eISSN: 1509-572x
ISSN: 1641-4640
Folia Neuropathologica
Current issue Archive Manuscripts accepted About the journal Abstracting and indexing Subscription Contact Instructions for authors
SCImago Journal & Country Rank
vol. 56
Original paper

Sporadic amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: is SMN-Gemins protein complex of importance for the relative resistance of oculomotor nucleus motoneurons to degeneration?

Dorota Sulejczak, Stanisław J. Chrapusta, Dorota Dziewulska, Janina Rafałowska

Folia Neuropathol 2018; 56 (4): 308-320
Online publish date: 2018/12/31
Article file
- Sporadic.pdf  [0.34 MB]
Get citation
JabRef, Mendeley
Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero


Despite the extensive progress made over the last 20 years, the etiology and pathogenesis of amyo­trophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) are not fully elucidated. This is due to the intricacy of the interplay between many underlying genetic, neurometabolic, developmental, age-related, environmental, and stochastic factors (reviewed in [59,61,62]). Customarily, 5-10% of all ALS cases were classified as familial based on family history, while the remaining 90-95% that seemed to occur occasionally were termed sporadic (sALS).
However, this categorization appears spurious now since there is a sizeable genetic component also in the latter [61,62]. On the other hand, even the idea of ALS as one disease is increasingly disputed because of the diversity of its clinicopathological forms. Regardless of the phenotype, the disease causes a profound degeneration and loss of both the upper and the lower motoneurons (MNs), and the axial end-stage symptomatology includes atrophy of most skeletal muscles, bulbar palsy, tetraparesis or tetraplegia, and respiratory failure. However, oculomotor activity usually persists until late in the disease.
Detailed studies revealed a variety of oculomotor anomalies in sALS patients. Most are subtle deficits undetectable with a routine neurologic examination, some of which can emerge early in the course of ALS; the most common defect, mainly in long-term survivors, is ophthalmoparesis (reviewed in [18,49], for recent additions see [6,9,33]). However, the MNs of the brainstem oculomotor (ON), trochlear and abducens nuclei (also called jointly extraocular motor nuclei or oculomotor nuclei) are much more ALS-resistant than those of other cranial nerve nuclei and of the spinal cord (SC) anterior horns, and their degeneration and loss over the course of the disease is much slower [18,49].
An important role in sALS pathogenesis is attributed to excitotoxicity. Data from animal and human studies show alterations in both excitatory and inhibitory signaling in the affected CNS structures and in intrinsic excitability of the respective MNs (reviewed in [25]). Monkey and human studies [44,45] revealed that the abundance of parvalbumin in MNs, which protects them from excess intracellular Ca2+ ions, a key mediator of glutamate toxicity, is much higher in the aforesaid three extraocular motor nuclei than that in other brainstem MN nuclei. These data are generally in line with those from ALS autopsy material [1]. Rat studies showed also that oculomotor MNs (OMNs) and trochlear MNs express much less metabotropic GluR1a glutamate receptors than hypoglossal and spinal MNs [28] and there is a similar difference in the expression of NR2B subunit of the NMDA ionotropic glutamate receptor between the OMNs and hypoglossal MNs [22], which features also reduce possible glutamate toxicity. Notable differences between ALS-vulnerable and ALS-resistant brainstem MNs, supporting a better protection of the latter against such toxicity, exist in the respective patterns of GABAA receptor subunits expression as well [29]. MNs of the ALS-resistant brainstem extraocular motor nuclei show also, in both rodents and end-stage sALS patients, an enhanced (neuro)- trophic tone that was postulated to contribute to their higher resistance to ALS [2,24,50]. The resistance of MNs of these nuclei may also be attributed to the fact that they all lack direct, i.e., monosynaptic, connections with cortical MNs [56,58].
The aforementioned findings regarding the differences in synaptic transmission-related cellular gear between ALS-resistant and ALS-vulnerable MNs were mostly confirmed by protein signature [17] and transcription profile studies [7] in human autopsy material. The latter study has revealed extensive differences between these MN types in the expression of about 1800 genes involved, i.a., in ubiquitindependent proteolysis, mitochondrial function, extra­cellular matrix, and immune system.
Differences between the respective glial environments may contribute to the differences in ALS vulnerability as well. Astrocytes in ALS-vulnerable brainstem motor nuclei (facial, trigeminal, and hypoglossal) and spinal motor nuclei express much more of the glutamate transporter GLT-1 (EAAT2) than those in the ALS-resistant brainstem extraocular motor nuclei, whereas levels of the neuronal glutamate transporter EAAC1 in all the respective MN subsets are relatively low [31]. In the case of GLT-1 deficit that develops in sALS [47], extracellular glutamate may elevate in the vicinity of the various MN subsets. This should enhance Ca2+ influx and the related cell damage more in the ovalbumin-poor, ALS-vulnerable MNs located in the initially GLT-1-rich nerve nuclei, see [31] and references therein.
