4.2 Article

Opposing phenotypes in mice with Smith-Magenis deletion and Potocki-Lupski duplication syndromes suggest gene dosage effects on fluid consumption behavior

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL GENETICS PART A
卷 158A, 期 11, 页码 2807-2814

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.35601

关键词

copy number variation (CNV); fluid consumption behavior; gene dosage effect; mouse licking assay

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01NS060887, R01NS067201, R01NS063009]
  2. National Institutes of Neurological Diseases and Stroke [R01NS058529]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A quantitative long-term fluid consumption and fluid-licking assay was performed in two mouse models with either an similar to 2?Mb genomic deletion, Df(11)17, or the reciprocal duplication copy number variation (CNV), Dp(11)17, analogous to the human genomic rearrangements causing either SmithMagenis syndrome [SMS; OMIM #182290] or PotockiLupski syndrome [PTLS; OMIM #610883], respectively. Both mouse strains display distinct quantitative alterations in fluid consumption compared to their wild-type littermates; several of these changes are diametrically opposing between the two chromosome engineered mouse models. Mice with duplication versus deletion showed longer versus shorter intervals between visits to the waterspout, generated more versus less licks per visit and had higher versus lower variability in the number of licks per lick-burst as compared to their respective wild-type littermates. These findings suggest that copy number variation can affect long-term fluid consumption behavior in mice. Other behavioral differences were unique for either the duplication or deletion mutants; the deletion CNV resulted in increased variability of the licking rhythm, and the duplication CNV resulted in a significant slowing of the licking rhythm. Our findings document a readily quantitated complex behavioral response that can be directly and reciprocally influenced by a gene dosage effect. (c) 2012 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

4.2
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