4.5 Article

Analysis of mutations in the FOXI1 and KCNJ10 genes in infants with a single-allele SLC26A4 mutation

期刊

BIOSCIENCE TRENDS
卷 13, 期 3, 页码 261-266

出版社

IRCA-BSSA
DOI: 10.5582/bst.2019.01142

关键词

Infants; SLC26A4 gene; FOXI1 gene; KCNJ10 gene; audiological evaluation

类别

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2018YFC1002204]
  2. Beijing Natural Science Foundation [7172052]
  3. Fund to Foster the Scientific and Technological Foundation of Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University [2016-YJJ-GGL-018]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The current study investigated how the FOXI1 and KCNJ10 genes were affected in infants with a single-allele mutation in the SLC26A4 gene, and it determined the audiological phenotypes of infants with double heterozygous mutations (DHMs) in the three genes. Subjects were 562 infants with a single-allele SLC26A4 mutation detected during neonatal deafness genetic screening; the infants were seen as outpatients by Otology at Beijing Tongren Hospital. All subjects underwent SLC26A4 sequencing. Twenty infants had a second-allele variant while the remaining 542 had an SLC26A4 single-allele mutation. Infants also underwent FOXI1 and KCNJ10 sequencing. All patients with double heterozygous mutations in the aforementioned genes underwent an audiological evaluation and a limited imaging study; variants and audiological phenotypes were analyzed. Of 562 patients, 20 had SLC26A4 bi-allelic mutations; 8 carried single mutations in both SLC26A4 and KCNJ10. No pathogenic mutations in the FOXI1 gene were found. Four missense mutations in KCNJ10 were detected, including c.812G>A, c.800A>G, c.53G>A, and c.1042C>T. Eight individuals with a DHMs all passed universal newborn hearing screening, and all were found to have normal hearing. These data suggest that individuals with an SLC26A4 single-allele mutation, combined with FOXI1 or KCNJ10 gene mutations, do not suffer hearing loss during infancy, though this finding is worthy of further follow-up and in-depth discussion.

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