4.7 Review

Genetics of essential tremor Meta-analysis and review

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 82, 期 11, 页码 1000-1007

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000000211

关键词

-

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [DFG KL 1433/2-1]
  2. Fakultatsubergreifende Forschungsforderung des Medizin-Ausschusses beider Medizinischer Fakultaten in Kiel und Lubeck
  3. PopGen Biobank

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective:To provide a comprehensive meta-analysis and review of the clinical and molecular genetics of essential tremor (ET).Methods:Studies were reviewed from the literature. Linkage studies were analyzed applying criteria used for monogenic disorders. For association studies, allele counts were extracted and allelic association calculated whenever possible. A meta-analysis was performed for genetic markers investigated in more than 3 studies.Results:Linkage studies have shown conclusive results in a single family only for the locus ETM2 (essential tremor monogenetic locus 2, logarithm of odds score [lod] > 3.3). None of the 3 ETM loci has been confirmed independently with a lod score >2.0 in a single family. A mutation in the FUS gene (fused in sarcoma) was found in one ET family by exome sequencing. Two genome-wide association studies demonstrated association between variants in the LINGO1 gene (leucine-rich repeat and Ig domain containing 1) and the SLC1A2 gene (solute carrier family 1 member 2) and ET, respectively. Our meta-analysis confirmed the association of rs9652490 in LINGO1 with ET. Candidate gene mutation analysis and association studies have not identified reproducible associations.Conclusion:Problems of genetic studies of ET are caused by the lack of stringent diagnostic criteria, small sample sizes, lack of biomarkers, a high phenocopy rate, evidence for nonmendelian inheritance, and high locus heterogeneity in presumably monogenic ET. These issues could be resolved by better worldwide cooperation and the use of novel genetic techniques.

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