Why the study?
Mutations in GNB5 were recently linked to a multisystem disorder featuring severe bradycardia, but the underlying electrophysiological mechanism remained unknown.
Does the specific I(KACh) blocker XEN-R0703 reverse the electrophysiological abnormalities in hiPSC-CMs homozygous for the GNB5 p.S81L variant?
Does the specific I(KACh) blocker XEN-R0703 reverse the electrophysiological abnormalities in hiPSC-CMs homozygous for the GNB5 p.S81L variant?
The study provides mechanistic proof that GNB5 p.S81L mutations cause bradycardia via increased IK,ACh, and demonstrates that the blocker XEN-R0703 can reverse this phenotype in vitro.
XEN-R0703 may offer a precision approach for GNB5 bradycardia; leaves clinical translation open pending further studies.
Mutations in GNB5, encoding the G-protein β5 subunit (Gβ5), have recently been linked to a multisystem disorder that includes severe bradycardia. Here, we investigated the mechanism underlying bradycardia caused by the recessive p.S81L Gβ5 variant. Using CRISPR/Cas9-based targeting, we generated an isogenic series of human induced pluripotent stem cell (hiPSC) lines that were either wild type, heterozygous or homozygous for the GNB5 p.S81L variant. These were differentiated into cardiomyocytes (hiPSC-CMs) that robustly expressed the acetylcholine-activated potassium channel [I(KACh); also known as IK,ACh]. Baseline electrophysiological properties of the lines did not differ. Upon application of carbachol (CCh), homozygous p.S81L hiPSC-CMs displayed an increased acetylcholine-activated potassium current (IK,ACh) density and a more pronounced decrease of spontaneous activity as compared to wild-type and heterozygous p.S81L hiPSC-CMs, explaining the bradycardia in homozygous carriers. Application of the specific I(KACh) blocker XEN-R0703 resulted in near-complete reversal of the phenotype. Our results provide mechanistic insights and proof of principle for potential therapy in patients carrying GNB5 mutations. This article has an associated First Person interview with the first author of the paper.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Veerman et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: