4.5 Article

Delineation of large deletions of the MECP2 gene in Rett syndrome patients, including a familial case with a male proband

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS
卷 15, 期 12, 页码 1218-1229

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201911

关键词

rett syndrome; MECP2; large deletion; rearrangement; qPCR; MLPA

资金

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [1 RO1 HD43100-01A1] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Comprehensive genetic screening programs have led to the identification of pathogenic methyl-CpG-binding protein 2 (MECP2) mutations in up to 95% of classical Rett syndrome (RTT) patients. This high rate of mutation detection can partly be attributed to specialised techniques that have enabled the detection of large deletions in a substantial fraction of otherwise mutation-negative patients. These cases would normally be missed by the routine PCR-based screening strategies. Here, we have identified large multi-exonic deletions in 12/149 apparently mutation-negative RTT patients using multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA). These deletions were subsequently characterised using real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) and long-range PCR with the ultimate aim of defining the exact nucleotide positions of the breakpoints and rearrangements. We detected an apparent deletion in one further patient using MLPA; however, this finding was contradicted by subsequent qPCR and long-range PCR results. The patient group includes an affected brother and sister with a large MECP2 deletion also present in their carrier mother. The X chromosome inactivation pattern of all female patients in this study was determined, which, coupled with detailed clinical information, allowed meaningful genotype-phenotype correlations to be drawn. This study reaffirms the view that large MECP2 deletions are an important cause of both classical and atypical RTT syndrome, and cautions that apparent deletions detected using high-throughput diagnostic techniques require further characterisation.

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