4.1 Article

Metachromatic leukodystrophy genotypes in The Netherlands reveal novel pathogenic ARSA variants in non-Caucasian patients

期刊

NEUROGENETICS
卷 21, 期 4, 页码 289-299

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10048-020-00621-6

关键词

ARSAgene; Arylsulfatase A; Metachromatic leukodystrophy; Genetic association studies

资金

  1. Dutch charity organization Metakids [739510]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Metachromatic leukodystrophy (MLD) is an autosomal recessively inherited sulfatide storage disease caused by deficient activity of the lysosomal enzyme arylsulfatase A (ASA). Genetic analysis of theARSAgene is important in MLD diagnosis and screening of family members. In addition, more information on genotype prevalence will help interpreting MLD population differences between countries. In this study, we identified 31 differentARSAvariants in the patient cohort (n = 67) of the Dutch expertise center for MLD. The most frequently found variant, c.1283C > T, p.(Pro428Leu), was present in 43 (64%) patients and resulted in a high prevalence of the juvenile MLD type (58%) in The Netherlands. Furthermore, we observed in five out of six patients with a non-Caucasian ethnic background previously unreported pathogenicARSAvariants. In total, we report ten novel variants including four missense, two nonsense, and two frameshift variants and one in-frame indel, which were all predicted to be disease causing in silico. In addition, one silent variant was found, c.1200C > T, that most likely resulted in erroneous exonic splicing, including partial skipping of exon 7. The c.1200C > T variant was inherited in cis with the pseudodeficiency allele c.1055A > G, p.(Asn352Ser) + *96A > G. With this study we provide a genetic base of the unique MLD phenotype distribution in The Netherlands. In addition, our study demonstrated the importance of genetic analysis in MLD diagnosis and the increased likelihood of unreported, pathogenicARSAvariants in patients with non-Caucasian ethnic backgrounds.

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

4.1
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