4.5 Article

Genetic screening of calcium regulation genes in familial hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

Journal

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR AND CELLULAR CARDIOLOGY
Volume 43, Issue 3, Pages 337-343

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.yjmcc.2007.06.009

Keywords

hypertrophic cardiomyopathy; genes; calcium; calreticulin; phospholamban

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Genes encoding Ca2+ regulatory proteins responsible for Ca2+ homeostasis have been suggested as possible candidates for FHC. Mutations in sarcomere genes account for approximately 50% of all FHC cases indicating other genes, including those involved in Ca2+ handling, may account for the remainder. The aim of this study was to identify causative mutations in genes involved in Ca2+ regulation in patients with familial hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (FHC). An Australian cohort of 252 unrelated familial hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients were screened for mutations in the Ca2+ regulatory genes, sorcin (SRI), calstabin (FKBPIB), calsequestrin (CASQ2), phospholamban (PLN), sarcolipin (SLN), calreticulin (CALR3) and calmodulin (CALM). A total of 17 exonic DNA variants were identified in the 7 Ca2+ regulatory genes studied, of which 4 were considered of pathogenic significance. Two novel mutations in the CALR3 gene were identified (Lys82Arg, Arg73Gln) and one truncation mutation in the PLN gene (Leu39Ter). A variant was also identified in the CASQ2 gene (Asp63Glu). These four variants were all novel, resulted in changes in conserved amino acids and were not identified in a normal population. In conclusion, mutations in Ca2+ handling genes are an infrequent but important cause of FHC. DNA variants in Ca2+ genes may also be involved as modifying factors in phenotype development. Further evaluation of the role of defects in Ca2+ regulation will shed light on the molecular pathogenesis of FHC. (c) 2007 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