4.4 Review

Acromicric dysplasia with stiff skin syndrome-like severe cutaneous presentation in an 8-year-old boy with a missense FBN1 mutation: Case report and literature review

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mgg3.1282

关键词

acromicric dysplasia; FBN1; stiff skin syndrome

资金

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [3332018025]
  2. Beijing Dongcheng District Excellent Talent Support Training project [2019JGM-5]
  3. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2016YFC0901500]
  4. Center for Rare Diseases Research, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China
  5. [NCMI-ABD02-201709]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Acromicric dysplasia is a rare heritable short-stature syndrome with joint stiffness and varying degrees of cutaneous hardness. Stiff skin syndrome is a rare connective tissue disorder characterized by diffusely thick and hard skin from the time of birth. Heterozygous point mutations in the FBN1 have been proposed as the predominant cause of both diseases. Methods By performing skin biopsy, X-ray imaging, electrocardiography, as well as whole-genome sequencing and Sanger sequencing, we diagnosed an 8-year-old Chinese boy as acromicric dysplasia with severe skin stiffness caused by a heterogeneous mutation in the FBN1. Results The patient presented with skin tightness, wrist and ankle stiffness, short stature and limbs, several deformed joints in the extremities, cone-shaped epiphyses, and distinct facial features. He also had a patent foramen ovale and frequent respiratory infections. Skin biopsy showed thickened dermis and excessive collagen aggregation. Alcian blue staining indicated dermal mucopolysaccharide deposition. Mutation analysis revealed a heterozygous missense mutation, c.5243G>A (p.Cys1748Tyr), in exon 42 of the FBN1. Conclusion This is a report about acromicric dysplasia with stiff skin syndrome-like severe cutaneous presentation caused by a single hotspot mutation, further revealing the gene pleiotropy of FBN1.

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

4.4
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