Journal of Investigative Medicine:
EB Symposium Manuscripts
Molecular Pathogenesis of Fragile X-Associated Tremor/Ataxia Syndrome
Raske, Christopher MS; Hagerman, Paul J. MD, PhD
From the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA.
Received July 10, 2009.
Accepted for publication August 23, 2009.
Reprints: Paul J. Hagerman, MD, PhD, Biochemistry and Molecular Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA 95616. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Development (R01 HD40661), the National Institute on Aging (RL1 AG32119), and an NIH Roadmap Interdisciplinary Research Consortium award (NIDCR UL1 DE19583), and the symposium was supported in part by a grant from the National Center for Research Resources (R13 RR023236).
Fragile X-associated tremor/ataxia syndrome is a late adult onset neurodegenerative disorder that affects individuals who carry a premutation CGG repeat expansion (55-200 CGG repeats) in the 5′ untranslated portion of the fragile X mental retardation 1 (FMR1) gene. Affected individuals display cognitive decline, progressive intention tremor, gait ataxia, neuropathy, psychiatric symptoms, and parkinsonism; the severity of both clinical and neuropathological phenotypes is positively correlated with the extent of the CGG expansion. Overexpression of the expanded CGG repeat messenger RNA results in a direct gain-of-function cellular toxicity that is believed to form the pathogenic basis for fragile X-associated tremor/ataxia syndrome. This mechanism is entirely different from the mechanism giving rise to fragile X syndrome, which is due to transcriptional silencing and consequent loss of FMR1 protein. Much of the research in the field has focused on understanding the link between the pathogenic FMR1 messenger RNA and the potential proteins that interact with it.
Fragile X-associated tremor/ataxia syndrome (FXTAS) is a late onset neurodegenerative disorder affecting many older male and some female carriers of a premutation CGG repeat expansion (55-200 CGG repeats) in the fragile X mental retardation 1 (FMR1) gene.1-8 Larger expansions of the highly polymorphic repeat (>200 CGG repeats; full mutation) are usually associated with transcriptional silencing of the FMR1 gene and consequent loss of FMR1 protein (FMRP),1,9-13 which plays an important role in synaptogenesis and synaptic plasticity.14 Absence of the protein leads to fragile X syndrome, a neurodevelopmental disorder and the leading monogenic form of cognitive impairment and autism.15-18
Epidemiological studies have revealed that nearly 1 in 3000 men, and a smaller number of women, is at risk for developing FXTAS.3,5,19,20 Affected individuals display cognitive decline, progressive intention tremor, gait ataxia, peripheral neuropathy, psychiatric symptoms, and parkinsonism, and the severity of both clinical and neuropathological phenotypes are positively correlated with the extent of the CGG expansion.21-27 Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reveals white matter disease, diffuse brain atrophy, and high signal lesions (T2/fluid-attenuated inversion recovery) of the middle cerebellar peduncles (middle cerebellar peduncle sign).4,28 Furthermore, immunohistochemical staining of postmortem brain tissue from FXTAS cases reveals loss of axons and myelin, significant astroglial activation in subcortical white matter, and Purkinje cell loss in the cerebellum.5,22,28 In addition, ubiquitin-positive intranuclear inclusions (Fig. 1) are found in both neurons and astroglial cells in wide distribution in postmortem brains of FXTAS patients.5,28 Moreover, the number of the inclusions is positively correlated with the CGG number. Inclusions of similar morphology, albeit distinct composition, are found in several other neurodegenerative diseases.29-31
The discovery of FXTAS among adult carriers of premutation FMR1 alleles has revealed an entirely separate molecular mechanism from that operating in fragile X syndrome. In contrast to the complete transcriptional silencing of FMR1 in full mutation alleles, premutation carriers produce up to 8-fold more FMR1 messenger RNA (mRNA) over normal levels in blood leukocytes, despite expressing slightly to moderately less FMRP.32-35 The expanded CGG repeat mRNA per se, present at elevated levels, is now thought to exert a toxic gain of function that leads to FXTAS.1,2,5 Many of the features of FXTAS, particularly those involving neuropathology, have been recapitulated in mouse36-39 and fly40-43 models of FXTAS. A review of the animal work is the subject of a companion article.44
RNA TOXICITY IN FXTAS
Initial evidence for an mRNA-mediated pathogenesis of FXTAS was based on patterns of clinical involvement, where only individuals who were premutation carriers, with elevated levels of the expanded CGG repeat mRNA, developed FXTAS.2-4,28,32 Adults with full mutation alleles, which are generally transcriptionally silent (no RNA or protein), have not been reported to develop FXTAS.1 Furthermore, although there is some diminution of FMRP levels in the upper portion of the premutation range (>100 CGG repeats),33,35 most cases of FXTAS tend to occur in the approximately 70 to 120 CGG repeat range where FMRP levels are only slightly reduced. Again, older adults with fragile X syndrome, whose protein levels are often undetectable, do not seem to get FXTAS thus ruling out an FMRP loss mechanism. In this regard, a similar argument had earlier been made for a possible RNA-based mechanism for primary ovarian insufficiency,45 which affects a substantial fraction of women who are carriers of premutation alleles.
