Home › Research › Clinical safety
p53 is a central regulator driving neurodegeneration caused by C9orf72 poly(PR)
Maor-Nof M, Shipony Z, Lopez-Gonzalez R, Nakayama L, Zhang YJ, Couthouis J, Blum JA, Castruita PA et al.. Cell, 2021-01-21
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
The most common genetic cause of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is a GGGGCC repeat expansion in the C9orf72 gene. We developed a platform to interrogate the chromatin accessibility landscape and transcriptional program within neurons during degeneration. We provide evidence that neurons expressing the dipeptide repeat protein poly(proline-arginine), translated from the C9orf72 repeat expansion, activate a highly specific transcriptional program, exemplified by a single transcription factor, p53. Ablating p53 in mice completely rescued neurons from degeneration and markedly increased survival in a C9orf72 mouse model. p53 reduction also rescued axonal degeneration caused by poly(glycine-arginine), increased survival of C9orf72 ALS/FTD-patient-induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)-derived motor neurons, and mitigated neurodegeneration in a C9orf72 fly model. We show that p53 activates a downstream transcriptional program, including Puma, which drives neurodegeneration. These data demonstrate a neurodegenerative mechanism dynamically regulated through transcription-factor-binding events and provide a framework to apply chromatin accessibility and transcription program profiles to neurodegeneration.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Maor-Nof, M., Shipony, Z., Lopez-Gonzalez, R., Nakayama, L., Zhang, Y. J., Couthouis, J., et al. (2021). p53 is a central regulator driving neurodegeneration caused by C9orf72 poly(PR). Cell. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.12.025
Vancouver
Maor-Nof M, Shipony Z, Lopez-Gonzalez R, Nakayama L, Zhang YJ, Couthouis J, et al. p53 is a central regulator driving neurodegeneration caused by C9orf72 poly(PR). Cell. 2021. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2020.12.025. PMID: 33482083.
BibTeX
@article{maornof2021-33482083,
author = {Maor-Nof, M. and Shipony, Z. and Lopez-Gonzalez, R. and Nakayama, L. and Zhang, Y. J. and Couthouis, J. and Blum, J. A. and Castruita, P. A. and others},
title = {{p53 is a central regulator driving neurodegeneration caused by C9orf72 poly(PR)}},
journal = {Cell},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.1016/j.cell.2020.12.025},
pmid = {33482083},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.12.025}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- We developed a platform to interrogate the chromatin accessibility landscape and transcriptional program within neurons during degeneration.
- We provide evidence that neurons expressing the dipeptide repeat protein poly(proline-arginine), translated from the C9orf72 repeat expansion, activate a highly specific transcriptional program, exemplified by a single transcription factor, p53.
- Ablating p53 in mice completely rescued neurons from degeneration and markedly increased survival in a C9orf72 mouse model. p53 reduction also rescued axonal degeneration caused by poly(glycine-arginine), increased survival of C9orf72 ALS/FTD-patient-induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)-derived motor neurons, and mitigated neurodegeneration in a C9orf72 fly model.
- We show that p53 activates a downstream transcriptional program, including Puma, which drives neurodegeneration.
- These data demonstrate a neurodegenerative mechanism dynamically regulated through transcription-factor-binding events and provide a framework to apply chromatin accessibility and transcription program profiles to neurodegeneration.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 40/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 40 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Cell) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 33482083) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 23 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 40 out of 100. |
| Total | 40 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Clinical safety
Also tagged “tdp-43”
1,150 studies in the library carry the topic tag “tdp-43”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,150 tagged studies.