There is also a large and ever-growing body of evidence for anomalous RNA processing as a key driver of neurodegeneration in motor neuron diseases including ALS [3]. A major role in the latter is played by perturbed biogenesis of Sm-class small nuclear RNA-protein complexes (UsnRNPs) involved in the maturation of pre-mRNAs [54]; reviewed in [13]. In vertebrates, this process requires apt functioning of a protein complex formed by the survival of motor neuron protein (SMN, or Gemin1), Gemins 2-8 and the Unrip protein [10,11,20]; for review see [13,43]. The best-documented role of this canonical complex is specific cytoplasmic assembly of Sm protein cores onto uridine-rich small nuclear RNAs to yield UsnRNPs that then enter the nucleus where they take part in pre-mRNA splicing [4,41]. Recent studies indicate that the SMN-Gemins complex is also a chaperone for nuclear and cytoplasmic small nuclear ribonucleoproteins [43], and SMN-Gemin2 complex is a versatile platform for ribonucleoprotein exchange [52]. SMN and at least some of Gemins, acting in the form of joint non-canonical complexes or complexes with an assortment of additional macromolecules, are essential players in a number of other RNA metabolism-related processes as well [51]. Some of these processes are specific for neurons and are of high importance for their function and viability, particularly in MNs [8,12,46]. Deficits in the expression or function of SMN and/or the other Gemins and their complexes may thus enhance vulnerability to and severity of motor neuron diseases [20,46,57].
Results of our initial study on the immunoexpression of SMN and Gemins 2-4 in -MNs of cervical SC anterior horns in sALS patients [42] suggested that some deficits in these proteins may contribute to sALS pathogenesis; namely, Gemin2 was present at a very low level relative to SMN level. The question has arisen whether the expression of the SMN-Gemins complex proteins in the MNs of the ON differs from that in the SC -MNs. The present study aimed at the comparison of the expression of SMN and Gemins2-8 between the two locations. The results of the comparison might help answer the question whether these proteins may play a role in the resistance of MNs of the ON in sALS.

Material and methods

All procedures concerning human material complied with the ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects as stipulated in the Helsinki Declaration and with the current laws of Poland regarding the use of human tissues and organs. The study protocol has been approved by the Medical University of Warsaw Bioethics Committee (permit No. AKBE/20/14).
The studied sALS material comprised archival paraffin blocks with formalin-fixed SC samples (C4-C8 level) or midbrain samples carrying the ON from 14 sALS patients. The initial ALS sign in the patients was a spastic/flaccid limb paresis or bulbar symptoms, but at the death all the patients showed severe bulbar syndrome and deep tetraparesis or tetraplegia.
The motoneurons from lateral and medial nucleus of the anterior spinal horn were examined. Since the autopsy material came from patients who at the moment of death had a similar neurological deficit, it means that in any case both of the above mentioned nuclei were damaged. The motoneurons of oculomotor nuclei in the midbrain were also studied.
The control material comprised paraffin blocks with same SC samples from 13 patients who died of non-CNS internal organ diseases; midbrain samples with the ON were available from only three of these patients. No one of the control group donors showed signs of a motor neuron disease, including ophthalmoplegia or ophthalmoparesis, and no such ophthalmic symptoms were apparent in the sALS group donors. For basic characteristics of both donor groups see Table I. All autopsies were performed 11-24 h post mortem.
The selected paraffin-embedded samples were cut transversely into 8-µm slices, deparaffinized and rehydrated by standard procedures and then were subject to routine histologic (hematoxylin-eosin and cresyl violet) staining and SMN/Gemin immunohistochemistry by the streptavidin-biotin-peroxidase method. Briefly, the rehydrated slices were microwaved in citrate buffer pH 6 for antigen retrieval and then incubated with the following primary antibodies (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Dallas, TX, USA): 1) anti-SMN (rabbit polyclonal, cat. no. sc-15320, dilution 1 : 200), 2) anti-Gemin2 (mouse monoclonal, cat. no. sc-166187, dilution 1 : 50), 3) anti-Gemin3 (mouse monoclonal, cat. no. sc-271853, dilution 1 : 250), 4) anti-Gemin4 (mouse monoclonal, cat. no. sc-166418, dilution 1 : 250), 5) anti-Gemin5 (goat polyclonal, cat. no. sc-21440, dilution 1 : 50), 6) anti-Gemin6 (rabbit polyclonal, cat. no. sc-367218, dilution 1 : 50), 7) anti-Gemin7 (rabbit polyclonal, cat. no. sc-368684, dilution 1 : 200), and 8) anti-Gemin8 (mouse monoclonal, cat. no. sc-376419, dilution 1 : 50). Next, the slices were treated with biotinylated F(ab)2 fragment of goat anti-mouse IgG (Beckman Coulter, cat. no. PN IM0816, dilution 1 : 1500), or biotinylated F(ab)2 fragment of goat anti-rabbit IgG (Beckman Coulter, cat. no. PN IM0830, dilution 1 : 1500), or horseradish peroxidase-labeled horse anti-goat IgG (Vector Labs., cat. no. MP-7405, dilution 1 : 1500) as appropriate. The formed immunocomplexes, except those with the horse IgG, were then incubated with a streptavidin-horseradish peroxidase conjugate. All sections were next developed with diaminobenzidine as the chromogen, counterstained with hematoxylin, and coverslipped using DPX mountant. Immunostaining specificity was verified for each protein by running a negative control with the respective primary antibody absent; no sizable staining was found in any such control. Intensity of specific staining was assessed as follows: 0 – none, 1 – traces in some MNs, 2 – weak, 3 – medium, 4 – strong and uniform. Only -MN staining was assessed in the SC slices. The assessment was done individually by two specialists blinded to sample identity, using a Nikon (Japan) light microscope equipped with a Nikon CCD camera. In case of divergent assessments, the results were averaged.