Perhaps, the most important findings in support of an RNA gain-of-function pathogenesis for FXTAS are the presence of FMR1 mRNA within the intranuclear inclusions in the central nervous system.22,28,46 Using biotinylated riboprobes specific for the FMR1 5′ untranslated region (UTR), FMR1 mRNA was detected within inclusion-bearing nuclei isolated from a human postmortem FXTAS brain. This was the first direct evidence in humans for involvement of the FMR1 RNA in the pathogenic mechanism for FXTAS. This observation parallels the prior observations of mRNA-containing intranuclear foci in the myotonic dystrophies, DM1 (CUG repeat) and DM2 (CCUG repeat).47,48 The myotonic dystrophies represent the paradigm for RNA gain-of-function toxicity. In both DM1 and DM2, the CUG and CCUG repeat-containing mRNAs interact with and sequester the CUG-binding protein muscleblind-like 1 (MBNL1), leading to the aberrant splicing events associated with disease formation. Based on this model (Fig. 2), research has focused on understanding the link between the pathogenic FMR1 mRNA and the potential proteins that interact with it.
A second important finding was that a cellular phenotype could be induced in neuroepithelial (SK) cells in culture by transfecting the cells with plasmids that retain only the expanded CGG repeat (approximately 95 CGG repeats) and adjacent 5′ UTR, with the FMR1 promoter and FMRP coding region replaced by a viral (cytomegalovirus) promoter and GFP reporter.49 The principal feature of the phenotype was the collapse of the lamin A/C nuclear architecture; the lamin A and C isoforms, produced by the LMNA gene (Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man No. 150330) are found within the intranuclear inclusions.31 Furthermore, the abnormal cellular phenotype was only induced when the CGG-containing reporter gene was expressed because inactivation of the viral promoter eliminated the effects of the CGG repeat. This last observation is analogous to the absence of evident clinical features of FXTAS in individuals with full mutation alleles, where the FMR1 gene is transcriptionally silent. A second important component of the cellular phenotype was the formation of αB-crystallin-positive intranuclear, despite the absence of any FMR1 coding sequence. These results demonstrated that a noncoding CGG-5′ UTR transcript is sufficient to recapitulate at least 2 major features of the FXTAS cellular phenotype. Moreover, the 99 CGG construct was able to induce inclusion formation in primary glial progenitor cells. In contrast, cells transfected with 30 CGGs did not form inclusions. Interestingly, massive cell death was observed in the cells transfected with 99 CGGs; however, very little of the cell death could be attributed to apoptotic pathways.49
COMPONENTS OF THE INTRANUCLEAR INCLUSIONS OF FXTAS
The fact that RNA is not intrinsically toxic implies that there must be 1 or more protein effectors of the gain-of-function effects of the expanded CGG repeat mRNA. To address this issue, a combination of gel-based methods and tandem mass spectrometry (MS) were used to identify more than 20 proteins in the inclusions.31 Among the proteins found within the inclusions were several stress-response (heat shock) proteins (HSPs), including HSP27, HSP70, and αB-crystallin. The presence of these proteins suggests that there is an overall cellular stress induced by the expanded CGG repeat mRNA. Although this observation is not unexpected, the nature and origin of the primary stress are currently not known.
