4.1 Review

'State-of-the-heart' of cardiac laminopathies

期刊

CURRENT OPINION IN CARDIOLOGY
卷 28, 期 3, 页码 297-304

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/HCO.0b013e32835f0c79

关键词

conduction system disease; dilated cardiomyopathy; lamin A/C; LMNA

资金

  1. Institut National de la Sante et de la Recherche Medicale
  2. Universite Pierre et Marie Curie Paris
  3. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
  4. Association Francaise contre les Myopathies
  5. European Union [018690, Curie EXT-014051, Health-F2-2009-241577-Big-Heart]
  6. Lefoulon Delalande Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose of review LMNA gene encodes the nuclear A-type lamins. LMNA mutations are associated with more than 10 clinical entities and represent one of the first causes of inherited dilated cardiomyopathy. LMNA-dilated cardiomyopathy is associated with conduction disease (DCM-CD) and is a severe and aggressive form of DCM. However, pathogenesis remains largely unknown and no specific treatment is currently available for the patients. In this review, we present recent discoveries that improve the understanding of the cardiac pathophysiological roles of A-type lamins and shed light on potential therapeutic targets. Recent findings In the last decade, many efforts have been made to elucidate how mutations in A-type lamins, ubiquitous proteins, lead to DCM-CD. No clear genotype/phenotype correlations have been found to help in elucidating those mechanisms. Analysis of several mouse models has helped in deciphering critical pathomechanisms. Among those, Mitogen-activated protein kinases (MAPK) and Akt/mTOR appear to be key early-activated signaling pathways in LMNA DCM-CD in both humans and mice. Inhibition of these signaling pathways has shown encouraging beneficial effects upon cardiac evolution of DCM-CD. Summary These recent findings suggest that targeting MAPK and Akt/mTOR pathways with potent and specific compounds represents a promising intervention for the treatment of LMNA DCM-CD.

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

4.1
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