4.7 Article

Clinical and epidemiological assessment of steroid-resistant nephrotic syndrome associated with the NPHS2 R229Q variant

期刊

KIDNEY INTERNATIONAL
卷 75, 期 7, 页码 727-735

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1038/ki.2008.650

关键词

FSGS; NPHS2; podocin; steroid-resistant nephrotic syndrome

资金

  1. Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique [AOM02123]
  2. Programme Maladies Rares INSERM/Association Francaise contre les Myopathies [4MR02F]
  3. Association pour l'utilisation du Rein Artificiel (AURA)
  4. Sociedad Medica de Chile-SAVAL

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mutations of NPHS2, encoding podocin, are the main cause of autosomal recessive steroid-resistant nephrotic syndrome (NS) presenting in childhood. Adult-onset steroid-resistant NS has been described in patients heterozygous for a pathogenic NPHS2 mutation together with the p.R229Q variant. To determine the frequency and the phenotype of patients carrying the p.R229Q variant, we sequenced the complete coding region of NPHS2 in 455 families (546 patients) non-responsive to immunosuppressive therapy or without relapse after transplantation. Among affected Europeans, the p.R229Q allele was significantly more frequent compared to control individuals. Thirty-six patients from 27 families (11 families from Europe and 14 from South America) were compound heterozygotes for the p.R229Q variant and one pathogenic mutation. These patients had significantly later onset of NS and end stage renal disease than patients with two pathogenic mutations. Among 119 patients diagnosed with NS presenting after 18 years of age, 18 patients were found to have one pathogenic mutation and p.R229Q, but none had two pathogenic mutations. Our study shows that compound heterozygosity for p.R229Q is associated with adult-onset steroid-resistant NS, mostly among patients of European and South American origin. Screening for the p.R229Q variant is recommended in these patients, along with further NPHS2 mutation analysis in those carrying the variant.

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