SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration Case with an N-Terminal <i>TUBA4A</i> Mutation Exhibits Reduced TUBA4A Levels in the Brain and TDP-43 Pathology.

Biomolecules · 2022-03-12

DOI: 10.3390/biom12030440PMID: 35327632

Open accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; research-article; Journal Article; Case ReportsOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Recently, disease-associated variants of the TUBA4A gene were identified in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD). Here, we present the neuropathological report of a patient with the semantic variant of primary progressive aphasia with a family history of Parkinsonism, harboring a novel frameshift mutation c.187del (p.Arg64Glyfs*90) in TUBA4A. Immunohistochemistry showed abundant TAR DNA-binding protein 43 kDa (TDP-43) dystrophic neurite pathology in the frontal and temporal cortex and the dentate gyrus of the hippocampus, consistent with frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD). The observed pathology pattern fitted best with that of FTLD-TDP Type C. qPCR showed the presence of mutant TUBA4A mRNA. However, no truncated TUBA4A was detected at the protein level. A decrease in total TUBA4A mRNA and protein levels suggests loss-of-function as a potential pathogenic mechanism. This report strengthens the idea that N-terminal TUBA4A mutations are associated with FTLD-TDP. These N-terminal mutations possibly exert their pathogenic effects through haploinsufficiency, contrary to C-terminal TUBA4A mutations which are thought to disturb the microtubule network via a dominant-negative mechanism.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.