4.7 Article

A Homozygous Nonsense Mutation within the Dystonin Gene Coding for the Coiled-Coil Domain of the Epithelial Isoform of BPAG1 Underlies a New Subtype of Autosomal Recessive Epidermolysis Bullosa Simplex

期刊

JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE DERMATOLOGY
卷 130, 期 6, 页码 1551-1557

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1038/jid.2010.19

关键词

-

资金

  1. Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Research Association (DebRA, UK)
  2. UK Department of Health through the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Epidermolysis bullosa (EB) is a group of autosomal dominant and recessive blistering skin diseases in which pathogenic mutations have been reported in 13 different genes encoding structural proteins involved in keratinocyte integrity, as well as cell-matrix or cell-cell adhesion. We now report an inherited skin fragility disorder with a homozygous nonsense mutation in the dystonin gene (DST) that encodes the coiled-coil domain of the epithelial isoform of bullous pemphigoid antigen 1, BPAG1-e (also known as BP230). The mutation, p.Gln1124X, leads to the loss of hemidesmosomal inner plaques and a complete absence of skin immunostaining for BPAG1-e, as well as reduced labeling for plectin, the beta 4 integrin subunit, and for type XVII collagen. The 38-year-old affected individual has lifelong generalized trauma-induced spontaneous blisters and erosions, particularly around the ankles. In addition, he experiences episodic numbness in his limbs, which started at the age of 37 years. These neurological symptoms may also be due to DST gene mutation, although he has a concomitant diagnosis of CADASIL (cerebral arteriopathy, autosomal dominant, with subcortical infarcts and leukoencephalopathy), a cerebral small-vessel arteriopathy, which thus complicates the genotype-phenotype interpretation. With regard to skin blistering, the clinicopathological findings expand the molecular basis of EB by identifying BPAG1-e pathology in a new form of autosomal recessive EB simplex.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据