DYX1C1 functions in neuronal migration in developing neocortex.

Department of Physiology and Neurobiology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06268, USA.
Neuroscience (Impact Factor: 3.12). 01/2007; 143(2):515-22. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2006.08.022
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Rodent homologues of two candidate dyslexia susceptibility genes, Kiaa0319 and Dcdc2, have been shown to play roles in neuronal migration in developing cerebral neocortex. This functional role is consistent with the hypothesis that dyslexia susceptibility is increased by interference with normal neural development. In this study we report that in utero RNA interference against the rat homolog of another candidate dyslexia susceptibility gene, DYX1C1, disrupts neuronal migration in developing neocortex. The disruption of migration can be rescued by concurrent overexpression of DYX1C1, indicating that the impairment is not due to off-target effects. Transfection of C- and N-terminal truncations of DYX1C1 shows that the C-terminal TPR domains determine DYX1C1 intracellular localization to cytoplasm and nucleus. RNAi rescue experiments using truncated versions of DYX1C1 further indicate that the C-terminus of DYX1C1 is necessary and sufficient to DYX1C1's function in migration. In conclusion, DYX1C1, similar to two other candidate dyslexia susceptibility genes, functions in neuronal migration in rat neocortex.

1 Bookmark
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Dyslexia is a highly heritable learning disorder with a complex underlying genetic architecture. Over the past decade, researchers have pinpointed a number of candidate genes that may contribute to dyslexia susceptibility. Here, we provide an overview of the state of the art, describing how studies have moved from mapping potential risk loci, through identification of associated gene variants, to characterization of gene function in cellular and animal model systems. Work thus far has highlighted some intriguing mechanistic pathways, such as neuronal migration, axon guidance, and ciliary biology, but it is clear that we still have much to learn about the molecular networks that are involved. We end the review by highlighting the past, present, and future contributions of the Dutch Dyslexia Programme to studies of genetic factors. In particular, we emphasize the importance of relating genetic information to intermediate neurobiological measures, as well as the value of incorporating longitudinal and developmental data into molecular designs. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
    Dyslexia 11/2013; 19(4):214-40. · 1.12 Impact Factor
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Dyslexia or reading disability (RD) is the most common childhood learning disorder and a significantly heritable trait. Many recent studies have investigated the genetic basis of dyslexia, and several candidate genes have been proposed. Among these, DCDC2 and KIAA0319 have emerged as the strongest candidate genes for dyslexia; however studies have not provided uniformly supportive results. The aim of this study was to assess the contribution of proposed candidate genes to the molecular etiology of dyslexia in a Brazilian sample. Large deletions and duplications in the candidate genes DCDC2, KIAA0319, and ROBO1 were investigated in 51 dyslexic subjects. Furthermore, a family-based association study was performed to investigate whether associations observed in other populations with variants in the DCDC2 and KIAA0319 genes were reproducible in Brazilian dyslexic individuals. Our analysis did not detect any deletions or duplications in the genes studied, and we found no evidence that the allelic variants in the two candidate genes were significantly associated with RD in our sample. Our data do not support a role of the DCDC2/KIAA0319 locus in influencing dyslexia as a categorical trait. Given the genetic complexity of dyslexia, it is plausible that both genes contribute to an increased risk, but the relative influence of these 2 genes on RD varies in different study samples, and/or depends on analytical approaches.
    Genetics and molecular research: GMR 11/2013; 12(4):5356-5364. · 0.99 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 15, 2014