Reviewer #2 (Public review): CUTS RNA Biosensor for the Real-Time Detection of TDP-43 Loss-of-Function
Le résumé fourni par la source
Given the mounting evidence implicating TDP-43 dysfunction in several neurodegenerative diseases, there is a pressing need to establish accessible tools to sense and quantify TDP-43 loss-of-function (LOF). These tools are crucial for assessing potential disease contributors and exploring therapeutic candidates in TDP-43 proteinopathies. Here, we develop a sensitive and accurate real-time sensor for TDP-43 LOF: the CUTS (CFTR UNC13A TDP-43 Loss-of-Function) system. This system combines previously reported cryptic exons regulated by TDP-43 with a reporter, enabling the tracking of TDP-43 LOF through live microscopy and RNA/protein-based assays. We demonstrate CUTS’ effectiveness in detecting LOF caused by TDP-43 mislocalization and RNA binding dysfunction, and pathological aggregation. Our results highlight the sensitivity and accuracy of the CUTS system in detecting and quantifying TDP-43 LOF, opening avenues to explore unknown TDP-43 interactions that regulate its function. In addition, by replacing the fluorescent tag in the CUTS system with the coding sequence for TDP-43, we show significant recovery of its function under TDP-43 LOF conditions, highlighting CUTS’ potential for self-regulating gene therapy applications. In summary, CUTS represents a versatile platform for evaluating TDP-43 LOF in real-time and advancing gene-replacement therapies in neurodegenerative diseases associated with TDP-43 dysfunction.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Reviewer #2 (Public review): CUTS RNA Biosensor for the Real-Time Detection of TDP-43 Loss-of-Function
- Date Crossref
- 12/09/2024
- Éditeur
- eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd
- Type
- peer-review
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.