4.2 Article

Clinical Features, DYT1 Mutation Screening and Genotype-Phenotype Correlation in Patients with Dystonia from Iran

期刊

MEDICAL PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE
卷 21, 期 5, 页码 462-466

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000336783

关键词

Primary dystonia; Clinical features; DYT1 gene; GAG deletion

资金

  1. Iran National Science Foundation (INSF) [89002245]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To test Iranian patients with primary torsion dystonia to determine the frequency of 904-906 del GAG mutation in the DYT1 (TOR1A) gene and to investigate the genotype-phenotype association for this disease. Subjects and Methods: Sixty-three patients with primary dystonia were investigated. DNA was extracted from peripheral blood and these samples were subjected to PCR-sequencing for exon 5 of the DYT1 gene. Results: Of the 63 patients, 10 (15.9%) carried the triplet GAG deletion mutation; this is a high DYT1-positive rate in comparison with other populations and the type of dystonia in this positive group was generalized in all except 1. In our patients, limbs were the most severely involved site at the time of onset and in most cases it developed to generalized form. The majority of DYT1-positive cases showed higher leg onset (5 patients, 62.5%) in comparison with higher arm onset in negative patients (20 patients, 50%). Also, the progression to generalized dystonia in DYT1-positive patients was significantly higher than in DYT1-negative patients. The mean age at onset was 8.6 +/- 1.6 years (7-12 years) in DYT1-positive patients, while mean age at onset in patients with no GAG deletion mutation was higher (15.7 +/- 11.5 years). Conclusions: The DYT1 904-906 del GAG mutation is responsible for some of Iranian dystonia patients, and screening for the DYT1 deletion is significant in cases with the generalized type of primary dystonia. Also, patients with leg or arm onset at a younger age are more likely to be DYT1-positive among primary torsion dystonia cases. Copyright (c) 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel

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

4.2
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