4.6 Article

Best's macular dystrophy in Australia: phenotypic profile and identification of novel BEST1 mutations

Journal

EYE
Volume 25, Issue 2, Pages 208-217

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/eye.2010.180

Keywords

vitelliform macular dystrophy; BEST1; VMD2; genetic eye disease

Categories

Funding

  1. Clifford Craig Medical Research Trust
  2. Ophthalmic Research Institute of Australia
  3. Peggy and Leslie Cranbourne Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose (1) To evaluate the spectrum of BEST1 mutations within Australian Best Disease or vitelliform macular dystrophy (VMD) pedigrees, including any novel mutations; (2) to analyse the range of clinical presentations of this cohort; (3) to determine any possible genotype-phenotype correlations and (4) to compare clinical data of patients with phenotypic VMD, both with and without a BEST1 mutation. Patients and methods Patients with suspected VMD were referred to clinical centres for ophthalmological assessment and genetic screening. When a mutation was identified in a proband, further family members were invited for clinical and genetic screening. Results We identified 42 patients with one of 13 BEST1 mutations. Seven mutations were novel. There were a further 14 probands in whom a BEST1 mutation was not identified. Median visual acuity in both VMD (mutation positive) and clinical VMD (no BEST1 mutation identified) groups reached driving standards (6/12 or better). Conclusion We did not identify any firm genotype-phenotype correlations in our Australian VMD pedigrees, in which there was a spectrum of BEST1 mutations and marked variation in clinical presentation. Genetic screening remains the gold standard for VMD diagnosis. Patients should be counselled that visual acuity might remain at or above driving standards in at least one eye even in the presence of a BEST1 mutation. Eye (2011) 25, 208-217; doi:10.1038/eye.2010.180; published online 26 November 2010

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available