Because of their semi-quantitative character, immunostaining data were analyzed by nonparametric methods. Between-group comparisons were run using the Mann-Whitney U test. Differences between data obtained from paired tissue samples and those between data obtained from overlapping donor subsets were tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and the Mann-Whitney U test, respectively. Differences in regional patterns of SMN and Gemins immunoexpression were assessed with the Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA followed by Dunn’s multiple comparisons test. The association between variables was assessed by calculating Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (RS). All the analyses were performed using Statistica v.11 software (StatSoft, Tulsa, OK, USA). In all cases, p ≤ 0.05 was considered significant.



In the SC anterior horns from sALS patients, routine histological stainings (not shown) revealed a typical picture of this clinical entity. Compared to the respective control material, SC anterior horns of the sALS patients showed much less -MNs per field of view, especially in cases with the longest disease history (8-9 years), which revealed the presence of but single surviving -MNs. There was no such difference between the corresponding ON samples. In sALS patients, OMNs were morphologically normal except for the presence of vacuoles in the cases with the most rapid disease course. Fairly clear chromatin-poor -MN nuclei were found in some sALS cases, but same changes were apparent in few control cases.

SMN and Gemins regional immunoexpression patterns

There was no significant correlation (p ≥ 0.12) between donor age and the expression of any studied SMN-Gemins complex component in cervical SC -MNs from the controls (data not shown). Control samples of the ON were too few (n = 3) for a meaningful test of the correlation between the OMNs’ expression of SMN or Gemins 2-8 and either donor age, or the expression of these proteins in the respective cervical SC-MNs. In the sALS group, there was no significant correlation between the expression of any studied protein in cervical SC -MNs (p ≥ 0.12) and patients’ age, but a moderate negative correlation was found between patients’ age and Gemin8 expression in the OMNs (Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient RS = –0.57, n = 13, p = 0.043). There was also a high negative correlation between ALS duration and either Gemin3 or Gemin6 expression in the cervical SC anterior horn -MNs (RS = –0.84, n = 12, p < 0.001, and RS = –0.86, n = 10, p = 0.002, respectively). In the OMNs, a tendency for negative correlation was only found between ALS duration and Gemin2 expression (RS = –0.56, n = 13, p = 0.073).
In all the sALS patient samples, SMN immunoexpression was generally strong, whereas a high variability in Gemins 2-8 staining intensities of individual MNs was found both in the cervical SC and ON samples. Typical images of the immunostained cervical SC anterior horn sections and ON sections are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2, respectively. The immunosignal for each studied Gemin was detected in the cytoplasm of MN perikarya, and sometimes also in the proximal part of the axon. In some MNs also nuclear localization of the immunosignals was observed (with the exception of Gemin5 showing only cytoplasmic presence).
Control midbrain samples were too few (n = 3) for a meaningful comparison of the immunoexpression of SMN and individual Gemins within OMNs or between the OMNs and the corresponding cervical SC anterior horn -MNs. SMN expression in the OMNs from the controls (n = 3) was slightly but significantly (p < 0.01) lower than that in their SC counterparts (n = 8), whereas no significant difference was found for Gemins 2-8 (p ≥ 0.15; data not shown).
In the cervical SC anterior horn -MNs, the immunoexpression of SMN, Gemin3 and Gemin5, but not of the remaining Gemins, was significantly lower in the sALS patients than in the controls (p < 0.05, p < 0.01, p < 0.05, and p ≥ 0.18, respectively; data not shown). In contrast, there was no significant difference between these groups in the immunoexpression of any of these proteins in the OMNs (p ≥ 0.15; data not shown). Statistical analysis showed a significantly lower expression of Gemin7 in the OMNs of the sALS patients than that in the respective cervical SC anterior horn -MNs, and a similar tendency (0.05 < p < 0.10) for SMN and Gemin4 expression. In contrast, Gemin8 expression was significantly higher in the OMNs than in the respective SC -MNs (Fig. 3). Similar analysis including the cases with data missing for any of the two MN subsets (using the Mann-Whitney U test) confirmed these findings at even lower p values (Fig. 4).
