4.5 Article

Spastin mutation screening in Chinese patients with pure hereditary spastic paraplegia

期刊

PARKINSONISM & RELATED DISORDERS
卷 20, 期 8, 页码 845-849

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2014.04.021

关键词

Hereditary spastic paraplegia; SPAST; Mutation; MLPA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Hereditary spastic paraplegia (HSP) is a clinically and genetically heterogeneous group of neurodegenerative diseases. Mutations in the spastin (SPAST) gene are the most common cause of pure HSP. However, few data are available regarding the clinical and genetic spectrum of HSP among Chinese patients. Methods: Clinical data were collected at diagnosis and follow-up of 42 Chinese patients with pure HSP. All seventeen exons of the SPAST gene were directly sequenced. Additionally, we used a multiplex ligation dependent probe amplification (MLPA) assay targeting the SPAST gene to evaluate large exon deletion or insertion mutations in patients without SPAST point mutations. Results: The age of disease onset of our patients was 19.6 +/- 14.4 years. Six novel variations were found, including three missense mutations (p. L363P, p. D441V, and p. S595R), one insertion (c.1511dupT (p. Y505Ifs*7)), and two larger deletions (exons 5-17 and exons 10-17). Four previously reported mutations, including p. S399L, c.1215_c.1219delTATAA (p. N405Kfs*36), exon 1 deletion, and exon 16 deletion, were detected. The SPAST mutation rate was 40% (4/10) in Chinese familial patients and 33.33% (7/21) in Chinese sporadic pure HSP patients. The frequency of large deletions was high in both AD-HSP (20%, 2/10) and sporadic HSP (14.28%, 3/21). Conclusion: SPAST mutations are common in Chinese patients with pure HSP. Large exon deletions are an important cause of AD-HSP and sporadic pure HSP in Chinese patients. Large fragment tests should be performed to explore large SPAST mutations in familial and sporadic HSP patients without SPAST point mutations. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.5
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