4.5 Article

Patterns of missplicling caused by RB1 gene mutations in patients with retinoblastoma and association with phenotypic expression

Journal

HUMAN MUTATION
Volume 29, Issue 4, Pages 475-484

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/humu.20664

Keywords

retinoblastoma; RB1; splicing; genotype-phenotype; gross rearrangements; mutational mosaicism

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We have analyzed RNA from retinoblastoma. patients and unaffected carriers with various RB1 gene mutations to determine the patterns of missplicing and associations with phenotypic expression. Most sequence alterations in or in the neighborhood of conserved splice signals that we tested resulted in simple exon skipping (15 mutations) or intron inclusion (new acceptor AG-sites, four mutations) as expected. Two mutations resulted in skipping of a neighboring exon (exon 11), a complex pattern indicating competition for correct lariat formation. We observed no activation of a cryptic splice site but found that a recurrent missense mutation in exon 7 creates a new splice site (two families). RTPCR analysis enabled us to confirm the presence and to characterize the transcriptional consequences of gross insertions and deletions in the RB1 gene in six patients, including two patients with mutational mosaicism. We also used RT-PCR analysis to search for unknown mutations in 15 patients and identified three oncogenic point mutations deep in introns. Two of these mutations are recurrent thus indicating that, despite the vast extent of the introns of the RB1 gene, few bases are effective targets for oncogenic mutations. When analyzing associations between phenotypic expression (16 families) and mutational consequences we observed no link to the presence or absence of a premature termination codon in the mutant transcript. However, the location of a mutation relative to the splice sequence has a strong and consistent influence on phenotypic expression.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available