The analysis of Gemin immunostaining intensity in the material from sALS patients has shown considerable differences between Gemin expression patterns in the OMNs and the cervical SC -MNs. In the latter, SMN and Gemin6 showed the highest expression that on average was only marginally higher than that of Gemins 3-5 and 7, while Gemins 2 and 8 showed a clearly lower expression (Fig. 4A). In the OMNs, Gemins 6 and 8 showed the highest expression that, however, was only slightly and non-significantly higher than that of SMN, Gemin3 and Gemin5, while the expression of Gemins 2, 4 and 7 was noticeably lower (Fig. 4B). Interestingly, while there was a statistically significant apparent deficit in the expression of Gemin2 and Gemin8 in relation to that of SMN in the spinal -MNs, the expression of neither Gemin2, nor Gemin4, nor Gemin7 was significantly lower than that of SMN in the OMNs.


It is well known that loss of SMN expression is irreconcilable with cell viability [8] and the same applies to the lack of any vertebrate Gemin expression tested thus far (Gemins 2-5); reviewed in [13], for a recent addition see [32]. There also is indirect evidence from a Drosophila study suggesting that Gemin8 is essential for survival and motor function, but Gemin6 and Gemin7 may be not [27]. A major deficit in any of the essential Gemins may thus be expected to exert a detrimental effect on MN viability and function.
A number of studies have shown that the canoni­cal SMN-Gemins complex involved in UsnRNPs biosynthesis is made of few disparate subcomplexes that probably take part in its progressive construction. These modules include some SMN-containing structures that target and function in diverse cellular compartments, including neurite granules [48,51,53]. There are also few SMN-free structures, some of which as well as their single elements may have functions beyond the complete SMN-Gemins complex [5,10,11,16,21,23,34]. The exact in vivo stoi­chiometry of all these subcomplexes is unknown [43] and one cannot judge with certainty about relative deficit(s) of their individual components based on whole-cell-based assessments.
Immunohistochemistry revealed diverse expression patterns of single components of the SMN-Gemins complex in both the -MNs of cervical SC anterior horns and the OMNs in our sALS material. Particularly striking was the difference in the expression of Gemin8 between the two locations, while the expression of Gemin2 in the same was similarly poor. Also, while SMN content was generally high in both the spinal -MNs and the OMNs, it was significantly lower in the latter in both study groups, which difference was in apparent contrast to the respective ALS vulnerability of these MN subsets. However, SMN may be less important for OMNs survival because of their relative enrichment in other proteins fostering the resistance and/or paucity of proteins that promote their vulnerability (see Introduction).
In metazoans, the amount of SMN and Gemin2 was found to be usually far larger than that of any of the other then-known Gemins 2-6, hence the core of the SMN-Gemins complex was guessed to comprise only SMN and Gemin2; actually, the core of proteins interacting directly with SMN includes also Gemin3 and Gemin8 [11,15,40]. While SMN is needed to link up the different proteins and hence plays a key role in the design of the complete SMN-Gemins complex, the main task of Gemin2 is to stabilize interactions between the various components and hence to stabilize the activity of the complex [37,38,60]. Gemin8 is essential for the complex structure and activity as well, due to its forming a subcomplex by direct interaction with the Gemin6-Gemin7 heterodimer that also binds Unrip via Gemin7 [39]. A complex comprising only SMN, Gemin2 and Gemin8 was shown to be necessary and enough to accept Sm proteins in the assembly of UsnRNPs [14], but Gemin7 is required for efficient UsnRNPs assembly [37,38]. Gemin5 provides the recognition of UsnRNA component for the assembly [4] and binds to Gemin2 in the cytoplasm, but not in the nucleus, while Gemin4 binds to both Gemin8 and Gemin3 and likely serves as a cofactor of the latter that is the DEAD box helicase [23]. Gemin4 is also the sole member of the canonical SMN-Gemins complex which carries a classical nuclear localization signal motif and is likely important for nuclear import of the SMN-Gemins complex or its subunits [32].
In an earlier study, we speculated that a relative Gemin2 deficit may result in lowering the stability of the SMN-Gemins complex, hence a large disparity in the expression of SMN and Gemin2 may be a risk factor for MN degeneration and death, and thus for ALS [42]. Remarkably, Gemin2 expression in the OMNs did not significantly exceed that in the spinal -MNs in sALS patients in the present study (p = 0.33). However, while the expression of Gemin2 was significantly lower than that of SMN in the spinal -MNs, the respective disparity in the OMNs did not reach significance. This may be related, at least in part, to anatomical differences between the two MN types. Spinal -MNs compared to OMNs have considerably larger soma but noticeably thicker and many times longer axon, and their axon volume comprises much larger fraction of the total cell volume. Notably, SMN has functions in MN axons which do not involve some or all Gemins, including Gemin2 [12,30,51]. One may thus guess that the difference in SMN expression between the two MN subsets is related to a higher demand for it, but not necessarily for the other elements of the SMN-Gemins complex, in the extremely long axons of the spinal -MNs. By the same token, the Gemin2-unbound SMN would likely represent a larger fraction of the total SMN content in the spinal -MNs and would contribute this way to the seeming major Gemin2 deficit.
