4.7 Article

Biochemical and genetic analysis of 3-methylglutaconic aciduria type IV: a diagnostic strategy

期刊

BRAIN
卷 132, 期 -, 页码 136-146

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/brain/awn296

关键词

-

资金

  1. NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE [ZIAHG200322, Z01HG200322] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The heterogeneous group of 3-methylglutaconic aciduria type IV consists of patients with various organ involvement and mostly progressive neurological impairment in combination with 3-methylglutaconic aciduria and biochemical features of dysfunctional oxidative phosphorylation. Here we describe the clinical and biochemical phenotype in 18 children and define 4 clinical subgroups (encephalomyopathic, hepatocerebral, cardiomyopathic, myopathic). In the encephalomyopathic group with neurodegenerative symptoms and respiratory chain complex I deficiency, two of the children, presenting with mild Methylmalonic aciduria, Leigh-like encephalomyopathy, dystonia and deafness, harboured SUCLA2 mutations. In children with a hepatocerebral phenotype most patients presented with complex I deficiency and mtDNA-depletion, three of which carried POLG1-mutations. In the cardiomyopathic subgroup most patients had complex V deficiency and an overlapping phenotype with that previously described in isolated complex V deficiency, in three patients a TMEM70 mutation was confirmed. In one male with a pure myopathic form and severe combined respiratory chain disorder, based on the pathogenomic histology of central core disease, RYR1 mutations were detected. In our patient group the presence of the biochemical marker 3-methylglutaconic acid was indicative for nuclear coded respiratory chain disorders. By delineating patient-groups we elucidated the genetic defect in 10 out of 18 children. Depending on the clinical and biochemical phenotype we suggest POLG1, SUCLA2, TMEM70 and RYR1 sequence analysis and mtDNA-depletion studies in children with 3-methylglutaconic aciduria type IV.

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