4.5 Review Book Chapter

Toward Fulfilling the Promise of Molecular Medicine in Fragile X Syndrome

期刊

ANNUAL REVIEW OF MEDICINE, VOL 62, 2011
卷 62, 期 -, 页码 411-429

出版社

ANNUAL REVIEWS
DOI: 10.1146/annurev-med-061109-134644

关键词

FMRP; metabotropic glutamate receptor; autism; mental retardation; protein synthesis; long-term depression

资金

  1. EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT [R01HD046943] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. Howard Hughes Medical Institute Funding Source: Medline
  3. NICHD NIH HHS [R01 HD046943-07, R01 HD046943] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fragile X syndrome (FXS) is the most common inherited form of mental retardation and a leading known cause of autism. It is caused by loss of expression of the fragile X mental retardation protein (FMRP), an RNA-binding protein that negatively regulates protein synthesis. In neurons, multiple lines of evidence suggest that protein synthesis at synapses is triggered by activation of group 1 metabotropic glutamate receptors (Gp1 mGluRs) and that many functional consequences of activating these receptors are altered in the absence of FM-RP. These observations have led to the theory that exaggerated protein synthesis downstream of Gp1 mGluRs is a core pathogenic mechanism in FXS. This excess can be corrected by reducing signaling by Gp1 mGluRs, and numerous studies have shown that inhibition of inGluR5, in particular, can ameliorate multiple mutant phenotypes in animal models of FXS. Clinical trials based on this therapeutic strategy are currently under way. FXS is therefore poised to be the first neurobehavioral disorder in which corrective treatments have been developed from the bottom up: from gene identification to pathophysiology in animals to novel therapeutics in humans. The insights gained from FXS and other autism-related single-gene disorders may also assist in identifying molecular mechanisms and potential treatment approaches for idiopathic autism.

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