In the sALS material, disparities in the expression of other single components of the SMN-Gemins complex occurred both in the spinal -MNs and in the OMNs, but their patterns differed. In contrast to the OMNs that showed a low expression of the essential Gemin4 and the (possibly) non-essential Gemin7, the spinal -MNs showed a very low expression of the essential Gemin8. The latter deficit may greatly reduce formation of both the canonical SMN-Gemins complex and other functional complexes involving Gemin8 (see above) and hence interfere with a number of vital cellular functions. Notably, in contrast to the apparent deficits in Gemin2 and Gemin8 expression in the spinal -MNs, none of the deficits found in OMNs resulted in the respective Gemin expression significantly below that of SMN. It may also be that some of the alleged deficits in the pattern of Gemins expression in the OMNs represent normal characteristics of these cells that are related to their specific excitability and functionality and the uniqueness of the respective motor units (for review see [35]), or are just epiphenomena of ALS.
A crucial question in the studies on motor neuron diseases is the cause and mechanism of selective MN death. Spinal -MNs are particularly prone to degeneration because of vast length of their axons and their reliance on the cytoskeleton for mechanical stability, axonal transport, and signaling [36]. MNs of the same genetic background can highly differ by their SMN levels, which diversity was found in both controls and ALS patients; notably, SMN-poor MNs are at higher risk of death [46]. One reason is that SMN deficit hinders transport of mRNAs vital for neurite extension and stability, thus contributing to axon degeneration and MN death [19]. It is thus possible that the surviving spinal -MNs in our sALS material showed a high SMN expression because those with a low SMN expression perished earlier in the disease course. It should be said here that a marked decrease (–50%) in the level of full-length SMN was reported in post-mortem SC tissue from sALS patients compared to that from people who died with no neurologic disease [55]. However, those data were obtained by Western blot analysis of lumbar samples of the entire SC and thus showed an averaged SMN level across all cell types present in the samples, of which MNs were a minority. Hence the reported drop in SMN level may have represented mostly the decrease in the number of surviving MNs. Major disparities in the immunoexpression of the various components of the SMN-Gemins complex obviously were not a critical obstacle to MNs’ viability in either the cervical SC anterior horns or the ON.
It has been postulated that the constitutive characteristics of essential biology of MNs are the presence of unfolded (i.e., damaged) proteins and inherent endoplasmic reticulum stress [26]. Notably, MNs are more vulnerable to the stress compared to other cell types, and their basal ER/unfolded protein stress level correlates positively with their size. An addition to the pre-existing stress may mess up a delicate balance between their endoplasmic reticulum stress and neuronal excitability and exceed the threshold level these cells can endure without triggering apoptosis [26].
In summary, our present results do not support the hypothesis that the difference in ALS vulnerability of spinal -MNs and OMNs is related to their expression patterns of SMN and Gemins 2-8, and particularly to the difference in Gemin2 expression. This is because the identified marked differences between the respective patterns of the immunoexpression of individual Gemins provide no clue about the actual role of the canonical SMN-Gemins complex or its individual constituents in OMNs’ resistance to the pathologic process in ALS. One may still speculate that it is the deficit of Gemin8 which is of importance for spinal -MNs’ vulnerability in sALS. It may also be that some of the alleged deficits in the pattern of SMN and Gemins expression in the OMNs represent epiphenomena of the disease superposed on normal characteristics of this particular MN subset. These questions cannot be answered without more studies.


This study was supported by grant #NN 401 014 640 from the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of Poland, and by statutory funds from the Mossakowski Medical Research Centre, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland.


The authors report no conflict of interest.


1. Alexianu ME, Ho BK, Mohamed AH, La Bella V, Smith RG, Appel SH. The role of calcium-binding proteins in selective motoneuron vulnerability in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Ann Neurol 1994; 36: 846-858.
2. Allodi I, Comley L, Nichterwitz S, Nizzardo M, Simone C, Benitez JA, Cao M, Corti S, Hedlund E. Differential neuronal vulnerability identifies IGF-2 as a protective factor in ALS. Sci Rep 2016; 6: 25960.
3. Barmada SJ. Linking RNA dysfunction and neurodegeneration in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Neurotherapeutics 2015; 12: 340-351.
4. Battle DJ, Kasim M, Yong J, Lotti F, Lau CK, Mouaikel J, Zhang Z, Han K, Wan L, Dreyfuss G. The SMN complex: an assembly machine for RNPs. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol 2006; 71: 313-320.
5. Battle D, Kasim M, Wang J, Dreyfuss G. SMN-independent subunits of the SMN complex. Identification of a small nuclear ribonucleoprotein assembly intermediate. J Biol Chem 2007; 282: 27953-27959.
6. Beaufils E, Corcia P, de Toffol B, Praline J. Occurrence of eye movement disorders in motor neuron disease. Amyotroph Lateral Scler 2012; 13: 84-86.
