4.5 Article

Large normal and reduced penetrance alleles in Huntington disease: instability in families and frequency at the laboratory, at the clinic and in the population

期刊

CLINICAL GENETICS
卷 78, 期 4, 页码 381-387

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-0004.2010.01388.x

关键词

de novo expansion; genetic counselling; intermediate alleles; mutation frequency; penetrance class; predictive testing; pre-symptomatic; repeat instability; unstable alleles

资金

  1. FCT [SFRH/BD/44335/2008]
  2. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/44335/2008] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Large normal ('intermediate') alleles may produce de novo expansions in Huntington disease; nevertheless, there is very little evidence about their population prevalence and impact in daily practice, and there are conflicting reports about the extent of their instability. We estimated the frequency of large normal alleles (27-35 CAGs) and of reduced penetrance alleles (36-39 CAGs), as well as the frequency of genotypes carrying them, in (i) a diagnostic laboratory, (ii) a genetic counselling clinic and (iii) the general population. Large normal alleles were present in 6% of a large control sample, 7% of consultands who took pre-symptomatic testing and 7% of samples in the laboratory. Reduced penetrance alleles were found in 1 of 1772 control chromosomes (0.1% of individuals), 5% of 146 pre-symptomatic testees and over 2% of 1214 diagnostic samples (350 families). All 16 alleles sized 27-32 CAGs seemed to be transmitted stably; alleles >= 36 repeats were unstable in five families. Seven small full penetrance alleles contracted into the reduced penetrance range, but none into the large normal range. Evidence showed that large normal alleles are relatively frequent and that those with reduced penetrance are not a rare event, either at the laboratory or the clinic. This reinforces the need to understand the genomic context of repeat instability in each family and population.

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

4.5
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