4.4 Article

Clinical and genetic heterogeneity in familial steroid-sensitive nephrotic syndrome

期刊

PEDIATRIC NEPHROLOGY
卷 33, 期 3, 页码 473-483

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00467-017-3819-9

关键词

Familial nephrotic syndrome; Genetics; EMP2; Immunity; Steroid sensitivity; Steroid resistance; Podocyte; HLA-DQA1

资金

  1. European Union [305608-EURenOmics]
  2. Investments for the Future program [ANR-10-IAHU-01]
  3. Fondation-maladies rares [FONDATION_HTS-RD - I201309001]
  4. Fondation pour la Recherche Medicale (FRM) [DEA20130727711]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Familial steroid-sensitive nephrotic syndrome (SSNS) is a rare condition. The disease pathophysiology remains elusive. However, bi-allelic mutations in the EMP2 gene were identified, and specific variations in HLA-DQA1 were linked to a high risk of developing the disease. Clinical data were analyzed in 59 SSNS families. EMP2 gene was sequenced in families with a potential autosomal recessive (AR) inheritance. Exome sequencing was performed in a subset of 13 families with potential AR inheritance. Two variations in HLA-DQA1 were genotyped in the whole cohort. Transmission was compatible with an AR (n = 33) or autosomal dominant (AD, n = 26) inheritance, assuming that familial SSNS is a monogenic trait. Clinical features did not differ between AR and AD groups. All patients, including primary (n = 7) and secondary steroid resistant nephrotic syndrone (SRNS), (n = 13) were sensitive to additional immunosuppressive therapy. Both HLA-DQA1 variations were found to be highly linked to the disease (OR = 4.34 and OR = 4.89; p < 0.001). Exome sequencing did not reveal any pathogenic mutation, neither did EMP2 sequencing. Taken together, these results highlight the clinical and genetic heterogeneity in familial SSNS. Clinical findings sustain an immune origin in all patients, whatever the initial steroid-sensitivity. The absence of a variant shared by two families and the HLA-DQA1 variation enrichments suggest a complex mode of inheritance.

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

4.4
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