4.1 Article

TSC1 intragenic deletion transmitted from a mosaic father to two siblings with cardiac rhabdomyomas: Identification of two aberrant transcripts

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmg.2020.104060

关键词

TSC1, tuberous sclerosis complex; Cardiac rhabdomyoma; Germline mosaicism; Intragenic deletion; Aberrant transcript

资金

  1. Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED) [JP19ek0109301, JP19ek0109297]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC) is a rare autosomal dominant disorder characterized by non-cancerous tumors in multiple organs including the brain, kidney, lung, heart, and skin. We encountered a Japanese family con-sisting of two siblings (a four-year-old boy and a one-year-old girl) with multiple cardiac rhabdomyomas conveying a high risk of TSC and apparently unaffected sibling (a two-year-old girl) and parents. Whole exome sequencing and application of Integrative Genomic Viewer revealed an identical intragenic TSC1 deletion with the breakpoints on intron 15 and exon 19 in the affected siblings, but not in the apparently unaffected sibling and parents. Subsequently, PCR-based analyses were performed using primers flanking the deletion, showing that the deletion was also present in the father and that the deletion occurred between chr9:135,777,038 (bp) and chr9:135,780,540 (bp) in association with a one bp overlap. Furthermore, RT-PCR analyses were carried out using lymphoblastoid cell lines, revealing a major in-frame insertion/deletion transcript produced by aberrant splicing using a cryptic ag splice acceptor motif at intron 15 (r.1998_2438delinsTTCATTAGGTGG) and a minor frameshift transcript generated by aberrant splicing between exon 15 and exon 20 (r.1998_2502del, p. Lys666Asnfs*15) in the affected siblings. These findings imply that the intragenic deletion producing two aberrant transcripts was generated as a somatic pathogenic variant involving the germline in the father and was transmitted to the affected siblings.

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

4.1
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