4.5 Article

A novel neurofibromin (NF1) interaction with the leucine-rich pentatricopeptide repeat motif-containing protein links neurofibromatosis type 1 and the french canadian variant of leigh's syndrome in a common molecular complex

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE RESEARCH
卷 91, 期 4, 页码 494-505

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/jnr.23189

关键词

Neurofibromatosis type 1; Leigh's Syndrome French Canadian variant; Neurofibromin; Leucine-Rich Pentatricopeptide Repeat motif-Containing protein; RNA granules

资金

  1. Neurofibromatosis Society of Ontario
  2. Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarship
  3. SickKids RESTRACOMP Award
  4. Garron Family Cancer Centre Funding

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Loss-of-function mutations and deletions in the neurofibromin tumor suppressor gene (NF1) cause neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF-1), the most common inherited syndrome of the nervous system in humans, with a birth incidence of 1:3,000. The most visible features of NF-1 are the neoplastic manifestations caused by the loss of Ras-GTPase-activating protein (Ras-GAP) activity mediated through the GAP-related domain (GRD) of neurofibromin (NF1), the protein encoded by NF1. However, the syndrome is also characterized by cognitive dysfunction and a number of developmental abnormalities. The molecular etiology of many of these nonneoplastic phenotypes remains unknown. Here we show that the tubulin-binding domain (TBD) of NF1 is a binding partner of the leucine-rich pentatricopeptide repeat motif-containing (LRPPRC) protein. These two proteins complex with Kinesin 5B, hnRNP A2, Staufen1, and Myelin Basic Protein (MBP) mRNA, likely in RNA granules. This interaction is of interest in that it links NF-1 with Leigh's syndrome, French Canadian variant (LSFC), an autosomal recessive neurodegenerative disorder that arises from mutations in the LRPPRC gene. Our findings provide clues to how loss or mutation of NF1 and LRPPRC may contribute to the manifestations of NF-1 and LSFC. (c) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, 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

4.5
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