4.6 Article

Genotype/Phenotype Correlation in Nephrotic Syndrome Caused by WT1 Mutations

期刊

出版社

AMER SOC NEPHROLOGY
DOI: 10.2215/CJN.09351209

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [P50-DK039255, R01-DK076683]
  2. KMD Foundation
  3. Thrasher Research Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and objectives: The risk of developing Wilms tumor (WT) can be present or absent in patients with nephrotic syndrome (NS) caused by WT1 mutations. Here, the genotype/phenotype correlation regarding the outcome and risk for WT in 52 patients from 51 families with NS due to WT1 mutations is described. Design, setting, participants, & measurements: This study followed 19 patients with mutations in intron 9 splice donor site (KTS mutations), 27 patients with missense mutations, 4 patients with nonsense mutations, 1 patient with a splice site mutation in intron 8, and 1 patient with a deletion. Results: Twenty-four different WT1 mutations were detected. Sixteen of the 19 patients with KTS mutations were females. These patients had isolated NS if karyotype was 46,XX and Frasier syndrome if karyotype was 46,XY. Patients with KTS mutations presented at a significantly older age and with a slower progression toward chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage 5, compared with missense mutations. Patients with nonsense mutations presented initially with WT. Six patients with missense mutations developed WT after the diagnosis of NS (interval-range from NS onset to WT of 0.1 to 1.4 years). Conclusions: (1) KTS mutations cause isolated NS with absence of WT in 46,XX females. (2) KTS mutations cause Frasier syndrome with gonadoblastoma risk in 46,XY phenotypic females. (3) KTS mutations cause NS with a slower progression when compared with missense mutations. (4) Missense mutations can occur with and without WT. (5) WT1 analysis is important in young patients with NS for early detection and tumor prophylaxis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 5: 1655-1662, 2010. doi: 10.2215/CJN.09351209

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

4.6
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