4.2 Article

From congenital microcephaly to adult onset cerebellar ataxia: Distinct and overlapping phenotypes in patients with PNKP gene mutations

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL GENETICS PART A
卷 179, 期 11, 页码 2277-2283

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.61339

关键词

alpha-fetoprotein; cerebellar atrophy; oculomotor apraxia; seizures

资金

  1. Italian Ministry of Health [GR-2016-02363337, RF-2011-02351165]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pathogenic variants in polynucleotide kinase 3 '-phosphatase (PNKP) gene have been associated with two distinct clinical presentations: autosomal recessive microcephaly, seizures, and developmental delay (MCSZ; MIM 613402) and ataxia with oculomotor apraxia type 4 (AOA4; MIM 616267). More than 40 patients have been reported so far, and their clinical presentations revealed a continuum phenotypic spectrum ranging from congenital microcephaly and early-onset intractable seizures, to adult onset slowly progressive sensory-motor neuropathy and cerebellar ataxia. We describe three unrelated Italian patients with different phenotypes and novel or recurrent pathogenic variants in PNKP gene. Patient 1, homozygous for the recurrent frameshift variant (p.Thr424Glyfs*49), had an early-onset MCSZ phenotype. Late in the disease progression, cerebellar ataxia and peripheral neuropathy were recognized. Patient 2, homozygous for a frameshift variant (p.Ala429Thrfs*42), presented a phenotype partially consistent with MCSZ including microcephaly and developmental delay, but without seizures. Patient 3 is one of the oldest patients described to date and presented polyneuropathy, and cerebellar signs. Biochemical tests showed abnormalities of cholesterol, albumin, or alpha-fetoprotein plasma levels. The clinical presentation of our patients encompassed early-to-adult-onset manifestations. For these cases, the long clinical follow-up allowed an in-depth phenotypic characterization and a better delineation of the natural history of patients carrying PNKP pathogenic variants.

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

4.2
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