4.1 Article

Lack of significant association between mutations of KCNJ10 or FOXI1 and SLC26A4 mutations in pendred syndrome/enlarged vestibular aqueducts

期刊

BMC MEDICAL GENETICS
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2350-14-85

关键词

Deafness; Enlarged vestibular aqueducts; Epilepsy; EVAS; FOXI1; Hearing impairment; KCNJ10; Pendred syndrome; SLC26A4

资金

  1. Great Ormond Street Hospital Children's Charity
  2. Great Ormond Street Hospital Childrens Charity [V1239] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Pendred syndrome is a common autosomal recessive disorder causing deafness. Features include sensorineural hearing impairment, goitre, enlarged vestibular aqueducts (EVA) and occasionally Mondini dysplasia. Hearing impairment and EVA may occur in the absence of goitre or thyroid dyshormonogensis in a condition known as non-syndromic EVA. A significant number of patients with Pendred syndrome and non-syndromic EVA show only one mutation in SLC26A4. Two genes, KCNJ10, encoding an inwardly rectifying potassium channel and FOXI1, a transcriptional factor gene, are thought to play a role in the disease phenotypes. Methods: Using Polymerase Chain Reaction and Sanger sequencing, sixty-eight patients with monoallelic mutations of SLC26A4 were tested for mutations in KCNJ10 and FOXI1. Results: Two variants were observed in the KCNJ10 gene, p.Arg271Cys in three patients and p.Arg18Gln in one patient; only one variant, p.Arg123Trp was observed in the FOXI1 gene in a single patient. Both p.Arg271Cys and p.Arg18Gln are likely to be polymorphisms as judged by their frequency in the general population. Conclusion: Therefore we found no evidence for a significant association between mutations of KCNJ10 and FOXI1 with SLC26A4. It was also observed that the variant, p.Arg271Cys in KCNJ10, previously thought to have a protective effect against seizure susceptibility, was found in a patient with Pendred syndrome with co-existing 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

4.1
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