4.7 Article

Familial clustering of seizure types within the idiopathic generalized epilepsies

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 65, 期 4, 页码 523-528

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000172920.34994.63

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [R01 GM055978] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [R01 NS36319, K02 NS050429-01, R01 NS43472, R01 NS043472-05, K23 NS002211, R01 NS036319-08, K02 NS050429, R01 NS036319, R01 NS043472, R01 NS020656] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To examine the genetic relationships among epilepsies with different seizure types-myoclonic, absence, and generalized tonic-clonic-within the idiopathic generalized epilepsies (IGEs). Background: Careful phenotype definition in the epilepsies may allow division into groups that share susceptibility genes. Examination of seizure type, a phenotypic characteristic less complex than IGE syndrome, may help to define more homogeneous subgroups. Methods: Using the approach that found evidence of distinct genetic effects on myoclonic vs absence seizures in families from the Epilepsy Family Study of Columbia University, the authors examined an independent sample of families from Australia and Israel. They also examined the familial clustering of generalized tonic- clonic seizures (GTCs) within the IGEs in two combined data sets. Families were defined as concordant if all affected members had the same type of seizure or IGE syndrome, as appropriate for the analysis performed. Results: The proportion of families concordant for myoclonic vs absence seizures was greater than expected by chance in the Australian families. In addition, GTCs clustered in families with IGEs to a degree greater than expected by chance. Conclusions: These results provide additional evidence for distinct genetic effects on myoclonic vs absence seizures in an independent set of families and suggest that there is a genetic influence on the occurrence of generalized tonic- clonic seizures within the idiopathic generalized epilepsies.

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