4.2 Article

Clinical and genetic epidemiology of Bardet-Biedl syndrome in Newfoundland: A 22-year prospective, population-based, cohort study

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL GENETICS PART A
卷 132A, 期 4, 页码 352-360

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.30406

关键词

Bardet-Biedl syndrome; Laurence-Moon-Biedl syndrome; genotype-phenotype; correlation

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [12155] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NICHD NIH HHS [HD04260] Funding Source: Medline
  3. Wellcome Trust Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bardet-Biedl syndrome (BBS) and Laurence-Moon syndrome (LMS) have a similar phenotype, which includes retinal dystrophy, obesity, and hypogenitalism. They are differentiated by the presence of spasticity and the absence of polydactyly in LMS. The aims of this study were to describe the epidemiology of BBS and LMS, further define the phenotype, and examine genotype-phenotype correlation. The study involved 46 patients (26 males, 20 females) from 26 families, with a median age of 44 years (range 1-68 years). Assessments were performed in 1986, 1993, and 2001 and included neurological assessments, anthropometric measurements, and clinical photographs to assess dysmorphic features. The phenotype was highly variable within and between families. Impaired co-ordination and ataxia occurred in 86% (18/21). Thirty percent (14/46) met criteria for psychiatric illness; other medical problems included cholecystectomy in 37% (17/46) and asthma in 28% (13/46). Dysmorphic features included brachycephaly, large ears, and short, narrow palpebral fissures. There was no apparent correlation of clinical or dysmorphic features with genotype. Two patients were diagnosed clinically as LMS but both had mutations in a BBS gene. The features in this population do not support the notion that BB S and LMS are distinct. The lack of a genotype-phenotype correlation implies that BBS proteins interact and are necessary for the development of many organs. (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

4.2
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