4.6 Article

Fabry disease due to D313Y and novel GLA mutations

期刊

BMJ OPEN
卷 7, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017098

关键词

-

资金

  1. Research Committee of the University of Thessaly

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives Our aim is to report four novel alpha-gal A gene (GLA) mutations resulting in Fabry disease (FD) and provide evidence of pathogenicity of the D313Y mutation regarding which contradictory data have been presented in the literature. Setting and participants Twenty-five family members of nine unrelated patients with definite FD diagnosis, 10 clinically suspected cases and 18 members of their families were included in this polycentric cohort study. Primary and secondary outcome measures Genotyping and measurement of lyso-Gb(3) was performed in all individuals. The a-Gal A activity was measured in all men as well as plasma and urine Gb(3) concentration in selected cases. Optical and electron microscopy was performed in kidney biopsies of selected patients. All the above were evaluated in parallel with the clinical data of the patients. Results Fourteen new cases of FD were recognised, four of which were carrying already described GLA mutations. Four novel GLA mutations, namely c.835C>T, c.280T>A, c.924A>C and c.511G>A, resulting in a classic FD phenotype were identified. Moreover, FD was definitely diagnosed in five patients carrying the D313Y mutation. Eight D313Y carriers were presenting signs of FD despite not fulfilling the criteria of the disease, two had no FD signs and two others were apparently healthy. Conclusions Four novel GLA pathogenic mutations are reported and evidence of pathogenicity of the D313Y mutation is provided. It seems that the D313Y mutation is related to a later-onset milder phenotype than the typical phenotype with normal lysoGb(3) concentration. Our study underlines the significance of family member genotyping and newborn screening to avoid misdiagnoses and crucial delays in diagnosis and treatment of the disease.

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

4.6
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