Neural Plasticity

Neural Plasticity / 2012 / Article
Special Issue

Plasticity in Neurogenetic Disorders

View this Special Issue

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2012 |Article ID 415825 | 10 pages |

Linking Epigenetics to Human Disease and Rett Syndrome: The Emerging Novel and Challenging Concepts in MeCP2 Research

Academic Editor: Hansen Wang
Received31 Aug 2011
Accepted15 Nov 2011
Published09 Feb 2012


Epigenetics refer to inheritable changes beyond DNA sequence that control cell identity and morphology. Epigenetics play key roles in development and cell fate commitments and highly impact the etiology of many human diseases. A well-known link between epigenetics and human disease is the X-linked MECP2 gene, mutations in which lead to the neurological disorder, Rett Syndrome. Despite the fact that MeCP2 was discovered about 20 years ago, our current knowledge about its molecular function is not comprehensive. While MeCP2 was originally found to bind methylated DNA and interact with repressor complexes to inhibit and silence its genomic targets, recent studies have challenged this idea. Indeed, depending on its interacting protein partners and target genes, MeCP2 can act either as an activator or as a repressor. Furthermore, it is becoming evident that although Rett Syndrome is a progressive and postnatal neurological disorder, the consequences of MeCP2 deficiencies initiate much earlier and before birth. To comprehend the novel and challenging concepts in MeCP2 research and to design effective therapeutic strategies for Rett Syndrome, a targeted collaborative effort from scientists in multiple research areas to clinicians is required.

1. Introduction

The term epigenetics refers to inheritable changes in gene expression that control cellular phenotype and fate decisions without alterations in the underlying DNA sequence [1]. In eukaryotes, two main epigenetic regulations are exerted through modifications on DNA and DNA-bound histone proteins. In general, histone modifications are dynamic and include acetylation, methylation, isomerization, phosphorylation, sumoylation, and ubiquitination [1, 2]. The combination of such modifications confers enormous flexibility in terms of functional response of an individual cell towards extracellular signals and environmental stimuli. Certain modifications such as histone methylation can display additional layers of complexity regarding their methylation degree and undergo mono-, di-, or tri-methylation of lysine residues [2, 3]. Furthermore, combinations or sequential additions of different histone marks can affect the chromatin organization and subsequently alter the expression of the corresponding target genes [4]. Conventionally, DNA methylation was considered to be a stable epigenetic mark, although this notion is being challenged by recent reports of active DNA demethylation [5]. In mammals, DNA methylation strictly happens at the cytosine residues in the context of CpG dinucleotides. The methylation of DNA molecules is processed by a group of enzymes called DNA methyltransferases (DNMTs). The mammalian DNMT family consists of 5 proteins (DNMT1, 2, 3A, 3B, 3L). DNMT1 is involved in maintaining the DNA methylation pattern during replication, while DNMT3A and DNMT3B act as de novo methyltransferases. DNMT3L is essential for the establishment of maternal genomic imprints during oocyte development, and DNMT2 is classified as part of the DNMT family; however it has very weak catalytic activity [6].

DNA methylation is often associated with transcriptional repression and has been linked to the tissue-specific regulation of genes [7], expression of imprinted genes [8], and X-chromosome inactivation in females [9]. In general, DNA methylation affects gene expression in two ways: (i) directly, by altering the binding sites of transcription factors, or (ii) indirectly, via recruitment of proteins that recognize and bind to the methylated DNA and in turn modulate gene expression. The first group of proteins that were discovered with the potential of binding to methylated DNA were the MBD (methyl-binding domain) protein family members. The mammalian MBD family consists of 5 nuclear proteins, MBD 1–4 and MeCP2 (Methyl CpG binding protein 2). With the exception of MBD3, all MBD proteins share a conserved methyl-binding domain, through which they bind to methylated DNA [10]. MBD3 lacks such ability due to a critical mutation in its MBD domain [11]. MECP2 is an X-linked gene, which was discovered as the prototype member of the DNA methyl binding proteins (MBPs) [12]. Mutations in MECP2 are the primary cause of Rett Syndrome (RTT), a neurological disorder predominantly affecting young females. RTT is characterized by an apparently normal development for the first 6–18 months after birth, followed by regression of acquired motor and language skills [1315]. In addition to Rett Syndrome, mutations in MECP2 have been observed in patients with classical autism, neonatal encephalopathy, and X-linked mental retardation [1619].

Studies on MeCP2 have yielded surprising results in terms of the diversity of its functions (Figure 1) with enormous potential for epigenetic regulation of target gene expression. MeCP2 was initially identified as a methyl-binding protein [20]. Further investigations on MeCP2 function led to the discovery of its role as a transcriptional repressor and association with corepressor complexes such as mSin3A and HDACs [21, 22]. This was not surprising, since DNA methylation itself was considered to be a repressive mark. However, a genomewide search for MeCP2 genomic distribution in SH-SY5Y cells led to two surprising observations: (i) MeCP2 was found to be associated often with transcriptionally active genes; (ii) only 2.2% of the most methylated promoters were bound by MeCP2. The presence of MeCP2 at the active promoters was later observed in mouse hypothalamus, where MeCP2 was observed to be bound to approximately 85% of genes which were misregulated by overexpression or absence of MeCP2 [23]. These studies highlight the many facets of MeCP2 functions and emphasize the need to further study its known functions. In this review, we will discuss the role of MeCP2 in chromatin structure and nuclear architecture of neurons, its competition with the linker histone H1, the MECP2 transcript products and diverse functional domains of MeCP2 protein, as well as MeCP2 expression and genomic targets in neurons and glia.

2. The MECP2 Gene Structure and Its Splice Variants

The MECP2 gene maps between L1CAM and the RCP/GCP loci in Xq28 and undergoes X-Chromosome Inactivation (XCI) in females [24, 25]. The genomic locus of MECP2 spans approximately 76 kb and consists of four exons encoding two different isoforms (MeCP2E1 and MeCP2E2), due to alternate splicing of exon 2 (Figure 2). The more abundant E1 isoform contains 24 amino acids encoded by exon 1 and lacks the 9 amino acids encoded by exon 2, whereas the start site for the E2 lies within the exon 2 [26]. Of the two isoforms, MECP2E1 is more efficiently translated and show 10X more expression than MECP2E2 in brain. Mecp2 has a large, highly conserved 3′UTR that contains multiple polyadenylation sites. Alternative 3′UTR usage leads to three distinct transcripts, short 1.8 kb and long 10 kb transcripts, with the latter including a highly conserved (8.5 kb) 3′UTR, and a third additional low abundance transcript of approximately 5–7 kb [27]. MeCP2 is a nuclear protein that is mainly colocalized with densely methylated heterochromatin in mouse cells. The differential expression of Mecp2/MECP2 transcripts can be subjected to tissue- and developmental stage-specific regulation. In the brain, differential transcript expression patterns for the two isoforms have been detected [28]. The transcript levels are high during embryogenesis with a postnatal decrease, but increasing again towards adulthood. On the other hand, the protein levels are low during embryogenesis and increase postnatally upon neuronal maturation [29].

