4.6 Article

Limbic Epileptogenesis in a Mouse Model of Fragile X Syndrome

期刊

CEREBRAL CORTEX
卷 19, 期 7, 页码 1504-1514

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhn163

关键词

epilepsy; FMRP; kindling; mGluR5; mossy fiber sprouting; NMDA

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program of China [2006CB806600]
  2. Key State Research Program of China [2006CB943900]
  3. National 863'' high-tech research and development program [2006AA02Z166]
  4. The National Natural Science Foundation of China [30721004]
  5. Chinese Academy of Sciences [KSCX2-YW-R-099]
  6. Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China [2006AA02Z166]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fragile X syndrome (FXS), caused by silencing of the Fmr1 gene, is the most common form of inherited mental retardation. Epilepsy is reported to occur in 20-25% of individuals with FXS. However, no overall increased excitability has been reported in Fmr1 knockout (KO) mice, except for increased sensitivity to auditory stimulation. Here, we report that kindling increased the expressions of Fmr1 mRNA and protein in the forebrain of wild-type (WT) mice. Kindling development was dramatically accelerated in Fmr1 KO mice, and Fmr1 KO mice also displayed prolonged electrographic seizures during kindling and more severe mossy fiber sprouting after kindling. The accelerated rate of kindling was partially repressed by inhibiting N-methyl-D-aspartic acid receptor (NMDAR) with MK-801 or mGluR5 receptor with 2-methyl-6-(phenylethynyl)-pyridine (MPEP). The rate of kindling development in WT was not effected by MPEP, however, suggesting that FMRP normally suppresses epileptogenic signaling downstream of metabolic glutamate receptors. Our findings reveal that FMRP plays a critical role in suppressing limbic epileptogenesis and predict that the enhanced susceptibility of patients with FXS to epilepsy is a direct consequence of the loss of an important homeostatic factor that mitigates vulnerability to excessive neuronal excitation.

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

4.6
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