3.8 Review

Using mouse modets to explore genotype-phenotyperelationship in Down syndrome

出版社

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/mrdd.20164

关键词

Down syndrome; HSA21; NGF; cholinergic; Alzheimer's disease; Ts65Dn

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE [R01NS038869, R01NS055371] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING [R01AG016999] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NIA NIH HHS [AG16999] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NINDS NIH HHS [NS38869, NS055371] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Down Syndrome (DS) caused by trisomy 21 is characterized by a variety of phenotypes and involves multiple organs. Sequencing of human chromosome 21 (HSA21) and subsequently of its orthologues on mouse chromosome 16 have created an unprecedented opportunity to explore the complex relationship between various DS phenotypes and the extra copy of similar to 300 genes on HSA21. Advances in genetics together with the ability to generate genetically well-defined mouse models have been instrumental in understanding the relationships between genotype and phenotype in DS. Indeed, elucidation of these relationships will play an important role in understanding the pathophysiological basis of this disorder and helping to develop therapeutic interventions. A successful example of using such a strategy is our recent studies exploring the relationship between failed nerve growth factor (NGF) transport and amyloid precursor protein (App) overexpression. We found that increased dosage of the gene for App is linked to failed NGF signaling and cholinergic neurodegeneration in a mouse model of DS. Herein, we discuss several mouse models of DS and explore the emergence of exciting new insights into genotype-phenotype relationships, particularly those related to nervous system abnormalities. An important conclusion is that uncovering these relationships is enhanced by working from carefully defined phenotypes to the genes responsible. (C) 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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

3.8
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