MeCP2E1 and E2 isoforms only differ in their N-terminal sequences, sharing the functional MBD and Transcriptional Repression Domain (TRD), and it seems likely that their functional properties overlap considerably. However, several observations point towards the possibility that the two isoforms might indeed have subtle yet etiologically relevant nonredundant functions. The MeCP2E1 isoform has a putative serine residue within its N-terminus, which is absent in MeCP2E2 isoform [26]. Furthermore, differential expression of the two isoforms at the transcript level has been demonstrated in the developing mouse brain. Mecp2E2 mRNA was enriched in the dorsal thalamus and layer V of the cerebral cortex, while more Mecp2E1 transcripts were detected in the hypothalamus than in the thalamus between P1 and P21 [28]. Whether this reflects a similar variation of the protein expression pattern remains to be determined. Mutation analysis in RTT patients has shown that exon 1 mutations can lead to severe RTT phenotypes. Some of these mutations do not seem to affect the transcription of MeCP2E2, suggesting that MeCP2E2 alone might not be able to compensate for the loss of MeCP2E1. Although mutations in all domains of MeCP2 have been identified in RTT patients, none have been reported to be in the MeCP2E2-specific exon 2. However, a number of point mutations have been identified that are unique to the MeCP2E1, indicating that MeCP2E1-specific mutations are sufficient to cause RTT. The possibility of functional redundancy between the two isoforms has been further investigated recently by a group studying the RTT phenotype rescue capabilities of each isoform. This study showed that MeCP2E1 alone is capable of compensating for overall MeCP2 deficiency in mice, in a dose-dependent manner. While MeCP2E2 also achieved phenotypic rescue, the degree of rescue was significantly higher with MeCP2E1, even at lower dosage levels [30]. The results of this study suggest that the two isoforms have both redundant and nonredundant functions.

3. MeCP2 Protein Structure, Interacting Protein Partners and Posttranslational Modifications

The main functional domains of MeCP2 are the MBD, the TRD, and the C-Terminal Domain (CTD). The MBD facilitates binding to methylated CpG dinucleotides and the preference for adjacent A/T-rich motifs [31]. It is also capable of binding to nonmethylated DNA sequences such as the four-way DNA junctions [32]. However, the role of MeCP2 as a transcriptional repressor is mostly mediated through its TRD domain. The TRD interacts with corepressor complexes such as mSin3A, further recruiting HDAC1 and HDAC2, and thereby acting as a link between DNA methylation and chromatin remodelling [21]. The TRD domain further facilitates MeCP2 interaction with other partners including c-SKI [33], YY1 [34], and YB1 [35]. MeCP2 CTD is believed to have critical functions, as transgenic mice lacking MeCP2 CTD display many RTT phenotypes [36]. Recently, MeCP2 has been shown to have dual functions, also acting as a transcriptional activator via interaction with CREB [23], although no interacting domain has been mapped. In vitro, MeCP2 is known to influence chromatin compaction and nucleosome clustering [37]. In neurons, MeCP2 is also known to suppress spurious transcription of repetitive elements, thereby reducing “transcriptional noise” [38, 39].

A crucial aspect of MeCP2 that has not been fully explored is the functional effect of its Posttranslational Modifications (PTMs). Although several modifications have been detected for MeCP2, only two phosphorylation modifications have been studied in detail. Of these, phosphorylation of serine 421 (S421) is linked to neuronal activity and is known to modulate MeCP2-regulated Bdnf transcription [40]. Interestingly, phosphorylation of serine 80 (S80) is removed upon neuronal activity [41]. The same group detected two other phosphorylations, S399 and S424, in resting and active neurons, respectively. It would be interesting, however, to characterize any potential cross-talk between these specific PTMs in MeCP2, as seen in histones [42, 43]. Furthermore, knock-in mice models of S80 and S421/S424 showed opposing effects of the modifications on locomotor activity, implying differential function of MeCP2 based on its PTM [41]. This shows that MeCP2 PTMs enhances its capability to function dynamically within neurons, thus emphasizing the necessity of characterizing other PTMs of MeCP2.

4. The Expression Pattern of MeCP2

MeCP2 is widely expressed among various tissues, with higher expression in the brain. Expression studies in rodents, macaque, and humans have revealed a similar pattern of heterogeneous MeCP2 expression in brain [29, 4449]. MeCP2 expression pattern within different brain regions follows the developmental maturation of the central nervous system, being initially detected in the earliest developing structures such as brainstem and thalamus [29, 49, 50]. In rodents, MeCP2 expression in the olfactory bulb precedes synaptogenesis [47, 48]. In general, MeCP2 expression is highest in neurons, with lower levels of the protein being detected in glia [51]. Within neurons, MeCP2 expression is lower in immature neurons and highest in postmitotic neurons [52]. The elevated levels of MeCP2 expression in mature neurons are maintained throughout adulthood, implying its importance in postmitotic neuronal function. To understand how MeCP2 deficiency impairs brain function, much effort has been focused on the neuronal cell-autonomous effects of MeCP2 deficiency, due to its high expression in mature neurons. Previous data indicate that MeCP2 deficiency in neurons is sufficient to cause RTT-like neurological phenotypes in mouse [53]. Recent studies investigating the effects of Mecp2 deletion in specific neuronal population have observed differential phenotypic outcomes [54, 55]. These observations imply that various RTT phenotypes might be generated as a consequence of MeCP2 deficiency in specific neuronal populations. To date, a possible contribution of astrocyte dysfunction to RTT has not been fully examined, mainly due to the previous assumption that MeCP2 is not expressed in astrocytes.

