4.5 Article

Galanin pathogenic mutations in temporal lobe epilepsy

期刊

HUMAN MOLECULAR GENETICS
卷 24, 期 11, 页码 3082-3091

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/hmg/ddv060

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [SNF-144082]
  2. NCCR Synapsy grant
  3. Telethon-Italy [GGP12078]
  4. LICE Genetics Commission
  5. Swedish research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) is a common epilepsy syndrome with a complex etiology. Despite evidence for the participation of genetic factors, the genetic basis of TLE remains largely unknown. A role for the galanin neuropeptide in the regulation of epileptic seizures has been established in animal models more than two decades ago. However, until now there was no report of pathogenic mutations in GAL, the galanin-encoding gene, and therefore its role in human epilepsy was not established. Here, we studied a family with a pair of monozygotic twins affected by TLE and two unaffected siblings born to healthy parents. Exome sequencing revealed that both twins carried a novel de novo mutation (p.A39E) in the GAL gene. Functional analysis revealed that the p.A39E mutant showed antagonistic activity against galanin receptor 1 (GalR1)-mediated response, and decreased binding affinity and reduced agonist properties for GalR2. These findings suggest that the p.A39E mutant could impair galanin signaling in the hippocampus, leading to increased glutamatergic excitation and ultimately to TLE. In a cohort of 582 cases, we did not observe any pathogenic mutations indicating that mutations in GAL are a rare cause of TLE. The identification of a novel de novo mutation in a biologically-relevant candidate gene, coupled with functional evidence that the mutant protein disrupts galanin signaling, strongly supports GAL as the causal gene for the TLE in this family. Given the availability of galanin agonists which inhibit seizures, our findings could potentially have direct implications for the development of anti-epileptic treatment.

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