4.8 Article

Mutation-dependent recessive inheritance of NPHS2-associated steroid-resistant nephrotic syndrome

期刊

NATURE GENETICS
卷 46, 期 3, 页码 299-+

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ng.2898

关键词

-

资金

  1. Fondation pour la Recherche Medicale [DMP 2010-11-20-386]
  2. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (GenPod) [ANR-12-BSV1-0033.01]
  3. 'Investments for the Future' program [ANR-10-IAHU-01]
  4. European Community [2012-305608 (Eurenomics)]
  5. Fondation Association pour la Recherche sur le Cancer (ARC) [TAMOP-4.2.1/B-09/1/KMR-2010-0001]
  6. OTKA [84087/2010]
  7. Hungarian Scientific Research Fund (OTKA) [NK101072, K109718, PD101095]
  8. Bolyai Janos research fellowship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences
  9. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) [ANR-12-BSV1-0033] Funding Source: Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Monogenic disorders result from defects in a single gene. According to Mendel's laws, these disorders are inherited in either a recessive or dominant fashion. Autosomal-recessive disorders require a disease-causing variant on both alleles, and according to our current understanding, their pathogenicities are not influenced by each other. Here we present an autosomal-recessive disorder, nephrotic syndrome type 2 (MIM 600995), in which the pathogenicity of an NPHS2 allele encoding p.Arg229Gln depends on the trans-associated mutation. We show that, contrary to expectations, this allele leads to a disease phenotype only when it is associated specifically with certain 3' NPHS2 mutations because of an altered heterodimerization and mislocalization of the encoded p.Arg229Gln podocin. The disease-associated 3' mutations exert a dominant-negative effect on p.Arg229Gln podocin but behave as recessive alleles when associated with wild-type podocin. Therefore, the transmission rates for couples carrying the disease-associated mutations and p.Arg229Gln may be substantially different from those expected in autosomal-recessive disorders.

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

4.8
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