4.4 Article

CFTR mutation analysis and haplotype associations in CF patients

期刊

MOLECULAR GENETICS AND METABOLISM
卷 105, 期 2, 页码 249-254

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ymgme.2011.10.013

关键词

Cystic fibrosis; CFTR; Mutation; Newborn screening; Haplotype

资金

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for Environmental Health's Division of Laboratory Sciences
  2. NIH [DK 34108]
  3. CDC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Most newborn screening (NBS) laboratories use second-tier molecular tests for cystic fibrosis (CF) using dried blood spots (DBS). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's NBS Quality Assurance Program offers proficiency testing (PT) in DBS for CF transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) gene mutation detection. Extensive molecular characterization on 76 CF patients, family members or screen positive newborns was performed for quality assurance. The coding, regulatory regions and portions of all introns were sequenced and large insertions/deletions were characterized as well as two intronic di-nucleotide microsatellites. For CF patient samples, at least two mutations were identified/verified and four specimens contained three likely CF-associated mutations. Thirty-four sequence variations in 152 chromosomes were identified, five of which were not previously reported. Twenty-seven of these variants were used to predict haplotypes from the major haplotype block defined by HapMap data that spans the promoter through intron 19. Chromosomes containing the F508del (p.Phe508del), G542X (p.Gly542X) and N1303K (p.Asn1303Lys) mutations shared a common haplotype subgroup, consistent with a common ancient European founder. Understanding the haplotype background of CF-associated mutations in the U.S. population provides a framework for future phenotype/genotype studies and will assist in determining a likely cis/trans phase of the mutations without need for parent studies. Published by Elsevier Inc.

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

4.4
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