4.6 Article

ATP1A3 Mutations and Genotype-Phenotype Correlation of Alternating Hemiplegia of Childhood in Chinese Patients

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0097274

关键词

-

资金

  1. Key Construction Program of the National 985'' Project [BMU20120308]
  2. National Outstanding Young Investigator Award [31025014]
  3. Ministry of Science and Technology of China 973 grant [2012CB837600]
  4. Doctoral Fund of Ministry of Education of China [20130001110071]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Alternating hemiplegia of childhood (AHC) is a rare and severe neurological disorder. ATP1A3 was recently identified as the causative gene. Here we report the first genetic study in Chinese AHC cohort. We performed whole-exome sequencing on three trios and three unrelated patients, and screened additional 41 typical cases and 100 controls by PCR-Sanger sequencing. ATP1A3 mutations were detected in 95.7% of typical AHC patients. At least 93.3% were de novo. Four late onset, atypical AHC patients were also mutation positive, suggesting the need for testing ATP1A3 mutations in atypical cases. Totally, 13 novel missense mutations (T370N, G706R, L770R, T771N, T771I, S772R, L802P, D805H, M806K, P808L, I810N, L839P and G893R) were identified in our study. By homology modeling of the mutant protein structures and calculation of an extensive list of molecular features, we identified two statistically significant molecular features, solvent accessibility and distance to metal ion, that distinguished disease-associated mutations from neutral variants. A logistic regression classifier achieved 92.9% accuracy by the average of 100 times of five-fold cross validations. Genotype-phenotype correlation analysis showed that patients with epilepsy were more likely to carry E815K mutation. In summary, ATP1A3 is the major pathogenic gene of AHC in Chinese patients; mutations have distinctive molecular features that discriminate them from neutral variants and are correlated with phenotypes.

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

4.6
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