4.0 Article

CEP250 mutations associated with mild cone-rod dystrophy and sensorineural hearing loss in a Japanese family

期刊

OPHTHALMIC GENETICS
卷 39, 期 4, 页码 500-507

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/13816810.2018.1466338

关键词

Adaptive optics; atypical usher; CEP250; CRD; sensorineural hearing loss

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: CEP250 encodes the C-Nap1 protein which belongs to the CEP family of proteins. C-Nap1 has been reported to be expressed in the photoreceptor cilia and is known to interact with other ciliary proteins. Mutations of CEP250 cause atypical Usher syndrome which is characterized by early-onset sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) and a relatively mild retinitis pigmentosa. This study tested the hypothesis that the mild cone-rod dystrophy (CRD) and SNHL in a non-consanguineous Japanese family was caused by CEP250 mutations. Methods: Detailed ophthalmic and auditory examinations were performed on the proband and her family members. Whole exome sequencing (WES) was used on the DNA obtained from the proband. Results: Electrophysiological analysis revealed a mild CRD in two family members. Adaptive optics (AO) imaging showed reduced cone density around the fovea. Auditory examinations showed a slight SNHL in both patients. WES of the proband identified compound heterozygous variants c.361C>T, p.R121*, and c.562C>T, p. R188* in CEP250. The variants were found to co-segregate with the disease in five members of the family. Conclusions: The variants of CEP250 are both null variants and according to American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) standards and guideline, these variants are classified into the very strong category (PVS1). The criteria for both alleles will be pathogenic. Our data indicate that mutations of CEP250 can cause mild CRD and SNHL in Japanese patients. Because the ophthalmological phenotypes were very mild, high-resolution retinal imaging analysis, such as AO, will be helpful in diagnosing CEP250-associated 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

4.0
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