4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Rapid identification of Wilson's disease carriers by denaturing high-performance liquid chromatography

期刊

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
卷 35, 期 3, 页码 278-284

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1006/pmed.2002.1069

关键词

Wilson's disease; ATP7B; denaturing high-performance liquid chromatography; mutation screening

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Wilson's disease is an autosomal recessive disorder characterized by decreased biliary copper excretion and reduced copper incorporation into ceruloplasmin. The disease gene ATP7B maps to chromosome 13q14.3, contains 21 exons, and encodes a copper-transporting P-type ATPase. ATP7B mutations are scattered over the entire gene, and scanning methods to detect mutation carriers are in demand. We have tested the usefulness of denaturing high-performance liquid chromatography for mutation detection in Wilson's disease. Methods. Genomic DNA from five Sardinian Wilson's disease families (32 individuals, 8 patients) was subjected to polymerase chain reactions for ATP7B exons 2-21 and the 5' untranslated region. PCR products were analyzed by chromatography and by direct sequencing. Results. Three disease-causing mutations and seven sequence variants were detected by chromatography. Five patients were homozygotes for -441/-427del, and three were compound heterozygotes for V1146M plus 1512-13insT (N505X) and for -441/-427del plus V1146M, respectively. Eighteen unaffected individuals were mutation carriers. Sequence variants comprised V290V, A406S, L456V, R832K, A1140V, the novel K952R, and T991T. The novel intronic IVS18+6c>t change escaped detection by chromatography. Conclusions. Denaturing high-performance liquid chromatography is a dependable tool for ATP7B screening that is superior to traditional haplotyping. This method allows for fast, sensitive, and specific mutation detection and identification of carriers in Wilson's disease families. (C) 2002 American Health Foundation and Elsevier Science (USA).

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