4.7 Article

The phenotypic spectrum of ARHGEF9 includes intellectual disability, focal epilepsy and febrile seizures

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY
卷 264, 期 7, 页码 1421-1425

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-017-8539-3

关键词

Focal epilepsy; Genetic epilepsy; Febrile seizures; Intellectual disability; ARHGEF9

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [HE 5415/5-1, HE 5415/3-1]
  2. Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel
  3. Detlev-Wrobel-Fonds for Epilepsy Research Frankfurt
  4. Klaus-Dieter Scharf-Forschungsprojekt
  5. Share Value Stiftung

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mutations or structural genomic alterations of the X-chromosomal gene ARHGEF9 have been described in male and female patients with intellectual disability. Hyperekplexia and epilepsy were observed to a variable degree, but incompletely described. Here, we expand the phenotypic spectrum of ARHGEF9 by describing a large Ethiopian-Jewish family with epilepsy and intellectual disability. The four affected male siblings, their unaffected parents and two unaffected female siblings were recruited and phenotyped. Parametric linkage analysis was performed using SNP microarrays. Variants from exome sequencing in two affected individuals were confirmed by Sanger sequencing. All affected male siblings had febrile seizures from age 2-3 years and intellectual disability. Three developed afebrile seizures between age 7-17 years. Three showed focal seizure semiology. None had hyperekplexia. A novel ARHGEF9 variant (c.967G > A, p.G323R, NM_015185.2) was hemizygous in all affected male siblings and heterozygous in the mother. This family reveals that the phenotypic spectrum of ARHGEF9 is broader than commonly assumed and includes febrile seizures and focal epilepsy with intellectual disability in the absence of hyperekplexia or other clinically distinguishing features. Our findings suggest that pathogenic variants in ARHGEF9 may be more common than previously assumed in patients with intellectual disability and mild epilepsy.

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

4.7
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