4.5 Article

The myotonic dystrophy expanded CUG repeat tract is necessary but not sufficient to disrupt C2C12 myoblast differentiation

期刊

HUMAN MOLECULAR GENETICS
卷 10, 期 18, 页码 1879-1887

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/hmg/10.18.1879

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIAMS NIH HHS [R01 AR045992, R01 AR45992-01] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1) is a dominant neuromuscular disorder caused by a trinucleotide (CTG) repeat expansion. Mutant DMPK3'-untranslated region (3'-UTR) transcripts aggregate in nuclear foci and are thought to impose dominant-negative effects by interacting with RNA binding proteins. We demonstrated previously that the mutant 3'-UTR RNA disrupted C2C12 myoblast differentiation, and that the CUG expansion was necessary for this effect. Several proteins are known to interact with the CUG tract or the region 3' (distal) to it. Here, using a library of transfected C2C12 clones, we show that although transcripts containing a CUG expansion alone or a CUG expansion plus the distal region of the DMPK 3'-UTR accumulate into RNA foci, neither of these RNAs affect C2C12 myogenesis. Thus, RNA foci formation, and perturbation of any RNA binding factors involved in this process, are not sufficient to block myoblast differentiation. Interestingly, we found that transcripts containing expanded CUG tracts can form both nuclear and cytoplasmic RNA foci, demonstrating that factors involved in foci formation are present in the nucleus and cytoplasm. RNA analysis of myogenic markers revealed that the mutant DMPK 3'-UTR mRNA does not affect myoblast determination factors MyoD or Myf5, but significantly impedes upregulation of the differentiation factors myogenin and p2l. C2C12 provide a good model to study adult muscle regeneration. Our observations in this system may be relevant to the lack of a regenerative response to continued muscle wasting in DM, and point to defects in early events in the myogenic, response to muscle damage.

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