4.7 Article

Strain-dependence of the Angelman Syndrome phenotypes in Ube3a maternal deficiency mice

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-08825-x

关键词

-

资金

  1. Foundation for Angelman Syndrome Therapeutics (FAST)
  2. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) Brain Disorders and Development [T32NS043124-07]
  3. Baylor College of Medicine IDDRC from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [U54HD083092]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Angelman syndrome (AS) is a genetic neurodevelopmental disorder, most commonly caused by deletion or mutation of the maternal allele of the UBE3A gene, with behavioral phenotypes and seizures as key features. Currently no treatment is available, and therapeutics are often ineffective in controlling AS-associated seizures. Previous publications using the Ube3a maternal deletion model have shown behavioral and seizure susceptibility phenotypes, however findings have been variable and merit characterization of electroencephalographic (EEG) activity. In this study, we extend previous studies comparing the effect of genetic background on the AS phenotype by investigating the behavioral profile, EEG activity, and seizure threshold. AS C57BL/6J mice displayed robust behavioral impairments, spontaneous EEG polyspikes, and increased cortical and hippocampal power primarily driven by delta and theta frequencies. AS 129 mice performed poorly on wire hang and contextual fear conditioning and exhibited a lower seizure threshold and altered spectral power. AS F1 hybrid mice (C57BL/6J x 129) showed milder behavioral impairments, infrequent EEG polyspikes, and fewer spectral power alterations. These findings indicate the effect of common genetic backgrounds on the Ube3a maternal deletion behavioral, EEG, and seizure threshold phenotypes. Our results will inform future studies on the optimal strain for evaluating therapeutics with different AS-like phenotypes.

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

4.7
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