4.0 Article

Lens Subluxation and Retinal Dysfunction in a Girl with Homozygous VSX2 Mutation

期刊

OPHTHALMIC GENETICS
卷 36, 期 1, 页码 8-13

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.3109/13816810.2013.827217

关键词

Cone-rod; ectopia lentis; Knobloch syndrome; VSX2

资金

  1. KACST grant [08-MED497-20]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To describe a unique lens subluxation phenotype in a child from a consanguineous family and to determine its genetic basis. Methods: Ophthalmologic examination (including ocular biometry and electroretinography [ERG] for the proband) and autozygosity-analysis-guided exome sequencing for the family; confirmatory candidate gene sequencing in the family and ethnically matched controls. Results: An otherwise healthy 3-year-old Saudi Arabian girl with poor vision since birth had smooth irides, lens subluxation, cone-rod dysfunction, and high myopia - features resembling Knobloch syndrome but differing in regard to direction of lens subluxation (superior rather than temporal) and the pattern of chorioretinal atrophy (without vitreous condensations or distinct macular atrophy). Autozygome-guided exome sequencing revealed the girl to harbor a homozygous exon 5 mutation in the ocular transcription factor gene visual homeobox 2 (VSX2) [c.773delA; p.Lys258SerfsX44] that was heterozygous in the unaffected brother and parents and absent in 100 healthy ethnically matched controls and on-line databases. Previously reported VSX2 mutations have affected the DNA-binding domains and only been associated with microphthalmia. Unlike previously reported mutations, the current VSX2 mutation is downstream to the protein's DNA binding domains. Conclusions: The phenotype of this girl is unique and suggests a normal regulatory role for VSX2 in iris, zonule, and cone-rod development. For a consanguineous family with suspected recessive ocular disease but without a clear candidate gene, autozygome-guided exome analysis is a powerful technique, even when only a single patient is affected.

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

4.0
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