at around 6-9 months of age, indicating that HD-like behavioral markers preceded the appearance of currently detectable neuropathological markers. Interestingly, numerous punctate sites containing polyQ aggregates were also seen in areas receiving afferents from the densely recruiting regions suggesting either transport of recruitment-competent aggregates to terminal projections where initially 1C2 positive aggregates were formed or different internal properties of neurons in different regions. Furthermore, striatal atrophy was observed at the age of 12 months. Taken together, our findings support the hypothesis of a dynamic process leading to region- and age-specific polyQ recruitment and aggregation. The dissociation of onset between behavioral and neuropathological markers is suggestive of as yet undetected processes, which contribute to the early phenotype of these HD transgenic rats.

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