In 2009, MeCP2 expression in glial cells was shown by independent groups [51, 56, 57], with significantly lower detection of MeCP2 in glia compared to neurons. MeCP2 deficient astrocytes showed functional abnormalities and were unable to support proper neuronal growth. Furthermore, MeCP2 deficient neurons were capable of exerting a nonautonomous effect on MeCP2 wild type astrocytes, and negatively regulating them. Another study on MeCP2 expression in microglia showed that MeCP2 deficiency in microglia leads to elevated secretion of glutamate and contributes to neuronal abnormalities in RTT. Perhaps the strongest evidence to support the effect of MeCP2 expression in astrocytes in RTT etiology comes from a recent study in which MeCP2 was reexpressed specifically in astrocytes of an RTT mice model. Reexpression of MeCP2 in astrocytes alone significantly improved several phenotypes including improved locomotion and prolonged lifespan. Restoration of MeCP2 on mutant astrocytes also led to a noncell autonomous effect on neighboring neurons, rescuing dendrite abnormalities and increasing the level of V-glut1 [58]. These studies show the critical role of glial cells in RTT pathology and warrant further investigation on MeCP2 function in glia.

5. MeCP2 Binds to Methylated DNA and Competes with Histone H1 for the Internucleosomal DNA

Eukaryotic DNA is compacted into chromatin, which is made up of nucleosome repeats [59, 60]. The nucleosome consists of a core particle composed of a histone octamer associated with DNA and a linker DNA that connects the core particles bound by one H1 linker histone. The histone octamer consists of two copies of each of the four histones H2A, H2B, H3, and H4. Histone H1 or linker histone seals two rounds of DNA at its entry/exit site on the surface of the nucleosome core and thereby stabilizes higher-order chromatin structure [61]. Histone H1 has many variants with specificity observed among species, tissue types, and even developmental stage.

Recent studies have suggested a possible relationship between histone H1 and DNA methylation [62, 63]. Microarray analysis of embryonic stem cells in which three H1 variants (H1c, H1d, and H1e) have been silenced revealed that approximately one third of the genes showing altered expression pattern were regulated by DNA methylation. A quantitative reduction in the extent of DNA methylation at specific CpG dinucleotides within the imprinting control regions of the H19-Igf2 and Gtl2-Dlk1 gene loci was observed in these cells. It is interesting to note that most of these genes are known to be regulated by MeCP2 (Table 1). In vitro, MeCP2 can compete with histone H1 and bind linker DNA [64, 65]. In vivo, linker H1 and MeCP2 show similar mobility in the nucleus and share the same internucleosomal binding sites, evident by Fluorescence Recovery After Photobleaching (FRAP) studies [66, 67]. Furthermore, neuronal nuclei lacking MeCP2 show 2-fold upregulation of histone H1 expression [39]. These observations suggest that in neurons, MeCP2 and histone H1 may share similar functions, at least in part with respect to chromatin organization.

Gene targetFunctionCell/tissue type studiedDirect association with MeCP2 (cell line used for ChIP)Reference

PCDHB1Cell adhesionOral cancer cell lines (ZA, KOSC2, HSC5, NA)Yes (SH-SY5Y)
PCDH7Cell adhesionYes (SH-SY5Y) [68]
APBP3Intracellular signal transductionYes (SH-SY5Y)

CLUExtracellular molecular chaperoneNo (SH-SY5Y)
CRMP1Component of semaphoring signal transduction pathwayYes (SH-SY5Y)
DNMIVesicular trafficking, production of microtubule bundles, hydrolyzes GTPYes (SH-SY5Y) [69]
GNBIIntegrates signals between receptor and effector proteinsRTT patient brain (frontal cortex)Yes (SH-SY5Y)
APLP1Enhancer of neuronal apoptosisNo (SH-SY5Y)
CO1Mitochondrial respiratory chainNo (SH-SY5Y)
GDI1Regulates GDP/GTP exchangeNo (SH-SY5Y)

BdnfNeuronal plasticity and survivalMouse E14 cortical culture Rat E18 cortical neuronsYes (mouse E14 cortical culture Rat E18 cortical Neurons) [70, 71]

Fxyd1Ion transport regulator for Na, K-ATPaseRTT mice cerebellum RTT patient’s brain—superior frontal gyrusYes (adult mice brain, Mecp2 wt and Mecp2 null mouse; HEK293T cells) [72, 73]

Neuronal layer formation, cell-cell interactions
Growth suppressor
RTT mice cerebellumYes (adult mice brain) [72]

Regulation of neuronal differentiationSH-SY5YYes (SH-SY5Y)[74]

IGFBP3Modulation of IGF functionsRTT mice modelYes (HeLa cells; mice cortices) [75]

Ubiquitin ligase
GABA-A receptor
Brain cerebral samples of RTT, AS, and autism patientsNo (adult mouse cerebellum samples) [76]

Regulation of cell migration
Signal transduction
Organ morphogenesis
Neurite development
Neuron development and differentiation
RNA splicing and mRNA processing
RTT mice models (Mecp2 null and Mecp2 Tg) and control mice; HypothalamusYes (RTT mice models (Mecp2 null and Mecp2 Tg) and control mice; Hypothalamus) [23]

xHairy2aNeuronal differentiationXenopus embryosYes (xenopus neurula stage embryos) [77]

Cellular stress response
Hormone signalling
RTT mice model; brain samplesYes (mice brain tissue) [78]

Uqcrc1Mitochondrial respiratory chainRTT mice model; brain samplesYes (adult mice; whole brain) [79]

CrhStress responseRTT mice model; brain samplesYes (RTT mice brain samples) [80]

Dlx5Transcription factorNot doneYes (mouse brain) [81]

