4.5 Article

A de novo missense mutation in SLC12A5 found in a compound heterozygote patient with epilepsy of infancy with migrating focal seizures

期刊

CLINICAL GENETICS
卷 92, 期 6, 页码 654-658

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cge.13049

关键词

channel; epileptic encephalopathy; gene test; K+-Cl- cotransporter; next generation sequencing; NGS; SLC12A5

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
  2. Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development
  3. Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare
  4. National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry
  5. Takeda Scientific Foundation
  6. Kobayashi Magobei Foundation
  7. Kurozumi Medical Foundation
  8. Japan Epilepsy Research Foundation
  9. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15H02548, 16K15532] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Epilepsy of infancy with migrating focal seizures (EIMFS) is an infantile epileptic encephalopathy characterized by refractory seizures, severe psychomotor delay, and multiple moving epileptic discharges. The genetic etiology of EIMFS is relatively homogeneous with the majority of causative mutations found in KCNT1. Currently, gene panel or whole-exome sequencing is used for testing. To verify the pathogenicity of a variant, co-segregation of the variant and the disorder in a pedigree is important; hence, de novo mutations that are judged to be deleterious may be considered pathogenic because the patients are isolated. In contrast, in cases from non-consanguineous families, genes that cause disorders in a recessive manner should remain as potential candidates. Herein, we performed gene panel sequencing of a patient with EIMFS from a non-consanguineous family, and found a compound heterozygous constellation consisting of a maternally inherited p.Ser399Leu and a de novo p.Arg880Leu in SLC12A5, which encodes the neuronal KCC2 cotransporter. These unique mutations show gene variants that act in a recessive manner may be pathogenic for patients from non-consanguineous families.

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

4.5
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