4.7 Article

Data from a large European study indicate that the outcome of primary hyperoxaluria type 1 correlates with the AGXT mutation type

期刊

KIDNEY INTERNATIONAL
卷 86, 期 6, 页码 1197-1204

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ki.2014.222

关键词

AGXT; genotype-phenotype correlations; primary hyperoxaluria type 1; urolithiasis

资金

  1. Koeln Fortune Program grant/Faculty of Medicine, University of Cologne [25/2008]
  2. German Society of Pediatric Nephrology (GPN)
  3. Italian Telethon foundation [GGP10092]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Primary hyperoxaluria type 1 displays a heterogeneous phenotype, likely to be affected by genetic and non-genetic factors, including timeliness of diagnosis and quality of care. As previous genotype-phenotype studies were hampered by limited patient numbers the European OxalEurope Consortium was constituted. This preliminary retrospective report is based on 526 patients of which 410 have the AGXT genotype defined. We grouped mutations by the predicted effect as null, missense leading to mistargeting (G170R), and other missense, and analyzed their phenotypic correlations. Median age of end-stage renal disease increased from 9.9 for 88 homozygous null patients, 11.5 for 42 heterozygous null/missense, 16.9 for 116 homozygous missense patients, 25.1 for 61 G170R/null patients, 31.2 for 32 G170R/missense patients, and 33.9 years for 71 homozygous G170R patients. The outcome of some recurrent missense mutations (p.I244T, p.F152I, p.M195R, p.D201E, p.S81L, p.R36C) and an unprecedented number of G170R homozygotes is described in detail. Diagnosis is still delayed and actions aimed at increasing awareness of primary hyperoxaluria type 1 are recommended. Thus, in addition to G170R, other causative mutations are associated with later onset of end-stage renal disease. The OxalEurope registry will provide necessary tools for characterizing those genetic and non-genetic factors through a combination of genetic, functional, and biostatistical approaches.

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