4.5 Article

Association of SLC26A4 mutations, morphology, and hearing in pendred syndrome and NSEVA

期刊

LARYNGOSCOPE
卷 129, 期 11, 页码 2574-2579

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/lary.27319

关键词

inner ear morphology; EVA; Pendred syndrome; DFNB4; nonsyndromic enlarged vestibular aqueduct; genotype vs; phenotype

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To investigate the relations of monoallelic (M1), biallelic (M2), or the absence of mutations (M0) in SLC26A4 to inner ear morphology and hearing levels in individuals with Pendred syndrome (PS) or nonsyndromic enlarged vestibular aqueduct (NSEVA) associated with hearing loss. Methods In a cohort of 139 PS/NSEVA individuals, 115 persons from 95 unrelated families had full genetic sequencing of SLC26A4, and 113 had retrievable images for re-assessment of inner ear morphology. The association between the number of mutant alleles in SLC26A4, inner ear morphology (including endolymphatic sac size and protein content on magnetic resonance imaging), and hearing level (pure tone average) was explored. Results Biallelic SLC26A4 mutations (M2) occurred in three-quarters of the cohort and was invariably associated with poor hearing; in 87%, it was associated with incomplete partition type II of the cochlea as well as enlarged endolymphatic sac and vestibular aqueduct. M1 or M0 individuals exhibited a greater variability in inner ear morphology. Endolymphatic sac size and presence of high-protein sac contents were significantly higher in M2 individuals compared to M1 and M0 individuals. Conclusion The number of SLC26A4 mutations is associated with severity and variability of inner ear morphology and hearing level in individuals with PS or NSEVA. M2 individuals have poorer hearing and present largely incomplete partition type II of the cochleas with enlarged endolymphatic sacs, whereas individuals with M1 and no detectable SLC26A4 mutations have less severe hearing loss and more diverse inner ear morphology. Level of Evidence 4. Laryngoscope, 129:2574-2579, 2019

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