4.5 Article

Analysis of the CYP21A1P pseudogene: Indication of mutational diversity and CYP21A2-like and duplicated CYP21A2 genes

Journal

ANALYTICAL BIOCHEMISTRY
Volume 413, Issue 2, Pages 133-141

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ab.2011.02.016

Keywords

CYP21A1P; XA; CYP21A2-like gene; Duplicated CYP21A2 genes; PCR-based amplification; Mutational detection

Funding

  1. Buddhist Tzu Chi General Hospital of Taiwan [TCRD-TPE-97-C1-4]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The CYP21A1P gene downstream of the XA gene, carrying 15 deteriorated mutations, is a nonfunctional pseudogene that shares 98% nucleotide sequence homology with CYP21A2 located on chromosome 6p21.3. However, these mutations in the CYP21A1 P gene are not totally involved in each individual. From our analysis of 100 healthy ethnic Chinese (i.e., Taiwanese) (n = 200 chromosomes) using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) products combined with an amplification-created restriction site (ACRS) method and DNA sequencing, we found that approximately 10% of CYP21A1P alleles (n = 195 chromosomes) presented the CYP21A2 sequence: frequencies of P30, V281, Q318, and R356 in that locus were approximately 24%, 21%, 11%, and 34%, respectively, and approximately 90% of the CYP21A1P alleles had 15 mutated loci. In addition, approximately 2.5% (n = 5 chromosomes) showed four haplotypes of the 3.7-kb Taql-produced fragment of the CYP21A2-like gene and one duplicated CYP21A2 gene. We conclude that the pseudogene of the CYP21A1P mutation presents diverse variants. Moreover, the existence of the CYP21A2-like gene is more abundant than that of the duplicated CYP21A2 gene downstream of the XA gene and could not be distinguished from the CYP21A2-TNXB gene; thus, it may be misdiagnosed by previously established methods for congenital adrenal hyperplasia caused by a 21-hydroxylase deficiency. (C) 2011 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