4.7 Article

Prevalence of the Y165C, G382D and 1395delGGA germline mutations of the MYH gene in Italian patients with adenomatous polyposis coli and colorectal adenomas

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 109, 期 5, 页码 680-684

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.20054

关键词

MYH; familial adenomatous polyposis coli; colorectal adenomas

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biallelic germline mutations in the base excision repair gene MYH have been reported in patients with multiple colorectal adenomas and cancer and in sporadic FAP patients not showing a detectable APC germline mutation. In this study, the prevalence of the common Y165C and G382D germline variants of the MYH gene was examined in 70 FAP/AAPC patients with no detectable APC mutation and a family history compatible with recessive inheritance. In addition, 141 normal-population adenoma patients (mean number of adenomas, 2.8; range, 1-9) and 52 clean colon controls were studied. The entire coding region of the MYH gene was analyzed in Y16SC or G382D heterozygous patients. Since the same second mutational event (a 3 bp deletion in exon 14, 1395delGGA) was detected in 3 patients, the prevalence of this variant was also examined in all groups. In all, 14 of 70 patients in the FAP/AAPC group (20%; 95% CI = 11.7-31.6%) had biallelic germline MYH variants and 3 were heterozygotes (4.3%). None of the 141 normal-population adenoma patients carried biallelic germline MYH variants (95% CI = 0.06-4.1%) and 3 were heterozygotes (2.1%). In the control group, no MYH variants were detected. These results indicated that MYH-associated polyposis (MAP) is present in about 20% of Italian FAP/AAPC patients, in whom no germline APC mutation is detectable and showing a family history compatible with recessive inheritance, and in a small fraction of patients with colorectal adenomas in the general population. In addition, our data suggest that mutation 1395delGGA is a subpolymorphic MYH mutational event in some Caucasian populations. (C) 2004 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

4.7
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