4.5 Article

Mutation spectrum in a large cohort of unrelated consecutive patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

期刊

CLINICAL GENETICS
卷 64, 期 4, 页码 339-349

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1034/j.1399-0004.2003.00151.x

关键词

genetic diagnosis; hypertrophic cardiomyopathy; mutation; sarcomeric genes; SSCP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Defects in nine sarcomeric protein genes are known to cause hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). Mutation types and frequencies in large cohorts of consecutive and unrelated patients have not yet been determined. We, therefore, screened HCM patients for mutations in six sarcomeric genes: myosin-binding protein C3 (MYBPC3), MYH7, cardiac troponin T (TNNT2), alpha-tropomyosin (TPM1), cardiac troponin I (TNNI3), and cardiac troponin C (TNNC1). HCM was diagnosed in 108 consecutive patients by echocardiography (septum > 15 mm, septal/posterior wall > 1.3 mm), angiography, or based on a state after myectomy. Single-strand conformation polymorphism analysis was used for mutation screening, followed by DNA-sequencing. A total of 34 different mutations were identified in 108 patients: 18 mutations in MYBPC3 in 20 patients [intervening sequence (intron) 7 + 1G > A and Q1233X were found twice], 13 missense mutations in MYH7 in 14 patients (R807H was found twice), and one amino acid change in TPM1, TNNT2, and TNNI3, respectively. No disease-causing mutation was found in TNNC1. Cosegregation with the HCM phenotype could be demonstrated for 13 mutations (eight mutations in MYBPC3 and five mutations in MYH7). Twenty-eight of the 37 mutation carriers (76%) reported a positive family history with at least one affected first-grade relative; only eight mutations occurred sporadically (22%). MYBPC3 was the gene that most frequently caused HCM in our population. Systematic mutation screening in large samples of HCM patients leads to a genetic diagnosis in about 30% of unrelated index patients and in about 57% of patients with a positive family history.

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