6. MeCP2 Genomic Distributions and Target Genes

By interpreting DNA methylation, MeCP2 modulates transcriptional repression and silencing of specific target genes. In neurons, MeCP2 closely tracks the intensity of methylated DNA [39]. Recent studies on MeCP2 genomic distribution, however, indicate that it occupies both methylated and unmethylated DNA [82]. Although DNA methylation is considered to be a stable modification, it is becoming evident that in the brain, reduction of DNMTs or reduced MeCP2 association may result in decreased DNA methylation, a process previously thought to be irreversible. To fully understand the functional role of MeCP2 in the pathobiology of RTT, and to develop effective therapeutic strategies, a comprehensive knowledge of MeCP2 genomic targets is essential. To this end, several research groups have attempted to identify global gene expression alterations caused by MeCP2 dysfunction in neuronal and nonneuronal tissues from RTT patients and mice models. However, in most cases these studies have generated only a small and mostly nonoverlapping list of target genes [23, 6880] (Table 1). Also, direct association of these identified targets towards the pathophysiology of RTT has not been established in most of these studies. One exception to this would be Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor (BDNF). In 2003, two independent groups demonstrated MeCP2 binding to methylated CpG sites near the promoter III of Bdnf in resting neurons [70, 71]. Membrane depolarization of these neurons by KCl treatment led to the dissociation of MeCP2 from the Bdnf promoter. Two mechanisms have been proposed for the dissociation of MeCP2: (i) reduced CpG methylation at the MeCP2 binding site following neuronal activation [70] and (ii) phosphorylation of MeCP2 at specific lysine residues [71]. Recent studies in mice models have further provided in vivo evidence for functional interactions between MeCP2 and Bdnf. Experiments on an RTT mice model have shown that knockout of Bdnf exacerbated the RTT phenotypes, whereas overexpression of Bdnf rescued a subset of RTT-like phenotypes [83]. ChIP-based experiments in neonatal mouse brain identified two MeCP2 binding sites in an imprinted gene cluster in chromosome 6 [81]. Two genes within this cluster, Dlx5 and Dlx6, showed approximately twofold increases in expression, in MeCP2-null mice brain. The study also showed alterations in histone modifications and the formation of a higher-order chromatin loop at the silenced chromatin of the Dlx5-Dlx6 locus in wild type and the lack of formation of the chromatin loop in RTT patients. This provided evidence for a novel mode of gene repression by MeCP2, although a similar mechanism of repression has not been shown for any other MeCP2 targets.

7. Human Diseases Associated with MECP2 Mutations

MeCP2 mutations are mostly sporadic, occurring preferentially as transitions of CpG dinucleotides and mostly on the paternal X chromosome [84, 85]. As mentioned earlier, MECP2 mutations are mainly associated with Rett Syndrome, a progressive postnatal neurological disorder predominantly affecting females with an incidence of 1 in 10,000 [86]. RTT is characterized by an apparently nonsymptomatic phase for the first 6–18 months of age followed by apraxia, deceleration of head growth, gait abnormalities, stereotypic hand movements, and mental retardation. The lifespan of RTT patients is variable, and some patients survive up to 70 years of age [87, 88]. In male individuals, MECP2 mutation leads to fatal neonatal encephalopathy [89], Rett syndrome-like features, and familial X-linked mental retardation with or without motor abnormalities [8991]. Male patients with RTT usually have a short lifespan and very often develop congenital encephalopathy [92, 93]. MECP2 mutations have been detected in more than 90% of classical RTT patients. Approximately 65% of MECP2 mutations causing RTT can be attributed to 8 recurrent missense or nonsense mutations within the MBD (R106W, R133C, T158M, and R168X) or TRD (R255X, R270X, R294X, and R306C) [94, 95].

Previous studies have implicated possible correlations between these mutations and RTT phenotypes [14, 96]. MeCP2 mutations have also been detected, albeit in very few patients, with Prader-Willi syndrome [97], Angelman syndrome [98], nonsyndromic mental retardation [99], and autistic patients [100]. Currently, Rett Syndrome has no effective treatment. However, in RTT mice lacking Mecp2, reactivation of the Mecp2 gene after the onset of disease can rescue the disease phenotype [101, 102]. This demonstrates the possibility of RTT gene therapy strategies, where delivering MECP2 into the affected neurons may indeed improve RTT symptoms. Creating the first generation of MECP2 isoform-specific retroviral and lentiviral gene therapy vectors, we showed their efficient and long-term expression in the adult brain-derived neural stem cells, in their neuronal progenies, and in the brain microenvironment [56]. However, the in vivo rescue effect of the gene therapy delivery of these viruses remains to be elucidated. Our studies also showed the feasibility of using the endogenous Mecp2 promoter for transgenic MECP2 expression. This is significant, since one of the critical concerns towards the design of RTT gene therapy strategy is the prevention of MECP2 overexpression. In humans, overexpression of MECP2 caused by duplication of the MECP2 locus leads to a variety of neurological symptoms including seizures and mental retardation [103105]. Alternatively, drug treatments can be designed to target proteins, which may compensate for MeCP2 loss in neurons. One study, in particular, has provided great hope towards pharmacological treatment of RTT in the future. Treatment of an RTT mice model with the active peptide fragment of IGF-1 significantly improved many disease phenotypes and extended the overall lifespan of the mice [106]. The generation of RTT-specific iPS (induced Pluripotent Stem) cells has provided an ideal platform to analyze potential pharmacological treatments for Rett Syndrome [107, 108].

8. Closing Remarks

One of the most studied genes to link epigenetics to human disease is the X-linked MECP2 gene. MECP2 mutations lead to Rett Syndrome and are also associated with a broad spectrum of neurological disorders. Despite the impressive progress on our understanding about MeCP2, there are still many fundamental questions remaining to be addressed; at the methylated DNA, does MeCP2 dimerization require hetero- or homodimerization? Do MeCP2 isoforms show differential expression and/or function in CNS and are they developmentally regulated? What are the factors that regulate MeCP2 expression and splicing within various tissues? And finally, does MeCP2 act as a nonspecific DNA methyl binding protein on methylated DNA or does it recognize and prefer particular sites within the genome and what is the contribution of its interacting protein partners towards defining the specificity and sensitivity of such genomic distribution? A comprehensive knowledge of these unanswered questions will help to understand how the products of a single gene, such as MECP2, have such vast functional properties.


The authors apologize that many excellent papers are not included in this paper due to the space limitation. The authors would like to thank Jeff Dixon for the art work and all members of the Rastegar lab for helpful discussions. M. Rastegar is supported by funds from the Manitoba Institute of Child Health (MICH), Scottish Rites Charitable Foundation of Canada (SRCFC, Grant 10110), Manitoba Health Research Council (MHRC) (Establishment and Operating funds), Health Sciences Centre Foundation (HSCF), Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC Discovery Grant 372405-2009), Canada Foundation for Innovation-Leaders Opportunity Fund (CFI-LOF), CFI Infrastructure Operating Fund (CFI-IOF), and funds from the University of Manitoba Research Grants Program (URGP). R. M. Zachariah is a recipient of MHRC-MICH studentship award.


