4.2 Article

Phenotype and genotype analysis of a French cohort of 119 patients with CHARGE syndrome

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.c.31591

Keywords

CHARGE syndrome; CHD7 gene; genotype; phenotype

Funding

  1. French Ministry of Health [ID-RCB: 2010-A00700-39]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

CHARGE syndrome (CS) is a genetic disorder whose first description included Coloboma, Heart disease, Atresia of choanae, Retarded growth and development, Genital hypoplasia, and Ear anomalies and deafness, most often caused by a genetic mutation in the CHD7 gene. Two features were then added: semicircular canal anomalies and arhinencephaly/olfactory bulb agenesis, with classification of typical, partial, or atypical forms on the basis of major and minor clinical criteria. The detection rate of a pathogenic variant in the CHD7 gene varies from 67% to 90%. To try to have an overview of this heterogenous clinical condition and specify a genotype-phenotype relation, we conducted a national study of phenotype and genotype in 119 patients with CS. Selected clinical diagnostic criteria were from Verloes (2005), updated by Blake & Prasad (2006). Besides obtaining a detailed clinical description, when possible, patients underwent a full ophthalmologic examination, audiometry, temporal bone CT scan, gonadotropin analysis, and olfactory-bulb MRI. All patients underwent CHD7 sequencing and MLPA analysis. We found a pathogenic CHD7 variant in 83% of typical CS cases and 58% of atypical cases. Pathogenic variants in the CHD7 gene were classified by the expected impact on the protein. In all, 90% of patients had a typical form of CS and 10% an atypical form. The most frequent features were deafness/semicircular canal hypoplasia (94%), pituitary defect/hypogonadism (89%), external ear anomalies (87%), square-shaped face (81%), and arhinencephaly/anosmia (80%). Coloboma (73%), heart defects (65%), and choanal atresia (43%) were less frequent.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available