4.4 Article

Molecular screening of PROKR2 gene in girls with idiopathic central precocious puberty

Journal

ITALIAN JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
Volume 47, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13052-020-00951-z

Keywords

PROKR2; Early central precocious puberty; Genetic screening

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PROKR2 mutations do not appear to be a common cause of central precocious puberty in girls, as evidenced by the lack of rare variants in a cohort of 31 girls with precocious puberty and the identification of only 5 common polymorphisms, with one showing a higher minor allele frequency than reported in the genome aggregation database (gnomAD).
Background: Prokineticin receptor 2 (PROKR2) loss of function mutations have been described as cause of hypogonadotropic hypogonadism. In 2017, a first case of central precocious puberty (CPP) caused by PROKR2 heterozygous gain of function mutation was described in a 3.5 years-old girl. No other cases have been reported yet. This study performs a molecular screening in girls with early onset CPP (breast budding before 6 years of age) to identify possible alterations in PROKR2. Methods: We analysed DNA of 31 girls with idiopathic CPP diagnosed via basal LH levels > 0.3 IU/L or peak-LH > 5 IU/L after stimulation, without any MKRN3 mutations. The Fisher exact test was used to compare polymorphism allele frequency to corresponding ones in genome aggregation database (gnomAD). Results: No rare variants were identified. Five polymorphisms were found (rs6076809, rs8116897, rS3746684, rs3746682, rs3746683). All except one (i.e. rs3746682) had a minor allele frequency (MAF) similar to that reported in literature. rs3746682 presented a MAF higher than that described in the gnomAD (0.84 in our cohort vs 0.25 from gnomAD). Conclusions: As for other G protein-coupled receptors (i.e. GPR54), mutations in PROKR2 do not seem to be a frequent cause of CPP in girls.

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