4.7 Article

Frequency and clinical features of hearing loss caused by STRC deletions

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-40586-7

关键词

-

资金

  1. Health and Labor Sciences Research Grant for Research on Rare and Intractable diseases and Comprehensive Research on Disability Health and Welfare from the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare of Japan [H29-Nanchitou(Nan)-Ippan-031]
  2. Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED) [16kk0205010h001, 15ek0109114h001]
  3. Ministry of Education, Science and Culture of Japan [15H02565, 15K10747]
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15K10747, 15H02565] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sensorineural hearing loss is a common deficit and mainly occurs due to genetic factors. Recently, copy number variants (CNVs) in the STRC gene have also been recognized as a major cause of genetic hearing loss. We investigated the frequency of STRC deletions in the Japanese population and the characteristics of associated hearing loss. For CNV analysis, we employed a specialized method of Ion AmpliSeg (TM) sequencing, and confirmed the CNV results via custom array comparative genomic hybridization. We identified 17 probands with STRC homozygous deletions. The prevalence of STRC homozygous deletions was 1.7% in the hearing loss population overall, and 4.3% among mild-to-moderate hearing loss patients. A 2.63% carrier deletion rate was identified in both the hearing loss and the control population with normal hearing. In conclusion, our results show that STRC deletions are the second most common cause of mild-to-moderate hearing loss after the GJB2 gene, which accounts for the majority of genetic hearing loss. The phenotype of hearing loss is congenital and appears to be moderate, and is most likely to be stable without deterioration even after the age of 50. The present study highlights the importance of the STRC gene as a major cause of mild-to-moderate hearing loss.

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