4.5 Article

Lack of C9ORF72 coding mutations supports a gain of function for repeat expansions in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

Journal

NEUROBIOLOGY OF AGING
Volume 34, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2013.03.006

Keywords

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; Genetics; C9ORF72 hexanucleotide repeat; C9ORF72

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [NS069669, K08NS075094]
  2. Hope Center for Neurological Disorders
  3. Burroughs Wellcome Fund
  4. National Center for Research Resources (NCRR), a component of the NIH [UL1 RR024992]
  5. NIH Roadmap for Medical Research
  6. Lung GO Sequencing Project [HL-102923]
  7. WHI Sequencing Project [HL-102924]
  8. Broad GO Sequencing Project [HL-102925]
  9. Seattle GO Sequencing Project [HL-102926]
  10. Heart GO Sequencing Project [HL-103010]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Hexanucleotide repeat expansions in C9ORF72 are a common cause of familial and apparently sporadic amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontal temporal dementia (FTD). The mechanism by which expansions cause neurodegeneration is unknown, but current evidence supports both loss-of-function andgain-of-function mechanisms. We used pooled next-generation sequencing of the C9ORF72 gene in 389 ALS patients to look for traditional loss-of-function mutations. Although rare variants were identified, none were likely to be pathogenic, suggesting that mutations other than the repeat expansion are not a common cause of ALS, and providing supportive evidence for a gain-of-function mechanism. We also show by repeat-primed PCR genotyping that the C9ORF72 expansion frequency varies by geographical region within the United States, with an unexpectedly high frequency in the Mid-West. Finally we also show evidence of somatic instability of the expansion size by Southern blot, with the largest expansions occurring in brain tissue. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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