4.5 Article

The cerebellar transcriptome during postnatal development of the Ts1Cje mouse, a segmental trisomy model for Down syndrome

期刊

HUMAN MOLECULAR GENETICS
卷 14, 期 3, 页码 373-384

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/hmg/ddi033

关键词

-

资金

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [HD-31498] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The central nervous system of persons with Down syndrome presents cytoarchitectural abnormalities that likely result from gene-dosage effects affecting the expression of key developmental genes. To test this hypothesis, we have investigated the transcriptome of the cerebellum of the Ts1Cje mouse model of Down syndrome during postnatal development using microarrays and quantitative PCR (qPCR). Genes present in three copies were consistently overexpressed, with a mean ratio relative to euploid of 1.52 as determined by qPCR. Out of 63 three-copy genes tested, only five, nine and seven genes had ratios >2 or <1.2 at postnatal days 0 (P0), P15 and P30, respectively. This gene-dosage effect was associated with a dysregulation of the expression of some two-copy genes. Out of 8258 genes examined, the Ts1Cje/euploid ratios differed significantly from 1.0 for 406 (80 and 154 with ratios above 1.5 and below 0.7, respectively), 333 (11 above 1.5 and 55 below 0.7) and 246 genes (59 above 1.5 and 69 below 0.7) at P0, P15 and P30, respectively. Among the two-copy genes differentially expressed in the trisomic cerebellum, six homeobox genes, two belonging to the Notch pathway, were severely repressed. Overall, at P0, transcripts involved in cell differentiation and development were over-represented among the dysregulated genes, suggesting that cell differentiation and migration might be more altered than cell proliferation. Finally, global gene profiling revealed that transcription in Ts1Cje mice is more affected by the developmental changes than by the trisomic state, and that there is no apparent detectable delay in the postnatal development of the cerebellum of Ts1Cje mice.

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