  1. G. P. Delcuve, M. Rastegar, and J. R. Davie, “Epigenetic control,” Journal of Cellular Physiology, vol. 219, no. 2, pp. 243–250, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. B. A. Barber and M. Rastegar, “Epigenetic control of Hox genes during neurogenesis, development, and disease,” Annals of Anatomy, vol. 192, no. 5, pp. 261–274, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. J. C. Rice and C. D. Allis, “Histone methylation versus histone acetylation: new insights into epigenetic regulation,” Current Opinion in Cell Biology, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 263–273, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. Y. Wang, W. Fischle, W. Cheung et al., “Beyond the double helix: writing and reading the histone code,” Novartis Foundation Symposium, vol. 259, pp. 3–17, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
  5. J. Zhu, A. Kapoor, V. V. Sridhar, F. Agius, and J. K. Zhu, “The DNA glycosylase/lyase ROS1 functions in pruning DNA methylation patterns in arabidopsis,” Current Biology, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 54–59, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. M. G. Goll and T. H. Bestor, “Eukaryotic cytosine methyltransferases,” Annual Review of Biochemistry, vol. 74, pp. 481–514, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. F. Song, J. F. Smith, M. T. Kimura et al., “Association of tissue-specific differentially methylated regions (TDMs) with differential gene expression,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 102, no. 9, pp. 3336–3341, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. W. Reik, A. Collick, M. L. Norris, S. C. Barton, and M. A. Surani, “Genomic imprinting determines methylation of parental alleles in transgenic mice,” Nature, vol. 328, no. 6127, pp. 248–251, 1987. View at: Google Scholar
  9. S. F. Wolf and B. R. Migeon, “Studies of X chromosome DNA methylation in normal human cells,” Nature, vol. 295, no. 5851, pp. 667–671, 1982. View at: Google Scholar
  10. B. Hendrich and A. Bird, “Identification and characterization of a family of mammalian methyl-CpG binding proteins,” Molecular and Cellular Biology, vol. 18, no. 11, pp. 6538–6547, 1998. View at: Google Scholar
  11. M. Saito and F. Ishikawa, “The mCpG-binding domain of human MBD3 does not bind to mCpG but interacts with NuRD/Mi2 components HDAC1 and MTA2,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 277, no. 38, pp. 35434–35439, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. J. D. Lewis, R. R. Meehan, W. J. Henzel et al., “Purification, sequence, and cellular localization of a novel chromosomal protein that binds to methylated DNA,” Cell, vol. 69, no. 6, pp. 905–914, 1992. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. R. E. Amir, I. B. van den Veyver, M. Wan, C. Q. Tran, U. Francke, and H. Y. Zoghbi, “Rett syndrome is caused by mutations in X-linked MECP2, encoding methyl-CpG-binding protein 2,” Nature Genetics, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 185–188, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. J. L. Neul, P. Fang, J. Barrish et al., “Specific mutations in methyl-CpG-binding protein 2 confer different severity in Rett syndrome,” Neurology, vol. 70, no. 16, pp. 1313–1321, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. A. Rett, “Rett syndrome: history and general overview,” American Journal of Medical Genetics, vol. 24, supplement 1, pp. 21–25, 1986. View at: Google Scholar
  16. P. Couvert, T. Bienvenu, C. Aquaviva et al., “MECP2 is highly mutated in X-linked mental retardation,” Human Molecular Genetics, vol. 10, no. 9, pp. 941–946, 2001. View at: Google Scholar
  17. C. W. Lam, W. L. Yeung, C. H. Ko et al., “Spectrum of mutations in the MECP2 gene in patients with infantile autism and Rett syndrome,” Journal of Medical Genetics, vol. 37, no. 12, p. E41, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
  18. K. S. Beyer, F. Blasi, E. Bacchelli, S. M. Klauck, E. Maestrini, and A. Poustka, “Mutation analysis of the coding sequence of the MECP2 gene in infantile autism,” Human Genetics, vol. 111, no. 4-5, pp. 305–309, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. N. C. Schanen, T. W. Kurczynski, D. Brunelle, M. M. Woodcock, L. S. Dure, and A. K. Percy, “Neonatal encephalopathy in two boys in families with recurrent Rett syndrome,” Journal of Child Neurology, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 229–231, 1998. View at: Google Scholar
  20. R. R. Meehan, J. D. Lewis, and A. P. Bird, “Characterization of MeCP2, a vertebrate DNA binding protein with affinity for methylated DNA,” Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 20, no. 19, pp. 5085–5092, 1992. View at: Google Scholar
  21. X. Nan, H. H. Ng, C. A. Johnson et al., “Transcriptional repression by the methyl-CpG-binding protein MeCP2 involves a histone deacetylase complex,” Nature, vol. 393, no. 6683, pp. 386–389, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. P. L. Jones, G. J. C. Veenstra, P. A. Wade et al., “Methylated DNA and MeCP2 recruit histone deacetylase to repress transcription,” Nature Genetics, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 187–191, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. M. Chahrour, Y. J. Sung, C. Shaw et al., “MeCP2, a key contributor to neurological disease, activates and represses transcription,” Science, vol. 320, no. 5880, pp. 1224–1229, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. M. D'Esposito, N. A. Quaderi, A. Ciccodicola et al., “Isolation, physical mapping, and northern analysis of the X-linked human gene encoding methyl CpG-binding protein, MECP2,” Mammalian Genome, vol. 7, no. 7, pp. 533–535, 1996. View at: Google Scholar
  25. N. Sirianni, S. Naidu, J. Pereira, R. F. Pillotto, and E. P. Hoffman, “Rett syndrome: confirmation of X-linked dominant inheritance, and localization of the gene to Xq28,” American Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 63, no. 5, pp. 1552–1558, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. S. Kriaucionis and A. Bird, “The major form of MeCP2 has a novel N-terminus generated by alternative splicing,” Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 1818–1823, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. G. J. Pelka, C. M. Watson, J. Christodoulou, and P. P. L. Tam, “Distinct expression profiles of Mecp2 transcripts with different lengths of 3UTR in the brain and visceral organs during mouse development,” Genomics, vol. 85, no. 4, pp. 441–452, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. J. M. Dragich, Y. H. Kim, A. P. Arnold, and N. C. Schanen, “Differential distribution of the Mecp2 splice variants in the postnatal mouse brain,” Journal of Comparative Neurology, vol. 501, no. 4, pp. 526–542, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. M. D. Shahbazian, B. Antalffy, D. L. Armstrong, and H. Y. Zoghbi, “Insight into Rett syndrome: MeCP2 levels display tissue-and cell-specific differences and correlate with neuronal maturation,” Human Molecular Genetics, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 115–124, 2002. View at: Google Scholar
