4.5 Article

Hidden Genetic Variation in LCA9-Associated Congenital Blindness Explained by 5′UTR Mutations and Copy-Number Variations of NMNAT1

期刊

HUMAN MUTATION
卷 36, 期 12, 页码 1188-1196

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/humu.22899

关键词

Leber congenital amaurosis; LCA9; NMNAT1; 5 ' UTR variants; Alu-mediated deletions

资金

  1. Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) [FWO 3G079711, FWO/KAN/1520913N]
  2. Ghent University Special Research Fund [BOF15/GOA/011]
  3. Belspo IAP project (Belgian Medical Genomics Initiative: BeMGI) [P7/43]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Leber congenital amaurosis (LCA) is a severe autosomal-recessive retinal dystrophy leading to congenital blindness. A recently identified LCA gene is NMNAT1, located in the LCA9 locus. Although most mutations in blindness genes are coding variations, there is accumulating evidence for hidden noncoding defects or structural variations (SVs). The starting point of this study was an LCA9-associated consanguineous family in which no coding mutations were found in the LCA9 region. Exploring the untranslated regions of NMNAT1 revealed a novel homozygous 5'UTR variant, c.-70A>T. Moreover, an adjacent 5'UTR variant, c.-69C>T, was identified in a second consanguineous family displaying a similar phenotype. Both 5'UTR variants resulted in decreased NMNAT1 mRNA abundance in patients' lymphocytes, and caused decreased luciferase activity in human retinal pigment epithelial RPE-1 cells. Second, we unraveled pseudohomozygosity of a coding NMNAT1 mutation in two unrelated LCA patients by the identification of two distinct heterozygous partial NMNAT1 deletions. Molecular characterization of the breakpoint junctions revealed a complex Alu-rich genomic architecture. Our study uncovered hidden genetic variation in NMNAT1-associated LCA and emphasized a shift from coding to noncoding regulatory mutations and repeat-mediated SVs in the molecular pathogenesis of heterogeneous recessive disorders such as hereditary blindness. Published 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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