4.4 Article

The Genetics of Dilated Cardiomyopathy: A Prioritized Candidate Gene Study of LMNA, TNNT2, TCAP, and PLN

期刊

CLINICAL CARDIOLOGY
卷 36, 期 10, 页码 628-633

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/clc.22193

关键词

-

资金

  1. Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre Pilot Project Competition

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundDilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), which is characterized by left ventricular enlargement and systolic dysfunction, is divided into cases with a clear predisposing condition (eg, hypothyroidism, chemotherapeutic agents, alcoholism, ischemia) and those of unknown cause (idiopathic DCM). Many cases (20%-35%) of DCM are familial, implicating a genetic contribution to the etiology. More than 30 genes have been identified, many involving private mutations not shared among families. Evidence suggests that nonfamilial cases also have a genetic predisposition, again involving many genes. The goal of this study was to identify mutations in genes associated with DCM in a Quebec study sample including familial and nonfamilial DCM cases. HypothesisA prioritized gene study conducted within a framework for the classification of identified genetic variants could yield etiological information even in the absence of family data. MethodsWe sequenced 4 previously identified genes: lamin A/C (LMNA), cardiac troponin T type 2 (TNNT2), titin-cap (TCAP), and phospholamban (PLN). ResultsWe discovered a nonsense mutation in the LMNA gene and a frameshift mutation in the TNNT2 gene, as well as other clinically significant variants that were not observed in publicly available databases or in Quebec-based controls. PLN was sequenced to investigate a previously published promoter variant. However, our data confirm that this variant does not have a causal role in DCM. ConclusionsDespite high locus and allele heterogeneity, we demonstrate that a prioritized gene study, combined with next-generation exome-sequencing data, can be fruitful for the identification of DCM mutations.

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

4.4
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