4.5 Review

Hereditary ataxias and paraparesias: clinical and genetic update

期刊

CURRENT OPINION IN NEUROLOGY
卷 31, 期 4, 页码 462-471

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/WCO.0000000000000585

关键词

cerebellar ataxia; spastic ataxia; spastic paraplegia

资金

  1. European Union [779257]
  2. Agence Nationale de la Recherche [ANR-13-RARE-0003-02, ANR-13-ISV1-0002-01, ANR-15-RAR3-0011-03, ANR-10-IAIHU-06]
  3. Association Connaitre les Syndromes Cerebelleux
  4. Association Strumpell-Lorrain
  5. Seventh Framework Program [305121]
  6. PHRC
  7. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) [ANR-13-ISV1-0002] Funding Source: Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose of review This review aims at updating the clinical and genetic aspects of hereditary spastic paraplegias (HSPs) and hereditary cerebellar ataxias (HCAs), focusing on the concept of spastic-ataxia phenotypic spectrum and on newly identified clinical overlaps with other neurological and nonneurological diseases. Recent findings Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has allowed the discovery of new genes involved in HSPs and HCAs. They include new HCAs genes such as GRM1 (SCA44), FAT2 (SCA45), PLD3 (SCA46), SCYL1 (SCAR21), UBA5 (SCAR24) and XRCC1 (SCAR26) as well as CAPN1 (SPG76) and CPT1C (SPG73) in HSPs. Furthermore, NGS allowed enriching known genes phenotype, reinforcing the overlap between HSPs and HCAs defining the spastic ataxia spectrum. Clear examples are the expanded phenotypes associated with mutations in SPG7, PNPLA6, GBA2, KIF1C, CYP7B1, FA2H, ATP13A2 and many others. Moreover, other genes not previously linked to HCAs and HSPs have been implicated in spastic or ataxic phenotypes. Summary The increase of HSPs and HCAs-related phenotypes and the continuous discovery of genes complicate clinical diagnostic in practice but, at the same time, it helps highlighting common pathological pathways, therefore opening new ways to the development of common therapeutic approaches.

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