Why the study?
RBM20 cardiomyopathy is thought to be provoked by titin isoform switching and resting Ca2+ leaking, but the effect of stabilizing ryanodine receptors on resting intracellular Ca2+ and cardiomyocyte contractility across age remained to be characterized.
Does S107 improve contractility and intracellular Ca2+ levels in Rbm20 knockout rat cardiomyocytes?
Does S107 improve contractility and intracellular Ca2+ levels in Rbm20 knockout rat cardiomyocytes?
The ryanodine receptor stabilizer S107 shows therapeutic promise for RBM20 cardiomyopathy by restoring intracellular Ca2+ and improving contractility in early stages, though it loses efficacy in older animals.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support early Ca2+ stabilization in RBM20 models; leaves open long-term efficacy and clinical translation.
RNA binding motif 20 (RBM20) cardiomyopathy has been detected in approximately 3% of populations afflicted with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). It is well conceived that RBM20 cardiomyopathy is provoked by titin isoform switching in combination with resting Ca2+ leaking. In this study, we characterized the cardiac function in Rbm20 knockout (KO) rats at 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-months of age and examined the effect of the ryanodine receptor stabilizer S107 on resting intracellular levels and cardiomyocyte contractile properties. Our results revealed that even though Rbm20 depletion promoted expression of larger titin isoform and reduced myocardial stiffness in young rats (3 months of age), the established DCM phenotype required more time to embellish. S107 restored elevated intracellular Ca2+ to normal levels and ameliorated cardiomyocyte contractile properties in isolated cardiomyocytes from 6-month-old Rbm20 KO rats. However, S107 failed to preserve cardiac homeostasis in Rbm20 KO rats at 12 months of age, unexpectedly, likely due to the existence of multiple pathogenic mechanisms. Taken together, our data suggest the therapeutic promises of S107 in the management of RBM20 cardiomyopathy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Guo et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: