4.6 Article

Novel mutations in Norrie disease gene in Japanese patients with Norrie disease and familial exudative vitreoretinopathy

期刊

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
卷 48, 期 3, 页码 1276-1282

出版社

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.06-1042

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE. To search for mutations in the Norrie disease gene (NDP) in Japanese patients with familial exudative vitreoretinopathy (FEVR) and Norrie disease (ND) and to delineate the mutation-associated clinical features. METHODS. Direct sequencing after polymerase chain reaction of all exons of the NDP gene was performed on blood collected from 62 probands (31 familial and 31 simplex) with FEVR, from 3 probands with ND, and from some of their family members. The clinical symptoms and signs in the patients with mutations were assessed. X-inactivation in the female carriers was examined in three FEVR families by using leukocyte DNA. RESULTS. Four novel mutations-I18K, K54N, R115L, and IVS2-1G -> A-and one reported mutation, R97P, in the NDP gene were identified in six families. The severity of vitreoretinopathy varied among these patients. Three probands with either K54N or R115L had typical features of FEVR, whereas the proband with R97P had those of ND. Families with IVS2-1G -> A exhibited either ND or FEVR characteristics. A proband with I18K presented with significant phenotypic heterogeneity between the two eyes. In addition, affected female carriers in a family harboring the K54N mutation presented with different degrees of vascular abnormalities in the periphery of the retina. X-inactivation profiles indicated that the skewing was not significantly different between affected and unaffected women. CONCLUSIONS. These observations indicate that mutations of the NDP gene can cause ND and 6% of FEVR cases in the Japanese population. The X-inactivation assay with leukocytes may not be predictive of the presence of a mutation in affected female carriers.

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