7. Brockington A, Ning K, Heath PR, Wood E, Kirby J, Fusi N, Lawrence N, Wharton SB, Ince PG, Shaw PJ. Unravelling the enigma of selective vulnerability in neurodegeneration: motor neurons resistant to degeneration in ALS show distinct gene expression characteristics and decreased susceptibility to excitotoxicity. Acta Neuropathol 2013; 125: 95-109.
8. Burghes AH, Beattie CE. Spinal muscular atrophy: why do low levels of survival motor neuron protein make motor neurons sick? Nat Rev Neurosci 2009; 10: 597-609.
9. Burrell JR, Carpenter RH, Hodges JR, Kiernan MC. Early saccades in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener 2013; 14: 294-301.
10. Carissimi C, Baccon J, Straccia M, Chiarella P, Maiolica A, Sawyer A, Rappsilber J, Pellizzoni L. Unrip is a component of SMN complexes active in snRNP assembly. FEBS Lett 2005; 579: 2348-2354.
11. Carissimi C, Saieva L, Gabanella F, Pellizzoni L. Gemin8 is required for the architecture and function of the survival motor neuron complex. J Biol Chem 2006; 281: 37009-37016.
12. Carrel TL, McWhorter ML, Workman E, Zhang H, Wolstencroft EC, Lorson C, Bassell GJ, Burghes AH, Beattie CE. Survival motor neuron function in motor axons is independent of functions required for small nuclear ribonucleoprotein biogenesis. J Neurosci 2006; 26: 11014-11022.
13. Cauchi RJ. Gem depletion: amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and spinal muscular atrophy crossover. CNS Neurosci Ther 2014; 20: 574-581.
14. Chari A, Golas MM, Klingenhäger M, Neuenkirchen N, Sander B, Englbrecht C, Sickmann A, Stark H, Fischer U. An assembly chaperone collaborates with the SMN complex to generate spliceosomal snRNPs. Cell 2008; 135: 497-509.
15. Charroux B, Pellizzoni L, Perkinson RA, Shevchenko A, Mann M, Dreyfuss G. Gemin3: A novel DEAD box protein that interacts with SMN, the spinal muscular atrophy gene product, and is a component of gems. J Cell Biol 1999; 148: 1177-1186.
16. Charroux B, Pellizzoni L, Perkinson RA, Yong J, Shevchenko A, Mann M, Dreyfuss G. Gemin4. A novel component of the SMN complex that is found in both gems and nucleoli. J Cell Biol 2000; 148: 1177-1186.
17. Comley L, Allodi I, Nichterwitz S, Nizzardo M, Simone C, Corti S, Hedlund E. Motor neurons with differential vulnerability to degeneration show distinct protein signatures in health and ALS. Neuroscience 2015; 291: 216-229.
18. Donaghy C, Thurtell MJ, Pioro EP, Gibson JM, Leigh RJ. Eye movements in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and its mimics: a review with illustrative cases. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2011; 82: 110-116.
19. Fallini C, Donlin-Asp PG, Rouanet JP, Bassell GJ, Rossoll W. Deficiency of the survival of motor neuron protein impairs mRNA localization and local translation in the growth cone of motor neurons. J Neurosci 2016; 36: 3811-3820.
20. Feng W, Gubitz AK, Wan L, Battle DJ, Dostie J, Golembe TJ, Dreyfuss G. Gemins modulate the expression and activity of the SMN complex. Hum Mol Genet 2005; 14: 1605-1611.
21. Fierro-Monti I, Mohammed S, Matthiesen R, Santoro R, Burns JS, Williams DJ, Proud CG, Kassem M, Jensen ON, Roepstorff P: Quantitative proteomics identifies Gemin5, a scaffolding protein involved in ribonucleoprotein assembly, as a novel partner for eukaryotic initiation factor 4E. J Proteome Res 2006; 5: 1367-1378.
22. Fuller PI, Reddrop C, Rodger J, Bellingham MC, Phillips JK. Differential expression of the NMDA NR2B receptor subunit in motoneuron populations susceptible and resistant to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Neurosci Lett 2006; 399: 157-161.
23. Hao LT, Fuller HR, Lam LT, Le TT, Burghes AH, Morris GE. Absence of gemin5 from SMN complexes in nuclear Cajal bodies. BMC Cell Biol 2007; 18: 8-28.
24. Hernández RG, Silva-Hucha S, Morcuende S, de la Cruz RR, Pastor AM, Benítez-Temińo B. Extraocular motor system exhibits a higher expression of neurotrophins when compared with other brainstem motor systems. Front Neurosci 2017; 11: 399.
25. King AE, Woodhouse A, Kirkcaldie MT, Vickers JC. Excitotoxicity in ALS: overstimulation, or overreaction? Exp Neurol 2016; 275: 162-171.
