4.1 Article

Genotype-phenotype correlation of HbH disease in northern Iraq

期刊

BMC MEDICAL GENETICS
卷 21, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12881-020-01141-8

关键词

HbH disease; Genotype-phenotype correlation; Alpha-thalassaemia; Erbil; Iraq

资金

  1. Erbil Thalassemia Care Centre
  2. Lab Division of PAR Hospital

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background HbH disease results from dysfunction of three, less commonly two, alpha-globin genes through various combinations of deletion and non-deletion mutations. Characterization of the mutations and the underlying genotypes is fundamental for proper screening and prevention of thalassaemia in any region. The aim of this study was to explore the genetic arrangements of HbH disease and to correlate the genotypes with the clinical phenotypes. Methods A total of 44 HbH disease patients were enrolled in this study. They were clinically and haematologically assessed. The patients were tested for 21 common alpha-globin gene mutations using multiplex PCR and reverse hybridization. According to the genotype, the patients were categorized into two separate sub-groups, deletion and non-deletion types HbH disease. Results Within the studied HbH disease patients, eight different alpha-globin gene mutations were detected in nine different genetic arrangements. The --(MED)and -alpha(3.7)deletions were the two most frequently encountered mutations (37.5 and 35.2% respectively). Patients with deletion genotypes constituted 70.4%. The most common detected genotype was --(MED)/-alpha(3.7)(59.1%), followed by alpha(poly-A1)alpha/alpha(poly-A1)alpha (13.6%). For the first time, coinheritance of two relatively mild mutations (-alpha(3.7)/alpha alpha(Adana)) was unpredictably detected in a 1.5 year-old child with Hb of 7.1 g/dL. Conclusion The HbH disease patients' clinical characteristics were variable with no ample difference between the deletion and non-deletion types. These results can be of benefit for the screening and management of thalassaemia in this region.

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