4.2 Article

De novo DDX3X missense variants in males appear viable and contribute to syndromic intellectual disability

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL GENETICS PART A
卷 179, 期 4, 页码 570-578

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.61061

关键词

DDX3X; developmental delay; intellectual disability; syndromic intellectual disability

资金

  1. Health Innovation Challenge Fund [HICF-1009-003]
  2. Wellcome Sanger Institute
  3. Department of Health [WT098051]
  4. Mayo Clinic
  5. Wellcome
  6. National Institute for Health Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

DDX3X (Xp11.4) encodes a DEAD-box RNA helicase that escapes X chromosome inactivation. Pathogenic variants in DDX3X have been shown to cause X-linked intellectual disability (ID) (MRX102, MIM: 300958). The phenotypes associated with DDX3X variants are heterogeneous and include brain and behavioral abnormalities, microcephaly, hypotonia, and movement disorders and/or spasticity. The majority of DDX3X variants described are de novo mutations in females with ID. In contrast, most male DDX3X variants are inherited from an unaffected mother, with one documented exception being a recently identified de novo splice site variant. It has been suggested, therefore, that DDX3X exerts its effects through haploinsufficiency in females, and that affected males carry hypomorphic alleles that retain partial function. Given the lack of male de novo DDX3X variants, loss-of-function variants in this gene are suspected to be male lethal. Through whole-exome sequencing, we identified three unrelated males with hemizygous missense DDX3X variants and ID. All three variants were confirmed by Sanger sequencing, with two established as de novo. In silico analyses were supportive of pathogenicity. We report the male phenotypes and compare them to phenotypes observed in previously reported male and female patients. In conclusion, we propose that de novo DDX3X variants are not necessarily male lethal and should be considered as a cause of syndromic ID in both males and females.

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

4.2
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