4.5 Article

A recurrent copy number variation of the NEB triplicate region: only revealed by the targeted nemaline myopathy CGH array

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS
Volume 24, Issue 4, Pages 574-580

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2015.166

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Sigrid Juselius Foundation
  2. Association Francaise contre les Myopathies
  3. Finska Lakaresallskapet
  4. Medicinska understodsforeningen Liv och Halsa

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Recently, new large variants have been identified in the nebulin gene (NEB) causing nemaline myopathy (NM). NM constitutes a heterogeneous group of disorders among the congenital myopathies, and disease-causing variants in NEB are a main cause of the recessively inherited form of NM. NEB consists of 183 exons and it includes homologous sequences such as a 32-kb triplicate region (TRI), where eight exons are repeated three times (exons 82-89, 90-97, 98-105). In human, the normal copy number of NEB TRI is six (three copies in each allele). Recently, we described a custom NM-CGH microarray designed to detect copy number variations (CNVs) in the known NM genes. The array has now been updated to include all the currently known 10 NM genes. The NM-CGH array is superior in detecting CNVs, especially of the NEB TRI, that is not included in the exome capture kits. To date, we have studied 266 samples from 196 NM families using the NM-CGH microarray, and identified a novel recurrent NEB TRI variation in 13% (26/196) of the families and in 10% of the controls (6/60). An analysis of the breakpoints revealed adjacent repeat elements, which are known to predispose for rearrangements such as CNVs. The control CNV samples deviate only one copy from the normal six copies, whereas the NM samples include CNVs of up to four additional copies. Based on this study, NEB seems to tolerate deviations of one TRI copy, whereas addition of two or more copies might be pathogenic.

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