Fragile X syndrome: from molecular genetics to therapy

Department of Medical Genetics, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Journal of Medical Genetics (Impact Factor: 5.64). 10/2009; 46(9):577-84. DOI: 10.1136/jmg.2008.064667
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Fragile X syndrome, the main cause of inherited mental retardation, is caused by transcriptional silencing of the fragile X mental retardation gene, FMR1. Absence of the associated protein FMRP leads to the dysregulation of many genes creating a phenotype of ADHD, anxiety, epilepsy and autism. The core aim of this review is to summarise two decades of molecular research leading to the characterisation of cellular and molecular pathways involved in the pathology of this disease and as a consequence to the identification of two new promising targets for rational therapy of fragile X syndrome, namely the group 1 metabotrope glutamate receptors (Gp1 mGluRs) and the gamma-amino butyric acid A receptors (GABA(A)Rs). As no current clinical treatments are directed specifically at the underlying neuronal defect due to absence of FMRP, this might open new powerful therapeutic strategies.


Available from: Charlotte D'Hulst, Mar 11, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Fragile X syndrome (FXS), caused by loss of FMR1 gene function, is the most common heritable cause of intellectual disability and autism spectrum disorders. The FMR1 protein (FMRP) translational regulator mediates activity-dependent control of synapses. In addition to the metabotropic glutamate receptor (mGluR) hyperexcitation FXS theory, the GABA theory postulates that hypoinhibition is causative for disease state symptoms. Here, we use the Drosophila FXS model to assay central brain GABAergic circuitry, especially within the Mushroom Body (MB) learning center. All 3 GABAA receptor (GABAAR) subunits are reportedly downregulated in dfmr1 null brains. We demonstrate parallel downregulation of glutamic acid decarboxylase (GAD), the rate-limiting GABA synthesis enzyme, although GABAergic cell numbers appear unaffected. Mosaic analysis with a repressible cell marker (MARCM) single-cell clonal studies show that dfmr1 null GABAergic neurons innervating the MB calyx display altered architectural development, with early underdevelopment followed by later overelaboration. In addition, a new class of extra-calyx terminating GABAergic neurons is shown to include MB intrinsic α/β Kenyon Cells (KCs), revealing a novel level of MB inhibitory regulation. Functionally, dfmr1 null GABAergic neurons exhibit elevated calcium signaling and altered kinetics in response to acute depolarization. To test the role of these GABAergic changes, we attempted to pharmacologically restore GABAergic signaling and assay effects on the compromised MB-dependent olfactory learning in dfmr1 mutants, but found no improvement. Our results show that GABAergic circuit structure and function are impaired in the FXS disease state, but that correction of hypoinhibition alone is not sufficient to rescue a behavioral learning impairment.
    Neurobiology of Disease 01/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.nbd.2014.01.008 · 5.20 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the European Union, sponsors have the responsibility to demonstrate the “intention to diagnose, prevent or treat” a serious and rare condition before the Committee of Orphan Medicinal Products (COMP), for a medicinal product to meet the criteria for Orphan Designation. This requirement is commonly referred to as “medical plausibility” and the justification of this intention is assessed on the merits of each application by the COMP, which deliberates over the scientific evaluation of the evidence submitted. The scientific assessment of the applications for orphan designation by the Committee is based on the review of non-clinical (such as in vitro and in vivo) and/or clinical data submitted by the sponsor. Several challenges regarding the evidence provided emerge when the sponsor is applying for a designation at an early stage of development. Herein we discuss specific examples from the experience of the COMP, in order to elaborate on the type and level of evidence generally considered necessary for the purpose of justification of the intention to treat an orphan condition. Importantly, it is pointed out that bridging of data from other products, irrespectively of how comparable they may be, or from settings not directly associated with the condition as applied for designation, is by and large not a successful exercise and may only be exceptionally considered. It is further exemplified that, as reflected in the updated ‘Guideline on the format and context of the applications for designation’ and the guidance document ‘Recommendation on elements required to support the medical plausibility and the assumption of significant benefit for an orphan designation’ available on the EMA website, the sponsor should provide data with the specific product as applied for in specific models of the condition or in patients affected by the same condition subject of each application.
    Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases 12/2014; 9(175). DOI:10.1186/s13023-014-0175-8 · 3.96 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This is an exciting time in the study of Friedreich's ataxia. Over the last 10 years much progress has been made in uncovering the mechanisms, whereby the Frataxin gene is silenced by (GAA)n repeat expansions and several of the findings are now ripe for testing in the clinic. The discovery that the Frataxin gene is heterochromatinised and that this can be antagonised in vivo has led to the tantalizing possibility that the disease might be amenable to a more radical therapeutic approach involving epigenetic modifiers. Here, we set out to review progress in the understanding of the fundamental mechanisms whereby genes are regulated at this level and how these findings have been applied to achieve a deeper understanding of the dysregulation that occurs as the primary genetic lesion in Friedreich's ataxia.
    Journal of Neurochemistry 08/2013; 126(s1). DOI:10.1111/jnc.12254 · 4.24 Impact Factor