4.4 Article

Spectrum of single- and multiexon NFI copy number changes in a cohort of 1,100 unselected NFI patients

期刊

GENES CHROMOSOMES & CANCER
卷 45, 期 3, 页码 265-276

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/gcc.20289

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Neurofibromatosis type I (NFI), the most common tumor-predisposing disorder in humans, is caused by defects in the NFI tumor-suppressor gene. Comprehensive mutation analysis applying RNA-based techniques complemented with FISH analysis achieves mutation detection rates of similar to 95% in NFI patients. The majority of mutations are minor lesions, and similar to 5% are total gene deletions. We found 13 single- and/or multiexon deletions/duplications out of 1,050 detected mutations using our RNA-based approach in a cohort of 1, 100 NFI patients and confirmed these changes using multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA). With MLPA, we found another 12 novel multiexon deletion/duplications in 55 NFI patients for whom analysis with multiple assays had not revealed a NFI mutation, including 50 previously analyzed comprehensively. The extent of the 22 deletions and 3 duplications varied greatly, and there was no clustering of breakpoints. We also evaluated the sensitivity of MLPA in identifying deletions in a mosaic state. Furthermore, we tested whether the MLPA PI22 NFI area assay could distinguish between type I deletions, with breakpoints in low-copy repeats (NFI-LCRs), and type II deletions, caused by aberrant recombination between the JJAZ gene and its pseudogene. Our study showed that intragenic deletions and/or duplications represent only similar to 2% of all NFI mutations. Although MLPA did not substantially increase the mutation detection rate in NFI patients, it was a useful first step in a comprehensive mutation analysis scheme to quickly pinpoint patients with single- or multiexon deletions/duplications as well as patients with a total gene deletion who will not need full sequencing of the complete coding region. (c) 2005 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

4.4
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