4.6 Article

From exome analysis in idiopathic azoospermia to the identification of a high-risk subgroup for occult Fanconi anemia

期刊

GENETICS IN MEDICINE
卷 21, 期 1, 页码 189-194

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41436-018-0037-1

关键词

Exome sequencing; Genetics; Male infertility; Fanconi anemia; Azoospermia

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Health Instituto Carlos III-FIS [FIS/FEDER-PI14/01250, PI17/01822]
  2. European Commission, Reproductive Biology Early Research Training (REPROTRAIN) [289880]
  3. ICREA Academia
  4. EUROFANCOLEN project [HEALTH-F5-2012-305421]
  5. CIBERER
  6. [SAF2015-64152-R/FEDER]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: In about 10% of patients affected by Fanconi anemia (FA) the diagnosis is delayed until adulthood, and the presenting symptom in these occult FA cases is often a solid cancer and cancer treatment-related toxicity. Highly predictive clinical parameter( s) for diagnosing such an adult-onset cases are missing. Methods: (1) Exome sequencing (ES), (2) Sanger sequencing of FANCA, (3) diepoxybutane (DEB)-induced chromosome breakage test. Results: ES identified a pathogenic homozygous FANCA variant in a patient affected by Sertoli cell-only syndrome (SCOS) and in his azoospermic brother. Although they had no overt anemia, chromosomal breakage test revealed a reverse somatic mosaicism in the former and a typical FA picture in the latter. In 27 selected SCOS cases, 1 additional patient showing compound heterozygous pathogenic FANCA variants was identified with positive chromosomal breakage test. Conclusion: We report an extraordinarily high frequency of FA in a specific subgroup of azoospermic patients (7.1%). The screening for FANCA pathogenic variants in such patients has the potential to identify undiagnosed FA before the appearance of other severe clinical manifestations of the disease. The definition of this high-risk group for occult FA, based on specific testis phenotype with mild/borderline hematological alterations, is of unforeseen clinical relevance.

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