4.1 Article

Exome sequencing of a patient with suspected mitochondrial disease reveals a likely multigenic etiology

Journal

BMC MEDICAL GENETICS
Volume 14, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2350-14-83

Keywords

Encephalomyopathy; Lowe syndrome; OCRL; SETX; Diagnostics; Genocopy

Funding

  1. Texas Norman Hackerman Advanced Research Program [[THECB] 02006]
  2. Research to Prevent Blindness, New York, N.Y.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The clinical features of mitochondrial disease are complex and highly variable, leading to challenges in establishing a specific diagnosis. Despite being one of the most commonly occurring inherited genetic diseases with an incidence of 1/5000, similar to 90% of these complex patients remain without a DNA-based diagnosis. We report our efforts to identify the pathogenetic cause for a patient with typical features of mitochondrial disease including infantile cataracts, CPEO, ptosis, progressive distal muscle weakness, and ataxia who carried a diagnosis of mitochondrial disease for over a decade. Methods: Whole exome sequencing and bioinformatic analysis of these data were conducted on the proband. Results: Exome sequencing studies showed a homozygous splice site mutation in SETX, which is known to cause Spinocerebellar Ataxia, Autosomal Recessive 1 (SCAR1). Additionally a missense mutation was identified in a highly conserved position of the OCRL gene, which causes Lowe Syndrome and Dent Disease 2. Conclusions: This patient's complex phenotype reflects a complex genetic etiology in which no single gene explained the complete clinical presentation. These genetic studies reveal that this patient does not have mitochondrial disease but rather a genocopy caused by more than one mutant locus. This study demonstrates the benefit of exome sequencing in providing molecular diagnosis to individuals with complex clinical presentations.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available