4.5 Article

Mutational characteristics of ANK1 and SPTB genes in hereditary spherocytosis

期刊

CLINICAL GENETICS
卷 90, 期 1, 页码 69-78

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cge.12749

关键词

ANK1; genotype-phenotype correlation; hereditary spherocytosis; molecular analysis; SPTB

资金

  1. Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea [A120175]
  2. Korea Health Promotion Institute [HI12C0129040015] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to describe the mutational characteristics in Korean hereditary spherocytosis (HS) patients. Relevant literatures including genetically confirmed cases with well-documented clinical summaries and relevant information were also reviewed to investigate the mutational gene- or domain-specific laboratory and clinical association. Twenty-five HS patients carried one heterozygous mutation of ANK1 (n = 13) or SPTB (n = 12) but not in SPTA1, SLC4A1, or EPB42. Deleterious mutations including frameshift, nonsense, and splice site mutations were identified in 91% (21/23), and non-hotspot mutations were dispersed across multiple exons. Genotype-phenotype correlation was clarified after combined analysis of the cases and the literature review; anemia was most severe in HS patients with mutations on the ANK1 spectrin-binding domain (p < 0.05), and SPTB mutations in HS patients spared the tetramerization domain in which mutations of hereditary elliptocytosis and pyropoikilocytosis are located. Splenectomy (17/75) was more frequent in ANK1 mutant HS (32%) than in HS with SPTB mutation (10%) (p = 0.028). Aplastic crisis occurred in 32.0% of the patients (8/25; 3 ANK1 and 5 SPTB), and parvovirus B19 was detected in 88%. The study clarifies ANK1 or SPTB mutational characteristics in HS Korean patients. The genetic association of laboratory and clinical aspects suggests comprehensive considerations for genetic-based management of HS.

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