![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Regional FMRP deficits and large repeat expansions into the full mutation range in a new Fragile X premutation mouse model 1Laboratory of Molecular and Cellular Biology, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892 2Genetic Disease Research Branch, NHGRI, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892 4 Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology, University of Maryland 3Current address: Department of Surgery, Georgetown University, Washington DC, 20057 5Current address: Department of Genetics, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA 70112 6Current address: Department of Medicine, UCSF, San Francisco, CA 94943-0794 *Address for correspondence: K. Usdin Building 8, Room 202, 8 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892-0830 Tel: 301-496-2189 E-mail:ku/at/helix.nih.gov Abstract Carriers of FMR1 alleles with 55-200 repeats in the 5' UTR are at risk for Fragile X associated tremor and ataxia syndrome. The cause of the neuropathology is unknown but is thought to be RNA-mediated. Maternally transmitted premutation alleles are also at risk of expansion of the repeat tract into the “full mutation” range (>200 repeats). The mechanism responsible for expansion is unknown. Full mutation alleles produce reduced amounts of the FMR1 gene product, FMRP, which leads to Fragile X mental retardation syndrome. We have developed a murine model for Fragile X premutation carriers that recapitulates key features seen in humans including a direct relationship between repeat number and Fmr1 mRNA levels, an inverse relationship with FMRP levels and Purkinje cell dropout that have not been seen in a previously described knock-in mouse model. In addition, these mice also show a differential deficit of FMRP in different parts of the brain that might account for symptoms of the full mutation that are seen in premutation carriers. As in humans, repeat instability is high with expansions predominating and, for the first time in a mouse model, large expansions into the full mutation range are seen that occur within a single generation. Thus, contrary to what was previously thought, mice may be good models not only for the symptoms seen in human carriers of FMR1 premutation alleles but also for understanding the mechanism responsible for repeat expansion, a phenomenon that is responsible for a number of neurological and neurodevelopmental disorders. Keywords: repeat expansion, DNA instability, full mutation 1. Introduction The 5′ UTR of the human Fragile X mental retardation 1 (FMR1) gene contains a CGG•CCG-repeat tract whose size varies from 5 to >2000 repeats. Individuals with 55-200 repeats are said to be carriers of Fragile X premutation alleles. They are at risk for Fragile X associated tremor and ataxia syndrome (FXTAS) (Hagerman and Hagerman, 2004) and premature ovarian failure (Sherman, 2000). Premutation alleles produce elevated levels of FMR1 mRNA and this RNA is thought to have toxic effects (Jin et al., 2003; Handa et al., 2005). Premutation alleles are also prone to expand, with female carriers being at risk of having children with alleles with >200 repeats. These carriers of so-called full mutation alleles are likely to have Fragile X mental retardation syndrome (FXS) (Verkerk et al., 1991; Yu et al., 1991). The symptoms of FXS result from a deficiency of the FMR1 gene product, Fragile X mental retardation protein (FMRP), which arises due to a combination of repeat-induced promoter silencing and difficulties in translating mRNA with large numbers of repeats (Feng et al., 1995). There is some overlap of symptoms in premutation and full mutation carriers probably because the negative effect of the repeat on translation is apparent even in the premutation range and results in a significant decrease in the level of FMRP (Kenneson et al., 2001; Primerano et al., 2002; Tassone et al., 2004). The mechanism of expansion is not known and large expansions from a premutation sized allele to an allele in the full mutation size range have not been previously described in mice. This has led to the idea that expansions do not occur in these animals and thus that they are not good models for studying the expansion mechanism. We describe here Knock-in (KI) mice we have generated that share key features of human premutation carriers not seen in a previous KI mouse model (Bontekoe et al., 2001; Willemsen et al., 2003). These animals also provide the first examples in mice of large repeat expansions that transform a premutation sized allele into a full mutation sized allele in a single generation. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1 Generation of the Fragile X premutation KI mice Mice were maintained in accordance with the guidelines of the NIDDK Animal Care and Use Committee and with the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (NIH publication no. 85-23, revised 1996). The outline of the strategy used to generate the targeting vector is shown in Fig. 1
