Angelman syndrome (AS) is a neurogenetic disorder characterized by severe mental retardation, ataxia, seizures, EEG abnormalities and bouts of inappropriate laughter. AS individuals fail to inherit a normal active maternal copy of ubiquitin protein ligase E3A (UBE3A). UBE3A is subject to genomic imprinting, with predominant transcription of the maternal allele in brain. The known genetic causes of AS are maternal deletion of chromosome 15q11-q13, paternal chromosome 15 uniparental disomy, UBE3A mutation and an abnormality of the imprinting process, termed imprinting defect. There remain major questions concerning the molecular pathogenesis of AS, including: 1) the mechanisms underlying the imprinting defect class of AS, 2) the identity of proteins targeted by UBE3A, 3) the role of a noncoding antisense transcript in regulating UBE3A imprinting and 4) the contribution of other genes such as methyl-binding CpG-binding protein 2 and gamma-aminobutyric acid A receptor, subunit beta3 to the AS phenotype.

Angelman syndrome (AS) is a neurogenetic disorder characterized by severe mental retardation, ‘puppet-like’ ataxic gait with jerky arm movements, seizures, EEG abnormalities, hyperactivity and bouts of inappropriate laughter. Individuals with AS fail to inherit a normal active maternal copy of the gene encoding ubiquitin protein ligase E3A (UBE3A). UBE3A is transcribed predominantly from the maternal allele in brain, but is expressed from both alleles in most other tissues. It has been proposed that brain-specific silencing of the paternal UBE3A allele is mediated by a large (>500 kb) paternal non-coding antisense transcript (UBE3A-ATS). There are several other examples of imprinting regulation involving antisense transcripts that share two main properties: (i) the sense transcript is repressed by antisense and (ii) the interaction between sense and antisense occurs in cis. We show here that, in a mouse model of AS, maternal transmission of Ube3a mutation leads to increased expression of the paternal Ube3a-ATS, suggesting that the antisense is modulated by sense rather than the reciprocal mode of regulation. Our observation that Ube3a regulates expression of Ube3a-ATS in trans is in contrast to the other cases of sense–antisense epigenetic cis-interactions and argues against a major role for Ube3a-ATS in the imprinting of Ube3a.

The frameshift mutagenicity of 9-aminoacridine (9AA) was compared with that of quinacrine, the acridine mustards ICR-191 and quinacrine mustard (QM), and the nitroacridine Entozon in the lacZ reversion assay in Escherichia coli. As intercalating agents, 9AA and quinacrine cause mutations through noncovalent associations with DNA. Mustards and nitroacridines form covalent adducts in DNA and give rise to different spectra of mutations. Quinacrine and 9AA most effectively induced -1 frameshifts in a run of guanine residues, with 9AA being the more potent mutagen. They also induced +G frameshifts. The acridine mustard ICR-191 was a stronger mutagen than 9AA, owing largely to its potent induction of +G frameshifts. QM induced +G frameshifts more strongly than did its nonreactive counterpart quinacrine. The nitroacridine Entozon differed from the other acridines in being a potent inducer of -2 frameshifts, but it was less effective in inducing +/-1 frameshifts. Quinacrine, although a simple intercalator, induced all five kinds of frameshift mutations detected in the assay, as did the acridine mustards. Although +A and -A frameshifts were induced, adenine runs were less susceptible to acridine mutagenesis than guanine runs. The patterns of frameshift mutagenicity in the lacZ assay are similar to those in an assay based on the reversion of mutations in the tetracycline-resistance gene of the plasmid pBR322. The similarity suggests that the responses reflect the inherent bacterial mutagenicity of the compounds in the local sequence context and are not highly dependent on the broader sequence context. The results are interpreted with respect to slipped mispairing models of frameshift mutagenesis.

No abstract

Distinct separation between non-treated, galantamine, donepezil, and rivastigmine-treated patients was clearly identified based on small sets of expression probes. The ability to identify drug-specific treatment expression differences strengthens the potential for using peripheral gene signatures for the identification of individuals responding to drug treatment.