4.7 Article

Residual function of cystic fibrosis mutants predicts response to small molecule CFTR modulators

期刊

JCI INSIGHT
卷 3, 期 14, 页码 -

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL INVESTIGATION INC
DOI: 10.1172/jci.insight.121159

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [R01DK44003]
  2. CF Foundation [Cuttin13A1, Cuttin15XX0, Cuttin16IO, SORSCH13XX0, SORSCH14XX0]
  3. CFFT [SHEPPA14XX0]
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES [R01DK044003] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  5. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [T32GM007814] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Treatment of individuals with cystic fibrosis (CF) has been transformed by small molecule therapies that target select pathogenic variants in the CF transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR). To expand treatment eligibility, we stably expressed 43 rare missense CFTR variants associated with moderate CF from a single site in the genome of human CF bronchial epithelial (CFBE41o(-)) cells. The magnitude of drug response was highly correlated with residual CFTR function for the potentiator ivacaftor, the corrector lumacaftor, and ivacaftor-lumacaftor combination therapy. Response of a second set of 16 variants expressed stably in Fischer rat thyroid (FRT) cells showed nearly identical correlations. Subsets of variants were identified that demonstrated statistically significantly higher responses to specific treatments. Furthermore, nearly all variants studied in CFBE cells (40 of 43) and FRT cells (13 of 16) demonstrated greater response to ivacaftor-lumacaftor combination therapy than either modulator alone. Together, these variants represent 87% of individuals in the CFTR2 database with at least 1 missense variant. Thus, our results indicate that most individuals with CF carrying missense variants are (a) likely to respond modestly to currently available modulator therapy, while a small fraction will have pronounced responses, and (b) likely to derive the greatest benefit from combination therapy.

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