4.7 Article

Identification of GGC repeat expansion in the NOTCH2NLC gene in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 95, 期 24, 页码 E3394-E3405

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000010945

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2018YFC1312003]
  2. Program of National Natural Science Foundation of China [81671120, 81300981, 81250015]
  3. Clinical Scientific Program of Xiangya Hospital, Central South University [2015105]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To determine whether the GGC repeats in the NOTCH2NLC gene contribute to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Methods In this study, 545 patients with ALS and 1,305 healthy controls from mainland China were recruited. Several pathogenic mutations in known ALS-causative genes (including C9ORF72 and ATXN2) and polynucleotide repeat expansions in NOP56 and AR genes were excluded. Repeat-primed PCR and GC-rich PCR were performed to determine the GGC repeat size in NOTCH2NLC. Systematic and targeted clinical evaluations and investigations, including skin biopsy and dynamic electrophysiologic studies, were conducted in the genetically affected patients. Results GGC repeat expansion was observed in 4 patients (numbers of repeats 44, 54, 96, and 143), accounting for approximate to 0.73% (4 of 545) of all patients with ALS. A comparison with 1,305 healthy controls revealed that GGC repeat expansion in NOTCH2NLC was associated with ALS (Fisher exact test, 4 of 545 vs 0 of 1,305, p = 0.007). Compared to patients with the neuronal intranuclear inclusion disease (NIID) muscle weakness-dominant subtype, patients with ALS phenotype carrying the abnormal repeat expansion tended to have a severe phenotype and rapid deterioration. Conclusion Our results suggest that ALS is a specific phenotype of NIID or that GGC expansion in NOTCH2NLC is a factor that modifies ALS. These findings may help clarify the pathogenic mechanism of ALS and may expand the known clinical spectrum of NIID.

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

4.7
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