Jeremy Prokop

Dr. Jeremy Prokop


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

16Years (2011-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 December 2016 in Neurology Genetics
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
RMRikke S. Møller
Rikke S. Møller
SWSarah Weckhuysen
Sarah Weckhuysen
MCMathilde Chipaux
Mathilde Chipaux
EMElise Marsan
Elise Marsan
VTValérie Taly
Valérie Taly
SBStéphanie Baulac
Stéphanie Baulac
Objective: To assess the prevalence of somatic MTOR mutations in focal cortical dysplasia (FCD) and of germline MTOR mutations in a broad range of epilepsies. Methods: We collected 20 blood-brain paired samples from patients with FCD and searched for somatic variants using deep-targeted gene panel sequencing. Germline mutations in MTOR were assessed in a French research cohort of 93 probands with focal epilepsies and in a diagnostic Danish cohort of 245 patients with a broad range of epilepsies. Data sharing among collaborators allowed us to ascertain additional germline variants in MTOR. Results: We detected recurrent somatic variants (p.Ser2215Phe, p.Ser2215Tyr, and p.Leu1460Pro) in the MTOR gene in 37% of participants with FCD II and showed histologic evidence for activation of the mTORC1 signaling cascade in brain tissue. We further identified 5 novel de novo germline missense MTOR variants in 6 individuals with a variable phenotype from focal, and less frequently generalized, epilepsies without brain malformations, to macrocephaly, with or without moderate intellectual disability. In addition, an inherited variant was found in a mother–daughter pair with nonlesional autosomal dominant nocturnal frontal lobe epilepsy. Conclusions: Our data illustrate the increasingly important role of somatic mutations of the MTOR gene in FCD and germline mutations in the pathogenesis of focal epilepsy syndromes with and without brain malformation or macrocephaly.

1 January 2011 in Frontiers in Physiology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
DCDonald L. Copeland
Donald L. Copeland
RDRobert Joel Duff
Robert Joel Duff
QLQin Liu
Qin Liu
JPJeremy Prokop
Jeremy Prokop
RLRichard Lyle Londraville
Richard Lyle Londraville
All organisms face tradeoffs with regard to how limited energy resources should be invested. When is it most favorable to grow, to reproduce, how much lipid should be allocated to storage in preparation for a period of limited resources (e.g., winter), instead of being used for growth or maturation? These are a few of the high consequence fitness “decisions” that represent the balance between energy acquisition and allocation. Indeed, for animals to make favorable decisions about when to grow, eat, or reproduce, they must integrate signals among the systems responsible for energy acquisition, storage, and demand. We make the argument that leptin signaling is a likely candidate for an integrating system. Great progress has been made understanding the leptin system in mammals, however our understanding in fishes has been hampered by difficulty in cloning fish orthologs of mammalian proteins and (we assert), underutilization of the comparative approach.

28 November 2017 in Obesity
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
GKGregory Keele
Gregory Keele
JPJeremy Prokop
Jeremy Prokop
HHHong He
Hong He
KHKatie Holl
Katie Holl
JLJohn Littrell
John Littrell
LWLeah C. Solberg Woods
Leah C. Solberg Woods
Objective: Obesity is a major risk factor for multiple diseases and is in part heritable, yet the majority of causative genetic variants that drive excessive adiposity remain unknown. Here, outbred heterogeneous stock (HS) rats were used in controlled environmental conditions to fine‐map novel genetic modifiers of adiposity.Methods: Body weight and visceral fat pad weights were measured in male HS rats that were also genotyped genome‐wide. Quantitative trait loci (QTL) were identified by genome‐wide association of imputed single‐nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotypes using a linear mixed effect model that accounts for unequal relatedness between the HS rats. Candidate genes were assessed by protein modeling and mediation analysis of expression for coding and noncoding variants, respectively.Results: HS rats exhibited large variation in adiposity traits, which were highly heritable and correlated with metabolic health. Fine‐mapping of fat pad weight and body weight revealed three QTL and prioritized five candidate genes. Fat pad weight was associated with missense SNPs in Adcy3 and Prlhr and altered expression of Krtcap3 and Slc30a3, whereas Grid2 was identified as a candidate within the body weight locus.Conclusions: These data demonstrate the power of HS rats for identification of known and novel heritable mediators of obesity traits.

