Cargando…

The mdx Mutation in the 129/Sv Background Results in a Milder Phenotype: Transcriptome Comparative Analysis Searching for the Protective Factors

The mdx mouse is a good genetic and molecular murine model for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD), a progressive and devastating muscle disease. However, this model is inappropriate for testing new therapies due to its mild phenotype. Here, we transferred the mdx mutation to the 129/Sv strain with th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Calyjur, Priscila Clara, Almeida, Camila de Freitas, Ayub-Guerrieri, Danielle, Ribeiro, Antonio Fernando, Fernandes, Stephanie de Alcântara, Ishiba, Renata, dos Santos, Andre Luis Fernandes, Onofre-Oliveira, Paula, Vainzof, Mariz
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4783004/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26954670
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0150748
Descripción
Sumario:The mdx mouse is a good genetic and molecular murine model for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD), a progressive and devastating muscle disease. However, this model is inappropriate for testing new therapies due to its mild phenotype. Here, we transferred the mdx mutation to the 129/Sv strain with the aim to create a more severe model for DMD. Unexpectedly, functional analysis of the first three generations of mdx(129) showed a progressive amelioration of the phenotype, associated to less connective tissue replacement, and more regeneration than the original mdx(C57BL). Transcriptome comparative analysis was performed to identify what is protecting this new model from the dystrophic characteristics. The mdx(C57BL) presents three times more differentially expressed genes (DEGs) than the mdx(129) (371 and 137 DEGs respectively). However, both models present more overexpressed genes than underexpressed, indicating that the dystrophic and regenerative alterations are associated with the activation rather than repression of genes. As to functional categories, the DEGs of both mdx models showed a predominance of immune system genes. Excluding this category, the mdx(129) model showed a decreased participation of the endo/exocytic pathway and homeostasis categories, and an increased participation of the extracellular matrix and enzymatic activity categories. Spp1 gene overexpression was the most significant DEG exclusively expressed in the mdx(129) strain. This was confirmed through relative mRNA analysis and osteopontin protein quantification. The amount of the 66 kDa band of the protein, representing the post-translational product of the gene, was about 4,8 times higher on western blotting. Spp1 is a known DMD prognostic biomarker, and our data indicate that its upregulation can benefit phenotype. Modeling the expression of the DEGs involved in the mdx mutation with a benign course should be tested as a possible therapeutic target for the dystrophic process.