26. Kiskinis E, Sandoe J, Williams LA, Boulting GL, Moccia R, Wainger BJ, Han S, Peng T, Thams S, Mikkilineni S, Mellin C, Merkle FT, Davis-Dusenbery BN, Ziller M, Oakley D, Ichida J, Di Costanzo S, Atwater N, Maeder ML, Goodwin MJ, Nemesh J, Handsaker RE, Paull D, Noggle S, McCarroll SA, Joung JK, Woolf CJ, Brown RH, Eggan K. Pathways disrupted in human ALS motor neurons identified through genetic correction of mutant SOD1. Cell Stem Cell 2014; 14: 781-795.
27. Lanfranco M, Cacciottolo R, Borg RM, Vassallo N, Juge F, Bordonné R, Cauchi RJ. Novel interactors of the Drosophila survival motor neuron (SMN) complex suggest its full conservation. FEBS Lett 2017; 591: 3600-3614.
28. Laslo P, Lipski J, Funk GD. Differential expression of Group I metabotropic glutamate receptors in motoneurons at low and high risk for degeneration in ALS. Neuroreport 2001; 12: 1903-1908.
29. Lorenzo LE, Barbe A, Portalier P, Fritschy JM, Bras H. Differential expression of GABAA and glycine receptors in ALS-resistant vs. ALS-vulnerable motoneurons: possible implications for selective vulnerability of motoneurons. Eur J Neurosci 2006; 23: 3161–3170. Erratum in: Eur J Neurosci 2006; 24: 1506.
30. McWhorter ML, Boon KL, Horan ES, Burghes AH, Beattie CE. The SMN binding protein Gemin2 is not involved in motor axon outgrowth. Dev Neurobiol 2008; 6: 182-194.
31. Medina L, Figueredo-Cardenas G, Rothstein JD, Reiner A. Differential abundance of glutamate transporter subtypes in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)-vulnerable versus ALS-resistant brain stem motor cell groups. Exp Neurol 1996; 142: 287-295.
32. Meier ID, Walker MP, Matera AG. Gemin4 is an essential gene in mice, and its overexpression in human cells causes relocalization of the SMN complex to the nucleoplasm. Biol Open 2018; 7: bio032409. DOI: 10.1242/bio.032409
33. Moss HE, McCluskey L, Elman L, Hoskins K, Talman L, Grossman M, Balcer LJ, Galetta SL, Liu GT. Cross-sectional evaluation of clinical neuro-ophthalmic abnormalities in an amyotrophic lateral sclerosis population. J Neurol Sci 2012; 314: 97-101.
34. Mourelatos Z, Dostie J, Paushkin S, Sharma A, Charroux B, Abel L, Rappsilber J, Mann M, Dreyfuss G. miRNPs: a novel class of ribonucleoproteins containing numerous microRNAs. Genes Dev 2002; 16: 720-728.
35. Nijssen J, Comley LH, Hedlund E. Motor neuron vulnerability and resistance in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Acta Neuropathol 2017; 133: 863-885.
36. Oberstadt M, Claßen J, Arendt T, Holzer M. TDP-43 and cytoskeletal proteins in ALS. Mol Neurobiol 2018; 55: 3143-3151.
37. Ogawa C, Usui K, Aoki M, Ito F, Itoh M, Kai C, Kanamori-Katayama M, Hayashizaki Y, Suzuki H. Gemin2 plays an important role in stabilizing the survival of motor neuron complex. J Biol Chem 2007; 282: 11122-11134.
38. Ogawa C, Usui K, Ito F, Itoh M, Hayashizaki Y, Suzuki H. Role of survival motor neuron complex components in small nuclear ribonucleoprotein assembly. J Biol Chem 2009; 284: 14609-14617.
39. Otter S, Grimmler M, Neuenkirchen N, Chari A, Sickmann A, Fischer U. A comprehensive interaction map of the human survival of motor neuron (SMN) complex. J Biol Chem 2007; 282: 5825-5833.
40. Paushkin S, Gubitz AK, Massenet S, Dreyfuss G. The SMN complex, an assemblyosome of ribonucleoproteins. Curr Opin Cell Biol 2002; 14: 305-312.
41. Pellizzoni L, Yong J, Dreyfuss G. Essential role for the SMN complex in the specificity of snRNP assembly. Science 2002; 298: 1775-1779.
42. Rafałowska J, Sulejczak D, Chrapusta SJ, Gadamski R, Dziewulska D. Diverse expression of selected SMN complex proteins in humans with sporadic amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and in a transgenic rat model of familial form of the disease. PLoS One 2014; 9: e104614.
43. Raimer AC, Gray KM, Matera AG. SMN – a chaperone for nuclear RNP social occasions? RNA Biol 2017; 14: 701-711.
44. Reiner A, Anfinson S, Figueredo-Cardenas. Motoneurons that are resistant to ALS are preferentially enriched in the calcium binding protein parvalbumin. Soc Neurosci Abstr 1993; 19: 197.
