4.2 Review

Prenatal and postnatal diagnosis of Schuurs-Hoeijmakers syndrome: Case series and review of the literature

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL GENETICS PART A
卷 185, 期 2, 页码 384-389

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.61964

关键词

developmental delay; PACS1 variant; Schuurs‐ Hoeijmakers syndrome; whole exome sequencing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Schuurs-Hoeijmakers syndrome (SHS) is a rare syndrome caused by a de novo variant in the PACS1 gene. It is characterized by typical facial features, developmental delay, intellectual disability, and multiple malformations, with distinct diagnostic features before and after birth. Use of exome sequencing has aided in diagnosing SHS and expanding the understanding of the clinical phenotype associated with pathogenic PACS1 variants.
Schuurs-Hoeijmakers syndrome (SHS) is a rare syndrome involving a de novo variant in the PACS1 gene on chromosome 11q13. There are 36 individuals published in the literature so far, mostly diagnosed postnatally (34/36) after recognizing the typical facial features co-occurring with developmental delay, intellectual disability, and multiple malformations. Herein, we present one prenatal and 15 postnatal cases with the recurrent heterozygous pathogenic variant NM_018026.3:c.607C>T p.(Arg203Trp) in the PACS1 gene detected by exome sequencing. These 16 cases were identified by mining Centogene and the Hong Kong clinical genetic service databases. Collectively, the 49 postnatally diagnosed individuals present with typical facial features and developmental delay, while the three prenatally diagnosed individuals present with multiple congenital anomalies. In the current study, the use of exome sequencing as an unbiased diagnostic tool aided the diagnosis of SHS (pre- and postnatally). The identification of additional cases with SHS add to the current understanding of the clinical phenotype associated with pathogenic PACS1 variants. Databases combining clinical and genetic information are helpful for the study of rare diseases.

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

4.2
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