4.4 Article

Targeted sequencing of 351 candidate genes for epileptic encephalopathy in a large cohort of patients

Journal

MOLECULAR GENETICS & GENOMIC MEDICINE
Volume 4, Issue 5, Pages 568-580

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mgg3.235

Keywords

De novo; epileptic encephalopathy; HNRNPU; loss-of-function; prioritization; recessive; targeted panel sequencing; X-linked

Funding

  1. Euroepinomics-RES [G.A.136.11.N]
  2. FWO [1125416N]
  3. ICA [G0E8614N]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Many genes are candidates for involvement in epileptic encephalopathy (EE) because one or a few possibly pathogenic variants have been found in patients, but insufficient genetic or functional evidence exists for a definite annotation. Methods To increase the number of validated EE genes, we sequenced 26 known and 351 candidate genes for EE in 360 patients. Variants in 25 genes known to be involved in EE or related phenotypes were followed up in 41 patients. We prioritized the candidate genes, and followed up 31 variants in this prioritized subset of candidate genes. Results Twenty-nine genotypes in known genes for EE (19) or related diseases (10), dominant as well as recessive or X-linked, were classified as likely pathogenic variants. Among those, likely pathogenic de novo variants were found in EE genes that act dominantly, including the recently identified genes EEF1A2, KCNB1 and the X-linked gene IQSEC2. A de novo frameshift variant in candidate gene HNRNPU was the only de novo variant found among the followed-up candidate genes, and the patient's phenotype was similar to a few recent publications. Conclusion Mutations in genes described in OMIM as, for example, intellectual disability gene can lead to phenotypes that get classified as EE in the clinic. We confirmed existing literature reports that de novo loss-of-function HNRNPUmutations lead to severe developmental delay and febrile seizures in the first year of life.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available