Also included in the list of proteins are the lamin A/C isoforms, the presence of which provided the impetus for the investigation of the lamin architecture mentioned previously. The presence of the lamin isoforms within the inclusions, coupled with the altered nuclear lamin architecture, provides a potentially important link to the clinical features of FXTAS, namely, the prominence of peripheral neuropathy among those who have the core features of FXTAS (tremor and gait ataxia) and even among those who are carriers of premutation alleles but who do not have FXTAS.19,24,50,51 Mutations in the LMNA gene are known to give rise to a form of axonal Charcot-Marie-Tooth peripheral neuropathy (Charcot-Marie-Tooth type 2B1; Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man No. 605588), suggesting that the neuropathic features of FXTAS may represent at least, in part, a functional laminopathy.
Also among the species present in the inclusions are at least 3 RNA-binding proteins, hnRNP A2, MBNL1, and purα.31,52 Although for none of these proteins is there evidence of functional importance in FXTAS pathogenesis, the work of Jin et al.52 in Drosophila suggests that the CGG-induced neurodegenerative phenotype can be rescued by overexpression of purα. Based on the broad range of functions of purα in DNA replication/repair, transcription, and translation, coupled with the early postnatal lethal phenotype of purα knockout in mice,53 it is somewhat surprising that the phenotype of FXTAS is both late adult onset and incompletely penetrant. However, a purα-coupled mechanism might be consistent with a moderately lowered level of purα due to partial sequestration. Additional work will be needed in mouse models to define the role (if any) of purα in FXTAS. Interestingly, purα was not observed in the inclusions by MS, although low levels of that protein, not detectable by those methods, could still be revealed through immunohistochemical methods. HnRNP A2, another of the RNA-binding proteins identified by MS,31 was also shown to exhibit a rescue phenotype in Drosophila.43 It is possible that partial sequestration of hnRNP A2 may lead to altered transport of its target mRNAs and cause cellular dysregulation.
A third RNA-binding protein, MBNL1, found in the FXTAS inclusions, plays a prominent role in myotonic dystrophy; however, as yet, there is no evidence for a functional role of this protein in FXTAS. MBNL1 has not been shown to bind CGG repeat mRNA directly; however, recent evidence implicates it as a more general modulator of repeat RNA toxicity.54 Those researchers were able to induce neurodegeneration by overexpressing an untranslated CAG repeat mRNA in Drosophila. Surprisingly, overexpression of MBNL1 exacerbated the effect, whereas down-regulation attenuated the CAG induced neurodegeneration-an effect opposite to that observed with MBNL1 sequestration in the DM model. This study was important in not only demonstrating that RNA toxicity may be a component spinocerebellar ataxia 3 (SCA3), traditionally thought to be strictly a polyglutamine disorder but also suggested that MBL1 may have distinct roles in disease pathogenesis depending on the particular trinucleotide expansion. Finally, in contrast to its involvement in myotonic dystrophy, MBNL1 did not lead to missplicing of a target reporter construct, suggesting a distinct pathogenic mechanism in CAG RNA-induced neurodegeneration.54
Another significant finding was the absence of any single, predominant protein species in the inclusions.31 This argues against a mechanism in which the mass accumulation of 1 or more specific proteins leads to inclusion formation and cell death, a result that stands in contrast to Huntington disease (huntingtin), the tauopathies (tau protein), or Parkinson disease (α-synuclein).29,31 In addition, very few of the isolated proteins were found to be ubiquitinated, with no evidence of polyubiquitination, a result that stands in contrast to other neurodegenerative disorders in which accumulation of ubiquitinated, aberrant protein species in inclusions is thought to overwhelm the proteasomal degradation pathway.55 However, it is possible that accumulation of a protein in the inclusions in even small quantities could be triggering downstream pathways leading to cell death.31
