4.6 Article

Novel mutations in LRP6 highlight the role of WNT signaling in tooth agenesis

期刊

GENETICS IN MEDICINE
卷 18, 期 11, 页码 1158-1162

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/gim.2016.10

关键词

LRP6; molecular inversion probes; tooth agenesis; Wnt/beta-catenin canonical signaling pathway

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health National Human Genome Research Institute [RO1NS058529, U54HG006542]
  2. Medical Research Council [G0901539, MR/M012174/1]
  3. European Orthodontic Society (EOS research grant) [048]
  4. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [1085997] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. Medical Research Council [MR/M012174/1, G0901539] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. MRC [G0901539, MR/M012174/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: We aimed to identify a novel genetic cause of tooth agenesis (TA) and/or orofacial clefting (OFC) by combining whole-exome sequencing (WES) and targeted resequencing in a large cohort of TA and OFC patients. Methods: WES was performed in two unrelated patients: one with severe TA and OFC and another with severe TA only. After deleterious mutations were identified in a gene encoding low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 6 (LRP6), all its exons were resequenced with molecular inversion probes in 67 patients with TA, 1,072 patients with OFC, and 706 controls. Results: We identified a frameshift (c.4594de1G, p.Cys1532fs) and a canonical splice-site mutation (c.3398-2A>C, p.?) in LRP6, respectively, in the patient with TA and OFC and in the patient with severe TA only. The targeted resequencing showed significant enrichment of unique LRP6 variants in TA patients but not in nonsyndromic OFC patients. Of the five variants in patients with TA, two affected the canonical splice site and three were missense variants; all variants segregated with the dominant phenotype, and in one case the missense mutation occurred de novo. Conclusion: Mutations in LRP6 cause TA in humans.

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

4.6
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