4.0 Article

Molecular Etiology of Isolated Congenital Cataract Using Next-Generation Sequencing: Single Center Exome Sequencing Data from Turkey

期刊

MOLECULAR SYNDROMOLOGY
卷 11, 期 5-6, 页码 302-308

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000510481

关键词

Cataract; Congenital cataract; Crystallines; Next; generation sequencing; Whole-exome sequencing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Congenital cataract, which refers to lenticular opacity diagnosed at birth or more commonly during the first year of life, is one of the leading causes of childhood blindness. Molecular understanding of the disease pathogenesis has evolved thanks to many studies based on modern technologies. In this study, we aimed to identify and discuss the molecular etiology of nonsyndromic or nonmetabolic bilateral congenital cataract by whole-exome sequencing (WES). Patients with bilateral congenital cataract presumed to be isolated after metabolic and genetic evaluation were enrolled in the study. All patients underwent detailed ophthalmological examination and bilateral cataract surgery. DNA samples of the probands, parents, and available affected family members were analyzed by WES. Variants were validated and confirmed by Sanger sequencing in all probands and in available affected family members. A total of 4 patients (3 girls and 1 boy) were recruited. Two patients had nuclear, 1 patient had total, and 1 patient had combined lamellar and sutural cataract. One family had consanguinity. A heterozygous c.215+1G>A mutation in CRYBA1, heterozygous c.432C>G (p.Tyr144Ter) mutation in CRYGC, heterozygous c.70A>C (p.Pro24Thr) mutation in CRYGD, and a heterozygous c.466G>A (p.Gly156Arg) mutation in CRYBB3 were detected. All these mutations were confirmed by Sanger sequencing in selected affected individuals. The current study identified all causative mutations of congenital cataract in the crystalline genes. The results confirmed that WES is a very useful tool in the investigation of the diseases with heterogeneous genetic background.

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

4.0
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