4.5 Article

Assessing the residual CFTR gene expression in human nasal epithelium cells bearing CFTR splicing mutations causing cystic fibrosis

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS
卷 22, 期 6, 页码 784-791

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2013.238

关键词

gene expression; qPCR; CFTR; minigenes; residual expression analysis

资金

  1. Spanish National Health System [CES09/020]
  2. Instituto de Salud Carlos III (FIS/FEDER) [PI050804, PI080041]
  3. Fundacion Sira Carrasco from Spain
  4. Portuguese Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia [PEst-OE/BIA/UI4046/2011]
  5. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [PEst-OE/BIA/UI4046/2011] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The major purpose of the present study was to quantify correctly spliced CFTR transcripts in human nasal epithelial cells from cystic fibrosis (CF) patients carrying the splicing mutations c. 580-1G>T (712-1G>T) and c.2657+5G>A (2789+5G>A) and to assess the applicability of this model in CFTR therapeutic approaches. We performed the relative quantification of CFTR mRNA by reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) of these splicing mutations in four groups (wild type, CF-F508del controls, CF patients and CF carriers) of individuals. In addition, in vitro assays using minigene constructs were performed to evaluate the effect of a new CF complex allele c.[2657+5G>A; 2562T>G]. Ex vivo qPCR data show that the primary consequence of both mutations at the RNA level is the skipping of their neighboring exon (6 and 16, respectively). The CFTR minigenes results mimicked the ex vivo data, as exon 16 skipping is the main aberrant transcript, and the correctly spliced transcript level was observed in a similar proportion when the c. 2657+5G>A mutation is present. In summary, we provide evidence that ex vivo quantitative transcripts analysis using RT-qPCR is a robust technology that could be useful for measuring the efficacy of therapeutic approaches that attempt to achieve an increase in CFTR gene expression.

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