4.6 Article

Identification of Novel Candidate Genes and Variants for Hearing Loss and Temporal Bone Anomalies

期刊

GENES
卷 12, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/genes12040566

关键词

anomalies; CBLN3; cochlear implant; enlarged vestibular aqueduct; GDPD5; genetic testing; hearing loss; inner ear; IST1; malformations; temporal bone

资金

  1. [PCHRD-DOST FP150010]
  2. [UP Manila-NIH 2008-005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study highlights the importance of identifying novel variants and genes in ethnic groups that are understudied for hearing loss, which can improve the utility of clinical genetic screening for hearing loss, predict outcomes of hearing rehabilitation, and mitigate the long-term effects of comorbidities.
Background: Hearing loss remains an important global health problem that is potentially addressed through early identification of a genetic etiology, which helps to predict outcomes of hearing rehabilitation such as cochlear implantation and also to mitigate the long-term effects of comorbidities. The identification of variants for hearing loss and detailed descriptions of clinical phenotypes in patients from various populations are needed to improve the utility of clinical genetic screening for hearing loss. Methods: Clinical and exome data from 15 children with hearing loss were reviewed. Standard tools for annotating variants were used and rare, putatively deleterious variants were selected from the exome data. Results: In 15 children, 21 rare damaging variants in 17 genes were identified, including: 14 known hearing loss or neurodevelopmental genes, 11 of which had novel variants; and three candidate genes IST1, CBLN3 and GDPD5, two of which were identified in children with both hearing loss and enlarged vestibular aqueducts. Patients with variants within IST1 and MYO18B had poorer outcomes after cochlear implantation. Conclusion: Our findings highlight the importance of identifying novel variants and genes in ethnic groups that are understudied for hearing loss.

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

4.6
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