4.7 Review

Pheno/genotypic correlations of neuronal ceroid lipofuscinoses

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 57, 期 4, 页码 576-581

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.57.4.576

关键词

-

资金

  1. NINDS NIH HHS [NS/HD38988] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The neuronal ceroid lipofuscinoses (NCL) are a large group of autosomal recessive lysosomal storage disorders with both enzymatic deficiency and structural protein dysfunction. Previously, diagnosis of NCL was based on age at onset and clinicopathologic (C-P) findings, classified as 1) infantile (INCL), 2) late infantile (LINCL), 3) juvenile (JNCL), and 4) adult (ANCL). Most patients with NCL have progressive ocular and cerebral dysfunction, including cognitive/motor dysfunction and uncontrolled seizures. After reviewing 319 patients with NCL, the authors found that 64 (20%) did not fit into this classification of NCL. With research progress, four additional forms have been recognized: 5) Finnish, 6) Gypsy/Indian, and 7) Turkish variants of LINCL and 8) northern epilepsy, also known as progressive epilepsy with mental retardation. These eight NCL forms resulted from 100 different mutations on genes CLN1 to CLN8 causing different phenotypes (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ncl). The genes CLN1 and CLN2 encode lysosomal palmitoyl protein thioesterase and tripeptidyl peptidase 1. The function of CLN3, CLN5, and CLN8 gene-encoded products is unknown, although their predicted amino acid sequences suggest they have a transmembrane topology. The diagnosis of NCL is based on C-P findings, enzymatic assay, and molecular genetic testing. Before biochemical and genetic tests are conducted, ultrastructural studies (i.e., blood [buffy coat] or punch biopsies [skin, conjunctiva]) must be performed to confirm the presence and nature of lysosomal storage material (fingerprint or curvilinear profiles or granular osmiophilic deposits). The recognition of variable onset from infancy to middle age supersedes the traditional emphasis on age-related NCL forms.

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