  30. B. Kerr, C. J. Soto, M. Saez, A. Abrams, K. Walz, and J. I. Young, “Transgenic complementation of MeCP2 deficiency: phenotypic rescue of Mecp2-null mice by isoform-specific transgenes,” European Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 69–76, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  31. R. J. Klose, S. A. Sarraf, L. Schmiedeberg, S. M. McDermott, I. Stancheva, and A. P. Bird, “DNA binding selectivity of MeCP2 due to a requirement for A/T sequences adjacent to methyl-CpG,” Molecular Cell, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 667–678, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. T. C. Galvão and J. O. Thomas, “Structure-specific binding of MeCP2 to four-way junction DNA through its methyl CpG-binding domain,” Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 33, no. 20, pp. 6603–6609, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  33. K. Kokura, S. C. Kaul, R. Wadhwa et al., “The Ski protein family is required for MeCP2-mediated transcriptional repression,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 276, no. 36, pp. 34115–34121, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  34. G. Forlani, E. Giarda, U. Ala et al., “The MeCP2/YY1 interaction regulates ANT1 expression at 4q35: novel hints for Rett syndrome pathogenesis,” Human Molecular Genetics, vol. 19, no. 16, Article ID ddq214, pp. 3114–3123, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  35. J. I. Young, E. P. Hong, J. C. Castle et al., “Regulation of RNA splicing by the methylation-dependent transcriptional repressor methyl-CpG binding protein 2,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 102, no. 49, pp. 17551–17558, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. M. D. Shahbazian, J. I. Young, L. A. Yuva-Paylor et al., “Mice with truncated MeCP2 recapitulate many Rett syndrome features and display hyperacetylation of histone H3,” Neuron, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 243–254, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  37. P. T. Georgel, R. A. Horowitz-Scherer, N. Adkins, C. L. Woodcock, P. A. Wade, and J. C. Hansen, “Chromatin compaction by human MeCP2. Assembly of novel secondary chromatin structures in the absence of DNA methylation,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 278, no. 34, pp. 32181–32188, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  38. A. R. Muotri, M. C. N. Marchetto, N. G. Coufal et al., “L1 retrotransposition in neurons is modulated by MeCP2,” Nature, vol. 468, no. 7322, pp. 443–446, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  39. P. J. Skene, R. S. Illingworth, S. Webb et al., “Neuronal MeCP2 is expressed at near histone-octamer levels and globally alters the chromatin state,” Molecular Cell, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 457–468, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  40. Z. Zhou, E. J. Hong, S. Cohen et al., “Brain-specific phosphorylation of MeCP2 regulates activity-dependent Bdnf transcription, dendritic growth, and spine maturation,” Neuron, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 255–269, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  41. J. Tao, K. Hu, Q. Chang et al., “Phosphorylation of MeCP2 at serine 80 regulates its chromatin association and neurological function,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 106, no. 12, pp. 4882–4887, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  42. W. Fischle, Y. Wang, and C. D. Allis, “Histone and chromatin cross-talk,” Current Opinion in Cell Biology, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 172–183, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  43. S. Winter and W. Fischle, “Epigenetic markers and their cross-talk,” Essays in Biochemistry, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 45–61, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  44. S. Akbarian, R. Z. Chen, J. Gribnau et al., “Expression pattern of the Rett syndrome gene MeCP2 in primate prefrontal cortex,” Neurobiology of Disease, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 784–791, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  45. J. M. LaSalle, J. Goldstine, D. Balmer, and C. M. Greco, “Quantitative localization of heterogeneous methyl-CpG-binding protein 2 (MeCP2) expression phenotypes in normal and Rett syndrome brain by laser scanning cytometry,” Human Molecular Genetics, vol. 10, no. 17, pp. 1729–1740, 2001. View at: Google Scholar
  46. D. Balmer, J. Goldstine, Y. M. Rao, and J. M. LaSalle, “Elevated methyl-CpG-binding protein 2 expression is acquired during postnatal human brain development and is correlated with alternative polyadenylation,” Journal of Molecular Medicine, vol. 81, no. 1, pp. 61–68, 2003. View at: Google Scholar
  47. D. R. S. Cohen, V. Matarazzo, A. M. Palmer et al., “Expression of MeCP2 in olfactory receptor neurons is developmentally regulated and occurs before synaptogenesis,” Molecular and Cellular Neuroscience, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 417–429, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  48. S. Cassel, M. O. Revel, C. Kelche, and J. Zwiller, “Expression of the methyl-CpG-binding protein MeCP2 in rat brain. An ontogenetic study,” Neurobiology of Disease, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 206–211, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  49. D. Braunschweig, T. Simcox, R. C. Samaco, and J. M. LaSalle, “X-chromosome inactivation ratios affect wild-type MeCP2 expression within mosaic Rett syndrome and Mecp2-/+ mouse brain,” Human Molecular Genetics, vol. 13, no. 12, pp. 1275–1286, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  50. B. C. Mullaney, M. V. Johnston, and M. E. Blue, “Developmental expression of methyl-CpG binding protein 2 is dynamically regulated in the rodent brain,” Neuroscience, vol. 123, no. 4, pp. 939–949, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  51. N. Ballas, D. T. Lioy, C. Grunseich, and G. Mandel, “Non-cell autonomous influence of MeCP2-deficient glia on neuronal dendritic morphology,” Nature Neuroscience, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 311–317, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  52. N. Kishi and J. D. Macklis, “MECP2 is progressively expressed in post-migratory neurons and is involved in neuronal maturation rather than cell fate decisions,” Molecular and Cellular Neuroscience, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 306–321, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  53. R. Z. Chen, S. Akbarian, M. Tudor, and R. Jaenisch, “Deficiency of methyl-CpG binding protein-2 in CNS neurons results in a Rett-like phenotype in mice,” Nature Genetics, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 327–331, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  54. H. T. Chao, H. Chen, R. C. Samaco et al., “Dysfunction in GABA signalling mediates autism-like stereotypies and Rett syndrome phenotypes,” Nature, vol. 468, no. 7321, pp. 263–269, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  55. R. C. Samaco, C. Mandel-Brehm, H. T. Chao et al., “Loss of MeCP2 in aminergic neurons causes cell-autonomous defects in neurotransmitter synthesis and specific behavioral abnormalities,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 106, no. 51, pp. 21966–21971, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  56. M. Rastegar, A. Hotta, P. Pasceri et al., “MECP2 isoform-specific vectors with regulated expression for Rett Syndrome gene therapy,” PLoS ONE, vol. 4, no. 8, Article ID e6810, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  57. I. Maezawa, S. Swanberg, D. Harvey, J. M. LaSalle, and L. W. Jin, “Rett syndrome astrocytes are abnormal and spread MeCP2 deficiency through gap junctions,” Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 29, no. 16, pp. 5051–5061, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  58. D. T. Lioy, S. K. Garg, C. E. Monaghan et al., “A role for glia in the progression of Rett-syndrome,” Nature, vol. 475, no. 7357, pp. 497–500, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  59. A. L. Olins and D. E. Olins, “Spheroid chromatin units (v bodies),” Science, vol. 183, no. 4122, pp. 330–332, 1974. View at: Google Scholar