2.2. Determination of repeat size The size of the CGG•CCG-repeat tract was monitored by Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) as previously described (Lavedan et al., 1998) using the primers frax-m4 (5'-CTTGAGGCCCAGCCGCCGTCGGCC-3') and frax-m5 (5'-CGGGGGGCGTGCGGTAACGGCCCAA-3'). The binding sites for these primers are located immediately adjacent to the repeat tract and their 3' ends are unique to the KI allele. The primer pair, frax-c and frax-f (Fu et al., 1991), was used to detect both wildtype (WT) and KI alleles. The resultant PCR products were analyzed on a 5% polyacrylamide sequencing gels and confirmed where necessary by Southern blotting. PCR across long repeats typically produces multiple bands and the size of each allele was calculated based on the mobility of the central band in the cluster. Statistical analysis of instability was carried out using the Chi square and Student's T tests. 2.3. Methylation status of the expanded repeats Tail DNA from 3 week old male and female mice with repeat numbers was digested with Sau96 I (New England Biolabs, Ipswich, MA, USA), a methylation-sensitive restriction enzyme with a recognition site within the upstream primer. The digested material was then amplified by PCR as described above. An aliquot of pGL3-Basic (Promega, Madison, WI, USA), which has 8 Sau96 I sites, was added prior to Sau96 I digestion as a control for digestion and for normalizing for material lost during processing. 2.4. Fmr1 mRNA measurements Brains from 2 month old male mice with different repeat numbers were placed in RNALater (Ambion, Austin, TX, USA). Total RNA from these brains was prepared using Trizol as per the supplier's instructions (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA). RNA quality was assessed using an Agilent 2100 Bioanalyzer (Agilent Technologies, Carlsbad, CA, USA). Reverse transcription was performed using SuperScript III (Invitrogen) as per the supplier's instructions. Quantitative PCR reactions were performed using the 7900 HT Fast real Time PCR System and TaqMan Universal PCR Master Mix (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA) and the following mouse Fmr1 primer/probe set: Mouse Fmr1-F: 5'-GACAGATTCCATTCCATGATGTGA-3'; Mouse Fmr1-R; 5'-ACCACCAACAGCAAGGCTCT-3'; and the TaqMan probe, 5'-(FAM)–TGATGAAGTTGAGGTGTATTCCAGAGCAAATGA-(TAMRA)-3'. Fmr1 mRNA levels were assessed by comparison with 18S rRNA using a probe set supplied by Applied Biosystems. Reactions were performed in triplicate as previously described (Tassone et al., 2000b). 2.5. Western Blotting Proteins were made from the brains of 2 month old male mice with different repeat numbers, resolved by SDS-PAGE and Western Blotted using standard procedures. FMRP was detected using a mouse monoclonal antibody to FMRP, 7G1-1 ((Brown et al., 2001) and an ECL™ kit as per the manufacturer's instructions (Amersham Biosciences, Piscataway, NJ, USA). Protein from the brains of Fmr1 knock-out animals (Dutch-Belgian Fragile X Consortium, 1994) was used as negative control. Quantitation was carried out by densitometric analysis of the Western blot using Quantity One® 1-D analysis software (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, USA) using Actin as a loading control. 2.6. Immunocytochemistry Four WT males and 5 KI males with 120 repeats were anesthetized at ~100 weeks of age and perfused as previously described (Hoffman et al., 1992). Immunocytochemistry was performed using standard protocols and rabbit anti-Ubiquitin (Dako, Carpenteria, CA, USA), anti-FMRP (Abcam, Cambridge, UK), anti-Calbindin and anti-Lamin C (Chemicon), and mouse anti-FMRP (Chemicon, Temecula, CA, US). After staining, slides were coded and analyzed by an individual blind to the genotype of the animal. The integrated optical density of staining was measured and multivariant analysis of variance (MANOVA) for, genotype, region, and their interaction was performed using JMP software. Post hoc analyses determined statistical differences for each region, with p<0.05 considered significant. 3. Results and Discussion 3.1. Generation of Fragile X premutation mice Unlike the previous fragile X premutation mouse model which was generated by replacement of a region including the endogenous murine repeat tract with one derived from a yeast artificial chromosome (YAC) containing a human premutation allele (Bontekoe et al., 2001), the repeat tract in the premutation mice described here were generated by serial ligation of short, stable CGG•CCG-repeat tracts as previously described (Grabczyk and Usdin, 1998). The premutation-sized repeat tract was added as the last step in the construction of the targeting vector as described in the Materials and Methods (Fig. 1 As will be demonstrated below, these mice share key features with human premutation carriers that were not seen in a previously described KI premutation mouse (Bontekoe et al., 2001; Willemsen et al., 2003; Brouwer et al., 2006). Why this should be is unclear since other than having an initial repeat tract 20 repeats shorter than ours, in principal the previously described mouse model differs from ours only in small details. Minor differences exist in regions of intron 1 resulting from the different targeting vectors that were used. In addition, the previous mouse model contains a human version of the region flanking the repeats that differs from the murine sequence by a just few bases (Bontekoe et al., 2001). 3.2. The KI mice have pathophysiological changes seen in human premutation carriers Our KI premutation mice show a direct relationship between repeat number and Fmr1 mRNA levels (Fig. 2D In spite of the elevated level of Fmr1 mRNA in these mice, there is a negative relationship between the repeat number and the amount of FMRP in brain (Fig. 2F
3.3. Repeat instability is high in the KI mice To test whether the stability of the KI allele undergoes large intergenerational changes in repeat length as it does in humans, we monitored the transmission of the allele through the male and female germline. Instability is high in mice with 120 repeats, with expansions predominating and more expansions being seen on paternal than on maternal transmission (Table 1). This instability is more than twice that seen in the previously reported mouse model (Brouwer et al., 2006). Most expansions were small involving the gain of <5 repeats. The increased frequency of paternal transmissions of small expansions is consistent with what is seen in a number of human repeat expansion diseases. The elevated level of small paternal expansions is usually attributed to the greater number of cell divisions involved in the generation of mature sperm.
