4.5 Article

Yeast model for evaluating the pathogenic significance of SDHB, SDHC and SDHD mutations in PHEO-PGL syndrome

Journal

HUMAN MOLECULAR GENETICS
Volume 22, Issue 4, Pages 804-815

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/hmg/dds487

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. FIL Universita degli Studi di Parma
  2. Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Pistoia e Pescia [Prot. 2010.0278]
  3. Istituto Toscano Tumori (ITT) [Prot. AOOGRT/325462/Q.80.110]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

SDH genes, encoding succinate dehydrogenase, act as tumour suppressor genes, linking mitochondrial dysfunction with tumourigenesis. Heterozygous germline mutations in SDHA, SDHB, SDHC, SDHD and in the assembly factor encoding gene SDHAF2 have all been shown to predispose to heritable endocrine neoplasias such as pheochromocytomas (PHEO) and paragangliomas (PGLs) called oPHEOPGL syndrome'. SDH genes mutations, in addition to deletions or truncations which are most likely pathogenic, often include missense substitutions which can be of uncertain significance. Unclassified missense substitutions may be difficult to interpret unless the causeeffect link between mutation and the disease is established by functional and insilico studies or by the familial segregation with the phenotype. Using the yeast model, here, we report functional investigations on several missense SDH mutations found in patients affected by pheochromocytomas or paragangliomas. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether and to which extent the yeast model may be useful for establishing the pathological significance of missense SDH mutations in humans. The results of our study demonstrate that the yeast is a good functional model to validate the pathogenic significance of SDHB missense mutations while, for missense mutations in SDHC and SDHD genes, the model can be informative only when the variation involves a conserved residue in a conserved domain.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available