4.6 Article

Rare CYLD Variants in Chinese Patients With Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis

期刊

FRONTIERS IN GENETICS
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2021.740052

关键词

CYLD lysine 63 deubiquitinase gene; amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; mutation screening; phenotype; burden analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

By investigating mutations in the CYLD gene in Chinese ALS patients, the study extended our understanding of the genotype and phenotype of CYLD in ALS, with further validation needed for the pathogenicity of these mutations. Additionally, burden analysis suggested that the role of CYLD in the pathogenesis of ALS may not be significant.
Background: CYLD Lysine 63 Deubiquitinase gene (CYLD) was recently identified to be a novel causative gene for frontal temporal dementia (FTD)-amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). In the current study, we aimed to (1) systematically screen the mutations of CYLD in a large cohort of Chinese ALS patients, (2) study the genotype-phenotype correlation, and (3) explore the role of CYLD in ALS via rare variants burden analysis.Methods: A total of 978 Chinese sporadic ALS (sALS) patients and 46 familial ALS (fALS) patients were sequenced with whole-exome sequencing and analyzed rare variants in CYLD with minor allele frequency Results: In total, seven rare missense variants in CYLD have been identified in 7 (0.72%) patients among 978 sALS patients. Two (4.3%) rare missense variants were identified among the 46 fALS cases, in which one patient was diagnosed as having comorbidity of ALS and progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP). Moreover, the burden analysis indicated no enrichment of rare variants in CYLD among patients with ALS.Conclusion: In conclusion, our study extended the genotype and phenotype of CYLD in ALS, but the pathogenicity of these variants needs to be further verified. Moreover, burden analysis argued against the role of CYLD in the pathogenesis of ALS. More studies from different ethnicities would be needed.

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