The case for mRNA toxicity in FXTAS was further strengthened through the creation of a 98 CGG knock-in mouse.38,44 Using homologous recombination, those researchers inserted a human 98 CGG repeat into the 5′ UTR of the mouse FMR1 gene to study the stability and methylation of the allele and the pathogenesis. Through selective breeding, mice were produced with varying numbers of repeats spanning the premutation range. Using real-time polymerase chain reaction, they found 2- to 3.5-fold elevated FMR1 mRNA in these brains compared to those of wild-type mice, consistent with the situation in humans.46 Although no gross abnormalities were observed in 20- to 72-week-old premutation mice, ubiquitin-positive inclusions were widely distributed throughout the brains. The inclusions were only observed in nuclei, and in contrast to postmortem brains from FXTAS patients, none was seen in astrocytes.38
Another important focus of the mouse study was on the biological components of the intranuclear inclusions. Using immunohistochemistry, Willemsen et al.38 did not see any FMRP in the inclusions; however, they did find HSP40 and the 20S catalytic complex of the proteasome. They also found the 20S complex colocalized with ubiquitin in many of the inclusions. However, many other proteins involved in neurodegenerative disorders, including MAP2, tyrosine tubulin, MAP1B, actin, SUMO1, GFAP, TAU, neurofilament, nucleolin, HSP27, HSP60, and HSP72 did not costain with inclusions, which suggests novel neuropathogenic processes in the FXTAS mouse model.29,38
THE POTENTIAL FOR THERAPEUTIC INTERVENTION
Although some treatment options are available for patients with FXTAS, essentially all are based on alleviation of symptoms but do not target the underlying pathogenic processes. A targeted therapeutic agent directed toward the expanded CGG repeat mRNA is clearly a plausible treatment option. Knockdown of the RNA itself using either small interfering RNA or antisense DNA analogs is an approach that is currently under study. One caveat with the use of small interfering RNA is that its site of action in the cytoplasm would not address any nuclear-specific toxic events. An alternative approach to therapeutic intervention would be to target 1 or more steps in the pathogenic process that is induced by expression of the CGG repeat mRNA; elucidation of the steps in this process is currently underway in a number of laboratories. In this regard, researchers recently were able to design a small molecule, cell permeable ligand, that binds both CUG and CAG repeat mRNAs and disrupts their interactions with MBNL1.56 Thus, to the extent that MBNL1 sequestration is important for disease pathogenesis (eg, in DM), this approach has merit.
From the perspective of targeting RNA-protein interactions in FXTAS, as in the DM model, it is important to recognize that the consequence of a specific protein-RNA interaction may not be sequestration. Whereas the CUG expansions in DM may exceed several thousand repeats, disease-causing expansions in FXTAS may be as little as 2 to 3 folds above the normal repeat lengths; thus, the trigger for disease pathogenesis may not be loss of function (sequestration) but gain of function as would be the case were an RNA-protein interaction to result in protein activation. One classic example of such an activation is the interaction of RNA-stimulated double-stranded protein kinase (PKR) with double-stranded (eg, viral) RNA. Although studies to date suggest that PKR itself is not involved with FXTAS pathogenesis,57 the principle remains viable.
As with other neurodegenerative disorders, several important questions remain to be resolved about the molecular pathogenesis of FXTAS. Why do some individuals not seem to get FXTAS? When, during the course of disease, does intervention need to occur to substantially reverse the course of the illness? In addition, in treating an existing disease, how much improvement might be expected? Lastly, does the absence of full penetrance of the disorder imply the co-occurrence of other environmental or genetic factors? Resolution to these questions will substantially improve our ability to design rational treatment approaches for FXTAS. With this disorder, we have the distinct advantage of knowing both the responsible gene and the primary pathogenic trigger-the expanded CGG repeat mRNA. This knowledge provides avenues of approach to the more complete characterization of the clinical phenotype,18 the creation of appropriate animal models,44 and the development of targeted therapeutic agents.
