Cited by 169Genetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis ResearchRNA Research and Splicing

The Spinocerebellar Ataxia 8 Noncoding RNA Causes Neurodegeneration and Associates with Staufen in Drosophila

Open access
Mutsuddi, Mousumi, Marshall, Cameron M, Benzow, Kellie A, Koob, Michael D, Rebay, Ilaria·2004·Current Biology

Abstract

Spinocerebellar Ataxia 8 (SCA8) appears unique among triplet repeat expansion-induced neurodegenerative diseases because the predicted gene product is a noncoding RNA. Little is currently known about the normal function of SCA8 in neuronal survival or how repeat expansion contributes to neurodegeneration. To investigate the molecular context in which SCA8 operates, we have expressed the human SCA8 noncoding RNA in Drosophila. SCA8 induces late-onset, progressive neurodegeneration in the Drosophila retina. Using this neurodegenerative phenotype as a sensitized background for a genetic modifier screen, we have identified mutations in four genes: staufen, muscle-blind, split ends, and CG3249. All four encode neuronally expressed RNA binding proteins conserved in Drosophila and humans. Although expression of both wild-type and repeat-expanded SCA8 induce neurodegeneration, the strength of interaction with certain modifiers differs between the two SCA8 backgrounds, suggesting that CUG expansions alter associations with specific RNA binding proteins. Our demonstration that SCA8 can recruit Staufen and that the interaction domain maps to the portion of the SCA8 RNA that undergoes repeat expansion in the human disease suggests a specific mechanism for SCA8 function and disease. Genetic modifiers identified in our SCA8-based screens may provide candidates for designing therapeutic interventions to treat this disease.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cub.2004.01.034

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 38 · Cited by 169

Authors
Mutsuddi, M., Marshall, C. M., Benzow, K. A., Koob, M. D., & Rebay, I.
Affiliations
  • Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research (US)
  • Williams College (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
Corresponding author
Rebay, Ilaria
Venue
Current Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-02
Volume
14
Issue
4
Pages
302-308
ISSN
0960-9822 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2026025236
Cited by
169
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 13
FWCI
6.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS042256, R01NS42256-02)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Genetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA Research and Splicing
Keywords
trinucleotide repeat expansion, neurodegeneration, Drosophila retina, Staufen, RNA-binding proteins, genetic modifier screen, CUG repeat expansion, RNA-protein interactions, split ends, neurodegenerative disease treatment
MeSH terms
Animals, Disease Models, Animal, DNA Mutational Analysis, Drosophila, Microscopy, Electron, Scanning, Nerve Tissue Proteins, Repetitive Sequences, Nucleic Acid, Gene Expression, RNA-Binding Proteins, Photoreceptor Cells, Invertebrate, Spinocerebellar Ataxias, RNA, Untranslated, Drosophila Proteins, RNA, Long Noncoding

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review