4.6 Article

TANGO2: expanding the clinical phenotype and spectrum of pathogenic variants

期刊

GENETICS IN MEDICINE
卷 21, 期 3, 页码 601-607

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41436-018-0137-y

关键词

developmental delay DNA copy-number variation; epilepsy; intragenic deletion; exome sequencing

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [NS069605]
  2. National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health Postdoctoral Training Program in Medical Genetics [5T32GM007454]
  3. University of Kiel
  4. German Research Foundation within the EuroEPINOMICS [HE5415/3-1]
  5. German Research Foundation (D.F.G.) [HE5415/5-1, HE5415/6-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: TANGO2-related disorders were first described in 2016 and prior to this publication, only 15 individuals with TANGO2-related disorder were described in the literature. Primary features include metabolic crisis with rhabdomyolysis, encephalopathy, intellectual disability, seizures, and cardiac arrhythmias. We assess whether genotype and phenotype of TANGO2-related disorder has expanded since the initial discovery and determine the efficacy of exome sequencing (ES) as a diagnostic tool for detecting variants. Methods: We present a series of 14 individuals from 11 unrelated families with complex medical and developmental histories, in whom ES or microarray identified compound heterozygous or homozygous variants in TANGO2. Results: The initial presentation of patients with TANGO2-related disorders can be variable, including primarily neurological presentations. We expand the phenotype and genotype for TANGO2, highlighting the variability of the disorder. Conclusion: TANGO2-related disorders can have a more diverse clinical presentation than previously anticipated. We illustrate the utility of routine ES data reanalysis whereby discovery of novel disease genes can lead to a diagnosis in previously unsolved cases and the need for additional copy-number variation analysis when ES is performed.

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