  60. E. Li, “Chromatin modification and epigenetic reprogramming in mammalian development,” Nature Reviews Genetics, vol. 3, no. 9, pp. 662–673, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  61. A. Ramachandran, M. Omar, P. Cheslock, and G. R. Schnitzler, “Linker histone H1 modulates nucleosome remodeling by human SWI/SNF,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 278, no. 49, pp. 48590–48601, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  62. Y. Fan, T. Nikitina, E. M. Morin-Kensicki et al., “H1 linker histones are essential for mouse development and affect nucleosome spacing in vivo,” Molecular and Cellular Biology, vol. 23, no. 13, pp. 4559–4572, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  63. Y. Fan, T. Nikitina, J. Zhao et al., “Histone H1 depletion in mammals alters global chromatin structure but causes specific changes in gene regulation,” Cell, vol. 123, no. 7, pp. 1199–1212, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  64. X. Nan, F. J. Campoy, and A. Bird, “MeCP2 is a transcriptional repressor with abundant binding sites in genomic chromatin,” Cell, vol. 88, no. 4, pp. 471–481, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  65. T. Ishibashi, A. A. Thambirajah, and J. Ausió, “MeCP2 preferentially binds to methylated linker DNA in the absence of the terminal tail of histone H3 and independently of histone acetylation,” FEBS Letters, vol. 582, no. 7, pp. 1157–1162, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  66. T. Misteli, A. Gunjan, R. Hock, M. Bustin, and D. T. Brown, “Dynamic binding of histone H1 to chromatin in living cells,” Nature, vol. 408, no. 6814, pp. 877–881, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  67. A. Kumar, S. Kamboj, B. M. Malone et al., “Analysis of protein domains and Rett syndrome mutations indicate that multiple regions influence chromatin-binding dynamics of the chromatin-associated protein MECP2 in vivo,” Journal of Cell Science, vol. 121, no. 7, pp. 1128–1137, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  68. K. Miyake, T. Hirasawa, M. Soutome et al., “The protocadherins, PCDHB1 and PCDH7, are regulated by MeCP2 in neuronal cells and brain tissues: implication for pathogenesis of Rett syndrome,” BMC Neuroscience, vol. 12, p. 81, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  69. J. H. Gibson, B. Slobedman, H. KN et al., “Downstream targets of methyl CpG binding protein 2 and their abnormal expression in the frontal cortex of the human Rett syndrome brain,” BMC Neuroscience, vol. 11, p. 53, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  70. K. Martinowich, D. Hattori, H. Wu et al., “DNA methylation-related chromatin remodeling in activity-dependent Bdnf gene regulation,” Science, vol. 302, no. 5646, pp. 890–893, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  71. W. G. Chen, Q. Chang, Y. Lin et al., “Derepression of BDNF transcription involves calcium-dependent phosphorylation of MeCP2,” Science, vol. 302, no. 5646, pp. 885–889, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  72. C. R. Jordan, H. H. Li, H. C. Kwan, and U. Francke, “Cerebellar gene expression profiles of mouse models for Rett syndrome reveal novel MeCP2 targets,” BMC Medical Genetics, vol. 8, p. 36, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  73. V. Deng, V. Matagne, F. Banine et al., “FXYD1 is an MeCP2 target gene overexpressed in the brains of Rett syndrome patients and Mecp2-null mice,” Human Molecular Genetics, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 640–650, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  74. S. Peddada, D. H. Yasui, and J. M. LaSalle, “Inhibitors of differentiation (ID1, ID2, ID3 and ID4) genes are neuronal targets of MeCP2 that are elevated in Rett syndrome,” Human Molecular Genetics, vol. 15, no. 12, pp. 2003–2014, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  75. M. Itoh, S. Ide, S. Takashima et al., “Methyl CpG-binding protein 2 (a mutation of which causes Rett syndrome) directly regulates insulin-like growth factor binding protein 3 in mouse and human brains,” Journal of Neuropathology and Experimental Neurology, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 117–123, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  76. R. C. Samaco, A. Hogart, and J. M. LaSalle, “Epigenetic overlap in autism-spectrum neurodevelopmental disorders: MECP2 deficiency causes reduced expression of UBE3A and GABRB3,” Human Molecular Genetics, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 483–492, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  77. I. Stancheva, A. L. Collins, I. B. van den Veyver, H. Zoghbi, and R. R. Meehan, “A mutant form of MeCP2 protein associated with human Rett syndrome cannot be displaced from methylated DNA by Notch in Xenopus embryos,” Molecular Cell, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 425–435, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  78. U. A. Nuber, S. Kriaucionis, T. C. Roloff et al., “Up-regulation of glucocorticoid-regulated genes in a mouse model of Rett syndrome,” Human Molecular Genetics, vol. 14, no. 15, pp. 2247–2256, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  79. S. Kriaucionis, A. Paterson, J. Curtis, J. Guy, N. MacLeod, and A. Bird, “Gene expression analysis exposes mitochondrial abnormalities in a mouse model of Rett syndrome,” Molecular and Cellular Biology, vol. 26, no. 13, pp. 5033–5042, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  80. B. E. McGill, S. F. Bundle, M. B. Yaylaoglu, J. P. Carson, C. Thaller, and H. Y. Zoghbi, “Enhanced anxiety and stress-induced corticosterone release are associated with increased Crh expression in a mouse model of Rett syndrome,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 103, no. 48, pp. 18267–18272, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  81. S. I. Horike, S. Cai, M. Miyano, J. F. Cheng, and T. Kohwi-Shigematsu, “Loss of silent-chromatin looping and impaired imprinting of DLX5 in Rett syndrome,” Nature Genetics, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 31–40, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  