4.4 Article

Advances in urea cycle neuroimaging: Proceedings from the 4th International Symposium on urea cycle disorders, Barcelona, Spain, September 2013

期刊

MOLECULAR GENETICS AND METABOLISM
卷 113, 期 1-2, 页码 118-126

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ymgme.2014.05.005

关键词

Ammonia; Diffusion tensor imaging; Glutamine; Magnetic resonance imaging; Magnetic resonance spectroscopy; Myoinositol

资金

  1. National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) [K12RR17613,5M01RR020359]
  2. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [9U54HD061221]
  3. O'Malley Foundation [44370]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Our previous imaging research performed as part of a Urea Cycle Rare Disorders Consortium (UCRDC) grant, has identified specific biomarkers of neurologic injury in ornithine transcarbamylase deficiency, OTCD. While characterization of mutations can be achieved in most cases, this information does not necessarily predict the severity of the underlying neurological syndrome. The biochemical consequences of any mutation may be modified additionally by a large number of factors, including contributions of other enzymes and transport systems that mediate flux through the urea cycle, diet and other environmental factors. These factors likely vary from one patient to another, and they give rise to heterogeneity of clinical severity. Affected cognitive domains include non-verbal learning, fine motor processing, reaction time, visual memory, attention, and executive function. Deficits in these capacities may be seen in symptomatic patients, as well as asymptomatic carriers with normal IQ and correlate with variances in brain structure and function in these patients. Using neuroimaging we can identify biomarkers that reflect the downstream impact of UCDs on cognition. This manuscript is a summary of the presentation from the 4th International Consortium on urea cycle disorders held in, Barcelona, Spain, September 2, 2014. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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