4.5 Article

Mutation Frequencies of X-linked Mental Retardation Genes in Families from the EuroMRX Consortium

期刊

HUMAN MUTATION
卷 28, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/humu.9482

关键词

mental retardation; MRX; MRXS; X chromosome; brother pair families; mutation frequency

资金

  1. 5th European Union Framework
  2. ZonMw
  3. ANR [QLG3-CT-2002-01810, 2100.0041, ANR-05-NEU-40-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The EuroMRX family cohort consists of about 400 families with non-syndromic and 200 families with syndromic X-linked mental retardation (XLMR). After exclusion of Fragile X (Fra X) syndrome, probands from these families were tested for mutations in the coding sequence of 90 known and candidate XLMR genes. In total, 73 causative mutations were identified in 21 genes. For 42% of the families with obligate female carriers, the mental retardation phenotype could be explained by a mutation. There was no difference between families with (lod score > 2) or without (lod score < 2) significant linkage to the X chromosome. For families with two to five affected brothers (brother pair=BP families) only 17% of the MR could be explained. This is significantly lower (P=0.0067) than in families with obligate carrier females and indicates that the MR in about 40% (17/42) of the BP families is due to a single genetic defect on the X chromosome. The mutation frequency of XLMR genes in BP families is lower than can be expected on basis of the male to female ratio of patients with MR or observed recurrence risks. This might be explained by genetic risk factors on the X chromosome, resulting in a more complex etiology in a substantial portion of XLMR patients. The EuroMRX effort is the first attempt to unravel the molecular basis of cognitive dysfunction by large-scale approaches in a large patient cohort. Our results show that it is now possible to identify 42% of the genetic defects in non-syndromic and syndromic XLMR families with obligate female carriers. (C) 2007 Wiley-Liss, 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