82. D. H. Yasui, S. Peddada, M. C. Bieda et al., “Integrated epigenomic analyses of neuronal MeCP2 reveal a role for long-range interaction with active genes,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 104, no. 49, pp. 19416–19421, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  83. Q. Chang, G. Khare, V. Dani, S. Nelson, and R. Jaenisch, “The disease progression of Mecp2 mutant mice is affected by the level of BDNF expression,” Neuron, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 341–348, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  84. M. Girard, P. Couvert, A. Carrié et al., “Parental origin of de novo MECP2 mutations in Rett syndrome,” European Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 231–236, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  85. R. Trappe, F. Laccone, J. Cobilanschi et al., “MECP2 mutations in sporadic cases of Rett syndrome are almost exclusively of paternal origin,” American Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 68, no. 5, pp. 1093–1101, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  86. H. G. Dunn, “Importance of Rett syndrome in child neurology,” Brain and Development, vol. 23, supplement 1, pp. S38–S43, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  87. J. L. Neul, W. E. Kaufmann, D. G. Glaze et al., “Rett syndrome: revised diagnostic criteria and nomenclature,” Annals of Neurology, vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 944–950, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  88. M. Chahrour and H. Y. Zoghbi, “The story of Rett syndrome: from clinic to neurobiology,” Neuron, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 422–437, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  89. P. Kankirawatana, H. Leonard, C. Ellaway et al., “Early progressive encephalopathy in boys and MECP2 mutations,” Neurology, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 164–166, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  90. A. K. Percy and J. B. Lane, “Rett syndrome: model of neurodevelopmental disorders,” Journal of Child Neurology, vol. 20, no. 9, pp. 718–721, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
  91. R. E. Amir, V. R. Sutton, and I. B. van den Veyver, “Newborn screening and prenatal diagnosis for Rett syndrome: implications for therapy,” Journal of Child Neurology, vol. 20, no. 9, pp. 779–783, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
  92. L. Villard, A. Kpebe, C. Cardoso, J. Chelly, M. Tardieu, and M. Fontes, “Two affected boys in a Rett syndrome family: clinical and molecular findings,” Neurology, vol. 55, no. 8, pp. 1188–1193, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
  93. K. Ravn, J. B. Nielsen, P. Uldall, F. J. Hansen, and M. Schwartz, “No correlation between phenotype and genotype in boys with a truncating MECP2 mutation,” Journal of Medical Genetics, vol. 40, no. 1, p. e5, 2003. View at: Google Scholar
  94. T. Bienvenu, A. Carrié, N. de Roux et al., “MECP2 mutations account for most cases of typical forms of Rett syndrome,” Human Molecular Genetics, vol. 9, no. 9, pp. 1377–1384, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
  95. C. Schanen, E. J. F. Houwink, N. Dorrani et al., “Phenotypic manifestations of MECP2 mutations in classical and atypical Rett syndrome,” American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, vol. 126, no. 2, pp. 129–140, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
  96. A. Bebbington, A. Anderson, D. Ravine et al., “Investigating genotype-phenotype relationships in Rett syndrome using an international data set,” Neurology, vol. 70, no. 11, pp. 868–875, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  97. R. C. Samaco, R. P. Nagarajan, D. Braunschweig, and J. M. LaSalle, “Multiple pathways regulate MeCP2 expression in normal brain development and exhibit defects in autism-spectrum disorders,” Human Molecular Genetics, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 629–639, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  98. P. Watson, G. Black, S. Ramsden et al., “Angelman syndrome phenotype associated with mutations in MECP2, a gene encoding a methyl CpG binding protein,” Journal of Medical Genetics, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 224–228, 2001. View at: Google Scholar
  99. G. Miltenberger-Miltenyi and F. Laccone, “Mutations and polymorphisms in the human methyl CpG-binding protein MECP2,” Human Mutation, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 107–115, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  100. H. Y. Zoghbi, “MeCP2 dysfunction in humans and mice,” Journal of Child Neurology, vol. 20, no. 9, pp. 736–740, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
  101. E. Giacometti, S. Luikenhuis, C. Beard, and R. Jaenisch, “Partial rescue of MeCP2 deficiency by postnatal activation of MeCP2,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 104, no. 6, pp. 1931–1936, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  102. J. Guy, J. Gan, J. Selfridge, S. Cobb, and A. Bird, “Reversal of neurological defects in a mouse model of Rett syndrome,” Science, vol. 315, no. 5815, pp. 1143–1147, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  103. M. J. Friez, J. R. Jones, K. Clarkson et al., “Recurrent infections, hypotonia, and mental retardation caused by duplication of MECP2 and adjacent region in Xq28,” Pediatrics, vol. 118, no. 6, pp. e1687–e1695, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  104. M. Meins, J. Lehmann, F. Gerresheim et al., “Submicroscopic duplication in Xq28 causes increased expression of the MECP2 gene in a boy with severe mental retardation and features of Rett syndrome,” Journal of Medical Genetics, vol. 42, no. 2, p. e12, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
  105. H. van Esch, M. Bauters, J. Ignatius et al., “Duplication of the MECP2 region is a frequent cause of severe mental retardation and progressive neurological symptoms in males,” American Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 77, no. 3, pp. 442–453, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  106. D. Tropea, E. Giacometti, N. R. Wilson et al., “Partial reversal of Rett syndrome-like symptoms in MeCP2 mutant mice,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 106, no. 6, pp. 2029–2034, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  107. A. Hotta, A. Y. L. Cheung, N. Farra et al., “Isolation of human iPS cells using EOS lentiviral vectors to select for pluripotency,” Nature Methods, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 370–376, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  108. M. C. N. Marchetto, C. Carromeu, A. Acab et al., “A model for neural development and treatment of rett syndrome using human induced pluripotent stem cells,” Cell, vol. 143, no. 4, pp. 527–539, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2012 Robby Mathew Zachariah and Mojgan Rastegar. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

5345 Views | 1697 Downloads | 54 Citations
 PDF  Download Citation  Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder
 Sign up for content alertsSign up