45. Reiner A, Medina L, Figueredo-Cardenas G, Anfinson S. Brainstem motoneuron pools that are selectively resistant in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis are preferentially enriched in parvalbumin: evidence from monkey brainstem for a calcium-mediated mechanism in sporadic ALS. Exp Neurol 1995; 131: 239-250.
46. Rodriguez-Muela N, Litterman NK, Norabuena EM, Mull JL, Galazo MJ, Sun C, Ng SY, Makhortova NR, White A, Lynes MM, Chung WK, Davidow LS, Macklis JD, Rubin LL. Single-cell analysis of SMN reveals its broader role in neuromuscular disease. Cell Rep 2017; 18: 1484-1498.
47. Rothstein JD, van Kammen M, Levey AI, Martin LJ, Kuncl RW. Selective loss of glial glutamate transporter GLT-1 in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Ann Neurol 1995; 38: 73-84.
48. Sharma A, Lambrechts A, Hao LT, Le TT, Sewry CA, Ampe C, Burghes AH, Morris GE. A role for complexes of survival of motor neurons (SMN) protein with Gemins and profilin in neurite-like cytoplasmic extensions of cultured nerve cells. Exp Cell Res 2005; 309: 185-197.
49. Sharma R, Hicks S, Berna CM, Kennard C, Talbot K, Turner MR. Oculomotor dysfunction in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a comprehensive review. Arch Neurol 2011; 68: 857-861.
50. Silva-Hucha S, Hernández RG, Benítez-Temińo B, Pastor ÁM, de la Cruz RR, Morcuende S. Extraocular motoneurons of the adult rat show higher levels of vascular endothelial growth factor and its receptor Flk-1 than other cranial motoneurons. PLoS One 2017; 12: e0178616.
51. Singh RN, Howell MD, Ottesen EW, Singh NN. Diverse role of survival motor neuron protein. Biochim Biophys Acta 2017; 1860: 299-315.
52. So BR, Wan L, Zhang Z, Li P, Babiash E, Duan J, Younis I, Dreyfuss G. A U1 snRNP-specific assembly pathway reveals the SMN complex as a versatile hub for RNP exchange. Nat Struct Mol Biol 2016; 23: 225-230.
53. Todd AG, Shaw DJ, Morse R, Stebbings H, Young PJ. SMN and the Gemin proteins form sub-complexes that localise to both stationary and dynamic neurite granules. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2010; 394: 211-216.
54. Tsuiji H, Iguchi Y, Furuya A, Kataoka A, Hatsuta H, Atsuta N, Tanaka F, Hashizume Y, Akatsu H, Murayama S, Sobue G, Yamanaka K. Spliceosome integrity is defective in the motor neuron diseases ALS and SMA. EMBO Mol Med 2013; 5: 221-234.
55. Turner BJ, Alfazema N, Sheean RK, Sleigh JN, Davies KE, Horne MK, Talbot K. Overexpression of survival motor neuron improves neuromuscular function and motor neuron survival in mutant SOD1 mice. Neurobiol Aging 2014; 35: 906-915.
56. Turner MR, Hardiman O, Benatar M, Brooks BR, Chio A, de Carvalho M, Ince PG, Lin C, Miller RG, Mitsumoto H, Nicholson G, Ravits J, Shaw PJ, Swash M, Talbot K, Traynor BJ, Van den Berg LH, Veldink JH, Vucic S, Kiernan MC. Controversies and priorities in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Lancet Neurol 2013; 12: 310-322.
57. Veldink JH, Kalmijn S, Van der Hout AH, Lemmink HH, Groeneveld GJ, Lummen C, Scheffer H, Wokke JH, Van den Berg LH. SMN genotypes producing less SMN protein increase susceptibility to and severity of sporadic ALS. Neurology 2005; 65: 820-825.
58. Vucic S, Rothstein JD, Kiernan MC. Advances in treating amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: insights from pathophysiological studies. Trends Neurosci 2014; 37: 433-442.
59. Wang MD, Little J, Gomes J, Cashman NR, Krewski D. Identification of risk factors associated with onset and progression of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis using systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurotoxicology 2017; 61: 101-130.
60. Zhang R, So BR, Li P, Yong J, Glisovic T, Wan L, Dreyfuss G. Structure of a key intermediate of the SMN complex reveals Gemin2’s crucial function in snRNP assembly. Cell 2011; 146: 384-395.
61. Zou ZY, Zhou ZR, Che CH, Liu CY, He RL, Huang HP. Genetic epidemiology of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2017; 88: 540-549.
62. Zufiría M, Gil-Bea FJ, Fernández-Torrón R, Poza JJ, Muńoz-Blanco JL, Rojas-García R, Riancho J, de Munain AL. ALS: A bucket of genes, environment, metabolism and unknown ingredients. Prog Neurobiol 2016; 142: 104-129.
Copyright: © 2018 Mossakowski Medical Research Centre Polish Academy of Sciences and the Polish Association of Neuropathologists. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
Quick links
© 2019 Termedia Sp. z o.o. All rights reserved.
Developed by Bentus.
PayU - płatności internetowe