4.7 Article

Mutations in Endothelin 1 Cause Recessive Auriculocondylar Syndrome and Dominant Isolated Question-Mark Ears

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS
卷 93, 期 6, 页码 1118-1125

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2013.10.023

关键词

-

资金

  1. Universite Paris Descartes - Sorbonne Paris Cite Pole de Recherche et d'Enseignement Superieur grant [SPC/JFG/2013-031]
  2. Agence Nationale de la Recherche
  3. E-Rare CRANIRARE

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Auriculocondylar syndrome (ACS) is a rare craniofacial disorder with mandibular hypoplasia and question-mark ears (QMEs) as major features. QMEs, consisting of a specific defect at the lobe-helix junction, can also occur as an isolated anomaly. Studies in animal models have indicated the essential role of endothelin 1 (EDN1) signaling through the endothelin receptor type A (EDNRA) in patterning the mandibular portion of the first pharyngeal arch. Mutations in the genes coding for phospholipase C, beta 4 (PLCB4) and guanine nucleotide binding protein (G protein), alpha inhibiting activity polypeptide 3 (GNAI3), predicted to function as signal transducers downstream of EDNRA, have recently been reported in ACS. By whole-exome sequencing (WES), we identified a homozygous substitution in a furin cleavage site of the EDN1 proprotein in ACS-affected siblings born to consanguineous parents. WES of two cases with vertical transmission of isolated QMEs revealed a stop mutation in EDN1 in one family and a missense substitution of a highly conserved residue in the mature EDN1 peptide in the other. Targeted sequencing of EDN1 in an ACS individual with related parents identified a fourth, homozygous mutation falling close to the site of cleavage by endothelin-converting enzyme. The different modes of inheritance suggest that the degree of residual EDN1 activity differs depending on the mutation. These findings provide further support for the hypothesis that ACS and QMEs are uniquely caused by disruption of the EDN1-EDNRA signaling pathway.

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

4.7
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