DM1 is the most common dystrophy in adults, having an estimated worldwide prevalence of 1:20,000, with a recent report of 4.76:10,000 for
DMPK CTG expansion ≥50 CTG repeats in a newborn screening program in New York State, USA
[1]. Clinical features of DM1 (Steinert’s disease, OMIM# 160900) include muscle weakness, dysphagia, neuromuscular respiratory insufficiency, cardiac complications and cognitive, intellectual or behavioral impairment as well as sleep disorders. In the most severe forms, life quality and expectancy are seriously compromised
[2][3][4]. DM1 results from CTG-repeat expansions in the 3′ UTR of the
DMPK gene on chromosome 19
[5][6]. The disease severity and age of onset are broadly correlated with the number of CTG repeats, with the highest (over 750) in the congenital form, while in non-affected individuals the number of repeats is up to 35
[2]. The number of repeats is usually unstable and tends to increase in some body tissues during lifetime (somatic instability) as well as in successive generations, leading to the phenomenon called “anticipation”, where children of DM1 patients have a higher repeat number and more severe phenotypes compared to their parents
[7]. Interestingly, in DM1 families with variant repeats, where GGC, CCG and CTC interruptions are present within the CTG-repeat array, the repeats are stabilized and the disease phenotypes are milder
[8][9]. Several pathogenic mechanisms likely contribute to disease in DM1 (
Figure 1)
[4][10]. At the DNA level, epigenetic modifications may impact the development or severity of the phenotype in DM1 patients
[11]. In DM1 patient-derived cells and in a DM1 mouse model, the hairpin-like structures of the repeats can induce chromatin changes, such as CpG methylation, resulting in haploinsufficiency of
DMPK and neighboring genes, or cause replication-fork stalling during DNA duplication, leading to cell stress
[12][13][14]. Large experimental evidence supports the hypothesis of an RNA gain-of-function mechanism of the mutated
DMPK transcript. CUG-containing RNAs sequester crucial nuclear factors of the muscleblind-like (MBNL) family into ribonuclear foci, thus preventing their normal functions that are mainly associated with the regulation of alternative splicing
[15]. Splicing regulation is required for the proper development and maintenance of tissues in which the
DMPK gene is highly expressed, such as in muscle and the nervous system
[16]. The MBNL family and the CUGBP Elav-like family (CELF) are among the most important splicing regulators in skeletal and cardiac muscle, and act antagonistically on several pre-mRNA targets
[17][18]. Nuclear retention of MBNL proteins in nuclear foci prevents pre-mRNA processing and export to the cytoplasm, leading to a decrease in protein translation, and the loss of functional MBNL1 is accompanied by CELF1 upregulation
[19]. The increase in CELF1 levels is induced by protein-kinase-C (PKC)-mediated hyperphosphorylation, leading to protein stabilization
[20]. Both sense and antisense repeated RNAs have been shown to contribute to the clinical phenotype of nucleotide-expansion diseases
[21]. An antisense transcript emanating from the
DMPK-adjacent
SIX5 regulatory region spanning the CTG expansion was first identified in DM1 patient-derived cells. The transcript was shown to be converted into siRNAs, which are able to recruit DNA and histone methyltransferases, leading to heterochromatin formation
[22]. Interestingly, in transgenic mice carrying the human
DMPK locus, in addition to CUG-containing transcripts, CAG-containing transcripts were also found to form distinct ribonuclear foci
[23].
Other mechanisms involved in DM1 pathogenesis are repeat-associated non-ATG (RAN) translation (reviewed in
[24]), which results in the production of toxic protein aggregates containing polyglutamine from antisense CAG-repeated transcripts
[25][26], microRNA (miRNA) dysregulation
[27][28][29][30], and upregulation of circular RNA (circRNA) expression
[31][32][33]. In addition to the ones described above, other signaling cascades are affected by the toxic
DMPK RNA and may play important roles in DM1 pathogenesis. For example, MBNL and CELF regulators, besides being key splicing regulators, are likely involved in cytoplasmic pathogenetic processes altering proteostasis and sarcomere structure (reviewed in
[34]). Omics studies have added new information to the previous knowledge, revealing several alterations in gene expression, alternative splicing, CpG methylation and proteins levels that potentially contribute to DM1 pathogenesis. In perspective, these new approaches can be crucial to evaluate the degree of therapeutic rescue and the off-target effects of drug candidates (reviewed in
[35]).
3. DM1 Cell and Animal Models
In vitro models of DM1 have greatly contributed to clarifying the pathogenetic mechanisms of the disease. Among these, there are engineered cell lines with CTG repeats of different lengths inserted in minigenes
[36][37], DM patient-derived primary myoblasts, immortalized myoblasts or MYOD1-converted fibroblasts
[38][39][40][41], and embryonic stem cells
[42]. Additionally, induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) and iPSC-derived distinct cell types were used to study tissue-specific DM1 pathological alterations
[43][44][45][46]. Recently, the first 3D in vitro human-muscle model of DM1 was developed by encapsulating patient-derived MYOD1-converted fibroblasts in hydrogels
[47]. All of these cell models reproduce molecular alterations typical of DM1 and have been very useful for discovering crucial molecules and cellular pathways involved in the disease and for testing therapeutic strategies.
