4.7 Article

Neuropathological, biochemical and molecular findings in a glutaric acidemia type 1 cohort

期刊

BRAIN
卷 128, 期 -, 页码 711-722

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/brain/awh401

关键词

autopsy; glutaric acid; 3-hydroxyglutaric acid; striatum; molecular genetics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Glutaric acidemia type 1 (GA-1) is an autosomal recessive disorder characterized by a deficiency of glutaryl-CoA dehydrogenase (GCDH) activity. GA-1 is often associated with an acute encephalopathy between 6 and 18 months of age that causes striatal damage resulting in a severe dystonic movement disorder. Ten autopsy cases have been previously described. Our goal is to understand the disorder better so that treatments can be designed. Therefore, we present the neuropathological features of six additional cases (8 months-40 years), all North American aboriginals with the identical homozygous mutation. This cohort displays similar pathological characteristics to those previously described. Four had macroencephaly. All had striatal atrophy with severe loss of medium-sized neurons. We present several novel findings. This natural time course study allows us to conclude that neuron loss occurs shortly after the encephalopathical crisis and does not progress. In addition, we demonstrate mild loss of large striatal neurons, spongiform changes restricted to brainstem white matter and a mild lymphocytic infiltrate in the early stages. Reverse transcriptase-PCR to detect the GCDH mRNA revealed normal and truncated transcripts similar to those in fibroblasts. All brain regions demonstrated markedly elevated concentrations of GA (3770-21 200 nmol/g protein) and 3-OH-GA (280-740 nmol/g protein), with no evidence of striatal specificity or age dependency. The role of organic acids as toxic agents and as osmolytes is discussed. The pathogenesis of selective neuronal loss cannot be explained on the basis of regional genetic and/or metabolic differences. A suitable animal model for GA-1 is needed.

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