4.5 Article

Novel IQCE variations confirm its role in postaxial polydactyly and cause ciliary defect phenotype in zebrafish

期刊

HUMAN MUTATION
卷 41, 期 1, 页码 240-254

出版社

WILEY-HINDAWI
DOI: 10.1002/humu.23924

关键词

cilia; hedgehog signaling; IQCE; polydactyly; RNA-seq; zebrafish

资金

  1. Fondation Jerome Lejeune
  2. Hopitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg [API 2013-2014 HUS, 5885]
  3. Fondation Recherche Medicale [ECO20170637509]
  4. Fondation Maladie Rare
  5. Fondation JED-Belgique
  6. Retina France
  7. HGF Biointerfaces Programme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Polydactyly is one of the most frequent inherited defects of the limbs characterized by supernumerary digits and high-genetic heterogeneity. Among the many genes involved, either in isolated or syndromic forms, eight have been implicated in postaxial polydactyly (PAP). Among those, IQCE has been recently identified in a single consanguineous family. Using whole-exome sequencing in patients with uncharacterized ciliopathies, including PAP, we identified three families with biallelic pathogenic variations in IQCE. Interestingly, the c.895_904del (p.Val301Serfs*8) was found in all families without sharing a common haplotype, suggesting a recurrent mechanism. Moreover, in two families, the systemic phenotype could be explained by additional pathogenic variants in known genes (TULP1, ATP6V1B1). RNA expression analysis on patients' fibroblasts confirms that the dysfunction of IQCE leads to the dysregulation of genes associated with the hedgehog-signaling pathway, and zebrafish experiments demonstrate a full spectrum of phenotypes linked to defective cilia: Body curvature, kidney cysts, left-right asymmetry, misdirected cilia in the pronephric duct, and retinal defects. In conclusion, we identified three additional families confirming IQCE as a nonsyndromic PAP gene. Our data emphasize the importance of taking into account the complete set of variations of each individual, as each clinical presentation could finally be explained by multiple genes.

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