1 June 2014 in Journal of Molecular Endocrinology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
Robert M. DoresRobert M. Dores
Robert M. Dores
RLRichard L Londraville
Richard L Londraville
JPJeremy Prokop
Jeremy Prokop
PDPerry Davis
Perry Davis
NDNathan Dewey
Nathan Dewey
NLNatalie Lesinski
Natalie Lesinski
The melanocortin receptors (MCRs) are a family of G protein-coupled receptors that are activated by melanocortin ligands derived from the proprotein, proopiomelanocortin (POMC). During the radiation of the gnathostomes, the five receptors have become functionally segregated (i.e. melanocortin 1 receptor (MC1R), pigmentation regulation; MC2R, glucocorticoid synthesis; MC3R and MC4R, energy homeostasis; and MC5R, exocrine gland physiology). A focus of this review is the role that ligand selectivity plays in the hypothalamus/pituitary/adrenal–interrenal (HPA–I) axis of teleosts and tetrapods as a result of the exclusive ligand selectivity of MC2R for the ligand ACTH. A second focal point of this review is the roles that the accessory proteins melanocortin 2 receptor accessory protein 1 (MRAP1) and MRAP2 are playing in, respectively, the HPA–I axis (MC2R) and the regulation of energy homeostasis by neurons in the hypothalamus (MC4R) of teleosts and tetrapods. In addition, observations are presented on trends in the ligand selectivity parameters of cartilaginous fish, teleost, and tetrapod MC1R, MC3R, MC4R, and MC5R paralogs, and the modeling of the HFRW motif of ACTH(1–24) when compared with α-MSH. The radiation of the MCRs during the evolution of the gnathostomes provides examples of how the physiology of endocrine and neuronal circuits can be shaped by ligand selectivity, the intersession of reverse agonists (agouti-related peptides (AGRPs)), and interactions with accessory proteins (MRAPs).

11 March 2015 in Genes & Development
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
ACAndrew T. Chang
Andrew T. Chang
YLYuanjie Liu
Yuanjie Liu
KAKasirajan Ayyanathan
Kasirajan Ayyanathan
CBChris Benner
Chris Benner
YJYike Jiang
Yike Jiang
JYJing Yang
Jing Yang
Basic helix–loop–helix (bHLH) transcription factors recognize the canonical E-box (CANNTG) to regulate gene transcription; however, given the prevalence of E-boxes in a genome, it has been puzzling how individual bHLH proteins selectively recognize E-box sequences on their targets. TWIST is a bHLH transcription factor that promotes epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT) during development and tumor metastasis. High-resolution mapping of TWIST occupancy in human and Drosophila genomes reveals that TWIST, but not other bHLH proteins, recognizes a unique double E-box motif with two E-boxes spaced preferentially by 5 nucleotides. Using molecular modeling and binding kinetic analyses, we found that the strict spatial configuration in the double E-box motif aligns two TWIST–E47 dimers on the same face of DNA, thus providing a high-affinity site for a highly stable intramolecular tetramer. Biochemical analyses showed that the WR domain of TWIST dimerizes to mediate tetramer formation, which is functionally required for TWIST-induced EMT. These results uncover a novel mechanism for a bHLH transcription factor to recognize a unique spatial configuration of E-boxes to achieve target specificity. The WR–WR domain interaction uncovered here sets an example of target gene specificity of a bHLH protein being controlled allosterically by a domain outside of the bHLH region.

1 December 2012 in Peptides
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
JPJeremy Prokop
Jeremy Prokop
RDR.J. Duff
R.J. Duff
HBH.C. Ball
H.C. Ball
DCD.L. Copeland
D.L. Copeland
RLR.L. Londraville
R.L. Londraville