4.1 Article

Search of somatic GATA4 and NKX2.5 gene mutations in sporadic septal heart defects

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL GENETICS
Volume 54, Issue 3, Pages 306-309

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmg.2011.01.004

Keywords

Congenital heart disease; Cardiac septal defect; Somatic mutations; GATA4; NKX2.5

Funding

  1. Italian Ministry of Health [RC2009, RC2010]
  2. FIRB [RBIP06PMF2_005]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

High prevalence of somatic mutations in the cardiac transcription factor genes NKX2.5 and GATA4 have been reported in the affected cardiovascular tissue of patients with isolated cardiac septal defects, suggesting a role of somatic mutations in the pathogenesis of these congenital heart defects (CHDs). However, all somatic mutations have been identified in DNA extracted from an archive of formalin-fixed cardiac tissues. In the present study, to address the hypothesis that somatic mutations are important in isolated CHDs, we analyzed the GATA4 and NKX2.5 genes in the fresh-frozen pathologic cardiac tissue specimen and corresponding non-diseased tissue obtained from a series of 62 CHD patients, including 35 patients with cardiac septal defects and 27 with other cardiac anomalies. We identified one variant and two common polymorphisms in the NKX2.5 gene, and six variants and two common polymorphisms in the GATA4 gene. All identified variants were seen in both the fresh-frozen pathologic cardiac tissue and the corresponding non-diseased tissue, which indicates that they all were constitutional variants. The present study has identified NKX2.5 and GATA4 constitutional variants in our CHD cohort, but was unable to replicate the previously published findings of high prevalence of somatically derived sequence mutations in patients with cardiac septal defects using fresh-frozen cardiac tissues rather than formalin-fixed tissues. (C) 2011 Elsevier Masson SAS. 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

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available