4.7 Article

An empirical pipeline for personalized diagnosis of Lafora disease mutations

期刊

ISCIENCE
卷 24, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2021.103276

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [P01 NS097197, R35 NS116824, F31 NS093892]
  2. National Science Foundation [DBI2018007, MCB1817414]
  3. Ep-ilepsy Foundation New Therapy Commercialization Grant
  4. Eu-ropean Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skodowska-Curie grant [754510M]
  5. Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation [SAF2017-83151-R, RTI2018-095784b-100SAF]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lafora disease is a fatal childhood dementia caused by mutations in EPM2A or EPM2B, characterized by progressive myoclonic epilepsy and rapid neurological decline. A pipeline for characterizing laforin missense mutations reveals distinct functional classes associated with different outcomes, providing genetic information for treating LD patients.
Lafora disease (LD) is a fatal childhood dementia characterized by progressive myoclonic epilepsy manifesting in the teenage years, rapid neurological decline, and death typically within ten years of onset. Mutations in either EPM2A, encoding the glycogen phosphatase laforin, or EPM2B, encoding the E3 ligase malin, cause LD. Whole exome sequencing has revealed many EPM2A variants associated with late-onset or slower disease progression. We established an empirical pipeline for characterizing the functional consequences of laforin missense mutations in vitro using complementary biochemical approaches. Analysis of 26 mutations revealed distinct functional classes associated with different outcomes that were supported by clinical cases. For example, F321C and G279C mutations have attenuated functional defects and are associated with slow progression. This pipeline enabled rapid characterization and classification of newly identified EPM2A mutations, providing clinicians and researchers genetic information to guide treatment of LD patients.

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