1. Hagerman PJ, Hagerman RJ. The fragile-X premutation: a maturing perspective. Am J Hum Genet. 2004;74:805-816.
2. Hagerman RJ, Leehey M, Heinrichs W, et al. Intention tremor, parkinsonism, and generalized brain atrophy in male carriers of fragile X. Neurology. 2001;57:127-130.
3. Jacquemont S, Farzin F, Hall D, et al. Aging in individuals with the FMR1 mutation. Am J Ment Retard. 2004;109:154-164.
4. Brunberg JA, Jacquemont S, Hagerman RJ, et al. Fragile X premutation carriers: characteristic MR imaging findings of adult male patients with progressive cerebellar and cognitive dysfunction. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2002;23:1757-1766.
5. Jacquemont S, Hagerman RJ, Leehey M, et al. Fragile X premutation tremor/ataxia syndrome: molecular, clinical, and neuroimaging correlates. Am J Hum Genet. 2003;72:869-878.
6. Amiri K, Hagerman RJ, Hagerman PJ. Fragile X-associated tremor/ataxia syndrome: an aging face of the fragile X gene. Arch Neurol. 2008;65:19-25.
7. Berry-Kravis E, Abrams L, Coffey SM, et al. Fragile X-associated tremor/ataxia syndrome: clinical features, genetics, and testing guidelines. Mov Disord. 2007;22:2018-2030, quiz 2140.
8. Brouwer JR, Willemsen R, Oostra BA. The FMR1 gene and fragile X-associated tremor/ataxia syndrome. Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet. 2009;150B:782-798.
9. Fu YH, Kuhl DP, Pizzuti A, et al. Variation of the CGG repeat at the fragile X site results in genetic instability: resolution of the Sherman paradox. Cell. 1991;67:1047-1058.
10. Verkerk AJ, Pieretti M, Sutcliffe JS, et al. Identification of a gene (FMR-1) containing a CGG repeat coincident with a breakpoint cluster region exhibiting length variation in fragile X syndrome. Cell. 1991;65:905-914.
11. Yu S, Pritchard M, Kremer E, et al. Fragile X genotype characterized by an unstable region of DNA. Science. 1991;252:1179-1181.
12. Rousseau F, Heitz D, Biancalana V, et al. Direct diagnosis by DNA analysis of the fragile X syndrome of mental retardation. N Engl J Med. 1991;325:1673-1681.
13. Pieretti M, Zhang FP, Fu YH, et al. Absence of expression of the FMR-1 gene in fragile X syndrome. Cell. 1991;66:817-822.
14. Bassell GJ, Warren ST. Fragile X syndrome: loss of local mRNA regulation alters synaptic development and function. Neuron. 2008;60:201-214.
15. Hagerman RJ, Ono MY, Hagerman PJ. Recent advances in fragile X: a model for autism and neurodegeneration. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2005;18:490-496.
16. Loesch DZ, Bui QM, Dissanayake C, et al. Molecular and cognitive predictors of the continuum of autistic behaviours in fragile X. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2007;31:315-326.
17. Hagerman RJ, Berry-Kravis E, Kaufmann WE, et al. Advances in the treatment of fragile X syndrome. Pediatrics. 2009;123:378-390.
18. Leehey MA. Fragile X-associated tremor/ataxia syndrome: clinical phenotype, diagnosis, and treatment. J Investig Med. 2009;57:830-836.
19. Coffey SM, Cook K, Tartaglia N, et al. Expanded clinical phenotype of women with the FMR1 premutation. Am J Med Genet A. 2008;146:1009-1016.
20. Hagerman PJ. The fragile X prevalence paradox. J Med Genet. 2008;45:498-499.
21. Adams JS, Adams PE, Nguyen D, et al. Volumetric brain changes in females with fragile X-associated tremor/ataxia syndrome (FXTAS). Neurology. 2007;69:851-859.