Drosophila models have also been used by several groups to study DM1. Interrupted CTG repeats of various lengths driven by either constitutive or inducible promoters were expressed in flies and DM1-related molecular as well as phenotypic alterations were observed in flies carrying more than 480 repeats
[48][49][50]. Although DM1 modeling is complicated by the multifaceted impact of the DM1 mutation, many DM1 mouse models have been generated over time through the silencing of the
Dmpk gene or the
Mbnl family genes; alternatively, mouse models expressing CELF proteins or toxic CTG repeats in various tissues were produced, in order to mimic the different aspects of the disease and to discover therapeutic molecules (
Table 1). It is unclear whether the
DMPK haploinsufficiency observed in DM1 patients may affect functions of the tissues in which the gene is normally highly expressed, such as muscles and the central nervous system (CNS). To address this question, different
Dmpk-knockout (KO) mouse models have been generated and characterized through the years with different results. Initial reports on
Dmpk-KO mice described cardiac conduction defects
[51] and mild myopathy
[52]. Since these mice models were characterized by a mixed genetic background possibly leading to confounding effects, more recently a
Dmpk-KO model backcrossed to two different pure genetic backgrounds was generated. This model did not confirm the previous observations, but showed that
Dmpk gene deletion does not compromise cardiac or skeletal-muscle function
[53]. Additionally,
DMPK transcript silencing through antisense oligonucleotides (ASOs) was well tolerated in mice, rats and monkeys
[54]. These findings suggest that reduction in
DMPK expression should not be a prominent cause of the disease. Given the crucial regulatory role of MBNL proteins in DM1, different
Mbnl KO models were generated to elucidate the role of each MBNL protein in the disease.
Mbnl1 and
Mbnl2 loss of function resulted in muscular and CNS symptom manifestation, respectively
[55][56][57], while
Mbnl3 KO caused a progressive delay in muscle regeneration and embryonic muscle differentiation abnormalities, in agreement with their expression profiles during development
[58]. Mice with double
Mbnl1/Mbnl2 KO or
Mbnl1/Mbnl3 KO exhibited more severe phenotypes compared with the single KO
[59][60] and the triple
Mbnl1/2/3 KO in muscle tissues recapitulated the severe phenotype observed in congenital DM1, in both newborn and adult mice
[61], supporting the idea of a prominent role of MBNL proteins and alternative splicing dysregulation in DM1 pathogenesis. To determine the role of CELF proteins in DM1 pathogenesis, mouse models overexpressing CELF1 and CELF2 in skeletal and/or cardiac muscle were generated
[62][63][64][65]. Overexpression of CELF1 was shown to reproduce DM1-associated histopathological and functional changes
[63]. Notably, CELF1/2 overexpressing mouse models have revealed a strong pattern of antagonistic regulation of mRNA levels by CELF and MBNL proteins through competitive binding to 3′ UTR regions
[64] (
Table 1A).
Table 1. DM1 mouse models used for studying pathogenetic mechanisms and/or molecular therapies.
Abbreviations: AS = alternative splicing; ChP = brain choroid plexus; CMVβA = cytomegalovirus enhancer/β-actin; GFP = green fluorescent protein; KO = knockout; MDAF = expression vector carrying regulatory sequences for the rat myosin light chain 1/3 gene; MHC = myosin heavy chain; Myo = myogenin; NADH = nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide; polyA = polyadenylation; rtTA = reverse tet transactivator.
Based on the assumption that the expanded
DMPK transcript is the main cause of DM1 disease, many different mouse models expressing expanded CUG transcripts either ubiquitously or in specific tissues were generated to model the disease mechanisms (
Table 1B). The multisystemic impact of CUG expansions is well recapitulated in DM200, DM300 and in DMSXL transgenic mice carrying the 3′ UTR portion or the entire human
DMPK gene with CTG repeats of different lengths, the phenotype being more severe in mice with larger expansion
[23][68][71]. In DM300 and DMSXL mice, transgene expression resulted in the accumulation of ribonuclear foci in various tissues and in the development of muscle weakness, behavioral abnormalities, growth retardation and perinatal mortality
[23][71][72][73][74]. Recently, a mouse model constitutively expressing CTG repeats within the
DMPK context was generated, which exhibited particularly high CUG expression in the heart (LC15). These mice reproduced DM1-like cardiac defects
[77]. Skeletal-muscle-specific, heart-specific and brain-specific DM1-like features have been reproduced in mouse models expressing the repeat expansion in the respective tissues, either constitutively (HSA
LR)
[76] or inducibly (EpA960 and TREDT960I mice strains)
[75][78][79][80][81][82][83]. The tissue-specific phenotypes are usually strong and suitable for testing therapeutic molecules. However, at the same time, they do not recapitulate the multisystemic DM1 phenotype. In the inducible models, CTG repeats interrupted with stretches of CTCGA have been inserted in a portion of the
DMPK human transgene. Interrupted repeats have the advantage of being more stable than CTG repeats, but may not exactly reproduce the human DM1 disease condition. Each of these mouse models exhibits advantages and limitations mostly depending on the temporal and spatial control of the transgene expression (detailed in
Table 1). Taken together, transgenic mouse models have been crucial to understanding DM1 pathogenetic mechanisms and to testing therapeutic approaches.