While large expansions are rare, we have observed 4 expansions of alleles containing ~120 repeats to ones containing 200 repeats or more, i.e., close to or above the threshold for full mutation alleles in humans (~0.5%; see Fig 4
Unlike human full mutation alleles that show significant methylation at birth that persists throughout life, no evidence of DNA methylation was seen in full mutation mice at 3 weeks of age (Fig. 5
3.4. Large premutation alleles do not show a paternal contraction bias Large FMR1 alleles contract on paternal transfer in humans. However, this is not true of mice (Fig. 6A
3.5. Little, if any, somatic instability is seen No significant heterogeneity in the PCR product from tail DNA was seen in more than 700 premutation alleles tested even when small pool PCR was used (data not shown). We have also tested organs of ectodermal, endodermal and mesodermal origin from animals with 120 repeats. No Organs tested included the brain, liver, gonads and kidneys and the repeat size in these organs was indistinguishable from the alleles seen in the tail samples taken 3 weeks after birth (Fig. 7A
In summary, we have demonstrated that the Fragile X premutation mice we have generated have many features similar to those seen in human premutation carriers, including a direct relationship between repeat number and Fmr1 mRNA levels and an inverse relationship between repeat number and FMRP in brain. These mice also show CNS pathology reminiscent of what is seen in humans. Moreover, they demonstrate for the first time in a mouse model, a large expansion that transforms a premutation allele to full mutation in a single generation. While the frequency of these large expansions is lower than it is in humans, understanding the basis of this difference may help us understand the expansion mechanism. Acknowledgements We would like to thank Lisa Garrett in the NHGRI Embryonic Stem Cell and Transgenic Core Facility, and Sonia Farmer and Maria Jorge in the NIDDK mouse facility. This research was supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the NIDDK and NHGRI (NIH). Abbreviations
Footnotes Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. References
|
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev. 2004; 10(1):25-30.
[Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev. 2004]Am J Med Genet. 2000 Fall; 97(3):189-94.
[Am J Med Genet. 2000]Neuron. 2003 Aug 28; 39(5):739-47.
[Neuron. 2003]FEBS Lett. 2005 May 9; 579(12):2702-8.
[FEBS Lett. 2005]Cell. 1991 May 31; 65(5):905-14.
[Cell. 1991]Hum Mol Genet. 2001 Aug 1; 10(16):1693-9.
[Hum Mol Genet. 2001]Hum Mol Genet. 2003 May 1; 12(9):949-59.
[Hum Mol Genet. 2003]Anal Biochem. 1999 Feb 1; 267(1):241-3.
[Anal Biochem. 1999]Cell. 1996 Mar 22; 84(6):911-21.
[Cell. 1996]Transgenic Res. 2001 Dec; 10(6):545-53.
[Transgenic Res. 2001]Genomics. 1998 Jun 1; 50(2):229-40.
[Genomics. 1998]Cell. 1991 Dec 20; 67(6):1047-58.
[Cell. 1991]Am J Hum Genet. 2000 Jan; 66(1):6-15.
[Am J Hum Genet. 2000]Cell. 2001 Nov 16; 107(4):477-87.
[Cell. 2001]Cell. 1994 Jul 15; 78(1):23-33.
[Cell. 1994]Hum Mol Genet. 2001 Aug 1; 10(16):1693-9.
[Hum Mol Genet. 2001]Hum Mol Genet. 2001 Aug 1; 10(16):1693-9.
[Hum Mol Genet. 2001]Hum Mol Genet. 2003 May 1; 12(9):949-59.
[Hum Mol Genet. 2003]Am J Hum Genet. 2000 Jan; 66(1):6-15.
[Am J Hum Genet. 2000]Brain. 2002 Aug; 125(Pt 8):1760-71.
[Brain. 2002]Brain. 2006 Jan; 129(Pt 1):243-55.
[Brain. 2006]Hum Mol Genet. 2003 May 1; 12(9):949-59.
[Hum Mol Genet. 2003]Hum Mol Genet. 2001 Jul 1; 10(14):1449-54.
[Hum Mol Genet. 2001]RNA. 2002 Dec; 8(12):1482-8.
[RNA. 2002]J Med Genet. 2004 Apr; 41(4):e43.
[J Med Genet. 2004]Hum Mol Genet. 2001 Aug 1; 10(16):1693-9.
[Hum Mol Genet. 2001]Hum Mol Genet. 2003 May 1; 12(9):949-59.
[Hum Mol Genet. 2003]Am J Med Genet. 2000 Sep 18; 94(3):232-6.
[Am J Med Genet. 2000]J Biol Chem. 2000 Dec 1; 275(48):37915-21.
[J Biol Chem. 2000]Am J Hum Genet. 1994 Nov; 55(5):923-31.
[Am J Hum Genet. 1994]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Feb 16; 96(4):1504-9.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999]Genomics. 1998 Jun 1; 50(2):229-40.
[Genomics. 1998]