4.6 Article

Autozygosity reveals recessive mutations and novel mechanisms in dominant genes: implications in variant interpretation

期刊

GENETICS IN MEDICINE
卷 19, 期 10, 页码 1144-1150

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/gim.2017.22

关键词

autozygome; dominant negative; gain of function; loss of function; molecular mechanism

资金

  1. King Salman Center for Disability Research grant
  2. KACST grant [15-BIO3688-20]
  3. King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to describe recessive alleles in strictly dominant genes. Identifying recessive mutations in genes for which only dominant disease or risk alleles have been reported can expand our understanding of the medical relevance of these genes both phenotypically and mechanistically. The Saudi population is enriched for autozygosity, which enhances the homozygous occurrence of alleles, including pathogenic alleles in genes that have been associated only with a dominant inheritance pattern. Methods: Exome sequencing of patients from consanguineous families with likely recessive phenotypes was performed. In one family, the genotype of the deceased children was inferred from their parents due to lack of available samples. Results: We describe the identification of 11 recessive variants (5 of which are reported here for the first time) in 11 genes for which only dominant disease or risk alleles have been reported. The observed phenotypes for these recessive variants were novel (e.g., FBN2-related myopathy and CSF1R-related brain malformation and osteopetrosis), typical (e.g., ACTG2-related visceral myopathy), or an apparently healthy state (e.g., PDE11A), consistent with the corresponding mouse knockout phenotypes. Conclusion: Our results show that, in the era of genomic sequencing and reverse phenotyping, recessive variants in dominant genes should not be dismissed based on perceived incompatibility with the patient's phenotype before careful consideration.

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