4.5 Review

The genetic basis of congenital hyperinsulinism

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL GENETICS
卷 46, 期 5, 页码 289-299

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jmg.2008.064337

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Congenital hyperinsulinism (CHI) is biochemically characterised by the dysregulated secretion of insulin from pancreatic beta-cells. It is a major cause of persistent hyperinsulinaemic hypoglycaemia (HH) in the newborn and infancy period. Genetically CHI is a heterogeneous condition with mutations in seven different genes described. The genetic basis of CHI involves defects in key genes which regulate insulin secretion from beta-cells. Recessive inactivating mutations in ABCC8 and KCNJ11 (which encode the two subunits of the adenosine triphosphate sensitive potassium channels (ATP sensitive K-ATP channels)) in beta-cells are the most common cause of CHI. The other recessive form of CHI is due to mutations in HADH (encoding for-3-hydroxyacyl-coenzyme A dehydrogenase). Dominant forms of CHI are due to inactivating mutations in ABCC8 and KCNJ11, and activating mutations in GLUD1 (encoding glutamate dehydrogenase) and GCK (encoding glucokinase). Recently dominant mutations in HNF4A (encoding hepatocyte nuclear factor 4 alpha) and SLC16A1 (encoding monocarboxylate transporter 1) have been described which lead to HH. Mutations in all these genes account for about 50% of the known causes of CHI. Histologically there are three (possibly others which have not been characterised yet) major subtypes of CHI: diffuse, focal and atypical forms. The diffuse form is inherited in an autosomal recessive (or dominant manner), the focal form being sporadic in inheritance. The diffuse form of the disease may require a near total pancreatectomy whereas the focal form requires a limited pancreatectomy potentially curing the patient. Understanding the genetic basis of CHI has not only provided novel insights into beta-cell physiology but also aided in patient management and genetic counselling.

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

4.5
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