22. Greco CM, Berman RF, Martin RM, et al. Neuropathology of fragile X-associated tremor/ataxia syndrome (FXTAS). Brain. 2006;129:243-255. Epub 2005 Dec 2005.
23. Grigsby J, Brega AG, Jacquemont S, et al. Impairment in the cognitive functioning of men with fragile X-associated tremor/ataxia syndrome (FXTAS). J Neurol Sci. 2006;248:227-233. Epub 2006 June 2015.
24. Hagerman RJ, Coffey SM, Maselli R, et al. Neuropathy as a presenting feature in fragile X-associated tremor/ataxia syndrome. Am J Med Genet A. 2007;143:2256-2260.
25. Leehey MA, Berry-Kravis E, Goetz CG, et al. FMR1 CGG repeat length predicts motor dysfunction in premutation carriers. Neurology. 2008;70:1397-1402.
26. Leehey MA, Berry-Kravis E, Min SJ, et al. Progression of tremor and ataxia in male carriers of the FMR1 premutation. Mov Disord. 2007;22:203-206.
27. Tassone F, Adams J, Berry-Kravis EM, et al. CGG repeat length correlates with age of onset of motor signs of the fragile X-associated tremor/ataxia syndrome (FXTAS). Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet. 2007;144:566-569.
28. Greco CM, Hagerman RJ, Tassone F, et al. Neuronal intranuclear inclusions in a new cerebellar tremor/ataxia syndrome among fragile X carriers. Brain. 2002;125:1760-1771.
29. Gusella JF, MacDonald ME. Molecular genetics: unmasking polyglutamine triggers in neurodegenerative disease. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2000;1:109-115.
30. Orr HT, Zoghbi HY. SCA1 molecular genetics: a history of a 13 year collaboration against glutamines. Hum Mol Genet. 2001;10:2307-2311.
31. Iwahashi CK, Yasui DH, An HJ, et al. Protein composition of the intranuclear inclusions of FXTAS. Brain. 2006;129:256-271. Epub 2005 Oct 2024.
32. Tassone F, Hagerman RJ, Taylor AK, et al. Elevated levels of FMR1 mRNA in carrier males: a new mechanism of involvement in the fragile-X syndrome. Am J Hum Genet. 2000;66:6-15.
33. Tassone F, Hagerman RJ, Taylor AK, et al. Clinical involvement and protein expression in individuals with the FMR1 premutation. Am J Med Genet. 2000;91:144-152.
34. Allen E, He W, Yadav-Shah M, et al. A study of the distributional characteristics of FMR1 transcript levels in 238 individuals. Hum Genet. 2004;114:439-447.
35. Kenneson A, Zhang F, Hagedorn CH, et al. Reduced FMRP and increased FMR1 transcription is proportionally associated with CGG repeat number in intermediate-length and premutation carriers. Hum Mol Genet. 2001;10:1449-1454.
36. Entezam A, Biacsi R, Orrison B, et al. Regional FMRP deficits and large repeat expansions into the full mutation range in a new Fragile X premutation mouse model. Gene. 2007;395:125-134.
37. Van Dam D, Errijgers V, Kooy RF, et al. Cognitive decline, neuromotor and behavioural disturbances in a mouse model for fragile-X-associated tremor/ataxia syndrome (FXTAS). Behav Brain Res. 2005;162:233-239.
38. Willemsen R, Hoogeveen-Westerveld M, Reis S, et al. The FMR1 CGG repeat mouse displays ubiquitin-positive intranuclear neuronal inclusions; implications for the cerebellar tremor/ataxia syndrome. Hum Mol Genet. 2003;12:949-959.
39. Hashem V, Galloway JN, Mori M, et al. Ectopic expression of CGG containing mRNA is neurotoxic in mammals. Hum Mol Genet. 2009;18:2443-2451.
40. Chang S, Bray SM, Li Z, et al. Identification of small molecules rescuing fragile X syndrome phenotypes in Drosophila. Nat Chem Biol. 2008;4:256-263.
