4.5 Article

A novel mutation causing mild, atypical fumarylacetoacetase deficiency (Tyrosinemia type I): a case report

期刊

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1750-1172-4-28

关键词

-

资金

  1. FWO-Vlaanderen

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A male patient, born to unrelated Belgian parents, presented at 4 months with epistaxis, haematemesis and haematochezia. On physical examination he presented petechiae and haematomas, and a slightly enlarged liver. Serum transaminases were elevated to 5-10 times upper limit of normal, alkaline phosphatases were 1685 U/L (< 720), total bilirubin was 2.53 mg/dl (< 1.0), ammonaemia 69 mu M (< 32), prothrombin time less than 10%, thromboplastin time > 180 s (< 60) and alpha-fetoprotein 29723 mu g/L (< 186). Plasma tyrosine (651 mu M) and methionine (1032 mu M) were strongly increased. In urine, tyrosine metabolites and 4-oxo-6-hydroxyheptanoic acid were increased, but succinylacetone and succinylacetoacetate - pathognomonic for tyrosinemia type I were repeatedly undetectable. Delta-aminolevulinic acid was normal, which is consistent with the absence of succinylacetone. Abdominal ultrasound and brain CT were normal. Fumarylacetoacetase (FAH) protein and activity in cultured fibroblasts and liver tissue were decreased but not absent. 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase activity in liver was normal, which is atypical for tyrosinemia type I. A novel mutation was found in the FAH gene: c.103G>A (Ala35Thr). In vitro expression studies showed this mutation results in a strongly decreased FAH protein expression. Dietary treatment with phenylalanine and tyrosine restriction was initiated at 4 months, leading to complete clinical and biochemical normalisation. The patient, currently aged 12 years, shows a normal physical and psychomotor development. This is the first report of mild tyrosinemia type I disease caused by an Ala35Thr mutation in the FAH gene, presenting atypically without increase of the diagnostically important toxic metabolites succinylacetone and succinylacetoacetate.

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

4.5
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