4.5 Article

Next-generation sequencing in X-linked intellectual disability

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS
卷 23, 期 11, 页码 1513-1518

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2015.5

关键词

-

资金

  1. EU [B223143]
  2. German Intellectual Disability Network through German Ministry of Education and Research [01GS08160]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

X-linked intellectual disability (XLID) is a genetically heterogeneous disorder with more than 100 genes known to date. Most genes are responsible for a small proportion of patients only, which has hitherto hampered the systematic screening of large patient cohorts. We performed targeted enrichment and next-generation sequencing of 107 XLID genes in a cohort of 150 male patients. Hundred patients had sporadic intellectual disability, and 50 patients had a family history suggestive of XLID. We also analysed a sporadic female patient with severe ID and epilepsy because she had strongly skewed X-inactivation. Target enrichment and high parallel sequencing allowed a diagnostic coverage of >10 reads for similar to 96% of all coding bases of the XLID genes at a mean coverage of 124 reads. We found 18 pathogenic variants in 13 XLID genes (AP1S2, ATRX, CUL4B, DLG3, IQSEC2, KDM5C, MED12, OPHN1, SLC9A6, SMC1A, UBE2A, UPF3B and ZDHHC9) among the 150 male patients. Thirteen pathogenic variants were present in the group of 50 familial patients (26%), and 5 pathogenic variants among the 100 sporadic patients (5%). Systematic gene dosage analysis for low coverage exons detected one pathogenic hemizygous deletion. An IQSEC2 nonsense variant was detected in the female ID patient, providing further evidence for a role of this gene in encephalopathy in females. Skewed X-inactivation was more frequently observed in mothers with pathogenic variants compared with those without known X-linked defects. The mutation rate in the cohort of sporadic patients corroborates previous estimates of 5-10% for X-chromosomal defects in male ID patients.

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