41. Jin P, Zarnescu DC, Zhang F, et al. RNA-mediated neurodegeneration caused by the fragile X premutation rCGG repeats in Drosophila. Neuron. 2003;39:739-747.
42. Sofola OA, Jin P, Botas J, et al. Argonaute-2-dependent rescue of a Drosophila model of FXTAS by FRAXE premutation repeat. Hum Mol Genet. 2007;16:2326-2332.
43. Sofola OA, Jin P, Qin Y, et al. RNA-binding proteins hnRNP A2/B1 and CUGBP1 suppress fragile X CGG premutation repeat-induced neurodegeneration in a Drosophila model of FXTAS. Neuron. 2007;55:565-571.
44. Berman RF, Willemsen R. Mouse models of fragile X-associated tremor ataxia. J Investig Med. 2009;57:837-841.
45. Conway GS, Payne NN, Webb J, et al. Fragile X premutation screening in women with premature ovarian failure. Hum Reprod. 1998;13:1184-1187.
46. Tassone F, Iwahashi C, Hagerman PJ. FMR1 RNA within the intranuclear inclusions of fragile X-associated tremor/ataxia syndrome (FXTAS). RNA Biol. 2004;1:103-105.
47. Day JW, Ranum LP. RNA pathogenesis of the myotonic dystrophies. Neuromuscul Disord. 2005;15:5-16. Epub 2004 Nov 2026.
48. Ranum LP, Day JW. Pathogenic RNA repeats: an expanding role in genetic disease. Trends Genet. 2004;20:506-512.
49. Arocena DG, Iwahashi CK, Won N, et al. Induction of inclusion formation and disruption of lamin A/C structure by premutation CGG-repeat RNA in human cultured neural cells. Hum Mol Genet. 2005;14:3661-3671. Epub 2005 Oct 20.
50. Berry-Kravis E, Goetz CG, Leehey MA, et al. Neuropathic features in fragile X premutation carriers. Am J Med Genet A. 2007;143:19-26.
51. Soontarapornchai K, Maselli R, Fenton-Farrell G, et al. Abnormal nerve conduction features in fragile X premutation carriers. Arch Neurol. 2008;65:495-498.
52. Jin P, Duan R, Qurashi A, et al. Pur alpha binds to rCGG repeats and modulates repeat-mediated neurodegeneration in a Drosophila model of fragile X tremor/ataxia syndrome. Neuron. 2007;55:556-564.
53. White MK, Johnson EM, Khalili K. Multiple roles for puralpha in cellular and viral regulation. Cell Cycle. 2009;8:1-7.
54. Li LB, Yu Z, Teng X, et al. RNA toxicity is a component of ataxin-3 degeneration in Drosophila. Nature. 2008;453:1107-1111.
55. Jung T, Catalgol B, Grune T. The proteasomal system. Mol Aspects Med. 2009;30:191-296.
56. Pushechnikov A, Lee MM, Childs-Disney JL, et al. Rational design of ligands targeting triplet repeating transcripts that cause RNA dominant disease: application to myotonic muscular dystrophy type 1 and spinocerebellar ataxia type 3. J Am Chem Soc. 2009;131:9767-9779.
57. Handa V, Saha T, Usdin K. The fragile X syndrome repeats form RNA hairpins that do not activate the interferon-inducible protein kinase, PKR, but are cut by Dicer. Nucleic Acids Res. 2003;31:6243-6248.
This article has been cited 2 time(s).
Parkinsonism & Related DisordersParkinsonian features in hereditary diffuse leukoencephalopathy with spheroids (HDLS) and CSF1R mutationsParkinsonism & Related Disorders
Clinical GeneticsFragile X-associated tremor/ataxia syndrome (FXTAS) in grey zone carriersClinical Genetics
neurodegeneration; fragile X; autism; neuropathy; trinucleotide; CGG
© 2009 American Federation for Medical Research
Highlight selected keywords in the article text.