4.7 Article

Asymmetric septal hypertrophy in heterozygous cMyBP-C null mice

期刊

CARDIOVASCULAR RESEARCH
卷 63, 期 2, 页码 293-304

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cardiores.2004.04.009

关键词

sarcomere; targeted transgenesis; cardiomyopathy; hypertrophy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Cardiac myosin-binding protein C (cMyBP-C) gene mutations are involved in familial hypertrophic cardiornyopathy (FHC). Many of these mutations produce truncated proteins, which are unstable in the cardiac tissue of patients, suggesting that haploinsufficiency could account for the development of the phenotype. However, existing mouse models of cMyBP-C gene mutations have represented hypomorphic alleles without evidence of asymmetric septal hypertrophy, a key FHC phenotypic feature. In the present study, we generated a new model of cMyBP-C null mice and characterized the phenotype in both homozygotes and heterozygotes at different ages. Methods: The mouse model was based upon the targeted deletion of exons 1 and 2, which contain the transcription initiation site, and the phenotype was determined by molecular, functional and morphological analyses. Results: Herein, we demonstrate that inactivation of one or two mouse cMyBP-C alleles leads to different cardiac disorders at different post-natal time windows. The homozygous cMyBP-C null mice do not express the cMyBP-C gene, develop eccentric left ventricular hypertrophy with decreased fractional shortening at 3-4 months of age and a markedly impaired relaxation after 9 months. This is associated with myocardial disarray and an increase of interstitial fibrosis. The heterozygous cMyBP-C null mice present a slight but significant decrease of cMyBP-C amount and develop asymmetric septal hypertrophy associated with fibrosis at 10-11 months of age. Conclusion: These data provide evidence that heterozygous cMyBP-C null mice represent the first model with a key feature of human FHC that is asymmetric septal hypertrophy. Published by Elsevier B.V.

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