4.7 Article

Keratin K6c Mutations Cause Focal Palmoplantar Keratoderma

Journal

JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE DERMATOLOGY
Volume 130, Issue 2, Pages 425-429

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1038/jid.2009.215

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Pachyonychia Congenita Project
  2. Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Research Association UK (DEBRA UK)
  3. Medical Research Council [G0700314] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. MRC [G0700314] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The palmoplantar keratodermas (PPKs) are a large group of clinically and genetically heterogeneous genodermatoses. The gene defects underlying many PPKs still need to be resolved to facilitate definitive molecular diagnosis and genetic counseling. Dominant-negative mutations in any of the four identified keratin genes, KRT6A, KRT6B, KRT16, or KRT17, cause pachyonychia congenita (PC), characterized by hypertrophic nail dystrophy and other ectodermal features. In PC, focal PPK (FPPK) is the most painful and debilitating phenotypic feature. Some families presenting with FPPK alone, or with minimal nail changes, carry mutations in KRT16; however, most FPPK families do not harbor mutations in any of these keratin genes. Here, we report three unrelated families who presented with familial FPPK with minor or absent nail changes. The four PC/FPPK-related keratin genes were excluded; however, mutational analysis of the recently identified KRT6C gene, encoding keratin K6c, showed heterozygous in-frame deletion mutations in all three kindreds. Affected members of Families 1 and 2 carried the same mutation, p. Asn172del. In Family 3, the mutation p. Ile462-Glu470del co-segregated with the disease. KRT6C was shown to be expressed in the plantar epidermis using reverse transcription-PCR, consistent with the phenotype observed in this tissue. These data expand the genetic testing repertoire for the PPKs.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available