4.6 Article

Heteroplasmy and Copy Number in the Common m.3243A>G Mutation-A Post-Mortem Genotype-Phenotype Analysis

Journal

GENES
Volume 11, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/genes11020212

Keywords

MELAS-syndrome; genotype-phenotype correlation; mtDNA heteroplasmy; m; 3243A > G

Funding

  1. German Ministry of Education and Research - Hertha-Nathor ff-Programm (HNP) of the Ulm Medical University, Germany

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Different mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) mutations have been identified to cause mitochondrial encephalopathy, lactate acidosis and stroke-like episodes (MELAS). The underlying genetic cause leading to an enormous clinical heterogeneity associated with m.3243A>G-related mitochondrial diseases is still poorly understood. Genotype-phenotype correlation (heteroplasmy levels and clinical symptoms) was analysed in 16 patients (15 literature cases and one unreported case) harbouring the m.3243A>G mutation. mtDNA copy numbers were correlated to heteroplasmy levels in 30 different post-mortem tissue samples, including 14 brain samples of a 46-year-old female. In the central nervous system, higher levels of heteroplasmy correlated significantly with lower mtDNA copy numbers. Skeletal muscle levels of heteroplasmy correlated significantly with kidney and liver. There was no significant difference of heteroplasmy levels between clinically affected and unaffected patients. In the patient presented, we found >75% heteroplasmy levels in all central nervous system samples, without harbouring a MELAS phenotype. This underlines previous suggestions, that really high levels in tissues do not automatically lead to a specific phenotype. Missing significant differences of heteroplasmy levels between clinically affected and unaffected patients underline recent suggestions that there are additional factors such as mtDNA copy number and nuclear factors that may also influence disease severity.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available