4.4 Article

Contiguous deletion of SLC6A8 and BAP31 in a patient with severe dystonia and sensorineural deafness

期刊

MOLECULAR GENETICS AND METABOLISM
卷 106, 期 1, 页码 43-47

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ymgme.2012.02.018

关键词

ATP-binding cassette, sub-family D, member 1 (ABCD1); B-cell receptor-associated protein (BAP31); Solute carrier family 6, member 8 (SLC6A8); Xq28 deletion syndrome

资金

  1. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare
  2. Japan Science and Technology Agency
  3. Strategic Research Program for Brain Sciences
  4. (Foundation of Synapse and Neurocircuit Pathology)-from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan
  5. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
  6. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [24118001] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We report here a 6-year-old boy exhibiting severe dystonia, profound intellectual and developmental disability with liver disease, and sensorineural deafness. A deficient creatine peak in brain H-1-MR spectroscopy and high ratio of creatine/creatinine concentration in his urine lead us to suspect a creatine transporter (solute carrier family 6, member 8; SLC6A8) deficiency, which was confirmed by the inability to take up creatine into fibroblasts. We found a large similar to 19 kb deletion encompassing exons 5-13 of SLC6A8 and exons 5-8 of the B-cell receptor-associated protein (BAP31) gene. This case is the first report in which the SLC6A8 and BAP31 genes are both deleted. The phenotype of BAP31 mutations has been reported only as a part of Xq28 deletion syndrome or contiguous: ATP-binding cassette, sub-family D, member 1 (ABCD1)/DXS1375E (BAP31) deletion syndrome [MIM ID #300475], where liver dysfunction and sensorineural deafness have been suggested to be attributed to the loss of function of BAP31. Our case supports the idea that the loss of BAP31 is related to liver dysfunction and hearing loss. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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